[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4488-4493]
[From the U.S. 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.
  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

[[Page 4489]]

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 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

[[Page 4490]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 4491]]


  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 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

[[Page 4492]]

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- 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

[[Page 4493]]

colleagues to talk about such an important issue for the American 
people.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________