Senate hearing: services warn full-year continuing resolution would harm readiness

Senate Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee Chairman Sullivan and the committee received testimony from senior uniformed leaders and a Government Accountability Office witness warning that a full-year continuing resolution (CR) would hinder readiness across the services.

The committee heard that a CR would delay ship and aircraft maintenance, reduce procurement flexibility for rapid technology, and strain personnel accounts. "A full year long continued resolution impact, yes," Army witness General Mingus told the panel, adding that the severity would depend on which budget anomalies (exceptions) appear in any enacted CR. GAO analyst Diana Mauer told senators the services face long-standing gaps between mission and resources that sustainment shortfalls make worse.

The hearing focused on three interlocking concerns: near-term effects of a CR, the need for budget flexibilities in execution, and recent recruiting gains. In opening remarks, Chairman Sullivan said the hearing was "one of the most important hearings" because "there's very few other issues more important than the readiness of our United States military." Ranking Member Senator Hirono pressed witnesses to describe specific readiness impacts a full-year CR would cause, noting that "billions in military construction and family housing projects would not occur in a full CR." GAO's Mauer summarized cross-cutting sustainment issues: gaps between mission and resources, insufficient focus on sustainment after procurement, and logistics that lag operational needs.

Witnesses described how a multi-month or year-long CR would limit new starts, constrain procurement lines and complicate rapid acquisition to respond to emerging threats. General Mingus and Admiral Kilby urged expanded in-year transfer authorities and program-element consolidation so services can redirect funds to urgent needs without waiting years for reprogramming. The Navy said a CR could put at risk a set of scheduled maintenance availabilities; Admiral Kilby noted the Navy has seen progress (surface ship depot maintenance on-time completion rose from 41% to 68%) but cautioned that amphibious shipping maintenance remains a problem. The Air Force testified that parts, people, flying hours and infrastructure must be synchronized to produce warfighting capability and estimated CR impacts in the billions.

All services reported recruiting improvements after several years of shortfalls. General Mingus said the Army exceeded its FY24 goal (over 55,000 new soldiers) and is targeting 61,000 this year, reporting it was 72.7% of that goal at the time of testimony. Service witnesses credited professionalized recruiting forces, expanded geographic reach, and targeted incentives. GAO recommended the services document and share lessons learned about effective recruiting practices.

Senators pressed for specific authorities and budget tools the services want. Speakers repeatedly requested multiyear availability for some appropriations, greater inter-account transfer authority, and faster in-year reprogramming so rapidly evolving technologies (for example, counter-UAS and advanced command-and-control systems) can be fielded during execution rather than waiting multiple budget cycles.

Committee members also raised personnel and quality-of-life issues that affect readiness: aging barracks and family-housing backlogs in the Indo-Pacific, shipyard throughput and workforce strains, and maintenance depot investments. Witnesses described targeted infrastructure investments and depot-modernization plans but said those too are at risk under constrained budgeting.

The hearing concluded with committee commitments to follow up questions for the record and with witnesses urging predictability in funding. "Ultimately, the Army can afford a large, ready, or modern force, but with the current budget, it cannot afford all 3," General Mingus said. "Either we provide soldiers the capabilities needed to win or we accept greater risks in other areas."