On the recordJune 19, 2002
I appreciate that. My understanding is that if we terminated the contract--it is a million and a half dollars a day. If we terminated the contract today, there would be roughly $150 million unexpended in the program--I believe unobligated and unexpended from the program. Again, these are rough numbers, and I don't want to hold the Army to any particular number because these numbers have to be negotiated between the Army and the contractor; but the estimate we are getting is that roughly $100 million of that would go toward termination costs for the contractor in 2002 dollars, which would leave aside $40 million to $50 million, which could then be put toward the technology that is applicable to the Future Combat System. So it gets us a start to try to move the Future Combat System from 2011 to 2008. Once that starts, it will be helpful if we can continue to move it up with an additional $173 million in 2003, which will put us in a position in 2004 to get it in a timely way. I know the chairman gets a million requests and there is not a lot of money out there, but $173 million, even in the Senate, isn't chump change. I argue that when you are taking out a system--obviously a very controversial move--for $173 million in 2003, you can replace that system and get another system fielded in the same timeframe as the original one, which is more practical for the usage for the Army, and you have accomplished something very significant. That is the pitch I am making.…
Source
govinfo.gov




