The changing terrain: Sequestration
The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps service chiefs testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee Thursday morning at the “Long-term Budgetary Challenges Facing the Military Services and Innovative Solutions for Maintaining our Military Superiority” hearing. As expected, the theme running across all four services was the damaging effects of the Budget Control Act. After reading the chiefs’ written statements, the phrase that stuck with me, and which I think perfectly describes the negative effects of sequestration, came from Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations: “This fraying of our team represents a grave threat to our future.”
Following are highlights from the four statements.
Admiral John M. Richardson, Chief of Naval Operations
“We ask a lot of our Sailors, and they expect very little in return.”
Adm. Richardson told the committee that little has changed over the last 14 months, and the gap between the demands the Navy is facing and the solutions available to address them is growing. He referred to reduced funding levels, high operational tempo and persistent uncertainty about when budgets will be approved as a “triple whammy,” naming it a “readiness debt,” like carrying debt on a credit card. Budget instability, workforce limitations and continuing resolutions (CRs) have undermined effectiveness and efficiency. He said the CRs compromise their mission, and drive “inefficiency and waste into all that we do.”
The Navy continues to extend deployments beyond projections, resulting in “increased wear and tear on ships, aircraft, and people,” and “budget constraints are forcing choices that limit our naval capabilities in the face of growing threats.”
Adm. Richardson said he “would be especially grateful for any solution that offered greater budgetary stability,” requesting “a return to reliable and predictable budgeting.”
General Mark A. Milley, Chief of Staff, United States Army
“Sustaining the high levels of performance our Army has demonstrated since 1775 requires consistent, long term, balanced and predictable funding.”
Gen. Milley said that “predictable and consistent funding is absolutely essential” and the Army cannot sustain readiness or build the Army if funding returns to sequestration levels in FY18. The Army has reduced end-strength while prioritizing readiness, reducing infrastructure maintenance and decreasing funding for modernization. If sequestration returns in FY18, this will force the Army to further draw down end-strength, reduce readiness funding and “increase the risk of sending under-trained and poorly equipped Soldiers into harm’s way.”
Gen. Milley’s statement concluded with “We request the support of Congress to predictably fund the Army at balanced and sufficient levels to meet current demands and to build a more capable, modern, ready force for future contingencies.”
General Robert B. Neller, Commandant of the Marine Corps
“The harmful effects of ‘sequestration’ are well known and will continue to harm the Marine Corps if they continue.”
Gen. Neller stated that although Marine Corps forces are ready to fight, the service is fiscally stretched to maintain readiness in the near term and to modernize for future readiness. He said deploying units are ready, but non-deployed commands “lack sufficient resources to meet the necessary personnel, training, and equipment readiness levels to respond today.” He said that “Fifteen years of continuous combat have created a high operational tempo, adding significant stress on the force, specifically on our people, our equipment (particularly aviation) and our readiness.”
Aviation units have been unable to adequately meet aircrew training requirements for several years. With Marines leaving the service for civilian airline jobs, the Corps anticipates needing additional resources for bonus incentives in order to remain competitive and keep existing talent.
Gen. Neller said “A service chief manages uncertainty and risk through planning. The 2017 budget has yet to be approved.” He said a CR of three months or less is “undesirable but manageable” but a longer CR “dramatically increases risk…and disrupts predictability…” especially when it comes to planning and executing a 5-year program. Current funding levels are not healthy “for the security of our Nation as we prepare for future readiness.”
General David L. Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the Air Force
“…permanent relief from the Budget Control Act—with predictable funding—is absolutely critical…”
Gen. Goldfein stated that “Reducing and realigning Air Force infrastructure would best support Air Force operations. Therefore, we support a new base realignment and closure evaluation.” He said that uncertain budgets make it difficult to “…balance investments to modernize, recover readiness, right-size the force, win today’s fight, and fully execute Defense Strategic Guidance.” Permanent relief from the Budget Control Act is critical to rebuilding capability, capacity and readiness.
Source: United States Senate Armed Services Committee Testimony, September 15, 2016
Leave a Reply