• 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 Chairman Ike Skelton Opening Statement Hearing on Army Budget Request

February 28, 2008

"Welcome to today's hearing on the fiscal year 2009 budget request of the Department of the Army. We have with us today Secretary Pete Geren, the 20th Secretary of the Department of the Army and what is even more impressive, a former member of this committee, and General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the United States Army. Gentlemen, we thank you for coming and we thank you for your extraordinary service. Most of all, thank you to the valiant and dedicated soldiers and civilians that you represent. They have the deep gratitude of the nation, and of this committee.

"Today's hearing is arguably the most important we will hold this year. We are a nation at war. The Army is faced with an avalanche of demands for ground forces, demands from multiple armed conflicts, from security commitments made to defend our allies and overseas interests, from a requirement to deter potential enemies around the world, and from a mandate to defend the homeland. Collectively this list of missions constitutes the National Military Strategy.

"Today, the Army, along with the rest of the Department of Defense, is at risk of not being able to answer the demands of that strategy without suffering losses that this nation has previously deemed unacceptable. General Casey has described the Army as being 'out of balance.' I would add that we appear to be out of balance and walking on a tightrope. The consequences of falling are unpredictable, but likely grave, and certainly are a gamble we can ill afford.

"Normally we would judge the Army budget on two standards. First, does it provide sufficient resources for this year's operations? Second, does it support the long term health of the Army?

"The bad news is that the budget does not fully fund the Army's operations during 2009, and is short in excess of $100 billion. The Secretary of Defense has pledged to send us a full budget request within a few months which may or may not arrive in time to be considered as part of the regular budget. So on question one, the grade is incomplete. Congress also has responsibilities that are incomplete, we have authorized but not yet appropriated money to fully fund Army operations in 2008, however, I'm confident Congress will do so in the near future.

"So let us consider whether the budget properly addresses the future health and readiness of the Army. Readiness is defined as the ability to execute the National Military Strategy. Readiness today is not good, and it is a particular challenge for the Army. The requirement to man, train, and equip brigades for Iraq is consuming the Army's personnel, materiel, and budgetary resources. Other missions required by the National Military Strategy have taken a back seat. The Army is certainly capable. In many ways, today's Army is the most capable we've ever had, with battle-hardened soldiers, experienced leaders, new technology, and evolving and increasingly effective doctrine for the counter-insurgency fight.

"In other equally important ways, however, the Army's capability is not where it was even five years ago. The Army is clearly under prepared for missions that were once seen as central to its mission, and it lacks the robust reserve capacity that has been our traditional hedge against uncertainty. General Casey in his statement describes the current time as one of 'persistent conflict.' In my 31 years in Congress, we've been involved in 12 significant military conflicts, none of which were predicted beforehand. A hedge against uncertainty is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

"So I turn now to the FY09 budget, which does include some encouraging steps in the right direction. You continue to grow the Army, a step I've encouraged for 13 years. We understand that the Army is also likely to accelerate this process when the rest of the budget arrives. This step will go a long ways toward returning depth and flexibility to the force. You've increased funding for training, both tank miles and flying hours, though still short of the requirement.

"At the same time, the schedule for replenishing Army prepositioned stocks has slipped two years, and the schedule for completing the conversion of the Army to modular brigade combat teams has slipped even longer. These schedule delays are a cause of concern.

"The Congress and the Department have been working to fill what General Schoomaker used to refer to as the 'holes in the yard,' but they appear to be getting deeper instead. The Congress has authorized and appropriated more than $67 billion for equipment reset since 2002, and yet the Army's shortages of equipment have progressively worsened over the last several years. Today we must understand what it will take to reverse this trend.

"Last, let me say a few words about roles and missions. The Army, and the nation, learned a hard lesson in Iraq. An enemy that we crushed on the traditional battlefield found new asymmetrical ways to attack us for which we were not well prepared. Future enemies will do the same, and their strategies will be even more varied. We must prepare now for those fights by clarifying the roles and missions of the Armed Forces in emerging areas of warfare such as cyber warfare. Congress mandated in law that the Department review roles and missions.

"Critics have argued that the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force will simply use this process to advance narrow agendas and bicker over budgets and systems. My direction to you is to prove them wrong, and instead take a clear-eyed and creative approach to clarifying roles and missions for future warfare.

"I now turn to my friend from California, Duncan Hunter for his remarks."