House Subcommittee hearing with Army Secretary Dan Driscoll

[0:08] The subcommittee will come to order. [5:30] Today the subcommittee will receive testimony on the posture of the United States Army. [5:33] First, I'd like to welcome our two witnesses, Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll and [5:38] General Christopher Laniv, the Acting Chief of Staff and Vice Chief of Staff of the United [5:44] States Army. [5:45] Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us again. [5:48] I will leave. [5:49] I note that this is your first appearance. [5:51] Before the subcommittee, welcome, and we look forward to hearing from you. [5:54] The United States Army remains a preeminent fighting force in the world. [6:00] Today we face a multitude of threats from across the globe that only grow in complexity and [6:06] scale. [6:07] As threats evolve, it's imperative that we prioritize investments that not only contribute [6:13] to the current readiness, but also provide us with a decisive advantage on any future battlefield. [6:19] Since this backdrop, the Army's continuous transformation efforts to become a leaner, more lethal force [6:26] are being tested. [6:27] Such threats have been no more visible than what we have witnessed as a result of Operation [6:33] Epic Fury. [6:35] Our ability to intercept and defeat sophisticated missile threats has been tested by a proliferation [6:40] of low-cost, one-way attack drones used to overwhelm air and missile defense systems. [6:46] Unfortunately, we have suffered the threats of not addressing this technology as we continue [6:51] to mourn six U.S. soldiers who were killed last month in Kuwait due to an Iranian drone strike. [6:58] I understand the Army has invested close to $1 billion in counter-UAS capability this fiscal [7:04] year, and I'm interested in learning more about how you intend to get these systems into [7:09] the hands of the warfighter sooner. [7:13] Recent conflicts in the Central Command Theater of Operations also underscored the need for low-cost, [7:19] mass munitions. [7:21] While our most exquisite munitions have proven successful on the battlefield, we must also [7:26] invest in capability to drive the cost curve down. [7:30] In order to meet that challenge of an increasingly complex security environment, including future [7:36] events that may unfold in the Indo-Pacific, we must obtain and sustain the ability to field [7:42] affordable effectors at value. [7:45] The Army has also made significant bets in aviation to maintain relevance in a potential conflict in [7:52] the Pacific. [7:54] The biggest request includes over $2 billion to accelerate the fielding of the MV-75 in [8:02] favor of legacy aircraft programs. [8:05] I look forward to hearing how the Army plans to achieve this objective, both on time and [8:10] on budget, to secure greater operational access in the Indo-Pacific theater. [8:15] Lastly, the ability to rapidly procure and deliver cutting-edge technologies and capabilities [8:21] depends on a manufacturing base that can scale and flex when called to. [8:27] The subcommittee has made historic investments to reduce the fragility of our lower-tier suppliers [8:32] and non-traditional manufacturers responsible for the production of critical components. [8:38] That inevitable lethality on the battlefield, that will enable lethality on the battlefield. [8:44] I hope you'll discuss today how your fiscal year 27 budget plans to address this challenge [8:49] to maximize capability and capacity in the industrial base. [8:54] With that, I recognize the distinguished-ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her opening remarks. [8:58] Ms. Thank you, Mr. Chair, thank you for the courtesy you always extend me. [9:04] General, Mr. Secretary, welcome to the committee, and as the Chair said, we need information and [9:12] look forward to a fruitful discussion on the Army's fiscal year 2027 budget request. [9:16] First, I want to express to both of you my condolences for the loss of now seven soldiers recently in the Middle East. [9:24] Mr. Secretary, to you personally, I want to thank you for your engagement with me at the Dover Air Force Base [9:32] regarding the funeral from Master Sergeant Nicole Lomar from White Bear Lake, Minnesota. [9:36] I can tell you my voice is a little soft talking about Nicole, too, so thank you so much, Mr. Womack. [9:43] I want to tell you personally how much I know firsthand your engagement meant to the family and to the entire community. [9:53] So thank you so very much. [9:56] It was a very trying time, and you and those that you tasked with it performed in a way that we expect when we leave no one behind. [10:06] Thank you so much. [10:08] The subcommittee would also need a status on the 200 soldiers that had been wounded in the conflict. [10:17] Turning to the budget request. [10:19] For the second year in a row, this hearing has been held without full details of the Army's request, and that is very disappointing. [10:26] Even though the budget was dropped on April 3rd, the administration still has not provided to us the justification documents for their request. [10:34] We need the details when the budget is made public, and that's the only way we can do our job properly to do the oversight that we are tasked with. [10:42] To be clear, the size of the request for defense spending is shocking. [10:48] And in the base budget, the Department of Defense requests over $200 billion over last year's enacted levels. [10:56] When combined with the mandatory funding for defense requests through the reconciliation bill, that's an increase of $400 billion. [11:05] That's nearly a 44% increase in defense spending over the last year. [11:10] In essence, we will see the Department's request approach $1.6 trillion. [11:18] This request does not, however, include the cost to cover the President's excursion, which is a war in Iran. [11:24] Now, the President also proposes to cut domestic investments to the non-defense budget by $73 billion, or by 10%. [11:36] There's even cuts to NASA by 67%, which is striking, given how the Artemis mission has captured the attention of Americans. [11:44] And we will know we will learn much from that mission that will help with our national and economic security. [11:50] We know that cuts to other appropriation bills will deeply impact our national security, particularly cuts to education. [11:57] Engineering, math, science, cyber, computer programming, they're all cut, and that all is affected to cuts in education. [12:06] It means that when it comes to our future national security workforce, the President's budget is not doing the justice it needs to have happen for the next generation. [12:18] When it comes to our future national security workforce, the President's budget will, in my opinion, make our military suffer, [12:27] because it designates our workforce development that we need all across the board. [12:33] The previous cuts to the State Department of 30% also affect our mission, and I believe your capability to do your mission as successfully as possible. [12:43] The previous Secretary of Defense for President Trump once warned us in this room that if we cut the State Department, we will be forced to buy more ammunition. [12:52] Just look at South America or the Middle East and see what that warning was all about that he was predicting. [12:59] For the Army, the request includes $18 billion increase to its discretionary level with more funds for procurement. [13:07] That's an increase for missiles, which attracts the Secretary Deputy's acceleration plans for munitions. [13:13] Now, we know the Administration monitors the level of munitions, but we must come up with a better solution for taking out drones. [13:21] Using Patriot missiles that cost $3 million each is not cost effective and it's not sustainable. [13:27] There's a billion-dollar increase for operations and maintenance activities for maneuvered units. [13:32] These funds and training operations that maintain readiness. [13:35] The committee must know that these funds are being used for mission and how they're being used. [13:42] I say this because military personnel have been used in such ways over the past years that I do find concerning. [13:48] For example, the National Guard continuing to pick up trash here in our nation's capital. [13:55] Or continuing to assist with the southern border mission under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. [14:02] I don't see these missions as improving the readiness for our troops. [14:06] I see them as degrading their readiness. [14:08] The committee must understand what exercises and deployments the Army expects, especially with the combatant commands. [14:15] So, gentlemen, I hope you reach out to us soon with the details of your budgets are released. [14:20] And, Mr. Secretary, one side, we've been having several meetings. [14:24] We need to know, and I know it's in a classified setting, exactly where the Army is with its munitions, exactly. [14:32] And we don't want to hear that OMB is holding on the release of that information. [14:36] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [14:37] Thank you, gentlelady. [14:39] Now I'd like to turn to the Chairman of the full committee and my good friend, Chairman Tom Cole. [14:43] Mr. Chairman, the floor is yours. [14:44] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [14:46] It's a delight to be here with you and Ranking Member McCollum. [14:50] This hearing could not have come at a more consequential time. [14:54] The global security landscape has only continued to grow more complex and volatile. [15:00] Among these challenges before us are the ongoing operations in the Central Command Theater, [15:07] and a pacing threat in the Indo-Pacific that does not pause while our forces may be elsewhere. [15:14] Operation Epic Fury has proven that the American military might is the strength freedom can count on. [15:21] Our soldiers, weapons systems, and stockpiles must never be taken for granted. [15:26] They are the foundation of our ability to sustain prolonged conflict while countering other threats across the globe. [15:33] Make no mistake, China continues to modernize its military, expand its global influence, [15:39] and assert its posture in the Indo-Pacific, whether the United States is watching or not. [15:45] The United States Army's role in deterring this threat and prevailing if deterrence fails has never been more important. [15:53] Long-range precision fires provide us with the capability to strike with accuracy over vast distances, [16:01] and our necessity of the United States is to maintain its competitive advantage against both peer and near-peer adversaries. [16:10] I look forward to hearing how the Army is prioritizing the development and deployment of these capabilities to ensure overmatch. [16:18] Equally urgent is our ability to produce munitions and maintain inventory. [16:23] Recent global conflicts stress the importance of magazine depth, [16:27] and Operation Epic Fury has stressed this even further. [16:31] We cannot afford hollow magazines in a high-intensity, protracted conflict. [16:37] I hope to hear an honest assessment of where we stand today and what investments the Army is making to bolster our readiness, [16:44] both for the near and long term. [16:47] And to our troops at home and abroad, we're grateful for your service, [16:51] and we're committed to ensuring that you have what you need to succeed and come home safely. [16:57] We certainly will continue to back you with the full strength of the United States of America. [17:02] With that, let me – I want to offer a couple of remarks that are not in my formal testimony, just for the – just for the record. [17:12] First, I want to agree very much with the ranking member. [17:14] We really do need more information than we have now. [17:18] We're going to end up delaying this, not beyond the schedule, but we scheduled it later because, frankly, [17:25] for the committee to have the information that it needs, you know, to make decisions, it's taking us a while. [17:31] I don't put that, Mr. Secretary, on you and the Army. [17:33] I put that on O&B. [17:34] But there's more information that we're going to need. [17:37] I would much prefer that we could have moved in. [17:40] And we will have a very aggressive schedule. [17:42] We will certainly have a robust proposal for the committee when we do full markup. [17:50] And we certainly want to work with the administration and certainly with the President and what he's trying to achieve. [17:57] But we're going to need more information to be able to do that. [18:00] And I know we'll get your cooperation. [18:02] Frankly, we'll get O&B's cooperation, too. [18:04] But the sooner is better. [18:07] And so my friend from Minnesota is exactly right when she raises that issue. [18:11] I think she speaks for the whole committee. [18:14] Second point I want to make is about you. [18:17] I've had the opportunity to be on this committee for a lot of years. [18:21] I've seen a lot of secretaries of the Army. [18:23] We have because of Fort Sill and, frankly, in other parts of the state, Macalester Ammunition Depot, [18:29] a very close association with the Army. [18:31] I just want to tell you I think you are doing an outstanding job. [18:34] You are the right person in the right place at the right time. [18:38] I appreciate the energy. [18:40] I appreciate the practical experience in uniform as well as what you bring from your experience out of uniform. [18:46] And I think you can be a transformational. [18:49] I think you will be a transformational Secretary of the Army in a period that we need it. [18:53] So you certainly have my full confidence and support. [18:56] I think probably the full confidence and support of everybody on this committee. [19:00] You've been assigned an enormous task to undertake at an enormously difficult and challenging time. [19:06] We want to be helpful, but we're absolutely convinced you're the right person in the right place to deliver. [19:11] Second, and I would never ask you to address this, but I will tell you and not direct it at you. [19:17] I do, and I never interfere in fear of change of command. [19:21] That's not our place. [19:22] That's not our responsibility. [19:23] I respect the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and the entire chain to do their job. [19:27] But I'm a huge fan of the last Chief of Staff of the Army. [19:33] I think General George is a great patriot. [19:37] I've seen him, talked with him before he was Chief, worked with him as Chief. [19:42] I've seen him interact with soldiers, returning soldiers from theater in my district, interact with other officers down at Fort Sill. [19:50] He's an outstanding general officer, outstanding Chief of Staff. [19:56] And I just want the record to reflect how much we regret, I personally regret at least, he's no longer in active service. [20:04] He's a real loss to us, in my opinion. [20:07] But again, I'm sure the successor will be equally capable. [20:10] We've had a long train of really fine officers from the Army come, and I have high confidence that the successor will do well. [20:18] But General George is a real loss, and I think a great American. [20:23] And I just wish him well in whatever his next endeavor is. [20:26] And I wanted that officially, on the record, just to reflect my admiration for a lifetime of service to this country, which I wish had continued somewhat longer. [20:37] With that, again, I look forward to the testimony, Mr. Chairman. [20:41] And again, I wish you well in your tenure. [20:43] You're going to be a great Secretary for us. [20:45] With that, I yield back. [20:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate your comments regarding General George. [20:52] I think most of us here agree with your comments. [20:56] General George is to be congratulated on the work he did for this country and the service he provided. [21:02] And we hold him in high esteem. [21:05] With that, it's my privilege to introduce for testimony Secretary Driscoll of the United States Army to take five minutes. [21:14] Chairman Cole, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, distinguished members, it's a privilege to address you today. [21:21] And before I do the rest of the remarks, very sincerely, thank you for the kind words. [21:26] It means a lot. [21:27] Working well with all of you has been amazing, and I think our Army has benefited a lot from that. [21:32] I've been the Secretary of the Army for one year and 51 days, and I am incredibly proud to represent soldiers and their families. [21:39] And I'm equally humbled. [21:41] In February, we honored three Medal of Honor recipients. [21:45] As a prisoner of war, Master Sergeant Edmunds prevented a Nazi officer from executing his soldiers. [21:51] Sergeant Major Richardson called airstrikes on his own location to save his platoon. [21:56] And Staff Sergeant Allis deliberately stepped between a suicide bomber and a wounded comrade to shield him. [22:02] In one ceremony, we honored valor above and beyond the call of duty spanning 1945 to 2013, three generations of heroes. [22:11] It shows that courage is in our soldiers' DNA. [22:15] It is ingrained in over 250 years of service and sacrifice. [22:20] As all of you know, our soldiers are the very best in the world. [22:24] They are bold, decisive, and they can solve any problem that faces them. [22:29] That's why I spent over 130 days on the road across 17 countries and 25 states to hear directly from our soldiers. [22:37] I saw their barracks, ate with them, put hands on their new and old equipment, [22:41] and had candid face-to-face discussions with soldiers of every single rank. [22:46] What I heard was clear. [22:48] Our soldiers are ready to innovate and win, but bureaucracy and regulations are still holding them back. [22:54] Getting what soldiers need to win, making the Army budget work for them, is definitionally a bipartisan topic, [23:00] and I know all of you agree with that. [23:02] So everything we do in this room, in the Pentagon, in the Capitol building, should support our soldiers. [23:09] You've supported our Army for decades, and our Army wouldn't be what it is today without all of you. [23:15] But we all know that the system that should benefit soldiers still remains broken. [23:21] Soldiers, their quality of life, and their battlefield advantage isn't always the number one budget and oversight priority. [23:27] It's a simple fact, and we need your help to continue to change it. [23:31] We need legislation that secures our right to repair so we can fix our equipment organically, improve readiness, and mitigate contested logistics. [23:41] We need relief from laws enacted before World War II that limit how we manage dining and services on our installations. [23:48] They simply degrade quality of life and waste resources, and we need more budget flexibility. [23:56] Thank you so much for last year's progress, but we must go further so we can adapt quickly to threats and transform faster than our adversaries. [24:04] We all know that technological change is accelerating exponentially, and thus, warfare is evolving constantly. [24:11] Speed, innovation, and adaptability are more important than ever now, and your help to either lower barriers to innovation or stick to the decades-long status quo makes all the difference. [24:24] I invite every single one of you to continue to do what you already do and engage with our Army and see the changes we're making firsthand. [24:31] We are partnering with private industry to bring the best tech, talent, and tradecraft to the Army. [24:36] We are bringing private capital to our bases to unlock dormant resources and offset the delays and constraints built into our federal budget process. [24:44] We are blazing a trail for our nation on nuclear energy, counter-drone capabilities, and military AI and data center applications. [24:54] Despite regulatory constraints, we're delivering better soldier quality of life through campus-style dining, barracks Wi-Fi, and 3D printed barracks material construction. [25:04] Even though it can seem like the deck is stacked against us sometimes, and we exert colossal efforts to overcome some of these barriers, [25:12] the United States Army is a beacon of transformation. [25:16] Imagine what we can do if we weren't bound by the red tape. [25:20] We can do more if you help us find the right balance between regulation and oversight and flexibility and speed. [25:25] We can take our budget further if you help us tap into America's entrepreneurial spirit and unlock our soldiers' true potential. [25:33] We can move faster if you help us shed the dead weight of obsolete equipment and invest in modern capabilities that propel us into the future. [25:41] And with your help, we can ensure that our Army remains the dominant land-fighting force for the next 250 years. [25:48] Thank you so much for having us, and I look forward to answering your questions. [25:52] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [25:55] General Laniv, please take five minutes for your opening remarks. [26:00] Chairman Cole, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today. [26:09] Everything I do as the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army begins and ends with one question. [26:14] Does this make our soldiers more lethal and ready to fight and win when called upon? [26:19] Today, over 212,000 soldiers are deployed or forward postured across 160 countries, [26:25] securing our interest in the Western Hemisphere, deterring aggression in the Indo-Pacific, and responding to threats worldwide. [26:32] In the Middle East, our soldiers continue to defend U.S. forces and partners, [26:37] sustaining layered air and missile defense systems and maintaining our long-range strike capabilities. [26:44] Army sustainment forces are postured across the theater, moving fuel, munitions, and medical support, [26:50] while command posts continue to integrate joint fires and intelligence to respond to any threat. [26:55] Operations overseas are sustained by the command structure and ready forces we maintain at home. [27:01] We consolidated Army North and South into Western Hemisphere Command to create a single unified headquarters responsible for homeland defense. [27:09] And in the Indo-Pacific, the Army maintains 91,000 troops and committed $1.3 billion to the Pacific deterrence initiative. [27:18] And commanding in Korea showed me that years of combined training and shared risk with regional partners creates relationships that cannot be forged in crisis. [27:28] We're building readiness for the future fight at our combat training centers. [27:32] And having commanded the ops group at JRTC, I know the value of our CTCs. [27:37] It's where we train our soldiers in complex environment, in the mud, to test how well they'll be able to fix complex problems against an adversary. [27:48] We cannot field modern kit while sustaining aging systems that consume time, money, and manpower. [27:55] Divesting legacy platforms reduces the maintenance demand that falls hardest on our junior soldiers. [28:01] This is why we've restructured our acquisition process to close the distance between soldiers' feedback and program decisions from years to months. [28:09] And you'll see this reflected in the capabilities that we're accelerating. [28:13] Next generation command and control fundamentally changes the speed of decision making, connecting sensors, shooters, and commanders. [28:20] Closing the gap between information and action at every echelon across all of our systems. [28:26] We're progressing the XM30 infantry fighting vehicle, unveiled the M1E3 prototype years ahead of schedule, [28:33] and fielded the Amp V to replace the M113, which entered service in 1960, seven years before I was born. [28:40] In Army Aviation, we're on track to deliver a prototype of the MV75 Cheyenne by FY27, increasing the speed, range, and survivability required for future operations. [28:52] But none of this matters if we can't produce and sustain at scale. [28:56] That's why we continue to modernize our OIB, expanding industry partnerships through enhanced use leases and advanced manufacturing. [29:03] Industrial capacity is important, but the strength of our Army is only as strong as our ability to retain experienced soldiers. [29:11] And whether the force we're building reflects the standards that we claim to uphold. [29:16] That standard includes $4 billion in infrastructure investments throughout 2026. [29:22] And to improve nutrition, we're rolling out campus-style dining, which has been a huge success across five installations and planning an additional six. [29:31] And we're scaling our holistic health and fitness program across all compost. [29:36] And these investments are having a measurable impact. [29:39] It shows in our recruiting trends. [29:41] Our numbers are up across all of our categories, and we're exceeding last year's target. [29:46] Thank you for your continued support as we sustain the best Army the world has ever seen. [29:50] That will not change, and this we will defend. [29:53] And thank you for acknowledging our losses. [29:55] Thank you for the prayers for the families, and thank you for the support that you continue to provide to those families. [30:01] Thank you. [30:03] Thank you, General. [30:04] Thank you for your comments. [30:05] I'll start the questioning, and we'll have a five-minute round around the room. [30:10] Obviously, war has changed. [30:13] We saw that dramatically in Ukraine. [30:15] When the war first started, the artillery was the weapon of choice. [30:20] Probably 70% of the munitions used, 155 rounds on our side. [30:24] And some introduction of drones on the Ukrainian side, very little on the Russian side in the beginning. [30:30] That's totally flipped. [30:31] The Ukrainians now are making 350,000 drones a month. [30:35] The Russians a similar amount. [30:37] They've attached artificial intelligence to the drones where they cannot be jammed, [30:43] and they continue to evolve drones on the battlefield almost daily. [30:50] Obviously, during Operation Epic Fury, we saw low-cost, one-way attack drones that were used to overwhelm our air and missile defense systems. [30:59] The proliferation of this capability not only underpins the need to field effective counter-UIS technologies, [31:07] but low-cost effectors. [31:10] General, given the urgency of these threats, how is the Army ensuring that the most capable counter-UIS technology are rapidly fielding to soldiers? [31:23] And, Secretary, if you could add in, what steps is the Army going to take to accelerate the development of deployment of cost-effective kinetic and non-kinetic counter-UIS technology? [31:35] Sure. [31:37] Thanks for the question. [31:39] Our Secretary has pushed us very hard to move as fast as possible, provide the latest equipment to our soldiers in the field, [31:47] and we've pushed numerous new systems to include Mirops and some other counter-drone capabilities into RCENT and CENTCOM to help counter the threat. [32:01] It's holistic, sir. [32:02] So we are tied in very closely with the Joint Interagency Task Force 401 that the Army started. [32:10] So that's working to get new capabilities as fast as possible into our soldiers' hands. [32:16] One, to experiment with them, and then to scale it as fast as possible to get it in the hands of soldiers forward. [32:22] And then we're tied in incredibly closely with the Department of War's Defense Autonomous Working Group that is, at a higher level, working to get systems as fast as possible in our hands. [32:37] This is a huge undertaking. [32:40] Sir, you hit on a couple other points. [32:43] We're also going off, and the Secretary's pushing us really hard on this, to go after, as fast as possible, low-cost munitions, to be able to help counter these UAS, and to go after companies that say they can scale and scale fast. [32:58] And we're working with them, with our team to do it. [33:01] But it also is a part in our organic industrial base that we have to retool these facilities to be able to help us produce at scale the munitions and the systems that we're going to need to counter this threat, not only that we're seeing right now, but what potentially are going to see with our pacing threat. [33:21] Chairman, I think that the answer, in a lot of ways, is not very sexy. [33:29] And what the ranking member said, I couldn't possibly agree with any more about the cost of interceptors and the math just not scaling. [33:37] But a lot of people have been saying that for a very long time. [33:40] Fundamentally, one of the core problems was our own bureaucracy, our own infrastructure, our own decision-making organizations had decayed from any sort of speed and rationality. [33:50] And so the reason we've been able to move fast since the conflict in Iran started is because of work 10, 12, 14 months ago to reorganize our acquisitions department and convert over from PEOs to PAEs. [34:04] And practically what that did is it took us from like a 16-step decision-making process where each of the bodies along those 16 steps could veto it and start it back over and it could take two to seven years to purchase something sometimes. [34:17] We consolidated it down. We put everybody into a group who could make decisions on the fly. [34:22] And so when the conflict kicked off, within about eight days, we were able to go purchase what General Laniv was referencing, these 13,000 Mirops, which are incredible. [34:30] They're about $15,000 a piece right now. We think as they scale, they'll get to less than 10. [34:35] And we're able to take Shaheeds down that cost $30,000 to $50,000, which is amazing because that puts us on the right end of the cost curve. [34:42] And we will make that trade all day long. [34:44] And so a lot of the things the Army has worked on in the previous year are paying dividends as we try to make decisions quickly today. [34:51] Yeah, I'm going to turn this over to the ranking member, but for this comment, some of this is a dual-use capability. [34:58] We have the Olympics coming to California. We have the World Cup coming up here in just a few weeks. [35:05] And, you know, obviously we have high security concerns, and that capability needs to be shared, obviously, with the private security people. [35:15] And hopefully that is taking place and that you're all working together on that. [35:22] Yes, sir. Because of my role as Acting Director of ATF, we have a pretty strong tie-in to the Department of Justice. [35:30] And so we've hosted on Fort Meijer, 350 state and local police departments all came in. [35:37] We are sinking them into the GIATA 401 that General Laniv is talking about. [35:42] We have launched a marketplace that's an Amazon-like marketplace where counter-drone technology suppliers can list their products. [35:50] We, the United States Army, are reviewing it almost like Consumer Reports. [35:53] And then state and local and federal law enforcement officers across the country can purchase from this site. [35:58] We've already had purchases. [36:00] And then very crucially, everyone on the site is basically agreeing to try to use the same site picture to monitor the drones. [36:07] Because one of the problems is they cross so many jurisdictions, you need to be able to have everybody see the same thing to react. [36:14] And so we're really optimistic that this is a whole-of-government approach with a lot of buy-in for these big events coming up. [36:21] Thank you. [36:22] Ms. McCullough. [36:26] Thank you. [36:27] Mr. Secretary, I'm going to ask a question here, but I'm going to set this up. [36:32] Since November 15th, for decades, someone from the Secretary of Defense's chief would come in and we would get a briefing, kind of the whole picture. [36:47] It wasn't an audit, but the health of the finance for the department. [36:53] That hasn't happened in decades. [36:55] That even isn't happening anymore. [36:57] And as you pointed out, you've only been Secretary of the Army for one year, 51 days. [37:03] And thank you for taking on added responsibility. [37:07] I had forgotten all about being Acting Director of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco. [37:11] So thank you for that. [37:14] So please know this is not personal, but we're doing our job here. [37:19] And so we're going to ask for your help in doing that. [37:23] In the Army's budget, you've requested to compress lines in procurement and research and development. [37:31] And I'm concerned about that because the budget request also at the same time cuts financial management and audit readiness lines, okay, by $200 million. [37:45] And so that's a concern because we've been trying to get audits, and I always have to give the Marine Corps a big shout-out. [37:54] They've done it. [37:55] People say, well, they're smaller. [37:57] I'm just going to say maybe, no, I'm not going to say that. [38:00] I'm not going to pick a favorite child here, but they've done audits, okay? [38:05] So I'm going to ask for the reason for this cut as part of the question that I'm going to set up. [38:11] So I'm going to go back to the lines. [38:13] The Army has increases for the next-gen command and control on several areas. [38:19] Applications are infrastructure, data, and transport. [38:23] So in prior years, these lines were broken out by area into better understanding of how each one of these individual programs are going to be advanced or changed. [38:34] This year, the budget request is bundled into four lines down from 41. [38:40] So without having audits that we can go back and read and look at, these lines become, in a way, our way of doing the check and balance, working with you to get the best result to not only complete mission, bring people home safely, but to protect taxpayers' dollars. [38:59] So the compression, this makes it a huge challenge for us to do our job because we're about the dollars and cents, right? [39:10] So the other side of this, and I'm going to just say this loud and clear. [39:17] I don't believe this is your intention, but it has an unintended consequence when you compress these activities to make it easier for the Army then to move funds without keeping Congress involved. [39:30] So we might have a discussion about what you're going to do, but without the lines, we don't have the accountability for both of us on what you're going to do. [39:38] So I know that these upgrades are necessary to maintain the effective and secure communications for the Army, but how are you going to work with us? [39:47] Especially not just the Congress, but the folks who are in charge of the dollars and cents on this to make sure mission's accomplished, taxpayers are protected, how we are going to know how these funds are going to be executed and keep track of them. [40:03] So, you know, we need to have a discussion about how we're going to get back to old school on this unless you're going to tell me that the audit's on track and we're going to get one next year. [40:18] Mr. Secretary. [40:19] Ranking Member, this is a question I would have answered completely differently last year. [40:24] The nuance of the reply has been a painful lesson to learn as Secretary of the Army over the last year. [40:30] We, the Army, over decades have created a bad reinforcing cycle where we've asked you to trust us. [40:37] We have spent a lot of money in a way that didn't defend taxpayers right for their dollar to be spent as safely as possible. [40:45] We have had failed programs with not enough oversight and we had failed the budget the entire time, which has naturally, I think, inclined all of you to say, okay, well, we need more specificity in the budget. [40:56] We're going to go from what I understand to be 20 line items as of like the 80s. [41:00] And now I think we're over 1,200 line items. [41:03] And I think it's a very natural reaction to that. [41:05] The problem has been it reinforces some of the worst traits of our purchasing system because in each of those line items we get, we get very narrowly locked into buying things. [41:17] And particularly when it's tech related around data or moving information, we are purchasing things that are generally outdated by the day we purchase them. [41:24] And then we have a very hard time adapting to the speed of the innovation cycle. [41:28] And so the reason we are here, the United States Army has got to own a lot of responsibility for not doing an effective enough job being good custodians of dollars and providing transparency for your constitutionally mandated role. [41:42] I think, are we going to pass the audit next year? [41:45] If you had asked me four months ago, I would have said unequivocally no. [41:49] The Army had been working with a provider whose materiality threshold was very low, meaning they saw materiality in everything. [42:01] And what that practically meant for the Army is we had to do things like have depreciation schedules for every piece of equipment or many pieces of equipment that are just impractical for an organization of our size with equipment all over the world. [42:12] We have since created a new plan. [42:15] We have pulled up from the Army doing its own audit. [42:17] We are doing a Pentagon level audit now, which gives me hope that it is possible that it could be done next year. [42:23] I don't know what I would put the odds are, but I think we have a much stronger chance next year to provide the clarity that has been legislated to us than in previous years to the purpose of the consolidation. [42:34] And I can appreciate the caution for us wanting to blend the lines. [42:38] The purpose from our perspective for something like next-gen C2 is the speed of innovation requires us to shift dollars between back-end systems like what Cisco offers to actually be the piping and the plumbing to get our information somewhere to a data pool to then have AI help us process it and get it back out to the warfighter. [42:55] All of that is, I mean, we can look at any newspaper and see what's going on with OpenAI or Anthropic these days. [43:02] The speed of these innovations doesn't allow us to stay as predetermined in where the dollar will go. [43:08] And so what I'm hopeful to do with the committee is find a mechanism where you feel like you have the transparency you need. [43:14] And I think the best way to do it is to show you the Vantage dashboard that we've built, which basically gives us a lot more visibility into where the dollars are going and give your teams access so that they can run their own reports. [43:27] And they can hold us accountable to doing what we all have agreed those dollars should do without specifically requiring so many line items. [43:34] Well, I might agree with some of what you've said, but this needs to be a two-way conversation. [43:41] Without the audit, if this is how we use to audit, then a conversation has to take place with our clerks and with us on what we need to see. [43:54] I hear loud and clear that you know what you would like to do, and I might not disagree with all of it. [44:00] I might not disagree with much of it, but we have ways in which we use those lines that you're probably not cognizant of. [44:08] And so I think rather than just hand it to this committee, and then I'll include the Senate in it too, the Senate committee, and just say, [44:18] hey, this is how we're going to do it from now on when we don't have an audit is not – it sets both of us up for friction and possible failure for what we both want to accomplish. [44:32] I hope that makes sense to you. [44:33] The other thing you mentioned about the audit, there were parameters and things that were supposed to happen within the audit. [44:40] So I would like to see kind of what your – I'd like to see if they'd line up and match or if you've changed things. [44:49] And if things needed to be changed from the way the audit was first requested, then here again I think Congress has to be included in that discussion [44:57] because we were the ones who wrote the rules for the audit. [45:02] See where I'm getting at? [45:03] Yes, ma'am. [45:04] So I look forward to working with you on that. [45:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [45:06] And we'll follow up, ma'am. [45:07] Thank you, Ranking Member. [45:08] Thank you, the full committee chairman, Mr. Cole. [45:10] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [45:11] Mr. Secretary and General, I invite you to comment on this as well after the Secretary's remarks if it's appropriate and you choose to. [45:20] Last few years, the Army's requested less than the minimum production rate of 36 platforms or sets for the Paladin program, [45:29] kind of risking the production line, stoppages, workforce layoffs. [45:35] The fiscal year 2027 requests zero out of Paladin procurement despite having only awarded 518 of the original acquisition objectives of 689 sets. [45:48] I guess what I'm trying to figure out, perhaps you can enlighten me on, is number one, is this because of budget constraints or are we moving on from the platform? [45:58] Is the decision to make a change there? [46:01] Or, you know, again, we don't know what might or might not be in the $350 billion request that's coming later down the road. [46:14] Is that something that would be put in there? [46:16] I'm just trying to figure out where we're headed on the program and whether the objective is to get rid of it or to play it or do it in some different way. [46:25] Sure, I'll go first real fast. [46:31] So, sir, I was a private on a Paladin a long time ago. [46:35] So, the system's a great system, but we need to move to a lighter system. [46:41] I mean, when you look at what it takes to get a Paladin someplace and you get what it takes to get HIMARS and how the capabilities of that weapon system compared to the Paladin, [46:52] there's no comparison. [46:53] So, we're looking forward to our pacing threat. [46:57] We need to move to systems that weigh a lot less so we can get it where it needs to be in a time of need. [47:06] And to specifically answer your question, Chairman, we are looking at a mobile tactical cannon, [47:12] which can emplace, I think it's 40 seconds versus 15 minutes, which matters a lot with the drone threat. [47:19] If you look at the flood in Ukraine on either side, it's just really hard to move out and get fires ready to go. [47:26] And then, I mean, you have to do it incredibly quickly. [47:28] The Paladin's just incapable of it at speed. [47:31] And so, while we think the Paladin will be in our lives for a while because we want to be good custodians of the assets the American taxpayer has given us, [47:39] we think that new purchases to balance that platform out should be something different. [47:43] Believe me as Secretary, we've been looking for a new gun for a long, long time. [47:47] And we've gone through multiple iterations. [47:50] So, I'm just trying to get a feel for what the plan is and what we're looking towards. [47:55] So, that's a helpful response. [47:58] Given that, I mean, how does this hold in procurement? [48:04] And I think you've answered part of this, align with the Army's stated priority of long-range precision fires. [48:09] You haven't abandoned, obviously, that. [48:11] You're just looking for a new way forward or a new instrument? [48:15] Yes, sir. [48:16] And if you look at the Koreans have a very good version with Hanwha. [48:19] There are a lot of solutions that other nations have used. [48:22] And we as an Army have got to capture a lot of that new innovation and fires. [48:27] And so, this will be part of a balanced portfolio of fires. [48:31] So, are you comfortable that you have a pretty clear vision of what it is you want to do going forward? [48:36] You know, it's one thing to decide, okay, we need to move something different, but what? [48:40] I mean, what would be the next iteration for long-term fires in your view? [48:45] Yeah, sir, I think we do have a pretty good view of where we're going. [48:50] I think out of all of the new PAEs that the secretary and team created, our fires portfolio team is probably the best organized right now. [49:04] I mean, it's only been, you know, coming up on four or five months that we've organized in this manner. [49:11] But they've been pushing pretty fast. [49:15] Lieutenant General Lozano is in charge. [49:18] So, it's a mix of the system. [49:21] So, we think there's a lot of promise in the mobile tactical cannon. [49:25] As the secretary talked about, we've been in, you know, search for, you know, a system like this. [49:31] We think that it can be produced now. [49:33] We'd like it to be on a common chassis so our systems are easier to maintain across the force. [49:43] And we're not walking away from long-range fires. [49:46] We have to have them in our inventory based off of what we think the pacing threat is, what we know the pacing threat is. [49:52] But just look at what's going on right now in the opening salvo of the fight in Iran. [49:58] The Army had a crucial part of that with our fires. [50:01] Well, I would love to get – and I'm not going to take the committee's time on this, but just perhaps privately to get a brief on this in terms of, again, where you think we're headed. [50:12] I understand this is a time of great change, and we're learning. [50:17] As my friend Mr. Calvert said, this war in Ukraine started at one kind of war and is involved in another one. [50:24] I don't know that any of us saw that coming at the very beginning of this conflict. [50:28] So, it's a transformational time. [50:31] But obviously, as you mentioned yourself, General, we have a pacing threat. [50:37] This is an area where we have always excelled. [50:40] We outdo everybody else. [50:42] That's an edge I don't want to lose down the road. [50:45] So, again, I've seen a lot of starts and stops in long-range artillery acquisition over the last 20 years. [50:55] You know, everything from the Crusader to the endless – lots of systems that were talked about that never happened. [51:01] And, you know, I think that may be one of the challenges that we have now, that perhaps we missed opportunities earlier. [51:09] I just don't want to see that happen again. [51:13] I've got a lot of other questions, but I'm not going to overstay my welcome, Mr. Chairman. [51:20] And, again, thank you very much. [51:22] Appreciate the information. [51:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [51:24] Thank you, gentlemen. [51:25] We'll be happy to submit the questions for – [51:27] Well, I might be here for another round. [51:29] Oh, well, we could. [51:30] We could. [51:31] If you want another round, Mr. Chairman, we will have one. [51:33] Mr. Case recognized. [51:34] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [51:35] Mr. Secretary, first of all, I endorse the comments of the chair of the full committee [51:45] and the chair of the ranking committee regarding General George. [51:49] I personally had very high confidence in his leadership at a really critical time for our Army and our country. [51:56] And now I personally have to start over again with an uncertain result in a critical time. [52:01] When you collectively, the President, the Secretary, and yourself decide to summarily fire the Chief of Staff of the Army publicly, overtly, [52:13] and I would even say humiliatingly and cruelly, without any offer, apparently, of a graceful exit, you at least owe Congress, the public, [52:25] and I think most importantly the soldiers, some explanation, which you did not do. [52:30] And you consciously chose not to, and in doing so you created and compounded numerous issues, including morale, uncertainty, and distrust. [52:40] And I do not believe that that is acceptable or should be acceptable. [52:43] So I want to be really clear. [52:45] Now, I can go on because I don't need a response, but I feel I need to offer you the opportunity to respond. [52:51] And if you don't want to, that's fine. [52:52] I'll just go on with my questions. [52:54] I'm happy to respond, Congressman. [52:56] I was in North Carolina when General George was asked to put in his resignation paperwork with my family for my kid's spring break. [53:03] When we drove back from North Carolina, I drove straight to General George's house. [53:06] We walked right in and we all gave him a hug. [53:08] There is no person that has more respect for General George and his 42 years of service, his Purple Heart, his wife Patty, their grandkids, their kids. [53:19] I adore them. [53:20] And he was an amazing transformational leader. [53:22] That being said, the civilian leadership, the design of our system is that they get to pick the leaders that they want, and we execute on those orders. [53:31] And what I can say about General Lameev sitting beside me is his family, his kids are in serving now. [53:36] He served 35 years, has led a lot of our most important formations. [53:41] And what is so amazing about the United States Army is, and we've done calls with all of our leadership over the last week. [53:48] The United States Army goes rolling along for the last 250 years. [53:51] We have amazing leaders all over the world who can step in at a moment's notice and keep fighting for our Army. [53:57] And my commitment to you, I think, is as you get to know General Lameev, you will find him to be a patriotic American, too, whose family is multi-generational service. [54:06] But just to wrap back up, I, too, love General George. [54:11] I suggested you would take lessons from history, especially President Truman's firing of General MacArthur, which he did publicly and with an explanation. [54:20] And there was a great outcry over it, but we all knew why. [54:24] And in time, I think we all, most of us at least, agreed with that. [54:27] So we'll leave it at that for now. [54:30] I'm trying to make sense of your FY 2027 budget, especially the allocation as between discretionary and reconciliation. [54:39] Because we're, of course, dealing here with discretionary. [54:42] And yet your budget overall is a combination of discretionary and reconciliation. [54:47] And I do not exactly understand, and maybe this is coming in the delayed justifications, why you chose to put some things in discretionary versus reconciliation. [54:58] So if I'm taking a look at basically your four buckets, I'm seeing that in your procurement summary, you're putting about 41% into reconciliation. [55:07] In research and development, you're putting less than 1% into reconciliation. [55:12] Your personnel, you're not putting anything, even though you did put personnel in reconciliation at FY 26. [55:19] And then if I understand correctly, on your O&M, you've got about 14%. [55:24] So I'm not exactly following your rationale here. [55:27] And by the way, your approach that you're following in the Army seems to be quite different from the other services. [55:32] So that in and of itself is its own question. [55:35] But just to, you know, focus on one particular area, which I'm not sure I understand. [55:40] I'm looking at your procurement summary, which is 41% reconciliation. [55:48] Missile procurement is all of that. [55:51] What is missile procurement in FY 27? [55:56] And why is that all in reconciliation? [55:58] And is any of that directly or indirectly related to drawdown in Iran? [56:06] Yes, sir. [56:09] So thank you for the question. [56:11] So in the reconciliation, we have missile procurement. [56:15] We have some earmark for OIB modernization. [56:20] And we have some facility improvements. [56:23] And then when you end up procurement, it's to go after the systems that we, you know, spoke about in the very beginning, [56:31] which is that, you know, the transformational platforms that we're looking for. [56:35] Next Generation C2, it's the MB 75, the Abrams tank replacement. [56:41] So, you know, they're both in both of those. [56:47] Why did you load so much in procurement into reconciliation when you didn't do that in the other lines? [56:56] Yes. [56:59] In partnership with OSW and the Deputy Secretary of War, this was the plan we came up with. [57:03] And I'm very happy Congressman to follow up with more details and rationality or office, if that's helpful. [57:08] Okay. Well, probably for the full committee, because I think this is something we're all sorting through is why discretionary versus reconciliation. [57:15] And by the way, what is your contingency plan if we don't do reconciliation at the amount? [57:20] Are you then going to reprioritize your missile procurement back into the discretionary budget? [57:25] Or is that just a lower priority? [57:27] You know, those are the questions that we have. [57:29] Yes, sir. We can follow up with the full committee, sir. [57:31] Thank you. I yield back. [57:32] Mr. Womack. [57:35] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time, and thanks to the gentlemen for their service to our country. [57:42] I will, at the outset, associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Cole, both as it concerns the work of our Secretary of the Army, Mr. Driscoll. [57:57] I wholeheartedly agree with what he said about your capability and about your demonstrated leadership in the greatest Army on the planet and also for his remarks about General George. [58:14] I found Randy George to be a patriotic American. [58:17] I won't go through all of his background, but a distinguished representative of our Army, [58:23] and I, too, regret the fact under the conditions that he left the service, and I think that our country will regret that circumstance. [58:34] That's another story. [58:35] Secretary Driscoll, we understand the Army's need to innovate and produce to ensure that we never fight a fair fight, [58:43] that we're ready to dominate at a moment's notice. [58:47] That's what we do as an Army. [58:48] We also understand it can be difficult to update or modernize doctrine to keep up with the innovation that we've spoken a lot about today. [58:57] Sometimes they don't move at the same speed. [59:01] So my question is what mechanisms exist or should exist to update doctrine and forest design fast enough to incorporate these systems? [59:13] Because without the marriage of these two speed, and that's been a constant theme in your remarks today, [59:21] if we don't accomplish speed in the doctrinal aspect, then the innovation sometimes can be slow to the table. [59:32] Can you help us? [59:33] Yes, sir. [59:34] One of the things we did with Army Transformation Initiative was consolidating down how we train and where we purchase into one command, [59:41] and that may seem slightly esoteric or just bureaucratic speak for nothingness, [59:48] but it is actually very substantive because both those groups used to exist in a silo. [59:53] Despite best attempts, when you have two different command structures, they move out on their own, [59:57] and what we have learned from Ukraine in particular is the software and the TTPs for drones is updating weekly or biweekly, [1:00:05] and you have got to be able to adjust and adapt. [1:00:08] And so that is one core fundamental step we made to how we actually think about these things. [1:00:13] And then another thing that we're doing is we have SAG-U, who's been working with Ukraine since the very beginning. [1:00:19] They are sending out weekly newsletters and updates about what the Ukrainians are doing to adjust and adapt. [1:00:25] We are partnering with allies like the British and the Israelis to get their lessons, too. [1:00:30] And we know, Congressman, that it's exactly what you were saying. [1:00:34] If we get the right equipment to our soldiers but don't adjust our TTPs and don't train them on it, [1:00:39] that is completely insufficient just as it is to train them but not give them the things they need to fight and win an unfair fight. [1:00:45] General Laniv, I consider part of the secret sauce of our ability as an Army are the Combat Training Center rotations that our military goes through. [1:00:55] How are these innovations and this doctrinal change finding its way into our CTCs? [1:01:02] Sir, thanks for the question. [1:01:05] I've been accused of being a CTC zealot over the years. [1:01:10] I think they're the most important ingredient that we have that produces an Army that can fight and win anywhere. [1:01:17] You know, part of the CTC program always has been to experiment with new TTPs there. [1:01:25] I mean, that's where a brigade commander gets the ability to, you know, fight and experiment with, you know, new ways to look at the battlefield. [1:01:36] And then to take those lessons learned from the rotation and propagate it out across the Army. [1:01:42] We're not going to step away from the importance of our CTCs. [1:01:45] We can't. They're too important to us. [1:01:47] But because now there are CTCs don't straddle two different commands, Forces Command and TRADOC like it used to be. [1:01:57] It's all under one command under T2COM. [1:02:00] The ability to experiment with new equipment and get those lessons learned back into the training base is faster than I've ever seen since I've been in the military. [1:02:10] And I think it's going to go even faster with some of the new things that the Combined Arms Center is experimenting with. [1:02:16] An AI data platform that is able to get us our doctrine at a much faster pace to get it out to our formations and to integrate that into the training base at speed that we haven't seen before. [1:02:31] We're trying to take advantage of it all. [1:02:32] But that change in one command, it really takes a soldier from the living room through recruiting, through the training base, and out to their first unit. [1:02:43] And then also at the combat training centers that they own, as they're looking and working with the gear that that same command who owns the P&E is just churning out. [1:02:54] So you're getting that soldier touch point at a much faster pace in the acquisition process, and then we're also testing it at the combat training centers. [1:03:02] There's a lot of synergy there that we haven't had before, but we cannot walk away from what the CTCs also produce, [1:03:09] which is the basic blocking and tackling that our formations have to be able to have to be able to kick anybody's butt in the world. [1:03:16] You still have to have somebody prepared to close with and destroy the enemy when needed. [1:03:23] Secretary, did you want to address the topic? [1:03:26] Yeah, the very last bit was just to the portion of the T2COM and all of these changes that have occurred. [1:03:32] One of my surprises has been when I came into the role, like why didn't this happen a while ago? [1:03:38] And one of the reasons is you have so many, and I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but entrenched interests for where we have our headquarters, [1:03:45] where we have our employees, where it's just everybody gets used to the thing and it is really, really hard to change it. [1:03:51] And so very sincerely and not intending to be sycophantic, without President Trump's air cover and without Secretary of War providing a shield for the kind of discomfort that comes from these changes, [1:04:03] the United States Army could never have made these changes. [1:04:06] Good. Real quickly, a question about munitions. [1:04:09] I know this entire committee is concerned about the rapid, you know, supply degradation on our munitions. [1:04:20] To either of you, is this a true risk to our country if we don't resupply ourselves, [1:04:30] if we don't engage the defense industrial base to produce the type of munitions that are going to be required in the next fight, [1:04:36] wherever that is? [1:04:39] Congressman, I'd say this is an incredible opportunity for our country to put munitions back on the shelf and in the magazine that are built for scale [1:04:49] and are built to be a balance for the exquisite munitions that we had historically purchased over the last 30 and 40 years. [1:04:56] Our requirements documents, and we have to own this as an Army, had gotten out of hand. [1:05:00] It was when we went to market to get a new pistol, the requirement document was over 400 pages to describe the pistol. [1:05:06] And so we have done that nearly in every instance of purchasing the last couple of decades. [1:05:11] The opportunity right now as we rearm and become even stronger to do this right and to do it rationally [1:05:18] and to do it the way the Ukrainians are doing it and the Israelis and a lot of other nations around the world, [1:05:23] I think will make us stronger than ever at the end of it. [1:05:26] Thank you, gentlemen. [1:05:27] Thank you. [1:05:29] It's my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the full committee. [1:05:33] Mr. Laura. [1:05:34] Thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman, and to the ranking member and the chair of the full committee, [1:05:41] and to my colleagues. [1:05:42] It's a day of hearings. [1:05:44] So I appreciate the opportunity to be able to ask some questions and to listen to the answer. [1:05:52] I have to start with saying I think it was maybe two days I had the opportunity to meet with General George, [1:06:00] and it was a great meeting, so I was really very upset and disturbed at how summarily he was dismissed. [1:06:13] And that, I just think that was really handled very, very poorly with a man of that rank and knowledge. [1:06:26] The other person as well as I'm still trying to figure out why the head of the Army chaplains was let go as well. [1:06:37] I mean, that just seems, I don't know what the reasoning is, and I can't fathom what the reasoning is [1:06:43] in letting someone who had, by all accounts, done a very, very good, capable job in that piece. [1:06:50] So, but thank you all for being here. [1:06:54] Mr. Secretary, from preliminary documents that we have received, funding for Army aviation in 2027 [1:07:01] drops from about $4.1 billion to $1.9 billion. [1:07:04] That's a $2 billion cut. [1:07:06] That includes reduction to the Chinooks, Apaches, where there's no longer a line, [1:07:12] the Blackhawks, while funding for the future Flora increases significantly, the MV75. [1:07:22] At the same time, the President's National Security Strategy, [1:07:26] that document which I have here and which I've read, states that, quote, [1:07:31] the American national power depends on a strong industrial sector capable of meeting both peacetime [1:07:37] and wartime production demands, end quote. [1:07:40] So I'm concerned that cutting these programs so sharply weakens that industrial base, [1:07:45] including the workforce and suppliers that support Army aviation. [1:07:50] The decisions have real consequences. [1:07:52] Reductions to the Chinook program affect approximately 13,000 jobs across 320 suppliers in 39 states, [1:08:02] with an estimated $848 million economic impact. [1:08:07] The decision to fund only one Blackhawk in 2027 may affect 240 suppliers across 41 states, [1:08:15] and Sikorsky programs alone support more than 55,000 jobs nationwide. [1:08:20] At the same time, the reductions are occurring before the future long-range assault aircraft. [1:08:27] Laura has even reached a flyable prototype. [1:08:33] And again, I had this conversation with General George. [1:08:38] There's conflicting views as to the timeline, and it talked about the end of December [1:08:46] to looking at the end of the decade, 2029 or 2030, before we're really on line. [1:08:54] So for me, it raises a concern about the potential gap in capability for both the active Army [1:09:01] and for the reserve components. [1:09:06] So how does this, quote, cut everything approach align with the administration's stated priority [1:09:13] of sustaining and strengthening the defense industrial base? [1:09:16] I think so, but I'll ask the question, do you understand the difficulty of reopening lines that close? [1:09:23] And what steps are being taken to ensure that we do not lose critical production capacity [1:09:28] that may be needed to surge in the future? [1:09:31] And did the Army consult with the industry before making these decisions? [1:09:35] If so, who and when? [1:09:36] I will open, ranking member, and then hand it to my colleague, General Laniv. [1:09:40] To the employees of Sikorsky and all of the suppliers for the Blackhawk, [1:09:44] that has been one of our best platforms we have had as an Army. [1:09:49] As much as I want to, I love, you know, there isn't anything better than Sikorsky and Blackhawks, [1:09:54] but I think this is a bigger, wider issue of the industrial base in this area of Army aviation at large. [1:10:03] So I want to talk about the whole spectrum here. [1:10:09] When you talk about Chinook, there's no longer an Apache line, you know. [1:10:14] Lakotas may be used for some other purpose, but I think it's potentially a very serious issue. [1:10:20] Yes, ma'am. We are, this is similar to how we're thinking about fires and how we're thinking about ground vehicles [1:10:26] and how we're thinking about the counter drone and drone. [1:10:30] We think we need a portfolio of solutions, and we are over-indexed right now on a solution that is a little bit, [1:10:38] it's cheaper, and so we have a lot of them. [1:10:40] Blackhawks will be in our lives, as will Chinooks, and as will Apaches for a very long time. [1:10:46] But the flora investment is necessary because if you look at the Indo-Pacific, [1:10:50] the distances we have to go and the speed with which we have to move, [1:10:53] our current platforms are just not sufficient in and of themselves. [1:10:56] And so, as part of the portfolio of solutions, we need to, as a country we believe, [1:11:01] over-invest in flora to get it online as quickly as possible, [1:11:05] and then have it as part of a constellation of options that we have for different theaters. [1:11:11] Yes, ma'am. If I could add, and thank you for the question. [1:11:15] You know, we know that we're going to have those platforms in our system for a long time. [1:11:21] We're going to have to modernize the Blackhawk to continue on its path to supporting us [1:11:29] until we get the full complement of the Cheyenne. [1:11:32] And I think, as you brought up a great point about the OIB and the investments that have to be made in the OIB, [1:11:40] and I think if you take a look at how we're going after the Cheyenne, [1:11:45] we want to be able to produce some of those parts immediately in the OIB [1:11:50] and keep Corpus Christi as vibrant as possible. [1:11:55] We think there's a piece in here for both. [1:12:00] Then there's the other part of being able to produce the spare parts that we need ourselves for our rotary wing fleet. [1:12:12] And there's some technical data that we think we should have the ability to use for advanced manufacturing to be able to keep these aircraft flying. [1:12:20] If I could just say, I think there's $100 million in the budget for every year for the modernization of the Blackhawk [1:12:31] and the integration of that with what you're doing. [1:12:34] But look, I understand the Cadillac of helicopters, which is what the now named Cheyenne is. [1:12:46] But there is a need for these other efforts, and that leads to a question of what happens – [1:12:57] I mean, we're dealing with the active component, but what happens with the National Guard? [1:13:01] I might add, the 13 service people – of the 13 service people who have been killed in the Iran conflict here, [1:13:09] nine were reservists. [1:13:12] So we are looking at how are we providing the best to the Guard while we're moving. [1:13:22] And again, there needs to be some accuracy in terms of when, if we don't have a flyable prototype 18 months from now, [1:13:35] and then before it comes online, we're talking a number of years, and that's if there's no problems at all. [1:13:43] I'm just trying to point out, I think there is a real serious issue here with regard to this gap. [1:13:53] And that is in terms of a national security strategy document that talks about a strong industrial sector, [1:14:03] capable of meeting both peacetime and wartime production demands. [1:14:08] So I think we are falling short in that effort, and I'd love to – my time is more than up, but I want to say I'd like to continue that conversation, [1:14:17] and I think we ought to continue that conversation about what we are losing in this process. [1:14:22] Thank you very much. [1:14:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:14:24] Thank you, gentlelady. [1:14:25] Mr. Carter. [1:14:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:14:32] My voice is a little better today. [1:14:35] It will be a little better tomorrow, too. [1:14:37] But right now it sounds pretty terrible. [1:14:40] First of all, thank you for coming to visit Fort Hood. [1:14:44] It was a treat having you there. [1:14:46] I was very impressed with your knowledge and your enthusiasm. [1:14:53] It impressed me a lot. [1:14:56] You're welcome to come any other time. [1:14:59] And next time we'll put you up at the Driscoll Hotel in Austin, okay? [1:15:05] Last year's Defense Appropriations Bill, Congress invested in developing a ruggedized, fuel-flexible power system designed for contested logistics, contained environments. [1:15:24] Our soldiers need energy, reliable and efficient systems that support their survivability, operational flexibility, and ensure their mission success. [1:15:37] How is the Army evaluating the operational benefits of these fuel-agnostic low signature power systems, particularly their ability to operate across diverse and ungraded fuel sources? [1:15:54] What steps are being taken to accelerate their fueling to reduce logistical risk and strengthen energy resilience in the Indo-Pacific and other contested environments? [1:16:12] Sir, thanks for the question. [1:16:14] We're looking at the wide range. [1:16:16] We're not stepping away from any power source that's out there that will meet this need. [1:16:23] You hit on a key component for how we're going to have to organize ourselves to be able to fight in the Pacific. [1:16:31] So when you look at our new vehicles that we're going after, the ISV and then the heavy ISV, there's a power generation capability that we've asked for in each one of these platforms. [1:16:43] So we can run C2 nodes. [1:16:47] We can provide power at the edge that we know that we're going to need in the future battlefield. [1:16:53] Power is one of those elements that is continually the demand for it based off of our new technology continues to grow. [1:17:05] So we have to have power generation in our platforms that we're going after. [1:17:10] And you'll be able to see that across the systems that we're asking for. [1:17:15] And judge, it was awesome getting to spend time with you and see the campus style dining. [1:17:20] And we look forward, if anybody wants to learn more about that, to tell you about what we're doing for our food services. [1:17:25] But energy is a massive, I think we're seeing this play out domestically with AI data centers as kind of the news of the day. [1:17:33] But modern warfare requires an immense amount of energy that has to get pushed forward to very difficult congested places in the world. [1:17:42] And we are actively working on it. [1:17:45] Batteries, we're investing a lot in what can hold the energy. [1:17:49] Small nuclear reactors is something the Army's been tasked with on behalf of the Federal Government and the Pentagon to get on an Army base by 2028. [1:17:58] And what we're cautiously optimistic is the learnings from that will be able to be pushed forward to the Indo-Pacific [1:18:04] and to places like Guam that just have inconsistent power supplies. [1:18:09] Well, it's very important. [1:18:12] I watched a rail gun operate at UT, and it is very impressive. [1:18:20] But it takes a huge amount of power. [1:18:23] Right now, I think only the Navy is carrying that much power to make that gun work. [1:18:30] But it is awesome. [1:18:33] The big one will knock out three square blocks with no power. [1:18:39] It doesn't explode. [1:18:40] It's a critical force. [1:18:41] It just destroys everything. [1:18:43] It's pretty amazing. [1:18:46] Thank you. [1:18:47] Have I got time for another question? [1:18:53] Okay. [1:18:56] Secretary Driscoll, when you last appeared before this committee, you highlighted how we can't afford to expend multi-million dollar interceptors [1:19:10] against low-cost unmanned aerial systems. [1:19:13] And that's what we're talking about. [1:19:16] Across this country, there are people that are working on this. [1:19:19] But to be specific, in my district, there's a company that's developed an autonomous weapon system called the Bulldog, [1:19:31] that has demonstrated real promise in countering low-cost, fast-moving drone threats. [1:19:38] These efforts reflect a kind of innovation our industrial base needs. [1:19:45] And this is young entrepreneurs that have come up with a solution. [1:19:50] Are you familiar with this? [1:19:52] And how's the Army talking about partnering up with that? [1:19:57] Yes, sir. [1:19:58] We've had the Bullfrog team into the office a couple of times. [1:20:01] Under GIATA 401 that General Laniv referenced, they have tested it. [1:20:05] The key to a future successful air defense is layered solutions at different varying degrees of cost. [1:20:13] There may be times where you want to use a couple million dollar Patriot interceptor because the risk is so high. [1:20:18] But you'd strongly prefer to use something like the Bullfrog, which is just a round fired at a threat. [1:20:24] And for the Shaheed drones, that round is really effective if you can get it to the right place. [1:20:29] And what technology is doing is a human being would have a pretty hard time reacting quickly enough to a drone swarm to be able to use that tool, [1:20:38] where technology with AI is probably there. [1:20:40] And so very specifically to your question, Judge, we are testing Bullfrog. [1:20:45] It is in our pipeline of things we are exploring. [1:20:47] And we think solutions like that and others, like directed energy and lasers, will be part of a constellation that we'll have going forward. [1:20:55] Well, I shot the thing and it impressed me. [1:20:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:21:00] Thank you. [1:21:01] Ms. Lee. [1:21:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:21:04] Thank you both for being here and for your service. [1:21:07] Secretary, I agree with you and your approach with the Army Transformation Initiative. [1:21:14] But we, as Congress members, have a duty to our constituents and taxpayers to ensure that, one, we're equipping our war fighters in the most effective way, but also efficiently and not wasting tax dollars. [1:21:31] So we have to ensure accountability and also prevent fraud. [1:21:36] So I associate myself with the ranking members comments about auditing. [1:21:42] But there's obviously a balance between moving into innovation and acquisition and diversifying our base, but also ensuring that we can meet wartime production demands in a sustainable way. [1:22:01] So I wanted to just ask you what measurable progress has the Army made in diversifying our base and what are you doing to ensure that new entrants will be able to scale to meet wartime production demands? [1:22:17] Congresswoman, to the audit question, you deserve transparency and your voters demand you to hold us accountable. [1:22:28] These are their hard-earned dollars that are being lent to us on their behalf. [1:22:32] And there are many tools today that exist in private sector companies that provide this transparency or at least significantly more transparency. [1:22:42] And we, as an Army, have underinvested in those historically because we have been focused in, I think, my opinion on some of the wrong ways to provide transparency. [1:22:51] And so I am very optimistic that this year you will start to see massive improvements in how we can answer your team's questions very quickly on where the dollars are going and are we using them how you intended us to. [1:23:04] For the getting new entrants into the broader defense industrial base, it is a, again, this is one of the lessons that I've learned in the year. [1:23:12] It is a more complicated, nuanced problem than I had assumed. [1:23:15] I think I was the one on record within my first couple of months saying I would count as a success if one of the defense primes went out of business in the first two years and the remainder were stronger. [1:23:24] And what I have since learned is the defense primes, the same unvirtuous cycle I was describing with the ranking member, the defense primes have just had to be built to survive those. [1:23:34] And so they have had to survive our regulatory difficulties. [1:23:38] They've had to have big balance sheets to be able to survive the CRs where we can't actually spend. [1:23:44] The average secretary of the Army, I believe, is only in the seat for 23 months. [1:23:47] And so my signal for demand is not sufficient for most companies to invest behind it. [1:23:52] And so the defense primes have basically taken advantage of regulatory arbitrage and big balance sheets to survive and thrive for a while. [1:23:58] And so how do we overcome that? [1:24:00] I think the way we overcome that is through things like FUSE that we started this year, which is $750 million from the Army that we already had in our budget that we reallocated to investing in small and medium businesses around the country and actually, for the good ones, making sure that we, the Army, can buy amounts that allow them to employ more workers to go out to the markets and raise if they need to and grow into medium and large businesses to balance out who we purchase from. [1:24:27] So it is our first attempt, along with some other things, like collapsing down how we make our purchasing decisions that we hope improve it. [1:24:34] But it is a space where we still need to grow a lot. [1:24:36] Great. [1:24:38] Can I jump in? [1:24:39] Because one of the things that, one of the directions the secretary has pushed us in, our acquisition team, I think, is actually doing a really good job of this. [1:24:48] A small company might come and say, hey, here's what we can do for this price point. [1:24:54] And your first reaction would be like, yeah, we want 100,000 of those immediately. [1:25:01] We dig through it to see if they can even scale. [1:25:04] If they can't scale, we're moving on. [1:25:06] If there's not a promise, not a promise from them, but a promise that we can see across the line that they will be able to scale and scale fast and get the price point down, then we go pretty hard in with them to see where they can go. [1:25:23] But there's been a couple of companies that have come up and said, hey, this is what we can do. [1:25:27] And you look on the backside and there's no promise. [1:25:30] And we've moved away from that because he's enabled us to be able to do this at a much faster pace. [1:25:35] Thank you. [1:25:37] Just along those lines, can you just tell us what you're using to evaluate whether you're delivering faster timelines, lower costs, and better outcomes? [1:25:49] What are the metrics or how are you measuring that? [1:25:54] So our new PAE structure, the best descriptor of it, I think, to me is these new acquisition teams that model how, like, a Tesla or a more modern company would do things, which is the equivalent of having your manufacturers and your engineers and your accountants all co-located to solve through these problems and to be able to bring in new entrants. [1:26:17] To the idea of measuring specifically, right now we are coming up with new toolkits to try to do that. [1:26:24] It is hard across different verticals to see who is succeeding and who is failing. [1:26:28] And one of the reasons the problem perpetuated and existed for 30 and 40 years is measurement is hard. [1:26:35] And so it is hard for you to be able to say, hey, you are on pace with what you told me. [1:26:39] Because there are all sorts of externalities that can make it so it's just difficult to measure and judge. [1:26:43] But what we have done for these new six PAEs is we've asked them to come up with their own scorecard. [1:26:48] We are going to compare the scorecards across the different six, see which ones are working, and then scale that scorecard across all six. [1:26:55] And then the very last thing I'll say is one of the PAEs, if anybody has ever read the book Scrum, which is about kind of modern software development, [1:27:02] we actually have one of the PAEs using that model of development, which is what most Silicon Valley companies or many of them would have been using in the last 30 years, [1:27:09] which is totally new and different for the Pentagon. [1:27:12] And we are going to measure their outcomes against the other five to see if that type of model can work in the Pentagon. [1:27:17] Great. Thank you. [1:27:18] Great. Thank you. [1:27:20] Mr. Owlsey. [1:27:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:27:23] Thank you both for being here. [1:27:24] You're double-headed now, and the mission is large, especially in a time of war. [1:27:29] And as we look at a $1.5 trillion budget, that's a demand signal from the administration that we should be on a wartime footing. [1:27:36] I think we need to talk about that a little bit more. [1:27:38] But as we look at the world as it is if it were 1938, FDR, even three years before we got involved in World War II, [1:27:45] recognized the need of a growing threat across the world and said we need to start building the arsenal of democracy. [1:27:51] We're calling it the arsenal of freedom now, and so we must understand that that's going to cost more to prevent the war, but win it if asked to fight. [1:28:00] I appreciate what you said, Mr. Secretary, about housing and food and improved barracks across the force. [1:28:06] That's Judge's love language right there, is that we need to be doing more faster. [1:28:11] As we went to Lithuania a year ago, they have the capability of building a beautiful new barracks in six months. [1:28:18] And for us, it takes years and years, long after the mold has already taken an effect. [1:28:22] And so I appreciate you wanting to do that, as well as the food and the raises that we're asking for. [1:28:27] To echo Judge, the Bullfrog's got a tremendous capability, and I'm glad that it's becoming apparent. [1:28:33] With respect to the MV-75 Cheyenne, great name. The tribes were very honored by that. [1:28:40] What we've entered into in aviation as a helicopter pilot and a jet pilot myself is a new threshold, a new envelope of flight that is absolutely necessary. [1:28:52] The MV-22 has proven itself time and again, and the MV-75 likewise will do the same. [1:28:57] It's twice as fast. It travels almost three times as far with twice the altitude. [1:29:02] The survivability of both those in that aircraft and those might be on the ground that it's going to go rescue, [1:29:09] it's imperative that this thing gets funded, and yes, it's going to cost a little more. [1:29:13] What I would ask about is, and General George was on board with this as well, is, [1:29:19] I read from General Gill, the PAE for Maneuver, said, [1:29:24] if I was king and I had all the money in the world and all the engineers and there were no limits, [1:29:27] we'd probably be able to do it in a matter of months. [1:29:29] I would argue take out the engineers and you can do it in a couple of months. [1:29:34] Get rid of the minions. We've got this problem in the Navy. Get rid of them in the Army. [1:29:38] This thing stopped flying in 2021. [1:29:40] So basically what we stopped flying in 2021, you could get it flying again, and that's the MV-75. [1:29:46] So I'd like to hear from you guys what you think about the MV-75 and its development and getting it fielded as fast as possible. [1:29:53] Sir, I think you're spot on. [1:29:57] I think this system is going to be, for us, revolutionary. [1:30:03] The distance alone that this is going to be able to provide us is what we need for the fight in the Pacific. [1:30:10] And we're going to be able to put a lot of capabilities on this, too. [1:30:14] There's been a lot of questions about medevac. [1:30:17] You know, how are we walking away from medevac? We're not. [1:30:19] I mean, but there's a capability, you know, almost like a sled that can come in and out that we're looking at. [1:30:26] So we are taking a lot of lessons learned from the MV-22 development. [1:30:34] So it's not like we're starting from scratch. [1:30:37] We've been working closely with our Marine Corps brothers and sisters to move this as fast as possible. [1:30:45] The other thing I would like to throw out is we're not waiting for that first, you know, aircraft to come. [1:30:51] We're training in it right now in our simulator. [1:30:54] So when we get the aircraft, we can be sprinting with this as fast as possible. [1:30:59] And if I'd like to go back to it, sir, you talked about, you know, barracks and how fast other people can do it. [1:31:06] We really need everybody's help on MILCON reform. [1:31:10] I mean, it costs 68 percent more to build a set of barracks that, you know, you can do in the outside sector a heck of a lot cheaper. [1:31:20] 68 percent more because of all the bureaucracy and red tape that's involved in that. [1:31:28] And we would welcome to work with you all on reform. [1:31:32] Congressman, I don't want to take all your time. [1:31:35] You want me to – I'm very excited to reply. [1:31:37] So, Cheyenne, we do calls. [1:31:40] So the long 10 in the poll is the software because I had the same feeling. [1:31:44] And I was actually horrified when I found out the prototype flu – or whatever. [1:31:48] They use a different word for prototype – flu in 2021. [1:31:51] Like, we've all wanted it, and this is an example of just a broken system not getting us there. [1:31:55] But general GE Aerospace has been working harder on it. [1:32:00] We do a call or I do a call nearly every month with the CEO of Techstrom Bell and GE talking through how can we possibly go any faster. [1:32:07] I believe we are at the front edge of speed until you can start to use generative, like, AI-created code, and the FAA and others are willing to accept that risk. [1:32:17] I think we are going as fast as possible. [1:32:19] But the last bit is what is so exciting about this platform is – and this should blow everyone's minds in the room – we're actually just doing it right where there will be USB ports. [1:32:28] There will be plug-and-play, open modular system, and architecture so that as technology evolves, excuse me, we're able to put that new technology into this platform in a way that the closed systems of the past just have never allowed us. [1:32:42] And the last example I will use, and perhaps I'm glad the ranking members in here, is we had a knob in the Blackhawk that we can 3D print for $3. [1:32:51] It's literally just a knob like a radio knob. [1:32:53] And so we can 3D print it for $3. [1:32:55] We have had to buy four – replace that knob four times a month for the last 20 years. [1:33:00] And because they will not sell us the knob, we have had to pay $40,000 to replace the entire piece of equipment. [1:33:06] And so this – what we are doing with the Cheyenne is we are requiring and demanding and we have all of the intellectual property rights. [1:33:14] So this will never happen again. [1:33:15] We will 3D print the knob and the helicopter will get back in the air. [1:33:18] Thank you. [1:33:19] Thank you. [1:33:20] My time's expired. [1:33:22] Thank you, Chairman. [1:33:23] Mr. Aguilar. [1:33:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:26] Mr. Secretary, you're cited in recent articles about the appointment of Major General Antoinette Gantt for command of the Military District of Washington. [1:33:33] And the striking of four names from the one-star promotion list that drew suspicions of racial and gender discrimination. [1:33:41] The same promotion list was in the news about a month prior in what was seen as personal retribution from the administration against a particular individual, Colonel Dave Butler. [1:33:51] Can you elaborate on why the four individuals were removed from the promotion list? [1:33:55] Congressman, mechanistically, the way that the list works is it comes out of our promotion board. [1:34:03] Me, as Secretary of the Army, sees the list. [1:34:05] We pass it up to OSW. [1:34:07] OSW passes it to the White House. [1:34:09] And then the White House sends a scroll with certain names to the Senate. [1:34:13] I do not know specifically where it is in the process. [1:34:16] I believe that a scroll has been sent to the Senate. [1:34:19] And this isn't trying to be escapatory. [1:34:22] Once it leaves our department, we don't have as much oversight and visibility into it. [1:34:27] And so that is what I know to be true. [1:34:31] What criteria, ways you assemble the list, is you, within your control, before you send it on, what criteria do you use for someone who's going to be promoted to a one-star general? [1:34:46] Or Mr. Secretary, either one. [1:34:48] So, Congressman, I give the guidance to the board who looks at the number of colonels that are available for promotion. [1:34:55] The promotion from Colonel to one-star general is an incredibly difficult process. [1:35:00] I think only 4% get through. [1:35:02] I give the guidance to the board. [1:35:04] Soldiers meet. [1:35:05] Soldiers make their decisions. [1:35:06] And out comes a list from that soldier-led promotion process. [1:35:10] That comes to me to review to ensure the process was done correctly, which it was. [1:35:14] I pass forward the list. [1:35:15] During your tenure, have you struck a name from the list? [1:35:19] Or has everything that has gone through the board and has made its way to your desk, you have passed on? [1:35:24] I have never struck a name. [1:35:27] But you don't know, with respect to these four names, you don't know where in the process, if names were dropped, and if that scroll was sent to the Senate without those names, you don't know where in the process that. [1:35:41] I'm reading the same things that are publicly available, Congressman, that you are. [1:35:44] Do you think the public attention on what has previously been kind of nonpartisan, you know, military, merit-based, do you think that that should give, how do you think the public should react to the merit-based system if there is politicization, you know, within that process along the way? [1:36:02] I don't intend to dodge your question. [1:36:05] It's just hard to answer the hypotheticals of how the public should react, sir. [1:36:09] And in my current role, my understanding is the law has been followed the entire time. [1:36:15] How do you feel about the merit-based system? [1:36:17] I think the United States Army has had an amazing 250-year history. [1:36:22] They haven't gotten to travel now to 25 states and all over the world to see our soldiers. [1:36:26] I think that every single soldier I have talked to, and perhaps because of the dynamic and the power difference between me and the soldier I'm talking to, they're not telling me what they're thinking. [1:36:36] But going all the way back to when my granddad served in World War II, my dad was in Vietnam and I was in, I hope my son and daughter serve. [1:36:43] The meritocracy that has existed is what has made it so great. [1:36:47] And I think that the vast majority of soldiers believe the meritocracy is still alive and well. [1:36:51] I agree. [1:36:53] I agree with everything that you said. [1:36:55] The concern would be an erosion of that system and if that merit-based system now has to be filtered through a political lens, then I think we have huge concerns. [1:37:09] And I think that that is not a system that your grandfather went through, that you went through, that your father went through in the service. [1:37:17] And so that's the concern that we have. [1:37:20] Look, we've got a lot of questions. [1:37:22] This committee has a lot of questions about numbers and categories. [1:37:25] But I do think like the root of what I'm trying to get to from my question is the American public needs to understand and needs to feel certain in the decision making that has happened. [1:37:38] You want us to give you resources. [1:37:41] We love and respect and lift up the service members who are helping us. [1:37:46] We also need to understand that the process is fair. [1:37:50] The process is just. [1:37:52] And that's the concern that I have with this. [1:37:56] I'm a little surprised that you're reading this information the same time we are. [1:38:03] If that's how you're finding out, then I think that's a bit of a problem along the way as well and something that if I was on the board, I would have concerns about as well. [1:38:14] So I'll leave it. [1:38:15] I'll leave it there for now. [1:38:16] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. [1:38:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:38:18] Thank you. [1:38:20] Mr. Joyce. [1:38:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:38:23] Secretary Driscoll and General, thank you for being here today. [1:38:27] I applaud what you're doing right now and your commitment to developing this next generation of combat vehicles. [1:38:33] You noted in your written statement, Secretary, that provided the subcommittee that the new M1E3 Abrams tank is lighter, more fuel efficient, more lethal, and better suited for future conflicts. [1:38:44] The tank is designed to adapt to a wide range of threats, including drones and long-range precision weapons. [1:38:49] Can you discuss the importance of this Army's accelerated schedule for the new Abrams tank and how its significant weight reduction is helpful to you? [1:38:57] Absolutely. [1:38:59] Congressman, weight is everything in moving our equipment across the world. [1:39:04] One of the things we failed at so miserably is when we created the Booker tank. [1:39:08] It was actually too heavy to go over 11 of 13 bridges. [1:39:11] I think it was at Fort Campbell. [1:39:12] And if you just extrapolate that out to the entire world, the usefulness of a piece of equipment is how frequently you can use it. [1:39:20] And so what is similarly so amazing for the M1E3 that is the same way the Cheyenne is being built is open architecture. [1:39:30] It will be autonomously able to be controlled outside the vehicle. [1:39:33] It can serve as a power generation source. [1:39:36] And so when we think of all the power that's required on the battlefield, you need heavier equipment to be able to move a lot of that power. [1:39:44] And so this tank can serve as a recharging station for a lot of the equipment that our soldiers need. [1:39:49] And then the very last bit is I think a lot of people, in my opinion, are over-indexing on the flot in Ukraine for what the future of warfare will look like. [1:39:57] That is probably much more similar to trench warfare back in the World War than it is to the vast array of conflicts that we could find ourselves in. [1:40:07] And so if we find ourselves in an urban environment or if we find ourselves moving quickly, the tank is still the king of battle. [1:40:13] Can you discuss how the Army is approaching the development of lower-cost systems such as incorporating artificial intelligence and commercial off-the-shelf hardware? [1:40:22] And would you consider the major, what would you consider the major cost drivers of our tactical missile programs? [1:40:28] And how would you recommend addressing those challenges, becoming more cost-efficient without sacrificing effectiveness? [1:40:35] Yes, sir, I'll hit that back side of that one. [1:40:37] Well, this guy's from Pittsburgh, so I don't know. [1:40:39] Here I am from Pittsburgh. [1:40:41] Steelers fan? [1:40:42] I think everybody in this room is a Steeler fan and knows that the Steelers are in first place right now. [1:40:47] As a long-suffering Browns fan, I'll take that into consideration. [1:40:52] Sure, I'm sorry. [1:40:53] So when you look at munitions alone, it's a depth of the magazine. [1:40:59] So it's the exquisite munitions that cost, you know, a high price point that the primes are producing. [1:41:07] But then there's the lower-cost ones that I talked about earlier that we have to have as well at scale to have the magazine depth that we're going to need for pacing threat. [1:41:18] The AI piece there, you know, we're going to have AI through multiple of our systems in the future, especially in our command and control systems alone, just based off the amount of data that's coming at our commanders at any given point in time. [1:41:39] And we're investing heavily in that to make sure that we get it right in our system. [1:41:44] It's a big part of our C2 push that we're looking for. [1:41:50] One of the things we're doing, Congressman, on our base is that I'm incredibly excited about. [1:41:55] The President, President Trump, has empowered us to take advantage of this amazing asset that the American people have given the Army. [1:42:01] We have millions of acres of land that are underutilized. [1:42:04] And a couple of months ago, we put out a call for data center providers to see if they would come use their own dollars to build on our land and we would get some of the offtake or some of the power that's created on our land. [1:42:18] And we are partnering with two of the largest ones in the nation who build for a lot of the hyperscalers. [1:42:23] And that was intended to be an experiment to basically say, well, what else now can we do on our land? [1:42:28] And so three weeks ago, a call to industry closed where we said, send us your ideas. [1:42:34] And we have from the largest private equity funds, the largest commercial companies to small and medium businesses all over the country, [1:42:41] sent us in over 200 pretty well baked proposals for things that we can do on our Army bases. [1:42:48] And so we are working to work with Commerce and Treasury and OMB to figure out what is the right way to plug these in to how the Army fields itself? [1:42:58] How do we tie it into our arsenals and our depots? [1:43:01] But my best guess is what we will find in a year or two is by letting these private companies in, [1:43:06] we will continue the transformation that we must do that Lenny was talking about to be able to use things like AI to fight the modern fight. [1:43:13] Keep up the great work. Thank you. I yield back. [1:43:15] Ms. Kaplan. [1:43:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:43:19] Sorry to be late. [1:43:20] We have three consecutively planned hearings this morning. [1:43:26] And so I can't be, and I happen to be on those three committees. [1:43:30] So it's been a very interesting morning. [1:43:32] I wanted to say it's a pleasure to welcome you to this committee and congratulations, Mr. Secretary. [1:43:39] And General, thank you. [1:43:41] Coming from an Army and Marine family, thank you for what you do. [1:43:44] My first question is, based on everything you know at this point, does the Trump administration view Russia as an ally, as an adversary, or is it undecided? [1:43:56] Mr. Secretary, have you been in meetings? How do you answer my question? [1:44:02] Congresswoman, adversary. [1:44:06] Adversary. [1:44:07] Adversary. [1:44:08] So I wanted to ask, Ukraine was hit by horrific Russian strikes last night. [1:44:17] And that's become normal. [1:44:22] But there were sanctions placed on Russia that the Trump administration then lifted. [1:44:28] But then, I don't know what's going to happen. [1:44:34] It's like we're in free fall. [1:44:35] But that earned Russia about $10 billion, which allows them to continue the war in Ukraine. [1:44:45] It will prolong the war in Ukraine. [1:44:48] I don't really understand what this administration is doing relative to our historic relationships with people who actually believe in liberty. [1:44:57] But Putin always seems to be let off the hook. [1:45:01] So I don't know what can be done. [1:45:06] Do you expect those sanctions to be reimposed? [1:45:10] And if so, for how long? [1:45:12] I was told they may have just been put on again, that this on and off. [1:45:17] I mean, what happened? [1:45:18] What happened inside the administration? [1:45:20] Congresswoman, under my Title X authorities, I can't speak to the sanctions. [1:45:25] But I can speak to the United States Army has stood by and stood with the Ukrainians from the very first day of the war. [1:45:31] I've been to Kyiv. [1:45:32] I've spent a lot of time with a lot of the Ukrainian leadership. [1:45:36] They have fundamentally altered how humans engage in conflict. [1:45:40] They have done an absolutely amazing job of innovating. [1:45:43] And I am publicly on record saying we are learning a lot from them, and we are changing to a lot of the lessons that they have taught us. [1:45:50] And so I cannot answer your specific question, but I can say we, the United States Army, have served with Ukraine from the beginning. [1:45:57] Well, I'll do anything to help you. [1:45:58] You let me know what you need. [1:46:00] Because I think that what has been happening with this administration, relative to our historic relationships, is appalling. [1:46:10] And I've never seen anything like it in my career, and I have a long one. [1:46:13] So let me move to industrial base. [1:46:16] Thank you, gentlemen, for even knowing it used to exist in our country, and some of us ran for office to try to recover it. [1:46:22] I look at Mr. Joyce smiling at me. [1:46:24] We know what we've been through. [1:46:25] We welcome you to Northern Ohio anytime. [1:46:28] We make the tanks. [1:46:29] We make the Wranglers. [1:46:30] We made the Jeep going back, you know, half a century. [1:46:34] We have the best GM propulsion facility. [1:46:36] We have Ford heavy truck. [1:46:38] We made the Striker. [1:46:40] We know something about moving armies with equipment. [1:46:47] And we also know quite a bit about ammunition. [1:46:51] So we really aren't seen by the country, the people that work here. [1:46:57] A few do. [1:47:00] But I really would invite you, or people you send to our region, because I truly believe, for instance, I'll just mention one unit, which is a National Guard unit, our F-16 unit at Toledo. [1:47:12] It's among the ten best in the country. [1:47:15] But it's a guard unit. [1:47:16] So Army maybe doesn't see them. [1:47:18] I don't know. [1:47:19] I don't know. [1:47:20] But when I compliment the pilots, I say, you are just so. [1:47:28] And they say it's due to the maintainers, Congresswoman. [1:47:31] Next door to this F-16 unit is a reserve unit, an engineering battalion, 983rd Army. [1:47:40] And I'm saying to myself, okay, so I believe those who maintain innovate. [1:47:48] And they have ideas. [1:47:49] But we don't organize that too well. [1:47:51] We're very bureaucratized at the federal level. [1:47:55] But I'm just urging you to think about places where you have exceptional people, near where industry, what remains of it, exists. [1:48:04] And both David and I represent Cleveland Cliffs. [1:48:09] That's just one steel company. [1:48:11] We didn't have that. [1:48:13] I mean, that was missing. [1:48:14] We didn't have steel as a country. [1:48:16] We lost Gary, Indiana. [1:48:18] Now Cleveland Cliffs is there too. [1:48:20] But we're just rebuilding. [1:48:22] So I don't think we're properly structured to put together some of these assets that we have. [1:48:30] We have Warren Tank Command up in Michigan. [1:48:33] But I just think we need to think harder about those inventive minds of people who operate this equipment. [1:48:39] I was on a striker when I was in Kuwait. [1:48:42] But when we got into Iraq, it was obvious that the turret was going up and down. [1:48:49] And I'm not an engineer, but I got that fixed. [1:48:52] I'm just a congresswoman. [1:48:53] And I thought, how could we miss that? [1:48:55] And so how do we better look at your assets to go to those places where we have potential that is not met? [1:49:03] And I would just ask you to think about that question. [1:49:06] Ma'am, first, thank you for the question. [1:49:09] My mother's side of the family comes from East Liverpool, Ohio. [1:49:12] Long line of welders. [1:49:14] Yes. [1:49:15] Of course, they're all Steeler fans. [1:49:18] Ma'am, so we have a lot of equipment. [1:49:23] We have a lot of things in the United States Army. [1:49:25] The most important thing we have is our soldiers. [1:49:29] And they will innovate and they will fix things at the point of need if we enable them to be able to do it. [1:49:38] So the right to repair, the technical data we need, the ability to produce our own parts because the supply chain can't keep up with it. [1:49:48] Yes. [1:49:49] We had soldiers reverse engineer a tail fin that goes on a tank of a helicopter. [1:49:56] Normally it costs $14,000 just to, you know, replace this little tail fin. [1:50:01] Soldiers reverse engineered it, printed it. [1:50:04] It was $3,000 to be able to execute that. [1:50:07] If we unleash them, they will fix all these problems. [1:50:11] We just have to get rid of a little bit of the red tape that's holding us back to be able to do it. [1:50:16] And I think there's a middle ground in here. [1:50:18] We have to, as the secretary said, we have to do this in the very beginning in our contracting to ensure that we have the technical data to be able to execute it. [1:50:26] And then the ability to let us produce the parts that we need to get the equipment that is our legacy equipment that we say legacy, [1:50:34] but it's going to be in our inventory for a long time as we are moving to produce newer platforms, that our soldiers should be able to repair it. [1:50:44] We owe them the ability and the right to be able to do it because they're proud of their equipment. [1:50:53] You all bought it for us. [1:50:55] We want to maintain it. [1:50:56] We just want to have the ability to do it. [1:50:58] But you also want to reinvent it for the future, General, right? [1:51:01] Okay. [1:51:02] Thanks, the gentlelady. [1:51:06] By the way, Anderall is putting their major plant in the state of Ohio. [1:51:09] I saw that. [1:51:10] So you have a modern facility, 500,000 square feet. [1:51:13] What's that? [1:51:14] It's in Ohio. [1:51:15] Well, it's in Ohio. [1:51:17] Close enough. [1:51:18] Yeah. [1:51:19] Is that headquartered in your district? [1:51:20] No, it's not in my, well, very close to my district. [1:51:24] Okay. [1:51:26] Ms. McCollum, we're closing. [1:51:27] Thank you. [1:51:28] Mr. Secretary, I look forward to having our staff follow up with your staff on the next Gen Command [1:51:36] and Control and the lines. [1:51:38] And that might give you an example and your staff an example of how we use the lines so [1:51:43] we can work together on that. [1:51:44] We started out talking about procurement needs to get fixed. [1:51:47] I couldn't agree with you more. [1:51:49] And, General, you ended up talking about how we have to fix contracting. [1:51:53] So we look forward to working with you on that. [1:51:56] On a last note, you heard a lot about General George and how much we really appreciated his [1:52:00] service. [1:52:01] We appreciate your service, too. [1:52:03] We look forward to working with you. [1:52:05] Mr. Chair, I yield. [1:52:06] Thank you. [1:52:08] Before we conclude, I want to thank both of you for attending today. [1:52:13] We appreciate your service to our country. [1:52:15] It's invaluable to the Department to continue to keep this subcommittee informed as we move [1:52:19] along. [1:52:20] We're, you know, all of us in this room hate continuing resolutions. [1:52:24] And so help us help you get us the information we need as quickly as possible where we can get [1:52:30] these appropriation bills done on time. [1:52:34] And with that, this concludes today's hearing. [1:52:37] Thank you. [1:52:38] Thank you very much. [1:52:39] Thank you. [1:52:40] Thank you. [1:52:41] Thank you. [1:52:42] Thank you very much everybody. [1:52:43] Thank you very much for your chance to this session. [1:52:44] We have courier so that you will get out of these positions, you are going to try other [1:52:45] people at the extent. [1:52:46] That's the leading sense of the target bumpers that will think the point for us today's [1:52:47] hearing. [1:52:48] That's the same sort of thing from over the deletion, and that will give us off you [1:52:50] to try this early in or just to offer public relations direction Estaizio by [1:52:51] our authority to shall berzymaُ empresas' administration's that [1:52:52] states. [1:52:53] Thank you. [1:52:54] Thank you very much for the reasons for today's hearing.