[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Page 6991]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           NATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, yesterday Senator Graham and I introduced a 
bill to establish a National Commission on the Future of the Army, an 
independent panel that will bear the responsibility of analyzing some 
major changes to the U.S. Army that were proposed in the President's 
budget. The Army's budget for Fiscal Year 2015 sets a path toward 
major, irreversible changes to Army capacity and capability, 
particularly in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves, that cannot 
be ignored by the Congress.
  Senator Graham, my fellow co-chair of the Senate National Guard 
Caucus, has said repeatedly that these changes fundamentally alter what 
it means for the National Guard to be a combat reserve of the Army. The 
changes would also render the Nation's operational reserve insufficient 
in its ability to retain gains in experience and readiness that the 
reserve has achieved over a decade of continuous deployment. Most 
dramatically, these changes would transfer all of the National Guard's 
AH-64 Apaches to the active component, leaving the Nation without any 
combat reserves for one of the aircraft most essential to ground 
operations.
  But the changes that the President's budget proposal would begin to 
make next year go much deeper. They would eventually reduce the 
Nation's Army National Guard to 315,000 soldiers, the fewest in 
decades. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Odierno, testified 
before the Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Defense that this 
number is too low.
  General Odierno said that, at that level, if any of our assumptions 
about future conflict were wrong--that is unless operations were short, 
decisive, and did not require significant sustainability--then we would 
not be prepared. Our Nation's defense would be ill-prepared for future 
conflicts in the mold of past conflicts like Afghanistan, Iraq, 
Vietnam, or Korea.
  No one needs to be reminded of the tight fiscal constraints our 
government currently faces, and that sequestration, unfortunately, 
remains the law of the land. Simply barring any changes from taking 
place in America's Army is not an option. The legislation that Senator 
Graham and I propose will allow several of the Army's proposed cost-
avoidance measures to move forward, while permitting time for a 
commission to study the major and truly controversial changes that have 
been proposed.
  In addition to tasking the commission with considering overall size 
and force mix of the Army, this legislation calls for an evaluation of 
force generation assumptions. That is because the policies put into 
place during 13 years of war are not the same as those that will be 
needed post-drawdown, and determining the right modifications is 
essential to planning for the use and structure of the Army of the next 
decade.
  Congress, under the authorities granted by the Constitution, has a 
responsibility to both raise and equip armies, and to regulate that 
portion of the militia which is called into Federal Service. When a 
budget proposal makes changes in those areas that are as considerable 
as these, it is entirely appropriate for Congress to hit the pause 
button and to ask for a second look.
  We look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to 
ensure that we properly balance and size the Army, and that we do not 
repeat past mistakes by needlessly discarding the depth of our forces.

                          ____________________