Hearings to examine the posture of the Department of the Army  in review of the Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2026 and the Future Years Defense Program; to be immediately followed by a closed session in SVC-217.

Armed Services Committee

2025-06-05

Source: Congress.gov

Participants

Transcript

Good morning.  The Senate Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the posture of the United States Army.  I want to thank our witnesses, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll,   and the Chief of Staff of the Army, Randy George, for being here.  Unfortunately, it seems the detailed fiscal year 2026 budget will not be available for several more weeks.  Nonetheless, we'll benefit from speaking to both Secretary Driscoll and General George.  In the past month, we've been speaking publicly about the Army Transformation Initiative, or ATI.   This initiative seeks to change portions of the Army's capabilities and force structure while maintaining the Army's   Flat budget.  The Army provided this committee with the first real set of details on the ATI about a week ago.  This hearing marks the beginning of the Army's discussion with Congress on the idea.  We are ready to work with you, gentlemen.  In fact, we must work together rapidly to fix fundamental problems with the Army.  Since 2000, the list of failed Army modernization initiatives   such as the Comanche helicopter, the Crusader howitzer, and the future combat systems has continued to grow.  Between 2002 and 2012, the Army spent $50 billion on programs it eventually canceled.  The record in the past five years has been better, but it still contains significant missteps.  The Army recently spent $2 billion on a scout helicopter that will never fly.   Other cancellations of programs have followed, including the Strategic Long Range Cannon Program, the Extended Range Cannon Artillery Programs, and the M10 Booker Armored Infantry Support Vehicle, as well as the Humvee.
Fundamentally, the Army needs to decide how to adapt to the changing character of warfare and meet priority missions, particularly against China and Russia.  Mr. Secretary, many ideas you propose in your transformation initiative and your budget will meet that mark.   I think you'll find widespread support for increasing investments in long-range fires and air and missile defense, as you proposed.  I would note, however, the lack of logistics investment in your plan, given the Army's central role in logistics in the Pacific.   So perhaps we'll talk about that.  Mr. Secretary, I think you'll find Congress a very willing partner when presented with convincing analysis that justifies investment changes.  In particular, those changes should help American soldiers deter war.   and if necessary, win in a convincing fashion.  Where we do disagree will likely be in effects on the industrial base.  Our defense industrial base is brittle.  We cannot afford to let sites close or we will lose the defense expertise of many skilled workers.   We need investment strategies that recognize this.  Our investment should provide stability and ensure the United States can maintain maximum competition.  The Army cannot follow the divest-to-invest strategy that the Navy and Air Force have wanted to pursue.   The United States faces too many threats today to leave gaps in capabilities.  It will require tightly woven investment strategies among the Army, Congress, and industry to get this right.  So we look forward to your testimony.  With that, I turn to my friend, the ranking member of this committee.

Sign up for free to see the full transcript

Accounts help us prevent bots from abusing our site. Accounts are free and will allow you to access the full transcript.