Source: United States Senator for Oklahoma James Inhofe
U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today questioned witnesses about the risks posed by the Biden administration’s proposed cuts to the Army’s fiscal year 2022 budget at a committee hearing.
Witnesses included: Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth and General James McConville, Army Chief of Staff.
Inhofe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let’s get another shot at the Army budget cuts. As I stated in my opening remarks, the Army bears the brunt of the disappointing President’s budget request that prioritizes a domestic agenda over national defense. I’m reminded also of the amendment on there for parity between defense and nondefense. I’ll have to go back and check, but I think this is the first time in 10 years or so that we’ve said parity is not something that is going to be pursued, and that’s the first time the statement has been made in a recorded vote. General McConville, please describe the impact — I’ll give you another shot at the same thing that you were just now talking about — and the risk of these cuts on the Army’s ability to modernize the force for competition, and if necessary, if it should become necessary, conflict with China and Russia, and to fulfill its obligations to the other combatant commanders, which they’d have to do at the same time. Talk about capacity — where do we stand with that?
McConville: Senators, as I said in my opening statement, the end strength of the United States Army is 485,000 on the active and a little over 1 million when it comes to the total force. That’s the same size Army that we had right before 9/11, and as we all know, we go to war with the Army we have, and we had to grow that Army during the conflicts in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and so we have frozen that end strength at 485. Would we like to have a bigger Army, depending on the strategy? Absolutely, but with the budget we have, we are trying to bring forward the best Army to fight tonight and win, but also —what I would argue more importantly — in the future as we watch our strategic competitors, continue to improve their capabilities. The budget gives us the, you know, the most efficient capability when it comes to readiness. If we’re going to send forces into harm’s way, they have got to be ready. As the Secretary talked about, we’re focusing on the squad, platoon and company level to make sure that that all those Soldiers are ready to go. And then we have to modernize the Army. Every, I would argue, every 40 years, the Army has to transform. It did in 1940 right before World War II. It did in 1980 when I came into the Army. Most of the weapon systems we’re using are 1980 vintage, and quite frankly I think in 2020, we must do the same. So we have done all we can with the Secretary and myself to protect the modernization of the Army, and we believe we must do that. And I have outlined in my unfunded requirement letter to you those unfunded requirements that were not met within the budget.
Inhofe: In general, I’m the first to admit that with the budget that we have, you guys are doing great. We don’t have adequate budget, that’s the problem that we have. Let’s look into the future of the cuts. It’s always seemed like when the administration wants to cut defense, it goes after the Army first. When President Obama reduced defense, he cut the Army’s base budget by $70 billion and cut end strength by nearly 90,000. So that was a problem that we were dealing with at that time. These cuts led to an Army with only one Brigade Combat Team at the highest level of readiness, and it took nearly half a decade and $100 billion of additional funding to fix it. Now Secretary Wormuth, the Army’s worked hard in this request to preserve end strength and limit reductions to its highest modernization priorities. Would this be possible with additional budget cuts the next year, in the year after that? We all tend to look at where we are today, and I’m concerned right now with the trends that are out there, where we’re going to be with budget cuts in the near future. What do you think?
Wormuth: Thank you, Senator Inhofe. As you know, Secretary Austin has undertaken both a new national defense strategy review as well as a global posture review, and we of course in the Army are participating in both of those efforts. And I think it will be very important in terms of looking to the future, to look at how that new strategy is developed, and what it requires the Army to do, and I would agree with you, certainly that we are in a very, very tough international security environment. There is no shortage of threats. So I think as General McConville and I go forward into, you know, future POM builds, we’re going to have to be looking carefully at what does the strategy call upon us to do, what do we think are the demands, the current demands, from combatant commanders, and can we meet those current demands, while also protecting our modernization efforts, which is going to be critical, and particularly having seen everything we’re doing at Fort Hood and, again, the challenge of taking care of our people while also meeting current mission requirements, we’re going to, you know, be, I think we are, having set end strength at 485,000, we are still under stress, particularly in certain areas like air defenses, you know, so we’re going to be strong advocates going into the future budget discussions.
Inhofe: Yeah, well, I don’t have any doubt of that, and I know that you’re fully aware of the problems that would exist if we have reductions, which a lot of people including myself are concerned with. So I appreciate the fact that we had to two of you at the helm at this given time, but it’s going to take more resources. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.