Harvard prof faces senators on nomination

By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff

WASHINGTON -- Harvard professor Ashton B. Carter is vowing to undertake a "program by program" review of all weapons systems if confirmed as President Obama's top Pentagon acquisition official, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee today that he is concerned the scope of the crisis involving troubled weapons projects may be more extensive than believed.

"I'm not sure that is the end of the story," Carter testified this morning, referring to the 95 problem-plagued acquisition programs that have been singled out by government auditors.

Nominated to be undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology, and logistics, he said a key goal of his review would be to "see whether there isn't more to that iceberg," while vowing to take steps to reform the acquisition system to "try to get in front of the process" to avoid similar problems in the future.

The Pentagon is struggling with major cost increases and technical failures in a series of big-ticket weapons programs. The crisis is widely blamed on a broken acquisition system in which overly optimistic projections from the military and defense contractors allow many questionable projects to advance through the development process.

Other weapons systems that were designed for conventional wars are draining resources needed to address more pressing threats such as terrorists and insurgents, according to many defense officials and specialists.

The committee's chairman, Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said that Carter would be taking the Pentagon job -- responsible for at least $150 billion in spending each year -- "at a particularly difficult time."

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates is already in the midst of a review of weapons systems and is expected to announce major cuts in the coming weeks as part of the Obama administration's budget proposal for the next fiscal year.

But if confirmed by the Senate, Carter will help preside over a more in-depth review later this year of all military programs and strategy known as the Quadrennial Defense Review. Carter's nomination is expected to be approved by the committee, followed in the coming days by the full Senate.

Carter told the panel in written testimony that he believes that he will have "the authority to take appropriate measures, including major restructuring or termination" of weapons.

"Too many of these programs are failing to meet their cost, schedule, and performance expectations, and some are failing even more fundamentally the test of whether they are needed for the future military challenges we are most likely to face," Carter told lawmakers.

Another area that requires additional scrutiny, Carter said, is Pentagon spending on contracts for services ranging from the mundane such as food service to oversight of weapons programs, a share of the defense budget that has doubled over the past decade and now costs more than weapons procurement.

"I am very concerned about this trend," Carter said in response to questions posed by the committee, saying he suspects the current mix of government employees and private contractors that are running the day-to-day operations of the department "might be out of balance."

"It is absolutely essential we have a sufficient amount of qualified government civilian or military personnel dedicated to perform meaningful oversight of contractor activities," he said.

Carter, 54, also defended his credentials for the high-profile post when the panel's top Republican, Senator John McCain of Arizona, opened his questioning by asking, "Your experience in weapon acquisition is..."

Carter's nomination last month was criticized by some in the defense community who raised concerns that unlike some of his predecessors he does not have direct experience in the defense industry or in government procurement.

But Carter, a trained physicist and renowned expert on nuclear weapons, said that during his more than two decades at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government he has also held several government positions and advisory posts that have given him deep understanding of defense technologies and the threats facing American security.

"I have participated in numerous reform efforts dating to the 1980s and have written three books that deal with the subject," he told the committee in writing before the hearing. "I can use this experience to help identify reforms that will avoid in the future some of the problems we are having with major defense programs today."