Courtney Calls For Probe Of Armor

By ANDREW MIGA, Associated Press Writer
Associated Press May 22 2007, 1:40 PM EDT

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., is wading into the debate over body armor for U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, calling for a congressional investigation into which systems provide the best protection.

Courtney sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, to ask for an investigation of the body armor systems being issued by the military services and the Special Operations Command, Courtney spokesman Brian Farber said Tuesday.

The freshman congressman's letter cited recent NBC News reports suggesting Dragon Skin, a privately sold flexible body armor that some families have sought for their soldiers, may be better than Army-issued Interceptor armor.

Courtney's letter, sent Monday, asked for a GAO probe to include testing and comparisons of the Interceptor system and other commercially available products, including Dragon Skin.

"Ongoing assertions that potentially superior body armor is available, but not provided, to our troops, are extremely troubling," Courtney wrote. "Given the serious nature of these concerns, I believe an independent assessment is necessary to fully evaluate these claims."

The Army released test results on Monday showing Dragon Skin had failed extensive military testing.

"We stand by our product," Lt. Col. William Wiggins, an Army spokesman, said Tuesday. "Force protection is our priority mission."

The controversy over body armor has flared since shortly after troops were first deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Some families of soldiers spent thousands of dollars to buy protective equipment for their relatives in harm's way. Congress has held hearings on the issue.

Pentagon officials assert they provide troops with the best body armor available and are constantly searching for improvements.

"Although we are highly confident that we have the best body armor in the world bar none, we are never satisfied with the status quo and we are always looking for the next best thing," Brig Gen. Mark Brown, executive officer for the Army's armor testing program, told reporters on Monday. "And to borrow a phrase from Lee Iacocca, if there's something better out there, we're going to buy it - after we've live-fired tested it."

The Army said it released its Dragon Skin test results to help prevent families from spending money on body armor that provides less protection than standard-issue equipment. Army officials are expected to be on Capitol Hill this week to discuss the armor issue.

Other lawmakers have also called for probes. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has sent a letter to the GAO seeking an investigation of the body armor used by the military.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., cited the NBC reports in a letter to Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey. Kennedy said he's worried that troops are not getting the best equipment available as soon as possible.

"I'm writing you today because of my continuing concern that our soldiers in Iraq are not operating with the most effective body armor we can provide," Kennedy said in the letter.

Courtney is also circulating a letter to his House colleagues seeking support for his call for a GAO investigation.

Shrinking Submarine Force Tied To High Cost of Iraq War (NEW LONDON DAY)

By U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney:

On Jan. 20, 2001, the day President George Bush was sworn into office, the United States Navy consisted of 315 ships. Despite the president's professed support for a strong national defense, by September 2006 that fleet had fallen in size to 276, driven by anemic shipbuilding budgets in that timeframe. This past January, the president submitted a budget to Congress that continues this decline with a proposed seven new ships to be built in 2008. Given the shelf life of an average ship as 30 years, simple math demonstrates that his policies will result in a U.S. Navy with a total fleet size of 210 ships in a short period of time.

It may be that some observers and military planners support this policy and the resulting effect it will have on American national security and our shipbuilding industrial base. However, the downward trend of the Navy is not happening in the context of a real debate about maritime security threats now and in the future, but rather it is happening as a consequence of the expanding, voracious demands of the war in Iraq.

To put this into perspective, the newest class of attack submarines, the Virginia program built in Connecticut, was scheduled to be produced at a modest two-sub-a-year clip starting in 2002 at a cost of $2.5 billion per submarine. That schedule has been pushed back over and over again to 2012, by the Pentagon and the last few Congresses despite the progress sub manufacturers have made in reducing the cost per boat. This has occurred at the same time we are spending $9 billion a month in Iraq and at the same time the Chinese Navy is producing 2.5 submarines per year.

Retirement takes its toll

During the height of the Cold War in the 1980s, the United States Navy was building up to five new submarines per year. Obviously, the maritime threat was vastly different in that era and the goal was to have a fleet of 100 submarines. It is important to note that our present fleet of 52 submarines is a holdover from that time.

Just as rapidly as the Los Angeles-class submarines of that era were built during the 1980s, so too will be the rapid rate at which they will be retired in the next decade. That is when the real impact of the president's shipbuilding budgets from 2001 to the present will emerge in the form of a shrunken Navy.

The Navy's official position is that a fleet of fewer than 48 submarines will put our nation at risk as other nations such as China are rapidly accelerating their submarine programs.

A nation left vulnerable

The president's current plan to build just one new Virginia-class submarine per year through 2012 ignores the Navy's warning that the United States should have no fewer than 48, since the president's plan results in a dip far below that number, to 40 submarines for an extended period of time, leaving our nation's security quite vulnerable.

In recent weeks I have been pushing to increase the Navy's Virginia program to two a year, as was originally planned in 2002. Along with Rep. John Larson, D-1st District, and Rep. Jack Murtha, D-Pa., we met with the workers and management of Electric Boat in Groton to see the precarious state of our shipbuilding industrial base.

What we saw was that the president's neglect of our naval force not only jeopardizes America's status as a premier maritime power, but also has eroded the shipbuilding work force of this nation that is holding on by its fingernails.

Over the last two years, about 2,000 workers have lost their jobs at Groton's Electric Boat facility due to the anemic one-sub-a-year building program. Given the skills required for submarine production, these jobs are not easy to replicate. As an admiral recently stated to me, the unique team of designers and builders have a set of skills that exceed those of the scientists and engineers that make up our space program. They are able to create a vessel that keeps 150 sailors alive for up to 120 days at a time in conditions that otherwise would not support human life.

After our tour, Rep. Murtha powerfully made the point that the draining costs of the war in Iraq have an impact on our nation's domestic needs and on our defense infrastructure. Make no mistake about it - the Bush budget and his war policies will jeopardize further losses to a uniquely skilled work force that our national security infrastructure will not be able to reconstitute overnight.

This past week the House of Representatives approved a $588 million investment in the initial components of an additional Virginia-class nuclear submarine, which is what I have advocated for in Congress since I was first sworn into office. This is a good first step toward developing a more robust submarine force and funding two submarines per year. This summer, the House will be asked to consider funding last week's authorization, for which I will continue to fight. We must reverse the trend of a diminished naval force.

Norwich Bulletin Editorial: U.S. soldiers should receive adequate care

May 12, 2007 - With the debate raging about how to handle the war in Iraq, a very important issue is being lost. How do we handle the growing number of war veterans this country is creating?

The United States is already woeful in its treatment of veterans, with sub-standard health care and broken promises of other benefits. This country, in good conscience, cannot continue to send men and women to war without a plan to honor their service when they return. Even those who return without physical wounds often have other battles they must face once home. In some cases, the emotional wounds can be long-lasting and devastating. There are financial strains and marital challenges. And, there is a disproportionate number of homeless who are veterans.

The Connecticut congressional delegation has been sporadically active on the issue. U.S Sens. Chris Dodd and Joseph Lieberman have been addressing housing and health-care issues for veterans. Dodd is also calling for a change in a Veterans Affairs policy providing grave markers.

U.S Rep. Joe Courtney, D-2nd District, has been more active on a variety of veterans' issues, including pushing for more funding for the VA and creating a pilot program to better transition soldiers from Armed Services to Veterans Affairs. Currently, many Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are being lost in the shuffle.

Courtney has also been critical of Veterans Affairs. While he advocates for more funding for the department, he also is adamant much needs to be done to clean up the way it operates. He has chastised the department for giving bonuses totaling $3.8 million for the entire department.

We hope Courtney will keep up his push on the issue. Dodd should show some presidential foresight and tackle the veterans' situation. But, it is Lieberman who should be the loudest voice on this issue. He has been adamant the surge of troops in Iraq is necessary. It would the moral thing for Lieberman to start shouting about the rights and benefits we should be giving these troops when they return home.

Regardless of feelings about the war, it is time to stop paying lip service to honoring our military and show them real support by ensuring they have the assistance they need when they come home.

Hartford Courant: House Panel Backs Sub-Building Speedup

May 11 2007 - U.S. Rep. Joe Courtney's office announced some headway Thursday in the attempt to increase submarine construction rates at Groton's Electric Boat, in his 2nd District.

The House Armed Services Committee, of which Courtney is a member, passed a late-night authorization bill Wednesday that would include $588 million to buy the initial power and propulsion components for an additional Virginia-class submarine. Instead of waiting for the Navy's existing shipbuilding plan, which calls for the U.S. submarine production rate to double to two boats a year in 2012, this authorization would allow the Navy to get that increase sooner.

But this week's progress is only one step toward that goal. Last year, the district's previous congressman, Rob Simmons, won such an authorization, but couldn't manage the next step - an appropriation. Spending has to be authorized, meaning it's approved as a proper expense, but it also has to be appropriated, meaning the money is actually found to pay for it.

Still, authorization is a necessary step in the campaign that Courtney and others in Congress have been leading to disregard the Navy's plan and the Bush administration's recent budget proposal to pay for only one submarine in 2008. Courtney and officials at Electric Boat have expressed concerns that the specialized industry of southeastern Connecticut might, because of a lack of work, suffer losses to the workforce that won't be easily replaced.

A statement from Courtney's office Thursday, which called this a "first major hurdle cleared," said that the authorization bill should go before the full House by next week.

It's unclear when an additional submarine might be built. The $588 million will cover only about the first quarter of the sub's overall cost.