Letter to the House of Representatives - Military Cuts

Letter

Dear Colleague:

We write to bring to your attention one of many negative consequences that across-the-board sequestration cuts are having, and will continue to have, on our nation's military, and particularly the U.S. Army.

Sequestration is the result of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA), which the House of Representatives passed on August 1, 2011 by a vote of 269-161. Driven by the BCA, the Army announced it would reduce the number of active duty troops to meet constrained funding. The Army conducted and published two studies assessing potential end strength reductions at several bases. Excerpts from these studies, which are enclosed, paint a troubling picture of our military's size and reduced capabilities if sequestration continues. To put these potential troop cuts in perspective, here is the Army's Active Duty end strength in recent years:

Date Army End Strength (Active Duty)

September 2001 482,400

September 2010 (Surge) 570,000

October 2015 490,000

October 2019 (Sequester-level cuts) 420,000

We believe alleviating the impact of sequestration on the military must be a top priority of the 114th Congress, and that there is the will within the Congress to do so. Of note, 108 current Members of the House opposed the original Budget Control Act. Moreover, approximately 138 current Members were not in office at the time the BCA was considered in 2011, and therefore have not had the opportunity to cast judgment on the policy.

To date, military leaders have temporarily mitigated the effects of sequestration by making dangerous tradeoffs between investing in readiness and modernization. Some defense funding was restored in fiscal years 2014 and 2015 in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013. However, this was only a temporary fix. Tradeoffs can only be made for so long without significantly weakening the force. Additionally, the relief provided by the Bipartisan Budget Act expires at the end of September. Accordingly, the full impact of sequestration, more harsh than anything we've seen so far, will hit the Pentagon in fiscal year 2016 unless Congress acts.

Considering the national security threats that we face today and the uncertain threats we will likely face tomorrow, Congress should not allow a dramatic reduction in the Army's end strength or a similar reduction in the capabilities of the other service branches. The world we face today is very different from the one we faced two years ago. We did not anticipate the requirement to send soldiers to Europe to face a resurgent Russia, or back to Iraq to face the rising threat from Islamic State of Iraq and Levant, or to Africa to support the international effort to battle Ebola. The Army must maintain rotational presence in Korea and Europe to meet our security obligations and to surge around the world if needed. We must have a security debate in this country and decide what we want the Army to do in the next ten years before we consider further Army reductions.

Inaction will put us further down the path of undermining our national security, local economies, and the livelihoods of military families who have sacrificed so much over the last thirteen years. We encourage you to review the enclosed excerpt from the Army's report to better understand the impact of the sequestration policy on the Army, and to help us make addressing sequestration a top priority moving forward.

Very truly yours,

Martha Roby (AL-2)

Member of Congress

Tulsi Gabbard (HI-2)

Member of Congress

Source