Press Releases

Today, Rep. Michael Turner (R-OH), Chairman of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces, made the following remarks on the hearing titled "Recommendations from the National Commission on the Future of the Army:"

"The subcommittee meets today along with Members of the Full Committee to receive testimony on the findings and recommendations of the National Commission on the Future of the Army.

I’d like to welcome our distinguished panel:

General Carter Ham, U.S Army retired, Chairman of the Commission, appointed by Chairman Thornberry, and

The Honorable Robert F. Hale, the Commissioner appointed by Ranking Member Smith. Mr. Hale was also the lead for the Commission’s subcommittee on Army Aviation issues.

The Congress was prompted to form the Commission, in large part, over two major concerns.

The first was how the Army should best organize and employ the Total Force in a time of declining resources.

The second was whether the Army should proceed with the transfer of AH-64 Apache aircraft from the reserve components to the Regular Army as directed by the Army’s Aviation Restructure Initiative (ARI).

The Commission reported its findings to Congress and the Administration on January 28, 2016, and made 63 recommendations, 19 of which were directed towards Congress for potential action.

This will provide the committee enough time to review the recommendations as the committee prepares to markup the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

In considering recommendations, the Commission was instructed to take into account 'anticipated mission requirements for the Army at acceptable levels of national risk and in a manner consistent with available resources and anticipated future resources.'

Consequently, the Commission assumed that the Army budget is flat lined at the FY16 PB levels (with inflation).

The Commission has indicated that a 'Total Force' Army of 980,000 soldiers is an 'acceptable level of risk,' but is the lowest total end strength the Army can go given mission requirements and the current Defense Strategic Planning Guidance. Again, the commission did not consider the potential for budget increases over the FY16 PB.

However, the Commission did acknowledge that the current Defense guidance does not include emerging threats such as Russian aggression and the growth of ISIL.

The Commission then further notes that perhaps 'their greatest concern is the inadequacy of that guidance'…

We’ve heard senior military leaders testify before this committee that our military is operating at the 'ragged edge' and that current assumptions in the defense guidance are 'rosy' at best.

Here’s what we know.

• The Army is being asked to do more with less.

• Demands from the Combatant Commands for Army capabilities and capacity continue to increase;

• The world security environment is considerably worse now than when the Department conducted its most recent quadrennial defense review in 2014. Going beyond just Russia and ISIL, North Korea conducted another ballistic missile test over the weekend.

• The Army has soldiers deployed in over 140 countries.

• The Army has provided over 1.5 million troop-years to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001

• The Army has nearly 100,000 soldiers committed to the Pacific and continues to deter aggression in the Korean peninsula.

Despite these demands the Army however has continued to downsize and budgets have been reduced.

I commend the commission for developing and recommending risk reduction strategies to help the Army mitigate risk given the current budget constrained environment, but Congress has the responsibility to make the hard choices.

It’s obvious to me that the Administration and DOD need to revise and update current defense guidance that clearly addresses the threats we now face.

For example, General Breedlove recently issued new theater strategy for the U.S. European Command that now has the number one priority as deterring Russian aggression in Europe.

I hope today we can engage in candid discussion regarding total Army force capability and capacity as compared to current and emerging threats.

I want to briefly touch on the Army’s aviation restructure initiative or A-R-I.

Originally the ARI had proposed numerous changes to Army Aviation Capacity, including the transfer of all Apache helicopters out of the Army National Guard to the Regular Army.

The commission examined three comprehensive options for the Army’s A-R-I and we look forward to hearing more details about their final recommendation.

This should also provide a great opportunity for the Committee to gain a better understanding of the Commission’s views in how to better utilize the Reserve Components."