{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=05BA6AD2-32A4-450D-BA04-CF7587014FFE", "McConnell Opening Statement at SAC-D Hearing on FY 26 Budget Request for the Army", "2025-06-18", "2025", "2025-06", "Republican", "Senate", "KY", "Mitch McConnell", "M000355", "www.mcconnell.senate.gov", "mcconnell", "https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases", "scraper", "Washington, D.C. \u2013 U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, convened today\u2019s hearing \u201cA Review of the President\u2019s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Army\u201d. Prepared text of his opening statement follows:\n\n\u201cWith us today are the Secretary of the Army, Dan Driscoll, and the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Randy George. Welcome to you both. And happy belated birthday to the U.S. Army.\n\n\u201cSecretary Driscoll, I\u2019m glad you were able to visit Fort Knox yesterday. As I\u2019m sure you found, far more important than the gold are the fine soldiers and civilians who serve there.\n\n\u201cWe appreciate that both of you are willing to serve our nation at a consequential moment for the Army, the Department of Defense, and U.S. national security. And we\u2019re deeply grateful to the soldiers you lead for their bravery and sacrifice at the tip of the spear.\n\n\u201cThe recent losses of Army personnel in training incidents in Lithuania, Hungary, and Iraq are reminders of the risks U.S. servicemembers take every day to keep us safe. Matching the Army\u2019s structure and capabilities to tomorrow\u2019s challenges while preserving its ability to fight today is essential work. The Army\u2019s history reminds us that we don\u2019t always get to choose the types of war we fight, and must prepare for all contingencies.\n\n\u201cCongress has backed the Army through a litany of failed modernization programs like Future Combat Systems or Crusader. We\u2019ve watched new requirements, cost overruns, and adversary advances undermine their rationale before they became operational. If the Administration made the case for sustained increases in defense spending, the Army would have a stronger hand when asking Congress to take risks on new initiatives. But net cuts to defense spending make it harder to balance the Army\u2019s current and future requirements. In the face of growing threats, pursuing generational change on the cheap is risky business.\n\n\u201cAs you work with the Congress on the Army Transformation Initiative, I hope you will look to the Marine Corps\u2019 own controversial modernization program as a model of transparency and building trust.\n\n\u201cCongress has a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense and steward taxpayer dollars responsibly. And we don\u2019t serve either the taxpayer or the common defense with blank checks for vaguely-defined priorities.\n\n\u201cWe want to see the analysis behind the specific bets the Army wants to place on ATI. We want to understand the second-order effects on industry, other services, and allies. Certainly, the Army needs to be better equipped to face Indo-Pacific contingencies, and we\u2019ll want to understand how ATI intends to achieve this objective.\n\n\u201cTomorrow\u2019s Army will need to integrate existing systems and modernized capabilities\u2026Sustain existing industrial relationships and welcome new entrants to the defense enterprise. This is not a zero-sum proposition. And if it\u2019s time to walk away from certain legacy programs, the Army will need to show its work. For example, if it\u2019s time to move on from the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, why did the Army sign an $8 billion contract two years ago to procure more? Why did the Army not coordinate its termination decision for a joint program with the Marine Corps and the other services to gauge whether such a decision would put their budgets, operational capabilities, or readiness at risk? And what is the impact on the defense industrial base the Army relies on?\n\n\u201cServices have to think through the industrial implication of such decisions. This isn\u2019t an argument to buy vehicles the Army doesn\u2019t need, but a recommendation to consider how existing manufacturing capacity can be put to better use in light of changing requirements. The Army\u2019s abrupt decision to terminate the Robotic Combat Vehicle program also reinforces a tendency to abandon promising capabilities midstream. This signals unreliability to industry partners willing to invest their own capital in future military technologies \u2013 in this case, precisely the kind of innovative tech company the Army claims it wants to foster.\n\n\u201cOf course, when we understand the Army\u2019s challenges and objectives, we can help you achieve them. For example, we combed through unexecutable resources in the FY25 request and found resources to fully fund the Army\u2019s number one unfunded priority for counter-UAS capabilities. Why such an important requirement was unfunded in the first place, however, raises more fundamental questions about the Army and Department\u2019s own budget process. We also provided additional flexibility in funding to address UAS and counter-UAS challenges. And we invested in solid rocket motor production in excess of the previous Administration\u2019s official requests to help advance much-needed replenishment of air-defense interceptors and long-range fires. If the Army shares our concern about a paucity of air defense and counter-UAS capabilities, I hope you can explain why there is so little funding for proven systems like CIWS.\n\n\u201cThis spring, Secretary Hegseth identified modernizing and sustaining the organic industrial base as an urgent priority. When we hear that the Army is considering mothballing purpose-built munitions production facilities already at your disposal, it raises questions about your intent to meet this directive.\n\n\u201cArmy Depots in states like Kentucky, Arkansas, and Alabama have already built trust with local communities and assembled skilled workforces. And they continue to attract interest in new public-private partnerships. That would be a win-win for modernization. So I fail to see how cutting this essential, existing capacity will help the Army reach the production levels needed to meet growing demands.\n\n\u201cI regret that the Army is being tasked with doing more with less. But it\u2019s increasingly likely that looming challenges will test us in multiple theaters simultaneously. That we don\u2019t have the magazine depth for today\u2019s fights, much less the capabilities we need for tomorrow\u2019s.\n\n\u201cCertainly, we can\u2019t expect to keep pace with a pacing threat in the Indo-Pacific, or adversary alignment across the globe, if our base defense budget can\u2019t even keep pace with inflation.\n\n\u201cThis subcommittee hopes to be an active partner in the Army\u2019s modernization efforts. But we can\u2019t expect success on a shoestring budget. Mr. Secretary, General George \u2013 I\u2019ll look forward to hearing your views on these topics. And we\u2019ll turn to you momentarily for opening comments.\u201d", 1, "2026-03-30T01:40:41Z", "2026-04-06T18:34:38Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=05BA6AD2-32A4-450D-BA04-CF7587014FFE"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5289110597223043, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}