Tom Cotton Demands Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll Address The ‘Munitions Crisis’: ‘It’s Unacceptable’

Forbes Breaking News

During Thursday’s Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Sen. Tom Cotton questioned the Army Secretary, Daniel Driscoll, and Chief of Staff General Randy A. George about defense industrial contracts and the munitions crisis.

Transcript

00:00Very, very much. Senator Cotton.

00:02Gentlemen, welcome. I was at Fort

00:04Meyer yesterday as the old guard

00:07recognized several persons as

00:08honorary members of the regiment

00:10for their critical work in getting

00:11the caisson platoon back up to

00:13limited operations and also for

00:15their work at the Carter State

00:17Funeral where the caisson platoon

00:19and its horses and horsemen so

00:21well represented the army and the

00:22nation. I want to thank you both

00:23for your work on getting the caisson

00:25platoon back in operation and on

00:27the path towards full operation

00:28very soon. Secretary Driscoll, I

00:31want to turn to the munitions

00:32crisis that our nation faces.

00:34President Trump recently said we

00:36need to take a long hard look at

00:37defense procurement and our defense

00:39industrial base because it's been

00:41withering down to nothing. Given all

00:42the money we spend on the Pentagon,

00:44it's unacceptable that we would ever

00:45run out of ammunition or be capable,

00:47unable to quickly produce the

00:49weapons we need. You also

00:51acknowledged our munitions crisis at

00:52your confirmation hearing. You said

00:54one of the greatest problems facing

00:56our time is getting our munitions

00:57and getting our magazines back up to

00:58where they need to be. I assume three

01:01months on to the job you still

01:02believe that addressing the nation's

01:04munitions crisis is vital if we are

01:06to deter and if necessary fight and

01:08win a war against China?

01:09Absolutely, Senator, and I would even

01:11update and say it is after a hundred

01:14days of seeing it, it is worse than I

01:15thought at my confirmation hearing.

01:16Thank you. So do I and most members of

01:19the committee. That's one reason why I

01:21was pleased to see that the army

01:22transformation initiative focuses on

01:24arsenals, ammunition plants, and

01:26depots, your organic industrial base.

01:29Secretary Hegseth's memo about the

01:31initiative directs the army to

01:33modernize the organic industrial base

01:35to generate the ammunition stockpiles

01:37necessary to sustain national defense

01:39during wartime by implementing 21st

01:42century production capabilities. Given

01:44this and your earlier remarks, Senator

01:46Wicker, I think it's safe to say that

01:48we share the Secretary's belief that the

01:50organic industrial base is a crucial

01:52element of our broader defense

01:55industrial base. Do you agree?

01:56Unequivocally.

01:57Thank you. And we're not the only

01:59ones either. There's other members of

02:01this committee like Senator Mullen and

02:03Senator Ernst and Senator Rosen who

02:05have long pushed the army to

02:06strengthen its organic industrial base.

02:08That includes updating and expanding

02:10operations at facilities like Pine Bluff

02:12Arsenal in my state, McAllister Army

02:15Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma, Hawthorne

02:17Army Depot in Nevada. All these

02:19facilities like all of them across the

02:20organic industrial base are underused

02:22and we've thought for some time the

02:24army should be expanding them to meet

02:26urgent national security needs. And

02:28while I agree with you that the

02:30commercial industry will play an

02:32important role in solving the crisis,

02:34I think we all know that industry

02:36alone can't do it all. First, I'm

02:39doubtful that private businesses are

02:41going to take up work like smoke

02:43grenades or other niche capabilities

02:45required by the military. For

02:47instance, I'm skeptical that it's

02:49profitable for our business to stand

02:50up new production of white

02:51phosphorus ammunition which is only

02:53produced in Pine Bluff when the

02:55customer base is limited to the U.S.

02:57military and the costs of

02:58production are so high. Just some

03:00rough back of the envelope

03:01calculations I've made suggest it

03:03would cost around half a billion

03:05dollars to replicate that capacity.

03:07And second, I think we've also

03:09learned pretty definitively over the

03:10last three years of the Ukraine

03:11war that our commercial industrial

03:13base, while vital, simply doesn't

03:15have the capacity to produce all the

03:17munitions that our nation needs and

03:19that our allies need, much less what

03:22we would need in a major conflict.

03:24So, I think expanding munitions

03:26production, especially for necessary

03:28materials like nitrocellulose and

03:31RDX that are currently choke points

03:33in the munitions supply chain will

03:35require us to leverage the inherent

03:38advantages of the facilities that you

03:40own, that the Army owns, those

03:43organic industrial base facilities

03:45like Pine Bluff Arsenal. All these

03:47places have highly trained

03:49workforces, they've already gone

03:50through onerous environmental

03:51permitting, they can handle

03:53munitions, they have the

03:54infrastructure that would only be

03:55replicated at a very high cost over

03:57many periods of years. Standing up

03:59munitions factories from scratch

04:01would cost millions and millions of

04:04dollars while expanding operations

04:06at these existing facilities that we

04:09already own is much less costly and

04:12more efficient. And giving that, can

04:14you commit to all of us, as the

04:16chairman suggested, that we work

04:18together to create a plan to

04:20expand and modernize the Army's

04:22organic base, including facilities

04:24like Pine Bluff Arsenal?

04:26Senator, we absolutely want to

04:28work with this committee and this

04:29is not intended to be a cop-out

04:30answer. As we look at our budget,

04:33one of the fundamental problems that

04:34we have is our military

04:36construction costs, and I'll do a

04:37parallel and then bring it right

04:38back, are 68.5 percent more

04:41expensive than if we just built

04:42something right on the other side

04:43of our fence line. And a lot of

04:45that is statutorily driven. There

04:47are some inefficiencies from

04:48government doing it, but

04:49generally speaking, there are so

04:51many constraints on us that when

04:52we try to work within our budget

04:54to expand our munitions, supplies,

04:57and we look at the math, the math

04:59oftentimes says we're too expensive

05:00for ourselves. So in the limited

05:01resource world that we live in,

05:03when we try to do these trade-offs,

05:05it's hard to justify. But working

05:06with this committee to try to

05:07streamline a lot of that,

05:08allocate additional resources,

05:10we are wholeheartedly in

05:11agreement that it is one of the

05:12most critical things for our

05:13country.

05:14Thank you. I think we will want

05:16to examine the math and we'll

05:17want to work together to find the

05:18path where we can meet the

05:20nation's munitions needs, some of

05:21which will come, no doubt, from

05:26expanded private production, but

05:27some of which is going to have

05:28to come from our organic

05:30industrial base. Thank you.

05:32Mr. Secretary, we also might

05:34want to work with you on

05:36alleviating some of the

05:38constraints you referred to, that

05:40you mentioned make it more

05:42expensive. And I think we

05:44have to work with you on

05:46some of the constraints that

05:48make it more expensive to work

05:55with the existing facilities.

Category

Transcript

Recommended