OPENING STATEMENT OF U.S. SENATOR JACK REED

RANKING MEMBER, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE

 

SD-G50

DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

Thursday, November 5, 2015

 

To receive testimony on revisiting the roles and missions of the armed forces

(As Prepared for Delivery)

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  I’d like to join you in thanking our witnesses for their willingness to appear today to provide their thoughts on the roles and missions of the military services in providing for the defense of our Nation.  It is clear from your past work and prepared testimony for today’s hearing that each of you brings a unique and valuable perspective on these issues.

Two outside experts that have recently come before our committee, Shawn Brimley and Paul Scharre, wrote last year that “Today’s military is the product of history – not of the missions and threats it now faces.  American forces are hampered by overlapping roles and missions, arcane organizational structures, Cold War platforms and programs, and recruiting practices detached from modern needs.  If it were starting fresh, this is not the military the United States would build.”  While starting from scratch is obviously not an option, I hope today’s witnesses will offer their own thought-provoking proposals for smart reforms that would better align the various roles and missions of our military services, reduce redundancy where appropriate, and make our joint force more effective.

The current and projected budget constraints facing the federal government require that we seek efficiencies while at the same time endeavoring to shape our military for the threats we are most likely to face in the future.  While I suspect that all of our witnesses would support larger budgets for all of our military services, I hope that your testimony today will take into account the very real budget realities facing the Department of Defense and offer recommendations for prioritizing limited resources to most effectively mitigate risks to our national security.

Some may also argue for better readiness and capability of other parts of the government, such as the Departments of State and Homeland Security.  These Departments also include important elements of national power and security.  The domestic discretionary budget is also constraining these elements of our national power.

The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols reforms necessarily focused on the importance of “jointness” in the aftermath of several high profile military operations that exposed deficiencies in our operating concepts.  While these reforms were critical to enabling today’s joint force, they may have also had the unintended consequence of blurring the lines between the traditional roles and missions assigned to the military services and allowing for duplication in some capability areas as new threats and technologies have emerged over time.  I would be especially interested in the thoughts of our witnesses on the delineation of responsibilities in mission areas that have arisen since the passage of Goldwater-Nichols, most notably related to the use of cyber and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

Congress has recognized the need to continually address the responsibilities of the military services as new threats and technologies arise by mandating periodic roles and missions reviews.  Unfortunately, these reviews – namely the Quadrennial Roles and Missions Review – have largely been unsuccessful in accomplishing their purpose.  According to the Government Accountability Office, these reviews fail to “clearly identif[y] the components within the department that are responsible for providing the core competencies and capabilities needed to address each of the primary missions [of the Department of Defense], or plans for addressing any capability gaps or unnecessary duplication.”  I hope our witnesses today will provide any suggestions they may have for improving the output of these efforts.

While it is not a surprise that the military services have been reluctant to cede mission areas and, in fact, some duplication may be appropriate to provide for risk mitigation, achieving the dual goals of efficiency and effectiveness may require a clearer delineation the tasks assigned to each service going forward.

It is an appropriate time to relook at these issues and I again thank the Chairman for holding this hearing and the witnesses for their participation.