BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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Speaker, when the administration initially made the decision on the drawdown, we believe that those assumptions are no longer valid.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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
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 colleagues to talk about such an important issue for the American people.
I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT