Watch Video Here

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing on the Department of the Army’s posture and requirements for the challenges ahead.

During the hearing, the committee received testimony from the Army’s senior civilian leader, Secretary Driscoll, and the highest-ranking commissioned officer within the Department of the Army, General George.

In his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker emphasized that this hearing marked the beginning of the Army’s dialogue with Congress on the Army’s Transformation Initiative (ATI) and underscored the committee’s willingness to partner with Army leadership to address fundamental problems within the service.

Read Senator Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.

Good morning. The Senate Armed Services Committee meets today to receive testimony on the posture of the United States Army. I want to thank our witnesses, Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll and the Chief of Staff of the Army General Randy George, for being here.  Unfortunately, it seems the detailed Fiscal Year 2026 budget will not be available for several more weeks.

Nonetheless, we will benefit from speaking with you both, Secretary Driscoll and General George. In the past month, we’ve been speaking publicly about the Army Transformation Initiative, or “ATI”. This initiative seeks to change portions of the Army’s capabilities and force structure while maintaining the Army’s flat budget.

The Army provided this committee with the first real set of details on the ATI about a week ago. This hearing marks the beginning of the Army’s discussion with Congress on the idea.  We are ready to work with you, gentlemen.

In fact, we must work together rapidly to fix fundamental problems with the U.S. Army.  Since 2000, the list of failed Army modernization initiatives – such as the Comanche helicopter, the Crusader howitzer, and the Future Combat Systems – has continued to grow.

Between 2002 and 2012, the Army spent $50 billion on programs it eventually canceled. The record in the past five years has been better but still contains significant missteps. The Army recently spent $2 billion on a scout helicopter that will never fly. Other cancellations of programs have followed, including the Strategic Long-Range Cannon program, the Extended Range Cannon Artillery programs, and the M-10 Booker armored infantry support vehicle, as well as the “Hum-Vee.”

Fundamentally, the Army needs to decide how to adapt to the changing character of warfare and meet priority missions, particularly against China and Russia. Mr. Secretary, many ideas you propose in your Transformation Initiative and your budget will meet that mark. I think you will find widespread support for increasing investments in long-range fires and air and missile defense, as you proposed. I would note, however, the lack of logistics investments in your plan, given the Army’s central role in logistics in the Pacific – so perhaps we’ll talk about that.

Mr. Secretary, I think you will find Congress a very willing partner when presented with convincing analysis that justifies investment changes. In particular, those changes should help American soldiers deter war and, if necessary, win in convincing fashion. Where we do disagree, will likely be in effects on the industrial base. Our defense industrial base is brittle. We cannot afford to let sites close, or we will lose the defense expertise of many skilled workers. We need investment strategies that recognize this. Our investments should provide stability and ensure the United States can maintain maximum competition. The Army cannot follow the “divest to invest” strategy that the Navy and Air Force have wanted to pursue. The United States faces too many threats today to leave gaps in capabilities. It will require tightly woven investment strategies among the Army, Congress, and industry to get this right.