Mr. Chairman, today's hearing continues the Readiness Subcommittee's tradition of conducting an annual hearing to conduct oversight of DOD acquisition policy. In previous years, our hearings have focused on issues such as public-private competition, the defense industrial base, proposals to streamline the acquisition process, and shortcomings in the Department's management of its $53 billion in services contracts. We continue to have questions and concerns about many of these acquisition policy issues.

This year is different from other years, however, and this hearing will be different from our other hearings. As we sit here today, 135,000 American troops remain engaged in a hostile environment in Iraq. Tens of thousands of contractor employees are also in Iraq, supporting both the war effort and the rebuilding effort. It has been widely reported that as many as 20,000 contractor employees are engaged in security functions alone.

Our extraordinary reliance on contractors to perform a wide array of services in a war zone has raised unprecedented questions. I would like to mention just three contractor-related events in Iraq, which, I think, demonstrate both the extent of the contractor role in that country and some of the issues raised by that role.

First, for more than a month, the Marine Corps was engaged in combat operations in and around Fallujah which have resulted in a number of American casualties and many more Iraqi casualties, helping spark unrest throughout the country. The escalation of conflict in and around Fallujah was triggered by the brutal murder of four American contractor employees in that city in late March, which has raised serious questions about the safety of the thousands of other contractor employees throughout the country.

Second, for the last two weeks, the attention of the American public, Congress, and the world have been riveted on the horrible abuses reported at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Press reports indicate that at least two contractor employees may have either witnessed or participated in the abuses. The revelation that contractors have been hired to participate in the interrogation of prisoners on American custody has raised serious questions about whether contractors are conducting inherently governmental functions.

Finally, just last week, I received a series of e-mails from Hawaii soldiers currently deployed in Iraq, indicating that they are suffering a shortage of food because of a contractor who appears unable to continue deliveries. One e-mail states:

"My soldiers in Iraq have a shortage of food due to enemy attack on food supply convoys and, as I understand it, the subcontractors who deal hands on with the Army food supply lines in Iraq are not being paid by the general contractor, and so are not distributing the food. I beg of you please look into this situation. Who is not paying our food bills? Do we need new contractors to deliver food to our soldiers . . .?"

I also wanted to tell you Secretary Wynne that I noted your statement includes a discussion of the progress that has been made on corrosion, which, as you know, is an issue of great importance to me. I applaud your efforts, and in particular the leadership that I understand that you have personally brought to this problem. I also understand that the Defense Science Board is about to release a study estimating that the Department of Defense can save billions of dollars in maintenance costs over the next five years through corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts. I hope that this means that the fiscal year 2006 budget request will include substantial funding in support of the anti-corrosion fight.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this important hearing. I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.