GAO Providing Sen. Tom A. Coburn, M.D. Hog Wash
Sen Coburn is very good at double talk, while using the GAO report to do nothing. This is why nothing gets done on the Hill, because most members do not know the subjects and must rely on staffers (with agenda's) to do their work.
August 14, 2009
Mr. Clint XXXX
XXXX Road
Tishomingo , Oklahoma 73460
Dear Mr. Spence,
Thank you for contacting me concerning our military supplies and
equipment, specifically about MILITEC-1. I appreciate your message
and I apologize for my delayed response.
First, I want to thank you for your service to our country in the
United States Army Reserve, especially while serving inAfghanistan
I am truly grateful for our military men and women who have been
courageously defending our nation and preserving freedom.
Like you stated, the military has been upgrading its military
equipment ever since the beginning of the conflicts inIraq and
Afghanistan
equipment such as body armor and unmanned aerial systems. I appreciate hearing your opinions and thoughts regarding the weapon cleaning lubricant, MILITEC-1. I am
committed to provide our soldiers with the most efficient and cost
effective equipment in order to carry out their mission. You may be
interested to know, according to a report conducted by the Government
Accountability Office in June of this year, that the military services
tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 eleven times for various uses,
including as a small arms cleaner, a general purpose lubricant, a
preservative and
a metal conditioner. You can read this full report (Report #
GAO-09-735R) at href="blockedhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09735r.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.i
tems/d09735r.pdf.
Although the product passed early tests as a lubricant additive in the
late 1980s, it did not pass nine of the eleven tests and evaluations
conducted later. These tests ranged from a limited demonstration of
performance characteristics to a comprehensive assessment of the product
with regard to military specifications. The product has not passed any
tests and evaluations for a product that performs as a small arms
cleaner, lubricant, and preservative, and metal conditioner. Therefore,
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) correctly followed applicable
procedures on the occasions when it either canceled the product-that is,
removed it from the federal supply system. When a product has been
tested and evaluated and has met all the performance requirements, the
Army will list the product and its supplier on a qualified products
list.
Militec, Inc. and its proponents claim that their product either passes
the tests or that the military specification for lubricants is flawed.
According to the Government Accountability Office Report, the Army
offered Militec, Inc. another chance to pass the current military
specification test for a small arms lubricant. The Army also asked
Militec, Inc. to explain which parts of the military specification
should be altered. According to the report, Militec, Inc. has not passed
another test or submitted these changes.
I would not support congressional involvement to mandate the Department
of Defense's use of MILITEC-1 at this time. But I believe that the
quality weapons and equipment that our men and women in uniform carry to
battle are due to the ingenuity and creativity of our defense industrial
base. TheUnited States
to strive to make improved products for use in the military.
We owe it to our troops, who have given so much in service of our
country, to do all we can to take care of them. I will continue to do
all that I can to ensure that they are not simply adequately equipped,
but well-equipped to face the enemy. Furthermore, I believe that it is
important for our economic health and our national security that we
maintain a manufacturing base here, in theUnited States
reasons, I support the government purchasing as many things as possible
from companies that produce goods in theUSA
Again, thank you for writing. May God bless you and your
family!
Sincerely,
A
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
United States
TC: SMB
Thank you for contacting me concerning our military supplies and
equipment, specifically about MILITEC-1. I appreciate your message
and I apologize for my delayed response.
First, I want to thank you for your service to our country in the
United States Army Reserve, especially while serving in
I am truly grateful for our military men and women who have been
courageously defending our nation and preserving freedom.
Like you stated, the military has been upgrading its military
equipment ever since the beginning of the conflicts in
equipment such as body armor and unmanned aerial systems. I appreciate hearing your opinions and thoughts regarding the weapon cleaning lubricant, MILITEC-1. I am
committed to provide our soldiers with the most efficient and cost
effective equipment in order to carry out their mission. You may be
interested to know, according to a report conducted by the Government
Accountability Office in June of this year, that the military services
tested and evaluated MILITEC-1 eleven times for various uses,
including as a small arms cleaner, a general purpose lubricant, a
preservative and
a metal conditioner. You can read this full report (Report #
GAO-09-735R) at href="blockedhttp://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09735r.pdf">http://www.gao.gov/new.i
tems/d09735r.pdf.
Although the product passed early tests as a lubricant additive in the
late 1980s, it did not pass nine of the eleven tests and evaluations
conducted later. These tests ranged from a limited demonstration of
performance characteristics to a comprehensive assessment of the product
with regard to military specifications. The product has not passed any
tests and evaluations for a product that performs as a small arms
cleaner, lubricant, and preservative, and metal conditioner. Therefore,
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) correctly followed applicable
procedures on the occasions when it either canceled the product-that is,
removed it from the federal supply system. When a product has been
tested and evaluated and has met all the performance requirements, the
Army will list the product and its supplier on a qualified products
list.
Militec, Inc. and its proponents claim that their product either passes
the tests or that the military specification for lubricants is flawed.
According to the Government Accountability Office Report, the Army
offered Militec, Inc. another chance to pass the current military
specification test for a small arms lubricant. The Army also asked
Militec, Inc. to explain which parts of the military specification
should be altered. According to the report, Militec, Inc. has not passed
another test or submitted these changes.
I would not support congressional involvement to mandate the Department
of Defense's use of MILITEC-1 at this time. But I believe that the
quality weapons and equipment that our men and women in uniform carry to
battle are due to the ingenuity and creativity of our defense industrial
base. The
to strive to make improved products for use in the military.
We owe it to our troops, who have given so much in service of our
country, to do all we can to take care of them. I will continue to do
all that I can to ensure that they are not simply adequately equipped,
but well-equipped to face the enemy. Furthermore, I believe that it is
important for our economic health and our national security that we
maintain a manufacturing base here, in the
reasons, I support the government purchasing as many things as possible
from companies that produce goods in the
Again, thank you for writing. May God bless you and your
family!
Sincerely,
A
Tom A. Coburn, M.D.
TC: SMB
posted by MILITEC at
10:32 AM
