Opening Statement of U.S. Senator Jack Reed

Ranking Member, Senate Armed Services Committee

 

Room SH-216

Hart Senate Office Building

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

 

To receive testimony on global challenges and U.S. national security strategy

(As Prepared for Delivery)

 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

I also want to welcome our witnesses and thank them for their service both in and out of government.  Over the years, and especially so since we’ve been at war, the Quadrennial Defense Review, like any strategy, has had to contend with the challenge of the unpredictable and constantly shifting nature of the world and threats we face.  As military leaders have pointed out, we have never predicted correctly where or when the next crisis might occur. 

However, the Department of Defense’s requirement to conduct security and defense analysis and planning means that assumptions must be made, objective threat assessments done, and guidance provided to our military leaders that prioritizes our national security interests.  Each QDR, regardless of administration, has had to make strategic or resource tradeoffs. 

The work of the current National Defense Panel, in its review of the 2014 QDR, provides an independent consideration of the Department’s assessment of the security environment, its defense strategy and priorities, and identification of the capabilities necessary to manage our strategic risk. 

In essence, the Panel found that the 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and defense strategy makes a reasonable strategic assessment.  For example, the Panel largely echoes the QDR’s strategic assessment and highlights the challenges the nation faces, with emphasis on China, Russia in Ukraine, proliferation in North Korea and Iran, insurgency in Iraq, civil war in Syria, and instability throughout the Middle East and Africa. 

The Panel also acknowledges that the QDR calls for the right capabilities and capacities to address the many challenges we face today and into the future.    However, the Panel notes, those capabilities and capacities clearly exceed the budget resources available and, therefore, undermines the strategy.   

It is no surprise, therefore, that the Panel’s overarching finding and recommendation is that the Budget Control Act endangers the nation’s security and calls for its repeal.  The Panel also argues for increasing defense funding to 2012 levels, reining in personnel costs, and more budget predictability.   In addition to the risks of sequestration, I would be interested to hear the witnesses’ assessment of other risks to our national security, as well as risks to our military and their families.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I note that, after nearly 20 years of QDRs and recurring questions about its value, last year’s National Defense Authorization Act modified the requirements for this periodic defense review, now called the Defense Strategy Review.  These changes include the development of a national defense strategy that addresses our security interests across the near, mid, and far-terms; and focuses and streamlines the elements of a strategy Congress considers essential to a comprehensive defense review.  I would be interested to know the witnesses’ views on these changes and the prospects for a more timely, relevant and useful national defense strategy process.

Thank you Mr. Chairman.