Potential Drawdown of Land Forces

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WALZ. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from New York. It is a phrase we sometimes throw around in here without a lot of authenticity behind it, but I can tell you, in this case, a gentleman who served this Nation three decades in uniform and has had a distinguished career here in Congress, I am proud to stand with you.

I think you heard the gentleman's comments on why we think now is not the right time to draw down this land force, and I say that with both of us coming out of that force.

The size of the force this Nation needs should not be predicated by a plan that is outdated. Since the time this plan was written and put into effect: the rise of ISIS, China has built a new island in the South China Sea and is landing aircraft on it now, and a belligerent Russia.

But more than that, we have seen the use of the military force as a deterrent, not just to aggression. We have seen it as a peaceful use, whether it be in Haiti to respond to natural disasters or to respond to Ebola in West Africa. The best trained, the most efficient and the most ready force to be able to use our diplomacy and our humanitarian assets is this land force.

I think for many of us, we were concerned about this, but this is not ideologically driven. The gentleman and I coauthored a piece of legislation that created the National Commission on the Future of the Army.

We said: Let's let the data speak for itself. If the experts can take this in and assess that this force is enough to do what needs to be done according to the strategic plan of this Nation by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the best thinkers, then that is the way it should be.

But they did not come back with that. They came about some alarming things that they talked about, and one of them, I think it is very clear we are heading down the wrong path, stripping it of manpower.

There is a belief in this Nation that we can solve all problems, especially security problems, with the use of technology. Our technological advantage is a huge positive force, but it will not be on the ground with Ebola. It will not be there when we have to have that defending force.

As everyone in this Chamber knows, 15 years of war puts an incredible stress on that. The gentleman used a great analogy.

He talked about turning on and off the lights. I use the one that I think a lot of people think: This is like running the car out of gas. If we just need more, we will put more gas in it.

That is not true. It is running the car out of oil, which causes all kinds of problems. If we do not keep the force where it is at, keep it trained, and keep it ready to go, we will not be able to carry out those missions.

I would like to highlight a couple of other things that the Commission said about the integration of the National Guard to the active components and the use of the National Guard as an operational reserve, not a strategic reserve.

Those of us who lived through the years where the National Guard was an afterthought and we practiced artillery training with toilet paper rolls instead of real charges because we didn't have the capacity to train, that is the surest way to make sure our force is not ready to go. It is not a good use of taxpayer dollars, and it is simply immoral to train America's young warriors without the full capacity of what they need.

So I think, for many of us, this is not only a national security issue, it is a smart fiscal issue. We have paid dearly with treasure and blood to have this force. I can tell you, if the force shrinks too much--and we have seen this happen--the rotations happen very quickly.

All the speakers you are going to hear tonight, Madam Speaker, are going to tell you about this. It becomes very difficult both from the personal side for them to manage their relationships, but also the professional side of soldiering. You can't get to the schools you need. You can't develop the wider breadth that you need for all contingencies.

We have become very, very good at small missions that the same people get rotated into without the ability to look elsewhere. So as we pivot to the Pacific, those are new skill sets that need to be incorporated in.

What the gentleman is asking for is let's just pause in the drawdown, let's keep the force where the Commission and the GAO says it needs to be, let's give the force the ability to rotate out and to do what needs to be done to have them get back and ready to get in the fight again in a way that makes sense. We can do that.

Again, I want to be very clear. Those critics who say that we are asking to build up the military, we are just asking to stop a drawdown that we think gets dangerously close to putting this Nation in a predicament where it cannot carry out the missions that are asked of it.

We in this Chamber and the American public have a moral responsibility to never put a warrior in that position and never put those commanders in that position.

So I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this forward. I want to thank him for being willing to champion this forward. We know this is about educating not only our colleagues, but the American public. It is about having a debate.

I think the gentleman from New York brought up a critical point. Numbers without the ability to train, equip, and do what is necessary to get them to the highest level of readiness is probably worse than nothing, and that is not what we are asking for.

I think, again, to highlight the gentleman's commitment to this, he is looking at ways to pay for it. He is looking at ways to make it work: repealing sequestration, pursuing waste, eliminating programs at the Pentagon, encouraging and assisting our allies and partners to beef up what they need to do to beef up, and ensure the next President has the force capable to not only address current, but future threats. That is our responsibility.

So I am proud to stand with the gentleman on the POSTURE Act. I think it is smart policy. It is predicated on data. It is predicated on decades of personal experience from the gentleman from New York and speakers you are going to hear coming up. It is what the thinkers are telling us.

Again, I think it does come back to the gentleman's opening comments. Those adversaries who think that this is the time to do something with this Nation need to be sent a strong message that we are as strong as ever, our commitment is as strong as ever, and our force will be as it always has been: the best trained and the best fighting force the world has ever seen. We are just asking to give them the numbers to do their job.

So, Madam Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to take a look at this, to get on board, and to talk with the gentleman, myself, and the other cosponsors of this.

Let's put that next President in a position to be able to secure this Nation, to be able to forward project American power in the name of humanitarian or human rights, and continue to give our young warriors what they need.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source