week's white house conference on conservation and outdoor recreation. , >> today is the 15th anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing that killed 168 people. a ceremony is being held later this morning on the grounds of the national memorial and museum. speakers include janet that poll napolitano who's expected to give remarks on combating home-grown terrorism. you can see the ceremony starting at 9:55 eastern on our companion network, c-span.

>> the vetting process has begun for a new supreme court justice. use the new c-span video library to find background information on possible nominees including michigan governor jennifer granholm, dhs secretary janet napolitano and other names. search it, watch it, clip it and share it. every program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable eat latest gift to america -- cable's latest gift to america. >> and now a portion of a white house conference ononservation and outdoor recreation. speakers include interior secretary ken salazar and new mexico governor bill richardson. this session focused on how local strategies can be used to help conserve public lands. from the interior department, this is just over an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen, what did you think of president obama's presentation this morning? was it a great presentation? [applause] yeah.

some people have said that in these times with two wars, with the economic crisis that we can't have a conservation agenda, but i think president obama laid that to rest this morning. we will have a conservation agenda for the 21st century that we can be proud of and we may, in fact, surpass the legacy of teddy roosevelt. we may, in fact, do that. [applause] we have a great panel, and we will run through this very quickly, but we also have one of our great honored guests and all of you are honored here today. we could have had 50,000 people together here today, but we base create brought in the people who we thought were the leaders who were going to make this happen in the 21st century, and i want at the outset before we hear from the panel to hear from the great grandson of the wilderness

warrior who in his own right has become one of the leading conservationists of the global, and that is teddy roosevelt iv. teddy roosevelt. >> thank you. >> thank you. [applause] all my cabinet colleagues, this is really a unity agenda. he's a great republican. [laughter] thank you. >> well, thank you very much, mr. secretary. it's not often that a roosevelt is at a loss for words, but i've been incredibly moved listening to the panels, the speakers this morning and what they have done is they've thrown down a challenge that's come from the white house and from the president himself. our generation must rise and meet this challenge because we cannot pass on to the next generation the great outdoors, our great public lands impoverished. we have to reinvigorate the lands, make the connections

between youth and our public lands. but this is a challenge that we can meet, and i hope that we can exceed my great grandfather's legacy. and if we can do that, we will hold our heads high with pride. so i look forward to working with all of you and the idea that we're going to engage with each other, and we're going to create partnerships and work is a magnificent challenge, and we can do this together. so thank all of you for being here. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> and let me, also, at this point just say one more time, secretary vilsack is a wonderful champion for rural america. we have this conversation all the time that we are really in the renaissance of rural america with the broadband efforts, with all of the other efforts that he has on biofuels and a whole host of other things that are an important agenda.

so, secretary vilsack, ray mccormack, jamie, lynn, doug brinkley, let's give that prior panel a round of applause for their great contributions. thank you a lot, tom. [applause] we have a distinguished panel today. i'm going to call first on the governor of new mexico, bill richardson, who has given his life and his heart to the betterment of this country to making it a more perfect union from his days as a young man moving forward to become a member of the united states house of representatives, ambassador of the united states, the united nations, the secretary of energy to governor extraordinaire for the state of mexico to the chairman of the democratic national convention and the list could go on. governor bill richardson from the land of enchantment. bill richardson. [applause] >> thank you, secretary salazar.

i notice that the introductions get nicer as i approach the end of my term. [laughter] but that was, this is a glorious day. i just, i'm overor hemmed by the -- overwhelmed by the energy, enthusiasm and commitment of so many of you and the president and the great green cabinet. you know, when i was running for president, i noticed, ken, you didn't mention that -- [laughter] and even today, and even today the national dialogue on environmental issues was almost focused entirely on energy conservation, renewable energy. absent were debates that we're having today about the preservation of land, of air, water, wildlife issues, native americans, trails, and this is why this conference is so timely. we need new outdoor initiatives that retain the basics and core

of conservation. and i'm going to talk about them today. expanding our wilderness systems and parks, protecting our air, water and habitat, the basics, the stuart u call -- u call the, the bruce babbitt agendas that were so worthy of american support. and now with ken salazar emerging as somebody that is driving this excellent agency into another period of excellence. and as a western governor i know firsthand the challenges we face preserving america's vast natural resources, our wildlife, our landscapes. but i also know that with federal agencies and states working together along with private landowners, farmers, ranchers, individuals as secretary vilsack championed so well, we have tremendous opportunities to accomplish great things.

that's why i as a western governor am calling on a new federal partnership between the state and the federal government on the outdoors. one that is not -- one that has not existed for a long time. instead of worrying about turf and jurisdiction, we should concentrate on dialogue and joint efforts. while states like mine have a wealth of knowledge on habitat and conservation priorities and on-the-ground political realities within their borders, it's federal agencies like the department of interior, agriculture, epa that have national vision and greater human and financial resources. particularly the men and women like here in interior that work every day in the career service to foster conservation. we have to work together to develop landscape conservation legacy that in-- legacies that include a new series of pardon ,

new monuments, new management strategies for public lands. this isn't a decades-long fight. it should happen now. what do we need first? i would say an omnibus wilderness bill, wilderness legislation consolidated. the san juan mountains wilderness act in colorado. the snow mountain national conservation in california. the bills to provide the rye yo grand as well as mountains in mexico and others in arizona, idaho, nevada and across the west. secretary salazar has wasted no time in protecting treasured landscapes working in partnerships with the states. i urge the interior department to move forward quickly on its expanded national monument plan, and i commend secretary salazar from engaging the governors early on this initiative.

after all, it is the governors that have most of the power. [laughter] that's supposed to be funny. you know, in new mexico i'm looking forward to working with this department on creating a national monument on otero mesa. other sites in the west that the interior department has identified as potential monuments deserve national and congressional support as well. otero mesa is the largest intact expanse of desert grassland in the unite and was nearly sacrificed to energy exploration before the state of new mexico and a strong coalition of conservation groups stepped in and halted the drilling. now it needs permanent protection which can only be accomplished through a permanent federal designation. and as we look for opportunities to protect our treasures, we must seek environmental agreements with the first

americans. the native american tribes in the west instead of always kind of forgetting them. the tribes are major landowners and responsible stewards of the environment. some years ago when i was in the congress, i successfully sponsored legislation to create a joint indian federal park on the zuni reservation. while ultimately the park didn't become reality, this is the type of project that should be encouraged throughout the west. another issue for enhanced state/federal cooperation not at the top of the media radar screen, the fate of america's wild mustangs. i'm working on establishing a state wild horse preserve in my state, but we will need flexibility from the b be lm in order -- blm in order to succeed. we're exploring options for a park that would exist on a combination of pueblo and

adjacent lands. new mexico has several herds of homeless wild horses, and we want to give them a refuge where future generations can see them roam on the western landscape. and i commend the secretary's initiative on wild mustangs, but we need to be able to better understand state needs to preserve these icons that are so much a part of america. another major challenge facing our nation is wildlife habitat fragmentation. last year governor bill ritter of colorado and i established a wildlife corridor initiative along our shared new mexico/colorado border. what we're seeing along our border is that large tracts of private lands are being carved into ran chets that impede mule deer and elk migration. this is also a predictable result of new roads and unbridled development. president obama and senator jeff bingaman have called for $450

million for the land and water conservation fund for key conservation and land acquisition programs at the departments of superior and agriculture. departments of interior and agriculture. if the call is met, it'll be historic because while this fund was established by congress more than 40 years ago, it's only been funded fully for two of those years. it also is vitally important that we establish a split between lwc funds between the federal government and the states. states like mine have proms to leverage -- programs to leverage, expand trails and fund river restoration projects that are so important to our ecosystem. i also encourage the federal government to work with the states on a new set of river and stream protections including increased funding for river restoration and a new list for

wild and scenic river proposals for congress. rivers and streams are the backbones of ecosystems. access to water-enriched soils mean these areas are likely to be more exspencive and, therefore, underremitted in finish underrepresented in -- so we have to be creative to offer resilience for climate change and for ongoing land development trends. we should use all our tools at our disposal and protect the wildest places against keg degradation. finally, our conservation efforts must not stop at our coasts. the health and welfare of our national resources, our coastal wildlife rem few and so much of our nation's fish and wildlife resources are ultimately connected to the health of the ocean. we need a new national ocean policy with the interior department playing more of a

leadership role. in conjunction with other federal agencies. in developing science-based marine spatial planning, offshore ecosystem assessments and protections similar to those we have on land. the united states must also push forward at international forums on protections for whales and other endangered species despite recent setbacks at the united nations. traditionally, domestic agencies must think more globally since many of our environmental challenges are international in scope. many conclusion -- in conclusion, really, i want to repeat my call for a bold set of actions. we need an omnibus be wilderness bill, a series of new national parks and monuments, expansion of our trail systems, partnerships with native american governments, wild horse

protections, wild and scenic river designations, ocean ecosystems assessments and conservation funding. we cannot afford to wait. and as a man who held this important job as the nation's top environmental steward, stuart udall of new mexico once said,quote, over the long haul of this planet it is the ecologists, not the bookkeepers of business, who are the ultimate accountants. thank you very much. [applause] >> governor richardson, thank you for your presentation and your great ideas. we agree with most of them. [laughter] but you were never shy.

all right. i'm going to introduce the rest of the panelists, and then what i've asked the panelists to do is very briefly give us a quick overview of what they see the greatest challenges that we face in conservation and how we're going to resolve them. the first of our panelists is bill cronin, he is professor of histy and geography and environmental studies as the university of wisconsin madison. next to him is sally jewel who is the chairman of the board and ceo of rei which operates in more than half of the nation with thousands and thousands of employees. and next to her is gary meyers. i--- gary is the former -- one of the people who spawned the whole nation of last case conservation cooperatives and one of the leaders who inspired sam hamilton to bring those ideas to this administration. next to gary is ernesto who is the u.s. program directer at the

golden gate national parks conservancy. so with that, let's start with you, bill, and we'll just go one at a time. give us a short comment and we'll hone in on some specific issues. so let's give them all a round of applause. you know? you know, other than bill richardson, they're not getting paid anything. [laughter] and even with bill richardson, he's just going to get a lunch. so anyway, thank you very much. go ahead, bill. >> when i think of the challenges that are facing us today, i often think of conservation as being first and foremost about the conservation of values. shared values. and as i think about the political challenges we face in the 21st century continuing this great american project of conservation, remembering those values, passing on those values seems to me to be one of the most important challenges that

we take on. at a moment, i think, americans have always been partisan and divided from one another, but we're at a moment when our partisanship is so extreme that it's easy for people to forget on this question of protecting that which we have inherited from those who come before, this land which is the foundation of our national identity, to think that that isn't the shared value, that that isn't something we must work together on strikes me, actually, as our greatest challenge. and it is one that is part of our, i think, dna as a nation. we are a country that was born in the 18th century are at a moment when the legitimacy of government, legitimacy of the state was seen as adhering in the divine rights of kings. and the creation of this republic was about rejecting that notion of the divine rights of kings and instead finding the foundation of government in two

things, in which this nation showed the watch play for nations around the world. one was finding legitimacy in the people rather than in the crown, and the story of the people's struggle for freedom and liberty and a shared identity, a shared national inheritance was one part of that and then strikingly, also, the core project of the 19th century, the notion that the people's inheritance was the land and the nation's identity, its patriotism adhered in the land. and that story of the american people no matter howdy verse their background was that there were native americans here being invaded by people all around the world, immigrants coming from around the world, people coming here both willing and unwilling in many ways but eventually forging their national identity in making this land their own, find ago home here. that story of our history and our nature the -- that is

certainly what teddy roosevelt was about when he called that congress together in 1908 and created the precursor for what we have here. sitting here in interior and just to ourselves as the national mall. to the due south is the jefferson memorial with its words that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that all human beings are created equal are part of that national heritage and then farther to the west lincoln's memorial where the better angels of our nation kept the unicon together, and the speech that was begin in 1963 of we have a dream together, it's a shared dream. and that dream is about the land. it's the land that we hold privately as stewards so that we can pass it on to our children, that we hold as tribes so that we can pass it on to the seventh

generation, that we hold not as government land, but as the people's land held in common for all of us so that the nation as a whole holds together by sustaining that land to use not the 21st century world sustain, but teddy roosevelt's early 20th century word to pass that land on diminished so that future generations will enjoy i. and the only other thing i'd add is i think one of our greatest challenges is reconnecting urban people, especially young people, to a land that they often don't feel very connected to. and remembering that nature not just out there in deep wilderness or in magnificent parks like yosemite or yellowstone, but right in newark, new jersey, right in every place that all of us live and remembering that we are always in nature in all of those places and holding that together, remembering how to

share and pass on that vision. that's our greatest challenge. [applause] sally jewel, among other things, also, is on the second century commission for national parks. sally jewel. >> thank you. tough act to follow, bill. [laughter] well, i want to start by telling you a little story about something i was made aware of not too long ago, and i was shown a picture of a boy running away from a wave crashing on the beach in california. and the story of this boy is that he couldn't get still in school, he was considered a slow earner, just -- learner, just wasn't able to get it -- black and white picture -- and he was fortunate to have a mother that said let's pull you out of school, and let's put you in nature's school. and that boy was ansel adams in your lobby here with pictures. so i think about that story and

what he would have been diagnosed with today would be adhd. he would have been given ritalin and probably asked to still try and sit still in the classroom. rich rubin talks about many of the challenges our children face today that major booker so eloquently talked about, and we do have large challenges, type ii diabetes in children, enactivity and so on, so i want to draw upon some of our works at rei in terms of -- is this cutting in and out? i'll just keep talking. i'll try and talk loud. we look at long-term trends not at challenges, necessary, but just things that are. things like urbanization. when we think about urbanization as a business that connects people to nature, we're asking ourselves, how do we bring the outcoors into everyday -- outdoors into people's everyday lives? the population is changing rapidly, and the fastest-growing segments have not felt invited

into our public lands in the way that the majority population over the years traditionally has. so that's an opportunity to reconnect people with our public lands if they haven't felt welcome on them for one reason or another. technology, which has tied us to the electrical outlets, has potentially a way to liberate us as we look forward into the future, and maybe the mother of all long-term trends that habit been talk -- hasn't been talked about too much, and that is climate change. the climates are changing and our public lands and our open spaces are critically important to dealing with that. so i want to draw on one of the stories that i heard as a commissioner on the second century commission. there's a report called advancing the national park ideas which is the work of this commission co-chaired by former senators johnson and baker who were strict stewards of this. the most famous member of the commission would be sandra day

o'connor, but there were heros we heard from all across this country as we visited national parks. the one example i want to draw from is about the santa monica mountains national recreation area. it's actually not a national park, it's a national recreation area. the park service has a relatively small part. it is a partnership of the national park service of the california state parks, of the ventura unified school district and the l.a. unified school district, of community partners, of private landowners who have worked in this beautiful natural area in proximity to 14 million people, the second largest population center representing urbanization in this country. the national park service has the largest cadre of educators of any national park unit, and i was shocked to find out that's six. the national park service provided the funds for the bus transportation to get children from l.a. and ventura out into

the santa monica mountains because they wouldn't get out there if somebody didn't pay for the bus, and that was referenced earlier. i saw children who had adopted a square meter of earth, and that became their square meter, and they were removing invasive species and planting native species, and these are children who lived within a 15-minute walk of the beach and had never set foot in the ocean. so these are solutions that are happening right now, and they're happening because of some very courageous public servants and some courageous land other thans in, lots of in-holdings within the santa monica mountains working cooperatively to create habitat for wild cougars which the children can see the tracks, they can see where they've been, and sometimes they can actually see a cougar. it's a great example of what i think are both the challenges we have to these long-term trends and some of the solutions that are being done with really

courageous public servants because it's hard to be superintendent of that park trying to work and forge these partnerships with an agenty that needs to help work those partnerships. i commend you to this report. there's a lot of solutions in this context that really apply to urban parks, state parks and local parks and one of the greatest challenges that we need to address, and governor richardson certainly touched on that, and that is funding. if these parks are so critical to us and to our ecosystems, we need to find ways to support them over the long term and to recognize their value as a solution to climate change and as a solution to urbanization and as a solution to demographic shifts in the population and connecting to a sense of place. so i just have to say that the challenge is that we -- challenges we all face as a nation on conservation got a lot easier this morning.

so thank you very much to our two secretaries, our administrator, our chair and our president because what a shot in the arm that we've been waiting for, so thanks. it's going to get easier. [applause] >> gary myers on the ground, long time wildlife enthusiast, conservationist, state directer, leader. >> thank you. the thing that worries me is the potential loss of significant amounts of habitat from the wildlife point of view. they've got to have it. and i saw sometime ago one of these satellite images of what the country looks like at night with all the lights on. and they've done this thing so you can look at it ten years ago, ten years before that, ten years before that, and ten years into the future and on into the future i think to light up,

like, up to 2050 or something. when i saw that, my reaction was i don't want to be a directer in charge of wildlife when we get to 2050. it was all lights. you're going to be managing the wildlife that we have left between the houses or in people's backyards if you live in the east. and i'm thinking how in the world can they do that? and then it hits you that they're going to have to be playing with that kind of an environment unless we do something here and now today to hand them a different environment. and the first thing that comes to your mind is, well, we need to just zone things so that as the population expands and they'll move into the right places and not into the wrong places. ..

>> and probably with water shortages and other issues that are very difficult to deal with. and it's going to take a ton of money to do that stuff. so where do you get the money? this is a bad time. but we've got to have the money. and it's billions of dollars is

what is really needed if you're going to do this thing right. and what you're going to have to do, i think, is look at the big picture. figure out what the landscapes are that are important to future generations. and important to the economy. important to agriculture and to forestry. there's a study that shows that we're going to lose millions of acres of forests by 2030 in the south. what lives in the forest? what do those forests provide for the economy, for the people. what are we doing to ensure the future of those forests. we have to be thinking about that. and we need to be thinking about it today. and doing something about it today. so if i had to deal with that kind of a problem and come up with a solution, i would need a secretary of interior that believed landscape. you would really need a partnership between secretary of interior and the secretary of agriculture.

it would be nice to get the department of defense engaged in some of this. [laughter] but could that ever happen? you know, i've been in this business for 35 years messing around in sort of at the national level from a wildlife point of view. i've never seen an opportunity like that. and then to have a president actually show at a meeting like this, that's unbelievable. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, gary. and now to our youngest member of the panel. >> thank you. what i think the challenge -- the first thing that comes to mind is relevancy when it comes to americans and outdoors. and i'm really excited to hear

other members of this panel and even the last panel and my director, john jarvis making one of his major focus of his is reconnecting people and making our lands more relevant to every day americans. and one of the big challenges is -- and something i learned and heard from the mouths of the young people i've worked with, is how could you expect young people, old people, anybody to care about the great outdoors if they don't care about their own community and their own environment? and i think that's essential. is how can we first inspire them to wake up in the morning and think about what can i do to improve my community? i think that's one of the major things that's missing. that's why they are not engaging any farther than their houses because they don't care of the outdoors right outside their outdoors. and one of the big problems is -- i've heard when it comes

to young people, everyone talks about technology and the computers and the video games being a major point of conflict of why they're not engaged in the outdoors. i'd like to challenge that. i don't think that's the only thing. one thing that i see in the young people is the academic pressure that they're under to get ready for college. to have their resumes look amazing before they even turn 16. how do they have time to go in the outdoors after spending so much time preparing for college? and not that it's not important but to suggest an opportunity, an opportunity for partnership. an opportunity that those of us in the leadership position who want to engage people, who want to preserve these place for the outdoors, we need to meet young people in communities where they're at and what their situations are. we can't always expect them to come to us. we can't always expect them to absolutely love the opportunities we offer them in our own mind if we didn't engage them first in what those opportunities should be.

and that goes -- my last big challenge is i'm honored to be here. and i think my presence here is a signal of the seriousness of truly engaging young people. in different types of communities in our work but i don't know how many people under 30 are actually here. is it because we don't think they're qualified or we don't think they care and can't handle this kind of leadership and opportunity. i say no to all three of those. there are young people absolutely qualified, absolutely passionate and absolutely deserve an opportunity to be here to talk about it on a national level today. and i know there's a lot of meetings on how to organize this thing together. but this is a constant challenge that i see many organizations, many things people have -- they want young people to care about the environment or the outdoors but they're not willing to give them a giant blue chair on the

stage. [applause] >> and so opportunities is really a change of culture. a change of how we -- what we think young people can do. they can -- service is absolutely important. doing restoration work and learning about the land has to be absolutely important but they could also be an ambassador. they could be the teacher as well as the learn. they could help us make decisions. that's why we need -- we need a change of culture in basically how we engage young people in their communities. and when you think of partnerships, i think it's absolutely important. at the golden national gate conservancy where i work we have a beautiful partnership with the national park service. it presents so many opportunities because it really allowed us to find the intersections of how to -- how to connect our parts to the people.

so we're not necessarily just mandated, okay, we got to round up a bunch of young people and have them work in our parks. we have to think what our young people is really needing. what they need is employment. they need opportunities to practice their leadership skills. that's what we heard from community members and so that's what we provided is employment opportunities from young people as long as 11 years old to college aged students to actually earn a stipend. receive a chance to learn and basically have their first job opportunity in a national park. that kind of thing is an extreme real experience to have your first job in protected lands that's irreplaceable and that they'll remember for the rest of their lives. and i think that's it. >> all right. thank you, ernesto pepito. thank you for your leadership and for your example. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> to sally and to governor richardson my question to you, economics.

you know, a year ago -- 14 months ago we were losing 1700 jobs a month. the focus has been on the economy. people say how can you really deal with these issues with conservation and the outdoors. why should we care about those things. we've got other things to care about. talk to me, sally -- >> thank you. i'm pleased there are several members of my industry that are out in the audience. and other than the amount of time i'm going to be spending on an airplane also pleased that next week we're doing our outdoor industry association capital summit where i will be going with will mander who's my counterpart ceo of eastern mountain sports. we consider overscheduled people who spend too much time doing homework or perhaps screen time as real competitors and trying to figure out we can do to welcome people on the outdoors.

and jan sport and the association itself. one of the things we learned particularly over the last eight years is the economy talks. and so the industry actually did a study called the active outdoor recreation economy that tried to quantify the impact of active outdoor recreation, hunting, fishing, camping, cycling, horseback riding, all manner of things outdoors. and it's surprising to perhaps some of $730 billion industry. that's enormous. and certainly for a number of the states like new mexico, it's a very, very important thing that draws lots of people into the state and employs lots of people like the re, employees that work in our states. but when we call on our elected officials we're now going in with a state-by-state list of the employment. and of the sales tax revenues and federal tax revenues generated by the outdoor

recreation industry and it's very significant. the other thing the industry just finished in 2009 is outdoor recreation participation report looking by demographic segment at who is participating and who isn't. and the underlying reasons why. so bringing the outdoors into people's every day lives is a very, very important opportunity for us as business people to connect people to nature close to home like in the parks in newark that mayor booker talked to us about. so it's a growing and very important part of our economy. the national parks -- npca natural parks conservation association did a study for every dollar invested in the national parks returns $4 into the local communities for economic communities. that's the gateway communities, the food, the beverage, the overnight stair, the gear they buy before they go in the great outdoorses. -- outdoors. i hope you got your dividend. it's a very important part of

what is the infrastructure for a very large segment of the economy. and so i'm proud to be part of an industry that works with so many of you in conservation to give back recognizing that we have shared goals, that of supporting conservation. supporting healthy lifestyles close to home and far away. and doing that in a way that actually creates in the case of our industry 6.5 million jobs, about 10,000 up at rei but 6.5 million nationwide. >> i first want to ask sally, i will be leaving office and i may need a job at rei. >> you're on. >> i think she said -- sally said it extremely well. i would only add i know we're not talking about renewable energy and other efficiency measures. but obviously the tremendous potential of a green economy, what president obama has been talking about, is going to be

massive new green well-paying jobs for this country. and the key there is technology. and i was going to -- i didn't answer the previous question, although i just gave this thing. but i think a big danger that we have in job creation and making sure that we get into a green economy in creating jobs is we need bipartisanship again in our environmental policies. we don't have it in this country. you know, we're going to face a lot of these issues that are so important, cap-and-trade, climate change and new energy bill, whatever. if there's a way that we can bring a new bipartisan conservation ethos, that's going to be critically important. >> governor richardson, i agree with you but let me push you a little bit on this question. here is jobs in new mexico. i don't have the specific for new mexico but for montana 11

million visitors a year but they only have a million people in population. i know the great places in new mexico where people go fish and hunt and bike and hike, what does that all mean to a governor relative economic wherewithal. >> it means gross taxes, it means jobs. we're trying to create a new ecotumor for our state instead of focusing on traditional tourism where you link recreation to the culture and native american tribes. i think we have to think differently also. but to me as a governor in our state compared to others with unemployment has done relatively well. but our strong basis has been the fact that we have excellent hunting and fishing and trails. you know, the wildlife corridor that we created between us and your state is going to be more tourism, more sustainable hunting.

it's going to mean protecting the habitat of the elk. that's tourism. that brings in jobs. that brings in -- i would also, just one last point, ken, the stimulus program for governors for states. it was great. but think if there is another one and i don't know if there is, of a cc -- a civilian conservation fund for -- [applause] >> may i just bring gary into the conversation. governor richardson talked about the wildlife migration corridors that governor ritter from colorado have been working on. you spoke with eloquence what the place will look like in 2050 with all those wild spaces. how do we connect up the landscapes so that we have the kind of wildlife corridors that governor richardson and governor ritter in colorado have been talking about? when you look at the nation as a

whole, how do you connect them up. you have public land, you have private land, state, local land? how do we connect them up as a nation? >> your cc idea is going to be real helpful. and it's partnerships is what it is. i've looked at things from the wildlife perspective. and i want to do that. what do the wildlife need to be here 50 years from now? all of them over in say the mississippi valley. figure it out and see if we can do it and leaving the landowner out. leaving the mayors out. leaving the politicians out. and you get if trouble doing that. that's not the way you do it. you really need to work with the communities. you need to work with the mayors. you need to involve everybody in some of these decision-making -- >> so having the ground-up

cooperative efforts with stakeholders around the table to be able to connect -- >> yes. lots of partners. and then there are very bright partners. these guys that live in these places really know them. and we need their input as we develop what these landscapes should look like. >> gary, you and i are a little different generation than ernesto pepito. we don't have a lot of people involved with us. i hear others talk about the time for a new civilian conservation corps for america. how do we bring in young people into the great outdoors given your history? what would be your recommendation? >> in our business we're interested in the hunting and fishing side. if you quit coming, you quit buying a license we go out of business. we need these kids. as a wildlife agency we need to keep our fees as low as we can practically keep them. we need to eliminate the

barriers as much as we can with age restrictions and things like that. and i think that we need to work with our industry groups like the -- what is it? there's, i guess, scholastic sporting place where you work with some of the shooting industries. and you put that in the high school. and you have competition. and it's one high school competing against another. and girls, shooting these guns. in high schools, lose the fear of guns. >> starting them early. >> but a partnership with all of the different branches of industry, a partnership with the different sportsman groups. ducks unlimited have a program where they work with kids. i used to trap turkeys and my job was to just catch the birds, move them somewhere else, turn

them loose. and i did that. nobody saw me doing it. then 30 years later here comes the turkey federation to nashville and they want us to go trap some turkeys and they want to bring the school kids out. and they take the school kids and hand them a turkey. this is what a turkey feels like. this is a boy, this is a girl. turn them loose. those little kids ate that up. and i'm thinking i never thought of that. >> those are great experiences. ernesto, why don't you respond here how we do that with more young people. you're representing the young people of america today. i think probably everybody here would say that's probably our biggest challenge is how do we get young people involved in this great marvel of the planet and the great outdoors. let me ask you the question more specifically.

are young people in this country from your own point of view. in our department of interior we try to create our own land conservation corps. we have 15,000 jobs, volunteer opportunities. how do we go about reaching to young people to connect them out here. are they interested? >> they actually are interested. i have a perfect example. i didn't grow up loving america's great outdoors or even going camping or even recycling or anything like that. that wasn't a part of my culture growing up. and it was that simple introduction through employment that engaged for a lifelong of dedication of work and working with young people. [applause] >> i personally would love to have young people catch turkeys rather than at shooting range. but that's my personal opinion.

[laughter] >> i challenge the idea that young people are different than they were. young people can still be excited and inspired by the same things they were 50 years ago. and so going outdoors, having a chance to play, having a chance to have a park in the neighborhood that's safe, having a garden in their neighborhood that they can learn about where their food comes from. these things are things that aren't different in my opinion. they just need the opportunities. and it's unfortunate because i think we get so caught up in restoring this land that we forget about who we're restoring this land for and who's going to protect this land later. i think a reinvestment in young people as far as their leadership and true engagement -- not just for photo op. not just for -- not just for a volunteer opportunity on one saturday. but a true long-term relationship with a young person and young people in general. it will get this gun quickly.

-- done quickly. >> thank you, ernesto. thank you. [applause] >> let me ask you this from a historical perspective, you look at the civilian conservation corps, it was one of the cornerstones, if you will of bringing this country out from the brink. how do you replicate that now in the year 2010 where we get young people involved in the work of the great outdoors? >> well, i think we look to the inspiration of the past in part. we talked a lot today about teddy roosevelt's era. and he sometimes forget he was grappling with some of the exactly same concerns. the moment in the early 20th century that he was addressing was worrying about becoming too urban. he was worried where our kids would have nature experience and there's a movement in the earlyth 20th century which was called nature studies -- any of you grew up planting beans in

mayonnaise jars in school were doing nature study curriculum. and teddy roosevelt also found the country life commission to try to think about kids on farms and what life in rural areas would look like. the ccc is part of that tradition. in my generation i grew up riding the interstate highways to get to national park wilderness areas in the west to first experience new mexico, first experience colorado and have my experience out in those landscapes. i think one of the biggest challenges is not just the lure of the virtual and the screened reality that a lot of kids grow up in especially that we now fly to get to destinations rather than travel the ground that lies in between where you get to know the whole america nation. so for me one of the virtues of programs like yours or like the ccc is getting people out onto all parts of the land. not just to particular locations but experience things what stewardship works in interior,

in agriculture on the federal land on the private lands and cities and wilderness -- how kids can know that they can make a difference. the last thing i'd say to support ernesto again is the kids really want to believe that they can do something real. the that they can really make a difference. not just a play thing. not just a school thing. but really make a difference. and there are a few more real projects in the world than standing america for the future. to think about all the work everybody in this room does thinking our your agency and organization can give kids real experiences. this is your point. real experiences where they can make a difference. where they can know that they're doing something that changes the world. that's what this inspiration does. that's what the ccc does. >> sally? >> yeah, i have spoken with the secretary before about is there a way we can bring back the ccc. it was all men. most of them 19 years old. they did incredible work. but what was so clear about that

work was a lifelong connection to place that our and then senate dan evans was telling the story. he was still very active. and i've been very involved in this program all called the mountain greenway which is a green space along the i-90 corridor a rapidly urbanizing areas and i was talking to dan about our work there. every time sally i drive along i-90 i look for my tree. sorry, it's cutting in and out. i look for my tree. i said your tree. he said i have a tree that you can see if you drive along i-90 that's now 72-year-olds or 74-year-old because i planted it when i was 10 years old. that connection to place that affected dan and affected the ccc is something that ernesto is doing in the golden gate conservancy. the student conservation is

doing in national parks and local lands all around. earth corps in my neck of the words is taking people out. it's not maybe the same way it was when the secretary was at ccc where the army helped mobilize but we have the corps network, a nonprofit group of youth conservation corps all over the country that is making this happen. i want to give a nod to a congressman from arizona for the legislation he just passed on the public lands service corps in the house. a companion bill by senator bingaman who begins to bring this back. if we can mobilize conservation and business people to do the work er nestor does. they don't have the connection to land many of us wish they would have.

and this is just a way to help our crumbling infrastructure as well as provide jobs and connections to that place. there's just no better thing, i think, we could be working on. >> thank you. [applause] >> to the two bills, bill cronan and bill richardson. very quickly. historical preservation, a big issue for this country. huge economic development. you know it from your history of the city of santa fe what role does historical cultural preservation play that we've been looking at it from the future of america and its outdoors and your young people? >> i think everybody in this room can tell first that for me the project of protecting history and culture and protecting nature are not separate projects. they're not divided from each other. they are the same projects. and that same project is heritage. it's about reflecting on where

we came from as a nation. that's what our history is. that's our shared story. however much we may have conflicted in that story it is finally the story that made us one nation, one people out of many one. and so cultural and historical preservation is about making sure that the benchmarks of that journey we've made together whether they've happened in nature. whether they've happened in cities, whether they've happened in culture, we recognize how they are all connected for each other. it's a very moving story. and learning how to help americans remember the ways that they can tell that story together. that seems to me to be one of the core missions but certainly the national park service has had from its -- from its founding. and that's what a lot of the interior projects have always been about. about helping americans remember who they are. that's what shared heritage, shared culture is. >> governor? >> that means obviously the

importance of historical preservation culture in a state like my a multicultured state with a great tradition. but as part of that, i want to emphasize one important point. and that is that about 20 years ago when i was a congressman, i had a very good relationship with the environmental community. but i made them mad once. very mad. i said you're all asking me here to -- but you're a movement that's lily white. i don't see one hispanic, native american, african-american among you. and what you are you going to do about it? and i think i have seen in the last 15, 20 years a very strong integration of minorities in the environmental movement. and i mention it because if we're going to have bipartisan support, but if we're going to have a base of conservation

leaders, it has to include the people that cory brook has to talk about. it has to include my friend over here and it has to include the native americans. they hesitated engaging because they're worried about sovereignty. and, you know, this is the enormous delight that i'm sitting next to the first hispanic secretary of the interior. a proud generational leader in the west. and i think that's what i see of the real importance of historical and cultural preservation is who we are. >> we're leaving this now to take you live for more from the independent federal commission on wartime contracting. today's focus government oversight of contracts awarded for military operations in southwest asia. live coverage here on c-span2. >> the commission estimates that these contracts have consumed some $80 billion of taxpayers' money over the past five years.

most of the services contracts for tasks like logistical support, security, transportation and maintenance are distinct from buying weapons or equipment. and are made by the u.s. army. as made by the u.s. army. i will say at the outset that we have serious concerns about the army's management and oversight of these vast and costly arrangements. we will explore those concerns today. this opening statement is made on behalf of co-chairman christopher shays our fellow commissioners and myself. the other commissioners at the dias today are clark kent irvin, grant green, robert henke, charles tiefer and dove zakheim. observers of this hearing may wonder why its focus is on contracting. after all the commission has already heard extensive testimony of the largest of the services contracts, the logcap

contract for global logistic services and on the many services to be managed in the drawdown of american forces in iraq. the answer is simple. although services contract account account for 64% of the contract of southwest asia theater and has cost $80 billion over the past five years, they continue to suffer from lack of commensurate focus, oversight and program management by government officials. the result is often unnecessary risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and the undermining of our national objectives. these concerns aren't new. department of defense contract management has been on the government accountability offices high risk list since 1992. every year since 1992. if that designation were a person, that person would be old enough to vote now. numerous gao reports over succeeding years have added much

detail to the catalog of shortcomings including one released last month under the title "war-fighter support." dod needs to improve hits planning for using contractors to support future military operations. this is the subject or one of the many subjects that we're going to explore today. in the past decade, congress has weighed in nearly every year with new directives on contracting. for example, statutory mandates in fiscal 2002 and 2006 national defense authorization acts direct that the secretary of defense establish a management structure for the procurement of contract services, 2002, 2006. the law calls for a designated official in each military department to exercise responsibility for managing its procurement services. for departments to dedicate full-time commodity managers to procure key services and to

conduct annual execution reviews. the army, the u.s. army, does not appear to have effectively responded to these requirements. for example, the law requires that the management of services contract be comparable to that applied to weapon systems. but progress is incomplete. four very large over $1 billion each services contracts in southwest asia receive department of defense secretarial-level review both before and after they were awarded. but commission staff have identified 38 large services contracts in the area ranging from $50 million up to that $1 billion level. of those 38, 3 received only pre-award review at army headquarters. the other 35 had only field reviews below headquarters level. we're concerned that this situation represents a gap in contract oversight for many

large contracts. below the 50 million level incidentally, about 3500 contracts in iraq and afghanistan have received only field reviews even though they add up to very large sums of money. we're very interested in hearing our government witnesses clarify what has been done to fulfill statutory mandates for better contract oversight. the issue of the army's commitment to aggressive and effective contract management shows up in other ways. after more than 7 years of war in southwest asia, typically with a 1 to 1 ratio of contract employees to war fighters, it is astonishing but apparently true that no one in dod or the army has either a department-wide or a theater-wide view of contracting activity or the numbers and locations of contractors. and with the massive drawdown operation underway in iraq, it is also astonishing to hear a

3-star army general confirm at our last hearing that there is no single entity with the power to monitor operational needs and order appropriate adjustments in the scope of contracts. the commission has other concerns that will be elaborated in the question period. including army structure and staffing for effective program management, leadership interest and energy and contracting that may impinge upon inherently governmental functions. one other contract management subject that really interest us is the use of competition it off motivate contractors to provide good service to the government and good value to the taxpayers. one current issue under this heading is whether the multivendor competition for service task orders is being used by a logcap 4 in afghan should be applied in afghanistan rather than logcap iii contract. we hope and expect that the army

is considering all relevant operational competitive and business issues as well as the accuracy of any base case assumptions in deciding how to provide for continual logistical support in iraq. none of our questions will be asked in a hostile spirit. and, however, critical we may sound none of us lack in absolute respect and appreciation for the service and sacrifices of our military forces. in fact, there's several former military officers on the dias. i guess when they wrote that, they didn't realize there was also one former pfc on the dias. but so the record's corrected. but the more clearly we can identify weakness and devise counter-measures, the better prepared it willing for future contingency missions. panel one comprises mr. shay assad, thank you, shay, director of defense procurement and acquisition policy department of defense.

lieutenant general william phillips, thank you, general, principal military deputy to the assistant secretary of the army for acquisition logistics and technology. and mr. edward harrington, deputy assistant secretary of the army for procurement. thank you, mr. harrington. for panel 2, we've invited three witnesses from the contracting community. mr. jay ward chief operating officer aecom government operating services and kristi clemens and mr. terry rainy, senior vice president and division group leader caci international. for the benefit of our audience, let me note that each of the companies that were invited holds important federal contracts. aecom performs work under the $727 million global maintenance and support services including maintenance of the mind resistant mrap or mrap vehicles that protect our troops as they move in theater. that contract is with the army

material command. aegis provides security services under a $287 million contract with the joint contracting command iraq/afghanistan. and caci international provides contract management support to the management under a $30 million contract with the joint contracting command iraq/afghanistan or what's referred to as jccia. like all the companies that provide contract support for our military in southwest asia, these organizations are providing vital services for american troops and american objectives in challenging in dangerous settings. the commission respects their role in contingency operations and their cooperation with our inquiries. we have asked the company witnesses to be prepared to discuss the services they provide their views on how government management of service contracts might be improved. how their firms address work

that might approach performance of inherently governmental functions, approach, performance. and their policies and training on business ethics inflicts of interest. -- in conflicts in interest. we asked aegis to provide a witness for our panel. the company has declined to do so. their stated reasons are due to time, resources, and contracting constraints. we are disappointed with the aegis decision. this is a congressionally chartered commission. congress instructed us to conduct investigations and hearings and to report our findings and recommendations. our authorizing statute also specifically provides that we should report any difficulties in securing cooperation and information to congress for possible action by the appropriate committees. we take that mandate seriously. and expect full and complete

cooperation from government agencies and from government contractors to carry out our statutory duties. all previously invited witnesses -- and this is the eleventh hearing we've held have time, resource and contracting constraints. they all have demanding workloads. these witnesses have worked with this commission to balance that workload with their responsibility to testify at public hearings. thus, our strong disappointment with aegis' inability to likewise appear notwithstanding -- and i think this is important, their prior history of dialog and cooperation with the commission. we needed to hear from aegis at this hearing. that was important. as required by this commission's authorizing statute, we will notify appropriate congressional committees. we will also request aegis' presence at a future commission hearing and expect them to comply. our witnesses have been asked to

summarize their testimony in 5 to 7 minutes in order to ensure adequate time for questions and answers. the full text of their written statements will be entered into the hearing record and posted on the commission's website. we also ask that within 15 business days, witnesses respond to questions for the record and submit any additional information they may offer to provide. we thank all of today's witnesses that participate in what we view as a very important hearing. after the swearing-in we will begin the panel's first testimony starting with mr. asard. -- assad. >> i want to emphasize the fact that every company that we have dealt with has not only cooperated privately but also publicly. and aegis cooperating privately is one thing. being able to stand before this committee and answer questions under the record and under oath is another.

and i just want to say you had a gentle way of describing our disappointment. it represents a very serious act on their part not to cooperate with this committee. and i certainly will be talking to my colleagues to let them know that of their lack of cooperation. >> thank you, mr. commissioner. can i get the three witnesses to please stand. and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you will give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. let the record show that all three responded in the affirmative. all right. mr. shay assad, please, sir. >> good morning. [inaudible]

>> i know it. >> good morning, chairman thibault. chairman shays and distinguished members of the commission. as chairman thibault mentioned, i request that my written testimony be entered into the record. and i will be very brief in my opening remarks in order to provide time for the commission to ask questions and for us to respond in a timely way. as the commission recognized in its interim report, contractors have served an important role in support of military engagements. contractors in the u.s. central command area of responsibility provide a broad range of capabilities. with the overwhelming majority of contracted support being in the logistics and support area. as such, they play with the army an important role during peacetime and military operations in ensuring the effectiveness of the contracting process in the battlefield environment. our mission is to service the

mission components and defense agents to deliver equipment and services that meet the needs through the war-fighter through an effective policy and guidance while being good stewards of taxpayers' money. my office works in partnership with other organizations within the office of secretary of defense, the joint staff services, defense contract management agency, the defense contract audit agency and other agencies to ensure contingency contracting needs across the world. we are working as a team to develop efficient support and solutions for our deployed forces overseas. as well as those supporting humanitarian relief operations. as our deployed acquisition work force continues to serve in harm's way, we owe them the resources required to complete the task we have given them. my office and the office of the secretary of defense, the services, the components are

enhancing professional standards, tools and training to better serve this work force. we have made meaningful progress. but we have a long way to go. with regard to improving our contracting support and the management of contracted services in contingency operations. i greatly appreciate the work that the committee is doing. and i pledge my full cooperation and assistance and enabling you to assess our progress. again, i thank you for the opportunity to report to you today. on many of the initiatives and the work that we are doing to support our war fighters. and i welcome any questions that you may have. thank you. >> thank you, mr. assad. general phillips, please. >> chairman thibault, chairman shays, distinguished members of this commission, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee to discuss the use of services contracts in support of wartime operations and other contingencies.

i'm honored to be here today with mr. assad, whom i worked very closely with during my tenure of the joint command in iraq and afghanistan. and also honored to serve here today with mr. ed harrington. we are pleased to represent army leadership. there are nearly 43,000 contracting work force and more than 1 million soldiers who have deployed to combat over the last eight years and who have relied on us for timely and efficient materials, supplies and services. we have a joint written statement that i respectfully request be made part of the record for today's hearing. it's often stated that people a most important asset. as the army's director of the acquisition management career management, i can assure you that we are working aggressively to reverse the years of decline in authorized strength levels. we're also working to restore the skill level of our acquisition work force to deal

with the growing complexities of our business environment. we believe that additional training of the work force will over time enhance the skills necessary to better support our war fighters. we appreciate the support of members of congress. as we work to rebuild the acquisition and contracting work force to handle the increased workload in managing our acquisition programs as well as a number of contracted actions and contracted dollars. which in the last 15 years has increased by more than 500% along with over a 20% reduction in contracting personnel. our army under the guidance and direction of secretary mchugh and general casey continue to work hard to reduce this trend and we're on the right path. within the next few years, we will in source approximately 4,041 positions that were previously contract to government. we expect to hire by 2015 over 1,885 personnel into army acquisition.

of which about 1600 will be contracting. within the last couple of years, we have hired over 600 acquisition interns, much of that as a result of section 852 funding. along with the additional work force personnel we thank congress for authorizing five additional general officers for acquisition. excuse me. we have promoted three colonels to general officer since the gansler commission reported its findings. in addition, there are other general officers that are serving in key acquisition positions today. most recently, i served as the commanding general of joint command control in iraq and afghanistan. and currently in iraq and afghanistan we have brigadier general nichols another general. we have key generals in the army beside says those in strictly contracting positions today. so it's a superb performance of

congress and the secretary of defense we are working aggressively to reverse the years of decline in authorized strength levels and restore the skill level of our acquisition and contracting work force to deal with the growing complexities of the business environment. the army is committed to excellence in all contracting activities. we support a programmic approach to operational contract support. we believe that service contracts are best managed at the lowest possible level especially in expeditionary operations. we support the fundamental principle of federal contracting as the contracting officer makes the award decision. the army's process provides for the centralized execution and contracting management at the point of execution within centralized oversight. we have established additional oversight and accountability for contracting mission, which while maintaining our high standards of quality and efficiency in awarding contracts. the army acquisition of services

strategy panel and peer-review processes ensure that our senior acquisition leaders have the appropriate level of input for effective contract management. in addition, we have a very aggressive army procurement management review process. both within the army and also within the joint contracting command in iraq and afghanistan. it's also an honor to appear before you as a previous commander of the joint contracting command in iraq and afghanistan where today over 270 contracting warriors are serving on the front lines of freedom doing extraordinary work, providing contractual support and services for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and civilians. during my time as jccia, i often referred to our contracting personnel as contracting warriors. in reference to their professionalism and service alongside our uniformed warriors. their support of our mission in both iraq and afghanistan is nothing short of incredible. as is their integrity, sacrifice, and dedication to duty.

chairman thibault and chairman shays and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for allowing us to be here. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, general. and my understanding is your statement was both for you and mr. harrington? do you have any comments or statements you would like to make in advance of our questions? >> i'm prepared to make an oral statement, yes, sir. >> oh, i apologize then. please do. >> thank you, sir. chairman thibault, chairman shays, distinguished members of the commission on wartime contracting, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the army's use of service contracts in support of wartime operations and contingencies. we're proud to represent our army leadership and our selfless and highly dedicated acquisition and contracting professionals. our individual and collective focus is to provide our soldiers with cost-effective and timely material, supplies and services. the army is reversing the 15-year decline in its contracting work force numbers and adding highly motivated

members to the ranks of its contracting teams every day. we thank congress, your commission, and the department of defense for the continuing support for the resources to attract, train, and educate our professionals to develop award and manage army contracts. our priorities are fourfold. work force development, organizational structure, business tools, and training to improve pre-award, award, and post-award contract oversight functions. first, we're taking actions to more than double our military contracting work force. including more than 175 noncommissioned officers. and we're also adding over 1600 new civilian contracting specialists. second, the army has implemented contracting units in its operational forestructure to provide a more ag -- agile contracts worldwide. thirdly we participate in a dod-led joint business systems team to design, develop, test

and field capabilities to improve the electronic linkage with user, funding legal and contracting stakeholders. these systems will provide requirements definition, prioritization, and timely contract awards in contractor oversight. fourth, we're expanding our training to include noncontracting units. the army g3 has issued an execution order requiring contracting officer representative training of as many as 80 cors before brigade allowing army units to be better prepared for their contracting oversight responsibilities. to achieve these objectives, the army command implemented predeployment training that augments the 40-hour defense hour university online course. as a result army commanders have cut the transition time from outgoing to incoming cors from theater from two days to two hours. operational contract management has now presented at 16 different logistic officer and nco courses.

the army logistics university has implemented a two-week course on planning and managing contracted support. our combat training centers and the army's battle command training program have integrated operational contracting scenarios in training exercises as units prepare for their deployments. our objective is to enable our growing work force to achieve the needed numbers in expert skills to develop award and oversee contracts that continually achieve more cost-effective, schedule and performance outcomes. the army is making steady deliberate forward progress. with sustained senior leader support, army contracting will regain and maintain its capability. our soldiers are always at the center of our commitment. this completes my opening statement. thank you again for inviting me. and for your commitment to help us reconstitute our army contracting capability. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. harrington. the process we're going to use

is we'll have two rounds of questions in an order that we've determined that will become self-apparent. and then we'll have a second round and a third round depending on outcomes. and the order will begin with myself. in an announcement that i think others here on the commission will explore it but i do want to make a comment that the department of defense -- and this is the department of defense panel has addressed many of the areas of concern that this panel has raised. and has put in place objectives and training and mechanisms. and has begun that process. and for that we are appreciative.

that essentially in my words you're laying a foundation. or a stepping stones that need to be followed in order to achieve what you've acknowledged are needed improvements. so for that, while we're going to watch the progress, we're much appreciative. i want to talk in my first comments about competition. and i think we have the right group. because, general harrington, i believe you are the competition advocate for the army. >> yes, sir, i am. >> and both of you, mr. assad and general philips -- while they were very short i counted words. maybe i read your testimony and found it very informative but i found six words, general phillips, in your testimony that talked to the importance of competition. and mr. assad, i found 11.

that doesn't mean in any way to underemphasize what i've heard you previously talk about. about the importance of competition. so i guess just initially i'm looking for an affirmative statement. and then i'll sort of tee up what i've got. is there any question in anyone's mind that the first avenue -- where it fits is competition? mr. assad? >> chairman thibault, i'm actually the competition advocate for the department. that's my role. and in fy09, we actually achieved the highest degree of competition in the history of the department. having said that, there's about 35% of the work and services that we do not compete. and we need to find more ways to compete. in those, there's a meeting this afternoon at 1:00 of all of the competition advocates.

i do that on a quarterly basis with all of them to go through what their goals are, what their achievements are. and whether or not we're stressing the organization to compete as much as we possibly can. i think the figure over in iraq and afghanistan and general phillips can be more definitive on this but it was around 97 or 98% of the actions that they actually compete. >> okay. i'm looking for an affirmative statement. i appreciate -- >> oh, there's no doubt about it. that we need to do more. the taxpayers get a better deal when we compete. there's no doubt about it. >> general phillips, do you agree with mr. assad's absolute support for competition? >> sir, i absolutely do. the numbers are correct. when i left we were at 98% for all our contracts, over 30,000 contracts last year that we did in competition. one of the comments, sir, don't hold me to the date but i believe it was 4 march of '09 when the president signed out his directive on competition.

i actually took that directive in iraq and had a discussion with the operational commander about how to emphasize contracting within the -- our realm of joint contracting command in iraq in afghanistan. and a lot of the goodness that we were doing. i'm a firm believer in competition. >> so the emphasis, your point, is clearly on both directed from the presidential level down to all organizations. general harrington? >> sir, absolutely. >> you support what they say and we can move on then? >> yes, sir, i do. >> thank you, mr. harrington. >> thank you. >> i want to talk about a couple of procurements that may not be going the direction of competition that i'm little mystified in light of everything that we said. the first one is the largest contract in iraq is being

competed and has been competed presently. that is to say that again without getting into acronyms as far as the logistics, kbr was awarded what was referred to as the clss contract for reportedly and verified $2.3 billion to provide logistical support. the other half of that contracting action, life support, is ongoing with the latest phase of proposals that were due until last week, the 19th or today and now i've been informed it's the 30th of april. the long and many times adjusted procurement to effect a logcap iv procurement. previously we had testimony on

march 29th that notwithstanding that long-standing competition that the army had done a bca, a business case analysis, and was considering options or alternatives to competition. and i think that's accurate. and the commission asked for attendance. and last thursday night we were invited to a meeting last friday. friday passed. and friday a week ago and on thursday night late that invitation was withdrawn saying -- you don't need to restate this, but it's department of defense wanted to vet it before vetting it with us. and some time in the future we can get our hand in it. the sensitiviity back when i ws involved in it and the officials informed me where they were asking for concurrence not to go

competition in logcap iv but to a continuation for logcap iii what was explained to me essentially a financial push on savings but operational needs. now, my question is, you know, that's disturbing as i heard it because you had three companies including the incumbent that would stand to benefit from a logcap iii that had exhaustedly put together bid proposals that were due and due at a later date and now due on april 30th that this commission previously asked well, why wouldn't you analyze that? why wouldn't you look for operational efficiency? and my point is on that first procurement, if you look at the data that's out there, the $2.3 billion procurement -- and i'll be glad to talk about that also, the data shows that there was -- and this is to the army's

congratulations, a 46% potential savings as a result of competition used going from logcap iii to logcap iv to the billion dollar contract on css. that is the spend rate was at a billion dollars a year and the spend rate went down to $540 million as a result the competition as a result of fine-tuning and the potential savings annually approaches $460 million. commendation to the army, those are pretty big bucks. this direction it was going was to say there must be some way to do it without competition. and as we've shown if there hadn't been competition on logcap iii what gets contracted on cost type contracts get spent. it's not just about fee. people want to argue well, it's just fee because it's dollar for dollar cost type. but history does not bear that out. so it is troubling that with

those kinds of savings and the success in afghanistan where there's a war going on, where the operational pace is, frankly, probably substantially greater than the operational pace in a drawdown in iraq that's the safer environment, everything the army tell us is absolute success in the transition. from the incumbent contractor to two other contractors. so everything i've laid out flies in the face of why. at the same time you're doing a procurement you're putting a business case analysis together and potentially avoiding competition. mr. harrington, would you like to share your perspectives and understanding and clarify anything you can about the value of competition in going from logcap iii to iv and the potential for substantial savings, 40-plus percent. >> logcap iii was a single

vendor competed contract when it was awarded. i can tell you, sir, that whole process, the business case, the decision matrix, if you will, to determine whether or not it's appropriate to move from -- to state with logcap iii as opposed to transition logcap 4 is in process with the army leadership. ...

>> of getting the contractual actions moved towards competition. i commend that. that was a strong forceful action that had leadership and execution. that's the type of thing we look to see. but all it takes is one single action like this, where you know, i'm not trying to be a media person, but what's the headline? income receives lifetime contract for iraq without competition. it just doesn't pass the test. and so i share that with appreciation. you know, i sense that the reason that the award was it canceled and was moved to april 30 was that it was being rethought. i appreciate that confirmation. do have any brief comment, general fields? >> no, sir. well, yes or. just to express, i strongly

believe in competition as we all just discussed and the merits of that, you adequately define. anything that we present on logcap iii to iv today will be pre-decision. the army is still looking at the process, look at the business case analysis as well as the operational need. all that will come together. >> thank you. and i have to say that general odierno himself has been an absolute advocate of competition. and his drawdown, that is being impacted. in the first competition the incumbent kbr one it. that's 46% of the incumbent may win it again. it doesn't matter who wins it. it matters the contracting strategy. i have spent my time and i don't apologize. commissioner schinasi, please. >> thank you. and thank you, gentlemen, for being here this morning. i want to start, mr. assad, with making a comment on your opening

statement about making progress. and i think i would agree there aren't many areas under your leadership that your office has made a lot of progress. i will talk about the changes in the awards process that you're put in place, they to reduce you have for services. but i want to focus more on the other statement which was a long way to go. you can do only so much as the policy office. and my position has always been process is good but outcomes are better. in order to get different outcomes, we're going to need to talk about resources. some going to turn to, general fields, to say i'm pleased the army has put in place someone with your understanding and background of contract and managing contractors to a position where you do have some resources that you can read a portion here or some other things that we're talking of which are so important. and i just want to see if i can get you on the record a little bit asked out you're going to do that. let me start by talking about

some of the problems that we are seeing. in your statement, i think on page six, and in your oral statement you talk about the review that the army has done to identify positions that contractors are holding which are really for inheritance late government purposes. which is a good thing. but you put a five year time horizon around bring in to the government those things which the contractors should not be doing. not cannot, but should not be doing, all right? so i'm a little disturbed that you're talking about 2015, because i think we have 7162 positions coming in in fiscal year 10, but 11,000 more plus you have identified that also need to come in. the army doesn't seem to be able to do that before 2015. so that is a timeline that i think is too long.

in addition to the inherently governmental position, there are a lot of things that the army has asked contractors to do, which are in that other realm of close to associate or critical. i would just point out a report that the gao issued last week that talks about the amount, number of contractors that are supporting contract administration in iraq and afghanistan. again, i job that probably is better done by government officials. the army has used contracting office representatives, contractors to be contracting officer representatives in the past. you know what the situation is with that now? are you still using contractors as coors? >> man, a lot of questions in your statement. in iraq today, in afghanistan,

we have a contract with caci. and that contract allows for up to 40 caci employees to serve alongside joint contracting command-iraq know, as well as to serve with units and brigades primarily within their supply shops. and also at division headquarters. in afghanistan, it allows for up to 35 to do essentially the same thing. they are not doing inherently government functions. they are doing work that is -- involves developing a statement of work, that is worked through the war fighting units through their requirements and resourcing process. and want to get stewed jcc-i/a, there are some caci in place that are serving alongside our contracting officers both in iraq and afghanistan that are supporting the prewar process, putting the requirements

together, developing solicitation. they are not signing any contracts. they're not negotiating. they are not doing any of that kind of work. which would be termed inherently government. they have also signed the oci in terms of conflict of interest. so there is no inherently conflict of interest with caci performance that work. >> i'm sorry, let me just say that i was referring to a statement will you talk about the contractor positions and debug invite an inherently governmental functions of 7162 that you plan to bring in in fy10, and 15,000 -- excuse me, 11,084 that you will take another five years to bring in. >> if we could do that all very quickly we would certainly want to do that. part of that is a process the army's budgeting process through seven numbers that i had in my opening statement are not just contracting. that's for the army. if you look at the number of contracting jobs that might be transitioning under that, i think it is less than a hundred

50. i'll have to go back and look to the number to give you the firm number on that, but of that 7000 that was in the statement for the record, only about 150 of those directly relate to contracting. or army acquisition as a whole, it was 4041 is the number that we want to transition. >> but we're talking about related things here, but they are given. my question is, why can't you bring in the inherently governmental positions now? and i understand the armies budget process i also understand people can control the process and make decisions in that process. that the process doesn't control the individuals ,-comcome or should control the individuals. there have been a number of supplementals. i assume to be a number of more supplementals that have worked totally outside of the traditional budgeting process. it seems to me you could influence to change that situation. >> yes, ma'am.

is a great question. >> will you do that? >> yes ma'am. i've been on the job about 80 days so i'm 80 days into the effort, but you make a great question and obviously we will take that back and continue to work it. it's a part of business case analysis to bring those folks in as early as possible, the budgeting process. but let me add one other metric that also was important. it's how quickly you can recruit the right kind of talent that you want to come in to be a contracting person or an acquisition person. so that's part of our strategy as well. as quickly as we can with the help of congress through a 52 funding is to recruit the right kind of talent inside army acquisition. >> i would just make the point that the contractors apparently aren't having trouble recruiting talent. and i will come back to this issue during my next round. >> yes, ma'am. >> thank you, commissioner.

commissioner zakheim, please. >> i would like to continue the line of questioning my colleague has open. general phillips and mr. harrington, would you say it's about a two-week seal our course that you provide to potential cors? >> sir, the defense acquisition university offers a 40 hour online course. the army contracting command supplements that with additional training. >> how much? >> sir, i don't know exactly. >> is it a month? is it a your? >> it's anywhere from two to four days. >> so two weeks is about right. so you take someone who knows nothing about contracting and within two weeks they will be a cor, correct, more less? >> yes. >> why can't you find to do it. two weeks of training, that's all they need? >> cor is not a contracting officer. >> no, no. >> you talked about what, 75,

give or take? whatever the number is it doesn't matter that it could be 1000 to two weeks in ukraine 1000 people. the army doesn't have enough people for that? >> those folks are working with caci working alongside us are seizing contracting officers. they are not trained as cors. >> is caci providing cors? >> sir, i'm not aware. >> does any contract to provide cors anymore? you asked that actually? >> some place we do have contractors. >> how many. >> i don't know the number of. >> whatever the number. >> again, general phillips describe these are contracting officer representatives. >> that's what a cor is. >> yes, sir. >> and it takes two weeks to train? >> yes or. >> in my can't you replace contractors? >> we are doing that. >> know, why don't you do that? >> it's just processing. >> when will it be completed?

>> well-deserved -- >> give me a date. two years, five your? >> it's an ongoing effort to ensure? >> to trace somebody. >> i want for the record, mr. harrington, i want the number of cor zarqawi, are currently filled by contractors that i want to know how many people that is for the record. >> might i add for the record, the breakoutny, country if you would come as long as we're going to do it. we might as well do it all right. >> thank you. transit or mr. harrington, do you know how many contractors that are in afghanistan right now? >> sir, 107,000 contract personnel. >> and you have oversight over all of them. you know when they come in and when they go out? >> yes or. >> okay, fine. do we know the number of contracts over $50 million right now? >> sir, we can get the information for you.

>> i understand army doesn't have that so i very much appreciate that information. i have another question for both of you. general phillips, i think it was who said one of the things contractors do is develop statements of war, correct? >> yes, sir. >> i been in a contracting business about 20 years. when i was in any government which was about 15. and sow concluded determine who wins a contract that how you write and sow determined, and very much determine who wins a contract. and so asking contractors to write sow's major putting a tremendous burden on them to absolutely not, and anyway, to a contract in one direction or another. do you track whether any contract that is being, any as a david is being written up by a contractor is likely to be bid on by, not that contractor, but

perhaps another copy in which that contract has a relationship, a subcontracting relationship elsewhere? >> i would answer in this way, with caci providing the up to 75 personnel that we mentioned, by the way, there are only 12 in afghanistan today and there are 40 in iraq, but we have an agreement with caci for the organization conflict of interest to make sure that is addressed. in my time in iraq, i'm not aware of any incident where relationship between caci and another contractor resulted in that contractor getting the award. may also add the requirements generation process that we have in theater and the government of the statement award is where we absolutely need help. our war to fighters, and a brigade to the get the right statement together so we are buying the right supplies and services. that is a conflict of interest, or a conflict that often occurs between the requiring activity, the unit, the war fighters and

contracting. caci in the role of support of that has helped us tremendously to make sure that we are buying right things that we great. we get great benefits. >> i think the problem has to be, is more with the government than with the contractors to very simple reason, that the contractors come if they are told i government boss, to do x., find themselves in an impossible position, then they have to go and the report and that conflict will cause them to contract. it gets very, very sticky so the onus is on the government. it leads me to browse my final round of questions. what is the tenure of -- first of all, is there such a thing as prague ramp management in afghanistan? are the? is there such a thing as a program officers service contract in afghanistan? >> amc through their field

support brigade actually provides some oversight of the probe a management. >> what does some mean, sir? either you do or you don't. >> in army acquisition as a whole, in terms of what we provide for war fighters in iraq and afghanistan, we have numerous program executive officer of program managers that are doing work in iraq and afghanistan. we team very effectively with the army commit and their forward support brigades and sit with them. and we manage that through a synchronized integrated effort with army materiel command and army acquisition working together in support of the war fighters underprice contract specs of the ones forward, how often do they turn over? >> contractor for the team's? >> the program management, the people who are fulfilling the program management function. how often do they turn over? >> it's my understanding under the afc contract, about a year timeframe.

the commanders over there, they turn over under acquisition we have signed many of our senior leaders that start at the colonel level down through majors for a year, some six months. primary a year. >> six months to a year. now in general, would you say that contractor supporting these people are there much longer than six months to a year? might expect when i went out there was clearly that they were, but i'm just asking you. do you think they turn over every year as well speak with sir, depends on the contract but i think your statement is valid that some of them stay much longer. >> if you have an experienced contractor and to have a new person coming in, who is an experienced, isn't it natural they will turn to the express contractor for advice? >> sir, that's a fair statement. let me -- >> my point is that they does, that's what i say the onus is on the government. you're putting contract in an impossible situation. it's not doing them any good and it's not doing the troops any

good because we simply are not getting the kind of oversight we need. my time is up and i will turn to my colleagues to follow up on that. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner zakheim. >> thank you, mr. chairman. things off you being here. i want to start with you, mr. harrington. it was unclear to me from your bio, the answer to this question, but i heard you say before we begin that you've been in your position for about 16 months to come is that by? >> yes, sir that's correct. >> i want to talk a little about the air force peo model for more centralized oversight service contract with which i'm sure you're familiar. and i would presume that you been to with that for some time, at least for 60 much and presumably longer since as i understand that model has been around since 2002, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> my understanding is you say to our staff that you plan to look into that model to see whether at least features out it might be replicated for the army. is that right? you're going to look into its? >> we have begun to look into

it. >> wind of that process began? >> a couple of months ago. we talked with mr. pilon, the first ceo for the services and one of his former staffers on that. we have more work to do on the. >> so 1 14 months in into your tenure even though you've known about it before the 14 months, you have begun to some discussions about a? >> well, sir, we've had discussions also with respect to one group of services contracts in our h.r. commodity that we started discussing. >> i guess the point i'm making, it is a team that's are a begun to emerge, i sent and i gathered my colleagues do too, that there is a lack of urgency it seems to me on the part of the three of you to make further progress. the progress you could make with regard to more centralized oversight of these contracts. to me, your answer to this question really underscores that. now, part of the issue, we have touched on this and i think each of you talked about in your statement, is the lack of

resources, lack of manpower. this is manpower driven to some degree. but also mr. harrington, i understand you have a concept plan that has been submitted to higher authorities that calls for a+ up that would get a plus up for office of 140 positions. with 70 of those being available next year, is that right? >> we want to start hiring next year. all 70 will be filled next year. that is what our intent is. >> and you said you're optimistic that that's going to happen that you get all 140? >> yes, sir. >> how long generally speaking manpower been an issue here? has been a problem for a long time? have there been concerted push us over time to the increase and an ipod that's nesser to make progress on service contracts because as i said in my opening statement, the decline we express has been well over 15 years where we were required to take people out of our acquisition contracting workforce, so we have identified

collectively the army leadership level to restore that. we've had some very good help from congress and department of defense to identify funding resources and expand the training to be able to put people back into our ranks. we've got an awful lot of work going on insurance and entry-level personnel and that our biggest gap that we have experienced over the last 15 years, we took mid-level and senior managers out of the workforce, with incentives to leave. we have experienced that gap in terms of having good senior mentorship over these people that are at entry-level individuals. that's our challenge that is to get the training and experience with these folks so we can grow this capability back. >> thank you, sir. general phillips, to talk you for a minute. in your statement you law the benefits of decentralized contract administration, contract management. the decisions are best made at the field level as you put it in your statement, is that right? >> yes, sir.

>> i would argue that, like your thoughts on this, there is a distinct wind to be gone between contract management and contract oversight. would you agree with that? >> yes, sir. >> and would you say that you value the notion of centralized oversight of contracts, there is some value in d.o.d. as a whole, the army as a whole as the executive agent for d.o.d. and having some oversight with regard to at least major contracts in the war they are? >> sir, yes, sir. and i would answer that, with my expense with the defense contract management agency, both in iraq and over my many years of service in army contracting command they provide us a great valuable service in times of contract oversight. from a holistic strategic point all the way down to the tactical level. >> with that as a predicate then, let me ask you about distinction that as a practical matter is being made, in the treatment of logcap where there

is decentralize, as i understand, program management, program administration at the field level. but centralized oversight here in the united states. in a position that's taken with regard to other sources contacted is there a good reason for the practical distinction? >> i think the armor was very deliberate in how they set up the logcap program management construct under army materiel command with lea thompson leaving the program effort for logcap which goes to where we are today. with vast improvement in how we have managed logcap that i think the army made the right decisions to also centralized but at the same time execute a decentralized strategy for logcap in the theater tied with defense agency, all under the leadership of the thompson coordinating with the right people to make sure we're integrating synchronized. >> and my question is given that model would you applaud, and i do too, shouldn't that say model be applied with regard to other service contracts, that

tremendous fighter dollar answered have tremendous consequences in the field in terms of the warfighter capability get the job done? >> sir, i would just echo what mr. harrington says. we need to look at that and we do that. hope more holistic way and strategically and make sure that we're making the right decisions in coordination with d.o.d. as well. . .

speaking of logcap and our discussion earlier about the business case analysis that's being reviewed by the department with regard to -- whether to transition to logcap iv in iraq, can you tell us what your recommendations -- your respective recommendations are with regard to that issue? >> i have not yet -- the army has not yet come to of the details what it is they are proposing. but i'll tell you how i feel about it in general. in general, unless there is some type of operational reason to do otherwise, we ought to compete whenever we can. end of story. that's the way it ought to be. >> and do you -- just to follow up on that, do you know of any operational reason -- i know that you're not an operational official. but do you know of now any operational reason that would argue against competition? >> i do not. but i'm sure that the army will be coming forward with all the

details. and i'll take a look at it. >> thank you, sir. mr. harrington? >> yes, sir. i absolutely agree with mr. assad's statement regarding we seek competition at every opportunity. my recommendation has been that my bosses that we validate all the rationale for the business case as well as for the operational requirement. there is an operational need raised by the commander in theater. and that's being addressed right now. with respect to the business case. >> you say there is an operational need that's been raised by the commander? >> yes, sir. >> and what's your understanding of what that operational case -- what is that operational case as you understand it? >> as i understand, sir, it's the drawdown and the complexity of the drawdown. >> thank you. >> might i build on what you have, thank you, commissioner. one of the reasons -- or one of the outcomes, one of the benefits of doing a logcap iv is a simple little thing of inventory of equipment.

there's billions of dollars of equipment, billions, that are being -- the decision has to be made, do we send them to afghanistan? do we give them to the government? do we send them back home? do we destroy them? and so on. one of the plus ups even at the reduced price there's a requirement whether the incumbent wins it or whether a competitor wins it of taking an inventory of this equipment. one of the prior -- couple times charlie williams, the director of defense contract management agency said probably his number one shortage in support of the mission there is property administrators. and that rhymes with -- you know, consistent with the dialog here, no one is looking. because of the lack of staffing other than the contractor at whether inventory is being accounted for properly. historically, on those kinds of situations, you hear after the

fact stories about -- in this case, it might be tens of millions of dollars of inventory that's unaccounted for over the years that we lost track of. that's another great benefit. so operational -- again, mr. assad, i look forward to your analysis of that because operationally what they can do in afghanistan while they're building up and fighting a war versus downsizing seemed to have worked quite well for the army. so i think that needs to be challenged. commissioner, do you have anything else? >> no. thank you. >> all right. thank you. commissioner green, please. >> thank you. and i thank the three of you for dealing with some issues that i'm sure many days seem unfixable. i'd like to switch gears just a little bit and talk about a concern that i have that goes to many of the issues that we're discussing today. lack of people. lack of oversight.

training in personnel and so forth. jack gansler said that he felt there was a lack of leadership in the contracting profession. and did some things -- made some recommendations to attempt to fix that. i'm not sure that it is restricted to a lack of leadership or focus or sense of urgency within the contracting community. but may go further than that. we've heard today about shortage of contracting officers. the decrease over the last 15 years. and the simultaneous increase in the number of contracts and the value of contracts. we've been fooling around now in southwest asia for -- pick a year.

seven years more depending on where you want to start. and it seems to me that we're just beginning to get our act together on a lot of these things. we're just beginning to take corps seriously. we're beginning to take training not of just contracting and acquisition personnel. but our operational commanders seriously. we're just beginning to add people. we're beginning to talk about insourcing. and i think all these things are great. i think you would probably all agree that we have never, at least in my memory, and i've been fiddling around in this government in different departments for a long time -- we've probably never seen the emphasis on service contracting like you are seeing today.

and why is that? well, it's to me obvious. we've got a car going on, number one. you got folks like us that continue to pressure you and ask difficult questions. you've got i.g.s. you've got c.i.g.i.r. you've got c.i.g.a.r. these are you're incentives today. my question to you is, what happens when these incentives go away? what happens when the war ends and we're no longer in business. and c.i.g.a.r. and s.i.g.a.r. are no longer in business. how do we change the culture?

how do we institutional they say things that we continue to talk about so that we don't regress into the same situation that we've lived with for years? how do we institutionalize this. >> let me just address it as it relates to the acquisition work both uniformed and civilian. that process has been going on for almost three years. this is not something that we woke up to yesterday. one of the things that the gao made very clear to us early on was that we didn't have a deliberative process to go through and look at our work force. well, we've spent time doing that. we have 127,000 people in that

work force soon to be 147,000. it is a five-year plan. it has been fully supported by the secretary of defense and the deputy secretary and dr. carter as well as the service chiefs. people recognize what it is that we need to do. i can assure you that we have benefited from dr. gansler's commission. this commission. and many of the other oversight committees that continue to look at what we do every day. i don't think that they will all go away. i do think that we will -- we can and should have continuous oversight by commissions and committees as well as the gao. but i want to assure you that we are absolutely committed to this. it is institutionalized. there is no doubt within the department of defense that we are moving forward with significant change.

in not just how we do contracting but our acquisition work force in general. it's going to take some time. but we are making significant improvement. and we are meeting our goals. we met it in '09. we're meeting our hiring goals in '10. we are ever vigilant to ensure that we maintain the quality of the people that we're hiring. dr. carter has been repeatedly emphasizing this to me. it's not just about numbers. but your points are well-taken. but i can assure you that if you look at the leadership development program that the army -- i think has done a very good job of putting into play on how they want to train not just their contractor -- >> what i'm talking about is institutionalizing it. i agree.

osd, the army -- they've done some great things. but when the incentive goes away, i've seen it happen time and time again. general harrington is not going to get those people that he so desperately needs. >> well, i can assure you that the pb23s -- our four-year plan for our acquisition work force is in place. that's institutionalized. and now it does take -- you're absolutely right. year to year, continued reinforcement and continued leadership to ensure that we, in fact, carry through -- >> why has taken -- why has it taken years to finally get to the point that we're paying attention to corps and corps training? >> i think that in the case of corps, again, i think it's a

recognition of the importance of executing our proper oversight function. >> it's taken seven years to do that. >> you know, it's a question of resources and bringing it do bear. when you get the vice chief of staff of the army coming forward and saying, you will, in fact, have trained cors, that's a very powerful message. >> i agree. but it's taken us years to get to that point? >> i agree it took us some time to get there. but, you know, i'm looking forward and moving forward. i agree with you that we had shortcomings in the past. but i think that there's been a significant recognition of those shortcomings. >> general phillips, general harrington, any quick comment on how we institutionalize this? >> sir, just a couple of comments. i absolutely agree with mr. assad and all that he has said. our army, i think, has done extraordinary work in the last couple of years to bring on the right kind of work force. we're not there yet.

still have a lot of work to do. it's important we institutionalized the lessons learned. and i'll refer to a meeting that i had with the operational commander in iraq on the 16th of february, '09 where i outlined 10 things that i wanted to achieve during my year in iraq. he said there's one thing that's missing in your top 10 that i added at the bottom as a banner. he said i want you to work hard on applying in lessons learned in kuwait and afghanistan. and the first thing we started working on was contracting officer representatives because it was literally broken. and general dunwoody from army of material command and mr. pops as the army acquisition executive met me in bagram afghanistan on the 28th of february and we outlined a strategy to start to work on this. it's taken some time. but we have the execution order issued on the 2nd of december. sir, that's just one example of how we need to go after fixing it. there are many more. we have the center for army lessons learned that is working right beside my acquisition

logistics and technology teams capturing lessons learned coming out of kuwait, iraq, and now afghanistan. we have to apply them. because we owe that to you. we owe it to congress. and we owe it to the american people. >> ed, my time is up. but unless you've got a real nugget -- >> sir, i'll pass, sir. and just agree with the two gentlemen to my right very strongly. it's a matter of leadership emphasis at every level. >> thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner tiefer, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i just want to comment in light of the extensive attention that you gave this issue that logcap iv is competition for iraq-based level services may be stopped, i want to -- i want to mention that i respect your long-standing leadership, hard-won expertise on the problem of logcap iii and its

virtual soul sourcing in the back decade. just when there was loan will government officials trying to do something about logcap iii. there were a number of others besides you. but you were one of them. all right. as competition -- you're a competition advocate, yes? >> yes. >> you carried out president obama's call in march 2009 for more competition. and your own 2009 competition report speaks of, quote, increased efforts to scrutinize high value sole source procruelties. -- procurements. 99% competitive. and i hear off in the room there's an 800-pound gorilla.

how do you manage with this single award logcap iii contract which went to $30 billion to reach these high figures? and to reach up to task order 161 on that contract? am i right that you were viewing in what you call competitive logcap iii, although there hasn't been a contract on logcap iii since before 9/11? >> sir, i'm not sure of your question. could you -- could you help me -- >> are you counting logcap iii as when you say that 97 and 98% of your competition is competitive? are you counting logcap iii as part of your figures? >> yes, sir. >> okay. now, following up, mr. harrington, we've heard about the fact that we were invited -- >> would the gentleman yield just a section just to clarify this. -- just a second. you're counting it as one and not in terms of the dollar amounts. you can't be counting it in terms of the dollar amounts?

>> the 97% dollar figure, mr. shays, is the contracting being done by the joint contracting command in iraq. it wouldn't include logcap? >> it's for contract actions for the count? >> contract what? >> actions. >> you're taking each contract separately -- >> and sir, i would also add -- if i could just add this, the dollars are about the same as well. so we did -- over 30,000 actions last year in iraq and afghanistan. >> i can reclaim my time. i honor you in jccia. logcap is logcap. is it counted as -- >> i see -- >> it's counted -- >> the army as a whole competed in dollars. it's counted as competitive. yeah, it's not part of jcc-i/a.

did you attend the briefing that we were initially invited to? i'm not asking you turnpike about the content. just whether you were invited to it. >> yes. >> okay. anyone else on the panel who attended it? >> no, sir. >> okay. now, chairman thibault said the thrust of the analysis he'd heard from the person who gave the briefing, who is unnamed, was for not competing iraq-based level services on logcap iv. do you want to warn me that we're on a false trail or -- you're not telling me that's wrong, are you? >> sir, what i can tell you right now, sir, that in holistic terms is being addressed by the army leadership. >> well, i want to you warn me if i'm wrong, if that wasn't the thrust of the briefing, i don't want to be wasting my time and the commission's time on this. do you want to warn me on that? are we wrong? >> that the thrust of the

briefing was that it would not be exceeded? >> yes. -- competed. >> yes. >> that was one of the topics that was discussed. >> to go to the issue of conflicts of issue which is very important to us on service contracts. mr. assad, let's talk about procurement support contractors and conflicts of interest. this is a big subject for my class in government contracting at the university of baltimore law school so i'm glad we get a chance to discuss it here. you implemented the key congressional provision on this. and i want to ask, was there -- why -- why was there concern by congress in the 2009 defense authorization act when it passed that provision by the gao when its key report led up to that provision, by the arms services committees when they looked at the situation and framed that

provision about procurement support companies like caci in regard to conflicts of interest? why were they worried about that? >> well, i think it goes beyond procurement -- >> was it the focus of the conflict of interest -- >> no. the focus is much broader. >> well, let me ask you, doesn't it use the phrase closely associated with inherently governmental actors? >> no. >> and isn't a key part who's closely associated with inherently governmental with caci. >> but -- >> i'm sure. -- i'm sure there are others. are they covered in the provision increased in the iraq and afghanistan situation where you have a culture of corruption. a culture which takes conflicts of interest for granted in procurement officers to put it mildly. and where the -- where the supervising acquisition officers

are stretched to the limit, rapidly turned over. is it more worrisome situation in theater? >> well, let me go on record. there is no culture of corruption within the joint contracting command. there is no culture of -- >> i did not say that. my question was iraq and afghanistan meaning the local cultures -- the cases that are prosecuted, kickback cases and so forth are because of a local culture. i'm not saying anything about the commands. you want to tell me there is no local culture of corruption -- >> when we find cases of corruption, we're going to pursue them. and we will take every action that we can against anyone that we find related with relationships. >> okay. if i can reclaim my time because apparently i'm not going to get an answer. >> i'm making a point -- in this particular case, caci, in

general do an outstanding job in doing what they do. >> that's not my question. i have -- this is not a trick question. i just filled out my annual financial disclosure form. lots of federal officials do so. a detailed disclosure form. it's a nuisance for me. i just -- i assume both the civilian senior officials like i did, like all the commissioners did filled -- just filled out a financial disclosure form. i'm not trying to catch you out. is that mr. harrington? is that right mr. assad? the current rules do not require a detailed financial disclosure form like the standard federal disclosure form to be filled out by contractors like caci. am i right? i know they have -- their own thing. i'm asking about that particular detailed disclosure list? >> let me say the commission on contracting integrity -- the panel on contracting integrity has recommended and, in fact, we

are putting into play a requirement for all contractors to identify personal conflicts of interesting self-published books. -- >> do they have a requirement to make a detailed financial disclosure statement like the one i filled out, mr. harrington filled out, you filled out. a statement not a certification. is there such a requirement for caci now? >> in the past there was not. as we go forward, there will be. >> my time has expired. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner henke police. -- please. >> i think all the members on the panel would agree if you issue a directive the contractors always salute smartly. this is not a contractor problem. this is a government problem. will anybody disagree with me on that? >> no. i agree, commissioner. and i can tell you we're in process and i'll be happy to share with the commission the

details of the panel on contracting integrity findings and what we're doing to address this very important issue. >> thank you. and we'll take you up on that. i appreciate it. >> i agree also, sir. >> all right. commissioner henke, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to take a case study, if i could on a particular recent contract. and before i do that, i'll just set this up this way. it seems to me that the crux of the matter here is that the army believes it has a fully sufficient vibrant way of overseeing services contracts. and that there would be not much opportunity to improve that. would that be fair? that you have a sufficient mechanism to oversee services contracts? >> sir, we believe our system is adequate. that we have in place now. however, i agree with you that we should take an opportunity to look at how other services might do, their services contracts.

and where we can take advantage of that or maybe do something a little bit different. we should always be a learning organization. >> right. >> and do things better. >> that's a spare point. here it is, i think, in a nutshell. would you be hard-pressed to find three or four or five more important, more critical, more visible services contracts in the army. just a brief yes or no? would the effort to train afghan national police, it's a presidential priority, it's a national priority. the sooner we stand up a sufficient security force in afghanistan the sooner we can stand down? >> sir, critically important to the war-fighter and to our nation, i agree. >> what does a command in afghanistan -- you know, the general with transition security

afghanistan, mr. harrington you and i others traveled there in december and other places. a brief question, who provides contracting support for general caldwell? >> sir, part -- i'll answer the first and refer to mr. harrington. part of that is through joint command in iraq and afghanistan. there's an office in kabul. now i think it's over 30 people. when i was there it was about 25. they provide some of the basic services and support. they did $1.2 billion last year. there's other services backing continental u.s., rock island that do some other services. >> the nut i want to get at is -- we met with the rcc folks in afghanistan. i think they're fantastic and doing great work. i'm amazed -- you can put together an organization that can do a billion dollars of contracting fairly quickly like that. what i'm getting at is for the larger contracts general caldwell goes states side loyalty.

-- a lot. and he goes in new jersey, i think the rde recom. he finds convenient contracting commands to cut task orders for him. the question on this afghan national police effort -- it was a state contract. dod wanted to take it in house so they would have the mission, the money and the contract. is that it in a nutshell. >> yes. >> when we were there -- people asked are you dissatisfied with the current contract. you are tear it apart from an oversight or an contract administration standpoint as the i.g.s have. but for contract performance, the customer was generally satisfied.

so my question is, how does general caldwell decide to take this contract and bring it to a navy office in virginia, counter-narco terrorism program office and have them serve a program management function and wind up with an acquisition strategy that has the army space and missile defense command in alabama working a contract action for him? can you comment on that? >> sir, i'll take part of that and then i'll refer to mr. harrington to answer the specifics of the contract going to other organizations. but at cstc-a under general caldwell we have a team that supports. i just mentioned kabul. they have extraordinary work, i agree. we assigned one of our colonels who sits as a part of general caldwell's staff who helps him articulate the strategy, the acquisition strategy for the

billions of dollars that he has to execute this year. and i think -- don't hold me to the numbers but i think it's somewhere around $8 billion. so rcc kabul 1.2, $1.5 billion i think this year. others will be done by other organizations. so we have people inside his organization that are helping developing the acquisition strategy. ed? >> with respect to the space and missile defense command, sir, that requirement came to the contracting officer there from the counter-narco terrorism office and it was part of those two offices to expedite an action because of the expanding requirements for afghan police training as i understand it. that was the rationale for how that ended up at smdc. >> this contract was -- i've seen reports of it just under a billion and a billion six. it's a big contract. it trips all the bells, right, mr. assad. this is a category 1 services contract -- >> that he can. -- that's correct.

>> so the long and short of what happened was, shortly after we were there in december, the incumbent protested the action in december. and in march gao said, foul. they didn't say, well, it was close. it was a 51/49. it was a clear case this thing is afoul. it's out of scope. the navy office, the smdc office are set aside. so my question to you is this, if this thing went through all the oversight mechanisms you have. it went through your peer-review process. it went through your process, mr. harrington, my question is, what broke? on something this important, what broke? >> commissioner harrington, can i -- or harrington, henke, i want one clarification, though, mr. assad. 'cause you and i had a discussion -- >> yeah, i was going to talk about it. >> and you didn't know anything about it. so you went with the assumption it went through his tropical line? -- trap line?

>> let me give you a little bit of the background. what happened was -- i actually received a call from mr. thibault who had asked me had i -- had i heard about this particular procurement yet? and the concerns that the commissioned. i told him i hadn't but that i would look into it. we, in fact, did have -- >> you heard about the contract action from us? >> yes. well, it was only -- it was early on in the process. it had not yet been decided exactly who was going to attract and what the army's plan was. the army was -- we did, in fact, have a peer review. i had my senior ses who does peer reviews is intimately involved in it. and there was a legitimate question as to whether or not this was the appropriate mechanism to use. >> uh-huh. >> osd, frankly, did not necessarily concur with the army's view. >> were you concerned about scope? >> yeah. we were concerned about whether the scope and whether it should be full and open competition. or did, in fact -- this scope of

work exist under the current contract? there was an honest disagreement amongst several very respected people as to whether or not this was the appropriate way to go. at the end of the day, the army felt that the position that they had taken was a reasoned one. they had a reasonable justification for it. we didn't -- we did not concur necessarily. >> uh-huh. >> but at the -- but the army was the executive agent. and we deferred to them. it turned out that the gao -- when they, in fact -- there was a protest, it turned out the gao kind of saw it the way we thought it might go. so i don't want you to think that there was -- there was a, quote-unquote, it was broken. there was an honest disagreement of opinion. the army felt that what it was doing. and it had a number -- of people whom i very much respect thought they were doing the right thing.

i can assure you that the process that we're now presenting is full and open competition. >> but you made a judgment call that let the army proceed with it. >> well, we don't -- we can't -- it's not a question of us allowing them to proceed. you know, we make a recommendation. we give them our view. but they're the executive agent. they need to make -- >> so it's not binding on the army? >> no. but i will tell you that what has come up -- >> could you have told the army not to proceed? do you have that authority? >> not really. but i will tell you -- >> let me interrupt here just for clarification. and i think the world of your organization in terms of trying to provide some order. in this whole process and some direction. you provide the regulation, the interpretation of the regulations and in large dollar cases the professional advice founded on decades of history in

this area to the services. and in this very important case, the advice you said and the regulations tipped on the side of full and open competition. and you have to turn to the army that said, well, thanks, no thanks. we've got a better case. and you're being very professional by saying there was an honest difference of opinion. i'm not disputing that. but they basically saw no need to follow your guidance. commissioner, do you want to -- >> go ahead. >> yeah. sort of along the same lines. i'd like to know whether, you know, when there's a disagreement between osd and osd has the policy oversight, you're the ones who are meant to be politically sensitive? you mr. assad are terrific at that. the army is going down a route that you felt is going to get the department in trouble. did this issue go further up to dr. carter?

did it go further up to mr. lynn? don't you think it should have -- i'm puzzled here. >> i don't think it's a question of getting them in trouble. i think it was -- you know, the general counsel weighed in. i think there were a lot of folks who looked at this and said, no, the army's approaches are reasonable. you know, there is support for it. i will tell you what we have learned as a result. and we are learning in this peer-review process, now we've done about 65 or 70 of these. in the four cases where the teams have not followed what the peer review organizations have recommended to them, they've, in fact, been protested and we lost all four. so i think where we're headed -- and we were going to discuss this at the procurement conference in another couple of weeks is to get the ses community together to basically say -- the peer recommendations are no longer recommendations. ist go ahead and implement them. because we do have a lot of very seasoned professionals looking

at this stuff. and it turned out in this particular case the view was probably the right course of action. but it was a tough call. >> mr. assad, have you had four that have been over a billion dollars? where there's been a disagreement or are these all lower level? >> no. there have been four -- not a disagreement. >> your office does a million above, right? >> yeah. not a disagreement. it was we go through a very detailed peer-review process. >> right. >> and it was a case where we found of things that we recommended needed to be done. in fact, they weren't quite instituted the way we recommended of it. at the end of the day those matters were protested and at the end of the day we lost. so it goes to show that this process is working. what we need to do is make it more determinative. and more proscriptive. >> more binding? >> yes. thanks, bob. >> i really do respect your judgment tremendously. and you've just proved it again. you had misgivings about this

and you turned out to be right. so if that's the case, why can't mr. -- dr. carter say right now when there is this kind of disagreement, it's going to go up to his level. and that way osd will have the final word? my concern is that you seem to have been 4 for 4. each time you let it go by, each time you had misgivings and each time you were right. and the protest was upheld. and that doesn't have to be a dod instruction or something that has to take forever. it can be done immediately. why can't that be done? i really respect your views. and i have tremendous respect for mr. -- dr. carter? >> i think you can count on it that it will get done. i think the way we have done these things is to bring the entire community together of senior leaders. all the ses and general officers together. make sure that we have a complete alignment. if someone has a particular view that needs to be heard, we hear

it. but pretty much in the middle of may, i think you'll see that policy come up. >> mr. chairman, can i have two or three -- >> no. is it on this topic because i have a question on this topic. >> yes, yes. >> and the only thing i can add you can finish up and take as long as you want. i can use this in my second round so you've saved me some time. >> you're welcome. >> but under the strategy that was recommended in spite of your inputs, there was this contracting that certainly renowned for international police training, not there were three very large contractors that are great contractors, suppliers, lockheed martin, northrop grummond and raytheon. so by the time they would have sorted through this, technically, there was one that could put it together. the others could have worked with subcontractors or black

water themselves or xe. now the sensitivity is there is a number including the incumbent that were excluded through the strategy. so you very rightfully said this is wrong. and it wasn't significant enough. go ahead. >> well, i think, chairman thibault, the fact is that we're taking a very hard look at a number of these delivery auto type contracts where we have just a limited number of competitors. the answer is that, you know, we've -- unless there's a very unique expertise, we need to open up the marketplace to as many contractors as we possibly can. >> i agree. i agree. >> commissioner, i'm sorry. >> mr. assad, i'm very interested to learn you have done four peer reviews that have been differences of opinion, passed back and in each case the

peer reviews worked. what i meant when i said when it broke i meant there's the command in afghanistan that doesn't have the contract yet. that's all. that they don't have the requirement filled. so your team looked at it, passed it back to the army -- we don't think this is going to work. but good luck, guys. back to the army. so then take me inside the army's analysis or views of this, mr. harrington or general phillips. you may not have been there yet. >> senator, it came down to, you know, an evaluation of what the requirement was against what was available for services on the contract. and the army felt that there was a nexus between the counter-narco terrorism program focus on terrorism on border control and for afghan national police and since the counter-narco terrorism drug an addiction -- those types of activities was found to be the

primary reason for shutting off funding going to the taliban. their primary source for funding. that was the nexus. >> because it was an existing contract -- in other words, an idau contract. was speed sought by the army? >> yes. because of the mandate to raise the amount of training, you know, increase the training requirements. >> and you must have evaluated as an acquisition strategy full and open or limited competition. and discounted them because it would have taken too long. is that accurate? >> no, sir, it's not. it went from the counter-narco terrorism program office to the space and missile defense contracting office, you know, with request, you know, can you do this as expeditiously as you can within the scope of the contract you have. >> you didn't evaluate phone open as an option or limited competition as an option? >> mr. henke, if i could just add, what the army caci and

said, hey, we believe we're right in utilizing the delivery auto contract and we will deliver that in the near term and we will conduct a full and open competition over the long term. so that was the solution the army caci to the department with. >> okay. >> nothing further. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner shays, please. >> thank you. i really like going last because i really i really appreciate the questions from my colleagues. i think there's tremendous irony in what we're doing here. the army has terrific people. and i just want to say to you, shay assad and to lieutenant general phillips and to mr. harrington, you get a 10 from me in terms of quality, thoughtfulness, cooperation with the commission and so on.

now, having said that about the people in the military, the bureaucracy of the army is scary. and what we're wrestling with is the fact that we could come and go and we're not sure that the change will take place. you could come and go. and we're not sure the change will be institutionalized. that's what's scary. and there are a few things -- and the other part is, given my respect for all of you, then i want to ask questions that may not sound as friendly. i think it's absurd to call logcap 3 a competitive grant. logcap iii, we had 1, ii, iii. when it was bid out, the contractor thought they would get hundreds of millions of dollars of business.

they're getting $35 billion of business. do you think if we bid that out and all the other contractors were going to get $35 billion of business do you think it's possible maybe it would have been a little more competitive? and i think the answer is yes. hugely. so the first thing i'm putting on the table is, i don't buy that it is a competitive grant. i do buy that logcap iv can be because now people know how lucrative it can be and now we have iii so we can have the three compete with each other. what do you disagree with what i just said? mr. harrington? >> sir, i'd just comment logcap iv was conceived in the 2006 time frame recognizing that logcap iii was growing regularly with the war effort. >> but isn't that just emphasize the bureaucracy, 2006, you said? >> yes, sir. >> and it's 2010 now? >> well, sir logcap iv was

awarded in 2007. >> i know but it was conceived way back. and it's taken so long. and the reason is is the commanders on the field like what they got. but they don't have to worry about cost. they don't have a concept of opportunity cost. and you end up with the absurdity of our last hearing where we have a contractor who is basically providing services, maintenance services at 15 -- excuse me, 7 to 10 to 15% capacity utilization, average 10%. and, frankly, our government witnesses weren't all that troubled because the bureaucracy liked what they were doing. but hugely wasteful. i mean, our job, your job and our job it seems to me is how do we get these absurd cost which is people think it was only a few hundred million and now it's tens of billions -- how do do you get people to think you're not going to make the money you

used to make? and part of the way we convince them, it seems to me, is with our contracting officers -- the five-year talent that it takes to become a contract officer. and then the people on the ground -- the contracting officer representative -- when my colleague here rightfully points out it takes two weeks to train them. and we know that's minimal training. but so maybe you could answer this second question that may seem a little unfriendly. how can someone tell us -- how can any of you tell us we're at 90% capacity for cors, contracting officer representatives -- how do you arrive at that figure we're at 90% to start with? >> we actually count the number of contracting representatives that we think we need to have on the ground. dcma give us a weekly report --

it's their professional opinion how many cors are needed -- >> so we're at 90% capacity. >> we're about 90% staffing. and 91% in iraq and 92% in afghanistan. >> let me go back to mr. zakheim's -- dov zakheim's question. and i think of him as he's asking this question, he's a former comptroller of dod. why should we not be at 100% since it only takes two weeks? and the reason is, even if they aren't well trained, they're still our eyes and ears on the ground. they're still able -- and without eyes and ears on the ground, you've got contractors potentially running amuck 'cause you don't have anybody watching them. so why shouldn't we be at 100%? why isn't that the easiest part of your job? and let me give you time to think about -- given my concern about the bureaucracy, if we can't even do that, why should i feel comfortable that we're going to do all the other heavy

lifting that you, number ten in talent and capability and integrity, are trying to do? >> sir, i'll take on a part of that and then refer to others. i think your opening statement is incredibly important. we have to institutionalize the way that we do things. 33% a year ago in cors unacceptable. 91% and 92% today iraq, afghanistan, that's getting closer to the goal of 100%. if we don't institutionalize this within our processes, then we'll never get to the end state. and we've made tremendous progress over the last year, sir. but still quite a ways to go. for jcc-i/a -- for the year i was in command, sir we did not issue a contract unless we had a contracting officer representative that was trained, had a certificate and was assigned to the contract. so i think we took some great

opportunities internal to the army to focus on cors, to begin the work to begin the work to institutionalize it. >> with all due respect, general -- and i like the fact that you're a 3-star because that says the military is starting to get the importance of your work. it's nice you're not a colonel. it's not you're not a 1-star. it's nice you're not a 2-star. it says something. that's a start. but it doesn't answer the question. why shouldn't we have 100% cors right away given it's a two-week training period? and they're already -- and candidly we may say the cors is a flawed system but it's the only system we've got 'cause they have other responsibilities. so it's not like you don't have people in theater that you couldn't assign to it. >> sir, one comment and then again i'll refer to my teammates on the panel. with dcma, where the gap exist,

i just want to assure you and the team that there aren't contractors operating over there that do not have some level of oversight. if that's not through a cor then the contracting officer will take the appropriate action to make sure with their fiduciary responsibility to congress and the taxpayer that they're looking at those contracts. to get to 100% obviously takes time. and it also education of war fighters because at the incident of the day it's war fighters and sergeants and captains and lieutenants that are going to be the cors that are providing the oversight to both dcm and -- >> can i have somebody assad or -- >> i think there are two issues here. this is a dynamic process. every day we're getting more contracts put into play. we have cors on the ground who get transferred, moved to other places.

so there's a sense that getting 100% -- i'm not sure we can get to. but your point, mr. commissioner, is absolutely right on target. the fact is, is that this work needs to be done by folks who are trained and who are competent and we need to have enough of them. it's about leadership. and i mentioned general carelli before. the fact of the matter is that his guidance -- there was a direct relationship between the increase in the number of cors and the direct involvement that he got into in terms of insisting that it happened. and so it's going to take that sustained leadership. and now it is part of every operating army unit to ensure that they have trained cors going in. so i suspect we're going to have a participation in cors where we're well over 90% -- not well over, 91, 92% in iraq and

afghanistan right now. and i suspect that will get a little higher and it will stay at that rate. >> sir, if i could just add one other comment. >> sure. >> quickly. on the 5th of december when the xr was assigned by the army. within a week i spoke to two division commanders how we get cors trained. so my message on that is that we have got the attention of war fighters. that cors are important. we need to identify probably around 80 cors per brigade so we can get to that 100% that you described, sir. >> a quick question, please. >> please. >> general, since we know some contractors are functioning as cors or mr. assad, if i deducted the number of contractors as cors. what's the percentage, 80, 70? >> no, i think those 90% numbers

are, in fact, government folks doing cors. the principal area where i'm aware of where we have folks doing contract oversight are in what we call our task force safe and that's really electrical competence in overseeing electrical work being done in iraq and afghanistan. we found that we just couldn't get enough trained folks within either dcma or at the corps of engineers to sufficiently support that. so we have, in fact, contracted for an outside organization to provide us capable and competent master electricians to assist in the oversight. that's the place where i'm aware of where we have contractors doing oversight. >> i'll just conclude by saying, what we know the moment we joined this commission was we were looking at the billions of dollars of cost of contractors.

and was it being spent effectively? and the answer was no. and you all know that and you're trying to change that. but we're really looking at something else. and that's the issue of george washington's times, one contractor, 10 military give or take. now one for one. the contractors are an intrical part of our war-effort. they are not being integrated. they are not part of the qdr. they are not part of the qddr in the state yet. we're seeing where they thought they might be. until they are part of that in my judgment -- everything we're doing is a hope and a prayer. not everything. a lot. thank you. >> thank you, mr. cochair. we're going to do a second round with -- i'm smiling, shorter times allotted. we'll see how we do. i bet i'll do better unless we get going.

[inaudible] >> thank you, thank you. i want to open with a statement again of appreciation for y'all to come up here and have this dialog. without this dialog we can sharpen our skills and hopefully you can sharpen yourself. i spent 35 years with the department of defense. the best professional year was spent as a 18-year-old pfc -- i got promoted after that so it wasn't the end of my three-year career. but it's something that i look back on with absolute respect for the people that i worked for in the united states military specifically the army. and it's just real important to say it because i feel the same way about what now i can call those kids that are over in theater that are serving our country. it's with great pride that i say that. mr. assad, i want to make you an invitation. i do it a little tongue and

cheek since they didn't invite you ahead of time and since you've done some yeoman work on this bca briefing. they initially promised us the model, you know, by the numbers people how to model worked. and we're going back and saying that's great. we're interested in the model. but we want to know the outputs and the decisions and who were involved in all that. there are no secrets on this commission ultimately. and i would love -- i say it a little tongue and cheek have your organization that's so critical as an advisory role. maybe we can do two for one and listen to the same people. i put that out there. >> i can assure you that we can have a discussion about that. and what role we could play. >> great. >> but we're going to look at it under any condition. >> well, thank you, mr. assad. and i know commissioner zakheim is in tune with this. i'm feeling a bit like a historian as i'm talking, general harrington. you talked now -- and i think my numbers are right.

kind of unemployment if i'm off by a couple. you have 140 that you want to hire in 70 that have been targeted. and you've begun the hiring process. now, that's so critical. and you've said it's critical. and i want to go back to history because this isn't something that's just on the cusp. and that's part of why we're talking about it. maybe on the cusp for you. but in a long time ago in the early '90s, the dcaa, where i was the deputy went from 7300 to the mid-3,000s under the direction of bill reed, who i was his deputy. it's interesting because the same things we're talking about today, we talked about back then. there were people in the department of defense -- one of of them by the name of jack

gansler you don't need department of defense employees, how don't you hire firms. and dcaa does form 1s and multiple representation of contracting officers so we worked it out where they wouldn't have to do that. and lo and behold -- and the qualifications they'd have to have which were directly next to the training that the dcaa had. zero firms bid on that and so we've said thank you we've gone through that exercise. those are the challenges that have been out there. lastly, i really respect the fact, general phillips, and your predecessors and those behind, realized you had a very significant job to do and you didn't have the staff to do it. the balancing act then became we hired a contractor to get that work done. and we're going to talk a little bit about the firewalls and the controls and the things like that with the next panel. but without it, your risk would have been much greater. with it we're asking questions

about, are there proper firewalls -- you know, appropriate questions. so, you know, that's kind of like, excuse me, you're damned if you don't and damned if you do. and i kind of made the analogy, mr. assad, you laid out all the stepping stones but you've got to have the people to follow that. and some of the people said why did it take so long and we can execute and we can argue why it take a look so long and that's frustrating. thank you. commissioner schinasi? >> thank you. i want to broaden the problem a little bit because i think if we don't define the problem appropriately, we're not going to hit all the solutions. just by sharing some of the stories that we're hearing coming back particularly from afghanistan. the flip side of the continuity

of a contractor work force is that the contractor work force often also knows what they can get away with not doing. and we are hearing increasing stories about contractors pushing parts of their jobs that they don't want to do onto the military. coming into theater, you know, setting up pretty good accommodations for themselves. and then pushing off what they don't want to do to the military. the problem here is that the military -- they're working with doesn't understand -- doesn't understand the general parameters of how do they manage this contract? ....

>> that's our fiduciary responsibility back into make sure the contractors are delivering. if they do not deliver we wrote a number of cure notices and other activities, therefore targeting contractors that may not be performing to make sure that they were meeting the terms and conditions of the contract. every day we worked hard to make sure that they were held accountable. >> well, it's still going on. that's what only point.

you know, it raises a question of at what point if we cannot manage the contractors should we not be using contractors. so i will just put that out on the table. but i'd like to just go through a list of, again, to try to help you make a case as to wipe more resources are needed here. a dollar wasted is a dollar that's not available to meet more fighter needs. have we seen waste and i'm just going to go through each of you, mr. assad? if you don't -- i will let you. >> known to. i think general phillips will second this but i'm not aware frankly if there's anybody who was apparitions in his pursuit of not using contracts. i think in general, now i'm talking about doing contracted by a joint contracting command-iraq. >> i'd like to talk about service. >> the use of contract, we

manage very, very closely the use of contract. .com have expanded the definition of that to include all instruments that are not, don't have the specific terms of price it. we look at everything. not just what traditionally the dfars would call a contract that would also examine not just our u.s. work but all of our work now. there's been a significant improvement in terms of the use of instruments, but, frankly, if we can avoid them, across the board whenever we can, we want to do that. that's the policy of the department. >> i think it made my point there is waste often in under the guise letter contract. >> there's no doubt. that is not a tool that we want to use. specs are having a workforce, not just a workforce that is

smart enough not to have to do that puts us in better shape. >> absolutely. >> how about extensive contract modifications without competition? we've also seen those. is that something we could, turn the question around, if you don't want to talk about ways. is a something we could recover value from? >> i think the issue that comes out, want to have a contract to perform work, it's very difficult while he is in the middle of actually doing the task to try and hold him. that's a challenge. when we can, in fact, separately identify work under a multiple order to defend the ties the contract we want to compete. >> images going to let you, general phillips, and you mr. harrington, they get a yes or no answer if you could. >> i completely agree with mr. assad. even task orders that were under installation security services,

twist contracts, we would have i believe as i recall up to five contractors that were on the task orders. we would compete them for various fobs throughout iraq. and doing the same in afghanistan today. so competition inside a task order, it is very important. i don't recall many uta is that there may have been a handful of the 30,000 plus contracts we did last year, but if they were there were few and far between. spectacle everything that's been said that it just comes down to our ability to what we see and manage the occurrence of undefinitized actions. absolutely agree with a focus on that. we've got to fix that overtime. >> how about contract closeouts that have like four years, is their association with those? >> yes, ma'am. >> general phillips, my time is short so yes? >> yes, ma'am. we found over 90 -- >> thank you.

mr. assad? >> thank you. >> the last one will be the ability to monitor contract performance and provide input. if we can't do that, is there a sense of wasting money by paying contractors what they haven't earned, mr. assad? >> yes, but our answer to that is frankly to eliminate award we contracts when we can. >> general phillips? >> yes, ma'am. i would also say when he got a very disciplined process in place. we do use toward the contracts. >> mr. harrington? >> absolutely essential. >> one last question for you, mr. saw. my time is up so i will ask you to be short as well. i have read through a number of the peer reviews, and i think it's pretty clear that there are some service contracts that are being done in iraq and afghanistan that look pretty good and that you've identified for best practices. do you have any visibility into the peer review is that the services are doing? and what is your assessment of

whether or not the services, the military departments are doing as good a job as a your office is? >> we have not yet started our peer review of the peer reviews. so in general sense, we have let that part of the services, but i can tell you as the changes coming about with regard to peer review findings over a billion dollars, we're going to set and play a quarter review of to reduce so we can get a sample of what's going on. >> i would hope you some kind of hammer associate with that too at the the, joubert from the commissioners before, persuasion is nice and it's good that people want to listen. but that's the task we're taking and here we are eight years in. only getting started on solving some of these problems. thank you. >> can i offer just one comment, please? we sought help at every opportunity we could on some of our more challenging contracts. and i will use theater wide in afghanistan. and we did ap review.

initially we were sure we want to do that but we did ap review, internal to jcc-i/a taking the contract from afghanistan with my staff. we just mr. harrington, used isn't the right word, we had his talent look at it as well. and i believe we used some of the mr. assad talent to look at that contract when we got in place so so good in my view that it was that all protest that we had a chance that contract. so i'm a big believer in peer reviews. and using the review process where it has great advantages. >> thank you, general. thank you commission that i want to put on record here before we ask commissioner zakheim two. , that general harrington, you were asked how many contractors are there. and i guess pun intended you were spot on with afghanistan with 107,000. but there are, according to our,

in addition to the 107, there aren't 100 in iraq. so the total number and i think it's important for the record is in those parts of theater, there are, based on the system you have, which is the best system out there, there are 207,000, approximately, contractors that are supporting the military. >> yes, sir. >> just for the record. >> as a 31 march we counted 95,461 contractors in iraq and 170,292 in afghanistan. >> that's pretty much ours. commission, please. >> thank you. mr. assad, i just want to have you with the for the record you are committed by mid-may, as i heard you say this, to ensure higher level os the review of contracts over a billion dollars? >> yes. what -- >> basically to change the system and ensure what happened with those were contracts to the best of the billy will not happen again? >> that's correct.

>> thank you. there's been a lot talk about resources that i was involved a little bit and resource allocation, not all that long ago. mr. assad, if you were approached by the army to support them in their quest for additional resources to fund more billets to the acquisition and workforce, would you support that? >> yes. >> okay. have you ever been approached for that during the budget process of? >> yes, during the last round. >> okay. and where these billets funded in a baseline budget or besides because i think they were funded in the baseline. >> now, i kept hearing from the army that they need more and more resources. so have a approach you for even more? >> no. >> they have not, they never did. okay. what normally happens, i don't want to give a comptroller 101

course, but i think general phillips and mr. harrington, you have both been around long enough to know if you don't to give as much as you want, the first thing you do is you go to osd. you have a very powerful undersecretary, and safe look, we need more billets. and we need more money, help us. why didn't you do that? >> sir, part of the reason is, and by the way, we have an ongoing dialogue with mr. us on an dr. carter. they give us tremendous support. so that, having an up front statement. we have within the base budget as i described earlier the funding in place and across the pond through 2015 for the 1885 -- >> i understand it, jenna, but you have been asked by some of my colleagues here why it you didn't accelerated. so my question is, you've got about i think roughly 700 that you added on. why didn't you, you know, the out years are out years. they are blue sky. we know that. why didn't you ask for more

money for more billets in this fiscal year? >> sir, we will be -- part of it's just not future. why didn't you ask? >> part of it is funny and the current budget we have, i believe we'll be glad to go talk to mr. assad and dr. carter. as a result of this session we will go back and have that dialogue. >> fair enough. can you give me an exploration why did you ask more for the fiscal 11 budget? >> we have. the present budget funding -- >> but not enough. you both of said not enough. why didn't you ask for more? why didn't she go to bob hill and as for more? anytime a four star wants something, i get phone calls. why didn't that happen? >> sir, i would answer that in this way. the army document a need for 1885 contracting acquisition positions come of which the majority of those are contracting. as we work our concept plans as

mr. harrington just described, we will come forward to osd and to congress and ask for the funding to support that. >> i would just be for the record that i find that not entirely satisfactory answer, sir, because to say as you will, as we will, you can do it. it's been done on every year, and if you would need these people and we're not talking about billions of dollars to fund these billets, you can go this year and put it in your current pond for every single one of those outstanding, whatever it is, thousand bills. that's just what i want to make. let me ask you, mr. assad. the qdr, how much specific chapter in the qdr about service contracting? >> no, there hasn't. >> was there a full page in the qdr? >> not to my knowledge. >> how much was it in the qdr? >> i think the where, there were about six or seven references. >> there were about eight lines actually.

maybe nine lines. my question is the qdr is supposed to lay out priorities, supposed to drive budgetary resources. this is an important issue. secretary of defense has talked about it. secretary of state has talked about it. why didn't the quadrennial defense review, which lays out the future for the department over the next five years, though more than eight lines, and those lines were mostly descriptive. there were no instructions at all. what happened? i'm sure you and dr. carter push for something more. >> i think in general it's just the nature of the recognition of what service contracting is all about. it goes much broader than the qdr. the reality of life is that service contracting or contracting for services in general, we now spend almost 50% if not more than 50% of our budget to do service contracting. and there's no doubt, mr. ervin brought up the idea of having

centralized view of the acquisition services the air force has, perhaps navy and army needs to do that. i agree with it. you know, we need to have a more integrated view. it's just a recognition, mr. kerry -- mr. commissioner, that the fact is that we've just got a lot of work to do in this area, and it's the recognition that this integrated workforce as you mentioned, there's no doubt as we go forward, contractors will be on the battlefield. >> if that's the case and that's not exactly news. let me just take for the record, i am absolutely flabbergasted that something as important as this, and you just laid it all out, and i totally agree with you, mr. assad, something as important as this could not commit a single instruction, and single directive, a single objective, a single goal even in the qdr. >> will the gentleman yield?

>> absolutely. >> sometimes i think in order to be able to say what we need is a we have to sneak it in. what i think i heard you say was that you believe there should be major emphasis in qdr about contracting, and it is not in their come is that correct? >> no, that's not correct. what i believe is that there needs to be a more integrated recognition of the requirement for services. but i'm not responsible for developing that. >> but this is your baby, isn't it? >> this is my responsibility. >> your answer concerns me more. i would rather he be fighting the battle and losing that not even fighting the battle at home. >> is not a question of fighting the battle. i think that we have made, if we look at how the department three years ago and what we're doing today, is remarkably different. it may not be sufficient, but it

is remarkable. >> half of our dollars, half of our personnel is being ignored by basically the quadrennial defense review. and it is a five year plan come and it is not in the five year plan. so how should i feel comfortable, or i mean, and frankly, this has been, you know, mr. grant's point, grant green's point as well. time and again, if it's not there, how can we think the military is taking seriously, and how can we think that we are going to seek the institutional that you want if it's not there? and then i am just left with, i would think would be jumping up and down to make sure it was. and the outrage, i mean, that's kind of where, i'm sorry. >> iphone ally myself with those comments. and, you know, very well, mr. assad, how the qdr works.

it's basically work the same way under different guys, or whatever. basically every os the office has input, and raises issues. and your undersecretary, like all the under secretaries, says in the defense advisory working group, and can raise major issues. so what cochairmen chase has just said is essentially you have the opportunity to service those issue, and for whatever reason did not. and that's what is troubling him and i think that's what troubling me. >> let me just add to that, since i brought this up sometime ago. after we heard the frustrations from some on the joint staff about recommendations that they had put forward to be included in the qdr with regard to contractors.

and whether it's the qdr or any planning document, we can talk about active reserve components or civilians and our contractors as a single force. but if we don't acknowledge in those planning document, and we talked to today about qdr, if we don't acknowledge in those planning documents that we are going to go to war like this, whether it's one-to-one or points have been to one or whatever. we're going to go to war with a lot of contractors. and unless we plan for it, and they are going to mean squat. >> on that note, commissioner ervin, please. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, it seems to me that we're really talking about the theme of urgency. there is no question but that step has been taken by each of you, and others, to move in the right direction. it seems to me with regard to

service contracts, but i'm still worried that the issue isn't been taken up with the urgency, that the importance of it requires that someone specific example of that, and i guess this question should be addressed you, mr. harrington, if not, mr. assad. but our understanding is the army regulation on service contracts is still in draft form. it's been held up in the army office for nine months, is that right? >> close to that, yes or. >> and why is that? why has it taken so long to get his regulation out, do you have any idea? >> my only understanding is its editorial aspects of it that need to be completed for publishing army wide. >> do you periodically check on our continue to move the process for? >> sir, we periodically check on it, absolutely, to determine what corrective action may be required to see. >> do you does this suggest a lack of urgency, that is still waiting to be published all these many months later? >> sir, from my perspective it

goes to an immense amount of workload for persons, not a sense of urgency. there's five times the amount of workload, and that's what is staggering to individual work members across the army right now. >> do you agree, mr. assad, without explanation? >> i do not agree that the is a sense of the urgency. there is a tremendous sense of urgency as it relates a recognition that we have to have a more integrated you in the acquisition. >> but on this issue of the regulation. mr. harrington attributed to a workload. do you regard that as a workload, the specific discrete issue of the? >> i can't address that because i'm not aware of any of the particulars so i don't know. >> let me talk about another issue, i understood you in response to either mr. zakheim or mr. shays, mr. assad, to say in response to i think my having raised the issue early on that you believe, speaking for

yourself, that the army needs to move toward a more centralized model of service contract management oversight, is that right? >> yes. i think the process is a commendable one. >> i am very pleased with it. i think that moves the process along. i get the sense, strong sense, i can like, from your statement, general, that you don't have that you. you as i said earlier out of the value of the centralized contract management. do you have that with oversight? are you using those terms interchangeably? >> that's my view from my perspective of having commanded from in contracting from a major when i was chief joint contracting joint task force -- chief of contracting joint task force brought will all the way to jcc-i/a, and every ranking between. i have seen decentralization being powerful at various levels. the more complex you get in terms of a services contract,

then i think you need to move toward more centralization. doesn't need to be a peo services that reflected within the air force? i don't know. >> let me use that as a predicate and then to loopback to the discussion that we had a little earlier. that i understand you correctly, mr. assad, when i thought i heard you say that the first time you heard about problems with the contract was from us, the commission? >> no, dick on my staff had talked and agreed to it but when mike called, chairman thibault called me about it, i knew it was coming up for review. i just hadn't seen it in detail, but mike gave me more detail than i had known at that point. >> so -- >> there's a normal process. >> but just unclear, the chairman of the extra commission on wartime contracting new about this issue sooner than you personally did? >> that's correct.

>> is that troubling to? >> no, because the fact of the matter is that, you know, we've got hundreds of reviews that i conduct on a quarterly basis. and this was just one of the reviews that had been scheduled that i would have gotten to it. >> but this has been established and sure you wouldn't disagree, that the training of the afghan police, afghan security forces are critical to the war effort in afghanistan. >> there's no doubt that my principal deputy was intimately involved in it and was looking at it long before i saw it myself. >> yeah, but -- >> he is my principal deputy. >> but you, who is the boss learned about from us, from the commission? >> no, dick briefing on something coming up. some of the details that mike had talked to me about. >> let me ask a question about, back to the logcap iii, logcap iv transition. also i want to clarify something. mr. harrington, mr. tiefer asked you what the throes of the

briefing was. and by that he meant clearly what was the sense of the recommendation that was being made? and was the sense of the recommendation being made that it wouldn't be a transition? and in response, my recollection is, you said that was discussed. it's a little different from anything the course of what the thrust of the briefing was. what was the sense that you got as to what the recommendation ultimately would be? >> sir, i don't know what the recommendation will ultimately be. what went on any meeting was essentially an analysis of the alternatives presented with respect to business case as well as the operation requirement. >> can i help? just for yes or no, because it was explained to me that there was a recommendation that, and they went to alternatives here. you are correct, but there was a

recommendation that what made the most is that optical forward for approval is to cancel the competition and go with a continuation of logcap iii. that's what i was told. >> it was in a slight. and in the presentation that had been practiced before this high level briefing. so i mean, did they change the presentation? >> at that point was going to be brought for to the secretary of the army and the chief of staff spent hundred. >> the point is there was a recommendation to discontinue the competition, but the point has been made over and over that i think is also valid is that, hopefully, more experts, wiser eyes would ask the kinds of questions that are being asked now and the result would be what the results are. >> i want to you that from you, mr. akin. are you agreeing with that? are you nuts in the recommendation was made not to compete, not to transition? >> that was in the meeting.

that was the recommendation going for to chief of staff and the secretary but it was not a decision. >> i understand it. the recommendation was made. i understood earlier from you that you sibley said the issue was discussed. are you now agree with the chairman that he recommendation was made to not transition? >> that was, the recommendation was discussed, sir, for amc to come forward with a recommendation. that's all. >> and presumably the country was discussed. the point is in that briefing was a recommendation, was the recommendation to not be a transition? both sides were discussed, surely, right? but was a recommendation made in that briefing, not to transition? >> that was the position that the recommendation was the position a and c. decide bring forward. >> it was army materiel command subject to approval by the army staff specs of the next step was to go to the army army leadership with that? >> right to expect what was your expectation as to the final decision with regard to

transition will be. >> sir, i don't know right now. that's a matter for the army leadership to decide. >> you have any expectation whatsoever? >> right now, sir, i do not. >> mr. assad, do you have any expectations because i don't but i hope we can fall down on a side competition we should. >> thank you. >> actually, can i jump into? >> please. >> mr. harrington, you're not going in there with a preconceived sense that you would prefer competition? i mean, mr. assad has made very clear he does. i am told in sympathy with them. but you sound like you're totally neutral on this. is that really the case? >> that's a matter for the army to decide. all we decide on pursuing competition every way we can. >> but the fact is regarding the decision are still being assessed and the army leadership has got to decide upon that. >> presumably, you are part of that army leadership i would have thought. you are senior enough. aren't you going into this

debate with at least an initial bias towards competition? are you being so value neutral that it may be not. that you're not initially biased. i got the impression from mr. assad that he prefers competition and has to be shown otherwise why there should that be. and i think he's absolutely right but are you prepared to say the same? >> i think is right, too. spent are you prepared to set yourself to? yes, that is what's being presented. >> commissioner green graham, please pick. >> thank you. at the risk of beating a dead horse here, i come from the operational side of the force, of the army. and so i understand, and i appreciate, how force structure decisions are made and how personnel are assigned. but i also, from a past life, understand t