[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 59 (Monday, April 18, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H1782-H1787]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
POTENTIAL DRAWDOWN OF LAND FORCES
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Comstock). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 6, 2015, the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gibson) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
General Leave
Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include supporting material on the subject of this Special Order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, tonight I am speaking to gain support for
H.R. 4534. This is the POSTURE Act. It stops the administration's
drawdown of our land forces, the United States Marine Corps and the
United States Army.
This is a bipartisan bill, myself and 52 others, 52 cosponsors,
including 42 Republicans and 10 Democrats. I am proud to say that we
are coming together to make sure that we keep our land forces strong.
This is also a bicameral bill. The language of this bill has also
been introduced in the United States Senate.
Madam Speaker, the predicate here is a belief in peace through
strength, a belief that what we want to do is deter potential
adversaries; and to do that, we certainly need to restore our
capability in our Armed Forces, deterrence really being capability and
will.
Tonight I am focused in on the POSTURE Act. Of course, Madam Speaker,
the coauthors and I, we certainly share deep concern for the entire
joint force, but today we are particularly focused in on the land
forces.
[[Page H1783]]
You will hear, across the evening here, five general points. They
are:
Number one, that the drawdown plan currently from the administration
is planned to continue into 2018, for several more years here; and at
the culmination of that, our land forces will actually be at pre-World
War II levels.
Given the very volatile, uncertain, ambiguous international
environment that we live in, we believe, the authors, that this is very
high risk; and, really, we want to change that and, essentially,
preserve 67,000 troops in end strength in the United States Army and
the United States Marine Corps. That is number one.
The second point is the assumptions that were made, Madam Speaker,
when the administration initially made the decision on the drawdown, we
believe that those assumptions are no longer valid. There has been much
change in the world in the last several years, and you will hear some
of that this evening.
The third point, which is very important, is that, with our land
forces, this is not like a light switch where we can turn it on, turn
it off, turn it back on. If we end up standing down these 67,000
troops, it could take 3 to 4 years to reconstitute that force level;
and given the uncertainty we have in this international environment, we
think that that is too much risk for us to take on.
Madam Speaker, the fourth point, and here I will speak from my
personal experience of 29 years in the military, is that this planned
drawdown also has consequence for our servicemen and -women. It has,
certainly, consequence in terms of the op tempo, the operational tempo,
of how many deployments they will go on and for how long, the duration
of those deployments.
And also, we know the risk. The enemy's weapon of choice in this war
is the improvised explosive device, and we know that that has led to
significant challenge with traumatic brain injuries and also post-
traumatic stress.
Certainly, there is wide bipartisan support in this Chamber to care
for our servicemen and -women and their families, and that is why these
bipartisan authors are also very concerned about end strength. That is
point 4.
The fifth point is this: when we preserve this--because I believe we
are gaining momentum and, ultimately, I like our chances; we are going
to get this into law--it is very important that this end strength come
with the necessary resources so that we do not hollow out this force.
So, Madam Speaker, we are going to have a series of speakers now, my
coauthors on the bill. I want to begin with my original coauthor, and
he is the highest ranking enlisted man to ever serve in this Chamber.
He is a great American hero, Tim Walz. He is a Democrat from Minnesota.
In 1989, he earned the title of Nebraska Citizen Soldier of the Year.
After deployment to Italy with his Guard unit, as part of Operation
Enduring Freedom, Sergeant Major Walz retired from the Army National
Guard and resumed teaching as a geography teacher and a football coach
at Mankato West Senior High School.
He is a member of the Armed Services Committee, and he is also a
member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz), my
good colleague and friend.
Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York. It is
a phrase we sometimes throw around in here without a lot of
authenticity behind it, but I can tell you, in this case, a gentleman
who served this Nation three decades in uniform and has had a
distinguished career here in Congress, I am proud to stand with you.
I think you heard the gentleman's comments on why we think now is not
the right time to draw down this land force, and I say that with both
of us coming out of that force.
The size of the force this Nation needs should not be predicated by a
plan that is outdated. Since the time this plan was written and put
into effect: the rise of ISIS, China has built a new island in the
South China Sea and is landing aircraft on it now, and a belligerent
Russia.
But more than that, we have seen the use of the military force as a
deterrent, not just to aggression. We have seen it as a peaceful use,
whether it be in Haiti to respond to natural disasters or to respond to
Ebola in West Africa. The best trained, the most efficient and the most
ready force to be able to use our diplomacy and our humanitarian assets
is this land force.
I think for many of us, we were concerned about this, but this is not
ideologically driven. The gentleman and I coauthored a piece of
legislation that created the National Commission on the Future of the
Army.
We said: Let's let the data speak for itself. If the experts can take
this in and assess that this force is enough to do what needs to be
done according to the strategic plan of this Nation by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and the best thinkers, then that is the way it should be.
But they did not come back with that. They came about some alarming
things that they talked about, and one of them, I think it is very
clear we are heading down the wrong path, stripping it of manpower.
There is a belief in this Nation that we can solve all problems,
especially security problems, with the use of technology. Our
technological advantage is a huge positive force, but it will not be on
the ground with Ebola. It will not be there when we have to have that
defending force.
{time} 1915
As everyone in this Chamber knows, 15 years of war puts an incredible
stress on that. The gentleman used a great analogy.
He talked about turning on and off the lights. I use the one that I
think a lot of people think: This is like running the car out of gas.
If we just need more, we will put more gas in it.
That is not true. It is running the car out of oil, which causes all
kinds of problems. If we do not keep the force where it is at, keep it
trained, and keep it ready to go, we will not be able to carry out
those missions.
I would like to highlight a couple of other things that the
Commission said about the integration of the National Guard to the
active components and the use of the National Guard as an operational
reserve, not a strategic reserve.
Those of us who lived through the years where the National Guard was
an afterthought and we practiced artillery training with toilet paper
rolls instead of real charges because we didn't have the capacity to
train, that is the surest way to make sure our force is not ready to
go. It is not a good use of taxpayer dollars, and it is simply immoral
to train America's young warriors without the full capacity of what
they need.
So I think, for many of us, this is not only a national security
issue, it is a smart fiscal issue. We have paid dearly with treasure
and blood to have this force. I can tell you, if the force shrinks too
much--and we have seen this happen--the rotations happen very quickly.
All the speakers you are going to hear tonight, Madam Speaker, are
going to tell you about this. It becomes very difficult both from the
personal side for them to manage their relationships, but also the
professional side of soldiering. You can't get to the schools you need.
You can't develop the wider breadth that you need for all
contingencies.
We have become very, very good at small missions that the same people
get rotated into without the ability to look elsewhere. So as we pivot
to the Pacific, those are new skill sets that need to be incorporated
in.
What the gentleman is asking for is let's just pause in the drawdown,
let's keep the force where the Commission and the GAO says it needs to
be, let's give the force the ability to rotate out and to do what needs
to be done to have them get back and ready to get in the fight again in
a way that makes sense. We can do that.
Again, I want to be very clear. Those critics who say that we are
asking to build up the military, we are just asking to stop a drawdown
that we think gets dangerously close to putting this Nation in a
predicament where it cannot carry out the missions that are asked of
it.
We in this Chamber and the American public have a moral
responsibility to never put a warrior in that position and never put
those commanders in that position.
So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. I want to
thank him for being willing to champion this forward. We know this is
about educating not only our colleagues, but the
[[Page H1784]]
American public. It is about having a debate.
I think the gentleman from New York brought up a critical point.
Numbers without the ability to train, equip, and do what is necessary
to get them to the highest level of readiness is probably worse than
nothing, and that is not what we are asking for.
I think, again, to highlight the gentleman's commitment to this, he
is looking at ways to pay for it. He is looking at ways to make it
work: repealing sequestration, pursuing waste, eliminating programs at
the Pentagon, encouraging and assisting our allies and partners to beef
up what they need to do to beef up, and ensure the next President has
the force capable to not only address current, but future threats. That
is our responsibility.
So I am proud to stand with the gentleman on the POSTURE Act. I think
it is smart policy. It is predicated on data. It is predicated on
decades of personal experience from the gentleman from New York and
speakers you are going to hear coming up. It is what the thinkers are
telling us.
Again, I think it does come back to the gentleman's opening comments.
Those adversaries who think that this is the time to do something with
this Nation need to be sent a strong message that we are as strong as
ever, our commitment is as strong as ever, and our force will be as it
always has been: the best trained and the best fighting force the world
has ever seen. We are just asking to give them the numbers to do their
job.
So, Madam Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at
this, to get on board, and to talk with the gentleman, myself, and the
other cosponsors of this.
Let's put that next President in a position to be able to secure this
Nation, to be able to forward project American power in the name of
humanitarian or human rights, and continue to give our young warriors
what they need.
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Speaker, you just heard, I think, in really compelling terms
and you saw witness to why it is that we have the finest fighting force
in the world.
What separates us from the rest of the world is our noncommissioned
officer corps. This is an incredible collection of professionals that
provide advice, analysis, and recommendations. Really, I would put our
noncommissioned officer corps up against any other noncommissioned
officer corps in the world.
I want to say, beyond that, he is a phenomenal Representative here in
the U.S. House. I want to thank the gentleman for that tremendous
testimony and for his great leadership.
I now want to turn to another great warrior, Representative Steve
Russell. Steve Russell is, Madam Speaker, an Airborne Ranger. He has
served in airborne, light, and mechanized infantry assignments. His
deployments include deployment to Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and
Iraq.
Madam Speaker, in 2003, then-Lieutenant Colonel Steve Russell
commanded the task force in Iraq that was instrumental in the hunt and
capture of Saddam Hussein.
He is in his first term. He is already off to an amazing start. He is
a member of the Armed Services Committee.
I yield to the gentleman from the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Steve
Russell.
Mr. RUSSELL. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my brother, combat
infantryman, warrior, and colleague from New York (Mr. Gibson) for his
leadership in this effort.
Madam Speaker, in 1940, our Nation faced tough decisions. Lawmakers
in this Chamber debated over our constitutional requirement to defend
our Republic.
Faced with a decade of depression, declining budgets, and enormous
domestic needs, President Roosevelt recognized that the Nation was
woefully unprepared to defend herself, given the alarming developments
in Asia and Europe the previous 2 years.
Congress acted, and, although assured we could stay out of the war,
this body passed the unprecedented Selective Service Act of 1940 to
increase our defensive posture.
While some would call it prescient or even timely, we were still
woefully unprepared for the horrific attacks on our naval, land, and
air forces in 1941. When the blow fell, we had for the first time a
sizeable forward-deployed force based in the Philippine Islands in
December 1941.
That Allied force of 150,000 soldiers fought bravely for 5 months
until their medical supplies, food, and, finally, ammunition were
exhausted, prompting the largest surrender of U.S. forces in American
history.
Tens of thousands of these Allied soldiers died in brutal captivity,
all simply because our Nation could not get to them. While we had
future capacity, we had forfeited our defensive posture through cost-
cutting policies the previous decade and we had exhausted our time.
As unprepared as we were in 1940, it could have been even worse had
the President and Congress not acted when they did. But here is
something to ponder: our current land forces are actually 30 percent
smaller today than they were in 1940 when you compare them to a
percentage of our per capita population. If we lived today in an
atmosphere of peace, maybe we could take such gambles.
Instead, we see Russians reigniting the cold war, Iranians
destabilizing the Middle East, North Koreans firing nuclear missiles
with the aim to range the United States, and Islamic jihadist death-
cult extremists committing acts of barbarity akin to the Middle Ages.
We also see tensions rising with our trading partner, China, and the
seeds of potential unrest in the Pacific.
What does the President and this Congress intend to do if we do not
act to prepare for this dangerous world? This year it would cut the
United States Army by 30,000 more soldiers and our Marines by another
8,000. Instead, our bipartisan answer to these cuts in this Congress is
a resounding no.
Whatever savings we might imagine we safeguard, whatever tension we
may imagine we could trim, whatever goodwill we deceive ourselves of
that would go after, we assuredly would be eroded by an unexpected
attack on our Nation as she has voluntarily chained herself down into a
weakened condition.
Rather than slacken our posture, we must slacken our chains. We stand
together with much work ahead, but this bipartisan effort is a refusal
to see our Nation further diminished.
As we pass this measure into law, let's do it with the echo of these
sobering words from novelist, historian, and Nobel Laureate Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of torture and tyranny:
I would like to call upon America to be more careful with
its trust and prevent those who because of shortsightedness
and still others out of self-interest from falsely using the
struggle for peace and for social justice to lead you down a
false road. Because they are trying to weaken you. They are
trying to disarm your strong and magnificent country in the
face of this fearful threat. I call upon you ordinary working
men of America. Do not let yourselves become weak.
Pass the POSTURE Act and prevent some horrific blow from berthing in
our future.
Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Gibson for his outstanding leadership on
this issue.
Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Russell).
What we heard, Madam Speaker, just moments ago here is what I
mentioned at the outset. We were talking about the changed assumptions
when the administration first made these decisions.
Of course, they were working based on the 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance, the 2013 Strategic Choices and Management Review, and also
the 2014 QDR.
Madam Speaker, I think we just heard very persuasive argumentation
how just in the last several years so much has changed and the reason
why this Chamber is coming together in a bipartisan way to move forward
on this POSTURE Act.
Now, Madam Speaker, I want to turn to Representative Renee Ellmers.
Renee is not on the Committee on Armed Services, but this lady works
incredibly hard for our Nation and for our servicemen and -women. She
studies all the time. I have had countless discussions with her.
She is always wanting to know the details to make sure that the
servicemen and -women who serve at Fort Bragg get all the resources
that they need. She takes their combat readiness so very seriously
because she knows that their lives are on the line there.
[[Page H1785]]
Fort Bragg could not ask for a stronger advocate. I am very impressed
and am very thankful for her support in going above and beyond, not
being on the committee and jurisdiction, to be here tonight and,
really, to make her voice be heard all throughout this land on why we
need to get behind the POSTURE Act.
So I will just say last before I turn it over to her that part of
what I know that Representative Ellmers is working on is a very
important supporting element for our land forces, the 440th, which is
based out of Fort Bragg and Pope Army Air Base. I know from firsthand
experience this is an incredible outfit. We are concerned about some
decisions that are being taken here.
I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers)
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague,
Mr. Gibson. I just want to start right off by saying, Madam Speaker,
that our colleague, Mr. Gibson, has been a tireless voice for our
military and certainly has been a resource for me and has always been
more than open and honest with me when it comes to decisions that are
facing our military and national security.
Again, I just want to thank the gentleman for his service and, also,
for coming to Washington to serve our country yet again, to be such an
advocate for the military, and to be such a support for the rest of us
who are trying to help in that capacity as well.
I am here tonight to discuss in this Special Order the introduction
of the POSTURE Act, and I thank the gentleman for this great piece of
legislation.
The POSTURE Act is an important piece of legislation that will
prevent further troop reductions and improve military readiness. As the
Representative of Fort Bragg based in North Carolina, I have the unique
perspective to see how this troop drawdown is directly impacting our
national security.
It is my top priority to ensure that we restore our military's end
strength not only to serve as a deterrent, but also so that our
military can appropriately and effectively respond to any threat
represented to our country or our allies. The POSTURE Act will ensure
that our troops are ready and prepared to defend our Nation at a
moment's notice.
I would also like to thank Mr. Gibson for his help raising awareness
about the serious issues facing Fort Bragg, including the deactivation
of the 440th Airlift Wing.
The 440th Airlift Wing provides unparalleled support to Fort Bragg
paratroopers, more specifically, the famed 82nd Airborne's Global
Response Force, a unit Mr. Gibson knows all too well, as he was the
commander of this force just a few years back.
Because of the potential deactivation of the 440th Airlift Wing, I
have been having this very discussion about maintaining military
readiness and maintaining sufficient troop levels for the last 2-plus
years.
This certainly is not the first time I have stepped foot onto the
House floor to rail against the Air Force's ill-conceived decision to
deactivate the 440th. In fact, I have stood in this very spot and
stressed my concerns about the threats their decision poses to the
readiness of the Fort Bragg paratroopers.
Unfortunately, what I thought was going to happen is indeed taking
place as we speak. While the Air Force has promised they would continue
to provide necessary airlift support for Fort Bragg, the Air Force is
already falling well short of this promise.
{time} 1930
Fort Bragg aims to complete 10,000 jumps a month to prepare troops
for combat, but the Air Force's decision to prematurely hollow out this
wing has prevented them from meeting this jump goal. Last month, only
6,100 paratroopers jumped from Air Force planes. In fact, the Air Force
has even fallen short on Fort Bragg's 8,000-jump minimum--a number they
consider to be their threshold for proficiency.
This is yet another consequence and, unfortunately, it is a concrete
example of how drawdown can and will affect military readiness and
training. Not only have I met with Fort Bragg leadership, but I have
also met with our Nation's top military officials and still, to this
day, I do not understand why the Air Force insists on making decisions
based on zero strategic merit.
To make matters worse, deactivation of the 440th is happening at a
time when the 18th Airborne Corps was recently called upon to lead the
fight against the Islamic extremist group ISIS. Members of the 18th
Airborne Corps are set to deploy this summer. Meanwhile, we are on the
track to have the smallest size Army since the end of World War II.
Russia has become increasingly aggressive and China's military
presence continues to grow in southeast Asia--all the while our
President insists on drawing down our military and cutting its funding.
This is not the time to be cutting our military. This is the time to
strengthen it.
Mr. Gibson's bill ensures that we will have appropriate end strength
to keep our Nation and our allies safe and secure. I look forward to
continuing to work with Mr. Gibson and standing by him in this
capacity, as I believe that strengthening our military is one of the
most important issues facing Congress to date.
Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman. I want to thank
her for her strong voice, and I want to thank her for the attention to
detail that she puts into this. This is so critically important. It is
very instrumental in the momentum that we have had--your great voice,
your staff's hard work, and your hard work.
We are going to continue to push forward with this with the POSTURE
Act, and continue to make sure that the entire installation at Fort
Bragg has the necessary resources to deliver and to get its mission
done and to look after and take care of its servicemen and -women,
those paratroopers, and also the families.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Knight).
Representative Knight is also a veteran of our Armed Forces. He was
born at Edwards Air Force Base in Antelope Valley, California. He
served in the United States Army from 1985 to 1987. He was a track
systems mechanic in Freiburg, Germany. When his tour ended, he served
in the United States Army Reserve. His total military service spanned
from 1985 to 1993. He is a member of the House Armed Services
Committee. Also, within his district, he has Air Force Plant 42 and the
Edwards Air Force Base.
Mr. KNIGHT. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Gibson for taking a leadership
role in making sure that the military has a voice, and that is exactly
what he has done in his tenure here in Congress.
I rise in support of H.R. 4534. The POSTURE Act is not just something
that we are asking for. It is basically the bare necessities. We are
getting down to the limits.
I can say, just on personal experience, when I enlisted in 1985 as a
young person graduating high school and enlisting into the Army, I
expected that we had such a great military and we had all of these
things that were going to help me in my endeavors. As I went to
Germany, my job was if something happened, if the Russians were going
to come over, we were supposed to guard what was known as the Fulda
Gap. I know that anyone who has ever served in the Army in the '80s
knows what the Fulda Gap is. It was basically that line where we were
going to stop the Russian Army.
Unfortunately, they told us that we were going to be outrun about 11
to 1 at that time from the Russian Army. That is not something that an
18-year-old wants to know, is that the very first assignment that might
happen in the cold war is you are going to go to a spot and you are
going to be up against an 11-to-1 army. At that time, we had about
781,000 active Army folks.
If we fast forward to today, we are sending people in rotations every
12 months or every 18 months. We are sending these people two, three,
or four different rotations during their 4- or 6-year enlistments, and
we have such a smaller active Army. I know that now folks out there
will be talking about the total Army structure and the total structure.
I think that is great that we have the Reserves and National Guard as
part of the total structure. I believe in that. I think that is
something that absolutely should happen.
But if we are just doing apples to apples from 1986 to today, we go
from about 780,000 to less than 500,000. That is getting down to a
point where, can
[[Page H1786]]
we fight on two fronts, can we help, can we do all of the missions that
the Army has done for the last 200 years?
I would say that we are getting down to that point where if we don't
pass the POSTURE Act, we will go underneath that level and we will not
be able to send our warriors into combat and into humanitarian
situations with our best effort, with our best foot forward. I would
say that this is the absolute--the absolute--end to where we should
draw down.
Let's look at what we are looking at today. We are not looking at
some of the larger countries, but we are also looking at rogue states.
Russia and China, obviously, are out there and they are, obviously,
doing things that we keep our eye on. Their technology has advanced,
their amount of money that they spend on the military has jumped
dramatically over the last 20 years. Some of the things that they are
bringing forward are as technologically advanced as we have.
I would say that if we went back 20 years, we would never say that.
We would say technologically we are ahead every step of the way. Today
we can't say that. Today we also have rogue nations and rogue leaders
out there that want to do things to us and to our allies.
So I say at a time where we are drawing down and continuing to draw
down, where we have these types of rogue nations, where we have these
types of superpowers out there, and we have these types of groups that
want to do bad things to us and to our allies, is this actually the
time that we should draw down to an unsafe level?
I would like to thank Mr. Gibson for everything that he has done in
his tenure here in Congress and what he has done for the United States
of America because, honestly, he is a true hero. But in this regard, he
is trying to unite all of Congress behind what he has believed and what
he has done for his entire life.
I think that Congress should listen, I think that Congress should
say, yes, we absolutely have these levels, and we can't go below them.
In fact, as we are watching everything that is happening on the news on
a daily basis, we would say that maybe those levels are too low, too.
So I would like to thank Mr. Gibson for his leadership.
Mr. GIBSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I thank him for his
service to our Nation, and also thank him for his great work on the
House Armed Services Committee. He is truly making a difference, and
his voice here tonight is very compelling and very significant.
Madam Speaker, I am now going to recap and move to close. I
appreciate very much the time in a busy schedule and colleagues here
tonight. We are here tonight, again, for H.R. 4534, the POSTURE Act,
which stops the Obama administration's drawdown of our land forces--our
Army and our Marine Corps.
As I mentioned, this is a bipartisan bill--myself and 52 others here
in this Chamber, including 42 Republicans and 10 Democrats, led so ably
by Sergeant Major Retired Representative Tim Walz, a Democrat from
Minnesota.
I also want to say that Chairman Turner was not able to be here
today, but he has been instrumental in not only help craft this, but
actually help build support for it for these past several months.
As I mentioned, Madam Speaker, tonight you heard five points why it
is so important that we put the POSTURE Act into law and that we stop
this drawdown.
In the first point we gave some historical figures and some context
of where we are today. We know that at present our land forces are
about at the same size that we were on the 11th of September of 2001.
Of course, during the surge, we saw a ramp-up of our land forces, and
now we have seen a resetting of that where we are about at 11th of
September of 2001 levels.
However, the plan now from the administration is to continue that
drawdown all the way down to pre-World War II levels. That would be
done by 2018. That takes an additional 67,000 troops out of the
formations.
Madam Speaker, we heard, I think, some very significant testimony
tonight from some of the speakers. We know that we have senior leaders
in our Armed Forces now that have described this as a very serious
risk, very significant risk. And you also heard from Representative
Walz when he talked about the Commission on the Future of the Army,
which Representative Walz, a humble man, was actually the author for
that, the brain for that. We are here today because of his work on that
score.
The results of that commission, I believe, Madam Speaker, really need
to be paid attention to. It was here that not only were we able to get
a better understanding of this risk, but also we helped bring together
all components of the Army--the regular Army, the National Guard, and
the Army Reserve. The Commission on the Future of the Army helped.
I also want to reinforce how important leadership is--our Chief of
Staff of the Army, our Secretary of the Army, our Acting Secretary of
the Army right now. They have put a major priority on really pulling
together everyone that serves in the Army. The same goes for our
Secretary of the Navy and for our Commandant of the Marine Corps
because this is truly a team effort all the way across. That commission
helped chart the way forward.
Madam Speaker, the General Accounting Office, the GAO's report that
came out just last week, documented what our research has also shown
over these several months. That is that there is just too much risk in
continuing this drawdown to pre-World War II levels. That was point
one.
In point two, we talked about the assumptions--we heard from all the
speakers. Particularly, Mr. Russell focused in on that--how much of the
world has changed. We can understand why the administration brought
forward an argument back initially, but so much has changed since that
time. It is clear to all of us that we need to pay attention to that
and to adopt the POSTURE Act.
We also pointed out this evening that this is not like a light
switch. It is not something that we can turn on and turn off. If we
decide to move forward with the 67,000 troops, taking them out of the
formations, we know that we are looking at 3 to 4 years just to get
back to where we are today, Madam Speaker. That would, I think, really
signal to our potential adversaries the wrong message.
The fourth point is--and we heard from a couple of the speakers--how
important it is that we have the right size formations because that
impacts on how often they get sent over into the combat zone and how
long they stay. All of this has impacts on families, it has impacts on
traumatic brain injury potential, and also posttraumatic stress. That
is certainly something that this Chamber is absolutely unified in doing
everything we can to support our servicemen and -women. By enacting the
POSTURE Act, we are also supporting our currently serving members and
our veterans.
The last point--and this has been really made very clear to us by all
the leadership in both the Army and the Marine Corps--is how important
it is that by preserving this end strength, it has to come with the
necessary resources so that they are manned, equipped, and trained, and
that we look towards the modernization of the force and look towards
the future.
We have heard from the Congressional Budget Office, the CBO. The CBO
initially assesses this at $600 million. We understand that there may
be a new assessment coming forward shortly. But as was also mentioned
by Sergeant Major Walz, Representative Walz, our committee is also very
keenly going through the budget, a budget of over $600 billion, when
you look at the Department of Defense and Department of Energy, the
Overseas Contingency Fund. We are looking for ways to make sure we do
this in the best way possible for the taxpayer.
Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a series of letters of
support that we are getting from the Association of the United States
Army, the National Guard Association, and the Reserve Officers
Association. We deeply appreciate their support.
Association of the
United States Army,
Arlington, Virginia, 3 March 2016.
Hon. Chris Gibson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Gibson: On behalf of the members of the
Association of the United States Army (AUSA), I write to
support your introduction of H.R. 4534, the ``Protecting Our
Security Through Utilizing Right-Sized End-
[[Page H1787]]
Strength Act of 2016'' or the ``POSTURE Act.'' At a time when
our Army is confronting growing threats and increasing
operational demands, it would be wise to pause the current
budget-driven force reductions and allow the next
administration time to assess land force capabilities and
needs before determining troop levels,
Under current plans, the Regular Army is expected to fall
to 475,000 Soldiers by 1 October 2016, and then further
decrease to 450,000 Soldiers by 1 October 2018. These same
plans will also reduce the end strength of our Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve. Such a reduction in our landpower
capability does not make sense in a time of increased threats
and global instability.
While the POSTURE Act puts the brakes on budget-driven
force reductions, the Army will also face negative
consequences if the additional end strength is not funded.
During a recent hearing on the Army's Fiscal Year 2017
budget, Army Chief of Staff GEN Mark Kinney told the Senate
Appropriations Committee that stopping the drop in Army end
strength without providing funding to cover the additional
costs would undermine readiness and potentially result in a
hollow Army.
AUSA looks forward to working with you to advance the
POSTURE Act, but urges you to consider ways to provide the
additional resources to prepare our Army to face a dangerous
and Increasingly unstable world.
Sincerely,
Gordon R. Sullivan,
General, USA Retired.
____
National Guard Association of
The United States, Inc.
Washington, DC, February 26, 2016.
Hon. Chris Gibson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
On behalf of the nearly 45,000 members of the National
Guard Association of the United States and the approximately
450,000 soldiers and airmen of the National Guard, please
accept our sincere thanks for your leadership in introducing
the Protecting Our Security Through Utilizing Right-Sized
End-Strength (POSTURE) Act of 2016 (H.R. 4534), a bill that
would stop the drawdown of U.S. Land Forces.
NGAUS strongly supports your legislation.
The National Commission on the Future of the Army (NCFA)
recommended a minimally sufficient Total Army of 980,000
soldiers; however, it provided no optimal end-strength level.
NGAUS testified before the NCFA that the Total Army was at
the risk of becoming dangerously small given the current
threat environment.
Given the velocity of instability, the demand for U.S. Land
Forces will likely only increase for the foreseeable future.
U.S. Land Forces must be sized to address these threats
without putting undue stress on our soldiers and marines.
We look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure
this important legislation becomes law. Thank you, as always,
for your continued support for members of the National Guard.
Sincerely,
Gus Hargett,
Major General (Ret), USA, President.
____
Reserve Officers Association,
1 March 2016.
Hon. Chris Gibson,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Gibson: The Reserve Officers Association
(ROA) supports your bill H.R. 4534, ``Protecting Our Security
Through Utilizing Right-Sized End-Strength Act of 2016'' or
the ``POSTURE Act.'' This bill recognizes the vital
contributions of the Reserve Components and the need to
ensure they have the right Fiscal Year 2016 end strength
authorized.
Since 9/11, more than 900,000 Reserve Component members
have been activated to support Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation New Dawn, and other contingencies. Despite
increased use of the Guard and Reserve, the Congressional
Research Service, identified end strength reductions between
FY2001 and FY2015.
``Between FY2001 and FY2015, the largest shifts in
authorized end strength have occurred in the Navy Reserve
(-31,600 or -35.5%), Air Force Reserve (-7,258 or -9.8%), and
Coast Guard Reserve (-1,000 or -12.5%). A smaller change
occurred in the Air National Guard (-3,022 or -2.8%) and Army
Reserve (-3,300 or -1.6%), while the authorized end strength
for the Army National Guard (-326 or -0.1%) and the Marine
Corps Reserve (-358 or -0.9%) have been largely unchanged
during this period, (FY2016 National Defense Authorization
Act: Selected Military Personnel Issues, R44120).''
As stated in the bill, passing this legislation will ensure
Guard and Reserve members are available, ``. . . to deter
threats, shape the international security 15 environment,
respond to emergent situations and crises, and, if necessary,
to fight and win the Nation's war, . . .''
ROA has a membership of 50,000, which represents all the
uniformed services of the United States who would be
favorably affected by your bill. Thank you for your efforts
on this issue, and past support to the Military.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey E. Phillips,
Executive Director.
Mr. GIBSON. Lastly, Madam Speaker, the legislative strategy here is
that we have been building out support. Our hope is that when the mark
for the national security policy bill, which will be unveiled here in
the next couple of weeks, that this bill will be included in the
underlying bill because we think it is just so critically important
that we get this done this year.
Madam Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to come together with
my colleagues to talk about such an important issue for the American
people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________