[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
.
[H.A.S.C. No. 117-87]
HEARING
ON
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023
AND
OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FULL COMMITTEE HEARING
ON
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
__________
HEARING HELD
MAY 12, 2022
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-851 WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Seventeenth Congress
ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman
JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona MO BROOKS, Alabama
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts SAM GRAVES, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland, SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
ANDY KIM, New Jersey MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado JIM BANKS, Indiana
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
Chair STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
SARA JACOBS, California LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii RONNY JACKSON, Texas
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
JIMMY PANETTA, California PAT FALLON, Texas
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas
Brian Garrett, Staff Director
Liz Griffin, Professional Staff Member
Kelly Repair, Professional Staff Member
Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 2
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman,
Committee on Armed Services.................................... 1
WITNESSES
McConville, GEN James C., USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army......... 5
Wormuth, Hon. Christine E., Secretary of the Army, U.S. Army..... 3
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Wormuth, Hon. Christine E., joint with GEN James C.
McConville................................................. 65
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:
Mr. Carbajal................................................. 89
Mr. Johnson.................................................. 91
Mr. Larsen................................................... 89
Mr. Waltz.................................................... 90
Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:
Mr. Bacon.................................................... 101
Mr. Crow..................................................... 104
Mr. Fallon................................................... 107
Mr. Franklin................................................. 106
Mr. Garamendi................................................ 95
Dr. Green.................................................... 106
Mrs. Hartzler................................................ 96
Ms. Houlahan................................................. 103
Dr. Jackson.................................................. 107
Mr. Keating.................................................. 101
Mr. Lamborn.................................................. 95
Mrs. McClain................................................. 106
Mr. Scott.................................................... 97
Ms. Speier................................................... 97
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 101
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, Thursday, May 12, 2022.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman
of the committee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Good morning, all. We have a full committee hearing this
morning. The Department of the Army is going to present their
fiscal year 2023 budget request. We welcome our two witnesses,
the Honorable Christine Wormuth, the Secretary of the Army; and
General James McConville, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army.
Before we begin, we are joined by a new member on the
committee this morning. Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia was just
appointed to the committee yesterday and is now part of the
Armed Services Committee. We welcome her. She represents the
29th District of Texas, which includes Houston, South Houston,
Galena Park, Jacinto City, and Pasadena.
She is a former judge and social worker and joins the
committee having previously served as Houston's city
comptroller, Dallas County commissioner, and Texas State
senator. During her time in Congress, Sylvia Garcia was
particularly focused on the incidents surrounding the death of
Vanessa Guillen and was incredibly important in getting the--
passing the reforms to how we handle sexual assault in the
military.
So even before joining this committee, Ms. Garcia has had a
huge impact on our policy. We appreciate that leadership, and
we are very happy to have her on board. Welcome. Thank you for
being here.
As I mentioned this morning, we are hearing from the Army,
part of our continuing posture budget hearing conversation, and
there is a ton of details here. But the two most important
things to me are the Army personnel and modernization.
I think the Army has really been a leader in this starting
with the ``night court'' process that started back I believe
when Mr. Esper was the service secretary. They really took a
hard look at everything that the Army is spending money on and
said, ``Does this make sense?'' and ``What is the future of the
fight?'' Something we talk about a lot on this committee.
How do we catch up with the rapid pace of technology that
is making survivability harder, information more important, and
things like long-range fires and drones and communication
systems even more important? I think the Army is headed in the
right direction on this. The committee looks forward to hearing
from you on how we can continue to support that effort and what
some of the decisions and tradeoffs are that are involved in
there.
Obviously, the amount of money matters. We have the defense
budget that was offered by the President. There is already some
controversy about that, and we will talk about what the numbers
should be. As I always say, I am vastly more concerned about
how we spend that money than how much there is. The President
put forward a budget somewhere around $800 billion, which is a
significant amount of money, but the modernization challenges
are enormous.
We have to update our systems and be ready for the fight
that is here today and not the one that was there 30 years ago,
so that involves some very difficult decisions. The other big
issue, obviously, is personnel. The Army has struggled to meet
its recruiting goals. Obviously, you know, the last 2 years of
the pandemic have scrambled everything about that.
So, it is hard to reach any definitive conclusions about
some sort of, you know, overarching problem. But we want to
figure out, what can we do to help the Army meet those goals,
to be able to recruit and retain the personnel that they need.
So, we look forward to hearing your comments on that as well.
With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Rogers for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA,
RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the witnesses for being here and for your service to our
country. These are very important hearings, and I really
appreciate you making yourself available for them.
This is our last posture hearing of the year. Each of these
hearings have made one thing very clear: the President's
defense budget proposal is woefully inadequate. We have heard
from General Milley that it fails to keep pace with record
inflation. It is so bad that Deputy Secretary Hicks indicated
last week that the Department may need a supplemental for
fiscal year 2022 to deal with it.
We have heard from combatant commanders and service Chiefs
that the budget falls far short of providing our warfighters
the resources they need to carry out their mission. That is why
they have sent Congress a $29 billion in unfunded priorities.
We've heard from Admiral Aquilino about the growing threat
from China and how that threat is manifesting much quicker than
he anticipated. And we read his 1242 Report that lists over $1
billion in requirements needed to deter China that didn't make
it into this budget. Further, we have heard from the leaders of
the other services about the unnecessary risks they will absorb
if this budget becomes a reality.
Today we will hear the toll it is taking on the Army. Like
the leaders of the other services, Secretary Wormuth and
General McConville have had to produce a strategy based on a
budget number, not a budget number based on a strategy, and the
results aren't pretty. The Army is seeking to slash end
strength by 12,000 soldiers. It is facing cuts of 7 percent in
procurement, 6 percent in research and development, and 41
percent in military construction.
The Army is trying their best to manage risk by dividing
investment between long-term modernization priorities and
short-term requirements. They've been able to target investment
in some of the Army's highest priority--highest modernization
priorities, such as long-range precision fires.
There is no question that we need to make investments like
these. Doing so ensures we have at least some capability to
deter and defeat China; but it also means we are making
dangerous gambit that risk in the near term will be low. I
suspect that is not the case, and I suspect that that is why
General McConville has sent us a list of over $5 billion in
unfunded priorities.
The list includes critical vertical lift and ground vehicle
modernization programs. It also includes imperatives like
additional Stinger missiles. These capabilities are critical to
deter and defeat adversaries in the near term. Russia's illegal
invasion of Ukraine highlights just how vital it is that we
pass a robust budget that reduces both near-term and long-term
risks.
Unfortunately, this budget proposal makes those choices
mutually exclusive, and that is unacceptable. Our warfighters
need the training and capability to deter and defeat any
adversary anywhere anytime. I am very concerned that the
President's budget will leave the Army and the rest of the
services unprepared to do that.
I look forward to working with the majority to pass a real
defense budget that supports modernization and ensures credible
deterrence.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Madam Secretary, you are recognized for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
U.S. ARMY
Secretary Wormuth. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. Thank
you for your ongoing support of the Army as we significantly
transform to meet future threats.
We have accomplished a lot this year, but we have a lot
more work ahead of us. We remain focused on our three key
priorities: people, readiness, and modernization. The fiscal
year 2023 budget request enables us to support the National
Defense Strategy, take care of our people, and meet operational
demands abroad and at home.
We are investing $35 billion in modernization, almost $2
billion in military housing and infrastructure, and we are
funding 22 combat training center rotations in fiscal year
2023.
We are modestly reducing our end strength. We are doing
this because we want to focus on maintaining a high-quality
force. We didn't want to have to lower our recruiting
standards. At the same time, we are also working hard to adjust
our recruiting enterprise, given the challenging recruiting
environment that we and the other services are facing.
We are also committed to maintaining momentum on our six
major modernization portfolios. In fiscal year 2023 alone, we
will field four long-range precision-fire systems: the Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon, our ship-sinking Mid-Range Capability,
the Precision Strike Missile, and the Extended Range Cannon
Artillery. We are also modernizing our air and missile defense
systems, and we are funding both the development of FLRAA
[Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft] and FARA [Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft], which we plan to field in 2030.
As important as it is to maintain our momentum on
modernization, people are the strength of our Army and our
greatest asset. This budget increases soldier and Army civilian
pay and funds a number of quality of life improvements,
including barracks, family housing, and various childcare
initiatives.
To reduce harmful behaviors, we are building out a
prevention workforce that will help us with our efforts to
build strong, cohesive teams that are trained, disciplined, and
fit. Our SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and
Prevention program] Fusion Center Directorate pilot brings
together in one place all of the resources to support victims
of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and these pilots are
up and running.
We are also continuing to strive to present--to prevent
suicide in our ranks. We have started conducting 100 percent
mental health wellness checks in some of our units, and we are
surging behavioral health resources to where they are most
needed, even as we confront a nationwide shortage of providers.
As we focus on taking care of soldiers and their families,
and transforming to meet future threats, the Army is also
playing a key role in the here and now. Today we have over
47,000 soldiers in Europe to reassure our allies, deter
aggression against NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]
territory, and to help Ukraine defend itself.
As you all know, the Army has provided a wide range of
lethal assistance to Ukraine. And while we are focused on
Europe, we are not taking our eye off the pacing challenge of
China in the Indo-Pacific. Through Operation Pacific Pathways,
we have deployed thousands of Army forces and equipment sets to
the region for exercises that strengthen joint force
integration, demonstrate combat capability, and promote
interoperability.
In just the last 2 years, for example, the 5th Security
Force Assistance Brigade has sent over 40 advisory teams to 14
different countries. This kind of interoperability and
relationships that our Army forces are building with countries
in the region increases the potential for additional access and
combined action if there is a future crisis.
Our access, presence, and influence around the world are
enduring advantages that contribute to integrated deterrence.
And to continue building our enduring advantage relative to our
adversaries, we have to pursue cutting-edge experimentation and
innovation. Much of our experimentation activity will culminate
this fall in Project Convergence 22, where our sister services
will join us with operational units and new technologies to
work together to solve important operational challenges.
America's Army is fit, trained, and ready when called upon
to fight and win the Nation's wars. We are transforming for the
future, something we have to do given the dangerous environment
we face today. I am very proud of all that our soldiers are
doing to protect our country and look forward to your questions
this morning.
[The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wormuth and
General McConville can be found in the Appendix on page 65.]
The Chairman. Thank you.
General McConville.
STATEMENT OF GEN JAMES C. MCCONVILLE, USA, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S.
ARMY
General McConville. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking
Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. Thank
you for the opportunity to be here today and for your continued
support to the Army and our people: our soldiers from all three
components, our families, our civilians, and our soldiers for
life.
The men and women of the United States Army stand ready to
fight and win our Nation's wars as a member of the joint force.
I could not be more proud of each and every one of them. The
Army is well aligned with the National Defense Strategy through
our existing priorities of people, readiness, and
modernization. And we win through our people. They are our
greatest strength and our most important weapons system. That
is why people remain the Army's number one priority.
We are in a war for talent. That means recruiting our
Nation's best and modernizing our talent management systems.
That means retaining our best. We recruit soldiers, but we
retain families. So we are ensuring access to quality housing,
healthcare, childcare, spouse employment, and PCS [permanent
change of station] moves.
When our soldiers get the call that it is time to deploy,
we want them to be laser focused on their mission, knowing that
their families will be well taken care of at home. Above all,
putting our people first means building cohesive teams that are
highly trained, disciplined, and fit, where everyone is treated
with dignity and respect, and they are ready to fight and win.
But being ready today is not good enough. We must also make
sure we are ready tomorrow, and that is what our modernization
is all about: future readiness. The Army continues to undergo
its greatest transformation in over 40 years, and we remain
committed to our six modernization priorities. We have 24
signature modernization systems that we will have in the hands
of soldiers by fiscal year 2023, either for testing or
fielding.
Also in fiscal year 2023, we will stand up the third of our
five multi-domain task forces. The U.S. Army never fights
alone, so we continue to invest in strengthening our
relationships with allies and partners across the globe.
We can see the return on those investments in our response
to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Never before have we asked so
many to move so quickly. We could not do it without the access
and presence our allies and partners provide.
In less than a week, the 1st Armored Brigade and the 3rd
Infantry Division was able to deploy from Fort Stewart,
Georgia, and be on the ground in Germany starting live-fire
exercises with tanks drawn from Army prepositioned stocks in
Europe. This is a testament to our tactical and strategic
readiness, to the quality of our incredible logisticians, and
to the investments Congress has made over the past several
years in setting the European theater.
When it is time to go, we go with the Army we have, and the
Army we have is the world's greatest fighting force. We must
ensure it stays that way. And with your continued support, we
will.
I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you both very much. Two questions. One,
I know the Army has been very focused on long-range fires, and
this is one of the main features of the modern battlefield that
we are seeing play out in Ukraine. You know, you have to be
able to see and target the enemy before they can see and target
you, and there are a ton of layers that go into that--secure
communications, you know, drones, information being able to be
moved about.
Can you walk us through sort of what the Army programs are
to give--and distance is another thing. You know, the further
away you can fire the missile, you know, the quicker you can
get there. What are the systems that are going to put you into
position to win that fight? Like the fight that is playing out
in Ukraine right now where the Russians have a lot of drones,
they are able to see when the Ukrainians are coming, and then
put target right on them, or they are able to steal their
communications and do that, and back and forth. How are we
preparing for that fight in the Army?
General McConville. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, what I will start
with is our number one priority, which is the long-range
precision fires, and I equate those to being the arrows that we
have. And it starts with hypersonics. We have great range,
great speed, and very precise, and that gives us some
capabilities.
The second priority is Mid-Range Capability. That gives us
the ability to sink ships.
The third capability is our Precision Strike Missile, which
they are developing right now. It will be a land-to-land
system. It is going to be 500 kilometers or greater. And it
also is going to in the near future have the ability to think--
to sink ships.
But that is just part of it. Now you have the arrows. You
actually have to find the targets, and that takes a layered
joint force solution. It takes space, it takes aerial
capability, it takes multiple other ``ents,'' if you want to
call it, to bring that together.
But the real secret sauce that we are working on is what we
call convergence, the ability to take multiple sensors, bring
them into an integrated battle command system, and then pick
the appropriate shooter to get the lethal effects we need. That
is what we are doing right now. We have put it in place and are
working very closely with our other services. And this fall we
will work with our allies and partners to continue to develop
that capability.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Secretary Wormuth--and I should point out, as I understand,
your mother and your aunt have joined us this morning? I want
to be sure and recognize them and thank them for being here and
tell everyone that now they have to be nice to you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. It would just be rude to----
Secretary Wormuth. They are here to watch our great
democracy at work.
The Chairman. Okay. We will try to live up to that. Did you
have anything to add to the----
Secretary Wormuth. Well, I just want--I guess what I would
add, first, I would underscore, you know, we are working with
the other services through the Project Convergence series to
really test out, you know, how we link all of the platforms,
not just in the Army but with the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and
Space Force.
And there is a lot of fascinating work there that I think,
you know, you would all be interested in, and I would encourage
you, those that can, to come out and see it in the fall. But
really, you know, our six major modernization portfolios are
designed to sort of help us tie the archers, the arrows, and,
you know, all of that together. So, you know, we have got to
have the air and missile defenses to be able to protect our
forces, for example. We have got to have the network. You know,
we are working hard to become a more data-centric Army. So, you
know, and then, of course, we have got to have the vehicles and
platforms to allow our forces to maneuver on the ground.
So, we have really tried to take a comprehensive approach
to modernization, so that we can bring all of that together.
The Chairman. Thank you. Like I said in my opening
statement, I very much appreciate that forward-leaning thought.
And as we are talking about, you know, spending money within
the defense budget, this is where we need to spend it. We have
got a lot of existing programs and older programs and older
systems that are not contributing in a positive way to that
fight. We need to move off of those and get the systems that
you just described.
And the last piece of it is we have to make sure that all
of that is secure, and that is where a lot of upgrading needs
to be done, of just basic software and systems. You know, if we
are flying a drone, we have to make sure that our adversaries
can't take over from a cyber ability, you know, hack the system
and start flying our drone. Our systems are not as secure as
they need to be right now.
Last question, on personnel. What are the like two or three
things that you think are most important in being able to
recruit and retain? You mentioned some of that, but what
support can we give you to be able to meet those numbers?
Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congressman, one of the things
we have to do is really find a way to tell the Army's story to
as many young Americans as we can. You know, we really have a--
I think over 80 percent of the folks who are in the Army now
come from families where they have had military background. So,
we really need to expand our outreach to a much broader slice
of America.
And I think, you know, things you all can do to support us
is we are--we are looking at, you know, things like potentially
expanding the number of Junior ROTC [Reserve Officers' Training
Corps] programs that we have. We are trying to do a deep dive
into our recruiting enterprise to really try to find some
creative solutions, and there may be things that we could use
Congress' help with. There may be some new authorities that we
might need.
So, we will look forward in the coming months to coming
back to you all to asking for specific help. But in the
meantime, you know, we have a range of incentives that we have
put out to try to help us with recruiting. We have some new
marketing that is going out to, again, I think help us tell the
Army's story more effectively. And we are--the early returns on
that data are promising.
The Chairman. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you. And I share completely the
chairman's concern about that, and I appreciate General
McConville making the point that people is your number one
priority because it needs to be.
General McConville, we had Admiral Gilday here yesterday
testifying about the impact of inflation on his service and
what it has done to raise the cost of shipbuilding, MILCON
[military construction], fuel, housing for the people. How is
it affecting your service, or is it?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, I am very concerned
about the impact of inflation on our soldiers and families, our
most, you know, important weapon system. And, you know, as we--
as sure as the other folks testified, the budget was planned
around about a 2 percent inflation rate. And I am not an
economist or a comptroller, but here is what I do know.
I know that in the budget we wanted to give our soldiers
and families a 4.6--and our civilians a 4.6 percent pay raise,
and that was based on the employment cost index. And we wanted
to give them a subsistence increase, and that was based on the
USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] food cost. And we wanted
to give BHA [basic housing allowance], all these type things.
And that number is a lot less than 8 percent. I don't know
what it is going to be, but this affects our soldiers' and
families' buying power. And, you know, we would like to see
them have that capability because we want--we are in a war for
talent. We want to take care of our soldiers and families.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. And I would like both of you to
address this question. I am really concerned that--about the
lack of funding for combat vehicles in this budget,
particularly Strykers and Abrams. Has something changed that we
don't any longer have a combat requirement to fill full
brigades of these vehicles?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we absolutely still have a
requirement for Strykers and Abrams. The reason that we have
sort of slowed the buy, if you will, with--and, you know, we
have gone--we have decreased the buy from about three-quarters
of an ABCT [armored brigade combat team], for example, to a
half a BCT [brigade combat team] a year, and we have done that,
frankly, because we are trying to strike the balance between
continuing to invest in our enduring platforms, like Strykers,
like Abrams, but also maintaining our modernization on
developing the new systems, you know, developing the robotic
combat vehicles or the optionally manned fighting vehicle. So
that is why you are seeing that.
Mr. Rogers. General.
General McConville. And, Congressman, we are trying to give
you the best Army we can with the resources we get, and it is a
delicate--we are trying to find that sweet spot where we keep
our modernization priorities going, and we have done that, and
we are very pleased with that--with that pace. But we also want
to take care of soldiers and families, and we also want to take
care of enduring, you know, systems.
And the Abrams is not going anywhere, the Stryker is not
going anywhere, the Apache is not going anywhere, the Black
Hawk is not going anywhere. These systems are going to stay in
place. But as we improve them, which we feel we need to do, we
also have to, you know, balance the future of the Army, and we
have to invest in the Army in the future.
Mr. Rogers. Well, you made my point, both of you did right
there. We have to have these platforms, but you are trying to
work with the funding you have got and a proposal that is under
budgeted. That is my whole point.
Secretary Wormuth, the fiscal year 2023 defense budget
request did not factor in Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the
ongoing response by the U.S. Are you getting what you need
through the various supplemental appropriations to fund these
operations, replace vehicle and equipment transfers, and
replenish diminished stockpiles?
Secretary Wormuth. Yes, Congressman. I think, you know, the
supplementals that you all in Congress have provided have been
helpful in terms of allowing us to fund the operations, you
know, as I mentioned, the 47,000 Army soldiers who are there in
Europe. Some of those were permanently assigned in Europe
before the invasion, but many of them have moved there.
And I think, you know, right now we feel comfortable with
the fact that we are able to manage our costs. I think, though,
this conflict could be protracted. It doesn't appear that Putin
is changing his objectives. So, I think we have to be prepared
to expect that this conflict may go on, and the costs, you
know, would then continue as well.
Mr. Rogers. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Langevin, who is joining us
virtually, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me
okay?
The Chairman. Yeah. We got you. Thanks.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
witnesses for their testimony today and all you do for our men
and women in uniform and for our national security.
Let me begin with Secretary Wormuth. Secretary, it is my
understanding that the Army's concept of multi-domain
operations calls for a few specialized new units, such as a
cyber warfare battalion and a hypersonic weapons battery, for
example. So, these are key issues that I am glad the Army is
taking a dedicated look at, and I think it is moving in the
right direction.
But how will the Army ensure that the proper training and
equipment is acquired for these units, should they come to
fruition.
Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman Langevin. The
Army actually has, you know, invested in cyber and in
developing its cyber force for some time, so I am very proud of
everything that we are doing at Army Cyber. You were
specifically talking I think about our multi-domain task
forces, which will have a battalion that will include
capabilities to not just look at cyber but also space and
electronic warfare, as well as having a long-range precision
fires battalion.
But we are--we are working to develop the personnel for
those formations, and we have a cyber center of excellence at
Fort Gordon where we are doing a lot of the training and
development of those kinds of soldiers.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you. And that goes equally with a plan
to acquire the equipment?
Secretary Wormuth. Yes. Yes. Again, we have been working on
developing our cyber capabilities for some years now, and
actually we have three of the multi-domain task forces already,
you know, out, fielded, if you will. There is one at Joint Base
Lewis-McChord in Washington. We have one that is operating in
Europe. So those capabilities are in use right now.
Mr. Langevin. All right. Thank you.
General McConville, the JADC2, Joint All-Domain Command and
Control concept, is--is absolutely critical to the
modernization of our forces and national defense. How would you
describe the Army's progress when it comes to JADC2 and Project
Convergence?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, I think we are
making good, solid progress. As we discussed with Project
Convergence, when we started that, the first year we made sure
that our Army systems could pass data and do that very, very
quickly. We just finished a session, a buildup with our--the
joint force and making sure that all joint forces can pass data
very, very quickly, which allows us to do it.
And this fall coming up we will bring in our allies and
partners and again work with them in developing a data fabric
that is both secure, resilient, and robust, is really the
future is. And what we are finding is it gives us the
capability to have lethal or non-lethal effects in matters of
seconds vice matters of minutes or hours, and we think this is
extremely important for the future battlefield.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General. And are you able to
effectively work towards the JADC2 concept with the Joint
Staff? And do you have any concerns with the current process?
General McConville. I think we have a good process. In
fact, we are meeting with the Chiefs very shortly just to make
sure we are all online.
This is a very sophisticated, complex problem, but I think,
working together--and one organization that we stood up at
Aberdeen is called the Joint Systems Integration Lab, which is
very, very helpful because it is really all about the ability
to pass data between different weapon systems, and that is a
very complex challenge. And what we have found, by bringing
systems together and practicing this, and then, we take them
out in the desert where it is about 115 degrees, and you can
find out if the stuff really works. But doing the pre-work is
really allowing us to learn a lot and be much more effective in
getting after this problem set.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General.
And continuing on with you, let me say I am pleased that
the Army is heavily investing in cyber workforce development
and unit formation. How is the Army working with the Joint
Staff or the other services as you bolster the workforce in
support of offensive and defensive cyber operations?
General McConville. Well, we think cyber is critical for
the future. One of our biggest initiatives is moving from our
Industrial Age personnel management system to a 21st century
talent management system. We have tremendous talent in our Army
that, quite frankly, we can't see sometimes because it is
masked by their grade and their military operational specialty.
I will give you a quick example. We have a medic who is a
specialist who is in our software factory, and he codes at the
Ph.D. level, and it is just absolutely incredible. We continue
to find these young men and women that have extraordinary
talents. We are sharing this----
The Chairman. Thank you. I apologize, the gentleman's time
has expired.
General McConville. Okay.
The Chairman. And I should warn you, as we get down to the
clock, even if you are answering a question, you know, that is
the end of the time.
General McConville. Okay. Sorry about that.
The Chairman. And we go to the next person. I should have
given you that heads-up earlier.
General McConville. A lot of passion about that.
The Chairman. Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
The Chairman. Yes, I know it helps in some ways.
But Mr. Wilson is also appearing virtually and is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I am really grateful, Madam Secretary and General, for
your being here with us today and your service.
And I particularly appreciate both of you referencing Fort
Stewart, where I trained and where my sons have trained. What a
great installation that is.
And then, I am also grateful that, in my service in
Congress with Congressman Rick Allen, that I had the
opportunity to support Fort Gordon. And what a future that has
for the American people to provide for cyber security.
Madam Secretary, Putin's war on the people of Ukraine has
demonstrated the importance of American presence on Europe's
eastern flank. Our NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern
Europe have been enthusiastically welcoming to our forward-
deployed American troops stationed in their countries.
I have seen firsthand, visiting a German-American base in
Lithuania on the border with Belarus, just 5 miles from, sadly,
a new Russian military base. Several of our allies are willing
to build permanent bases for these troops, led, as we have
seen, by President Andrzej Duda of Poland, to join with the
very effective bases of Novo Selo in Bulgaria and MK Air Base
in Romania.
What are the plans to provide for expanded permanent change
of station tours in Europe, to include the bases in the Baltics
and Eastern Europe?
Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
I think at this point, you know, I would say there is
definitely a robust conversation going on here in the United
States, but also with NATO about what the future force posture
might look like in Europe. And certainly, our sort of frontline
states, like Poland, like the Baltics, are very interested in
having permanent presence. And that is something I think that,
again, the NATO countries will be discussing at the Madrid
Summit.
We stand ready in the Army to support those decisions, once
those decisions are made as to where we might have a continuing
presence of U.S. troops and whether those would be permanent or
rotational.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And, hey, we have seen the success of American troops, not
even a large contingent, as we have in Kosovo and Pristina,
which was still an amazing indication of providing security in
the Balkans.
General McConville, I am grateful for the bipartisan
American resolve to provide for the courageous Ukrainians
defensive weapons needed to protect their homeland from the
murderous war criminal Putin. Begun by President Donald Trump,
and now continued by President Joe Biden, we have the success
of Javelin missiles and Stinger missile systems. Additionally,
I am very grateful that we have the circumstance of providing
these to all of our allies in Central and Eastern Europe.
What are we doing for these particular systems to make sure
that there is proper replenishment, so that our stock is in
place and also for our allies that need backfill for providing
these systems to Ukraine?
And also, a final question. With the leadership of Chairman
Adam Smith and Ranking Member Mike Rogers, the lend-lease bill
was signed by the President this week. What are the plans to
immediately assist Ukraine and benefit our other allies, such
as Moldova and the Republic of Georgia?
General McConville. Yes, Congressman, we are, with your
support, we are able to begin the replenishment of the
Stingers, of the Javelins. We are working very closely with
industry, we're identifying requirements to do this. As far as
the Stingers go, you know, we haven't built Stingers in a long
time, but we are going to use them in the future. Our mobile
SHORAD [short-range air defense] system actually uses the
Stingers, and we have some modernization capabilities. We want
to fly the Stingers, so it is more effective unmanned aerial
systems in the future. So, we are doing that. We are in the
progress right now. We know we need to replenish that, and with
your support, we will.
Mr. Wilson. And with the lend-lease, is this being
implemented immediately for the benefit of the people of
Ukraine?
General McConville. Yes. Yes, it is. We are sending--
certainly, we are sending not just Javelins and Stingers--we
are sending artillery. We are sending armored vehicles. We are
sending unmanned aerial systems. We are sending radars and a
lot of other systems to make sure they have the capability that
they need to be successful in their endeavors.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And as I conclude, too, I am very honored to represent Fort
Jackson. I trained there. My Army sons have trained there. And,
General and Madam Secretary, you are always welcome to visit
Fort Jackson. Just a wonderful institution and installation.
So, thank you very much.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
That's kind of rapid-fire. I will note that I don't have
time for a question on Pacific Pathways, but I would like a
brief on that----
General McConville. Yes.
Mr. Larsen [continuing]. At some point in the future,
please.
So, for Secretary, let's start with you. As of April of
this year, this last month, the Army has yet to provide
documentation sufficient to close some recommendations that GAO
made regarding to guide and monitor recruitment and retention
of women service members. When do you expect to close those
recommendations?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I just looked at that
report, actually, yesterday. And I think we do need to get back
to you on laying out more specifically what we are doing to
recruit and retain women. We are focused on that. You know,
women right now are about 18 percent of the Army. I think that
is an area where, frankly, we could potentially grow in terms
of, you know, given that women are 50 percent of the
population.
But we are doing things like looking at, for example,
female recruiters tend to be more successful recruiting women
into the force. So, I think, looking at the ratio of our
recruiters who are females, it is something that we need to be
doing. But I commit to getting back to you to lay out more
specifically what we are doing to recruit and retain women.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 89.]
Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
And with regards to General McConville's statements at the
beginning about recruiting talent, no matter where it is, for
the United States, we need to think more broadly than we have
in the past. I appreciate that.
Again, a followup for either of you. The GAO [Government
Accountability Office] published a report in April, again, last
month, assessing suicide in the military, providing 14
recommendations for the DOD [Department of Defense] and the
services broadly. Has the Army looked at that particular report
and the issues relative to the Army, and how are you addressing
those? Maybe General McConville?
General McConville. Yes, Congressman. We are very, very
concerned about suicide. In fact, my daughter is a clinical
social worker, a captain in the Army. So, I get some pretty
good feedback from the ground floor.
But we are finding that especially during the pandemic,
having soldiers become disconnected from their leaders and
getting more isolated, and going through transitions alone, is
something that we are really getting after. So, it is behavior
health, but it is also we talk about building these cohesive
teams where everyone is looking out for each other. So, if a
family sees a soldier going through problems, they know who to
call; they get to that squad leader. And we certainly don't
want them to do the counseling, but we do want them to get to
the behavior health professionals. We want to make sure we
eliminate the stigma. We want to make sure we are trained to
identify those issues that soldiers are going through.
And I would argue that soldiers don't commit heart disease;
they die of heart disease. Soldiers don't commit suicide; they
die of suicide. And we need to look at it the same way.
And we have soldiers, just like with heart disease, that
are higher risk; they are a higher risk for behavior health.
And we have got to work that and make sure they get the help
they need, so we can save their lives.
And this year--again, too early to tell--we have actually
had significant progress over the last 5 or 6 months. I never
like to say that publicly because things can change very
quickly, but we are pleased with the way we are moving the
Army, and to include the Vice Chief of Staff has led a pretty
significant effort to get after this concern that we really are
concerned about.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Secretary, to follow up?
Secretary Wormuth. I would just reiterate, you know, for
example, there has been a lot of focus on Alaska. There has
been a particularly high rate of suicide there. And so, we are
surging 5 additional behavioral health providers, 19 military--
or excuse me--17 military family life counselors, and 19
chaplains, to go up there for the next 6 months to really sort
of help us understand what is going on there and making sure
that our soldiers have support, behavioral health support.
Mr. Larsen. All right. And, Secretary, one last question
for you, but you need to leave me 20 seconds. Just quickly with
regard to Army Forces Command and your directive of May 3rd
with regards to acquisition, tech and logistics, bringing those
two more in aligned.
Secretary Wormuth. Yes, what I was doing with that
directive was just trying to clarify some roles and
responsibilities. There was some ambiguity around the role of
Army Futures Command and our Assistant Secretary that does
acquisition and logistics. That directive in no way downgrades
Army Futures Command or diminishes its role. It still remains
an incredibly important part of our acquisition enterprise.
Mr. Larsen. All right. Thanks.
And then, just finally, a few of us were in Vicenza Army
Garrison a few weeks back as part of a trip. And we had a
chance to sit down and have a meal with the women and men from
our States. To a person, they know their mission in the defense
and deterrence mission with regards to Russia and NATO, all of
this relative to Ukraine. But we had some MILCON issues, and we
will follow up on those MILCON issues at Vicenza. And you have
great leadership there, but, more importantly, you have got
some great women and men who know their mission, and it was
great to meet with them. And I just wanted to pass it along.
Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Madam Secretary, General, I want to revisit the issue that
our ranking member was raising and, in part, what Joe Wilson
was raising.
As you are aware, we have significant deficiencies in our
acquisition strategies. So, many times, especially where it
comes to vehicles, we act like we are going to a car dealership
to buy a vehicle, instead of the fact that we own many times
the production facilities, but the supply chains, the
workforce. When we manage our acquisition strategy, we do
little to project out the effects on those.
General, you said that the Abrams isn't going anywhere.
Well, the workforce does, and the supply chain does, and
certainly, you are going to see that with Stingers. As we go
for the surge with Stingers and Javelins, you are going to have
similar issues.
Inefficiencies in production result in delays. They result
in our losing core competencies. They result in increased cost.
So, trying to save in the short term by having a lower buy, to
cannibalize for modernization later, results in increased
costs, as you try to then--try to replace those.
I am raising this as an issue because I am very concerned,
as we have had the conflict with Russia, our allies have
already indicated that they want to replace their legacy
systems that are Russian, in part. There is an increase in
allied investment, including Germany. There is going to be
increased demand from those. We are going to have increased
needs as we look to forward-deploy troops and capabilities.
And, General, as you mentioned, we have got to do
modernization. We can't do this at the expense of
modernization, or we are buying the Army we have today instead
of the Army we need for tomorrow. And we got to replace what we
left behind in Afghanistan, because we have a gap.
Give me some idea as to how we can improve this system.
Because I don't think you have the tools; I am not certain that
you even have the authorizations to really do the projections
to be able to say, you know, it is not just that I need this
many tanks; it is also that the supply chain needs to be at
this level. The workforce needs to be maintained.
You know, so many times we talk about a line keeping warm.
Warm doesn't translate into--you know, what any MBA [master of
business administration] would come to you and say, ``How does
that affect your cost structure? How does that affect the
workforce? How does that affect the parts that you are going to
need, even for just maintenance?''
Talk to me a bit about that process, of not just your
aggregate needs, your aggregate budget, but how do you project,
then, how those costs can spiral?
Madam Secretary, General?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, we try
to work on that in a couple of different ways. First of all, we
are trying to look ahead with our modernization strategy and
anticipate what that means in terms of what kind of depot
capacity do we need to have, or how do we need to adjust our
infrastructure to be able to maintain those new systems at
installations around the country?
So, one of the things that we have done through Army
Materiel Command is to build a 15-year organic industrial base
strategy. And that really tries to look at making sure that we
have the workforce, to your point, at our arsenals, depots, and
ammunition plants. So, that is one thing that we are doing.
I think predictability is a really important piece of this
in terms of working with industry. So, as you all know very,
very well, the Department and the Army have been living in an
era of continuing resolutions sort of year after year. And I
think, to the extent that we can bring back predictability to
our budget and to our appropriations process, that would help
us a lot. That would help industry.
And we are also trying to work very, very closely. I think
that is one of the things that, coming into the Army, I have
been struck by the close partnership we have with the defense
companies to try to look at and work with them on things like
supply chain fragility, which the pandemic has very much
illuminated.
Mr. Turner. General.
General McConville. Well, we try to balance a lot of
requirements. We know where our priorities are. And when we
take a look at it, we are trying to do the best we can with the
resources we get. But I think we are learning a lot and we can
probably amplify that discussion from Ukraine. You know, you
don't want to invest in a lot munitions if you are not going to
use them because they sit in a warehouse somewhere and you
haven't used them for 15 years. Then, you spend a lot of money
to either extend their life or you spend a lot of money to
demil [demilitarize] them, which is very, very expensive. So,
there is always a fine line, and everyone is trying to find
that sweet spot where they only buy just enough for within
their resources.
And the second part of that is I think we have got to
recognize we are not into selling arms to other countries, but
that really helps. The fact that they use the same equipment as
ours and they buy America, there are some opportunities there
to get interoperability, there's some opportunities to keep our
industrial base going, when we do that.
Mr. Larsen [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair recognizes Mr. Courtney for 5 minutes.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
On page 5 of the testimony that was submitted to us, there
was mention made of we are very close to a decision point with
the Future Vertical Lift program. And I realize the ``cone of
silence'' is over that whole process, and it should be.
But, from a general policy level, I mean, we have spent
years now kind of trying to untangle, I think, bad choices that
were made with the F-35 program in terms of the scope of the
contract that did not factor in sustainment costs, MILCON
issues, facility issues in terms of--and the government just
ceded so much control over software. I mean, it has really
hindered and driven up costs for the program that, again, is
just--it is going to be around for decades.
So, in terms of--from a policy standpoint with Future
Vertical Lift, I mean, are you factoring in, again, the tail,
the sustainment costs, whether or not there is really
capability in terms of MILCON and depots repair? Because they
are going to be all over the place, and that, we know now from
GAO and others, with F-35, was really overlooked to the
detriment of the government and the taxpayer.
Secretary Wormuth. Yes, Congressman, we are trying to do
exactly that. Future Vertical Lift, whether FLRAA, the
replacement for the Black Hawk eventually, or FARA, the Attack
and Reconnaissance helicopter, those will be expensive
platforms when they are fielded. So, we are looking early at
affordability issues. We are trying to look very early at the
sustainment costs, the maintenance costs, and to try to factor
that in, as we go forward with the program. Because, as you
point out, so often in the past, those have not been looked at,
and that really can be what balloons the cost of these
programs, when you sort of look at entire lifecycle costs. So,
we are trying to look at that very carefully.
And we are also trying to build in--I'm sorry--to your
point, not just in the helicopter platforms, but in many of the
other platforms, is an open systems architecture approach. So
that we are not sort of captive to one particular company.
Mr. Courtney. Right. Well, again, I think a lot of us,
because of, again, just the experience that has gone on for
years here, are going to be watching that piece of it very
closely.
It sounds like, within a few weeks or so, there is going to
be a major decision by the country of Finland and possibly
Sweden to join NATO. And obviously, that is going to increase
the border of NATO with Russia. Finland is no stranger, I
think, to the Army and other services.
General, maybe you could sort of comment in terms of the
integrated deterrence policy and how that would fit in with
Finland, which has not been part of NATO, but certainly been an
ally.
General McConville. Right, Congressman. And we routinely
train with the Finns and Swedes. And so, we run operations up
there. We're certainly--there's plans right now. I talked to
General Cavoli and our team over there. And as they take a look
at what the requirements are to reassure our allies and
partners, just like we did in Lithuania, just like we did in
Latvia, just like we did in Estonia.
There is certainly that capability of forces to do that,
and they are in the process of making those type decisions, and
what that will look like; what type of exercises go on. They
happen routinely anyway. And how do you get the right amount of
force structure in place so everyone is confident, as they move
ahead during this transition time.
Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
And again, the embassy has been, actually, very much
engaging in outreach with members because I do think that--I
mean, it is just extraordinary. They have gone from a country
that was at 30 percent in support of NATO to 76 percent. And
now, the President and Prime Minister yesterday announced that
this thing is really imminent.
It is quite extraordinary. I mean, it certainly shows that
whoever was calling NATO obsolete a few years back, events have
definitely, I think, validated the enduring value of NATO. And
obviously, that is another decision point that is coming and
something that this committee will be tracking closely.
I will yield back.
The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General McConville, thank you to you and the Secretary for
your service to our country.
I am pleased that the Army is planning to field the Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon next year. While 10 years overdue, it
is remarkable that the Army has made such rapid progress in the
past few years. I think that the Army's risk-acceptant approach
to developing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon is a significant
reason that the program has been successful.
We frequently hear from military leadership that we must be
willing to accept some failures in technology development, but
we don't always see that in action. China seems to have taken
the approach of accepting failure and learning from it.
Can you elaborate for the committee on the approach the
Army has taken to develop and rapidly field the Long-Range
Hypersonic Weapon? And what lessons can we learn and apply to
other programs?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we have leaned forward in
terms of developing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, which we
are working with the Navy also as well. So, I think it is a
good example of sort of joint development.
And really, we have done that under the auspices of the
Rapid Critical Technologies Office, and they have been able to
make good use of some new authorities that Congress has given
us to be able to work on development and acquisition more
rapidly.
A big part of what we are doing is a soldier-centered
design process. We are taking good advantage, as I said, of
these new authorities that you all are giving, and we are just
really trying to proceed on a very rapid development and
testing schedule. And I think we have really seen that pay off
in the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System program, in
particular.
We already have the ground equipment for that system out at
Joint Base Lewis-McChord. And I think we have some important
tests coming up. But we feel very good about fielding that in
fiscal year 2023.
Mr. Lamborn. We are still far behind our near-peer
adversaries. Is there anything we can do to accelerate this
even more?
Secretary Wormuth. My own view, Congressman, is that we are
going as fast on this particular weapon system as is prudent.
But certainly, I think continued congressional support for
letting us use some of these more rapid and more innovative
acquisition authorities is very much appreciated, and letting
us apply that across the six portfolios that we are pursuing.
Mr. Lamborn. We will be supportive, and we will be pushing
you even harder.
Changing subjects, General McConville, you have made it
clear that retention is a priority. In fact, you said, ``We are
in a war for talent.'' And yet--and yet--I have military
constituents in my district that have reached out to me because
they are seeking a religious exemption from the mandate to
receive the COVID vaccine. As of March 10th, the Army had
approved only 1 religious exemption, had disapproved 536, and
had 3,760 pending cases.
So, out of the 537 that have been advocated, were 536 lying
about their beliefs, and only 1 was telling the truth? Why is
the Army involuntarily discharging soldiers for not receiving a
vaccine that have requested a religious exemption?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, we've taken a very
deliberate and measured approach to the vaccination. It starts
with we want to make sure, ideally, for life, health, and
safety of our soldiers and families, we want them to have
vaccination, so they can do their job. It is also affects their
buddies, as we go forward. And it is also a legal order.
And we pick, and if someone has an exception, we have--I
think right now there are 8 religious and 22 medical
exceptions, and there is an appeal process. And what we suggest
is they go through the process, but we do want them to get the
vaccinations and we do want our soldiers to obey legal orders.
Mr. Lamborn. There is going to be a lot of discussion in
this committee during the NDAA [National Defense Authorization
Act] about this issue. And I think there is going to be a lot
of proposals to address it. And I know there is legislation
pending to address it.
I am just concerned, with our need for retaining good
people, that some of our very best people, well, we are losing
them in all of the branches, not just the Army. And if vaccines
protect people, and most of the soldiers under your command
have been vaccinated, they should be okay, right?
General McConville. Right.
Mr. Lamborn. And those who haven't been, it is on them. I
mean, I would urge people to be vaccinated. I have been
vaccinated. But, nevertheless, sometimes people bear personal
risk and are willing to live with that. But if they are young
and healthy, not always, but mostly, they will be okay, anyway.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Norcross is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
We are witness to a war taking place in Ukraine, the
Russians invading. We are seeing the use of Stingers and
Javelin literally pick apart much of the Russian armor. We have
provided funds for much of that replacement.
Secretary Wormuth, I am just looking for an assessment of
our industrial base, not just the ammunition side, but the
hardware side, in light of what we are providing. Where do we
stand in terms of our industrial base and its ability to
replace that?
Secretary Wormuth. Well, I think, Congressman, it varies,
depending on the particular weapon that you are talking about.
You know, I think that we are better positioned to be able to
replenish our Javelin stocks, for example, than Stingers. And
that is, as General McConville said, we have not been producing
Stingers for a while; whereas, you know, Javelins, the
production line is open.
So, I think that Lockheed Martin is leaning forward to try
to be able to ramp up production, so that we will be able to
replenish our stocks for what we need and, also, continue to be
able to provide Javelins to the Ukrainians.
With the Stingers, I think we have some work to do with
Raytheon. We are going to be able, I think, to find parts to be
able to build some additional Stingers, but I think that is
going to take some more work because we do have some part
obsolescence that we are going to have to work through.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
Certainly, we have been focused on the ammunition base and
the products that go into that. And I think we are in good
shape there. But certainly, I have to agree with Mr. Turner's
assessment of our industrial base, and we have been trying for
the past several years with a proposal I have had to buy
American to secure our U.S. and key allies our industrial base.
But I just want to shift a little bit. Witnessing this war
and seeing that the Russian armor tanks just being picked apart
by our Javelins, General McConville, what is the major
difference between what we are witnessing in Ukraine and our
armor? We do have the best tanks, armored personnel carriers,
in the world. How are we able to defend against what we are
doing to the Russians? Are they just inept? Are they just built
rotten? What is the major difference between what we have and
what they have?
General McConville. Well, I would suggest that, first, we
have the best tanks and armored personnel carriers available.
But, to me, it is also how you employ them. And we employ our
systems with the combined arms. And there are ways of using
fires and maneuver and drones and intelligence, and working
them all together, which is at least what I have seen with the
Russian forces they haven't done.
So, it is very, very important, at least from where I sit,
that we do what we call combined arms. We use fires to maybe
take out the infantry or pre-assault fires. You have infantry
securing the way for the armored forces.
And some of these things don't change. We go back to D-Day
and the 101st took the bridges at Carentan, infantry force. So,
they get off the beaches.
And if you are going to move, you want armor because you
want mobile protected fire and you need that capability. And
you don't want to have infantry without that capability
because, quite frankly, with fires and other people shooting,
you are going to lose a lot of infantry. So, you want to work
them both.
And what you really want to do is present your adversary
multiple dilemmas. So, if he goes after the tanks and he wants
to shoot Javelins at them, you make sure he can't do that
because it is infantry or fires preventing him from getting
that close. We have active protected systems that are also
pretty effective on some of our tanks to get after those type
things. But it is also using drones and using fires and using
intelligence and bringing together a composite picture to
present the enemy multiple dilemmas that they can't attack you
like they have with the Russians.
Mr. Norcross. But to be more specific, we are being asked,
gee, tanks are a thing of the past. To the degree that you can
have this discussion in an open forum and not classified, our
armor is in a much different position to defend against those
Javelin or missile attacks, isn't that correct?
General McConville. I would take that to a classified
level, if we could. But I would still advocate the idea of
combined arms, when we talk about different missile systems and
which part of the vehicles. We could give you a detailed brief
on where they are, you know, what type of capability----
Mr. Norcross. We are in a better position than they are?
General McConville. I think we are in a much better
position when it comes to at least what I have seen with our
troops. And there is this thing called will. Very important
that the people exercising those weapon systems want to do that
and they are willing to use them.
Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary
Wormuth, General McConville, thank you so much for joining us
today. General McConville, I want to begin with you.
Last March, you said that you had concerns about cutting
end strength and what that was doing to stress on the force. I
think at that time, the Army end strength was 485,000. Today as
we speak, I think it's around 476,000. The budget request takes
it down to 473,000.
First of all, do you still think that end strength is an
issue? And do you think the current end strength allows us what
we need with our Army to combat the threats we see, both in
Europe and the INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command]? And if
there were additional resources, would you suggest an increase
in end strength?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, first of all, I am
concerned about end strength. I stand by my concerns. But I
believe quality is more important than quantity.
And, you know, we're coming out of a tough place with COVID
and recruiters are getting back into high schools, there's a
lot of things going on. A lot of businesses having a hard time
hiring. So, there's a lot of things going on in the country
right now.
And so, if you could ask my advice, we take a pause; we
keep the quality up; we talk a lot about the call to service.
As the Secretary said, 83 percent of the young men and
women that come in the Army are military family members. And
so, it's really become a military family business. And I
believe that the Army and a lot of other services should be an
American family business.
And so, we've got to get more access. We've got to show
people the value of serving their country. I think we need to
do this over the next couple of years.
And so, as the threat changes, we can take a look at
bringing quality people in. And again, I'm not doing a
commercial, but I think there's a lot of value for working-
class kids like me that came in the Army. I signed all my kids
up, and I'd like to see everyone else do the same.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. General McConville, thank you.
Secretary Wormuth, listen, I believe we have the best Army on
the face of the Earth, period, no question. The challenge is
going to be if conflict breaks out, how do we get those
soldiers to the fight?
Listen, our soldiers are great. But you know what? They
can't walk on water. I wish they could, and they probably could
find a way to do that. But short of that, we need to get them
to the fight.
Ninety-five percent of the ability to get our soldiers and
equipment to the fight is done by sealift. Today as we speak,
the Ready Reserve Force--which your Ready Reserve fleet, which
is what we will use to take soldiers to the fight--only about
40 percent of those ships would actually be available to sail
today.
So, we can do all the great things about recruiting and
retaining and training and having the best Army on the face of
the Earth, which we do. But if they can't get to the fight,
then the question is, what are we doing? Do you believe that
more needs to be done to build surge sealift capacity so that
we have that? And what more can the Army do to advocate for
that, to make sure that happens?
Because right now as we speak, the Navy is not doing it
because the Navy can get to the fight. They don't have a whole
lot of concern about surge sealift. But I would argue it's one
of the most logistical parts of our military that's in atrophy
today.
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, you're absolutely right
that military sealift is critical for us in getting our forces
and our equipment over to Europe or into INDOPACOM, for
example. So, we do have an active conversation with the Navy
about what they are doing with their sealift capability and
capacity.
Ultimately, it's the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of
Defense who make those decisions. But through our program
budget review process, we have a dialogue with the Navy. And we
certainly hold up our hand and say, hey, we need to have some
support from you all to get our folks over to where they need
to be.
Mr. Wittman. Secretary Wormuth, would you be willing to do
more than just hold up your hand? Would you be willing to pound
on the desk a little bit to make sure that surge sealift is
part of this? Because I am so afraid that with all these
efforts that we're putting forth that if we can't get to the
fight, it's going to take more than just raising your hand.
Sometimes you have to shake things up a little bit.
Sometimes you have to say, Mr. Secretary, this is a critical
need, a critical gap for the Army. And that has to happen.
We've hollered about it on this committee for years. And
the Navy kind of slow-plays it. We've given them authorizations
to purchase multiple ships.
They just started down the road of purchasing two ships.
We're not where we need to be. So, I just want to get your
perspective, if you're willing to hit the table.
Secretary Wormuth. Well, I certainly always try to be a
very strong advocate for the Army and for our requirements. And
I'll continue to do that.
Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Secretary Wormuth. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gallego is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. In your
unwavering and our commitment to defend every inch of NATO, I
really appreciate how ironclad you are on that.
I strongly support this administration's so far robust aid
packages to Ukraine which included small platforms like
Switchblades and the Phoenix Ghost. I've also seen reports that
the Pentagon is considering sending larger, more sophisticated
equipment like the MQ-1C Gray Eagle which Ukraine has formally
requested.
Can you share any updates on this potential transfer to
Ukraine? Is the Army in favor of it? And what more can, and
should, we do to further strengthen security from your
perspective?
Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. I was actually
not aware that the Ukrainians had requested the Gray Eagles.
There's a very robust policy discussion about what systems can
be provided, how they will be used, what the security concerns
are. But if the policymaking conversation gets to a point where
they decide that is something that makes sense to provide the
Ukrainians, I think the Army would very much want to support
that.
Mr. Gallego. General, I want to ask you about the threat
that Russia poses in the gray zone. As I've said before, if we
draw any lessons from the ongoing war in Ukraine, it's that we
need to ensure our allies and partners are too prickly for any
adversary or competitor to swallow. That is why irregular
warfare training is so crucial. Recognizing that we are in an
unclassified situation, what insights can you share about how
the Army is approaching this challenge? And are there
additional steps that we should be taking to bolster irregular
warfare capabilities.
General McConville. Well, Congressman, I think you make a
great point. We're talking a lot about large-scale ground
combat operations. But we still need to be able to do
counterinsurgency. We need to do irregular warfare. We need to
do counterterrorism. Those threats are not going away.
I think we're well suited with some of the organization we
developed. Certainly, our special forces are experts at that.
But we also have stood up our security force assistance
brigades which could provide that type of training that they
need to do. And also our National Guard does a great job with
their State partnerships.
And so, the more we can do to build the capacities and
capabilities of our allies or partners or just friends is
really important. And for a lot of folks, we've been training
the Ukrainians for 8 years, and that's been some really good
training. And in fact, 22 of their brigades or about 75 percent
of their brigades went through what we call a combat training
center-like experience which has really been very helpful for
them.
Mr. Gallego. Excellent. And I've met many times with
Ukraine special forces. And they have commented also on the
amount of training they've gotten from the United States. And
certainly, we could tell it's paid off.
Another question, General. You know the old saying,
military is trained to fight the last war. And we see what
Russia has learned that lesson again. The Army has been
training its troops for Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 20
years.
And counterterrorism, CT, operations will remain important
obviously going forward. But there is no doubt in my mind that
strategic competition is the challenge we are facing today and
in the future. Can you share how the Army is transitioning from
a CT focus to a renewed emphasis on large-scale combat
operations?
General McConville. Yes, we can. And part of when we talk
about this transformation of every 40 years, the right time is
now where they're at that inflection point. And it really
starts with doctrine. And the doctrine is multi-domain
operations which is different than AirLand Battle that a lot of
us kind of grew up with many, many years ago.
It's standing up new organizations. The Secretary talked
about the multi-domain task force which will provide long-range
precision effects and also long-range precision fires, It's
stand up the SFAB [security force assistance brigade]. We're
standing up organizations that can do things with information
operations, with cyber, electronic warfare, and space.
All those are coming together. The modernization priorities
with long-range precision fires, Next Generation Combat
Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, air and missile
defense, and soldier lethality, all those are coming together
and with talent management that give us the Army so--it's not
about win the last fight, it's about win the next fight. And
that's what we're trying to do.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mrs. Hartzler is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Secretary
Wormuth and General McConville. As you probably know, the
modernization of the ammunition production facilities has been
a top priority of mine for several years. And as you know, many
times in the past, these accounts were neglected and they were
used as a bill payer for other priorities.
But that resulted in crumbling infrastructure at several
key facilities. But fortunately, due to the work on this
committee, we've reversed that trend, and these accounts have
received a much-needed increase.
And at first, I was pleased when I reviewed the Army's
budget request to see that Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in
Missouri would receive 313 million dollars in funding. However,
as I looked at it closer, all of this requested funding is for
the next generation squad weapon ammunition facility. And this
is a needed facility.
We're excited to have it at Lake City. But Lake City has
about 95 million dollars in urgent safety repairs for their
current facilities, including $29 million for new roofs where
water is getting in. They have mold concerns, high winds.
A new HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning]
system, $34 million is needed; the refrigerant utilized in the
system is no longer manufactured. Switches, waste lift
[inaudible], propellant handling, et cetera. So, what is the
Army's justification for not funding critical safety upgrades
in this year's budget?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I certainly would agree
with you that we have work to do in our organic industrial
base. I haven't been to Lake City yet, but I was at McAlester
not too long ago. And there was a lot of good work going on
there, but there was clearly some additional work that was
needed. What we're trying to do in our--first of all, if there
are life and safety issues at the Lake City plant, I will look
into that because we certainly want to make sure that those are
taken care of.
That said, we have a very large organic industrial base
footprint. And with the resources we have, we aren't going to
be able to make all of the repairs everywhere all in one year.
But that's really what we're trying to do through our 15-year
organic industrial base plan is to try to map that out and get
on a predictable schedule that will be able to allow us to take
care of all of those issues over a period of time.
Mrs. Hartzler. I'll go back and look at that plan to see
where these needed changes are. And I appreciate you being
willing to look into that and also invite you to come out. And
I think you'll be very impressed by what we're doing there.
Also, I wanted to--we talked a little bit about suicide
prevention in some earlier questions. And I really appreciate
your focus on that. And, you know, that's been an area that
I've been very focused on as well and have been very encouraged
by the many nonprofit organizations run by former veterans that
are doing great, great work out there.
And I know we visited about that, General McConville, a
while back. So, I was just curious. What changes has the Army
made to resilience and suicide prevention programs? And is the
Army exploring partnerships with these nonprofit organizations
to help the situation?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, we are very open to
partnerships with nonprofits in this area. I think we have
really made an emphasis in trying to engage our chaplain corps
in this area. As I mentioned, we're sending a large number of
chaplains up to Alaska, for example. But we have done a lot to
try to invest in resilience and helping our soldiers be
connected, making sure that our commanders know the tools they
have to help with this. But certainly, we're very open to
partnering with nonprofits who want to help in this space.
Mrs. Hartzler. Anything you want to add, General?
General McConville. One of the things I've learned, I've
watched this, and it just breaks my heart when we lose a
soldier or a family member. But watch the transitions. It just
seems like--we talk about what's higher risk.
When you take a look at someone with heart disease, someone
that maybe has high cholesterol or does certain things they're
at higher risk, I think this is the same thing when we take a
look at suicides and behavioral health. People going through
transitions, they have a relationship that's not going very
well. That's when people need to come together and be with
them.
We see it with soldiers that leave the Army. They're going
through a transition. They were part of a cohesive team, and
they go out into the civilian sector. And they may think that
no one cares about them. And they've done this service and they
don't feel good about that stuff. So, the more we can do to
help with transitions, whether it's relationships, whether it's
financial issues or it's criminal or it's transitions out of
the service, I think the more we can get after this problem
set.
Mrs. Hartzler. I appreciate your focus on chaplains. I
really believe that that's--the faith base is very, very
important to this whole thing. And I was visiting with one of
the nonprofits yesterday talking about a mentorship program
where they're reaching out to people who are about to come out
of the Army and they're linking them up with people ahead of
time that will be with them for the next year and mentor them.
And I thought that was a great idea. So, I just encourage
you to continue to work with the nonprofits because they're
doing great work. So, thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thanks very much. Mr. Carbajal, who is
joining us virtually, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Wormuth
and General McConville, in October 2017 the Department of
Defense under the Trump administration issued a policy that
unfairly and without reason changed the historic and
longstanding procedure for legal permanent residents, LPRs,
serving in the U.S. military to be considered for expedited
citizenship. This was later proven unlawful in the courts.
The policy increased the minimum service requirements,
contrary to existing law, for noncitizen personnel serving in
the U.S. military. An August 2020 court order found the minimum
service requirement unlawful. However, a March ruling by the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia found
that there were still instances within the Army's training
installations that were still refusing to process
naturalization certificates, adhering to the August 2020 court
ruling.
The judge noted there was a cause for concern that the Army
isn't effectively implementing the order. While I understand
the Army has taken steps to inform the service of the court
ruling, please walk me through how these policy changes are
distributed to the force and also how are noncitizen soldiers
informed of the rights afforded to them when it comes to
naturalization opportunities.
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, it's my understanding--I'm
not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the court cases
that you just spoke to. But it's my understanding that soldiers
as they come to basic training if they're lawful permanent
residents are eligible for naturalization. And I think we make
our soldiers aware of that when they come to basic training.
And we have tried to make sure that our commanders are
aware of that as well. And so, we can certainly work with
Training and Doctrine Command who runs our training base to
reiterate what the current policy is and when lawful permanent
residents can be eligible. But that is my understanding of
where we stand on this issue right now.
Mr. Carbajal. Well, Secretary, if you could get me some
more information with specifics, I would really appreciate it
because that was a lot of generalities. And there's a lot of
people whose rights are being negated. And I think a better
understanding is important for you to have and for me to
understand how that is being implemented. So, I would
appreciate that.
Secretary Wormuth. I'd be happy to get that for you,
Congressman. And I would also just add that particularly given
the recruiting environment, I'm very eager to have folks who
are lawful permanent residents know that they're able to be
naturalized if they come into the Army. So, I think this is
something I'd be happy to get you more specifics on.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 89.]
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you so much. Secretary Wormuth,
in the Army's unfunded priority list [UPL], the service
includes almost $67 million for female and small stature body
armor. This committee is well aware of the lack of properly
fitting gear for our female soldiers and how it impacts their
health and safety.
Accompanying the request the UPL states, if not funded,
this will create a personal safety issue due to lack of proper
fit of small standard body armor. If Congress appropriates this
funding, how many soldiers will benefit? Can you also speak to
the future years' funding needs to ensure all soldiers receive
properly fitting PPE [personal protective equipment]?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I don't know off the top of
my head how many body armor sets right now are in the Chief's
unfunded priority list for female body armor. What we try to do
with the unfunded priority list is we invest in body armor for
our soldiers in the base budget. And to the extent that
Congress wants to give additional money to the Army, that
allows us to obviously buy additional body armor sets. And I
don't know----
[Simultaneous speaking.]
General McConville. I guess I could add is we're committed
making that happen. Just about everything we need in the Army,
we have a priority and we have a plan. And then I'm the one
that puts together the unfunded priority list.
And if there's additional resources available, then we can
accelerate that plan. And some of that is depending on what we
got the year before in the funding. And it's a long-term plan
to get things done quicker.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Having served in the Marine Corps,
I know about plans. And they're only as good as their
implementation. So, thank you very much.
Secretary, Wormuth, with the increased demand for air and
missile defense capabilities, the operational tempo [OPTEMPO]
for air and missile defense is at an all-time high. With that,
is the Army considering reevaluating its current requirement
for Patriot batteries? And how are the global requirements
impacting the readiness of our Patriot batteries?
Secretary Wormuth. We do continue to watch OPTEMPO for our
air defense units very carefully. That community has been
stressed by requirements for ongoing operations. We are
investing in an additional Patriot battery, though, in our 5-
year defense plan.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I'm out of
time. I yield back.
The Chairman. Dr. DesJarlais is recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. We've had some preliminary
discussions on the long-range hypersonic weapons today. So,
I'll forgo that and looking past the LRHW [Long-Range
Hypersonic Weapon], Secretary and General, what discussions
look like within the Department of the Army to serve as the
adopting service for DARPA's [Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency's] OpFires [Operational Fires] hypersonic
system?
It seems to me that the capability would likely serve an
answer to the Army's medium-range gap. While you have the LRHW
and the MRC [Mid-Range Capability] at your disposal, you don't
currently have a weapon that is both intermediate range and
hypersonic like the OpFires. So anyway, I would like to get
your thoughts on how you see the OpFires program fitting into
the Army's vision, if at all, over the next decade.
General McConville. Well, Congressman, what I think is we
take a look at the requirements. There's some very good systems
out there. But when we take a look at our long-range precision
fires, we feel with the hypersonic capability, with the Mid-
Range Capability, and the Precision Strike Missile, coupled
with our Extended Range Cannon Artillery, we're in a pretty
good position for fires. And with the resource we have, we
think that is about as much as we can afford when it comes to
long-range precision fires.
Dr. DesJarlais. Secretary.
Secretary Wormuth. I would just echo that, Congressman. And
I would also say that while, again, I'm very pleased and proud
of the long-range precision fires portfolio that the Army is
pursuing, we're also looking at the joint force and the fires
that the joint force brings. And so, I think between what the
Army is doing and the Air Force and the Navy, we have a good
suite of capabilities overall or are in development of that.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Just to get your opinion, both of
you, do you feel like we're currently behind both Russia and
China in terms of hypersonic glide weapons?
Secretary Wormuth. I think, you know, I feel very good
about where the Army is on the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon.
Clearly, we've seen the Russians use some hypersonic weapons in
Ukraine. But I think as I look overall at our capabilities,
vis-a-vis Russia and China, I think we are on pace.
Dr. DesJarlais. General, do you have anything to add?
General McConville. No, I'm just very proud of what General
Neil Thurgood and his team have done to accelerate long-range
hypersonics and working with the Navy to field it. And what I
would say, in acquisition terms, 3\1/2\ years is a pretty good
job.
Dr. DesJarlais. So are you both saying that you're ruling
out the OpFires at this point? Or are you not pleased with the
progress they've made? Or you just don't think it fits well for
the Army?
Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congressman, what we're looking
at is we have a finite set of resources. And we feel like as we
look across the range of requirements, the programs we're
pursuing now meet those requirements as we look to the future.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. General, I didn't come here today
really intending to talk about the vaccine mandate. But Mr.
Lamborn talked about it, and I just had a few questions
regarding to that because this pandemic, as we know, has
evolved. We've learned several things.
We started with a vaccine, then we had a booster. Is it
currently the military or DOD's stand that the soldiers should
have an additional booster? Or is it just the vaccine and
booster adequate at this point?
General McConville. Well, right now, the vaccination is the
requirement. The booster, there's some that recommended. I'm
fully boosted. But again, that's not the requirement right now.
Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. I'm vaccinated and boosted as well.
But we're a different age than a lot of the fighting men and
women who we've seen some side effects. We've also learned that
the vaccine's longevity was not what it was supposed to be,
thus all the boosters.
We've also learned that prior infection with COVID has been
proven protective and probably more so than even the vaccine.
So, I guess at this point, one thing I heard you say was that
the troops need to obey orders. So, at this point in the game,
we're not wearing masks on airplanes anymore. We're not wearing
masks in this hearing room.
Dr. Fauci has said we've moved into a new phase. We're
transitioning out of the pandemic. So, at this point, is it
more about protecting the soldiers' health by forcing this
vaccine mandate? Or is it more about obeying orders and
insubordination?
General McConville. Well, I think we have a policy from the
Secretary of Defense that says the troops will be vaccinated.
Dr. DesJarlais. Whether it's good for them or not?
General McConville. I'm not a doctor, so I'll----
Dr. DesJarlais. I am.
General McConville. You are a doctor. So, I'll defer to you
then. I mean, what we want to do in the Army is--in the Active
Duty, we're about 98--almost 98 percent vaccinated and----
Dr. DesJarlais. So, with 4 seconds left, we're 98 percent
vaccinated.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
General McConville. We're 97.4 percent, right, 97.4
percent----
[Simultaneous speaking.]
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. And the
bottom line is that DOD's opinion is it is still in the best
interest of the health of the entire service to have everybody
vaccinated. It's a healthcare conclusion. Go ahead, I'm sorry.
Dr. DesJarlais. That conclusion is not finite yet. The
science is evolving. A lot of things have changed.
The Chairman. Sure.
Dr. DesJarlais. And if prior infection is better than the
vaccine, then why are we forcing someone to take the vaccine?
The Chairman. Yeah, I can answer that. First of all, you
don't know exactly who has been prior infected. Second of all,
I would, from a medical standpoint, disagree with you slightly
on the conclusion. I don't think--I think it also is not at all
clear that prior infection is better than vaccine. They're
still evolving that. But the official position, I'm not arguing
the rightness or the wrongness.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
Dr. DesJarlais. But I would also add that we need to look
at the age group. Certainly, if you're 60 or older----
The Chairman. Sure. There's a lot of things we have to look
at. All I'm trying to say is the official position of the
Department of Defense through their health folks is they're not
just doing it for fun.
[Simultaneous speaking.]
The Chairman. I'm sorry. We've got to move on to another
issue.
Dr. DesJarlais [continuing]. Discharge wrongfully----
[Simultaneous speaking.]
The Chairman. Okay. And that could well be the case. All
I'm saying is that is the policy. And the reason behind that--
we can argue that conclusion. But that's the reason behind it.
On hypersonics, I think it's really important to point out
we are behind the Chinese and the Russians right now because
they have deployed them. Okay? I'm impressed that we're coming
up. We've got a bunch of programs, they're moving forward.
We're going to get there. We haven't deployed them yet. So,
we got to keep moving. We're moving in a good direction, and
I'm quite confident that a year from now when we have this
conversation we will be caught up.
But I don't want to give anyone the misimpression that
we're caught up. We're not, because we haven't deployed them
yet. So, we've got to get to that.
Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General McConville,
where are you from?
General McConville. I'm from Quincy, Massachusetts.
Mr. Moulton. I'm very proud of that. I figured it'd be good
to start with a softball here. But thank you very much for
your----
General McConville. Home of two Presidents.
Mr. Moulton. That's right. That's right. General
McConville, what lessons have you learned from Ukraine? And how
are they reflected in this budget?
General McConville. Well, first off, what we've seen is
some of the--we've kind of run down our modernization
priorities. Long-range precision fires are extremely important.
We're seeing the value of that or not the value of that as
we've given the Ukrainians more capability. If we had our
capabilities, the ability to sink ships, the ability to hit
command posts long range, we certainly could do that. The
future Next Generation Combat Vehicle to move troops in combat
is really important.
Future Vertical Lift, with the range that provides. Air and
missile defense, extremely important. The drones, both anti-
drone capability and drone capability. And then the whole idea
that most of our systems, it's really about speed, range, and
convergence and bringing all those systems together. Doing
combine arms as a joint force coming together would give you
the capabilities that you need to be very, very effective to
what's happening in Ukraine.
Mr. Moulton. Well, I certainly don't have the expertise or
experience that you do. But I agree with that assessment.
Secretary Wormuth, how does the budget reflect an increased
investment in drone technology?
We've seen drones eviscerate tanks. There's obviously some
debate about the role of tanks in the future. But we can't
argue drones are going to be critical. How are we investing in
them?
Secretary Wormuth. We are investing in counter UAS
[unmanned aerial systems] sets for our divisions. For example,
that's one of the things that we have in the budget. And then
the Army also has a joint program office that's looking at
future drone technology and counter-drone technology. We also
are looking at as part of our Future Vertical Lift portfolio we
have future unmanned aerial systems as a part of that in
addition to the two actual helicopter platforms.
Mr. Moulton. Well, it seems that unmanned aerial systems
are not only critical, but if you look at the exponential rise
in their use and effectiveness, I think we'll very, very
quickly get to a point where we have far more unmanned systems
than we have manned aerial systems. And what you're doing in
the Army is also going to set the standard for the rest of
NATO.
There are a lot of NATO countries that are expanding their
defense budgets and modernizing them. If they buy old stuff
that doesn't work very well, then that's going to be a huge
detriment to the security of NATO and ultimately to our
national security as well. So, I just encourage you to move as
aggressively as possible in this direction.
Secretary Wormuth, do you believe the Army is modernizing
more or less quickly at this point than China?
Secretary Wormuth. Well, Congressman, that would be a
little hard to discuss in an unclassified session. But I think
the Army is modernizing very, very quickly. Certainly, this is
the most aggressive and comprehensive modernization that we've
undertaken in 40 years. A lot of what the Chinese do, frankly,
is steal our intellectual property which gives them basically a
little bit of a head start. But we are, I think, modernizing at
a very aggressive pace.
Mr. Moulton. I think the other thing that the Chinese have
done quite successfully over the last few years is divesting of
a lot of things that don't work that well anymore. And that
obviously gives them the resources to invest in new technology
and indeed devote resources to copying ours. Madam Secretary,
do you believe your mission and mandate is to advocate for the
Army or to advocate for our overall national security?
Secretary Wormuth. I am very much first and foremost the
Secretary of the Army. So, my role is to advocate for the Army.
But it's for the Army as part of the joint force.
We fight as a joint force. And I certainly think it's
important for the Army to think about how it contributes to the
joint force's ability to fight and win.
Mr. Moulton. Well, look, I'm an infantry guy at heart, and
I love what you do. And there are a lot of times where I was
very proud to serve right alongside hand in hand with the Army
in Iraq during my time there. But I also think that the reality
of the China threat is that we are not going to invade China
with a massive land Army.
And if you look at how our budgets have been apportioned in
the last 10, 15, 20 years where we had massive land wars on the
ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, we obviously gave far more
resources to the Army and the Marine Corps than we did to the
other services. But I fear that the traditional one-third, one-
third, one-third balance that we have among the services is not
really attuned to the China threat where we obviously have to
invest more in cyber and space and in the Navy. So, I just
think that we need Secretaries who are going to not only
advocate for their service but really take this broader
perspective that we may need to rebalance that apportionment to
meet the new threat.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Wormuth and
General McConville. I'd like to follow up on that a little bit
with a specific weapon system, the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance
and Target Attack Radar System], the manned GMTI [ground moving
target indicator] capability. For the first several years that
I was here, we had a JSTARS recap [recapitalization] program to
provide a business-class jet, ground moving target indicators,
and other systems.
It was an Air Force platform, but it was predominantly used
by the Army. When the Air Force decided that they did not want
to move forward with recap, the Army did not stand up for the
system. And as a result, recap was cancelled.
Today, the Army has asked for a manned business-jet class
ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capability
referred to as HADES [High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation
System]. And this is an example of where I think if there was
more coordination among the services, that the platform that
you've asked for in the recent budget would be coming off the
assembly line right now. And my question is, are there
significant differences--and maybe they can't be discussed in
this class [classification]--in HADES and what the new
recapitalization of JSTARS would've provided to the Army?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, our view
is that we have some unique requirements that are distinct from
the Air Force, and HADES is something I think that we need in
terms of looking at our future ISR requirements. You know, we
have been in discussions with the Air Force about their role,
as well as our role. But I think right now we feel like this is
something that we need to be able to provide for the Army.
Mr. Scott. Ma'am, I realize this occurred before your time,
but the Army always needed manned ground moving target
indicator capabilities. And instead of taking the recap program
from the Air Force and saying we will move ahead with this
development, in which case you would have the systems that
you've just asked for coming off of the assembly line now, not
5 or 10 years from now. And I realize this happened before your
time, but there is an extreme lack of coordination. Again,
before your time and before General McConville's time, among
the Chiefs at the DOD leadership, in saying if the Air Force is
not going to provide this, then the Army needs to take on this
system.
And so, I think that's just an example of a mistake that's
been made from lack of coordination and turf protection and the
Air Force saying we don't want this coming out of our budget
and the Army should have said, well, that's fine, we'll take it
on. And then you'd have your system because everybody here
thinks you always needed manned ISR capability.
So, when do you expect HADES to actually be functional and
in the air?
Secretary Wormuth. Chairman, off the top of my--sorry.
Congressman, off the top of my head, I don't have the first
unit fielded date. I don't----
Mr. Scott. General McConville, do you have any idea----
General McConville. I can--again, Congressman, what we're
looking, as we have, as you know, propeller-driven ISR
platforms, and one of the things, as we take a look at the
future, is because of their range and speed and what we see as
the threat, we see them as probably, in some situations, they
are not the best aircraft to do that, which leads us to why
we're taking a look at--HADES is flying right now. It's a
campaign of learning. We're trying to determine, what the Army
is trying to do right now with a lot of systems is kind of fly
before we buy, so to speak, to get the requirements right, to
make sure it's providing that capability, and that's what we're
doing with HADES right now.
Mr. Scott. Okay. I want to, we had a brief discussion
beforehand, and we met with one of the leaders from the Middle
East yesterday. I won't call the name or--but I do want you to
know that there's extreme concern about the political and civil
unrest that will come in other areas as a result of what has
happened with Russia, the inability to move grain and
fertilizer and other things that are needed for food through
the Black Sea. And I just want to make sure that, in the
various areas of operation, that we're looking at what a
reduction in the food supply means, especially in countries or
continents like Africa, the countries in Asia. Anywhere you've
got a high density of population, I think we need to be
prepared for political and civil unrest.
With that, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Slotkin is recognized for 5--
--
Ms. Slotkin. Thank you. Madam Secretary, it's great to see
you and welcome to your family. If this is your idea of a
Mother's Day gift, I question your judgment. But you're welcome
here.
So, Secretary Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, mentioned
yesterday that the Russian military was so desperate for
microchips for their military vehicles that they were pulling
them from dishwashers and refrigerators. And while I am always
thrilled to see the failures and the desperation of the Russian
army, it did send a bit of a shiver down my spine, coming from
Michigan where I represent a place where one of my two GM
[General Motors] plants have been largely dormant for the
better part of a year because we can't get a $0.14 microchip,
where my farmers can't get a new John Deere because there's no
microchips, where we can't get our cars repaired because
there's no microchips.
Representative Gallagher and I led a defense task force on
supply chains, and we identified the same vulnerabilities, of
course, particularly in the Army and particularly with land
vehicles because we all depend on these same legacy chips. And
we know that there's a lot of common interest between the auto
industry and you all on needing those chips.
Can you tell me very briefly what you have done to help
deal with this supply chain problem, mitigate this supply chain
problem?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I think what we're trying
to do is, just as you said, identify where those specific
vulnerabilities are and then try to work with our industry
partners to see what we can do to get ahead of those. One
thing, I think, an idea that we're exploring is, you know,
using sort of an advanced procurement authority where we might
be able to buy chips, for example, in advance of actually
buying the entire system that they might go into so that we can
stockpile, essentially, that kind of thing. And I believe that
the authority to do that, there's a new request for that in the
latest Ukraine supplemental.
Ms. Slotkin. Great. We would welcome that, I'm sure. You
know, literally, I go to events in my district and people yell,
``Chips, we need chips,'' at me, so it's really sort of sunk
into the consciousness.
The United States makes zero percent of the legacy chips
that go in our vehicles, so different even from the 5G-capable
chips. These are the same chips that appear in our Stingers,
Patriots, missile defense systems, drones, helos, and fighter
jets. So, I really see this as a major vulnerability.
Unfortunately, as we've been sitting here, I've just gotten
reports out of the conference committee for the CHIPS Act or
what we call the American Innovation Act. It's a bill we've
been working on in the House and Senate to try and incentivize
the semiconductor industry to build facilities in the United
States so that we can at least make some of the chips we are
now all so dependent on. I believe it's a matter of economic
security. We have to control some of what is so important to us
economically, but I want to publicly call out the leadership on
both the House and the Senate for not moving this fast enough.
There is not a sense of urgency even from within the conference
committee.
So, can you help us make the national security case? If I
can't get them to understand the economic security case, the
national security case, what would it mean if, for instance, we
were unable to get chips from Asia right now and we couldn't
get chips for all those systems that I just mentioned? What
would that do to your Army, Secretary and then General
McConville?
Secretary Wormuth. I think it would be very problematic,
Congresswoman, obviously. And, again, I saw, frankly, the
silver lining of the pandemic, if there is one, is that it cast
a light on a lot of these supply chain issues in a way that,
frankly, we weren't paying attention to before. And I think,
you know, those types of chips and other kinds of critical
components are very important to the functioning of our
systems, and we need to be thinking now about how we avoid a
situation like what you're outlining.
Ms. Slotkin. Is it fair to say that depending on suppliers
almost exclusively in Asia for the chips to run our vehicles,
our Stingers, our Patriots, our helos, is a vulnerability that
we need to mitigate in short order?
Secretary Wormuth. Yes. We don't want to be dependent on
countries who are our adversaries for equipment in our weapon
systems.
Ms. Slotkin. General McConville.
General McConville. And one thing I advocate is you never
want to be a one-option commander. You don't want to have one
option. So, when you look at a supply chain, I argue for supply
networks. We have kill chains, I argue for kill networks. We
have multiple paths, so if [inaudible] goes down you have other
options. And I think we need to invest in those type
capabilities and have, you know, resilience we need. And that's
what we try to do in every military operation.
Ms. Slotkin. Well, coming from Michigan where we feel like
we've been screaming with our hair on fire on the need to have
an indigenous American industry around chips, we would love the
help of the military because you depend on them just as much as
we do, if not more. And given your mission set, it's so vital
that you have access to those.
So, we welcome your partnership in fighting to make sure we
get this across the finish line. Thanks so much. Yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kelly is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary and Chief,
the first thing, I just want to associate myself with
Congressman Wittman's comments about the Ready Reserve fleet.
Guys, we have to be able to get to the fight and then continue
to resupply the fight. And without that--and we have got to
pound because the Navy is not going to do it. Just like the Air
Force doesn't care about your intelligence needs or your ISR
needs, the Navy doesn't care until it's too late for us to do
something about it. So, we have to keep pounding, and, if that
means reassigning a line to the Army so they execute the buying
of the reserve fleet because we're going to be the end user, us
and the Marine Corps.
Same thing applies to hospital ships. You know, we have to
be able to both soft power and hard power to have hospital
ships in a large-scale employment. So, I hope that we'll
continue to pound those.
I want to talk a little bit about the M1. I think, first of
all, we have a faulty sample if we look at the Russians'
performance and assume all tanks are defunct because the
Russians performed poorly. First of all, they don't have the
NCO [noncommissioned officer] corps and the teamwork at that
level that we have.
I think the second thing is--is we have to look at our
history and in Desert Storm and the initial invasion of Iraq in
2003, we performed against those same T-72s maybe and we didn't
lose very many tanks and they lost a ton of tanks. So, I would
say there is a difference between the M1 and the T-72. I don't
know what that is in an unclassified environment, but I can say
that there's a difference in the systems and how they function.
Going to that, the Marines are divesting of M1 tanks in
some areas where we need that armor power, and I still think we
need armor power. What about using pre-positioning stocks and
maybe Guard rotational or Army rotational to go to pre-position
stocks in places like--new places like Finland or Poland, so
that we have the equipment there so we don't have to use that
Ready Reserve fleet to get them there, but we have folks who
are training. And I think that kind of goes with how you're
doing your Regionally Aligned Readiness and Modernization
Model, but how about using the Guard and Reserve or Active
Components and pre-positioned stocks to be ready? What do you
think about that, General McConville?
General McConville. I think that's a great idea. And,
Congressman, we saw that work in practice with the 3rd Infantry
Division. We sent that brigade over there. As you know, having
commanded, you know, an ABCT yourself, it takes a while to move
tanks and Bradleys. You've got to put them on ships and you've
got to sail them across the sea. But having pre-positioned
stocks in Europe allowed us to get there [in] basically a week
to have that brigade on the ground. They were shooting, doing
their mission. That's how you get the speed you need, and I'm a
firm proponent of that. And in other places, the position that
gives us the posture we need to respond very, very quickly.
Mr. Kelly. And I know the Marines divesting in some places
that I think we probably still need an armor basis, and they're
divesting of M1s, and so I think that's appropriate for the
Marine Corps to do that. Have we reached out to our sister
service, ground service, who does the fighting and said, hey,
can we have an alignment where a Guard battalion or brigade or
an Active Component battalion or brigade with pre-positioned
stocks trains with those Marines in locations where we might
have pre-positioned stocks to replace those tanks with Army
tanks so that we have an armor force in the area?
General McConville. We haven't exactly done that exact
process, but I do routinely talk to the Commandant of the
Marine Corps, and we're going through this process right now as
far as getting our posture set, and that's certainly a
discussion we can have.
Mr. Kelly. And then final question, General McConville--
and, Secretary, I'm not trying to leave you out. You all both
answer the same, I hope that you do, because you should be that
lockstep in your answers. But I understand the Army's new
multi-domain task forces are a modernized force designed for
command and control of long-range precision fires and effects.
The Active Component has two now with three more brigades
coming online.
What do you see the role of COMPO [Component] 2 and 3 with
these new multi-domain task forces and operations?
General McConville. One thing we've asked General Hokanson
to do is take a look at it, you know, the same thing. He's been
very committed to making sure that the National Guard reflects
the Active Component, and we're certainly having that
discussion. We're having some discussion on some of the other
things we're doing, too.
Mr. Kelly. Secretary and General McConville, I do think we
are having a premature discussion about the invalidity of main
battle tanks and combat systems on the ground, but I think we
do need to look at that and see. We don't want the battleships
of World War II when we need aircraft carriers, but I don't
think we're there. But I do think you guys need to study that.
I just recently visited the Lima Tank Plant. I visited
TACOM [U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command]. And
so, I've talked to those, but we have to get out in front of
this because, if not, there's a huge movement to say the
Russians failed and therefore we will fail, and I just don't
think that's an accurate assessment and we have to do the work.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Sherrill is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. General McConville, a U.S.
INDOPACOM report estimates that by 2025 China will have at
least 50 hypersonics ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic
missiles], 50 hypersonic IRBMs [intermediate-range ballistic
missiles], and 100 hypersonic MRBMs [medium-range ballistic
missiles]. Additionally, the Russians claim to be using
hypersonics inside of Ukraine with some estimates stating
between 10 to 12 hypersonic strikes have occurred since the
beginning of the conflict.
Do you believe that the Army is doing everything it can to
close the hypersonic gap between the United States and our
adversaries?
General McConville. I do.
Ms. Sherrill. And Secretary Wormuth, in your statement for
the record, you described the Army as the backbone of the joint
force in the Pacific, as it is our priority theater for
responding to China as our pacing challenge. So, as the Marines
build a more limber littoral force, how will the Army modernize
to support operations in the Pacific? And more importantly, how
will Army fires support the joint force in a sensor-dense
environment over long distances, possibly between island
chains, and what do supply trains to move ammunition to these
platforms look like?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I would highlight two
things primarily in response to your question. First is our
multi-domain task force. We have three of them right now, as
Congressman Kelly just noted. Two of them are aligned, if you
will, to the INDOPACOM theater. And inside of that task force
you have a fires battalion, and that fires battalion could
have, eventually, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, it could
have the Mid-Range Capability which provides a ground-based
ship-sinking capability, for example. The task force also has a
battalion that is focused on non-kinetic effects, cyber,
electronic warfare, intelligence capabilities. And then there's
also a protection battalion that will provide, you know, look
at air and missile defense threats. So that really is a premier
contribution, I think, the Army can make in INDOPACOM.
Another thing I would highlight is we are investing in
additional watercraft. The Army actually had some pretty big
boats for a ground-based service, and those platforms are going
to be very important, I think, to the logistics and sustainment
in the theater.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. So, yesterday I spoke with General
Berger about the future of the Marine Corps formations and how
they are going to operate to support the joint force in the
Pacific, and he testified that the focus for the Marines is
survivability, maneuverability, and the ability to remain
hidden, the ability to displace. He said size matters if they
can detect you. The battlefield we are going to operate on will
be saturated with sensors. You have to operate within that
space.
The concept of survivability is critical to the next
generation of fires, especially in an environment that is, as
the Commandant alluded to, saturated with sensors. Adversary
counter-battery radar and early warning detection systems
present a substantial risk for any artillery, either cannon or
missile, to survive for extended periods on the battlefield.
And a CRS [Congressional Research Service] report on the Army's
Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon states that the LRHW batteries
will consist of four launchers, each with two missiles, a
mobile battery operation center, and a number of support
vehicles, such as the Army's currently-deployed Heavy Expanded
Mobility Tactical Truck to transport the LRHWs. So, there's no
doubt that such a formation would not only generate a large
signature on the battlefield and require a large surface to
occupy, increasing the risk of counter-battery fires and
interceptability, so one could speculate that occupation and
displacement times would be significantly longer than self-
propelled platforms.
Secretary Wormuth, General Berger, the importance of long-
range precision fires for the joint force cannot be overstated.
In fact, you both said it is the number one priority of the
Army. So, cannon and rocket artillery platforms must be able to
survive and maneuver in the Arctic, in the Pacific, Europe, and
beyond. To that end, it's essential that the warfighter
supported by a maneuverable platform that can easily displace
generates a small signature and provides commanders with the
ability to service targets hundreds of miles beyond the forward
line of troops.
So, Secretary Wormuth, I have to be honest with you, I'm
concerned. I don't believe that the decreases for long-range
fires research in this year's budget request reflects the
urgency of our future forces' artillery needs.
So, with that, I thank you for your time and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. General McConville, you've had a
couple of questions about multi-domain operations. My
understanding is there is going to be a new pub [publication]
on that coming out soon, FM-3 TAC [Tactics]. What's the
timeline for that?
General McConville. It is going to be June, Congressman.
Mr. Gallagher. Okay. I'm particularly interested in the
applications of a multi-domain operation task force in the
defense of Taiwan. So, in plain English, could you describe
what particular capabilities such a unit would provide in the
defense of Taiwan?
General McConville. What I would like to do is just
describe generally, you know, not particularly to Taiwan, but
I'll just kind of go generally, so we don't go--but what I take
a look at----
Mr. Gallagher. Well, I mean, you are thinking about
deploying them in the Pacific, right? I recognize we can't talk
about everything in this setting but----
General McConville. If I could, what I'd like to----
Mr. Gallagher. I'm not asking you to say anything
classified, sir.
General McConville. I know. I'm just trying to--if I could
just--so when I take a look at an island, it could be any
island, that someone wants to seize, I would argue that there's
really three ways of doing it. You have to do a forced entry.
You have to do an amphibious operation, you have to do some
type of airborne operation, very similar to a D-Day type
capability. So, you have to, you know, assuming that island,
the people on there are willing to defend themselves, you are
going to have to do some type of forced entry operation. Not
that we're going to do it like D-Day, but, you know, go back to
D-Day and look what happened across 80 to 90 miles, you know,
what it took for that force to get a lodgment.
And what I would argue is you want to prevent that from
happening. So, what do you want to prevent? An amphibious
operation, you do that with long-range precision fires that can
sink ships. Now, it doesn't have to come from the land. It can
come from the air, it can come from the sea, but you want to
have multiple options to sink those ships.
If they're going to do some type of airborne operation,
which they probably should, or an air assault operation which
they can with helicopters because it's about 100 miles across
our strait, you want to have the capability to shoot those
helicopters down, you want to have the capability to shoot
those airplanes down. And what you don't want to allow them to
do is to get a foothold on an island and then, from there, they
can expand the foothold and go from there.
So, when I think about what the Army can provide in those
type situations, the reason we're going with long-range
precision fires because--and air and missile defense--is we
want to provide those type of capabilities. And we certainly,
if we were working with a friendly force, we would want to make
sure that they had those capabilities so they could sink ships,
they could shoot airplanes down, they could shoot helicopters
down, and prevent that force from getting a foodhold, which I
would argue they probably need to do, some type of ground force
is going to have to seize their capital if they're going to
take it.
Mr. Gallagher. So, if we were interested in denying the PLA
[People's Liberation Army] a lodgment on Taiwan, do you, at
present, have the basing access or agreements with allies
necessary to deploy a multi-domain operation task force and
employ those long-range fires either to sink PLA Navy ships or
sink aircraft or helicopters that are trying to land PLA
soldiers on the Taiwan mainland?
General McConville. Well, as far as agreements, there's
discussions, and that's a policy question, at least from where
I'm sitting, is providing those type of requirements. I can
talk about other places where we didn't think we would have
that capability. We did not have in place, but, as situations
developed, we are seeing changes. And, again, from where I see,
as the Chief of Staff of the Army, is I'm providing options to
the combatant commander, and then I defer to the policymakers
on, you know, where we can get access.
But the other thing, too, as far as expeditionary fires,
those systems----
Mr. Gallagher. Where they're going to be, right? To make
sure they're in range of----
General McConville. Well, that's right.
Mr. Gallagher. So, yes or no----
General McConville. I would be glad to----
Mr. Gallagher [continuing]. Negotiating such agreements,
but, clearly, you have a view on whether we are where we need
to be to deploy multi-domain operation task forces [MDTFs].
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I would just add, you know,
I think we have, obviously, a very close alliance with Japan,
you know. We've made good progress with the Philippines with
the defense cooperation agreement. So, I think, you know,
there's still conversations and work to be done, but I think,
you know, a country like Japan, it's remarkable how its threat
perception has changed over the last few years.
So, I think there are possibilities for basing the MDTF,
but I also think we have to have a pretty robust diplomatic
effort with other countries in the region to try to open up
opportunities for basing and access.
Mr. Gallagher. I would submit this is probably our top--
with respect to everything happening in Ukraine right now, I
got it--at least in INDOPACOM, this has to be our top
diplomatic priority.
And if we are going to talk about integrated deterrence,
and I've been a critic of integrated deterrence, full
disclosure, what we should integrate is the State Department
moving heaven and earth to negotiate basing agreements with key
allies so that we can deploy teams of Marines or soldiers in
order to deny a PLA invasion of Taiwan.
I'm out of time.
The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Escobar is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. Good to see you
again. Thank you for your service to our country and thank you
for being here to discuss the administration's fiscal year 2023
budget.
As you know, I have the incredible privilege of
representing Fort Bliss here in Congress, America's second
largest military installation and the largest joint
mobilization force generation installation in the Army. Fort
Bliss also retains many different assets and missions critical
to the Army's readiness and modernization plans, such as the
1st Armored Division and Joint Modernization Command.
From day one, I have worked hard to ensure I understand
Fort Bliss's needs and what we can do in Congress to ensure
that it remains a world-class premier military installation. I
was pleased to see the $15 million request in the Department's
budget for a new fire station at Fort Bliss to serve the area
surrounding the William Beaumont Army Medical Center, and I
will work to ensure that it is included in this year's NDAA.
However, it's my hope that this is just a first step for
the Army's investment in Fort Bliss for the coming decade. In a
letter that I sent to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
earlier this year, I described two investments that are badly
needed. The first is the railhead, the second are the barracks.
I've spoken with both of you before about this. I have seen the
barracks for myself. And while I'm pleased that there is some
3D printing and some innovation involved with the barracks, and
I'm encouraged by the Assistant Secretary's response saying
that these investments are slotted for the fiscal year 2024-
2028 investment plan, I still want to hear a little bit more
about the plans for Fort Bliss from both of you directly.
Could you please expand on the Army's plans for investment
in Fort Bliss and what role you see Fort Bliss playing in the
Army's modernization plans?
Secretary Wormuth. Certainly, Congresswoman. And thank you
for your great support of Fort Bliss and your work for your
district. We really appreciate your support for the Army.
In the 5-year budget plan, we have about, I think, $280
million in MILCON at Fort Bliss and several hundred million
dollars in O&M [operation and maintenance] for renovations and
modernizations, whether it's permanent barracks or transient
barracks, as well as things like the railhead.
So we are, you know, again, through the facilities--excuse
me, our infrastructure plan, we are trying to program that out
over time, and we'd be happy to talk with you and, you know,
give you a briefing that lays it out in detail.
As I've said to a couple of other members of the committee,
the challenge the Army has year over year is taking the finite
resources we have and balancing it among modernization for all
of the great weapon systems we have been talking about or
quality of life for our soldiers or infrastructure. But there
is a plan for quite a bit of investment in Fort Bliss over the
next 5 years.
Ms. Escobar. Great. That's music to my ears. Thank you so
much and would forward to that briefing.
I want to shift now to legacy systems, and I know there has
been a lot of conversation this morning around that issue. And
I agree completely with my chairman when he says he has got
more concern about how the money is spent versus how much, you
know, the debate over how much, and I could not be more in
agreement. And I will tell you, after having received
classified briefings around China and the threats posed by
China, and I realize we are in an unclassified setting, I do
believe that Congress needs to do more to let go of legacy
systems and to have a broader, more ambitious vision for the
Department of Defense.
And so, my question to you in the limited time that we
have, what can we in Congress do to support you as you move
away from these legacy systems?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, thank you. I think, for
the most part, through the Army night court process that has
gone on in the last few years, we have largely divested of most
of what we would truly call legacy platforms. But, you know,
there may be a few specific instances where we have systems
that we want to shed and just, you know, I think what you can
do is bring that understanding that we are trying to transform
to the future and, you know, and move away from systems that
don't make sense for the future fight.
Ms. Escobar. General McConville, anything you would like to
add?
General McConville. I agree with the Secretary. I think
we're in pretty good shape. Our challenge is we have enduring
systems that we want to keep, and we have been incrementally
improving them over the years. And those are what we're going
to fight with today, and we are trying to find that sweet spot
where we continue to incrementally improve them because they
are going to be around for a while. At the same time, we don't
give up our modernization for the future.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you both so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired. Mr. Gaetz
is recognized for 5 minutes. He is virtually appearing with us.
Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General McConville,
you said that we are focused on quality more than quantity with
our recruiting numbers, but isn't it true that we are
experiencing a recruiting crisis in the Army?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, we're certainly
experiencing some recruiting challenges. And what I mean by
that is 83 percent of the young men and women that come in the
Army are military family members, and we would like to see
others do that. And only 23 percent of Americans are qualified
to come into the Army.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, and you gave testimony to the Senate
regarding the physical fitness of a lot of our youth as
disqualifying. Is America too fat to field the Army that we
need?
General McConville. Well, I think we could do more as far
as physical and mental fitness. I think that's something that
we are looking at. We're very pleased, one of the interesting
facts that I've learned about is the high schools that have
JROTC [Junior ROTC] in them, 44 percent of the young men and
women that attend those high schools come into the military and
they are only in 10 percent of our schools. And they are not
necessarily in JROTC, but what they are is they have been
exposed to the military.
And, again, I have a thesis, not proven, but the people
that tend to come into the military are those who have been
exposed in some way, whether it is a family member or it's, you
know, in their schools. And I think that would be very helpful.
Mr. Gaetz. I agree. And I would observe, as I'm sure many
of my colleagues would, that some of our best applicants for
military service academies actually come through our ROTC
programs. But that alone won't meet our recruiting needs. We
are 12,000 troops below where we were previously. We have an
overall force that has fallen below a million for the first
time in two decades; is that right?
General McConville. That's about right, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. And, General, it appears--well, let me ask it to
you this way: How many people are going to be separated from
the Army one way or the other as a result of the vaccine
mandate?
General McConville. I don't know. There's been about----
Mr. Gaetz. Shouldn't we know that?
General McConville. Well, it depends because there is a
very deliberate and measured process that we are going through.
About almost 98 percent of the Active Duty soldiers have taken
the vaccination. There's many that are not that are in the
process of going through either a religious or a medical
exemption process, and we are giving them----
Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry to interrupt you, General, but you
have only approved 8 permanent religious exemptions, you have
only approved 22 permanent medical exemptions. And so, while
you describe the process as deliberate, I would describe it as
dilatory because you have thousands of people who have
submitted requests that haven't even heard back.
Does it strike you as odd that you have given testimony to
the Senate that America's youth are not physically fit enough
to populate the Army or at least that that's a major challenge,
and, yet we are taking people who are otherwise physically fit
and we are separating them?
General McConville. Well, Secretary, do you want to----
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, and I think General
McConville has spoken to this earlier in the hearing, we are
trying to, first of all, make all of the information available
to our troops about the benefits and the safety of the
vaccine----
Mr. Gaetz. I don't want to hear about that. By the way, I'm
not interested in that testimony. I am well aware of it. My
concern is you are saying people aren't healthy enough to meet
your recruiting needs, and then you are taking otherwise
healthy people and you are separating them, and those positions
are in conflict. So, I'm not interested in the propaganda or
the education campaign to get people to get the vaccine. I'm
concerned about the separation.
And I would also observe, you know, the Army, at one point,
had the greatest recruiting slogan of all time: Be all you can
be. And then it went to the Army of one. And while I'm sure a
few, you know, while I'm sure a few on the other side of the
aisle would agree with me, when we have a military that seems
to invoke this sense of wokeness and where we're, like, on a
snipe hunt for White supremacy every day in the military, I
think that that causes people who might otherwise sign up for
the Army to not do so. The tone and tenor that comes out of the
Secretary of Defense particularly is a retarding element to the
recruitment that we need.
And I would finally observe with my remaining seconds that
it's quite something that we had the Secretary of Defense
before the committee. I said, ``Well, gee, Mr. Secretary, we
are behind on hypersonics while we are focused on this
wokeness,'' and he berated me for the suggestion that we were
behind on hypersonics and he said, ``How did you get that?
Where did you get that?'' And now, I guess when he comes back,
I can say I got that from the chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Mr. Smith, who just moments ago said we are, in
fact, behind Russia and China.
I see my time has concluded.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I will note
that we've had several hours, probably at this point, like, 5
hours' worth of hearings with the Army, the Navy, and the
Marine Corps this week, and Mr. Gaetz is the very first person
to mention White supremacy or wokeness, I think, for like a
couple of weeks now. The only person----
Mr. Gaetz. Well, not on the basis of----
The Chairman. It's my time now, Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry. Your
time has expired. It is my time. The only person on this
committee who seems obsessed with White supremacy and wokeness
is Mr. Gaetz, and that is not helping us at all, number one.
And number two, what the Secretary took issue with is the
accusation that the military wasn't ready because of wokeness.
Mr. Gaetz chooses to focus on the hypersonics, but the reason
the Secretary was upset is because Mr. Gaetz, who has never
served in the military, was telling a decorated veteran that he
wasn't doing enough to prepare our military to fight. And I
think our Secretary rightly took that personally, as well he
should have.
I just want to set the record straight.
Mr. Gaetz. Well, we'll play the video, Mr. Chairman, and
we----
The Chairman. Please cut off his microphone. His time has
expired. Mrs. Luria is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Luria. Thank you. And General McConville, I wanted to
follow up on the topic that my colleague, Mr. Gallagher, was
discussing with some of the capabilities that you are trying to
develop. You said in your statement ship-sinking Mid-Range
Capability missiles. Can you describe what you mean by Mid-
Range?
General McConville. You know, about a thousand kilometers.
Mrs. Luria. A thousand kilometers?
General McConville. Yes.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. And from where do you anticipate using
this capability? I know Mr. Gallagher touched on that, but I
still don't understand, like, in the first island chain, did
you plan on placing these perhaps on Taiwan? I'm not sure if I
understand the concept where a thousand kilometer missile is--
--
General McConville. Yes, I'd like to talk to you maybe in a
classified setting, if we could, on those type issues, where we
would put those type things. But I could give you plenty of
examples around the world where we think it would be helpful.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. But was that not the same question Mr.
Gallagher just asked and there was not any identified basing
locations that we have access? Maybe the Secretary would follow
up on that.
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, as I said to Congressman
Gallagher, you know, I think we have relationships and, in some
cases, alliance relationships in the region with a country like
Japan, with countries like Australia. You know, we have our
cooperative agreement with the Philippines.
I think we are going to have to sort of, you know--I don't
think it would be wise for us to wait to develop the kinds of
weapon systems that we need for a future conflict until we had
the diplomatic agreements signed. We----
Mrs. Luria. But we have weapon systems that have this
capability. It was just tested last year using the Naval Strike
Missile. The Marine Corps did it as part of their EABO
[expeditionary advanced base operations] concept, and we have
missiles now that you can put on land and launch at ships,
moving targets at sea.
Secretary Wormuth. I was trying to answer your question
about sort of where potentially we----
Mrs. Luria. So, I mean, that's the next question I have
because I feel that the Marine Corps is also developing a
similar concept. How much are you working in unison with them
for commonality of the weapon systems and interoperability?
Secretary Wormuth. We are working, I would say, you know,
we're certainly in active discussions with the Marine Corps.
They are participating in our Project Convergence set of
experiments where they are bringing capabilities and
technologies, we are bringing capabilities and technologies.
And my own view is I see the multi-domain task force that we
are developing and the Marines littoral combat regiment as
complementary.
Mrs. Luria. Okay. I want to shift because, you know, I had
the opportunity to read the most recent National Defense
Strategy. It focuses a lot on this idea of integrated
deterrence. What is the Army's role in integrated deterrence,
General?
General McConville. Well, it's multiple. One, is providing
a combat credible capability. Another is being part of the
joint force. The other is working with allies and partners----
Mrs. Luria. So those are all, we're working with our allies
and partners in a military sense, interoperability with those
allies and partners.
General McConville. Well, it's also reassuring allies and
partners. I can tell you, from what we saw recently in Europe,
the ability to stand side by side with our allies----
Mrs. Luria. That's using military forces side by side with
their military forces.
General McConville. That's right. That's part of what we
see, and I think when we, you know, I'll defer to the policy
side of the house when they talk about integrated, but it is
much more than just a military capability. There is certainly
diplomacy involved. There is information operation----
Mrs. Luria. You are doing diplomacy as an----
General McConville. Say that again.
Mrs. Luria. You are doing diplomacy?
General McConville. No, I'm not. No----
Mrs. Luria. What I am trying to get at is everything you
are describing to me, it is hard power. Like, the military's
role in integrated deterrence is to be the military. Do you
agree?
General McConville. Yes. I think it's supporting diplomacy
is part of what we do.
Mrs. Luria. You led exactly to my thought. You are
supporting diplomacy. Okay. So, we get into a conflict. It's
very clear you have a supporting/supported commander, the
military is the supported commander, all the other levels of
government are supporting that. But in the gray zone or
peacetime environment we are in now, the military is supporting
all those other levels of government, but who is the supported
commander? Who are you supporting? Who is in charge? Maybe the
Secretary can answer those.
Secretary Wormuth. Who is in charge of our diplomatic
efforts? Is that the question?
Mrs. Luria. Of integrated deterrence. Because it would be
all levers of government. It would be diplomatic. You would
have energy, agriculture, every department of government has a
role----
Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congresswoman, my view of the,
A, I think, for the Department of Defense, you know, what we
contribute to integrated deterrence is our combat credible
forces. But I think to bringing it altogether with all of the
tools of government, that's orchestrated through the National
Security Council----
Mrs. Luria. But who is the supported commander now? The
National Security Council is the supported----
Secretary Wormuth. Well, that is the venue where we use to
try to coordinate between DOD, the State Department----
Mrs. Luria. But who is in charge of integrated deterrence?
Secretary Wormuth. It's a concept. I don't think that there
is someone is in charge of the concept. It is a way of----
The Chairman. I'm sorry. We're talking over each other a
lot here. We've got to sort of at least let her get through a
sentence there, and maybe we can get to a better understanding.
Go ahead.
Secretary Wormuth. You want me to go ahead? I think
integrated deterrence is just a way of trying to describe how
you bring sort of layers of deterrence together. You've got a
military layer; you've got a diplomatic and economic layer. You
then can add, you know, allies and partners, where they're
present, to provide integrated deterrence.
The Chairman. That's a good answer. I mean, at the end of
the day, the President is in charge of integrating all the
different aspects of government and directly below him would be
the national security advisor who is in charge of trying to
pull all that together. And it's not an easy job.
Mr. Banks is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Banks. General, I want to get back to the recruiting
subject that Mr. Gaetz was asking about a moment ago. Why is it
so hard today to recruit more soldiers into the United States
Army? Why are we having this challenge?
General McConville. Well, I think it's because of 23
percent of Americans are qualified. Many Americans have not
been exposed to the military, and I think we need to do a
better job of that. As I said, 83 percent of the soldiers that
come into the Army or recruits that come in have a military
family member, so they have been exposed, they know what it's
about, and they want to serve. And also, we see young men and
women that have attended high schools with Junior ROTC programs
coming into the military.
Mr. Banks. Are you concerned?
General McConville. Absolutely.
Mr. Banks. Is this concerning for our Nation's security?
General McConville. Well, I think, you know, again, three
of my kids serve and my son-in-law serves. My wife was----
Mr. Banks. So, you're concerned that we are having a hard
time meeting or coming close to our recruiting goals?
General McConville. Well, what I would like to see is--and,
again, you know, there's a lot of discussion. We are an
apolitical organization. We are really trying to stay out of
those type things. But at the end of the day, we want everyone
to have an opportunity to serve. And it's a great place for
working-class people to come from and to get an education----
Mr. Banks. You are saying you are concerned that we are not
coming close to our recruiting goals? It's a simple question. I
understand your children serve; that's great. I served. But
that's not answering my question. You're concerned that, for
our Nation's security, that----
General McConville. Well, if your question is am I
concerned that we have challenges with 23 percent of Americans'
ability to enter the military, that is a concern.
Mr. Banks. And you would admit that we are not coming close
to our recruitment goals? That's a--is that a failure of the
United States Army to reach its goals?
General McConville. Well, if we're not reaching our goals,
we are going to need some help to do that. And COVID certainly
hasn't helped, you know, as far as getting to high school and
exposing people and those type things. But that is something we
are very concerned----
Mr. Banks. Let me move on. It's projected that 2,879
soldiers, the size of a couple of Army battalions, have not
taken the COVID-19 vaccine and will likely be separated from
the Army. Is that number approximately correct, and do you
expect that number to be higher?
General McConville. Well, right now, we know on the Active
side we have about 2 percent, 1.5 percent to 2 percent that
fall into that category that have not got vaccinated.
Mr. Banks. So, is that loss of personnel going to hurt the
overall end strength of the United States Army? Yes or no.
Simple question. Is that going to hurt us?
General McConville. Well, it's going to reduce the--if
that's what the end strength, if you mean----
Mr. Banks. Does it make your job harder when you lose
nearly 3,000 soldiers?
General McConville. Well----
Mr. Banks. Does it make your job, I mean, does it make it
harder to meet our end strength goals? Does that affect the
strength of the United States Army to lose about 3,000
soldiers?
General McConville. Well, when I look at the Army, you
know, we have a legal order in place, and we want our soldiers
to obey legal orders.
Mr. Banks. So, I don't think it's any coincidence that the
Army is now offering a new $50,000 signing bonus to recruits as
they struggle for you to fill the spots left vacant from the
personnel that did not take the vaccine. Can you comment on why
the new signing bonus is specifically $50,000, which seems
unprecedented to me.
General McConville. Well, we have different levels of bonus
depending on the skill set. Some skill sets are higher. We are
in a war for talent. We want the best and brightest to the come
to the Army, and that's one way to incentivize some to come.
Mr. Banks. Why $50,000?
General McConville. Because we've done analysis and, again,
we have taken a look at what the levels are, and a larger bonus
of that type for certain people, we are going to see how that
works.
Mr. Banks. So, what certain people would get a $50,000
bonus?
General McConville. Well, we have certain skill sets, you
know, on the high end, and it depends how long they are going
to stay and what type of skill set they are going to have.
Mr. Banks. Sir, do you ever remember a time when the United
States Army was offering a $50,000 signing bonus to recruit new
soldiers?
General McConville. I don't.
Mr. Banks. Yes, it seems unprecedented. At the same time
that we're flushing out 3,000 soldiers, the size of a couple of
Army battalions, once again, because they have not taken a
politicized COVID-19 vaccine, which you admit affects your
overall end strength in the United States Army, makes your job
more challenging, we're flushing out thousands of soldiers and
then we're offering $50,000 signing bonuses to try to attract
new young men and women to come and join the United States
Army.
I don't get it. I really don't get it. I think it's
foolish. I think you have said enough today to let us know that
you agree. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thanks. Mr. Kahele is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Secretary, it's great to see you,
General McConville, for appearing before this committee today.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Hawaii's
impending lease expiration of major military landholdings,
including Army lands throughout Hawaii, including one very
important landholding on the island of O'ahu's leeward coast.
This would be the Makua Military Training Reservation.
Two months ago, I introduced the Leandra Wai Act, a bill
that would remediate and restore Makua Valley and its military
reservation and return the land back to the State of Hawaii.
In my humble opinion, the United States Army does not need
this land for training. The last time that the Army has
conducted any live-fire training in Makua was in 2004. And even
during 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.
military did not train at Makua.
Furthermore, returning the land back to the people of
Hawaii is a necessary right to correct a historic wrong. As
only the second Native Hawaiian to serve [in] Congress since
statehood, it is my kuleana, my responsibility, to break that
silence and elevate this conversation at the Federal level.
When Hawaii was governed under martial law in 1941
following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military seized
Makua for training. Families, Native Hawaiian families, who
were living there for generations were evicted and the military
condemned Native Hawaiian land grants. The military promised to
return the land back to its rightful owners 6 months after
World War II, but that promise was never kept.
Within Makua Valley exists temples, Native Hawaiian
shrines, petroglyphs, and other sacred sites. It's home to 41
endangered species of plants and animals. This land also has
tremendous economic potential with extensive agricultural
terracing, and access to important offshore fisheries.
I'm urging this committee to hold a hearing on this bill,
the Leandra Wai Act. Leandra Wai was the co-founder of a Native
Hawaiian-led nonprofit dedicating her life to bringing Makua
back to the people of Hawaii.
So, Madam Secretary, my question is, in regards to Makua,
if the Army has not conducted any live-fire training since
2004, Makua's lease expires in 2029, the leased lands that the
United States military leases from the State of Hawaii, what
would be the justification for keeping Makua in the Army's land
inventory, continuing to pursue a new lease with the State of
Hawaii, rather than returning the entire Makua Military
Reservation back and remediating it before it is returned back
to the people of Hawaii?
Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. It's good to see
you. I think both the Makua Valley training area and PTA
[Pohakuloa Training Area] on the big island are critical
training areas for the U.S. Army. And while we may not have
conducted live fire in Makua, there are, I think, other kinds
of training that go on there that General Flynn, our U.S. Army
Pacific Commander, views as really essential for us to be able
to have our forces in the Indo-Pacific maintain their
readiness.
The Army tries very hard to be good stewards of that land,
and, you know, I've talked with General Flynn and Senator
Hirono about this and look forward to talking more with you and
with the Native Hawaiian community about how we can, you know,
be an even better steward to protect those species that you
referenced, to make sure that the Native Hawaiian groups have
access to the land to be able to go to those sacred sites.
But I think we view those training areas as very important
to maintaining our readiness.
Mr. Kahele. As a Native Hawaiian, in my opinion, the next
10 years, the next decade in Hawaii, is a very pivotal time in
Hawaii regarding the military's role in Hawaii and working
together with the people of Hawaii. Best example I can use most
recently is Red Hill. Red Hill is a turning point in Hawaii
regarding the military's presence and how that military
presence moves forward in Hawaii.
And so, I'd welcome the opportunity to sit down together
with you and General Flynn and talk about how we can turn a
page on how the military operates in Hawaii, its presence in
Hawaii. We know it is important to Hawaii. It is a big economic
driver for the State. A lot of people are employed by our
United States military. But we have to find a balance. And I
think it's time that Makua Valley be returned to the State of
Hawaii and its people.
Maholo, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary
Wormuth, your May 3rd directive removes the commander of Army
Futures Command as the head of the Army modernization
enterprise, and I'm wondering who is in charge of Army
modernization now and what was the rationale, why did you
decide to make that change?
Secretary Wormuth. Sure, Congressman. I appreciate you
bringing that up actually. The directive did not remove or
downgrade Army Futures Command's role in our acquisition
effort. You know, at the end of the day, General McConville and
I are ultimately responsible for the Army's modernization
progress, and we have a team approach to modernizing in the
Army. Army Futures Command plays an important role. The PEOs
[program executive officers] and ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)] play an
important role. So, the directive I signed was just clarifying
those roles and responsibilities. It was not downgrading the
importance of Futures Command at all. I am very much pleased
with the progress and the contributions that Futures Command is
making.
Mr. Johnson. So is AFC, is that AFC commander still in
charge of approving material requirements for the Army?
Secretary Wormuth. Futures Command is, you know, one of
their major responsibilities is helping us develop requirements
for future capabilities, and they retain that responsibility.
Mr. Johnson. And will they still influence Milestone A, B,
and C decisions? I mean, does he get a vote on that?
Secretary Wormuth. There's a very active dialogue between
all of the folks at Army Futures Command and ASA(ALT). You
know, ultimately, it is the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition
and Logistics that has the authorities for Milestones A through
C.
Mr. Johnson. So given the change, the question is, I guess,
and I'm not the only one asking, but does the breadth of
responsibilities that Futures Commands retains, does that still
necessitate a four-star command or does your directive make
them duplicative in some way?
Secretary Wormuth. We fully intend to see a four-star
general leading Army Futures Command. Our acting commanding
general, Lieutenant General Jim Richardson, is doing a great
job. We are working on getting our nominee for a four-star
commander over to the Senate.
Mr. Johnson. Great. Let me switch topics to the COVID
vaccine, Madam Secretary. Have any soldiers been granted a
religious exemption from the COVID vaccine requirement who are
not in the process of leaving the service? And if so, how many?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I believe that we've
granted eight religious exemptions at this time, and I know
some of them were on the way out from the Army already, but
some of them may well have been, you know, granted religious
exemptions. I don't think all eight of them were already
intending to leave the Army, but I can check that and get back
to you for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 91.]
Mr. Johnson. So, according to the Army data from March 31,
at least 8,000 soldiers have requested exemptions or refused
the vaccine. So, I mean, the ratio of 8 out of 8,000 is pretty
bleak. If the Army discharges all 8,000, here's the question,
and the taxpayers pay at least $50,000 to train each soldier,
aren't we just throwing away over $400 million of investment? I
mean, if over 97 percent of the force is vaccinated already, is
that worth it?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we are in the process of
working our way through adjudication of those religious
exemptions and medical exemptions. So, at this point, I can't
tell you, you know, ultimately, how many people will be
separated. And I think our view is, you know, while, yes, we
have certainly spent money on our soldiers and those that are
separating, we spent money training them, but at the end of the
day we have to make sure that we have a ready, deployable force
and that we have soldiers on our teams who are following lawful
orders.
So, we are trying to be very deliberate. We don't want to
separate one more Army soldier than we absolutely have to.
Mr. Johnson. Why won't the Army accept natural immunity as
a substitute for the COVID vaccine, like the Army does for
other illnesses?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, in conversations I've had
with Army doctors, they have explained to me that, while if
you've had COVID you do have some natural immunity, but you
only have natural immunity for the strain of COVID that you got
sick with the first time. And as we know, there have been a
variety of additional variants of COVID coming forward.
Mr. Johnson. Well, and the news we're getting this morning
is that they're anticipating 100 million Americans will get
infected in the next, in the coming months, and that's because
they're saying that the vaccine, the effectiveness is wearing
off.
So as the science changes, I hope the Army will follow the
science on that. But in the meantime, it seems to us to be a
colossal waste of investment to just release all those soldiers
for something like that.
But I'm out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego [presiding]. Representative Horsford.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
start off discussing the talent management and diversity. I'm
curious if you've seen any early indicators that the Army
talent alignment process is improving officer diversity and
retention. Now that commanders have more authority to select
officers for assignments from the talent marketplace, I'm
concerned that this system may unintentionally introduce
additional unconscious bias against minority officers for
selection to key positions.
General McConville, now that there have been several
assignment cycles using the Army talent alignment process, have
you identified any trends that diversity metrics are improving
in key positions or in minority officer retention, and what
steps does the Army take to combat unconscious bias in
assignments?
General McConville. Well, Congressman, you know, we are
seeing more diversity across our commands and our key
leadership positions, so that is happening. We watch this very,
very closely. And one of the things that the Secretary and I
have is on boards, you know, people talk about unconscious
bias, and we took pictures out of the promotion boards and, at
the same time, putting people, you know, the studies we did
that people tend to pick people that have similar backgrounds.
So, if you're an infantry officer, you'll maybe pick an
infantry officer, if you're an armor officer or something along
those lines. And so, we want to make sure that our boards are
very representative and that's what happening, and the results
we're getting, I think, are in a positive direction.
Mr. Horsford. Okay. On a related issue, though, we know
that a significant number of senior leaders and general
officers come from combat arms branches and that minority
groups are underrepresented in these career fields. So, to your
last point, now that the Army has implemented the talent-based
branching system, has there been an increase in the number of
minority officers commissioning into combat arms branches?
General McConville. We have seen that.
Mr. Horsford. Okay. If you could supply that to the
committee or to my office, I would appreciate that.
General McConville. Sure.
Secretary Wormuth. And, Congressman, I would also just add,
I think----
Mr. Horsford. I want to move on to another topic. Thank
you. I would like to shift now to the Army National Guard. It's
my understanding that the Army is currently working to
establish eight division headquarters and align downtrace units
with these headquarters to prepare for large-scale combat
operations.
Secretary Wormuth, can you update the committee on the
progress being made towards this realignment and if any units
are expected to be reassigned to different States as a result
of this change.
Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. Certainly, as we
are looking at how the Army is going to pursue multi-domain
operations and large-scale combat operations in the future,
we're looking at that from a total Army perspective, so we are
working closely with General Jensen in the Army Guard and
General Daniels in the Army Reserve to make sure that their
units have a role to play.
At this time, we do not have any plans to move units from
one State to another. What we're really looking at is, you
know, the schedule for when we might see some of the new weapon
systems that we're developing be going into Guard units in
various places, and we're still working through that effort.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Finally, I understand that earlier
this month 10 Maryland Air National Guard A-10s deployed to
Europe to support the Army's Swift Response exercise. This
comes shortly after testing at the Nevada Test and Training
Range in my district confirmed the effectiveness of the
aircraft against modern armored threats. To quote the Air Force
press release, and I quote, ``The A-10 is well suited for agile
combat employment roles, and this test proves the A-10 can
continue to deliver massive rapid firepower with devastating
effects on enemy vehicles in a contested environment.''
General McConville, can you speak to the importance of the
A-10 in supporting ground maneuver during exercises like Swift
Response, and is the A-10 platform still being employed
effectively to maneuver commanders in the European theater?
General McConville. Well, I think what I can do,
Congressman, is speak to the effectiveness of close air support
from the Air Force and both from being an Apache pilot from the
Army, and I think that's extremely important. And I defer it to
General Brown and how he wants to provide that capability
within the United States Army. As Chief of Staff of the Army
with a statutory responsibility for requirements, I lay that
out when it comes to Apaches and other type aircraft.
Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Representative Horsford. Next up we
have Representative Franklin.
Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam
Secretary. thank you, General McConville, for being here today
and your guests. This is a long process. Appreciate your
patience.
Secretary Wormuth, on October 8th, 2021, the Biden
administration signed an Executive order stipulating that the
entire Federal Government, including the Department of Defense,
would be required to purchase only 100 percent zero-emission
vehicles by 2035. The Executive order also states that the
requirement for net-zero emissions from Federal procurement no
later than 2050.
So, in 13 years, DOD will be forbidden to purchase anything
other than electric vehicles or non-zero emission. Then in
2050, there will be no fossil fuel vehicles remaining in
service.
Were you consulted regarding the potential impacts this
Executive order would have on the Army prior to its being
signed into effect by the President?
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I am not under the
impression that the Army will be--let me state this
differently. The Executive order is not putting up any
obstacles for the United States Army to continue to have tanks
that rely on fossil fuel, for example. We do have a strategy to
move to all light-duty non-tactical vehicles being electric by
2027 and then all non-tactical vehicles by 2035. But I think
that we very much will be continuing to have many of our combat
vehicles still using fossil fuel.
Mr. Franklin. Okay. I'll need to look at that more closely
because my understanding was that was going to be for all
vehicles. Even in light of that, is it your opinion that the
technology is advancing quickly enough that's going to enable
us to field those electric vehicles--set aside tanks and things
like that--but just the general support vehicles that will be
necessary? And then General, I would also like your input on
that, as well.
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think for our non-
tactical vehicles, I'm pretty confident that the technology is
coming along well. I mean, there's some amazing things being
done with electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, and we're even
looking at a hybrid version of our joint light tactical vehicle
[JLTV].
You know, again, I think, for some of the heavier things
like tanks, you know, we're probably some time away from being
able to move from fossil fuels. But for the JLTVs and non-
tactical vehicles, the technology is there.
Mr. Franklin. Okay. General, your thoughts on----
General McConville. Yes, my thoughts, Congressman, is, you
know, from a readiness standpoint, especially with the bigger
vehicles, hybrid is probably the way to go if you can reduce
fuel. Some of our bigger vehicles use a lot of fuel, and that
puts 5,000-gallon tankers on the road. And if we can bring that
down, I'm fine with that.
And the other thing is they actually reduce the noise in
some cases. So those are the readiness values. But for some of
these bigger vehicles, it's going to be--unless the technology
really changes, it's going to be a while before we can get
there.
Mr. Franklin. Okay. I have a report, it's called ``Powering
the U.S. Army of the Future.'' It was produced by the National
Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, looking into
this very issue about the feasibility of the technology. Has
the Army conducted its own research into determining, I
understand moonshot kinds of promises and ambitious goals to
try to reach certain initiatives, but are we layering over the
requirements to see if the technology is actually going to be
there? Because just to cut to the chase, and I can provide this
report into the record and would be happy to, it does a deep
dive and there's a lot of smart folks that are looking at it,
but their general assessment, the bottom line, is that the
battery technology isn't going to be there anytime soon, the
energy density just isn't there. We also have recharging
problems. The ability to do that out on the field just isn't
there. And my concern is that we're signaling to industry that
they need to be gearing up, that that's the direction the
administration is headed, but the technology doesn't seem like
it's going to be there in time.
I would just welcome your thoughts on that.
Secretary Wormuth. I think Congressman, what I would say
is, you know, we--again, I think what we have signaled to
industry is that we're very interested in being able to move
towards electric for our non-tactical vehicles.
And they're already working on that in the commercial
space, you know, just to look at, I think, what GM is doing.
You know, you're absolutely right, that for things like tanks,
you know, we're not going to have charging stations in
battlefields of the future.
And so again, I think, you know, we're--we're not going in
that direction. We still, you know, the folks who build our
tanks, are still working from an assumption that we're going to
be using fossil fuels.
Mr. Franklin. Okay. All right. Anything to add on that,
General?
General McConville. No, we're looking for efficiency when
it comes to fuel. Even, you know, an ITEP engine, the improved
turbine engine that we're developing, we're getting a lot more
power out of a lot less fuel.
And again, how well we can best optimize the force, that's
what we want to do.
Mr. Franklin. Roger that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Mr. Gallego. Representative McClain.
Mrs. McClain. Thank you. And thank you both for being here.
I really appreciate it.
In reviewing what the Army has put out, I understand that
the major priorities for the Army, is the development of
optimally manned fighting vehicles. Right?
Well, I can appreciate the Army is working with limited
resources. And we must make decisions on whether to invest in
readiness, modernization, and people, of course.
But that being said, the budget seems to be, in my opinion,
it seems to greatly abandon any focus on readiness. Or at least
a great reduction of focus on readiness.
Like the ranking member mentioned earlier, programs such as
the Abrams tank and the Stryker combat vehicles are underfunded
in your budget request, which seems disconnected kind of from
the realities on what's going on on the ground in Europe.
In fact, the budget request cuts the procurement of these
two programs by roughly half. Quite frankly, it seems like
you're putting a lot of stock into modernization rather than
readiness, while there's a hot war going on in Ukraine.
And especially with the nuclear power and all the
modernizations that we're seeing. I know this budget was
crafted several months prior to what was happening in Ukraine.
I guess my question is, is now that things have changed,
and the landscape has changed a little, are you all having
internal conversations, and possibly shifting priorities more
towards readiness, and less towards modernization, with
everything that's going on? I'm sorry.
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman--oh, sorry. Congresswoman,
we have actually, I think, tried to invest significantly in
readiness. Because, and we've seen how important it is to have
ready forces because of what's happened in Ukraine.
So, this budget, for example, funds 22 combat training
center rotations. Where we're able to send our battalions and
brigades to be able to do sort of major training in the desert,
or at Fort Polk, or in Germany.
And that's actually two more rotations then we did last
year.
Mrs. McClain. So, you think there's a--that we're, I don't
want to put words in your mouth. But you think that we are in a
good spot as it pertains to readiness, even with the funding
for those two being cut by half?
Secretary Wormuth. Well, yes. I think we're--I think the
Army is in a good place in terms of readiness. And we, for the
last few years, we've been investing to kind of rebuild our
readiness coming out of sequestration.
We have made a decision in this budget in terms of
investing in modernizing our enduring systems, like Abrams or
Stryker. We have slowed that down a little bit to allow us to
continue to proceed our transformational modernization.
So, we're trying to strike a balance with this.
Mrs. McClain. So, long term versus short term.
Secretary Wormuth. Exactly.
Mrs. McClain. In essence.
Secretary Wormuth. Sort of future versus present, exactly.
Mrs. McClain. Okay. To follow up on that question then, the
budget request contains a reduction of 12,000, 12,000 soldiers
at the end strength.
The Under Secretary of the Army has stated that this
reduction was not a budget-driven decision. But you went on
record last year stating that in your professional opinion, the
Army is too small.
It seems like a little bit of a, of a contradiction. In
fact, you said, when I take a look at what historically we
needed, and now that we're in a time of great power
competition, I'm very, very concerned about the size of the
Army.
My question is, if the nationwide inflation wasn't an
issue, right, if we weren't at historic inflation rates, would
you still make the same decisions to cut 12,000 troops?
Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, our decision to reduce
our end strength was really more driven about--it was about
wanting to keep the quality of our troops up in the face of a
challenging recruiting environment.
To--our issue is not that we can't pay for those additional
12,000 soldiers, it's that we would have to lower our standards
and let people in who do not meet our standards.
That--and we made the decision that we'd rather have a
slightly smaller Army that has quality standards, rather than
to lower our standards.
Mrs. McClain. And I would, I would challenge you to think
about, I think we could do both. I mean, I believe in the
people.
I believe in the Army. I believe in the United States of
America. That we can figure out how to do both. And I would
only encourage you, since I'm out of time, to look at other
solutions.
And perhaps it may be a little bit easier if we didn't have
all the COVID mandates that we have for the Army personnel.
And with that, I'm out of time. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Gallego. Representative Green.
Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And
I want to thank the Chief and the Secretary for being here
today. Thanks for your life of service to the country.
President Biden's budget continues to, I think, stick the
Army with the bill for other services' modernization and
procurement costs. I think it's a significant and dangerous
miscalculation.
The Army and its soldiers have borne the brunt of the past
two decades of warfare. Consequently, they're lagging behind on
some modernization efforts to prepare our Nation for the
threats against Russia and China.
These generational challenges require state-of-the-art
equipment, advanced training, and additional soldiers. Yet, the
Biden budget proposes to cut 12,000 soldiers from the Army, an
Army currently providing forward-deployed troops to our NATO
allies in Eastern Europe.
And, I might say, bearing, surprisingly to many, the
majority of the taskings in the INDOPACOM region. It's
unacceptable. It's unacceptable that they be compelled to live
by a budget that doesn't fairly recognize this.
My recent visit to Poland and the 101st Airborne troops
stationed there, illustrated that most of us, what we've known
all along, a modern and fully manned Army remains an essential
component to executing the National Defense Strategy and
serving America's interest abroad.
The rapid response capabilities of the 101st depend on our
Nation's most valuable resource, the men and women who choose
to wear the uniform. We cannot, and should not, try to replace
that.
Our main concern, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon
and the White House, seem more focused on the false promise of
integrated deterrent strategy than on backing up those
soldiers.
While I certainly agree that a whole-of-government approach
across the entire DIME paradigm--informational, military,
diplomatic, economic tools--is critical, this cannot be used to
justify significant cuts in the Army personnel.
Integrated deterrence may sound good in White House
meetings, but I can tell you that on the ground in Eastern
Europe, and in the South Pacific, it just doesn't fly.
Additionally, I understand that the Biden administration
wants to cut funding from modernization in order to spend more
money on climate change and social policies within the DOD. And
let me be clear, the United States military should not be a
social engineering experiment.
Members of this committee should reject the budget, those
aspects of the budget, and craft responses that prepare the
Army to not only defeat current and future threats, but to
dominate them.
My questions today, first to the Chief, what is the percent
of taskings for INDOPACOM that are the Army's?
General McConville. Well, I can get you the exact number.
But, at least as far as when we take a look a--as a worldwide,
the Army produced about 60 percent of the taskings.
And I can probably get you a better number for----
Dr. Green. Sixty percent is a pretty big number. I think a
lot of people seem to think this is, you know, China is going
to be a Navy thing.
And clearly, our Navy is critical. I heard the testimony.
We had testimony yesterday on that. But I just--60 percent,
that's huge. And I think bringing the recognition of that is
something I want to make sure today, in my comments, we do.
You look at how we responded to the Ukraine, or the issue
in Ukraine. And it was because of these predisposition or pre-
positioned forces. And you look at Romania, and the ability too
very quickly, and very agile, you know, send a Stryker brigade
to Romania.
Do we have that capability in the Pacific if something
happened with Taiwan? And if not, what can we do, or what
should we do about it?
General McConville. Well, I think, I think the notion of
having the right posture. And I think the great example is
actually Europe, because we have permanent forces there. We
have rotational forces there. We've rehearsed with our allies
and partners. We have pre-positioned stocks. And we have
logistics, which is extremely important.
And I think that's a good model for other places we may
want to operate.
Dr. Green. So, is--that's something we should be thinking
about for other parts of the world, particularly the Pacific.
Okay. Thank you.
I know, I've previously expressed concerns to Chairman
Milley on the loss of JSTARS and AWACS [airborne warning and
control system]. I want to make sure, and if you can give me
some assurances today, that that capability is--we still have
that capability with those aircraft going away.
I mean, do we? We have--or is that loss going to really
hurt the Army?
General McConville. We need to come back to this----
Dr. Green. And talk offline?
General McConville. [Nods in assent.]
Dr. Green. Okay. Okay. In March, I think you testified to
the committee, 74 percent of the Active Component brigade
combat teams have the highest levels of tactical readiness.
We know since then the Army's topline funding in real terms
has gone down with inflation. And I know you've probably been
beaten up about this.
Yo--if you look at the overall budget, it's down 10
percent. With those inflation--inflationary impacts, has there
been an impact on readiness of the brigades?
General McConville. Right now, the brigades are ready.
Dr. Green. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego. Representative Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to talk a
minute about modernization. And thanks for sticking with us
today in this important hearing.
The Army, as you well know, has 24 programs that have been
delivered in low-rate production tranches, completed by FY23.
And incredibly, this has been done in less than 5 years.
Which I don't think has been done, really, to this, this fast
and to this scale since the 1980s.
So, my question is, why are you taking authority away from
warfighters, and essentially giving it back to the bureaucracy?
I mean, my concern in particular is that you're taking away
funding decision authority from the Army Futures Command
commander on 6.1 through 6.3, as well as the requirements, as
well as requirements driven from the Chief in supporting the
military.
General McConville, you've been through this process since
the beginning. Do you agree with those decisions?
General McConville. Well, the decision, the requirements
still--I have statutory requirements for requirements. The way
I--at least with the, as we took a look at the civilian control
of the military, and the authorities that lie within the
secretariat, that's what is outlined in the directive.
And----
Mr. Waltz. Do you agree with it?
General McConville. We're going to make it work. I do.
Mr. Waltz. Okay.
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, if I may?
Mr. Waltz. Sure.
Secretary Wormuth. We are not, you know, I think there's
been a little bit of misunder----
Mr. Waltz. I'm just trying to look at what was working. I
mean, we did a lot of reforms.
Secretary Wormuth. I absolutely agree with you.
Mr. Waltz. You can't reset the clock every time we get a
new Secretary of the Army note.
Secretary Wormuth. And the directive that I signed does not
take away or diminish Army Futures Command at all. I was
explaining this to another member.
You know, there were some ambiguities, frankly, in the
roles between AFC and ASA(ALT), that this directive was just
cleaning up. I think there was language that talked about AFC
leading the modernization effort.
And we had heard other concerns, frankly bipartisan
concerns, about making sure that it was clear that the
statutory authorities resided with ASA(ALT).
But this is not taking away any--any responsibilities or
authorities that Army Futures Command has.
Mr. Waltz. I can just tell you from my perspective, let's
push it out to the warfighter, not pull it back into the
building.
Secretary Wormuth. Agree.
Mr. Waltz. It seems like the directive was doing the
latter.
Secretary Wormuth. That was not our intent.
Mr. Waltz. Well, to me----
General McConville. Congressman, I'd like--you know, to me,
the proof's in execution. And I'd like to come back to you if,
as we can----
Mr. Waltz. Because I think the execution's been moving in
the right direction the last 5 years. If it ain't broke----
General McConville. [continuing]. Keep it moving too. We
want to keep that momentum going. So, I'll get back to you.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 90.]
Mr. Waltz. Okay. Just a couple of other points. Madam
Secretary, delivered the climate strategy. Appreciate that.
Part of that was to field an all-electric vehicle fleet,
2035. But importantly, a fully electric tactical or combat
vehicles by 2050.
And my concern there, is I spent a lot of time on the
Science Committee securing our rare earth and critical mineral
supply chains. And as you know, China controls 90 percent of
lithium, cobalt. I don't see that in this strategy.
So, to me, without that, that doesn't seem to be wise or
realistic.
Secretary Wormuth. Well Congressman, you know, we set a
goal of 2050. But we want to, you know, we're going to
continuously assess our ability to make progress towards that
goal.
And if we determine that because of the rare earth con--the
Chinese control of rare earths, that the technology to make
good on that goal isn't possible, we'll revise that----
Mr. Waltz. How about we work with the interagency to secure
our supply chains. Because we don't just need it for an all-
electric military vehicle fleet. We need them for our economy.
Secretary Wormuth. We do need them.
Mr. Waltz. We need them for everything that runs on a
battery.
Secretary Wormuth. We do need them.
Mr. Waltz. How about if we move in that direction. But
separately, I would hope, and I'll just leave you with this,
that the Army always has a goal to have the most lethal vehicle
fleet, not the one that emits the less carbon.
And so, I mean, let's focus on killing bad guys and
protecting our guys with our vehicle fleet. And not get--and if
we happen to decide that an electric-driven fleet also does
that, then great. That's a secondary benefit. But, in my view
shouldn't be the primary benefit.
And if you're looking to apply funds towards that, as a
primary goal, that gives me real concern.
Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, our focus is on fighting
and winning the Nation's wars, first and foremost. That's what
we're focused on.
Mr. Waltz. That is reassuring to hear. And then finally,
just because I'm running out of time, real concerns on moving
away from, or moving back to gender-specific Army combat
fitness test.
I think it made sense to make it job specific. It obviously
takes a lot more physicality being an infantryman then to be a
cyber warrior or a pilot.
And I'll just take for the record what you're thinking was,
because I think it diminishes a lot of great women who are
hitting those standards, like in Ranger school and others.
But now are going to go to an infantry unit and have
different standards. That takes away from what they've
accomplished.
Secretary Wormuth. I'm happy to take that for the record.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 90.]
Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for your
indulgence.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you. And thank you to our witnesses. And
we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
?
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
May 12, 2022
=======================================================================
?
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
May 12, 2022
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.001
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.003
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.004
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.005
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.006
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.007
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.008
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.009
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.010
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.011
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.012
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.013
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.014
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.015
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.016
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.017
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.018
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.019
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.020
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.021
.eps?
=======================================================================
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING
THE HEARING
May 12, 2022
=======================================================================
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
Secretary Wormuth. The Army is committed to providing a ready all-
volunteer force by selecting the best qualified soldiers, regardless of
gender, for each job in the Army. All soldiers, regardless of gender,
complete the same training and must pass the same requirements to be
awarded a military occupational specialty in any career field.
Historically, the Army has successfully recruited a diverse
grouping of new soldiers. The implementation of gender-neutral
requirements for all Army jobs has resulted in an increase in female
enlistments, which should eventually result in noticeable increases in
minority female populations as well. All jobs are open to anyone who
meets the qualifications. By taking an in-depth look through the Army's
research and evaluation of our current recruiting methods, we have the
ability to action different markets rapidly, which will in turn allow
the Army to create a force that embodies the diversity of the nation we
serve. Ultimately, in the all-volunteer force, the Army's diversity is
a reflection of those individuals who are willing to serve, without
regard to an individual's gender or race.
Analysis shows that recruiters generally recruit in their own
image, so investments to increase the number of female recruiters is
one means ensure an increase in female enlistments. The U.S. Army
Recruiting Command makes every attempt to have a woman assigned to
every recruiting station where feasible. The Army has assigned 1,160
women as recruiters, and they make up 12.6% of the recruiting force.
When we return to normal post-COVID operations, the Army plans to
increase female enlistments by 1% to 2% annually, with the ultimate
goal of the annual recruited population being at least 25% female
within the next five years. [See page 13.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CARBAJAL
Secretary Wormuth. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) are informed
of their naturalization options before and during initial entry
training. Based on guidance from U.S. Army Recruiting Command,
recruiters are required to advise LPRs during initial and subsequent
contact that they may apply for accelerated naturalization via the U.S.
Customs and Immigrations Services' website. These LPRs are also advised
that they will be required to complete the N400 and N426 forms and they
are instructed on which documents they must hand-carry with them to the
training base to ensure they possess the correct documentation for
naturalization.
During basic training, the training brigade's legal teams are
provided with rosters of non-citizen trainees who are eligible to apply
for naturalization by the reception battalions. The basic training
units work in conjunction with the brigade legal teams to help initiate
the naturalization process for trainees while they undergo their basic
combat training. Similarly, soldiers in the National Guard and the
Reserves are authorized to request certificates of honorable service
for the purpose of naturalization immediately upon entering active duty
or attending drill with their selected Reserve unit. This includes
recruits in the training pipeline attached to the Recruit Sustainment
Program. The approval authority must certify or deny a soldier's
certification request and return it to the soldier within 30 days of
submission.
Ultimately, naturalization is an individual Soldier decision, and
Soldiers are afforded the opportunity to pursue their naturalization
from the outset of their Army service. While there may have been
earlier isolated confusion about the naturalization process among some
units, the Army has adequately relayed that message to the field and
will continue to ensure that the Legal Assistance Offices can assist
when needed. Finally, the Army recently notified its non-citizen
Soldier population, via email, of their opportunity for expedited
naturalization through military service. [See page 27.]
______
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
Secretary Wormuth. After the review of an independent RAND study
required by Congress (FY21 NDAA), combined with the information
gathered by the Army from nearly 630,000 ACFT scores, and three years
of ongoing analysis and Soldier feedback, Army leaders determined that
the ACFT would be implemented as a general physical fitness test. The
recent revisions to the ACFT maintain the Army's strong commitment to a
culture of physical fitness, for all demographics and MOSs alike.
Key changes include:
Moving from a gender and age neutral standard, to
performance-normed standards, based on age and gender, similar to the
previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with 20 groups varied by age
and gender.
The Army will use the ACFT as a general fitness
assessment for the Total Army, not related to job-specific
physical demands, as opposed to an occupational test.
The removal of the Leg Tuck with the Plank as the sole
core exercise.
RAND observed that the leg tuck was not an accurate
predictor of core strength for all Soldiers. The leg tuck
requires a minimum pre-requisite upper body strength that made
it impossible to measure core strength in all Soldiers.
In response, the ACFT now uses the plank as the sole
exercise to assess core strength, using recognized standards
from sister-services as a baseline and modifying the scales
based on the Army's point system.
Moving to the plank allows the Army to verify that
the ACFT properly measures all Soldiers' core strength equally,
and ensures Soldiers have a similar testing experience and
opportunity to succeed during every event of the ACFT.
The leg tuck is still a great holistic core exercise
and is still encouraged as part of unit training outlined in
ATP 7-22.02.
The addition of the 2.5-mile walk as an alternate ACFT
aerobic event.
A phased implementation for recording test scores to
allow Soldiers a minimum of six months to train in order to increase
training opportunities, minimize potential for injuries, and ensure
maximum performance using the Army's H2F resources.
The establishment of an ACFT governance body, working
with RAND, to continue assessing test data, assess impacts to Soldiers,
and recommend future modifications, as appropriate.
The Army has commissioned analytic support from RAND to assess data
from the revised ACFT following implementation in April 2022, which
will inform the Army's oversight of the ACFT in the future. With these
changes, the Army expects that the ACFT will have the same impact on
recruiting and retention as the previous APFT. The Army has established
an ACFT governance board to continue to assess test data and monitor
impacts, and this governance board will deliver an assessment to the
Secretary of the Army in April 2023. [See page 59.]
General McConville. Army Directive 2022-07 (Army Modernization
Roles and Responsibilities), signed by the Secretary of the Army on May
3, 2022, did not change Army Futures Command's (AFC's) role in
developing warfighting concepts and requirements. Rather, it was issued
to clarify current roles and responsibilities in Army modernization,
which involves the contribution of many organizations. Additionally,
Army Futures Command is an enduring four-star command and will continue
to play a vital role in defining requirements for new systems to field
to Soldiers, which in many ways is the most influential part of the
acquisition process.
The delivery of new warfighting capabilities requires two
complementary processes: the definition of requirements for new weapons
systems, led by the military user and represented by AFC; and the
development and acquisition of capabilities, led by the Army's
acquisition professionals and represented by the Assistant Secretary of
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)). Prior
guidance issued in 2018 and 2020 inadvertently blended these
complementary roles and created ambiguity in the statutory acquisition
oversight role that Congress vested in the ASA(ALT). The new directive
signed by the Secretary of the Army on May 3rd codified AFC`s role in
developing warfighting concepts and requirements and distinguished it
from ASA(ALT)'s role in the development and acquisition of new
capabilities. Ultimately, the directive does not remove authorities
from AFC and ASA(ALT). Instead, it codifies the current execution of
their functions. [See page 58.]
______
RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
Secretary Wormuth. As of 7 June 2022, 4 of the 14 approved
religious exemption requests were not already pending separation from
the Army. [See page 50.]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING
May 12, 2022
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
Mr. Lamborn. The administration's budget requests 85 million
dollars for unemployment benefits. There has been increased concern
about lack of soldiers utilizing the Army's Career Skills Program, and
my office has seen some evidence of commanders restricting second term
soldiers or highly focusing on first term Soldiers. How many Soldiers
are currently being turned away from CSP, formally or otherwise,
including those who are turned down by their installations before being
able to formally apply?
Secretary Wormuth. The Army does not track the number of Soldiers
informally denied participation in the Career Skills Program (CSP), as
that is determined by unit chain of command. Annually, the Army has
approximately 6,500 soldiers enrolled in a CSP/Skillbridge Program. Of
the number enrolled, approximately 75% are enlisted personnel attending
trade-based programs, and 25% are officers mostly attending individual
internships. Commanders across the Army are encouraged to allow
participation in the CSP to the greatest extent possible without
impacting readiness, ensuring they can maintain their unit's ability to
meet operational requirements.
Mr. Lamborn. What operational communities or missions would the 12
thousand Soldiers be coming from in the Army request to reduce manning?
General McConville. The Army will use the Total Army Analysis (TAA)
process to make that determination. TAA accounts for required
capabilities to address threats across time. The Army Campaign Plan,
FY23-FY30, addresses Army needs across three lines of effort: people,
modernization, and readiness. This process ensures we have the quality
and quantity of personnel necessary to meet operational readiness
requirements as we modernize and develop the Army of 2030.
Mr. Lamborn. What is the total number of COVID-19 exemption
requests? What is the number of religious exemption requests? How many
exemption requests have been approved? How many religious exemption
requests have been approved? How many are still pending decision?
General McConville. As of 8 July 2022, the Army has received 1,092
requests for permanent medical exemptions, of which 30 have been
approved and a separate 54 are pending adjudication. The Army has
received 7,728 requests for religious exemption, of which 19 have been
approved and 5,942 are currently pending adjudication.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
Mr. Garamendi. There is discussion that the Strykers currently
stationed in Alaska will be replaced with other capabilities. This
comes as U.S. Army Alaska looks to reorganize to better support their
INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM missions. When will the Army decide what units
and capabilities best align to their assigned mission sets? Can U.S.
Army Alaska effectively be the U.S.'s Arctic Force, and meet competing
INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM missions sets? When will the Army identify
equipment requirements to compete in the Arctic?
Secretary Wormuth. The implementation of the Arctic strategy is a
multi-year effort to improve the Army's ability to support Combatant
Command campaign efforts in the Arctic and other extreme cold and
mountainous environments. By re-aligning existing force structure, the
Army will tailor the Alaska-based forces to improve capabilities within
the Arctic environment where they serve. The conversion of 1/25 Stryker
Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) to an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT)
consisting of two maneuver battalions and the establishment of the 11th
Airborne Division Headquarters provides the foundation for a force that
is more appropriately manned, trained, and equipped for these
environments, and enables the reutilization of the Stryker vehicles for
more appropriate missions. These actions improve operational
effectiveness and unit cohesion, while also allowing for enhanced
ability to support both INDOPACOM requirements in the priority theater
and meeting our number one priority of homeland defense. Our continued
analysis and increased understanding of Arctic requirements, through
continued war gaming events and exercises with allies and partners in
the region, will inform our modernization efforts and be codified in
future Total Army Analysis and programming efforts.
Regarding equipment requirements, the Army's FY23 Budget requested
$102M in support of the Arctic Strategy: $24M for Cold Weather All-
Terrain Vehicle (CATV), $25M for winterization of equipment, $13M for
exportable combat training center (CTC) support, and $40M for
organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE). With this
funding we will be able to continue execution of our exportable CTC
capability, field CATVs to units beginning in FY23, and mitigate some
shortfalls in clothing and individual equipment. If not funded, the
Arctic Strategy will be hindered by the lack of proper equipment and
will impact overall readiness. Additionally, it will be unable to
outfit all Soldiers assigned to train in or deploy to arctic
environments elevating risk to Soldier safety.
Mr. Garamendi. The choices made during the acquisitions process
when procuring new platforms affect the decades of sustainment that
follows. One area that affects lifecycle sustainment is what
intellectual property (IP) and technical data rights are acquired.
Observers such as the GAO have said that DOD has not always been
consistent in its acquisition and licensing of IP developed at private
expense in the past, resulting in ``reduced mission readiness and
surging sustainment costs'' in some instances. How is the service
improving how it acquires IP and technical data? How will the service
balance the cost of procuring IP or technical data during the
acquisitions process with the long-term sustainment benefits?
Secretary Wormuth. As weapon systems are increasingly reliant on
rapidly evolving technologies, commercial components, and software
content, acquiring and licensing the appropriate intellectual property
(IP) is vital to ensuring that weapon systems and equipment remain
functional, sustainable, and affordable over the system's lifecycle.
Through early planning for sustainment requirements and appropriate
investment in IP, the Army develops options to enable modernization
through upgrades and technology insertion, which will improve
readiness, reduce sustainment costs, and increase operational
availability across the lifecycle of weapons systems and equipment. In
recent years, to address the changing technological environment, the
Army has fundamentally altered its IP approach to ensure this upfront
and thoughtful planning.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
Mrs. Hartzler. We understand the Army's plan is to field nine
battalions, so a break in production would be bad for the program. We
understand the need for M-SHORAD systems, especially watching what is
going on in Ukraine today. Does the Army still plan to field nine M-
SHORAD battalions? Does the Army still plan to field nine M-SHORAD
battalions?
Secretary Wormuth. The Army continues to make investments in air
and missile defense to reduce capacity and capability gaps to support
the recently published National Defense Strategy. While the Army's plan
remains to field nine Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD)
battalions, as the Army conducts Total Army Analysis, we will balance
air defense investments across all Army components, and as part of the
joint force, to provide the most capable formations in support of the
Department of Defense.
Mrs. Hartzler. We understand the Army's plan is to field nine
battalions, so a break in production would be bad for the program. We
understand the need for M-SHORAD systems, especially watching what is
going on in Ukraine today. Does the Army still plan to field nine M-
SHORAD battalions? Does the Army still plan to field nine M-SHORAD
battalions?
General McConville. The Army continues to make investments in air
defense to reduce capacity gaps to support the recently published
National Defense Strategy. While the Army's plan remains to field nine
Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) battalions, as the Army
conducts the Total Army Analysis, we will balance air defense
investments across all Army components to provide the most capable
formations in support of the Department of Defense. Secretary Wormuth
has made Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) one of the Army's
top modernization priorities.
Mrs. Hartzler. The Army submitted a request for an additional $275M
for M-SHORAD systems as part of the Unfunded Priority List for FY23. If
Congress does not fulfill the Army's request, what is the risk
associated with not fully funding the M-SHORAD systems for the first
four battalions?
If the submitted unfunded requests are not approved, will there be
a break in the M-SHORAD production line?
How will the Army mitigate a break in production so there are not
impacts on future fielding of the urgently needed M-SHORAD capability?
General McConville. The Army received funding for three complete
battalions in previous budget cycles. The $275M for the Maneuver Short
Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) on the unfunded priorities list (UPL)
addresses three efforts to reduce capacity gaps. First, the Secretary
of the Army approved a materiel design change for the M-SHORAD
Increment 1 system to remove the Hellfire system and replace it with a
second Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher (SVUL). The second effort is
to procure the ten remaining M-SHORAD systems, along with the two
remaining systems for the Institutional Training Base, to meet the
directed requirement. Additionally, if the UPL for M-SHORAD is not
funded, the Army will not meet the fielding of the four M-SHORAD
battalions or adequately train soldiers on the system. As a result, the
Army's third effort is to preclude a production gap in Fiscal Year 2025
(FY25) by funding 12 systems in FY23 (minimum production rate) that
keeps the production line open. If unfunded, there will be an
approximate $32.4M of additional funds required in FY24 to restart the
line.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
Ms. Speier. Secretary Wormuth, in May 2020, GAO published report
GAO-20-61, which recommended that ``The Secretary of the Army should
develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and
timeframes, to guide and monitor the Army's female active-duty service
member recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 2).'' DOD
concurred with this recommendation; however, the GAO recommendation is
still open because the plan has not yet been completed.
When does the Army expect to complete the plan requested in
Recommendation 2 of GAO's May 2020 report on recruitment and retention
of female service members?
What progress has the Army made so far in addressing this
recommendation?
What actions has the Army taken, and what actions is the Army
planning to take, to improve recruitment and retention of female
service members?
Secretary Wormuth. The Army's officer and enlisted recruitment and
retention programs are gender neutral. While the Army currently does
not have any gender specific recruiting mission requirements, it
continues to focus on ``Quality over Quantity'' recruiting efforts and
strives to recruit all qualified individuals regardless of race or
gender, mirroring the diversity and ethnicity of the United States.
This concerted effort will ensure that Army retention programs recruit
and retain all Soldiers at comparable rates. To address specific
concerns, the Army continues its long-term studies on gender
integration to address unique concerns of women throughout the Army.
Analysis shows that recruiters generally recruit in their own
image, so investments to increase the number of female recruiters is
one effort to actively increase female enlistments. Additionally, U.S.
Army Recruiting Command makes every attempt to have a woman assigned to
every recruiting station where feasible. The Army has assigned 1,160
women as recruiters, and they make up 12.6% of the recruiting force.
When we return to normal post-COVID operations, the Army plans to
increase female enlistments by 1% to 2% annually, with the ultimate
goal of the annual recruited population being at least 25% female
within the next five years.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
Mr. Scott. Which one of your Assistant Secretaries of the Army is
responsible for the Army's explosive ordnance disposal program?
Secretary Wormuth. While the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA(IE&E)) has primary
responsibility for certain technical aspects of the Army's Explosive
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) program, other Assistant Secretaries have
equities as well. For example, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) has responsibility
for the oversight of research, development, test and evaluation,
distribution, fielding, and procurement of Army-specific EOD material
and equipment. The Army currently has a working group exploring options
to enhance the efficacy of this important program.
Mr. Scott. The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years
2019 and 2020 included provisions to transition the U.S. Army Medical
Research and Materiel Command to the Defense Health Agency no later
than September 30, 2022. Is the Army committed to completing the
transition in accordance with the requirements and timeline set forth
in the National Defense Authorization Act? Is the Army committed to
providing continued leadership with the necessary subject matter
expertise at the General Officer level to the Defense Health Agency
Research and Engineering Directorate to complete the transition of the
U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command as required by law?
Secretary Wormuth. Yes, the Army remains committed to continued
partnership and collaboration during this transition. However, on 21
April 2022, the Army submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for
the Army to retain elements of the U.S. Army Medical Research and
Development (MRDC) that closely support the Army's Title 10
authorities. MRDC and the leadership of the Defense Health Agency are
engaged in multiple transition meetings to comply with existing law and
to meet the statutory timelines and will comply with any potential
statutory changes. The Army is committed to the success of DHA and
fulfilling Title 10 authorities.
Mr. Scott. The overall FY23 defense budget makes important
investments into autonomous platforms including in the next generation
fighting vehicles, the optionally manned fighting vehicle, and unmanned
surface vehicles. What role do you see autonomous weapon systems
playing in future ground combat? How do we ensure these systems are
operations ready to fight a near-peer conflict and our forces fully
training to execute combat operations in that scenario? What steps are
being taken to develop trust in these autonomous systems with both the
warfighter and the American public?
General McConville. I believe autonomous systems will be
increasingly employed to reduce risk to soldiers or to accomplish the
same tasks with fewer soldiers in harm's way. For example, autonomous
reconnaissance platforms, both air and ground, can be employed to scout
in front of maneuvering forces to identify where the enemy is or is
not, or to conduct economy of force operations where the threat of
enemy action is reduced. Autonomous capabilities may also be able to
conduct dangerous and complex operations such as mine clearing or the
breaching of obstacles to optimize maneuver force operations and reduce
risks to the force.
Experimentation and training are key to ensuring autonomous
capabilities can perform assigned tasks and that soldiers and leaders
know how to best employ and sustain them. Soldiers and leaders will
develop confidence in autonomous capabilities with the more first-hand
experience they have. If Soldiers and leaders trust the autonomous
capabilities of these systems, I believe the American public will too.
Mr. Scott. According to the GAO, close to 4,000 warfighters died
due accidents in legacy ground systems between FY10 and FY19. What are
we doing to increase both the safety and combat survivability and
capability of these legacy systems to include autonomous upgrades?
General McConville. Soldier health and safety is a top priority,
and the Army is committed to improving safety and enhancing force
protection through multiple programs. Recognizing that the majority of
these tragic incidents involve the Army's light tactical vehicle (LTV)
fleet, the Army is prioritizing modernization of its High Mobility
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), through the Joint Light
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. Every JLTV--unlike their
predecessors--will come equipped with an anti-lock braking system and
electronic vehicle control (ABS/ESC), integrated front and rear cameras
to increase driver awareness, and a crew compartment that enables
increased survivability in the event of an accident. The competitive
contract for the JLTV is purposely intended to incentivize industry and
bring additional driver enhancement technologies into the enduring
solution. Concerning the legacy HMMWV, important efforts underway
include retrofitting the field with ABS/ESC kits which became standard
after 2018. This technology, also commercially available, directly
mitigates rollover accidents and their corresponding risk of fatal or
serious injury to crew members. The Army is also piloting an effort to
integrate autonomous capabilities on the Palletized Load System (a
different section of the Army's wheeled vehicle fleet) in order to
reduce risk to personnel during logistics missions.
Mr. Scott. As the world has watched what was considered a superior
conventional fighting force, the Russian military, struggle to execute
offensive operations against a smaller and technologically inferior
Ukraine military, many experts are looking to see if there are lessons
the United States can learn from this war. We know Russian logistics
was a complete failure and the Ukrainian people's will to fight has
imposed a heavy cost on Russian forces. From a technology viewpoint,
what lessons have you learned from this war--command and control,
platform vs network-centric warfare, use of artificial intelligence and
autonomy and modern vs legacy systems?
General McConville. Command and Control: Events continue to confirm
the importance of interoperability between joint and partner networks
and systems, and the impact that a lack of interoperability can have on
all warfighting functions. Observations of Russian command and control
challenges reinforces the Army's need to create a modernized,
integrated network that will enable our commanders and forces to
achieve a holistic picture of the modern battlefield and enable a
united joint and multi-national force to cut through the fog of war and
make informed decisions, quickly. The Army remains on a path to create
a unified network, which will converge and secure separate networks
into a modern, integrated global NIPR, SIPR, and MPE environment.
Platforms v. Network-centric: The Army has also observed the
importance of operationalizing data, including the value of hybrid
solutions for data and application hosting, where operational elements
must have access to both local and off-site computing and data storage
capabilities. The military, other elements of the federal government,
and our partners will benefit from a dedicated focus on achieving an
informational advantage built on resilient ``zero trust'' unified
networks and data platforms with analytics for decision making, command
and control, and reliable strategic reach-back. A combined capability
set hosted locally will also provide higher analytic processing power,
granting a tactical advantage through its use of faster network-centric
solutions and enabling commanders to make decisions more rapidly than
adversaries.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous: The Army and the Joint
Force have observed some basic uses of AI and autonomous-enabled
systems by the Russian military similar to observations made in Syria
and other conflicts over the past decade. These observations include
Russian use of autonomous drones to enable more accurate targeting and
the use of AI-enabled internet technologies to enhance Russian dis- and
mis-information campaigns. Our Army continues to dedicate efforts to
observe, orient, and react to these systems, including through our
counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) capabilities, information
advantage efforts, and in cyberspace.
Modern v. Legacy Systems: We've watched the Ukrainians leverage
commercial technology, innovate with their legacy systems, and quickly
adapt to use modern technology and services. Likewise, the U.S Army and
our allies are integrating legacy programs with new technology and
commercial services to enhance intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) and situational awareness, shorten the speed and
range of military effects, and enable quick reaction capabilities. The
Ukrainian forces are adapting fast, and our Army is moving quickly to
apply those lessons at scale.
Logistics: At the forefront of lessons observed and learned is
Russia's failed logistical performance across the spectrum of
operations. Logistics is the foundation that projects and sustains
warfighting capabilities. Logistics conducted at speed and at scale
enables the warfighting capabilities to initiate and maintain momentum
against the adversary, especially in a protracted conflict. The lessons
learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine reiterates the importance
of our logisticians, sustained investments in replenishment, and the
continued evolution in logistical doctrine to maintain the Army's
ability to project and sustain globally.
Mr. Scott. Under Secretary Heidi Shyu and the White House Science
and Technology Offices have prioritized of directed energy
capabilities, and specifically high power microwave technological
development. How is this being carried over to the development and
execution of Army's Defense Strategy? How are Directed Energy systems
being leveraged to meet the priority threats and the capabilities of
the competition?
General McConville. The Army is currently executing three Directed
Energy programs. First, the Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air
Defense (DE M-SHORAD) is on track to deliver its first combat-capable
platoon of directed energy weapon systems in the 4th Quarter of FY22
and will continue delivering prototypes in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD
is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon system--integrated onto a
Stryker platform--that protects divisions and brigade combat teams from
Group 1-3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), rotary-wing aircraft, and
indirect fire threats. These directed energy weapons are paired with
kinetic weapons to form an integrated and layered defense. Second, the
Army will also deliver 300kW-class High Energy Laser (HEL) and High
Power Microwave (HPM) prototype weapon systems in FY24 as part of the
Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) battery to support multi-
domain operations. As part of tiered and layered defense for fixed and
semi-fixed sites, IFPC-HEL and -HPM are designed to counter threats by
Group 1-3 UASs, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, indirect fire, and
Group 1-2 UAS swarms.
Third, in support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role
as Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-
sUAS), the Army is fielding a 10kW capability in June 2022 for
deployment OCONUS. This capability is focused on countering threats by
Group 1-3 UASs, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, and enemy indirect
fire capabilities. This 10kW capability will be followed by a 20kW
capability by the end of this year.
Mr. Scott. Our adversaries and non-state actors alike are rapidly
proliferating the development and execution of Unmanned Aerial Systems
(UAS) that pose a real threat to U.S. forces and infrastructure. Is the
Army seeing an increase in UAS overflight over its personnel and
installation in the U.S. and overseas? What actions is the Army taking
to defend against UAS threats? How is the Army addressing the UAS
threat from the top-down? Is the Army looking at utilizing directed
energy, to include lasers and high power microwave technology, for base
security and integration on Army ground vehicles?
General McConville. A. The number of documented Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (UAS) overflights has increased in both the U.S. and at our
overseas installations. In turn, increased training and fielding of UAS
detection systems have enhanced our awareness of the UAS threat and the
Army's need for continued observation both at home and abroad. As
directed by the Joint Staff's Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Reporting
Execute Order, the Army is reporting UAS incidents in a single joint
database for documentation and enhanced analysis.
B. As the DOD Executive Agent for Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft
Systems (C-sUAS), the Army established the Joint C-sUAS Office (JCO) to
lead the development and integration of emerging Joint C-sUAS
capabilities, emphasizing rapid innovation, the synchronization of
material and non-materiel solutions, and fostering partnerships. As one
of its first actions, the JCO conducted an operational assessment of
current C-sUAS capabilities and selected ten initial Joint C-sUAS
systems--which are already proving their effectiveness to detect and
defeat fixed-wing and quad-copter style sUAS attacks. Additionally, the
JCO published the first-ever DOD C-sUAS Strategy and its associated
implementation plan and released joint C-sUAS operational requirements
to address current and future C-sUAS capabilities. Further, the JCO and
all military services are working closely with the Army Fires Center of
Excellence to establish joint training and doctrine required to enhance
C-sUAS operations.
Additionally, the JCO is also working with industry leaders to
modernize current capabilities. As part of this effort, the JCO and
partner agencies across all services host semi-annual industry
demonstrations to evaluate emerging technologies that close gaps,
inform requirements, and promote innovation. The JCO's Rapid Response
Team is also supporting combatant commanders with in-depth analyses of
the operational threat environment and providing these commands with
materiel and non-materiel recommendations that reflect C-sUAS best
practices.
The Army is also continuing development of specific programs to
mitigate specific capability gaps concerning the defense of fixed/semi-
fixed sites and mounted or dismounted configurations. As the efforts
mature, the Army will continue to inform this committee of our
progress.
C. The Army continues to validate, plan, and source counter-small
unmanned aircraft systems (C-sUAS) capability requirements in support
of contingency operations around the world. The Army remains focused on
providing critical C-sUAS capability to divisions in the operational
force, while also growing protection of vital fixed and semi-fixed
sites in accordance with current requirements with a goal of
accelerating the procurement and fielding of C-sUAS division sets to
the operational force, the Army has programmed funds to begin this
effort in FY22.
Beyond our Service-specific efforts to address the unmanned
aircraft systems threat, the Army also serves as the Department of
Defense's OS Executive Agent for C-sUAS. In this role, and through the
Joint C-sUAS Office (JCO), the Army leads and directs the development
of joint doctrine, requirements, materiel, and training efforts. The
Army's efforts to identify and develop solutions within a joint
architecture enhances warfighter capabilities across the DOD.
D. Yes. The Army is developing directed energy capabilities for
base security, maneuver fire protection, and for integration onto Army
ground vehicles. The Army is currently executing three Directed Energy
programs. First, the Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense
(DE M-SHORAD) is on track to deliver its first combat-capable platoon
of four prototype directed energy weapon systems in Fiscal Year 2022.
DE M-SHORAD is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon system integrated
onto a Stryker platform, that protects division and brigade combat
teams from Group 1-3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), rotary-wing
aircraft, and indirect fire threats. These directed energy weapons are
designed to be paired with kinetic weapons for an integrated and
layered defense.
Second, as part of a tiered and layered defense of fixed and semi-
fixed sites, the Army will also deliver 300kW-class High Energy Laser
(HEL) and High Power Microwave (HPM) prototype weapon systems in FY2024
as part of the Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) battery to
support Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). The threat set addressed by
IFPC-HEL is Group 1-3 UAS, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, and
indirect fires. The threat set addressed by IFPC-HPM is Group 1-2 UAS
swarms.
Third, in support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role
of the Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-
sUAS), the Army is fielding a 10kWatt capability in June 2022 for
deployment OCONUS. Focused on Groups 1-3 UAS, this fielding will be
followed by a 20kWatt capability by the end of this year.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
Ms. Stefanik. The 10th Mountain Division has been the most deployed
Army division since 9/11, primarily to CENTCOM. However, having an
Arctic capable force in Fort Drum does little for the CENTCOM
Commander. When will the Army know the Arctic requirement for future
operations? Additionally, can you assure me that as long as the Army
considers the 10th Mountain Division as an Arctic-capable unit they
will remain a priority for Arctic modernization efforts?
General McConville. The Army continues to refine our understanding
of what we need to be able to do to support the National Defense
Strategy and Combatant Command Arctic requirements. Our initial efforts
focus on the formations based in Alaska, with the establishment of the
11th Airborne Division and re-designation of the supporting brigade
combat teams. We have conducted a series of exercises and a war game to
better understand the strategic and operational demands for ground
forces in the Arctic. The outputs from these and future war games will
further inform our modernization efforts. Although 10th MTN Division is
regionally aligned to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), which
drives their current modernization and equipping path based on CENTCOM-
specific mission and training requirements, the unit is authorized
Level 7 cold weather gear for use for cold weather training. As we
conduct further Arctic analysis and exercises, we will develop greater
fidelity as to the unit's requirements to inform future programming and
modernization efforts.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KEATING
Mr. Keating. 1. The Army has repositioned several Patriot and LT
batteries globally, most notably in the CENTCOM and EUCOM areas of
responsibility highlighting the increasing demand for the capability
for each combatant commander. Can you speak to the importance of these
systems, particularly in combination with the lower-tier air and
missile defense sensors they are now utilizing?
a. Are they being utilized in the Ukrainian conflict? i. If so, are
they proving successful?
b. In the FY23 budget request, I've noticed that the low tier air
and missile defense capability is at $328 million, which is similar to
the fiscal year 2022 enacted amount. In your opinion is this
sufficient?
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Commander of U.S.
European Command has repositioned Patriot and short range air defense
batteries within his area of responsibility in response to the Russian
invasion of Ukraine. These batteries remain within NATO territory and
are protecting U.S. forces and our allies in the region. The Army
provided Ukraine with Stinger missiles and two Sentinel radars that
were provided as part of presidential drawdowns (PD) 5 & 7. The Lower
Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) is not currently employed by
any operational units. There are two LTAMDS prototype radars and both
are currently at White Sands Missile Range for developmental testing.
The $328M submitted in the FY23 budget request for the LTAMDS is
sufficient to meet our current requirements.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON
Mr. Bacon. After the fall of Kabul it has come to my attention that
there has been little to no outreach to Gold Star families of those
killed in the war, and they are struggling. Furthermore, I am concerned
about the lack of long-term counseling services for Gold Star and
Surviving families. Does the Army have a strategy to address these
issues?
Secretary Wormuth. Currently, survivors have access to multiple
sources of behavioral health (BH) counseling support that includes non-
medical, primary-care based, and BH specialty-care counseling. The
Army's Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) webpage has been updated to
include available virtual BH services for eligible surviving family
members. The Office of the Surgeon General of the Army (OTSG) and the
U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) recommended the continued
advancement of BH services into the virtual space. Acknowledging the
growing shortage of BH providers both in the Army and nationwide, OTSG/
MEDCOM spearheaded a total Army assessment of BH professional
recruitment and retention in October of 2021. The final report is
currently in staffing. The Army is currently assessing whether
additional authorities are needed to expand access to medical
treatment, including mental health treatment, as defined by the
Secretary of Defense, for surviving children of service members by
increasing the age limitation to qualify as a dependent child to age
26. In addition, SOS coordinators are required to reach out and make
direct contact with at least ten percent of the surviving population
for the cases they are responsible for overseeing each month in
addition to fielding inquiries from survivors.
Mr. Bacon. It has come to my attention that Commanders from all
three Army Components cannot get access to Gold Star and Surviving
family's contact information because Army Survivor Outreach Services
(SOS) will not share contact information due to privacy concerns. We
are working on making legislative changes to this but would like to
hear what the Army is doing to address this and ensure that Gold Star
and Surviving families remain part of each Army unit's outreach and
community. What is the Army National Guard doing to create best
practices for casualty processes and outreach to Gold Star and
Surviving Families? Does the Army National Guard have a list of their
Gold Star and Surviving Families? Is the CSA tracking that the Army
Reserves has cut funding to their Survivor Outreach Service program and
that most of their coordinators have other responsibilities with SOS as
an additional duty?
General McConville. A. As the Army is highly sensitive to
protecting survivors' personal information, any release of Gold Star
and surviving family member information outside of the Army survivor
outreach services (SOS) staff is subject to Privacy Act requirements,
including next of kin written consent. All Army SOS staff within the
active and reserve components utilize a database called the SOS Module
to maintain survivor records and case notes. There are no legal or
policy barriers to commanders coordinating with SOS staff to conduct
outreach to Gold Star and surviving family members on the command's
behalf. The Army and the Department of Defense (DOD) recognize that the
policies and systems put in place in the early 2000s to support
survivors need to be modernized for the 2020s and beyond. The Army is
currently collaborating with DOD on a modernized version of the Defense
Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) which will include both
a survivor (customer) portal and long-term case management functions.
This modernization will enhance the operational capability for outreach
to surviving family members, while meeting the requirements of the
Privacy Act.
B. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) maintains 122 survivor outreach
services (SOS) coordinators throughout 51 of the 54 states and
territories. Currently the NGB maintains a 99.4% contact rate annually.
NGB conducts sensing sessions with survivors quarterly at survivor
events to ensure issues and concerns are addressed. Survivors annually
receive a personal note from the Commander of the NGB each Memorial Day
acknowledging their sacrifice and reminding them that our SOS
coordinators are available for assistance if needed. Additionally, the
NGB provides new hire training, quarterly training, and annual training
informed by survivor feedback.
C. The Army National Guard's SOS coordinators are authorized to
access information to include lists of Gold Star and surviving families
through the Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) and
the SOS Module. Army SOS keeps a list of the National Guard's Gold Star
and survivor families, which commanders and commands may utilize by
working with the SOS coordinators who can communicate information to
surviving family members.
D. The Chief of Staff of the Army is aware of the funding reduction
for the Army Reserve's Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) program. The
funding reduction results from a redesigned service delivery model. In
FY2020, the Army Reserve transitioned SOS from a contractor-provided
service model to a government-provided service model. This transition
reduced the Army's contractual expenditures by approximately $3.2M,
while also ensuring there was no degradation or disruption to the
quality of services provided to our survivors. Currently, the Army
Reserve employs 22 Department of Army civilians (DAC) who serve as SOS
Coordinators. These SOS Coordinators nationally provide services for
over 200 county coverage areas. These coordinators manage training and
outreach efforts to ensure survivors receive quality long term care.
Mr. Bacon. Is the CSA aware of the FY22 NDAA casualty requirements
and working group, and what is he doing to be directly involved?
General McConville. I am aware of the casualty requirements
outlined in Section 626 of the FY22 NDAA, and am providing oversight of
the Army Staff representation on the Casualty Assistance Reform Working
Group established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness. The Working Group is collectively reviewing and providing
recommendations in 11 task areas. Of these 11 tasks, the Army is the
lead on two:
(1) Create standards and training for CAOs/CACOs across the
military departments, (2) Explore the possibility of establishing a
unique badge designation for (i) CAOs/CACOs who have performed duty
more than five times; or (ii) professional CAOs/CACOs.
Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs experts are members of multiple
working groups that are examining ways to improve casualty support
provided to eligible beneficiaries. Additionally, Army Cemeteries/
Arlington National Cemetery and DCS G-9 Survivor Outreach Services are
also providing their expertise in multiple sub-work groups, as some of
the prescribed tasks fall under the scope of their programs and
expertise.
Mr. Bacon. As we prepare for the real possibility of a near peer
conflict, what are we doing to ensure that we have a seamless, easily
replicated process for casualties in the case of a mass casualty
scenario?
General McConville. The Army remains postured to account for its
war casualties in the event of near peer conflict. Recently, the
Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) underwent a
refresh to better posture DCIPS to support casualty reporting and
tracking at the level of large-scale combat operations. The DCIPS
refresh will allow the Army Service Component Command and assigned
forces deployed within a joint operations area to quickly and
accurately report casualties under such conditions. Correspondingly,
the Army's Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Division, which
includes the Joint Personal Effects Depot at Dover Air Force Base, have
Mobilization Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) authorizations,
along with scalable contingency contracts in the event of a near-peer
conflict. The Mobilization TDA and scalable contracts will enable
additional personnel and resources to be applied to casualty support
operations. Additionally, the Army Human Resources Command has staff
actions prepared to seek applicable exceptions to policy, either at the
DOD or HQDA level, for limited exceptions to policy to maintain force
readiness in the event of a large influx of casualties.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
Ms. Houlahan. What metrics will the Army Recruiting Command utilize
to assess the effectiveness of its ``Mission Modernization'' policy
which it recently instituted? How will this program impact the
effectiveness of each individual recruiter and recruiter team?
Secretary Wormuth. The three measures of effectiveness of Modern
Missioning are:
Recruiter Productivity Rate (the number of gross
contracts a recruiter produces at any given time),
Market Penetration (the proportion of enlistments from
the total of DOD enlistments for a specific geographic region and
period), and
Market Share (the number of U.S. Army Recruiting Command
enlistments per 1,000 qualified military available population of 17-24
year-olds for a specific geographic region)
This program will give each recruiter their own distinct market and
schools from which to conduct recruiting operations. Recruiters will
become more linked with key terrain, prospects, and influencers; and
thus, be more effective in each of the 31,000 assigned zip codes. With
the shrinking pool of candidates who are disposed and qualified to
serve, the Army must work towards saturating all markets. By assigning
each recruiter their own recruiting area, each will have a
corresponding mission accomplishment plan detailing specific
performance metrics such as number of contacts, appointments, tests,
and contracts. As recruiter performance is monitored in each of these
areas, identified strengths and weaknesses can be a point of focus for
additional training or incentives to maximize effectiveness. Individual
recruiter improvement will elevate the entire recruiting team.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CROW
Mr. Crow. The Army has recently removed a significant hurdle
service women face in obtaining abortions, adopting new guidance just
as the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the landmark ruling
that legalized the procedure nationwide. The Army is moving in the
right direction by removing commanders' powers to deny leave to service
members seeking abortion care and only being required to tell their
commanders that they are taking leave for a medical procedure. In
addition to this measure, and in light of Roe likely being overturned,
what else is the Army doing to ensure service members can safely and
affordably access abortion care, especially for those Soldiers
stationed in states that plan on completely banning abortion care?
Secretary Wormuth. The implications of the Supreme Court's Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Organization decision are complicated and must
be assessed in light of various state laws and the views of the
Department of Justice. Additionally, any future actions that the Army
may take must be aligned with OSD guidance when it is provided.
Currently, federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to provide
abortions when the life of the mother is in danger should the fetus be
carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
Health care providers will continue to follow existing departmental
policy, and the leadership of military medical treatment facilities
will implement measures to ensure continued access to care. The Supreme
Court's decision does not affect the Department's leave policies, and
existing policy authorizes active duty service members to travel as
necessary to receive required care, taking into account individual
privacy concerns. As always, the Army seeks to take every action within
our authority to ensure the safety and health of each and every member
of our team.
Mr. Crow. Energy Resiliency is a vitally important factor
supporting the Army's ability to fight and win our nation's wars. The
Army has taken meaningful steps towards addressing climate change in a
serious manner. With the Army Climate Strategy, one of the developments
I find important is the effort to install micro-grids on every Army
installation by 2035. Can you provide an update on the microgrid
installation process and speak to any specific installations that have
begun this effort?
Secretary Wormuth. Multi-domain operations require Army
installations to have secure and reliable access to energy to achieve
mission objectives. Because of their role in critical defense missions
and preparing and deploying forces, Mission Assurance Installations,
Power Projection Platforms, and Mobilization Force Generation
Installations have priority for energy resilience investments such as
microgrids. The Army is also actively seeking to install microgrids
where assured access reviews determine that existing microgrid
components are already present, making microgrid creation more cost-
effective. The table below provides a summary of current planned Army
microgrid development efforts through Fiscal Year 2024: 6 microgrid
projects are in construction, 10 in design, 5 pending congressional
approval, and 9 in early planning stages.
Mr. Crow. As of late April, the Pentagon said it had sent Ukraine
over 1,400 Stinger systems and over 5,500 Javelin systems which has
significantly depleted U.S. stockpiles of these systems. The Stinger
has been out of production for the U.S. military for 18 years and
because the system's design is so old, some of its components are
obsolete and nearly impossible to source. Last month, Raytheon CEO Greg
Hayes said that the company would likely need to redesign some
electronics in Stinger's seeker and missile head. How is the Department
of the Army working with industry to ensure that the U.S., Ukraine and
other allies will have access to additional Stinger systems in a likely
protracted conflict with Russia? In addition, how is the Department of
the Army assisting industry with scaling up Javelin production
facilities so that critical demand can be met?
Secretary Wormuth. For Stinger missiles, we are addressing
inventory shortages on multiple fronts. The Army has awarded two
contracts to Raytheon: one for new production that will replenish the
1,468 directed to the Ukraine by the presidential drawdowns, and a
second contract to address the obsolescence of the driver within the
missile seeker. We also initiated refurbishment of unserviceable
missiles through McAlester Army Ammunition Plant to increase our
serviceable inventory. In addition to this investment, the Army is
working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to identify
possible areas to invest in over the next two years to increase
production capacity. These combined efforts will mitigate U.S. Army
Stinger inventory pressures until the next generation Soldier Portable
Air Defense missile system can be introduced into the Department of
Defense inventories.
For the Javelin missile, we are negotiating contract modifications
with the Javelin Joint Venture (Raytheon/Lockheed Martin partnership)
to increase production capacity from an optimized 850 to 2,100 missiles
annually and to accelerate initial production capacity for the new G-
model missile in FY24.
Mr. Crow. Cyber and Space are two domains in which the Army is
heavily investing, including establishing new formations. a. To what
extent is the Army working with the other services and Joint Staff to
develop equipment for offensive and defensive cyber operations? b. Now
that the Army has transitioned the majority of its space personnel to
the Space Force, what efforts do you envision remaining Army core
competencies when it comes to the Space domain?
Secretary Wormuth. A. The U.S. Army has worked extensively with
U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), the Joint Staff, and the other services
to develop capabilities supporting USCYBERCOM's Joint Cyber Warfighter
Architecture (JCWA). Army requirements for offensive and defensive
cyberspace operations are validated in the Joint Capabilities
Integration and Development System (JCIDS). Unique tools/capabilities
are also validated in USCYBERCOM's requirements and registry process.
The Army has developed numerous tools/capabilities that have been
shared with other services. The Army coordinates and collaborates at
various levels of effort depending on the tool/capability and the
service equity/mission, including serving as the lead component for
development on several joint programs.
The Army is also responsible for leading a geographically oriented
Joint Force Headquarters Cyber for three Combatant Commands. As such,
the Army provides tools and capabilities specific to those missions.
B. The Army is currently transferring its communications satellite
payload planning and control, as well as planning the eventual transfer
of its theater missile warning and battlespace characterization
function and related formations to the Space Force. Despite these
transfers, the Army is retaining core organic space capabilities
designed to meet service-unique needs to deny adversary intelligence,
surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications; enable navigation
warfare; and effectively employ long-range precision fires. The Army
will continue to retain space professionals who have developed
expertise in support of ground operations and the application of space
technology. These professionals will continue to advise Army leaders
and they will be able to identify and define requirements for future
and emerging space capabilities in support of ground operations to
maintain the warfighter's information advantage contributing to the
effectiveness of ground operations. The Army space team, including
Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Futures Command, is also
experimenting with a variety of space-based and high-altitude systems
through Project Convergence and other research and development
activities, in coordination with Space Force and Interagency partners,
to satisfy Army-specific requirements.
Mr. Crow. I am pleased to see that the Army has taken the steps to
establish the ACFT as the physical fitness test of record. I understand
that it is a much more comprehensive indicator of a Soldier's physical
fitness. One of the concerns that I have is the Army moving back to
gender-based scoring. With more women joining the ranks of our combat
units and elite organizations, has the Army considered the perception
of women in these units when it comes to different scoring standards
from their male counterparts and will it seek to mitigate these
concerns as it rolls out the final version of the ACFT?
Secretary Wormuth. After the review of an independent RAND study
required by Congress (FY21 NDAA), combined with the information
gathered by the Army from nearly 630,000 ACFT scores, and three years
of ongoing analysis and Soldier feedback, Army leaders determined that
the ACFT would be implemented as a general physical fitness test. The
recent revisions to the ACFT maintain the Army's strong commitment to a
culture of physical fitness, for all demographics and MOSs alike.
Key changes include:
Moving from a gender and age neutral standard, to
performance-normed standards, based on age and gender, similar to the
previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with 20 groups varied by age
and gender.
The Army will use the ACFT as a general fitness
assessment for the Total Army, not related to job-specific
physical demands, as opposed to an occupational test.
The removal of the Leg Tuck with the Plank as the sole
core exercise.
RAND observed that the leg tuck was not an accurate
predictor of core streongth for all Soldiers. The leg tuck
requires a minimum pre-requisite upper body strenogth that made
it impossible to measure core strength in all Soldiers.
In response, the ACFT now uses the plank as the sole
exercise to assess core strength, using recognized standards
from sister-services as a baseline and modifying the scales
based on the Army's point system.
Moving to the plank allows the Army to verify that
the ACFT properly measures all Soldiers' core strength equally,
and ensures Soldiers have a similar testing experience and
opportunity to succeed during every event of the ACFT.
The leg tuck is still a great holistic core exercise
and is still encouraged as part of unit training outlined in
ATP 7-22.02.
The addition of the 2.5-mile walk as an alternate ACFT
aerobic event.
A phased implementation for recording test scores to
allow Soldiers a minimum of six months to train in order to increase
training opportunities, minimize potential for injuries, and ensure
maximum performance using the Army's H2F resources.
The establishment of an ACFT governance body, working
with RAND, to continue assessing test data, assess impacts to Soldiers,
and recommend future modifications, as appropriate.
The Army has commissioned analytic support from RAND to assess data
from the revised ACFT following implementation in April 2022, which
will inform the Army's oversight of the ACFT in the future. With these
changes, the Army expects that the ACFT will have the same impact on
recruiting and retention as the previous APFT. The Army has established
an ACFT governance board to continue to assess test data and monitor
impacts, and this governance board will deliver an assessment to the
Secretary of the Army in April 2023.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. GREEN
Dr. Green. What percentage of Army BCTs are at the highest levels
of tactical readiness now?
General McConville. As of 15 April 2022, 77% of Army Active
Component BCTs are at the highest levels of tactical readiness. If the
assessment includes Active Component deployed BCTs, the rate increases
to 84%.
______
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKLIN
Mr. Franklin. In December 2021, the Biden administration signed an
executive order stipulating that the entire Federal Government, to
include the DOD, would be required to only acquire ``100 percent zero-
emission'' vehicles by 2035. The EO also states the requirement for
``net-zero emissions from Federal procurement no later than 2050.''
Please confirm whether this requirement will apply to military tactical
vehicles.
Secretary Wormuth. The Army is committed to reducing the energy
consumption of the force. Executive Order (EO) 14057 does not exempt
our tactical fleets from the requirement to acquire only zero-emission
vehicles by 2035, but it does provide a process for the head of an
agency to grant waivers under certain conditions, one of which is in
the interest of national security. The Secretary of Defense, as the
agency head, has indicated there will be no blanket waivers for
tactical and combat systems, and any waivers will be narrowly tailored
based on available technology and market conditions to ensure the
Department's decarbonization efforts align with operational readiness
needs. The Army will ensure our future vehicle acquisitions meet
warfighter needs while being mindful of the EO requirement to implement
its purposes and goals ``to the maximum extent practicable and without
compromising national security.''
As outlined in the Army Climate Strategy, the Army's objective is
to field purpose-built hybrid-drive tactical vehicles by 2035, and all-
electric tactical vehicles by 2050. We expect the electrification of
tactical and combat fleets to reduce fuel consumption by over 20%.
Near-term Army developments to electrify the fleet are progressing.
Multiple vehicle demonstrators with anti-idle technologies or hybrid-
electric drivetrains are being tested, which informs the Army about the
maturity of the technology.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCCLAIN
Mrs. McClain. Right now, U.S. Army soldiers are deploying to Europe
as part of our Armored Brigade Combat Teams, which include a Vietnam
era armored personnel carriers, the M113, which was designed in the
early 60's. This is a vehicle that has been criticized for its lack of
maneuverability and survivability, so much so, that Army commanders in
Iraq would not allow it in combat. In order to address this urgent
capability gap, the Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle cross function
team identified Army's modernized personnel carrier, the Armored Multi-
Purpose Vehicle or AMPV, as its top priority. The need for this vehicle
was so strong that the previous administration considered producing it
at 2 brigade sets per year. Yet, the recently published FY23
President's Budget Request only requested half a brigade set, despite
the capacity to manufacture at a higher rate. This decision sends a
clear statement to soldiers that the department has once again deferred
both safety and capability while asking soldiers to bear the risk of
their budget based decision.
Are you comfortable with soldiers deploying with the M113?
How do you justify the decision not to replace them as quickly as
possible?
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army is on schedule
to deliver the first brigade set of Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles
AMPVs in FY23. The Army remains committed to replacing M113s within our
formations as quickly as possible given fiscal constraints and
competing modernization requirements.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. JACKSON
Dr. Jackson. We need to ensure we have the medical personnel with
the right readiness levels needed to support any future operation in
which a MEDEVAC could be necessary.
Secretary Wormuth, will the cuts to the Army's end-strength effect
the Army's medical readiness capabilities? Further, how important is
medical manning to the Army's foundational priorities of People,
Readiness and Modernization?
Secretary Wormuth. No, the cuts to the Army's end-strength will not
affect the Army's medical readiness capabilities. Medical readiness and
manning is a critical requirement Army leadership frequently discuss
with the Surgeon General of the Army in order to ensure that we have
the right people, in the right location to meet the Army's, and in
multiple locations, the joint forces' needs. Additionally, the Army
Medical Department continues to actively recruit and retain America's
best and brightest medical providers to ensure that the Army is
medically ready and has a ready medical force able to help the Army
fight and win the Nation's wars. Army leadership is extremely proud of
our military providers and the unique capabilities they bring to our
force and provide our service members and families all around the
world.
Dr. Jackson. General McConville, with the decision expected later
this year for which FLRAA aircraft the Army will select, would
additional funding over the President's Budget Request be helpful for
the program to sustain momentum as it moves into the next phase of the
procurement process?
General McConville. At this time, the Army's Future Long Range
Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) is fully funded in the FY23 president's budget
request and additional funding is not needed to sustain program
momentum.
Dr. Jackson. General McConville, because the Future Attack
Reconnaissance Aircraft will be a critical part of a potential conflict
in the Indo-Pacific, could you please explain the cuts to the program
in the budget and what does this setback mean overall for the Army's
Future Vertical Lift modernization effort and priorities?
General McConville. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft
(FARA) funding requirements decreased in FY23 due to reduction in
certain up-front costs associated with development as this reflects the
current status of the competitive prototyping process. The FARA program
has completed the design, build, and initiation of flight test
demonstration as part of the Army's competitive prototyping process.
The FY23 funding will support the continued use of government furnished
equipment and the modular open system approach, as well as the weapons
system's preliminary design efforts. The Army remains committed to the
development and fielding of the FARA.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
Mr. Fallon. I understand that the Army Rapid Capabilities and
Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is leading the U.S. Army's
Directed Energy Maneuverable Short-Range Air Defense, or DE M-SHORAD
program. Given the recent live fire results of DE M-SHORAD
demonstrating combat utility, what are we doing to make sure that we
are getting these to our commanders in the field and our allies as
quickly as possible?
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army is on track to
deliver its first combat-capable platoon of four prototype directed
energy weapon systems--Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense
(DE M-SHORAD)--to the 4-60th Air Defense Artillery in Fort Sill,
Oklahoma in the 4th Quarter of FY22 and continue delivery of prototypes
in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon
system integrated onto a Stryker platform, that protects Divisions and
Brigade Combat Teams from Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS); rotary-wing
aircraft; and rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) threats. Following the
Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office's (RCCTO)
successful combat shoot-off event at Fort Sill in June 2021, RCCTO
exercised the option to buy the additional three prototypes to equip a
platoon no later than the end of FY22. In March 2022, the DE M-SHORAD
weapon system further demonstrated system capabilities against UAS and
RAM threats during system characterization activities at White Sands
Missile Range, NM. The team continues to make great strides in
equipping the first platoon and looks forward to participating in
Project Convergence 22 later this year.
Mr. Fallon. What are your acquisition and deployment plans for this
DE M-SHORAD? When can we expect DE M-SHORAD to move to a program of
record to maintain our technological edge? Are there additional
resources you need to accelerate this program?
Secretary Wormuth. The program path forward is to deliver the first
platoon to 4-60th Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Battalion at Fort Sill,
OK, in 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) and continue delivery of
prototypes in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD is projected to transition
from the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies (RCCTO) to
Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space in FY25 and we are
developing acquisition strategies to transition into a program of
record once PEO Missiles and Space assumes responsibility. No
additional resources are needed at this time.
Mr. Fallon. DE M-SHORAD high energy laser maturity should have
wider applicability across the Department of Defense. For example, the
U.S. Air Force and USMC will also require low-cost, logistically light
protection from UAS and RAM attacks for Agile Combat Employment and
Ground based Air Defense. How are the other services working with the
Army to leverage the maturity on DE M-SHORAD?
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. At this time, the
Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense System (DE M-SHORAD)
is an Army effort; however, the Army welcomes future collaboration with
the other Services on DE M-SHORAD so they could leverage our
development in this area if it meets their operational needs. The Army
is a participant in the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering-led Directed Energy Working Group, a collaborative effort
directed by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense
Authorization Act, designed to synchronize and share directed energy
technologies across the Department of Defense. The Army Rapid
Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office also partners with the
Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO) to support
semi-annual demonstrations of C-sUAS technologies to evaluate emerging
technologies that close gaps, inform requirements, and promote
innovation.
In support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role of
Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS),
the Army is fielding a 10 kilowatt capability focused on countering
groups of 1-3 UAS in June 2022 and deploying it OCONUS. This will be
followed by a 20 kilowatt capability by the end of this year.
Mr. Fallon. Over the life of the HMMWV Anti-lock Brake System and
Electronic Stability Control Program it has been perpetually
underfunded. Last year, the Army seemed intent on continuing this
trend. However, Congress stepped in to authorize and appropriate an
additional $183 million to rectify this. This year's budget request of
$10 million and UPL of $50 million falls tragically short. Why is the
Army accepting such a high level of risk by not adequately funding this
program when it could have prevented deaths as recently as last month?
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army takes the safety
of our soldiers, civilians, and their families very seriously and the
loss of any soldier in training is tragic and unacceptable. The Army
recognizes the need to equip the light tactical vehicle fleet with
anti-lock brake system and electronic stability control (ABS/ESC)
capability, while also modernizing our force for large scale ground
combat operations and multi-domain operations against near-peer threats
within the budget we are given.
While we use training enhancement to address most factors affecting
HMMWV safety, we have also developed a three-pronged material approach
to complement the training. We are procuring new Joint Light Tactical
Vehicles (JLTV), manufactured with ABS/ESC capability, to replace a
large portion of our HMMWV fleet. We are also procuring new HMMWVs
manufactured with ABS/ESC capability to replace some of our aging
HMMWVs. Finally, we are procuring ABS/ESC kits that can be retrofitted
on HMMWVs currently in use by our soldiers. In FY23, we invested
heavily in the modernization prong of our approach by investing over
$700M in JLTVs, an increase of over $100M from FY22.
Concurrently, and in accordance with the July 2021 Government
Accountability Office report, these vehicle safety efforts coincide
with our development and implementation of an improved driver's
training program designed to prevent vehicle accidents.
Mr. Fallon. What are your acquisition and deployment plans for this
DE M-SHORAD? When can we expect DE M-SHORAD to move to a program of
record to maintain our technological edge? Are there additional
resources you need to accelerate this program?
General McConville. The Army is on track to deliver its first
combat-capable platoon of four prototype directed energy weapon
systems--Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (DE M-
SHORAD)--to the 4-60th Air Defense Artillery in Fort Sill, Oklahoma in
the 4th Quarter of FY22 and continue delivery of prototypes in FY23 and
FY24. DE M-SHORAD is projected to transition from the Rapid
Capabilities and Critical Technologies (RCCTO) to Program Executive
Office (PEO) Missiles and Space in FY25 and we are developing
acquisition strategies to transition into a program of record once PEO
Missiles and Space assumes responsibility. No additional resources are
needed at this time.
[all]