• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

House Armed Services Committee
Subcommittee Chairman Abercrombie's Opening Statement--March 27, 2007

"The Air and Land Forces Subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on the US Army's 2008 procurement and research & development budget. The panel includes witnesses from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Army, and the Government Accountability Office.

"In terms of overall funding, the Army's requested investment budget for 2008 of $34.4 billion went up by $7 billion compared to the 2007 base budget level. The Army also received $10 billion more in procurement funds in the "bridge" supplemental passed last fall, and will likely receive another $15 billion in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by the House last week. However, despite all of this additional funding the Army also presented an $11 billion list of "unfunded" requirements along with its 2008 budget.

"Beyond the funding levels, the context for today's hearing is a complex one. The US Army is fighting in two wars, both of uncertain duration and high cost. However, the nation is not mobilized from an economic standpoint. The American people as a whole have been asked to sacrifice little to pay for these wars. Instead, the military community of troops and their families are the ones being asked to carry this heavy burden for the rest of us.

"A final, and most important, issue through which the 2008 budget must be considered is rapidly declining Army readiness. In order to equip troops in Iraq and Afghanistan with the essentials, the rest of the Army has been stripped of equipment and funding, leaving the nation with no strategic ground force reserve. In particular, the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve have serious readiness problems, much of it due to a lack of critical equipment.

"Fixing this serious readiness problem will be a major focus of the subcommittee's work in the 2008 authorization bill. Working in a bipartisan manner, we are going to do everything we can to improve the Army's future readiness.

"Given this context, the major issue facing the subcommittee today is not the relative merits of one program over another, as important as any one of them may be. Instead, the major issue the subcommittee and Congress must consider is how to ensure that the Army as a whole remains ready to do the missions assigned to it.

"The exact nature of these future missions is unclear, but one thing is clear: Army units cannot be ready if they don't have the equipment they are required to have. It is this subcommittee's charter to ensure that Army soldiers have the equipment they need to do what the nation asks of them.

"However, since funding is not unlimited, this could require making difficult choices between addressing the Army's readiness crisis and researching the weapons of the future.

"The witnesses have been asked to provide testimony on some of the Army's major procurement and development programs, including:

• The Future Combat System,
• the Army Modular Force Initiative,
• upgrades to the Army's three major ground combat systems: the M1 tank, the M2 Bradley, and the Stryker vehicle,
• and selected Army communications systems.

"In addition, the hearing memo for members included detailed information on the Army's various force protection equipment programs that our witnesses can also address."