Washington, DC – House Armed Services Committee
Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) delivered the following opening
statement at today’s Full Committee hearing on
Department of Defense Body Armor Programs:
"The committee will come to order.
This morning the committee meets to receive testimony on
Department of Defense body armor programs. We have with us
today two panels of distinguished witnesses representing the
military services, private industry, and independent
agencies. I want to thank all of our witnesses in attendance
today.
"The jurisdiction of this committee
is such that we cover a very wide range of issues. But the
significance of other issues pales relative to the importance
of providing the best protection possible to our men and
women serving in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi
Freedom.
"This committee has been at the
forefront in providing necessary non-partisan oversight on
the full spectrum of force protection matters. Since 2001
this committee has authorized over $5.1 billion to help the
services procure body armor and expand the industrial
base.
"Effective body armor is the baseline
component to force protection and it is critical to promoting
the survivability of military personnel serving in extreme
combat environments. It has to work and it has to be the best
available bar none.
"Recent media reports have suggested that we may not be
providing the best body armor available. NBC News
commissioned an independent round of limited ballistic tests
that compared current body armor to another system called
Dragon Skin. NBC indicates the results from these limited
tests favor Dragon Skin over the current military interceptor
body armor system or IBA.
"NBC tests contradict the information
provided to this committee by military and Department of
Defense officials in numerous hearings and briefings. Most
recently the Army indicated to this committee in a closed
briefing on May 24 that they conducted first article live
fire ballistic tests on the Dragon Skin system in May of
2006. These tests also included environmental constraints
such as subjecting the vests to extreme temperatures and
fluids to ensure the vests would hold up to conditions troops
might face in the field. The Army tests indicated Dragon Skin
failed to meet military body armor specifications.
"We’re here today to gain a
better understanding of the facts and to reassure our
constituents that our goal remains ensuring that their sons
and daughters are being provided the best body armor
available. We owe them that. This committee takes its
oversight role very seriously. If it is determined we
aren’t providing our troops the best body armor
available, then this committee will fix that problem.
"Today’s hearing should help
Members understand the rigorous standardized test and
evaluation procedures that are required for procuring
effective body armor systems for the military and understand
why these rigorous protocols are necessary. We need to
understand what the military requirements are—whether
the ability to stop incoming rounds, or the weight they put
on a soldier or Marine, or the heat and cold they must be
able to withstand in theaters like Iraq and
Afghanistan.
"Understanding the requirements and
the process should make it clear that this is more than a
competition between two makers of body armor. A fair, open,
and objective process would allow any manufacturer to bring a
product to the Department for consideration. That is the best
way to ensure that our troops will have access to the best
products.
"Troops and their families must have
confidence in the product they are wearing. I hope
today’s hearing will help shed some light on where we
should go from here. But either way, I would urge the Army to
conduct comprehensive first article tests of the current body
armor system and the Pinnacle Dragon Skin system using an
independent third party as control. This would ensure to
everyone that we are providing the most capable, tactically
suitable system available. We must continue to seek
better, lighter, more effective body armor systems.
"Now let me say a couple practical
words about the hearing today. Our goal is to present all
sides of this issue. As such there are two panels and this is
a big committee. I would urge members to keep their questions
concise and to remember that we have a second panel. We
should give the same courtesy to both panels.
"Also, it should be noted the
committee did extend an official invitation to NBC News,
retired General Wayne Downing, and retired Colonel (USMC)
James Magee to provide their analysis of their ballistic
side-by-side comparison tests. NBC declined to appear as did
General Downing. Mr. Magee could not attend due to an
unbreakable prior engagement but did submit a formal
statement for the record.
"Before we introduce the first
panel of witnesses for their opening remarks, I would like to
recognize my good friend from California, the ranking Member
Duncan Hunter for any remarks."
###