Jim Inhofe
The Public Record
James Mountain Inhofe is a former United States Senator from Oklahoma, serving from 1994 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, Inhofe is known for his strong conservative views, particularly on issues related to national defense and environmental policy. He gained notoriety for his skepticism regarding climate change, famously calling it a hoax. Throughout his tenure, he held significant positions, including Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
My instincts are that a reduction of ground forces to levels required by full sequestration would pose significant risk to our national security.
While the reconciliation process in Afghanistan has thus far been exceedingly complex and challenging, it has not stopped moving forward.
The United States has been extremely clear in our commitment to the people of Afghanistan post-2014.
The Department maintains a robust military presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities.
The United States and its allies have put in place against Iran tough, smart, and crippling sanctions.
What happens to these units on October 1, 2013, when sequestration hits again?
I believe DOD was short approximately $11 billion in overseas contingency operations (OCO) funding and has requested that $9.6 billion be reprogrammed from the base budget.
Why couldn't DOD do this before April 9, 2013? Was it due to a lack of flexibility in moving funds within the DOD budget?
What do you hope will be your legacy as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and how do we avoid the legacy of being in charge during the age of a hollow force?
I am very concerned that we will have fewer options, that our deterrent effect will be diminished, and that military action will result in more casualties if we fail to maintain our high state of readiness because of budget uncertainty.
Risk rises significantly when we no longer have trained and ready troops to respond to contingencies that threaten our national security interests.
I am concerned that full sequestration is significantly impacting military readiness, increasing risks especially in the event of multiple contingencies.
Risk to the strategy becomes unacceptable when we no longer have trained and ready troops to respond to contingencies that threaten our national security interests.
Over a longer term, sequester in fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2021 would seriously disrupt our forces and programs.
A plan to 'reverse' deterioration would depend on how long the sequestration mechanism remains in effect.
Due to the reality that it takes longer to restore readiness than it does to lose it, continued sequestration will pose institutional challenges far beyond 2014.
The SCMR showed that we will not be able to implement immediate significant cuts strategically.
I am arguably the strongest supporter of opening it up, using it to its fullest capacity not just for incarceration but for trials.
I appreciate both of you. We have to let the people know that we have a real serious problem here, and I think this hearing is our opportunity to do that.





