McConnell Opening Statement at SAC-D Hearing on FY 26 Budget Request for the Army

Washington, D.C.
–
U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, convened today’s hearing “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2026 Budget Request for the Army”. Prepared text of his opening statement follows:
“With 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.
“Secretary Driscoll, I’m glad you were able to visit Fort Knox yesterday. As I’m sure you found, far more important than the gold are the fine soldiers and civilians who serve there.
“We 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’re deeply grateful to the soldiers you lead for their bravery and sacrifice at the tip of the spear.
“The 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’s structure and capabilities to tomorrow’s challenges while preserving its ability to fight today is essential work. The Army’s history reminds us that we don’t always get to choose the types of war we fight, and must prepare for all contingencies.
“Congress has backed the Army through a litany of failed modernization programs like Future Combat Systems or Crusader. We’ve 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’s current and future requirements. In the face of growing threats, pursuing generational change on the cheap is risky business.
“As you work with the Congress on the Army Transformation Initiative, I hope you will look to the Marine Corps’ own controversial modernization program as a model of transparency and building trust.
“Congress has a constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense and steward taxpayer dollars responsibly. And we don’t serve either the taxpayer or the common defense with blank checks for vaguely-defined priorities.
“We 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’ll want to understand how ATI intends to achieve this objective.
“Tomorrow’s Army will need to integrate existing systems and modernized capabilities…Sustain existing industrial relationships and welcome new entrants to the defense enterprise. This is not a zero-sum proposition. And if it’s time to walk away from certain legacy programs, the Army will need to show its work. For example, if it’s 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?
“Services have to think through the industrial implication of such decisions. This isn’t an argument to buy vehicles the Army doesn’t need, but a recommendation to consider how existing manufacturing capacity can be put to better use in light of changing requirements. The Army’s 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 – in this case, precisely the kind of innovative tech company the Army claims it wants to foster.
“Of course, when we understand the Army’s 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’s 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’s 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’s 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.
“This 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.
“Army 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.
“I regret that the Army is being tasked with doing more with less. But it’s increasingly likely that looming challenges will test us in multiple theaters simultaneously. That we don’t have the magazine depth for today’s fights, much less the capabilities we need for tomorrow’s.
“Certainly, we can’t expect to keep pace with a pacing threat in the Indo-Pacific, or adversary alignment across the globe, if our base defense budget can’t even keep pace with inflation.
“This subcommittee hopes to be an active partner in the Army’s modernization efforts. But we can’t expect success on a shoestring budget. Mr. Secretary, General George – I’ll look forward to hearing your views on these topics. And we’ll turn to you momentarily for opening comments.”