About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of House Hearing on U.S. Military Budget Featuring Rep. Rogers and Sec. Driscoll - 05/15/26 from Right Side Broadcasting Network, published May 15, 2026. The transcript contains 30,577 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"We take two shots, him and me, never get old, tells me about a church and a sweet Carissa too. I fly to turn, talking about the Lord and college football, tie a score, but we don't need proof when you're playing with Chuck, the joys of your soul, with some golf on his mind. Me, I pull in slow to..."
[1:55] We take two shots, him and me, never get old, tells me about a church and a sweet Carissa too.
[2:31] I fly to turn, talking about the Lord and college football, tie a score, but we don't need proof when you're playing with Chuck, the joys of your soul, with some golf on his mind.
[4:04] Me, I pull in slow to the country club gate, coffee in hand, always running late, with a smile and a grin and a ball to a tee, it's game time for me.
[4:15] We take two shots off the tee, that's how we roll, one for the scorecard, one for the soul.
[4:21] Mulligan's fly like sweet iced tea at Sagahatchie, where we feel free, laugh at just golf, it's what we do.
[4:32] Chuck Adams swings with grace and glee every Thursday, just him and me.
[4:38] He's got a sun-stained hat and a heart of gold, stories from the fairway that never get old, tells me about a church and a sweet Carissa too.
[4:51] He dubs his wedge and we laugh like fool, lunch at the turn with a burger and fries, talking about the Lord and college football ties.
[5:02] Yeah, we keep score, but we don't need proof when you're playing with Chuck, the joys of your soul.
[5:07] We take two shots off the tee, that's how we roll, one for the scorecard, one for the soul.
[5:14] Mulligan's fly like sweet iced tea at Sagahatchie, where we feel free, laugh at lines, shank in a few.
[5:21] It ain't just golf, it's what we do, Chuck gets swank, it's Tim and me.
[5:30] And the stories share, the slice in the woods, and not a single care.
[5:37] If you ever need joy or a brotherly hug, just come tee it up with old Chuck.
[5:44] We take two shots off the tee, that's how we roll, one for the scorecard, one for the soul.
[5:52] Mulligan's fly like sweet iced tea at Sagahatchie, where we feel free.
[5:57] Yeah, that's our game and always will be Chuck at all.
[6:02] It will come to order.
[15:24] I welcome our witnesses and thank them for their service to our nation.
[15:28] Today we'll hear from the Department of the Army regarding their FY27 budget request.
[15:33] As my colleagues are aware, I am laser focused on bolstering and expanding our industrial base.
[15:40] Last year we worked to fundamentally reform defense acquisition system via the SPEED Act.
[15:46] The reforms enacted in the FY26 NDAA streamlined the process and significantly reduced the time it takes to fill new military capabilities.
[15:55] This year, the focus of the NDA will be expanding the industrial base, both organic and defense-wide.
[16:02] Our defense industrial base, long the envy of the world, has atrophied significantly.
[16:09] Our global munition stockpiles are low and we lack the capacity to rapidly restock magazine depth.
[16:15] The industrial base has shrunk and so has our ability to manufacture for our warfighters at speed and scale.
[16:21] Our government-owned depots, arsenals, ammunition plants, and shipyards are a vital component of our overall capacity to manufacture and sustain critical capabilities.
[16:34] But as bad as the contraction has been in the private sector's manufacturing capabilities, it's arguably been worse in our organic industrial base.
[16:43] The OIB has suffered from decades of neglect and underinvestment.
[16:46] Recent conflicts have exposed the weaknesses in the OIB, and the weakness in the OIB directly affects our readiness.
[16:56] Mission-capable rates for critical weapons systems have fallen well below acceptable levels.
[17:02] I've been beating the drum for a long time on the decline of our OIB and the defense industrial base as a whole.
[17:07] I'm glad that President Trump shares my concerns and has released a budget request that finally addresses this problem.
[17:15] The President has requested a historic $1.5 trillion budget for our national defense.
[17:21] This budget directly confronts the challenges in our defense industrial base with over $100 billion in investments to revitalize manufacturing,
[17:30] expand domestic and allied critical minerals projects, and secure our supply chains.
[17:35] We need to enact that budget, and we need to rapidly turn that historic investment into capability for our warfighter.
[17:44] That's why it is so critical to understand from the services how they plan to accomplish that goal.
[17:50] Last year, the Secretary of the Army offered the Transformation Initiative, or ATI.
[17:57] The goal was to position the Army for future fights, streamline force structure, and eliminate wasteful spending.
[18:03] Congress shares those goals, but as questions arose, it became clear that the Army hadn't done all of its homework.
[18:10] ATI has since evolved into what is being called the Continuous Transformation.
[18:15] The name may have changed, but our questions remain.
[18:18] We'd like to see a concrete plan on how the Army intends to modernize,
[18:23] where the investments will be made,
[18:25] what risks to readiness will be absorbed,
[18:29] and what impact it will have on the industrial base.
[18:33] We want to make sure the Army has done a careful analysis of how transformation will affect our capabilities and force structure.
[18:40] We want to understand how the Army intends to sustain the legacy capabilities our service members still need and use.
[18:47] We want to avoid spending this historic influx of money ineffectively
[18:52] and wasting the opportunity to bolster the dib.
[18:54] I'm confident that by working together, we can transform the Army and revitalize our industrial base.
[19:01] With that, I yield to the ranking member for his opening statement.
[19:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[19:06] I completely agree.
[19:08] Innovation, innovating faster at scale is the core of what we're trying to do.
[19:11] The Speed Act that you led last year and passed puts us in a good position to make progress on that.
[19:17] Acquisition reform is absolutely critical to getting to where we need to be.
[19:20] I also think the Army has been forward-leaning on this, particularly in the last couple of years.
[19:26] They had the opportunity to go down to Austin a couple times, visit the Training and Transformation Campaign.
[19:31] There is a real commitment in the Army to making those changes.
[19:34] I do want to thank both General George and General Hodney, who really sort of pushed forward that effort in a variety of different ways.
[19:42] They served our country very, very well.
[19:44] There is a lot more work to do, as the chairman pointed out.
[19:47] We are not where we need to be on the defense industrial base or producing what we need to produce.
[19:51] And I look forward to hearing both of our witnesses today about what can we do to increase that manufacturing, get to the scale that we need.
[19:58] The other point that I always like to make is we are going to need to do it in a cost-effective way.
[20:04] I think it is highly unrealistic to ask for a 50-60% increase in the defense budget when we have our debt-to-GDP ratio over 100%
[20:14] and we continue to cut taxes and reduce our revenue in 1,000 different ways to the tune of trillions of dollars.
[20:20] That just doesn't add up.
[20:21] And past a certain point, that is a national security threat to this country.
[20:25] Now, the good news, I think, is I've looked at the technology that we have, we have the ability to meet our defense needs in a more cost-effective manner.
[20:35] We have developed a number of new systems.
[20:37] There's a lot of private capital out there investing in cheaper missiles, cheaper drones, cheaper ways to shoot down drones, crucially, secure communication systems.
[20:47] So I really think we need to focus on how can we achieve our national security objectives in a more cost-effective way.
[20:55] And I worry that, once again, as we have for the last 25 years, our approach is simply be, well, let's just throw more money at the problem.
[21:03] Let's imagine that we have an infinite amount of resources and it's just too important to care about how much it costs.
[21:10] Sadly, fiscal restraints are part of life as much as we want to try to wish them away.
[21:15] So I want to hear from our witnesses today about how they're planning on doing all this, but doing it in a way that we can actually afford.
[21:21] One piece of that, I'm sorry, two final issues that I just want to make sure you address.
[21:25] The money that DOD is giving to the Department of Homeland Security, we have not been adequately reimbursed for that.
[21:34] It seems like that money just goes into a black hole.
[21:37] They have their needs, but DOD has its needs.
[21:39] I'd love to find out if they're ever going to pay back for that and if we're going to stop just having DOD subsidize DHS.
[21:45] The last point, the Army is the lead agency on civilian harm.
[21:49] This committee, this Congress a couple years ago, passed requirements in terms of funding, and I forget the exact name of it, a civilian harm center.
[21:58] To basically take a look and make sure that we are not killing civilians when we shouldn't be.
[22:04] Sorry, we should never be killing civilians, I should say.
[22:07] That we are not, that we're being careful about how we fight our wars and we live within rules of engagement that make sense.
[22:14] As I understand it, the Department of Defense and Army has completely defunded that.
[22:17] You are in violation of the law right now on civilian harm.
[22:22] I'd like to know either A, what the explanation is for why you think it's okay for you to ignore the law that Congress passes,
[22:29] or B, what you're planning on doing to fix that problem.
[22:32] With that, I yield back.
[22:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[22:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[22:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[22:36] Now, to introduce our witnesses, we have the Honorable Dan Driscoll, Secretary of the Army.
[22:40] And new to us, General Christopher Lenev is the Acting Chief of Staff of the Army.
[22:45] Welcome.
[22:46] Mr. Driscoll, we'll start with you.
[22:49] You're recognized.
[22:50] Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, Distinguished Members, it is a privilege to address you today.
[22:56] After a year in this position, I am prouder than ever to represent our soldiers and their amazing families.
[23:02] As all of you know, our soldiers are the very best in the world.
[23:06] They're bold, decisive, and they can overcome anything when we properly enable them.
[23:11] That's why I spent over 130 days on the road across 19 countries and 25 states to hear directly from them.
[23:19] I ate with them, put hands on their equipment, and had candid discussions with soldiers of every single rank.
[23:24] What I heard was clear.
[23:27] Our soldiers are ready to innovate and win, but our own bureaucracy and regulations are still holding them back.
[23:34] Getting what soldiers need to win and making the Army budget actually work for them is definitionally a bipartisan topic.
[23:41] And I know all of you agree with that.
[23:42] You've supported our Army for decades, and we wouldn't be here without you.
[23:48] But we know the system that should benefit soldiers remains broken.
[23:52] Quality of life and battlefield advantage aren't always the number one budget priority.
[23:57] It's a simple fact, and we need your help to continue to change it.
[24:01] We need right to repair language, relief from pre-World War II laws, and significantly more budget flexibility.
[24:08] Thank you so much for last year's progress.
[24:11] But if we're going to win the next fight, we must go even further.
[24:16] Technological change is accelerating, warfare is evolving, and speed is absolutely critical.
[24:23] Your help to either lower barriers to innovation or stick to the decades-long status quo makes all the difference.
[24:30] I invite all of you to come see our transformation firsthand.
[24:34] We are partnering with private industry to adopt the best tech, talent, and tradecraft.
[24:39] We're inviting those partners out to our bases to unlock dormant resources and offset federal budget delays.
[24:46] We're blazing a trail for our nation on nuclear energy, counter drone capabilities, and military AI.
[24:52] Despite red tape, we're delivering better dining, barracks, Wi-Fi, and 3D-printed barracks.
[24:58] Even though it can feel like the deck is stacked against us, the United States Army is a beacon of transformation.
[25:03] For instance, as we speak, we are hosting the largest hackathon ever in human history to retroactively jailbreak our siloed equipment.
[25:15] It's named Operation Jailbreak.
[25:17] Last month in Europe, soldiers showed me how our software systems are compartmentalized, isolated, and ineffective against modern threats.
[25:25] Meanwhile, Ukraine's Delta Common Operating System, their modular open architecture command and control system, is absolutely incredible.
[25:36] It fully integrates every drone, every sensor, and every single shooting platform into just one single network.
[25:43] Ours does not.
[25:45] Unfortunately, for decades, our budget process incentivized companies to protect their intellectual property at all costs, creating walled gardens in our command and control architecture.
[25:54] This has been the status quo for far too long.
[25:58] It is no longer acceptable, and industry is helping us solve it right now.
[26:03] I contacted nine of our defense primes and other large partners who immediately agreed to send thousands of pieces of equipment, engineers, and scientists to Fort Carson.
[26:13] Together, we will force our way through the firewalls, link every system, and achieve true right to integrate.
[26:20] And this is just our first sprint on it.
[26:22] We will do it again and again and again until we get it exactly right.
[26:27] I want to be clear.
[26:28] This is a perfect example of our Army's potential for speed and innovation.
[26:32] No one else has the talent, the drive, and the obsessive work ethic like our soldiers to pull this off.
[26:39] Operation Jailbreak is the first of many sprints to bypass red tape and bureaucracy.
[26:44] What we're doing in Colorado should be the standard operating procedure going forward.
[26:48] It's the iterative process that makes America's tech sector the very best in the world.
[26:55] But you would be amazed at the regulatory walls that stood in our way.
[26:59] And we've expanded a sinful amount of energy just to do the right thing.
[27:04] Imagine what we could do if you continue to help us slash those restrictions.
[27:08] We can do more if you help us balance oversight with speed.
[27:12] We can maximize our budget if you help us partner with America's entrepreneurs.
[27:17] We can move faster if you help us shed obsolete equipment and invest in the future.
[27:21] And with your help, we can ensure the Army remains the dominant land fighting force for the next 250 years.
[27:28] Thank you so much for having us, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[27:32] Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[27:33] General, you're recognized.
[27:34] Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee today.
[27:42] The credibility of our Army is defined by what it is prepared to do, not what it intends to do.
[27:48] So every decision I make enables our soldiers to be more lethal and ready to fight and win
[27:52] and serve as the backbone of the Joint Force.
[27:55] In the Indo-Pacific, we're building a force postured to deter threats to U.S. national interest
[28:00] and designed to extend the operational reach and endurance of the Joint Force.
[28:05] Right now, 87,000 soldiers are campaigning throughout the region.
[28:09] Our Typhoon missile systems are forward deployed to the Philippines and Japan.
[28:13] We've positioned LTAMs in Guam and the IPIC unit in Korea,
[28:18] extending next-generation air and missile defense against current threats in the region.
[28:22] The first and third multi-domain task forces are now operational in the region.
[28:27] In this fall, the fourth multi-domain task force headquarters will stand up at Fort Carson.
[28:31] Each MDTF brings together long-range fires, intelligence, electronic warfare, space, and cyber,
[28:38] all integrated into a single theater-level capability designed to support Joint Force commanders
[28:43] across vast distances of the Pacific.
[28:46] Every one of these capabilities exists because of the investments this committee supported.
[28:52] In the Middle East, our Army forces continue to defend U.S. personnel and partners
[28:55] while sustaining layered air and missile defense, long-range strike capabilities,
[28:59] and operational logistics across CENTCOM.
[29:02] And at home, we're preparing the force for future conflict at our combat training centers.
[29:08] It's where we train our soldiers to fight against an adversary in the mud
[29:11] to solve complex problems and to test our latest systems.
[29:14] But we cannot field our modern kit while sustaining aging systems that consume time, money, and manpower.
[29:20] The best in legacy platforms reduces the maintenance demand that falls hardest on our junior soldiers
[29:27] and frees resources to advance next-generation systems.
[29:31] That's why we restructured how we acquire, design, sustain, and field equipment
[29:35] with a decisive focus on speed, the right to repair, and systems modularity.
[29:41] That thinking is already reflected in some of the next-generation platforms we're going after,
[29:46] like the XM-30 infantry fighting vehicle, the M-1E-3 Abrams, and the MV-75 Cheyenne,
[29:53] which provides unprecedented speed, range, and flexibility.
[29:57] Each of these systems are designed that the next operational upgrade requires integration,
[30:03] not a completely new start.
[30:05] But none of this matters if we can't produce and sustain its scale.
[30:09] That's why we continue to modernize the OIB through advanced manufacturing,
[30:12] depot modernization, and expanded partnerships with industry,
[30:17] including enhanced-use leases that accelerate infrastructure development
[30:20] and production capability.
[30:23] And while industrial capacity is important,
[30:25] the strength of our Army is only as strong as our ability to retain experienced soldiers,
[30:30] and whether the force we're building reflects the standards we claim to uphold.
[30:34] That standard includes $4 billion in infrastructure investments throughout 2026.
[30:40] We're rolling out campus-style dining facilities.
[30:42] We're scaling our holistic health and fitness across the entire force.
[30:46] And soldiers see the difference, and so do American citizens.
[30:49] Our recruiting numbers are soaring,
[30:51] and we're on track to achieve this year's target way ahead of schedule.
[30:55] Because in the end, soldiers are the reason your Army can do what it does.
[31:00] Your Army delivers intelligence and fires that enable maneuver.
[31:03] We sustain operations.
[31:05] We protect the force.
[31:06] And we provide the command-and-control architecture that allows the joint force
[31:10] and America's allies to operate together.
[31:13] Every component of the joint fight depends on our Army's ability to do all those things
[31:18] simultaneously and exceptionally well.
[31:21] And we will not fail our country.
[31:23] This will defend.
[31:24] And thank you all for your continued support as we sustain the best Army the world has ever seen.
[31:29] Thank you, General.
[31:31] I recognize myself now for questions.
[31:34] General, I read an ABC News article recently about you having to scramble to slash some training costs
[31:42] and make some other adjustments to deal with a $4 to $6 billion shortfall.
[31:47] Can you tell me why that shortfall occurred and how it's impacting you?
[31:53] Turn your microphone on, please.
[31:55] Thank you, sir.
[31:55] Sir, first off, we haven't canceled anything.
[31:58] The report is false.
[32:00] It's based off of prudent planning that we always do normally around this time of the year
[32:05] to take a look at what levers that we can pull as we're near the end of the FY.
[32:10] We do have a shortfall right now.
[32:14] And you talked about it.
[32:16] Well, ranking member Smith talked about it in the opening statement
[32:19] about some of the reimbursements that were due back in.
[32:23] Why don't you go ahead and address this question right now?
[32:25] Are you going to be backfilled by DHS with that money?
[32:29] We believe we will, sir.
[32:30] Do you know what the time frame is?
[32:32] Chairman, we've spoken with Secretary Mullen.
[32:35] We're working hand-in-hand with his team.
[32:37] We told your colleagues in the Senate a couple of days ago,
[32:39] we're optimistic within a week or two.
[32:41] There should be meaningful movement on that.
[32:44] We are equally aligned that we want those backfilled payments.
[32:47] And so we will stay in touch with your office if that does not occur.
[32:50] Yeah, please do.
[32:51] We will help you with that.
[32:52] You're supposed to be backfilled, and as I understand, the money is now available.
[32:56] But anyway, Secretary, you made reference to this in your opening statement.
[33:00] I want you to tell me more about this right to integrate.
[33:04] How's it working?
[33:04] What's the goal?
[33:05] Exactly what is the right to integrate?
[33:07] Yes, sir.
[33:08] So, Chairman, it is basically this idea that every single system that creates a piece of data
[33:13] should be able to share that data anywhere we, the United States Army, need it to go.
[33:16] And then that system can receive data.
[33:18] Over the last 30 and 40 years, the vast majority of our systems have been designed for closed purposes.
[33:25] Historically, that did add a degree of security.
[33:27] But practically speaking, what that does today is it prevents you from being able to use things like agentic AI solutions.
[33:33] And when you're thinking of drone swarms and the threats to react, a human being cannot do that alone.
[33:38] And so, by breaking open these systems and allowing them to communicate with each other, that will push us forward massively to be able to transform our Army.
[33:47] Yeah, and I think that's going to be essential for us to be able to use AI to its maximum potential.
[33:51] You also mentioned when you talked about it, us helping you break down some walls.
[33:55] Are there some statutory changes that you need us to make to facilitate that?
[33:59] Chairman, I think it's more on the right to repair side.
[34:02] The right to integrate side is we just have to do a better job as an Army requiring it.
[34:06] And I just want to give a very sincere, positive statement about the large defense primes who I'm on record bashing quite often.
[34:14] They've been incredible in helping us with this process.
[34:17] A lot of the largest American defense companies have really stepped up in the last two weeks.
[34:21] And currently, as we sit here right now, there are literally hundreds of developers and programmers working on this task on all of our behalf and our social path.
[34:29] Great news.
[34:30] I yield to the ranking member.
[34:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[34:32] I yield my time to the gentlewoman from Hawaii, Mr. Kuda.
[34:36] Thank you, Mr. Chair, ranking member.
[34:40] Secretary Driscoll, the reason I'm actually going first to ask questions is because I'm going to be jumping on a plane to go to my son's graduation tomorrow.
[34:49] It's a big moment.
[34:50] And I...
[34:51] Congratulations.
[34:51] Thank you.
[34:53] It's been a long 18 years.
[34:55] I share this with you, though, because it's an emotional time for a lot of families.
[35:01] It's a time when we watch our kids go away to the mainland.
[35:03] Many of them don't come back.
[35:06] See, from a young age, we're...
[35:07] We understand that land is not just real estate.
[35:11] It's a promise of home.
[35:13] And we have seen so much of our land stolen, taken away, bought off.
[35:19] Whether it's the federal government or wealthy investors, we don't want to lose even an inch.
[35:26] Even an inch.
[35:27] So I need you to understand the passion with which I have questioned many that came before you.
[35:34] Because for us, it is deeply personal.
[35:37] And when you talk about condemnation, when the only language that we've seen put before the committee has been talks of being able to acquire this land through eminent domain, it breaks our heart.
[35:48] It angers us.
[35:49] Because we've already had too much stolen.
[35:51] And you know for a fact the land we are talking about at Pohokuloa Training Area is already stolen land.
[35:58] And to steal it again would be absolutely heva.
[36:00] It would be absolutely wrong to do this.
[36:03] And so I ask you as a mother today, looking back at the fact that more Native Hawaiians live outside of Hawaii than in Hawaii because we don't have land to spare, will you commit to me that we can take any language of condemnation, that we can rip it up, we can take condemnation completely off the table, and we can have a discussion about a real lease negotiation.
[36:31] Let's talk 25 years.
[36:33] Let's talk about real cash, not a dollar for 65 years like it's been.
[36:36] Can we talk about taking condemnation off, taking that gun away from the head of the state, and from all Native Hawaiians right now who feel that pain, and simply talk about a lease renegotiation, terms and conditions, community benefit, working on the EIS.
[36:55] Can we do that, Secretary?
[36:57] Secretary Kerry, Congresswoman, I don't say this next statement lightly.
[37:02] The people of Hawaii have been absolutely incredible to our soldiers and their families for many years.
[37:08] When I have gotten a chance to go visit, it is one of our most requested duty stations, and it is because the community has adopted our soldiers into their lives.
[37:17] And I sincerely want to say thank you for that.
[37:19] To your specific question, my understanding has been, since the day I stepped foot on that ground and started interacting with the state government, this is an issue that is coming up quickly.
[37:30] This land, this training land is incredibly important.
[37:32] Mr. Secretary, I need to interject because I don't have much time.
[37:35] You have 39 months.
[37:37] You have time.
[37:38] You have time to do this the right way.
[37:40] You have time to make sure that for this land that we are talking about, we can leave it to the next generation of Hawaiians to determine the sovereignty and autonomy of this land.
[37:49] Condemnation would take that away from them.
[37:52] Committing now that you will take that condemnation off the table, again, all language that has been submitted to committees, been in discussion with the governor, take away condemnation and talk about year leases.
[38:03] Have you ever talked about anything other than condemnation?
[38:05] And have we talked about a 25-year lease renegotiation in terms and conditions?
[38:11] Congresswoman, my understanding from interacting quite often with the local government is, it is a practical impracticality that the state government can possibly even do a lease between now and 2020.
[38:21] So has our state government then, the governor's office, who I assume you have been negotiating with, with Governor Green and his team, is that correct?
[38:28] We've spoken with a number of local participants.
[38:31] Okay, so have they never put on the table simply a lease extension, a new lease?
[38:37] Have they been okay with condemnation?
[38:40] Because here's the thing about condemnation, it's a unilateral action.
[38:43] And if we're committing to real negotiations, because as you have said yourself, Hawaii has been a gracious host.
[38:50] This is not how you treat people who have given you and shown you aloha.
[38:56] Has it ever been tossed on the table that we should have a lease renegotiation versus condemnation?
[39:02] Congresswoman, the governor, his team, all of the local advocates have fought incredibly tirelessly and proposed all sorts of solutions.
[39:10] Have solutions been anything other than condemnation?
[39:12] They have proposed a number of solutions.
[39:15] My responsibility as Secretary of the Army is to care about our soldiers and their lethality.
[39:18] We all care about our soldiers and want the best.
[39:21] Can you tell me that right now we can take condemnation off the table and commit to a lease renegotiation?
[39:26] Every path is hard.
[39:28] It's about doing it the right way.
[39:30] That's what I'm looking for.
[39:31] Congresswoman, we have to leave all out.
[39:33] Good lady's time is expired.
[39:34] I recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Joe Wilson.
[39:40] Indeed.
[39:41] Indeed.
[39:42] Please.
[39:43] It's South Carolina, like with the Secretary, North Carolina.
[39:47] So please don't get them confused.
[39:49] With that in mind, thank you, Chairman Mike Rogers, for your efforts at bipartisanship.
[39:54] And it's exciting to see this hearing today.
[39:56] And as a 31-year veteran of the Army Guard myself, with four sons who have served in Iraq,
[40:02] Egypt, or Afghanistan, I have never been more proud of America's military, assisting Syria
[40:09] as the dictator Assad fled to Moscow, assisting and arresting the dictator Maduro of Venezuela,
[40:19] eliminating the dictator Khomeini of Tehran while rescuing our pilot in Iran, leaving no
[40:25] one behind.
[40:28] Hope for freedom is provided for the people of Syria and Venezuela and Iran.
[40:32] The leaders are on the run around the world, which historically, I don't think that many
[40:36] have disappeared in a year and a half ever.
[40:40] But thank you, all of you, for your success.
[40:43] I want to thank the witnesses for your service, dedicated service, and appearing today.
[40:50] As the Army confronts growing threats from the Chinese Communist Party, War Command on Putin,
[40:55] Iran, North Korea, and other adversaries. Land power remains an essential in deterring aggression,
[41:01] reassuring allies, and defeating threats across multiple theaters. We're now engaged in a
[41:07] multi-domain competition spanning industrial capacity, hypersonic missiles, cyber capabilities,
[41:13] drones, long-range fires, and contested logistics. As courageous Ukrainians defeat war criminal
[41:22] Putin, just as we have learned missile defense from Israel, we can now learn about drone and
[41:29] robotics from the success of stopping war contra Putin by the very talented people of Ukraine.
[41:35] With that in mind, we must ensure that America's military remains modernized and strong, truly,
[41:43] for peace through strength. And, Mr. Secretary, to address the slow acquisition timelines for
[41:50] capabilities soldiers need now, whether that is long-range precision fires, the mobile tactical
[41:57] cannon, counter UAS, or contested sustainment. What is the Army doing to facilitate
[42:04] acceleration of fielding timelines while ensuring domestic suppliers consistent with President
[42:10] Trump's American first industrial base strategy prior to rise? Congressman, I couldn't agree more,
[42:17] and I just want to go on record stating how proud we are of our soldiers and everything they've done
[42:22] in the last year under President Trump and Secretary of War Hex's leadership. The United States Army has
[42:27] been able to move out and do things we haven't done in decades to cut down the bureaucratic timeline to
[42:32] get our soldiers what they need. So, specifically, what we've done in the last year is we cut down our
[42:37] PEOs, which were a number of siloed acquisition professionals, with approximately 15 steps along each
[42:43] process. Each of those steps could reset a purchase back to the beginning, and this led to outcomes
[42:48] where it could take two to four years to buy things we knew we wanted and needed. We have consolidated
[42:53] down to new PAEs, and as an example of the success, on day five of Operation Epic Fury, we knew we needed
[43:00] to surge more counter-drone solutions into theater. By day 10, we had purchased 23,000, and by day 20,
[43:08] they were starting to flow into theater, with Ranger Regiment 82nd helping to train our soldiers board.
[43:13] And that is all because of the changes that we made to our acquisition.
[43:17] Well, again, the opportunities we have of learning from our allies. I hope there was an article
[43:22] yesterday in the Washington Times front page about the success of Ukrainian drones and robotics
[43:28] to defeat war commander Putin and the oppressed people of Russia. With that in mind, too, I'm really
[43:35] grateful I represent Fort Jackson, the initial Army training facility, and General and Secretary,
[43:40] it's always exciting to be at the airport in Columbia and see these young people come in with a
[43:45] brown envelope to be greeted by the drill sergeant. And so, and I look at it, wait, look at the
[43:53] opportunities and fulfilling lives these young people are going to have. With that in mind, there's a
[43:58] program there for the future soldier prep course, and I've been really impressed with it. And I,
[44:04] Mr. Secretary, as we approach issues, what is the future for the, for that course?
[44:09] Congressman, I actually did basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. And it was an honor to go
[44:15] back. And I would challenge any American that isn't feeling good about your country, go watch your
[44:19] graduation at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, as these previously civilians nine weeks before come out as
[44:25] soldiers. And so many families are crying. And one of the things about the future soldier prep course that
[44:30] makes it so special is when you get there, there's a Y wall. And so these are for civilians who just
[44:37] can't quite make the cut for whatever the reason is. And so they, when, when they get to the course,
[44:41] they write their Y of being there. And what we have found is these soldiers who go through between
[44:46] two and 10 weeks of additional training, either on academics or fitness or diet, they come out and
[44:51] have the exact same gentleman's time. You're ahead of the curve. Thank you. If you're not recognized,
[44:55] gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Driscoll,
[45:00] on May 1st, 4,000 army soldiers of the second armored brigade combat team attended a color casing
[45:07] ceremony, a send off ahead of deployment to Eastern Europe that the army had announced last March.
[45:14] At the ceremony, Major General Tom Felty, who's the head of the first cavalry division, gave some
[45:19] very stirring remarks where he said, quote, make no mistake, our adversaries are paying attention.
[45:24] When an armored brigade combat team deploys forward, it sends a clear and unmistakable
[45:29] signal. The ABCT is the embodiment of American ground combat power. Given the fact that the
[45:35] administration just canceled this deployment a couple of days ago, we had people actually already
[45:40] over there right now. I guess the question sort of begs itself, which is, is the opposite true?
[45:46] If our adversaries are paying attention, is the cancellation of a deployment of a brigade combat
[45:52] combat team sending, again, the opposite signal in terms of our commitment to our allies in Eastern
[45:59] Europe? Thank you for the question. We, the COCOM commander, General Grinkowitz, you know, received
[46:09] the instructions on the force reduction. I've worked with him in close consultation on what that force unit
[46:16] would be. And it was, made the most sense for that brigade to not do its deployment in theater.
[46:26] We continue to work closely with General Grinkowitz and his team on ensuring that he has the right forces
[46:34] from us, the Title 10, you know, headquarters here that man, trains, equips, and gets the units ready for their deployments.
[46:42] So, uh, we worked with him on, uh, what would be the, the unit that would, uh, would not execute the mission.
[46:49] Well, again, I think, uh, General Felty is right that our adversaries are paying attention and that,
[46:54] uh, I mean, I appreciate the answer, but frankly, I don't think that really, um, raises to the moment
[46:59] in terms of just, again, the, the situation that exists in Europe. And frankly, it's not just our adversaries
[47:05] that are paying attention. It's our allies, uh, Poland, which is apparently where the deployment
[47:09] was at least going to, uh, you know, begin and originate, um, has, is an ally that's spending 4.8
[47:16] percent, uh, of GDP in terms of, uh, their defense budgets and, and all the other Baltic countries are
[47:22] up in that range as well. And given the fact that the administration also canceled or is pulling back
[47:27] 5,000 troops out of Germany, um, I, I'm sorry. I just think this is a horrible message, uh, that,
[47:33] again, our adversaries and allies, uh, are paying attention to. Uh, Mr. Secretary, um, uh, Chairman
[47:41] Rogers talked about the fact that this committee is laser focused on the industrial base, which,
[47:45] again, I think there's bipartisan lockstep unity, uh, on that question. Your budget, um, cuts aviation,
[47:53] uh, uh, fixed wing, uh, uh, aviation, rotary wing, uh, aviation at, uh, to historic levels. A couple
[48:01] days ago, Secretary Hegseth appeared before, uh, the House Armed Services Committee. My colleague
[48:07] from Connecticut, um, Ms. Delauro raised the point about, you know, you are decimating the industrial
[48:13] base with that radical, uh, reduction, uh, in investment, uh, which by the way, uh, the Army
[48:19] National Guard is, was requesting 24 Blackhawks in their, uh, 20, 27, uh, statement that's there.
[48:26] Uh, Secretary Hegseth actually said he agreed that we need to take another look at that, uh,
[48:31] quote unquote, uh, during the, the hearing. And I just would ask you whether you agree with Secretary
[48:36] Hegseth that that, um, you know, the, the, the impact in terms of the industrial base requires a second
[48:42] look. Um, uh, Congressman, from your reference to his remarks, I don't know all the depth of what was
[48:49] implied, but I absolutely agree that we will take a, uh, a hard look with the Office of Secretary of
[48:54] War and make sure that we are synced with, uh, their strategy and their plans as they look across
[48:58] the joint force and balance their requirements and needs of the military as a whole.
[49:03] The critical part of the industrial base, which, uh, uh, this committee is going to be
[49:10] very, um, attentive to as we get closer to markup. I yield back.
[49:14] Gentleman yields back. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Turner.
[49:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Secretary, thank you for also your focus on the issue of
[49:23] production. Uh, it is the, the main issue that we're all trying to address. Uh, in Ohio,
[49:29] we have the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, also known as the Lima Tank Plant. And it is
[49:35] one of those, uh, facilities that is a, a great illustration of the struggles or the issue
[49:42] that we face in trying to increase production. We just had an industry panel and they identified
[49:50] one of the greatest difficulties in trying to increase production as the inconsistent demand
[49:58] signals that come from the Pentagon because it both affects the issue of costs and also
[50:04] production schedules and therefore capacity. It affects their ability to go and attract capital
[50:10] out in the markets. It affects their ability to have healthy supply chains. Many times supply chains
[50:16] can even dry up with a inconsistent demand signals from the Pentagon. It affects their ability to maintain
[50:24] a workforce. Um, and the, they, they indicate that many times the Pentagon acts like that they,
[50:31] that they can just turn on and off production and then come back tomorrow and it would just,
[50:35] just be there. They need to be able to plan and project in the future. Now at the Joint Systems
[50:41] Manufacturing Center in the past, I have seen in trying to support the Lima Tank Plant in Ohio,
[50:46] you know, over, for example, a four consecutive year period, the Army has in the past zeroed out
[50:53] funding for Army, uh, for Abrams tanks, only then to come back and request funding for 135 tanks.
[51:00] Two years later, uh, funding has fluctuated between 165 tanks and then gone to as few as 34 tanks. Now,
[51:08] this is a government owned facility that is contractor operated. It's as if the Pentagon
[51:14] looks at the Army tank plant as if they're going to an auto dealership to buy vehicles,
[51:20] when obviously they can't, they, they own the workforce, they own the supply chain. And if
[51:24] no one has responsibility for this at the Pentagon, then the supply chain, uh, dries up, the workforce
[51:31] moves on, and then we don't have an ability to, uh, to focus on, on production. I appreciate that
[51:37] you're focusing on this, but when we look at the fiscal year 27 Army budget, the request has for
[51:43] the Joint Systems Center, a total spending level of $309 million for infrastructure investment at the
[51:50] Joint Systems Manufacturing Center, Lima Plant, which is a 215 percent increase over FY 26 levels.
[51:57] Excellent. The budget also includes funding for the upgrades of 22 M1A2 Abrams for a total of a
[52:06] $654 million decrease over FY 26 funding. The lower quantity of M1A2 upgrades and huge increase in
[52:15] investment at the plant is in part as a result of the development of the Army transitioning to the
[52:20] production of the new M1E3 main battle tank at Lima. I'm concerned that the gap in funding between
[52:27] decreasing M1A2 upgrades and ramping up of the M1E3 will leave a gap in work at the line, forcing either
[52:36] layoffs or relocations. Again, the supply chain and the workforce will be impacted so that when we go
[52:41] back to for production for the M1E3, we're going to have this, this spigot turning on and off aspect
[52:48] that will impact production. Um, so what are the Army's plans for transitioning from the M1A2 upgrades
[52:56] to the M1E3 production? How do we get, which I know you're struggling with, how do we get to the
[53:01] point where the Pentagon can actually project and take into consideration its understanding of up and
[53:08] down its supply chain and up and down its workforce of actually a facility that the government owns,
[53:14] only one in North America? Congressman, we've tried to work hand in glove with General Dynamics,
[53:20] who is the contractor at the Lima plant. This is one of the issues that the longer I've been in the
[53:25] seat, the more complex I realize it is. And it's complex because we don't operate like a private
[53:30] business. And I know all of you know that, but because we can't do things like at scale multi-year
[53:35] procurement, because the average secretary of the Army is only in the seat 23 months, because all of
[53:39] you have preferences on where the dollars go that don't necessarily match where we think they should.
[53:44] And that's okay, that's good government. That makes it where it is very difficult to provide long-term
[53:49] demand signals. And so if you think of why things like cost plus come to be, it is because we,
[53:54] the government or we, the Army, when we tell industry what we want, by the time that thing
[53:58] is actually there, we may have changed our mind for all sorts of reasons. We, under continuing
[54:02] resolutions, which I think hate in the last 20 years, we can't do new starts. So they just can't
[54:06] trust us. Which have horrific impacts on you. And so we end up doing all of these kind of backwards
[54:11] economic structures like cost plus pricing, which no one would prefer, but these are the reality.
[54:15] Let us help you. As you come up with recommendations to address these issues, let us help you and give
[54:20] us recommendations to affect it. Because we understand it affects capital costs and production.
[54:25] Of course. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thanks, Congressman.
[54:29] Thanks so much. Gentleman kneels back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California,
[54:33] Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. I'm going to follow up on what my colleague Mike was talking about,
[54:41] and also my colleague Joe here. It comes down to where are you going? What is the future of the Army?
[54:51] You have this Army Transformation Initiative. It appears as though it goes left on Monday and right
[54:58] on Tuesday. There's not a consistency. This committee must have, from you, Mr. Secretary and General,
[55:08] a very clear understanding of what the Army Transformation Initiative is in all of its major
[55:15] elements. We just heard a discussion about Abrams tanks, and we heard a discussion earlier
[55:24] about the force in Poland or not in Poland. And so what we're seeing is here is a significant
[55:33] inconsistency of direction. And we need to know, we're going to put together the NDAA in the days ahead.
[55:41] And that NDAA has to, I assume, assume the Army is really interested in its transformation initiative.
[55:51] What exactly is it that you intend to do? What are the top three or five parts of that initiative?
[56:00] We're going to have to give you the authority, or maybe we disagree and don't want you to go in that
[56:05] direction. But what we're seeing here is enormous inconsistency in direction. And that is not going
[56:13] to suffice as we put together the future direction and laws that the Army is going to have to carry out.
[56:24] There's also a very serious problem in the mission capability rates of all of your equipment.
[56:31] It's trending negative. How are you going to address that? And is that part of the transformation
[56:39] initiative? I would hope that the ability to maintain your equipment is part of that. It's fundamental.
[56:47] And yet what we're seeing over time is a lack of attention by the Army on the ability to maintain its
[56:54] equipment. How are you going to address that? There's a pile of money coming your way, at least in the
[57:02] president's budget. Will that be used for the initiatives in the Army transfer transformation?
[57:10] Will it be used for maintaining your equipment? How are you going to deal with that? And finally,
[57:19] what lessons have you learned from Ukraine? So let's go at this one at one at a time.
[57:24] The Army transformation initiative. What are your three major actions, Mr. Secretary?
[57:29] Congressman, action one is until data can be shared between every system seamlessly on the
[57:35] business side of the Army. We always describe the Army's two core functions. One is a killing machine
[57:40] on behalf of our nation that we hope we don't need. The other is a large enterprise scale business.
[57:44] When we came in about a year and a half ago, we had 650 individual siloed business systems.
[57:49] We've cut it down to about 220. We're trying to get into the teens.
[57:51] So that's an organizational issue. That is a purchasing acquisition
[57:57] silo breaking issue, Congressman. All right, that's one. How about two and three?
[58:01] Yeah, two is all of our equipment. Every single thing that my colleague, General Lee, mentioned.
[58:06] Every piece of equipment we buy has to be modular and open architecture, which practically means it
[58:11] should have things like USB ports so that whatever technology in the future exists.
[58:14] Just heard a discussion about we're going to buy it. We're not going to buy tanks. We are going to buy
[58:18] tanks. Does this initiative focus in on exactly what you're going to need in the future? General?
[58:27] Sure, I think it does. When you take a look at our equipment, and the answer is yes and yes. We're not
[58:33] walking away from the ability to repair our equipment. That's the right to repair, the ability to be able
[58:41] to manufacture our own parts that we need to be able to do on legacy equipment. I really look at it in
[58:48] three bins. Legacy equipment, enduring equipment, and then the modernized equipment. Legacy we have to
[58:53] divest. Enduring is what we're going to have. The Abrams, the Bradley, the Apache, the Blackhawk, until we
[59:02] can get to our new platforms that we have to do, sir, in order to have the best army in the world against a
[59:08] pacing threat that they're going to ask us to counter. In 23 seconds, I'm going to wrap this up.
[59:15] It is imperative that the army be very, very explicit about what it needs and where it is going
[59:25] on your transformation initiative, which apparently is your principal direction. And secondly,
[59:33] dealing with the maintenance, we need to know what it is that you need.
[59:36] The gentleman's time has expired. Votes have been called. We will go through this
[59:43] next set of questions and then we will return here at 1020. So, Secretary Driscoll, General Neve,
[59:48] thanks so much for joining us today. Before I get to my questions, I have an observation to make,
[59:54] and it's very close to home to me. One of my constituents, First Lieutenant Zachary Galley,
[1:00:01] was killed during a training evolution at JRTC in May of 2024. His death was absolutely preventable.
[1:00:08] The army report said it was negligence and negligence only that led to his and that's why his parents,
[1:00:15] Gail and Michael, had to bury their 23-year-old son. Secretary Driscoll, I'd like you to take a
[1:00:21] serious look at what happened to Zachary and what happened across the spectrum. Because we spend
[1:00:26] billions of dollars each year to protect our brave men and women that go to combat, but we don't place
[1:00:31] the same emphasis on protecting them in training. A report of this committee in 2017 showed that four times
[1:00:38] a number of our military members die in training than they do in combat. And when those deaths are
[1:00:44] preventable and when there's negligence at issue, we need to act. We have a responsibility. We have
[1:00:52] parents that place their loved ones in our trust in serving in the United States military. The highest
[1:00:59] honor that they provide to this country is swearing their lives to this country. But they swear their lives
[1:01:07] knowing that the military is going to do everything they can to take care of them. And that's our
[1:01:12] obligation. And I want to ask both of you, and I understand the fairest document, and by the way,
[1:01:16] we need to address the fairest doctrine as a congress. But also there's a responsibility in our service
[1:01:22] branches to make sure that we do everything we can in a very dangerous environment, and we understand the
[1:01:27] dangers there, that we do everything we can to take care of our soldiers, our sailors, our marines,
[1:01:33] our airmen, our guardians, and our coast guardsmen. That's the obligation this nation has because they
[1:01:38] raised their right hand and they swore that obligation to this nation to put their lives on
[1:01:43] the line. But they also do it under the understanding that our military will provide an equal obligation
[1:01:50] in doing everything they can to protect them. That's our obligation as a nation. It's everyone's
[1:01:54] obligation. So again, I thank you for what you do. I want to go to a question that I have about the ATI.
[1:02:01] You know, the last time you were here, you know, we said, hey, you got some homework to do prior to
[1:02:05] some of the details on what's going on with the transformation initiative. We've gotten pretty
[1:02:11] short explanation of what's going on without the details necessary, especially in transitioning,
[1:02:16] things like TRADOC moving from Fort Eustis there, what's happening with T2COM.
[1:02:22] Are we going to be able to get some additional information? Because there's a lot of things going
[1:02:25] on here as the Army goes through this, and obviously a lot of changes have happened in the meantime.
[1:02:30] But it's important for us to understand that, especially too, when we get questions,
[1:02:34] not only from our constituents in those areas, but also from folks that are serving and going,
[1:02:39] what's going on? What's the transition initiative going to be? What it's going to look like?
[1:02:43] What are the tenets behind the decisions that are being made there? So I'd like to get your
[1:02:47] perspective on that. Congressman, the first thing is, I would say, I would encourage you and any of your
[1:02:53] colleagues to go to an Army base near you or in your district, talk to the soldiers. My impression now,
[1:02:59] after having spent about a third of my days on the road is, and I get a little bit of misinformation,
[1:03:03] perhaps, because of the difference in rank sometimes. But my impression is that the United
[1:03:09] States Army over the last 16 months has made a massive, hit an inflection point where it knows
[1:03:15] that it has to adopt to the new rules of the game that we are seeing in Ukraine and Israel,
[1:03:19] in the Middle East, all over the world now, warfare is changing. And there's a mindset that what we have
[1:03:25] now is not sufficient. And we are, we will take the assets that the American taxpayer has given us,
[1:03:29] and we will change to your, to your comment, Congressman, of whether we have been sufficient
[1:03:34] in explaining it. That is on me individually, if we have not. And so I would be happy to come by your
[1:03:39] office anytime and meet with any of your colleagues to talk about it. That'd be great. I think it's
[1:03:43] important to have those, those details. We want to make sure we understand it. We want to understand
[1:03:47] where the changes have been made and then, you know, where the future direction is, is going. And,
[1:03:52] and those things are important too, because they affect a lot of the, the efforts that go into
[1:03:55] planning, whether it's the, the, the, the fight up or whether it's the Palm, all those things,
[1:04:01] you know, matter because of where we're going. And as you said, the transition is a, is a big
[1:04:05] transition. So we want to make sure, how do we do our part and make sure that resources get,
[1:04:09] get to the right, right place. General and Eve, you heard Mr. Turner talk a little bit about M1E3.
[1:04:17] Tell us a little bit more. You're looking at making major changes to that platform and then looking at,
[1:04:21] you know, how do we, how do we change the whole mindset about how we modernize from a mindset of
[1:04:28] kind of hardware first and operation systems software later. Give me your perspective on how
[1:04:34] you see software lining up with this modernization and how you're using modular open systems architecture
[1:04:40] to achieve that. That's sure. Thanks for the question. The secretary talked about it, you know,
[1:04:45] a little bit earlier, but you know, it's, it's a dramatic change when you go from a platform that
[1:04:53] gets incremental upgrades over time to one that you can literally continually upgrade based off
[1:05:01] of just being able to integrate a new technology into the system by a simple USB port. I mean, it's a,
[1:05:09] it's a, it's a radical way of thinking. The second part, sir,
[1:05:11] is, is, is to have the IP rights in the very beginning so our soldiers can actually produce
[1:05:18] our own, uh, parts, uh, and be able to repair, uh, at scale, uh, uh, all of our equipment. The M1E3,
[1:05:27] sir, is a huge upgrade. It's lighter. It has, uh, less crew, uh, capabilities inside of it. So you're
[1:05:34] less manpower inside the, uh, the tank itself. And I, and, and we'll be able to get that, uh, into,
[1:05:41] in the theater a heck of a lot faster because of the weight differences from the, uh, the older model.
[1:05:46] We appreciate it, sir. Very good. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you. We will, uh, uh, recess
[1:05:52] and we will re-adjour, or excuse me, we, we will return at 1020. Thank you.
[1:06:01] Look at this, uh, good job. Good job, Chair Coach. Thanks.
[1:06:05] Golf on the country club. We take two shots off the tee. That's how we roll.
[1:06:47] Scorecard one for the soul. Molly gets Sagahachie where we feel free.
[1:06:55] What we do. Chuck Gase and Glee. Just him and me. Got a sun-stained hat and a heart of gold.
[1:07:14] Stories from the fairway that never get old. Tells me about a church and a sweet Carissa too.
[1:07:20] This is Wedge and we laugh like Flunch at the turn with a burger and fries. Talking about the
[1:07:29] Lord and college football ties. Yeah, we keep score, but we don't need proof. When you're playing with Chuck,
[1:07:35] the joy is the truth. We take two shots off the tee. That's how we roll. One for the scorecard,
[1:07:41] one for the soul. Molly gets fly like sweet iced tea. At Sagahachie where we feel free.
[1:07:47] Laugh and lying, shank and a few. It ain't just golf. It's what we do. Chuck Gase and Glee.
[1:07:55] It's Tim and me. The slice in the woods and not a single care. If you ever need joy or a brotherly hug,
[1:08:09] just come tee it up with old Chuck. We take two shots off the tee. That's how we roll. One for the
[1:08:19] soul. Mulligans fly like sweet iced tea. At Sagahachie where we feel free. Yeah, that's our game.
[1:08:27] And always we'll be Chuck at church and a sweet Curry too. We take two shots off the tee. That's how we roll.
[1:35:14] One for the soul. Mulligans all got happy or free. Yeah, that's our game. Thank you Chairman and to the
[1:35:24] witnesses for being here today. I spent the better part of the last decade on tactical air and land,
[1:35:32] where much of our discussions today have been occurring. And certainly over that period of time,
[1:35:40] we have gone through many changes and certainly the Army has. You know, one of my first experiences
[1:35:48] was going to a Chinook plant and where they had just invested close to $100 million in that facility,
[1:35:55] bringing it up because we sent the signal that that plant and the Chinooks were going to increase
[1:36:02] substantially. So as we've been asking, they made their investment. Well, that brings us back to
[1:36:09] the issue of the industrial base. They were supposed to go to full rate production shortly thereafter.
[1:36:15] That got sidelined. And this is where we found out that they said, oh, you can do foreign military sales,
[1:36:22] which is quite often brought up and tends to be true on platforms that we continue to use.
[1:36:30] As soon as a signal goes out that that particular platform isn't going to be used, FMS usually follows
[1:36:38] that. Now we have an interesting dynamic that for the Chinook, for instance, has proposed some foreign
[1:36:47] military sales. What we haven't figured in is the relationship with those countries, what it was
[1:36:53] two years ago versus today. And that is significantly changing. There's the E7 issue with NATO, which was
[1:37:01] awarded and they're bringing back. So as I bring up the rotary wing and the industrial base, how important
[1:37:08] it is, I don't build any of these in my district. I'm a free agent. I'm looking at this from 10 years on this
[1:37:15] committee understanding what it takes. So we see that we're all in on Cheyenne and we delivered that
[1:37:24] platform and that decision was made and we're all in. And I think they're doing remarkably well. But the
[1:37:32] idea of putting all our chips that were all in for Cheyenne while we're decimating the industrial base for
[1:37:39] the rotary wing is just fundamentally flawed. And that once we destroy that industrial base,
[1:37:48] to build it back will not be cost effective, will not be quick. It goes against everything we've done.
[1:37:55] And for the last two administrations talked about how we have to keep a strong rotary wing. If you can
[1:38:02] give me an example where major defense acquisition, white sheet has come in on time, on budget with the
[1:38:09] capabilities, I'll be impressed. But we all know it's complicated and it typically doesn't happen. So the
[1:38:16] fact that we're all in on the 75 of Cheyenne, yes, we have to cover our bases because experience has taught
[1:38:24] us we need to have a ready wing. So secretary, I heard the previous questions. The idea that we can decimate
[1:38:36] this is sending the exact opposite signal of what this administration has been preaching. Looking
[1:38:43] at it is incredibly important. But how that decision was rendered, not understanding that we really
[1:38:50] won't have an industrial base for rotary wings. Can you walk us through how that decision was made?
[1:38:55] Happy to, Congressman. As I said earlier to one of your colleagues, warfare has changed. If you look at
[1:39:02] things like the Chinook, the Apache, the Black Hawk, they have served this nation incredibly well for a long
[1:39:08] time. And we think those systems will be in our portfolio for a very long time. We intend to upgrade and
[1:39:14] modernize and maintain them and be good stewards of the assets the taxpayers have given us. Very
[1:39:20] similar to wheeled vehicles. When we talk about having 104,000 Humvees, it's not that Humvees don't
[1:39:26] still serve a purpose. It's just we have a lot of them and we need to go lighter. And so that's why we
[1:39:30] did a squad vehicle. That's why. And so when we are looking at the portfolio of assets that we think you
[1:39:36] need for a modern fight in a drone world, where swarms of drones are going to be attacking an Apache,
[1:39:42] it just currently, if you if you look all over the world, there are not good solutions for that. And
[1:39:48] so we have got to move our mix over and over invest in other things we don't have, like unmanned systems.
[1:39:54] I'm with you. I'm with you that that mix is there. But the cuts this year decimated. There is no
[1:40:01] minimum sustainment when the proposed cuts are going to happen. We need to keep them going for a certain
[1:40:09] amount of time until we know we're going to be able to be an effective new tilt rotor is ready to go.
[1:40:18] The cuts that are proposed wipes them out. You can't keep that second and third tier supplier going.
[1:40:24] And those are the ones we'll need to keep this platform. So how do you address that?
[1:40:29] Gentlemen, time's expired. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott.
[1:40:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thanks for being here.
[1:40:34] Secretary Driscoll, when was the 2nd Armored Brigade rotation to Poland canceled?
[1:40:43] Just a couple days ago, Congressman. Okay, a couple of days ago. And when were,
[1:40:53] so who made the decision to halt that? Sure, in consultation with the COCOM commander, he received
[1:41:03] the direction to do the reduction. We looked at what would be the best choice.
[1:41:10] When did he receive that direction? Sure, I'm not sure exactly the date that he received it. This was all
[1:41:17] you know, relatively recent. And we worked back and forth on what those recommendations would be.
[1:41:25] And the order came down that that would be one of them. I'm sorry, I'm short on time. You say recent.
[1:41:31] When you say recent, you mean 10 days or a few months? Yeah, I think it's probably been within the
[1:41:38] last two weeks. Yes, sir. Okay. Within the last two weeks, the decision was made. So this has been a
[1:41:42] long plan. My understanding is advanced elements were already overseas. Is that correct? That's
[1:41:47] correct, sir. And equipment was in transit? Yes, sir. Okay. When were you informed of the decision,
[1:41:56] General? Just a couple of days ago. Whenever, well, within that two-week window, sir. Okay.
[1:42:04] Whenever we worked together with the COCOM commander. Again, Title 10. I understand. And
[1:42:09] Secretary Driscoll, was your, were you informed at the exact same, I assume you were informed at the
[1:42:14] same time? Yes, Congressman. Okay. Um, were you consulted about the decision prior to the decision
[1:42:23] being made? Or was the decision made and you told this is the decision and we're going to stop this
[1:42:27] rotation? I had consultations with, uh, General Grinkovich on, uh, you know, different elements,
[1:42:36] uh, that are in Europe, uh, in, in what would be, uh, the, the most, uh, prudent one, uh, to, uh, to stop.
[1:42:45] Okay. And these conversations were all within the last two weeks? That's correct, sir. Okay. All right.
[1:42:53] I'm, I'm, I support NATO. Uh, I will say this. Um, I mean, obviously there's a tremendous overlap
[1:43:02] between NATO and the European Union. I'm very frustrated with European Union on a lot of trade
[1:43:07] related issues. And I've, I've told our NATO partners in my office very directly, you know,
[1:43:13] you don't, you don't get to pretend you're our friends when you pass non-tariff trade barriers
[1:43:19] through the European Union that damage industry in the United States, like the timber industry with what
[1:43:25] they've done with the European Union deforestation regulations. So I understand, um, it's tough to
[1:43:31] balance all of these things, but I'm, I, I want to get to, I mean, my, my primary concern, I'm not
[1:43:38] worried about the 5,000 troops coming out of, out of Germany. I mean, they had been plussed up. They're
[1:43:43] being, they're being pulled back. Um, but I, it, it seems to me that when there's been a long planned
[1:43:54] rotation, it's a nine month rotation. How long have we been doing these rotations? They're done on
[1:44:01] the annual. Yeah, we've been doing them for a couple of years now, sir, since, uh, since the
[1:44:07] evasion. But we, we also continuously do planning on what the force elements will be, uh, utilized
[1:44:15] by the COCOM commanders based off the needs that they, uh, they present. But our, um, the advanced
[1:44:26] were already there. The equipment was already on the way before the decision to cancel was made.
[1:44:32] Correct. All right. I want to read what the, what the, this is what the Pentagon said.
[1:44:40] The decision to withdraw troops follows a comprehensive multi-layered process that
[1:44:45] incorporates perspectives from key leaders in U S military in Europe and across the chain of
[1:44:51] command, said acting Pentagon secretary, Joel Valdez. This is not an unexpected last minute
[1:44:56] decision. I, I don't, I don't see how that statement can be true. Congressman. Um, I, I would
[1:45:07] say outside of the broader specifics that general and Eve is talking about, we are constantly in
[1:45:12] contact with OSW and the combatant commanders. We're having planning and this is not meant to,
[1:45:17] um, hide the ball. This is to say this type of conversation is going on throughout the year,
[1:45:23] every single year. And the army is always ready to move people and things based off combatant commander
[1:45:28] and secretary of work preferences. And so this is not that unusual.
[1:45:31] Secretary, I respect you. These, these are, these are major decisions that appear to many of the members of
[1:45:36] this committee to be last minute decisions.
[1:45:39] Gentlemen's times expired. And the gentleman is correct that we have been very focused on this
[1:45:44] committee about force posture and you come in particular, not being disturbed, particularly
[1:45:49] without what statute requires is consultation with us. Uh, and we didn't get that. So we don't know what's
[1:45:55] going on here, but I can just tell you, we're not happy with what's being talked about, particularly since
[1:46:00] there's been no statutory consultation with us. Uh, ranking members recognize that point. And I yielded
[1:46:08] my question time, but the one thing I really want, and we talked about this yesterday, general, why?
[1:46:14] Okay. I can't get an answer to that question. All right. We had a brigade combat team ready to go to
[1:46:18] Poland, decided not to. And the only answer I've got is, well, that's what they told us to do. Okay.
[1:46:24] Why? I mean, what, what is the strategy behind this? And it is a pretty dramatic decision to,
[1:46:29] at the last minute, pull a team that you're trying to send over there. If there's some strategy behind
[1:46:33] it, then you guys ought to know and you ought to be able to communicate it to us. I yield back.
[1:46:38] Thank you. Okay. Uh, the gentleman from Georgia would like to submit two, uh, articles for record
[1:46:44] without objection. So ordered, uh, Jim, uh, gentleman now, uh, from California, Mr. Carbajal is recognized.
[1:46:50] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and thank you to the witnesses for being here. I associate myself
[1:46:55] with, uh, your comments and those of, uh, ranking member Smith on that subject. Uh, UC Santa Barbara,
[1:47:02] which is in my congressional district, has been fortunate to house the Army University-Affiliated
[1:47:08] Research Center, or UARC, for the last 23 years. It is called the Institute for Collaborative
[1:47:15] Biotechnologies, or ICB. ICB's research is focused on non-medical applications of biotechnology
[1:47:23] that intersect the fields, material science, neuroscience, human performance, and quantum
[1:47:29] science for Army applications. I've been strongly opposed to this administration's cuts to federal
[1:47:36] research programs across government, including the National Science Foundation, National Institute of
[1:47:43] Health, and, unfortunately, even the Department of Defense. I think these cuts, whether big or small,
[1:47:49] are short-sighted. We will not feel the impact tomorrow, a year from now, but we will feel them
[1:47:56] eventually, and our economy and national security will suffer. Secretary Driscoll, do you agree that basic
[1:48:03] research is important to supporting innovation and advancements in technology that support our war
[1:48:09] fighters and national security? Yes. In the $1.1 trillion budget request sent over to Congress,
[1:48:18] I was disappointed to see funding for the ICB at $0 for fiscal year 27, which usually receives around $4
[1:48:27] million per year. However, in the 2026 UARC management plan, it says all existing UARCs established prior to
[1:48:36] fiscal year 2010 will be maintained at the original $2 million annual threshold. Secretary Driscoll,
[1:48:44] what was the reasoning behind zeroing out funding for multiple Army UARCs in the fiscal year 27 budget
[1:48:51] requests, including for the Institute of Collaborative Biotechnologies? And can we count on the Army to
[1:48:59] follow its own plan to meet at least the $2 million threshold? Congressman, I can follow up with your
[1:49:07] office on the specifics more broadly. We are trying to be good custodians of American taxpayer dollars,
[1:49:14] and as we referenced, we are an inflection point where our nation needs to put every single dollar
[1:49:19] you give us into a direct mission that can immediately impact the lethality of our soldiers.
[1:49:26] And when we go through a budget process, we have to be very thoughtful about how to balance competing
[1:49:31] priorities. But I'll follow back up with your office, Congressman. Thank you. Secretary Driscoll,
[1:49:35] it is my understanding that the Institute for Collaborative Biotechnologies was appropriated
[1:49:40] 3.7 million as part of fiscal year 2026. To date, they have only received about 2 million.
[1:49:49] When can they expect the remaining 1.7 million in funding that Congress appropriated for this UARC?
[1:49:57] Again, Congressman, I'll look at the specifics and we'll follow up. Thank you. Secretary Driscoll,
[1:50:03] will you commit to working with me to ensure Army UARC to receive the funding they need to remain open
[1:50:09] so they can continue critical research that benefits our national security and economy?
[1:50:14] Secretary Driscoll, we absolutely commit to following up with your office and discussing it.
[1:50:19] Great. I appreciate it. Mr. Chair, I yield back.
[1:50:21] The gentleman yields back, Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjoli.
[1:50:26] Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Driscoll,
[1:50:30] how does the fiscal year 27 Army budget address Army National Guard aviation readiness and
[1:50:37] modernization, including recapitalization of aging rotary wing fleets, aircraft survivability
[1:50:43] upgrades, and maintenance support at the state level? Sir, if I may. Certainly. We've taken a
[1:50:50] look across the entire aviation ecosystem, both active and in the Guard, and to some extent on
[1:50:59] the units that we're going to have to deactivate in the reserves, specifically the ECAB, in order to
[1:51:06] balance what we have as an oversized structure compared to what we need, but we're not walking
[1:51:13] away from modernizing that equipment. I look at that equipment as an enduring fleet, sir, for both
[1:51:19] the active component and our Guard formations that's going to receive the modernization that they're
[1:51:26] going to need to fill the gap that we're going to have. So this will cover disaster response,
[1:51:30] medevac support, domestic operations as well? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. General, while I have your
[1:51:38] attention, we'll talk about drones for a minute. They've proven very difficult to defeat, as you
[1:51:42] know, and it costs a fraction of what the interceptors required to stop them have been costing us. Do you
[1:51:48] believe the budget appropriately reflects the need for research and investment in counter UAS systems,
[1:51:54] such as, like, the Vampire, for example? Sir, I do, and our Secretary has pushed us, you know, very hard
[1:52:02] in looking across the entire spectrum of ways to counter this threat. I think one of the ways that
[1:52:10] he's pushed us, and I agree wholeheartedly in this direction, is looking at the magazine depth writ large
[1:52:18] and having low-cost munitions with our higher end. And then we push a lot of systems into theater right
[1:52:27] now to ensure that we have the best protection possible and the newest protection possible.
[1:52:32] And then the last part is our GIATA 401 that is looking across the interagency here of how to counter the
[1:52:42] threat inside of our country, of all of our critical infrastructure sites. And that brings
[1:52:49] a dimension to the overall look for us to counter this threat and to have as many of these systems
[1:52:58] in our soldiers' hands as fast as possible. And Congressman, I would just say what General and
[1:53:03] even his team of soldiers have done under GIATA 401, I think, is actually government at its very best.
[1:53:09] And so GIATA 401 is the agency on behalf of the Pentagon. And because of my role as acting director
[1:53:14] of ATF for a while, we were able to sync with DOJ and invite in 350 state and local law enforcement
[1:53:20] agencies. And so this is truly a whole-of-government approach to the drone threat.
[1:53:24] And well, certainly we've seen the benefits of cutting the bureaucracy and red tape from other
[1:53:29] major acquisitions. And so certainly, you know, that would apply here. Secretary Driscoll,
[1:53:34] the Missile Defense Agency is procuring eighth THAAD battery. However, even with the eighth battery
[1:53:41] on the way, demand is becoming more acute given recent engagements in the Middle East. While THAAD
[1:53:46] interceptors have been included in the Deputy Secretaries of Defense Munitions Acceleration Council
[1:53:51] as a critical munition, THAAD production will not reach full capacity until the early 2030s.
[1:53:57] What are the key gaps in the defense industrial base that must be addressed
[1:54:00] to enable the production volumes needed to sustain prolonged high-tempo operations? And how does the
[1:54:05] FY27 budget request meaningfully close those gaps?
[1:54:09] Yeah, what you're referencing, that the THAAD system is an absolutely exquisite system,
[1:54:15] and we will continue to work with those partners who develop it. We've been working with Depstack
[1:54:20] War, Feinberg, and his team to not only take those exquisite systems that exist that are manually very
[1:54:26] difficult to build, but also to layer in other solutions. And so we're investing in small and
[1:54:31] medium businesses across the country. We're inviting them to our ranges to come out and show us what
[1:54:36] they have. But the short answer, Congressman, is that in and of itself will not be sufficient,
[1:54:40] but we know it. And the 27 budget reflects dollars for us to continue to invest in these other solutions.
[1:54:46] Well, thank you for that. Is there anything else from a policy-making perspective that Congress can do to
[1:54:52] help flexibility for the department to more rapidly procure these critical munitions, or do you feel
[1:54:58] like you're in a good place? One of the things that can be most helpful is consolidated budget line
[1:55:03] items. This may sound esoteric and accounting-esque, but the whole concept was, if you look back at the
[1:55:10] 80s, we were essentially given our dollars in eight to ten buckets. Wheeled vehicles may be a bucket. You
[1:55:15] would give us the dollars, you would then ask us to show you the receipts, and that was the accountability
[1:55:19] mechanism. We now have over 1,400 different line items that binds our hands into the types of things
[1:55:25] that we purchase. And so when we're thinking about counter-drone interceptors, or whatever the
[1:55:29] topic is, we can have... Gentlemen, times aspires. Here goes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Crowe.
[1:55:34] Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to both of you for coming in and testifying today.
[1:55:38] Secretary Driscoll, I wanted to start with you. You know, we're both combat veterans, both served honorably
[1:55:44] in the Army. And during the course of my three combat tours, I had the privilege of serving at the
[1:55:49] so-called tip of the spear, some of our most elite combat units, 82nd Airborne Division, 75th Ranger
[1:55:55] Regiment, served with the Joint Special Operations Command in Afghanistan. And I bristle at this notion
[1:56:01] coming from the Department of Defense, from Secretary Hegseth, that we somehow lack lethality. There's
[1:56:07] something wrong with our culture because the men and women who I served with were committed to the
[1:56:12] mission and fought very hard and were very lethal when it came for the time for that. But over the course of
[1:56:18] those tours, what became very obvious to me is that what we did lack was a full understanding about
[1:56:24] how to win the support of local populations, how to lay the groundwork for support for what we were
[1:56:32] trying to achieve, that we were very good with missions, very great with tactics in accomplishing
[1:56:37] every mission, but we ultimately lost the support of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan who we were there
[1:56:42] to serve and to help liberate. So I created a bipartisan law in 2023 to create a civilian protection center of
[1:56:53] excellence, to assemble the best practices, to understand how we protect civilians, we make that
[1:56:58] a priority for our military. That CPCOE passed on a bipartisan basis years ago. It was nestled in the
[1:57:05] Army where it exists. I'm very concerned by a recent DOD IG report that says, quote,
[1:57:12] in February 2025, the acting Under Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army each developed
[1:57:17] proposals for the SecDef to consider and approve options to eliminate or significantly reduce the CPCOE.
[1:57:25] How do you square that with law in the bipartisan intent of this committee, including many fellow combat
[1:57:31] veterans, that we make this a priority for our military? Congressman, I just want to start off
[1:57:37] with the statement that, as somebody that also deployed to theater about the time you're talking
[1:57:43] about, civilian casualties, no one should wish for those and they create all sorts of, beyond just the
[1:57:51] morality issues, they create all sorts of negative externalities for a mission that are just bad for
[1:57:56] the mission. And so we in the Department of War and the Army are perfectly aligned that we want to
[1:58:01] minimize those in every instance, specifically what you're referencing, Congressman. As far as I recall,
[1:58:07] and I will follow up with your offices if this is incorrect, our intent was simply to move it from
[1:58:11] the Army to DOW. I don't think we had any intention to shrink it. There was an instance about a month and a
[1:58:17] half ago where I believe I spoke with your office where in doing some, the United States Army had never matched
[1:58:23] up its people and its jobs, and so we spent about 10 months going through an exercise to try to save the American
[1:58:29] taxpayer at about $2 billion a year. And what we had found out in that process is we had never accurately
[1:58:35] coded the positions for the center so that when we went through that exercise, it looked as if we were
[1:58:40] getting rid of it. I believe after we spoke with your office, we immediately remitted it.
[1:58:44] I, I, I, we, we need to follow up. I know our offices have been talking, but things, things are not squaring
[1:58:50] here, right? This DOD IG report is pretty clear. There are proposals to eliminate CPCOE, which is
[1:58:56] different from a coding shift or an accounting shift of personnel and resources, because that report
[1:59:01] went on and it said, it found that lost personnel and leadership at COE is hindering full DOD compliance
[1:59:07] with its civilian casualties and harm policy, a policy required by federal law. The Office of the
[1:59:13] Secretary of War and DOW components lack many of the personnel and tools designed to execute
[1:59:18] the statutory purpose. So something's not happening. Uh, it is not conducting its, uh, its statutory,
[1:59:26] uh, role and mission. It's, it's losing personnel. It's losing resources. It's being shifted around.
[1:59:33] This needs to be fixed because this is law. Uh, if you don't like the law, we can talk about that,
[1:59:39] what needs to be changed, but it has to be changed here. So long as it is law, it needs to be carried out.
[1:59:44] Uh, totally agree, Congressman. We'll follow up with your office. And just to speak on behalf of the Army,
[1:59:48] the intent is to follow all statutory intent and the laws. And so, um, we'll make sure that we're in compliance.
[1:59:53] Thank you, Secretary. Uh, and General Leiv, Laniv, on, on your end, I just wanted to be clear,
[1:59:58] I wanted to follow up on, uh, Mr. Um, Scott's line of questioning. When you said that an order was given
[2:00:04] to UCOM commander, uh, to remove the rotational brigade, where was that order, uh, uh, coming from?
[2:00:12] Who gave that order to the COCOM to remove the rotational brigade?
[2:00:18] Yes, sir. I, the, uh, the direction came from OSW. Um, and, uh, you know, like we always do,
[2:00:27] sir, as we're looking at force structure. It came from OSW to the COCOM. It did not come
[2:00:31] through the Army or you were not in that line. No, sir. It, that, it goes to the COCOM. We're,
[2:00:36] you know, that we're the title 10, uh, we answer to the, uh, we, we build the, the force packages
[2:00:43] and we, I understand how the Army works. I get that. I know you do too.
[2:00:47] The gentleman's time's expired. Thank you.
[2:00:48] The chair not recognized gentleman from Nebraska with General Bacon.
[2:00:50] Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you, uh, General Laniv, uh, for being here.
[2:00:55] I know this wasn't your decision. This was the Secretary of Defense's decision. But I gotta tell you,
[2:01:00] it was reprehensible. It's an embarrassment to our country, how we just, what we just did to Poland,
[2:01:05] in my view. So let's, I know you said we had coordination with NATO or EUCOM to answer it.
[2:01:12] The question, the real question is why, why have we pulled two armored brigades out of Eastern Europe?
[2:01:16] Yeah, sure. I, I've, I've not in the, on the policy side here. I'm,
[2:01:25] But you are the Chief of Staff of the Army. There's, there is no good explanation why we just removed
[2:01:29] two armored brigades from Eastern Europe. There's gotta be some explanation.
[2:01:33] Oh, sure. I think, uh, as they reviewed the force structure, um, it, the conclusion was that we could,
[2:01:39] we could re-back one of the brigades that are in the rotation. One brigade. One brigade that's in
[2:01:44] the rotation pull, uh, pull that we send over, uh, to Europe. There's still, there's still another
[2:01:50] brigade there. There's still a division headquarters that's in rotation there. We still have Fifth Corps,
[2:01:55] uh, that is over there as well. But we, we pulled the brigade out of Romania. Now we're pulling
[2:01:59] the brigade out of Poland. Is there a plan to replace that brigade in Poland? That you would have
[2:02:03] to ask the COCOM commander, sir, uh, on how he's going to maneuver the forces that he has. We still
[2:02:09] have a force structure that is permanent force structure that's in Europe supporting our allies,
[2:02:15] through both exercises and continual presence on the, on the continent.
[2:02:20] I know there's, I may not represent 100% of people on this committee, but I think I represent
[2:02:24] the views of the vast majority. We disagree. Russia has invaded Ukraine.
[2:02:29] Have they given us any concessions to withdraw two armor brigades out of Europe as they're invading
[2:02:34] Ukraine? What concessions have they given us as we withdraw forces? Sure. I can't answer that
[2:02:41] question. Well, I know it. There's none. It's just, it's, this is why it's so foolish. We're sending a
[2:02:45] terrible message to Russia and to our allies. Here's another question. Do we know if Poland was notified
[2:02:51] by the secretary? Um, we don't know. Well, I already know the answer because they called me yesterday.
[2:02:57] They did not know they were blindsided. These are some of our best allies and they had no
[2:03:02] idea. They still don't know what the plan. They know, okay, the order was stopped.
[2:03:06] They don't know if there's, if this is just a suspension or permanent. We owe Poland who
[2:03:13] and our Baltic friends who are very vulnerable from this decision, a better explanation here and
[2:03:18] irrational. We should be doing this before we actually make the decision. We should be coordinating
[2:03:23] with them. It's an embarrassment. I'm telling you, this is an embarrassment to our country,
[2:03:27] the way this is being handled. And I happen to know the answer to this,
[2:03:30] but I'm going to ask, did, did you say we coordinated with UCOM? I can guarantee you
[2:03:36] they did not say this was low risk. Can you, can you verify that? Cause I happen to know
[2:03:41] they said it carries risk. So in other words, it was coordinated with UCOM,
[2:03:45] but they did not say this was a low risk decision. Am I right?
[2:03:50] Sure. That those discussions, that risk that mean from the co commander back into, uh, OSW,
[2:03:56] it's not part of what the title 10, you know, of the army, uh, does.
[2:04:01] I was just hoping as the army chief, they would keep you better informed, but I happen to know this
[2:04:06] because I served in NATO. They did not say this is low risk. So in other words,
[2:04:11] the secretary of defense made this decision over some objections of the UCOM commander.
[2:04:17] That's what I submit here. I just want to say, this is a slap in the face to Poland.
[2:04:23] It's a slap in the face to our Baltic friends. I think it's a slap to the face in this committee,
[2:04:27] because we've put floors and restrictions on the Pentagon and further reductions in Europe
[2:04:33] because of what they did with Romania. They told this committee or the leadership of this committee
[2:04:39] that we were not going to, there's no plans to remove this for again from Romania. Then a week
[2:04:45] later it was done. So then we responded in the NDAA to prevent this kind of behavior. And it's
[2:04:50] happened again. I think this committee under the chairman, the ranking member, we got to hold the
[2:04:55] secretary accountable for this decision. It's wrong. Okay. My second question, I know I'm the Baltic
[2:05:01] Security Chairman. Latvia and Estonia have HIMARS, but they just have the launchers.
[2:05:06] They don't have the warheads or the weapons. What is the plan to fill that?
[2:05:10] Sir, there is a long-term plan to fill the munitions. And it's part of, you know,
[2:05:22] production and all of that with the industrial base to be able to get, you know, the munitions
[2:05:27] over there. You know, sir, I've served over there too. So, you know, I fully appreciate your concerns.
[2:05:35] It's hard to deter when you don't have the weapons to go on the launchers. But I know that
[2:05:39] the, our Baltic friends love this country. They're vulnerable. They love freedom. They lived under
[2:05:45] the Soviet rule. And I think the decision of being slow on helping them deter, but also doing what we
[2:05:51] did in Poland sends a terrible message. And they question, can they trust America? And that's a terrible,
[2:05:57] terrible thing to happen when you lose trust with your closest friends. With that, and by the way,
[2:06:02] I say this again, I know this isn't your decision. It came from the Secretary of Defense. I yield back.
[2:06:06] The Chair now recognizes Ms. Strickland.
[2:06:09] Thank you, Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith. And thank you, Secretary Driscoll and General
[2:06:14] Lene for being here. It's nice to see you both again.
[2:06:17] This committee is being asked to evaluate not only the Army's budget request, but leadership decisions,
[2:06:23] workforce policies that will determine whether that budget can be effectively executed. And at a time when
[2:06:30] the Department is managing modernization efforts, operational demands, and workforce restrictions
[2:06:35] simultaneously, we the policymakers in Congress need a clear understanding of whether current policies
[2:06:41] are strengthening or compromising the institution's ability to execute its mission and support around
[2:06:46] the world. Recent reporting by the Defense Scoop and Federal News Network have highlighted growing
[2:06:52] concerns surrounding Army civilian workforce restructuring efforts, hiring responsiveness,
[2:06:57] and workforce stability. And for anyone watching at home, nearly 30 percent of people who are on
[2:07:02] bases are civilians. At Joint Base Lewisman's Court, it's around 30 percent. So across the Army,
[2:07:07] commands are reporting uncertainty tied to those workforce challenges. And my question for you is,
[2:07:13] what exactly is the Army doing to improve workforce responsiveness and reduce uncertainty for commands
[2:07:18] and employees? Secretary Driscoll, when we met in October, you indicated that when hiring exemption
[2:07:23] requests reach your desk, you're going to approve them. However, commands across the Army are reporting
[2:07:28] workforce uncertainty due to hiring delays, restructuring efforts, and extended approval tie lines.
[2:07:34] What specific actions is the Army taking to reduce this uncertainty?
[2:07:39] Congresswoman, I referenced that a bit earlier, but one of the things we the United States Army have not
[2:07:43] done well over the last 30 years on behalf of the taxpayer is get our arms around our civilian workforce. And by
[2:07:49] that, what I mean is we think about it as our faces, the people that work for us who are incredible
[2:07:54] patriotic Americans with incredible talent that helps the department, and our spaces, our jobs. And so
[2:08:00] we took advantage of the hiring freeze that was department-wide, and we actually kept it longer than
[2:08:04] any other service. And we had a lot of hard conversation with commanders along the way about why we were
[2:08:09] doing it. But the intent was to match our people to our jobs. And through this exercise, about a month ago,
[2:08:14] we got to a final place where what we think we've done is saved about $2 billion a year on behalf of
[2:08:20] the taxpayer. That's $10 billion over the FIDEP. No, and we appreciate the saving of taxpayer money,
[2:08:24] but are you being effective to address the shortages we're having and the challenge that we're having
[2:08:29] to get a civilian workforce? I believe we are, ma'am. All right, thank you. And now I'm going to talk
[2:08:34] about Strategic Hiring Committee and hiring delays, and I'm going to go to General Laniv. The Army Strategic
[2:08:39] Hiring Committee reportedly has only met twice so far, while large members of hiring
[2:08:44] requests from the force remain delayed or denied. Do you believe that the current process is providing
[2:08:50] commands the responsive they need to manage their civilian workforce effectively? Yes, ma'am,
[2:08:55] I do, as we work back up through the process. And can you give us specific examples of what you're
[2:09:01] doing to make it work? All the commands have had an opportunity to, you know, send back up what they're,
[2:09:09] how they're filling out their positions, and that what exemptions that they need to be able to fill
[2:09:14] critical positions in there. That comes back up through me and the secretary and our deputy
[2:09:22] undersecretary in order to approve those positions. And Congresswoman, just this week,
[2:09:28] we feel good that we've gotten a grasp on the faces and spaces, and so we are selectively pulling
[2:09:33] off the hiring freeze across the Army. And I would guess within about a month or two, we will have no
[2:09:38] more hiring freezes in Army, and the local on-the-ground commanders will be able to make the hiring
[2:09:42] decisions they need. Great, thank you for that. And my office will follow up with you in a month,
[2:09:45] so we can get a full report of exactly what's happening. So I want to switch over to the
[2:09:49] conversation that my colleague, Congressman Scott, brought up about the sudden withdrawal,
[2:09:55] well, not sending folks where they were supposed to go. And the Army's role in Europe, this is a quote
[2:10:00] from Politico, is all about deterring the Russians, protecting America's strategic interests,
[2:10:06] and assuring allies, said Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army in Europe.
[2:10:12] And now a very important asset that was coming to be part of that deterrence is gone. And I think the
[2:10:19] question I ask, and again, I think to someone's point, you did not make this decision. You should
[2:10:23] have been part of the decision, as should Congress. But what message is this sending to our allies in
[2:10:29] Europe? What message is this sending to Russia? Congresswoman, as I noted in my opening remarks,
[2:10:36] I've spent about 130 days on the road so far, a lot of that in Europe with our allies and our
[2:10:41] soldiers, a lot of joint exercises. I was at Project African Lion, where we had some
[2:10:47] European counterparts there. What I can say is, in every meeting that I have had with any
[2:10:52] counterpart and any soldier, they know that the United States Army is the strongest force in the
[2:10:56] history of the world. Okay, thank you. What message does it send to Russia? I think Russia would echo that
[2:11:03] we are the strongest, most powerful military in the history of the world. When we take that many troops
[2:11:07] away, it says that we are not a reliable ally. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I generally yield back.
[2:11:12] Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Luttrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:11:18] Mr. Secretary, General, thank you both for your service and continued service, Mr. Secretary.
[2:11:23] Can you kind of line out what the Army, what steps the Army has taken directly or indirectly to reduce
[2:11:31] the capabilities, personnel operations, and readiness of the E-Cabs? Yes, sir.
[2:11:36] And what funding lines were used to do that, if? Well, sir, we took a look across the board at how
[2:11:45] over-structured we are in the rotary wing side of the Army. And in order to balance this,
[2:11:55] we have to take down the E-Cab, especially… That process has started? Yes, sir. It absolutely has.
[2:12:02] Now, what we are doing is ensuring that those personnel can still, you know, meet their flying
[2:12:09] requirements or transition into the active component or a different MOS. It was not an easy decision.
[2:12:18] The E-Cabs are very costly with their equipment, so we made that decision.
[2:12:25] Very costly, but very efficient. The Army, the Army Reserve Aviation has zero
[2:12:30] Class A flight accidents over the past five years. Their readiness rates are 5 to 10 percent higher
[2:12:37] than others, and their cost per blade hour is 15 percent lower. But we've, we've cut them down to 50
[2:12:43] percent overall. Is that, do I understand that correctly? That's correct. Yes, sir.
[2:12:52] General Section 1049 of the fiscal year 26 National Defense Authorization Act barred the Army from using
[2:13:02] any funds to reduce the capabilities or personnel at the E-Cabs until 90 days after submitting its
[2:13:08] report to Congress. That day is June 5th. That day has not happened yet. And we have reduced our E-Cabs to
[2:13:18] 50 percent manning personnel and readiness. Can you explain to me, after what I've just read off from the
[2:13:26] National Defense Authorization Act, how that occurred? Congressman, I can step in because
[2:13:32] I was in general and even newer to the role, so I would take responsibility for that. We will follow
[2:13:37] up with your office. I don't know in depth what you were saying, but I commit to following up quickly.
[2:13:42] Which part, Mr. Secretary, are you unclear on what I've, that I've stated?
[2:13:46] The Section 1049. Section 1049.
[2:13:53] Limitations on use of funds for deactivation of Expeditionary Combat Aviation Brigades.
[2:13:59] Section 1049. None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this act or otherwise made
[2:14:05] available for fiscal year 2026 for the Army may be obligated or expended to retire, deactivate,
[2:14:13] schedule to deactivate, or proceed with any actions that would reduce capabilities, resources, aircraft,
[2:14:19] or personnel available as of the date of the enactment of this act for the Expeditionary Combat Aviation
[2:14:25] Brigade before the earlier of this date. Mr. Secretary, I highly recommend you and the General
[2:14:32] come see me as soon as possible. Somebody better answer.
[2:14:37] Yes, sir.
[2:14:38] Another issue I have with losing my E-Cab because I live in pretty much the catcher's mitt of the Gulf of
[2:14:48] Mexico in the state of Texas where it meets Louisiana and Harris County, Houston. My district
[2:14:53] receives all the hurricanes and my E-Cab unit is very much tied in to everything we deal with.
[2:15:00] On a yearly basis. We, for the past five years, maybe four or five years, we have spent $14.3 million,
[2:15:14] the Army did this, $14.3 million to completely refurbish and rebuild the E-Cabs facility in Conroe,
[2:15:23] Texas. They've been off-site. And the completion of that project, I believe, will be done by the end
[2:15:31] of the year. So we just stroked a check for $14.3 million to refurbish the facilities
[2:15:39] for the functionality of this unit, and they won't even be able to step foot in it
[2:15:44] come September. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[2:15:50] Chairman, I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Ryan.
[2:15:53] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being here. I do want to take a moment in my few minutes
[2:16:00] to say something that I think is important given recent shocking changes made by the Secretary of
[2:16:08] Defense. General Randy George should, should I believe, still be sitting here today. No offense
[2:16:14] to you, of course, General Laniv. His being forced out ahead of time was a grave injustice. I think it
[2:16:23] was deeply wrong. Many others have said, including General Keene, at his retirement, that this hurt our
[2:16:31] army. It hurts trust, sends a really concerning message to the force and to all of our soldiers.
[2:16:38] I mean, we all know this, but I think it needs to be on the record, and others have said it
[2:16:42] in a bipartisan manner. General George is a fierce war fighter. He commanded in combat at every level,
[2:16:49] platoon leader in Desert Storm, battalion command in Iraq, among other deployments, brigade and division
[2:16:55] command in Afghanistan, then took those lessons, and throughout those commands just praised and
[2:17:02] commended, rightly so, by, most importantly, all the folks that he led. Took those lessons,
[2:17:09] and with your partnership, Mr. Secretary, came into this job and took big swings, was willing to take
[2:17:15] big risks, was a visionary, I believe, at a critical inflection point to say, we're going to shake things
[2:17:21] up, we're going to make hard choices, we're going to debate that back and forth with Congress, and we're
[2:17:26] going to make our army stronger, our country safer, and do right by our soldiers. And I think he deserves
[2:17:31] a ton of credit for that, in addition to really turning around recruiting in a substantive way under
[2:17:37] under his leadership. And I just think he, in the greatest American tradition, represents what it means
[2:17:43] to be a patriot, four-plus decades, starting as a private enlisting in 1982. And his wife, Patty, have
[2:17:52] just served this nation incredibly well, always humble, always professional, always giving credit
[2:17:58] to others. I gained a great deal that I learned from him as a young officer and in his role as a chief,
[2:18:05] and I just think that needs to be said over and over. Again, I know, as other decisions that we're
[2:18:13] bringing up here today, these were not made by either of you, but they are deeply wrong and unacceptable.
[2:18:21] And I hope that other colleagues continue to point that out. On a more constructive note,
[2:18:30] I do want to shift to a topic that I know, particularly you, Mr. Secretary, have been focused on and
[2:18:35] talking about, which is the cost exchange ratio. I think the most important measure by which we need to be
[2:18:40] thinking about are a lot of our decisions. We've seen the depletion of stockpiles around Epic Fury and
[2:18:51] the war in Iran. We also see what's playing out in Ukraine. I was encouraged by the announcement,
[2:18:57] I believe two days ago, of the low-cost munitions initiatives, DOD-wide, over 10,000 low-cost containerized
[2:19:05] missiles with the goal of having them running by 2027. And I know, especially you, Secretary Driscoll,
[2:19:12] want to commend you've been looking at bringing down the interceptor cost. You've talked about
[2:19:15] bringing it under 250,000. I think that's absolutely right. I know we have strong bipartisan support for
[2:19:22] that. Can you talk a little bit about that? And I am, can you address a concern? The proposed budget,
[2:19:28] I worry, in the high-low mix, the base budget funds, all the high-end, expensive, over-engineered stuff,
[2:19:36] and all of the lower-end, primarily stuff, is going in either reconciliation or somewhere else. I think
[2:19:42] that's 180 degrees wrong. I'm not asking you to necessarily agree with that, although I'd welcome it.
[2:19:48] But can you talk just about how we're doing that across the Army? Absolutely, Congressman. Again,
[2:19:54] under Dept-Secorp Feinberg and Secretary of Headspace's leadership, we are being empowered to go after
[2:19:59] these new solutions. They are telling us services to go find small and medium businesses and figure out
[2:20:06] how we can take their innovations, combine them, and scale them. And so what we, the United States Army,
[2:20:11] are going to announce in a couple of weeks is an XPRIZE-like exercise for the interceptor, where we're
[2:20:15] going to basically break it apart into the five or six different components. So a seeker would be one,
[2:20:21] propulsion would be another, and we're going to go out to the American talent that exists in our
[2:20:25] research labs and say, do you have a solution that we can buy or lease or rent the IP from?
[2:20:31] And then we hope to own a lot of the IP, and we hope to go find contract manufacturers so that we
[2:20:36] can scale these cheaper solutions to mix them with the exquisite solutions that we already are
[2:20:43] contracted for. And then the last thing I'll say is, what makes Project Jailbreak so important is
[2:20:47] the command and control that is needed to have all of these systems function at once is the first
[2:20:52] step to making this happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry. As a follow-up to Mr. Rimes-Marx and
[2:20:56] several members, I just want to make sure there is no daylight between me and the ranking member on
[2:21:00] this issue of force posture. It is not the fault of the people in front of us today that we've had this
[2:21:05] apparent deviation. But no, we are going to mandate that the department follow the statutory minimums that
[2:21:13] are set in statute on force posture. And if there are attempted deviations, we will remedy them
[2:21:18] and impose pain if they aren't complied with. But with that, let's go to the gentleman from
[2:21:24] Virginia, Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses, to all of our active
[2:21:30] duty and veterans in the room. We wouldn't have a country without you, so thank you so much.
[2:21:34] This is a question for both of you. As you know, the National Guard fields UA-60 Blackhawks as part of an
[2:21:40] aviation component serving as the Army's strategic reserve. Given the demands placed on the National
[2:21:46] Guard in its Title X capacity abroad and its domestic missions, I wanted to ask about the Army's plans
[2:21:52] to support modernization of the National Guard's UH-60 fleet. You may know that the UH-60 Lima Blackhawk,
[2:21:58] which I can't imagine too many of the military that has some interaction with it, costs twice as much
[2:22:04] to operate per hour as the Mike's. And I know we're going to the MV-75s, but you know it takes a while to
[2:22:09] have a new system come on board. And a lot of times the Guard gets the hand-me-downs from the active
[2:22:15] duty. But considering how much they do with domestic security and you know, you know, FEMA operations
[2:22:23] and things like that, what is the plan to take the Mike's and give them to the Guard? Because if we
[2:22:28] shut down production, those parts and everything else. So what's, we want the MV-75, but we've got to
[2:22:35] upgrade 50 percent of the Guard helicopters that are the Lima models. Yes, sir. They're deliberately
[2:22:42] in the plan to be upgraded. The Guard ones. I'd also like to say, you know, we're looking at
[2:22:48] modernization different. The National Guard is in, you know, all of our accomplishes are part of the
[2:22:55] modernization. The active component is not the only one that's going to receive ISVs. The active component
[2:23:01] is the only one that's going to receive some of these new systems. Our command and control changes
[2:23:09] that we're going after with next generation C2, we're all going to benefit from these. So we're
[2:23:15] looking at this different. So when you- So the Guard will be getting the mics from the active duty? I
[2:23:19] guess that's what we're looking at. I think we're looking at modernizing the fleet that they have,
[2:23:23] sir. But we're- Bringing them up to the mic standards?
[2:23:25] Sure. So- Perfect.
[2:23:26] We're taking a look across the board. But we also, you know, the Secretary has asked us to also look
[2:23:31] at aviation transformation writ large to make sure that the decisions that were made all on the side
[2:23:38] of Angels still make sense with the evolving modernization strategy that we have.
[2:23:44] That makes sense. And just because I have limited time, Secretary Driscoll, we've seen legacy platforms
[2:23:49] like the Apache helicopter adapt in real time to changing characters of warfare. For example,
[2:23:54] in the counter-UES mission. And a few months ago, for the first time, in Apache successfully
[2:23:58] employed and launched effects capabilities the Army developed and integrated in just six months.
[2:24:04] Could you discuss what Apache has demonstrated in these initiatives for counter-UES, et cetera? I know
[2:24:09] when we went to get Maduro and Epic Fury, the Apache has really adapted with the rockets,
[2:24:14] the chaingun, and the hellfires.
[2:24:16] SECRETARY POMPEO- I was with Apache pilots about a month ago, and they are taking the lessons of war from
[2:24:23] Ukraine. They are taking what's going on in Epic Fury, and they are changing their TTPs.
[2:24:28] They had just done some of their first exercises where the Apache, under certain circumstances at
[2:24:33] certain portions in the fight, can be really effective at the counter-drone mission. And so
[2:24:38] they are starting to not only just apply the new technology that is existing around the world to
[2:24:43] their systems and their platforms, but they're also changing how they practice and train.
[2:24:46] SECRETARY POMPEO- And at least right now, I don't see anything with the capabilities of the Apache
[2:24:49] helicopter, so I'm glad that we have that still going, and we're modernizing it, and we're still
[2:24:53] using it. Secretary Drissel, Operation Epic Fury has witnessed a devastation wrought by Shahid drones
[2:25:01] on exquisite radar systems. How does the Army intend to replenish and to replace these critical systems?
[2:25:07] SECRETARY POMPEO- What we've seen in Operation Epic Fury has highlighted a lot of the lessons of war
[2:25:13] from Ukraine, and it has highlighted a lot of the importance for why the Army will be so important
[2:25:19] going forward in any theater, including the Indo-Pacific. The ability to disperse and reconstitute
[2:25:25] systems that are taken offline is incredibly important, and so this is why we are pushing
[2:25:30] so hard on right to repair is with advanced manufacturing and the capabilities that are
[2:25:34] being developed in CONUS, we need to push those out to our theaters around the world so we can use
[2:25:39] digital design files and other solutions in order for our soldiers to be able to make those repairs even
[2:25:44] faster going forward. Are you considering possible alternatives to large monostatic radars such as
[2:25:50] survivable distributed radar and sensing architectures? SECRETARY POMPEO- Absolutely.
[2:25:54] Smart. The Army CUS RTD&E budget is more than double that of fiscal year 26, and the procurement budget
[2:26:02] is nearly $1 billion. What is the Army-specific funding priorities for detecting and eliminating tracking
[2:26:08] and group one to three drones? SECRETARY POMPEO- Sure. We're looking at every single technology
[2:26:14] out there to help us defeat this and protect our soldiers. SECRETARY POMPEO- Thank you all for your
[2:26:20] service. I yield back. SECRETARY POMPEO- Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize the gentleman
[2:26:23] from New Mexico, Mr. Vasquez. SECRETARY POMPEO- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
[2:26:27] Secretary and General, for being here today. Secretary Driscoll, are you familiar with NALEMP?
[2:26:32] SECRETARY POMPEO- I'm not. SECRETARY POMPEO- Okay. NALEMP is the Native American Lands
[2:26:38] Environmental Mitigation Program under the Department of Defense. This program cleans up
[2:26:43] munition debris, including UXO, left by the Department of Defense on tribal lands,
[2:26:47] such as those in my district in New Mexico. The scope of this issue is really magnified and vast
[2:26:53] on the Pueblo of Isleta in New Mexico. I saw it for myself last year. Isleta has 8,850 acres of land
[2:27:00] that the DOD used for munitions testing from 1942 to 1961 under the former Los Lunas Air Force
[2:27:08] Range, and the DOD left that land contaminated with thousands of munition debris and UXO. Since 2008,
[2:27:15] Isleta has worked under NALEMP to clean up the mess that was left behind. Under NALEMP, the tribes
[2:27:21] work with the Army Corps of Engineers to report and clean up munition debris, restore the land,
[2:27:25] and make it safe for its residents and, in the case of Isleta, for its cattle grazers. However,
[2:27:30] in the past year, this already underfunded program has been decimated by budget cuts and inadequate
[2:27:36] staffing. Specifically, the Native American Management System for Environmental Impacts,
[2:27:42] which is part of the LIMP or NAMSE, is a website that allows tribes and the public to access, report,
[2:27:48] share maps of clean and contaminated areas, and report information with the Army related to the
[2:27:53] munition debris that has been taken down now for over a year. Isleta shared with me that last year,
[2:27:59] a DOJ review of the DOD resulted in terminating that contract with the company that manages the
[2:28:05] NAMSE website. You know, I'm not sure if cleaning UXO on tribal lands was considered a DEI initiative
[2:28:12] by DOJ, but it certainly is not. Management of the site was then assigned to DOD employees,
[2:28:18] who then quit or were reassigned before a new contractor was brought on. And yet, today,
[2:28:24] the system is completely unusable. Secretary Driscoll, can you share why the department
[2:28:29] allowed the NAMSE site to completely collapse? Congressman, just as an Army principle and value
[2:28:36] to speak very broadly, we value the communities where we have trained today and in the past,
[2:28:42] and we commit to working with those communities to repair any harm that we cause to the land from
[2:28:49] our training. But specifically to your question, I'll have to follow up with your office. Well,
[2:28:54] I appreciate that. And this does deserve special attention, because this isn't just not just the
[2:28:58] problem for Isleta Pueblo, but other tribal nations that have been good partners to the
[2:29:02] Department of Defense over years. Secretary, will you or someone from your department commit to
[2:29:07] contacting tribal leaders at Isleta Pueblo to resolve this issue because they haven't been able to report
[2:29:12] or get back their old information from this website for over a year now? We absolutely commit to
[2:29:18] following up with your office to get those details. Thank you so much. I really, really appreciate that.
[2:29:22] You know, for months, NALAM tribes have been unable to notify the department of new locations that may
[2:29:28] have munition debris or unexploded ordinance input required for grant reporting or access valuable
[2:29:34] information, including their own documents for investigation and reports. Now, let me tell you
[2:29:39] about this beautiful, beautiful land on tribal property. It is now home to a cattle grazing operation
[2:29:47] that is marred by munition that when it rains are monsoon seasons in New Mexico. It uncovers hundreds,
[2:29:53] in some cases, thousands of unexploded ordinance. So I'm not sure it's safe for the cows, certainly not
[2:29:59] safe for people. They have one archaeologist on site that was on contract who they had to terminate
[2:30:04] because they could not have a staffer for the Department of Defense managing the NALAM program to approve
[2:30:10] their requests as they have in the past. So it wasn't a lack of funds, but it was a lack of staff,
[2:30:15] folks that were terminated or reassigned as a result of the DOJA audit. I don't think that's
[2:30:21] a good way to treat our partners. And so I urge you to please pay attention to this issue. Obviously,
[2:30:26] there are safety concerns, but more than anything, our tribal nations are sovereign nations, and they
[2:30:31] deserve to have that government to government relationship. So I look forward to working with you
[2:30:36] to see that this system is restored, ensure that the partnership with the tribes and the department
[2:30:40] are restored. And we commit to following up quickly. Thank you so much, Secretary.
[2:30:45] Gentleman yields back. Chair, and I recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Mesmer.
[2:30:49] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Secretary Driscoll,
[2:30:53] you have stated publicly that the Humvee will have relevance to the Army, Army Reserve and Army
[2:30:59] National Guard going well into the future. It would help this committee support that statement if the
[2:31:04] Army would provide an analysis and plan for light tactical vehicles. Are you committed to providing
[2:31:09] such a plan? Absolutely. Thank you. General Laniv, do you see a need in the Army's future for a light
[2:31:17] tactical vehicle fleet and with both the Humvee and the JLTV? Yes, sir. The Humvee is going to be
[2:31:23] around for a long time. It served us great for 41 plus years, sir. And so we're going to have a mix of
[2:31:30] Humvees, ISVs, and hopefully the HSV. Thank you. Secretary Driscoll, both the Marines and the Air
[2:31:37] Force plan to continue procurement of JLTVs, highlighting the importance of maintaining
[2:31:42] the JLTV Joint Program Office. Does the Army remain committed to maintaining that office in-house?
[2:31:50] We'd be happy to. Thank you. As co-chair of the Hypersonics Caucus, Secretary Driscoll,
[2:31:55] I want to congratulate the Army for being the first to service a field and field a hypersonic weapon
[2:32:01] system, the Dark Eagle. As many of the services are looking to the next generation of scalable
[2:32:05] hypersonic weapons, what is the Army doing to create a mass-produced, lower-cost hypersonic weapon
[2:32:10] system? Yes, sir. We're looking across the board at who can produce our weapon systems at scale and
[2:32:21] cheaper. Low-cost munitions and high-cost munitions are going to be part of the magazine depth. The goal
[2:32:27] is to get all the costs down and to produce at scale, so we don't have any issues in that depth.
[2:32:35] Over. Thank you. It's been reported that the Dark Eagle is being considered for deployment
[2:32:41] under CENTCOM's command. Secretary Driscoll, what unique capabilities does Dark Eagle bring to that
[2:32:46] region? We can't share that in this setting, but I'd be happy to discuss in more of a close setting.
[2:32:53] Perfect. Thank you, sir. Secretary Driscoll, in my district, it contains Crane Army ammunition
[2:32:59] activity, which currently holds about 25 percent of the DOD's conventional munitions, so I'm focused
[2:33:04] on the future of the organic industrial base and what we can do to guarantee the success of their
[2:33:10] mission. How has the Army used extended-use land leases to make better use of Army land?
[2:33:16] I love this question, Congressman. Thank you for asking it. So one of the things we, the Army, have not done
[2:33:22] as well as we should have over the years is take advantage of the assets that the American taxpayer
[2:33:26] and this committee has given us, and one of the ways we are moving forward quickly on that is enhanced
[2:33:31] use leases, and so the first two instances of that is our two data centers where, because we are letting
[2:33:37] these companies use our land, we're going to get off-take in data, in compute, which will be incredibly
[2:33:42] powerful for us, but we've also asked industry to submit ideas that they have for all of our Army lands.
[2:33:47] We had 200 submissions, about 120 are viable. We're currently working with Secretary Best and the
[2:33:53] Department of Treasury and Russ Vogt at OMB. They've given us full-time people to help us go through
[2:33:58] these, and we hope to announce 20 projects by the end of the summer. Excellent. That's great to hear.
[2:34:03] I want to make sure we're bringing these innovative solutions not just to our covered depots,
[2:34:07] but to all corners of the OIB. How is the Army working to bring more of the OIB workload outside of the
[2:34:15] covered depot list? Sir, we're looking at ways to take, I'll give you one example. We have an operational
[2:34:23] readiness team that goes out to units and helps repair the equipment on-site. That comes out of our
[2:34:30] depot, you know, workforce there. I just want to apologize. I think I operated like a radio here. I
[2:34:37] said over to you, you know, a couple minutes ago, so. No worries. Secretary Driscoll, can you tell the
[2:34:43] committee what the Army Corps of Engineers is doing differently under your leadership to speed up
[2:34:47] projects and change how the bureaucracy has been managing projects for decades? The Army Corps,
[2:34:53] under our assistant secretary Adam Tell, has done a 50- and 60-year change. The Corps had lost its way
[2:35:00] in a lot of ways, not because the talent there isn't amazing and not because the soldiers that we
[2:35:05] have in the Corps are some of our country's best leaders, but because we had put too much paperwork
[2:35:10] burden on them. And so the Corps has gone through a massive transformation project to start to focus
[2:35:16] much more on actually delivering projects to the communities where they exist. And one of the things
[2:35:20] they're working on now that I'm most excited about is that there's this concept of waters of the United
[2:35:25] States that you have to do for nearly every project in our country. And we were getting in the way of
[2:35:30] builders building things to employ our fellow Americans. And the Corps has been moving quickly to
[2:35:35] cut down from six months on average to under 30 days. And those delays add to the cost. So thank
[2:35:41] you for that. I yield back. Gentleman yields back. Chairman, I recognize is Mr. Cisneros of California.
[2:35:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for our witnesses for being here today.
[2:35:51] General, I introduced Duty Status Reform Act with Rep. Bergman this year because we both recognize that the
[2:35:57] National Guard and Reserve are no longer just a backup. They are fully integrated into our frontline units.
[2:36:03] However, our commanders are currently forced to navigate a maze of nearly 30 duty statuses,
[2:36:08] each requiring separate administrative on-ramps that create a lag in force generation.
[2:36:13] Can you speak to the specific readiness assistance this reform would provide the Army
[2:36:18] and how consolidating these authorities from from nearly 30 down to four would eliminate the
[2:36:24] bureaucratic friction that currently stalls our ability to rapidly deploy a fully integrated force
[2:36:29] force as well as keeping them fully deployed? Could you speak on that, please?
[2:36:35] Sir, anytime you reduce bureaucratic, you know, efforts, you know, above our our soldiers is a blow for
[2:36:45] freedom. That's what we've been trying to do is reduce bureaucracy across the board to free up our
[2:36:51] soldiers when they deploy, when they train, you know, across the entire spectrum.
[2:36:55] All right. Thank you for that. And Congressman, I was just going to say on our side what we are trying to do
[2:37:01] because our Guard soldiers and our Reserve, when we activate them, they they they are they they oftentimes
[2:37:07] are experts in something completely unrelated to their soldier tasks, which adds a lot of value to us.
[2:37:12] But that also means they have unique constraints on their family setup and we have got to do better.
[2:37:17] And so what we're trying to do in the business system sides is we're trying to consolidate and collapse down
[2:37:22] the number of systems they have to interact with so we can do a better job on our side.
[2:37:24] All right. Well, hope to have your support from both of you on this legislation as it moves forward.
[2:37:29] Secretary Jesko, you've been asked about or General George was brought up earlier today,
[2:37:35] but I want to ask you about Major General Green, Chief of Chaplains. What was the justification given
[2:37:41] to you for him being relieved? Congressman, I won't talk about private conversations that I've had with my boss.
[2:37:48] Well, I worry about that because I think, you know, one of the things that Major General Green was
[2:37:56] working on, right, was focused on mental health. And right, the secretary said, our chaplains need
[2:38:03] to be our spiritual leaders. And of course, we want them to do. That's why they're here.
[2:38:07] But at times they need to help our service members around mental health issues too, right? Sometimes
[2:38:13] a behavioral health specialist isn't there and they need somebody to talk to. And often,
[2:38:18] you know, through my time in the Navy, in the military, and I'm sure through all of your career,
[2:38:23] their general, the chaplain has been there. It's been that shoulder that our service members can
[2:38:28] go to and relieve and get things off their chest. And I worry that his support of trying to expand
[2:38:38] programs that would make the chaplains more available for that being taken away or him supporting
[2:38:46] that was one of the reasons that he was relieved. And I hope we can kind of keep moving forward,
[2:38:51] right, and realize that the role that our chaplains play, and really not only spiritually, but also
[2:38:58] mentally, and that need needs to be supported in those roles. And we need to keep advocating for that.
[2:39:03] So with that, I'll move on to my next question. Mr. Secretary, the CAP program, which was a program
[2:39:11] that was piloted and started during the first Trump administration, was eliminated recently. And it
[2:39:18] provided a significant gap to help validate our leaders, right? You've worked out there in the
[2:39:24] business community, I'm sure you've never ever hired anybody without talking to them physically,
[2:39:28] or just based on purely on their resume. And the CAP program provided that, right? It not only
[2:39:35] put out their paperwork, their resume, their full career out there in front of the board,
[2:39:39] but it brought them in to make sure they were physically fit. We make sure they answered questions
[2:39:43] before the board. But without any reason, that program was eliminated after it was just
[2:39:50] put into play, not even a year ago. And I had actually had the opportunity to go down and
[2:39:56] observe that program and how it worked and thought it was very valuable. And it was something when I was
[2:40:01] at the Pentagon, that was being pushed down into the other services. Now, I would love to hear why I'm
[2:40:09] down to 30 seconds right now, I don't think we're going to have the full time. So I'm going to submit it for
[2:40:13] the record. But I would love to hear your explanation as to why that program was eliminated. And what are
[2:40:20] we going to do to replace it? Because it was a really good program that gave a good 360 look,
[2:40:26] not only from their superiors, their peers, as well as, you know, especially for brigade and
[2:40:32] battalion commanders, senior enlisted as to the full value of these individuals. With that, I yield back
[2:40:38] and I'll submit that question for the record. Thank you. We now proceed to Congressman Pat Harrigan of
[2:40:44] North Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Secretary Driscoll, General Laniv. It's great to have you
[2:40:49] all here before the committee again. Sergeant Major, you as well. You don't sit at the desk,
[2:40:54] but we really know who does the work. Thank you for your service, gentlemen, and thanks for your
[2:40:58] testimony today. Mr. Secretary and General, as you both know, I genuinely appreciate and believe in
[2:41:07] the Army's commitment to continuous transformation. I want to ensure that it doesn't just become a
[2:41:12] political slogan. It's got to stay something that's effective to get the Army into the future fight.
[2:41:18] We've got to stay laser focused on driving very real efficiencies, rebuilding meaningful productive
[2:41:24] capacity inside the organic industrial base and ensuring that every dollar that we spend increases
[2:41:31] readiness, repairability, and battlefield relevance. It cannot be held up by a bureaucratic or a
[2:41:37] sustainment drag. I want to ask you, Secretary Driscoll, a question about right to repair because your
[2:41:44] testimony specifically identifies right to repair as critical to reducing maintenance delays and costs.
[2:41:51] And the committee memo notes that proprietary technical data and outdated drawings
[2:41:57] are directly harming mission-capable rates across Army ground fleets. Just to give you an example,
[2:42:03] we've gone from 1,285 depot overhauls in fiscal year 2015 to just 12 in fiscal year 24, while readiness
[2:42:12] continues to decline. What specific contractual or statutory changes does the Army need from Congress to
[2:42:19] guarantee that our depots and maintainers actually have the technical data, software access, and repair
[2:42:25] rights necessary to restore readiness at scale, especially for systems that taxpayers have
[2:42:32] already paid to develop? Congressman, this is a topic that I think transcends party lines, transcends
[2:42:39] generational service times. I think nearly everyone I've talked to who has served feels deeply passionate
[2:42:45] that the United States Army should have done this a long time ago, but now's the time to remedy it. We must
[2:42:50] have the technical data for every single thing that we buy. And the reason is not just if we're in the Indo-Pacific
[2:42:57] and 6,000 miles from home and something goes down, we have to be able to take advantage of the local economy and
[2:43:02] things like advanced manufacturing to get it back up. But there are instances where we've kind of famously
[2:43:08] found a number of these, but one of the more egregious is we had a knob on a Black Hawk radio that would break four
[2:43:14] times a month on average for the last 20 years, and it will ground the entire helicopter. And this knob
[2:43:20] costs us about $6 to $8 to 3D print. But when we go to the actual provider of this knob, they won't sell
[2:43:26] us the knob. So instead, for the last 20 years, four times per month, we have paid $40,000 to replace a
[2:43:32] system that could be fixed with a simple one hour 3D printed $6 knob. And the reason we sit here and the
[2:43:40] reason we have so many hard conversations about these existing platforms is we can't go get the
[2:43:45] IP rights to it. And we are stuck oftentimes. And the reason we find the ISV and the floor and all of
[2:43:51] the things that we have recently negotiated for to be so powerful is in every instance, we have the
[2:43:56] intellectual property and this will never happen again. And so we need your help to go get all of
[2:44:01] that IP. Thank you for that answer. And also thank you for that vignette too. I mean, that that makes me
[2:44:07] angry and I think it makes American taxpayers angry that our services are held hostage to certain
[2:44:14] contractors that are just bilking the government while making it impossible for us to actually be
[2:44:19] ready to fight with the equipment that we've already purchased. That doesn't make any sense to me and I
[2:44:23] know it doesn't make sense to you. And just with the short time that we have left, you talked about the
[2:44:27] Indo-Pacific, you talked about faraway places. If we don't get right to repair this year through the
[2:44:33] National Defense Authorization Act, can you talk us through what type of practical impact that will
[2:44:39] have in those faraway places if we fail in our mission on right to repair this year? Sir, the key
[2:44:47] to getting through contested logistics is to have a distributed system, small footprints spread out
[2:44:56] across the Pacific with the ability to have advanced manufacturing there and the ability for us to
[2:45:03] print our parts at the edge of where we're going to need them. It's critical. Thank you very much.
[2:45:12] And I think I'm going to yield my time back. Thank you very much, Congressman Harrigan. We now
[2:45:16] proceed to Congressman Sorensen of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Driscoll,
[2:45:21] General Lee Neve, thank you both for being here, your service to our nation. Thanks to both of you for the
[2:45:27] conversations that we have had recently, as well as Mr. Driscoll, for being with me at the Rock Island
[2:45:33] Arsenal last year. General, I'll make sure that the weather is sunny when you're able to make it to
[2:45:38] Rock Island Arsenal soon. Now on to business. As I've talked to both of you, the Army Command Match
[2:45:44] Program was rolled out absolutely horribly. And that's not just my opinion, that is the opinion of
[2:45:53] the people I talked to who are affected. These are champions who have been victim to a haphazard
[2:45:59] process, causing immense anxiety and leaving unanswered questions. You know, most people,
[2:46:05] I would say most Americans spend more than five days to shop for an appliance, let alone it is this
[2:46:12] circumstance where people are given five days to decide whether to up and move your family across
[2:46:17] the country. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being so forthcoming in Tuesday's Senate Armed Services hearing
[2:46:22] with Senator Duckworth. I'm so glad that you had mentioned your willingness to give more grace
[2:46:28] and more time. And that is appreciated for my constituents. Mr. Secretary, you said that you would
[2:46:34] notify her and Sask about major personnel changes at Rock Island. Do I have your word that you'll
[2:46:40] communicate with me in that same regard? Yes. Thank you. And thank you for believing in Rock Island
[2:46:45] as the senator and I do. On that note, could you tell us today that people are safe from any further
[2:46:50] job cuts at Rock Island? I want to assure that these patriots, that their hard work and their
[2:46:54] determination will not be ignored. Congressman, we are still, as I said earlier, for about 30 years,
[2:47:02] we had not done the right things as an army and gotten our hands around who are the people we have
[2:47:07] working for us and what were the jobs that our commanders actually needed. That initial exercise is
[2:47:11] complete. And so, but I would disclaim that we are constantly trying to look at where can we save the
[2:47:18] taxpayer dollars? How can we reallocate the gift that you give us to make our warfighters even more
[2:47:25] lethal? And so, we will continue to look. But my commitment is we will work with your office and
[2:47:29] the senator's office if we take another look. And we would love to welcome new champions to the
[2:47:35] Rock Island arsenal. JMTC at Rock Island is home to the army's only working foundry, serving as a vital
[2:47:40] one-stop shop for manufacturing. I hope that we can keep that metal hot. To both of you, what
[2:47:46] opportunities do you both see for expanding public-private partnerships, especially with
[2:47:50] castings and forgings, so the army can leverage our industrial experts to help relieve that supply
[2:47:56] chain bottleneck and meet long-term manufacturing goals? Congressman, we have underinvested in our
[2:48:02] defense industrial base. When we did the tour with you and some of your colleagues, I mean,
[2:48:06] you can look around and a lot of the equipment that is being used is just not sufficient for the
[2:48:10] threat that is currently what our country could face. And so, we are actively working together with our
[2:48:16] soldiers at all of our arsenals to put together plans. But back to what I had referenced earlier,
[2:48:21] we have 200 submissions from some of the top companies across our country who want to come
[2:48:26] on to these bases, who want to come on to Rock Island, who want to partner with our civilians and
[2:48:30] our soldiers to help us build the things that we need. And so, we are really optimistic in the next
[2:48:35] four to eight weeks we will be able to announce a lot of partnerships to get in the best of American
[2:48:39] manufacturing, to get in the best talent, and very critically and crucially to use some of their
[2:48:44] dollars in the private sector to help upgrade our arsenals and depots. I love hearing that. General?
[2:48:49] Yes, sir. We both recognize the critical importance that the industrial base provides for us, all 23 of
[2:48:56] our depots across the country. And I think, you know, when you take a look at the plan that we've embarked on
[2:49:06] in order to invest in this, it shows the commitment to upgrading each one of these locations so they can
[2:49:15] support the warfighter for what we know we're going to need. I want to go back to the Rock Island
[2:49:21] Arsenal, 900-acre rock in the middle of the Mississippi River. It's also where our nation's greatest river
[2:49:28] makes the biggest change in elevation in its entire course. It's a unique place where we use
[2:49:34] hydroelectric power. I'm excited that work has begun on infrastructure upgrades because I believe
[2:49:40] that uninterruptible power is necessary and it's necessary for national security. Can I have your
[2:49:46] word that we continue to build Rock Island's power capacity so that we never have to pick and choose
[2:49:51] what work can get done so that we can start the job and finish the job right? Congressman, this is a
[2:49:57] topic for all of our bases, our arsenals, and our depots. I was just down at Fort Bragg yesterday and we're
[2:50:02] talking about redundant energy and the energy needs for modern warfare, not just to create the
[2:50:08] tools of warfare but to sustain them in the actual fight, are things that we are looking at every
[2:50:12] single day and we're happy to stay in touch with your office. Great. Thank you, gentlemen, for your
[2:50:16] time and I yield back. Thank you, Congressman. Now we lead to Congressman Schmidt of Kansas. Thank you,
[2:50:24] Mr. Chairman and General, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being with us again today. We appreciate it,
[2:50:29] appreciate the good working partnership we've been able to forge on a lot of matters important to our
[2:50:32] country, so thank you. Mr. Secretary, let me start with a question for you. Thank you for coming to
[2:50:37] Fort Riley and the 1st Infantry Division recently. It was an honor to host you out there and spend a
[2:50:40] little bit of time with you and your team and with the men and women in America's fighting force on
[2:50:45] the ground. We had a handful of topics that I very much appreciated your reaction to on the ground,
[2:50:50] just wanted to explore a couple of them today. I know we had a chance to visit on a chilly day,
[2:50:55] the loading facility, the DERF. And it is very dark and it is very muddy when they're loading those
[2:51:03] tracked vehicles. Sometimes that can be fixed with a relatively small investment that, frankly,
[2:51:07] may pay itself back in a couple of deployments if you don't have to pay the fines to the shippers
[2:51:11] and to the railroads and to the Europeans when stuff gets over there muddy. And I know, at least my
[2:51:16] impression was, that you certainly agreed with that and that this is going to happen at some point.
[2:51:21] I would like to help the Army pull it forward as far as we can. Is that something that you can
[2:51:25] assure us will be in the 28th submission? We will definitely follow up with your office,
[2:51:29] Senator. But we were with down at Bragg yesterday, Department of Transportation,
[2:51:34] and there are some grants for exactly like what we are talking about. And so we as an Army are
[2:51:39] currently putting together a plan to see if we can go after a different pot of cash to be able to
[2:51:42] move even quicker in this budget cycle. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And whatever we can do to help,
[2:51:47] we will do if it means standing on the street corner and talking to passers
[2:51:51] by. We would really like to get that done. I thank you for that.
[2:51:54] Another item we discussed while out there, you know, they have made very creative use
[2:51:58] for Riley of intergovernmental support agreements with local school districts. It is a way of moving
[2:52:04] rapidly and more cost effectively on certain projects, especially renovations. I wonder if you had
[2:52:11] any thoughts on how we might, well, whether that is a good idea. I think it is. And if so,
[2:52:15] any ways we might encourage or enable more usage of that where you have willing participants.
[2:52:20] It makes sense.
[2:52:20] That was one of the most powerful features of that visit. And I have continued to tell it
[2:52:26] everywhere we went. Two days ago down in North Carolina, we were with the University of North
[2:52:31] Carolina school system just talking about exactly how effective and efficient it was for the American
[2:52:36] taxpayer. And so we are trying to expand that to other states actively. And I am incredibly grateful for
[2:52:42] you highlighting it on the visit.
[2:52:43] Well, thank you. Appreciate it very much. And you mentioned the CORE earlier. Thank you for your work to
[2:52:48] reform some outdated processes, good men and women trying to do their jobs with a bureaucracy on top
[2:52:52] of them. And that is a terrific thing. Also, alternate methods like this may be good. So if we can help
[2:52:58] not just spread the word but improve the tool, we would love to do that.
[2:53:03] Sir, I also represent Fort Leavenworth. We haven't had a chance to have either of you out there yet,
[2:53:07] but I would extend the invitation. At least I don't think you have been there since you have been in this
[2:53:10] role, General. Well, we have not been there together then. That raised a whole different
[2:53:17] set of questions, sir. No, I'm kidding you. But we'd always love to have both of you. Mr. Secretary,
[2:53:21] we'd love to have you out there as well. You know, those two posts obviously play very different
[2:53:25] roles in our United States Army. And Fort Leavenworth is such a critical role in the intellectual side of
[2:53:32] the Army. And as the transformation is underway and the thinking it through and the evolution of it,
[2:53:37] we just want to be sure that the leadership there is fully engaged, not just with those of you who
[2:53:42] wear the uniform here, but with the civilian team as well, because I think they have some tremendous
[2:53:47] contributions they can help make. And I'm not sure I'll have a particular ask, but I'll just leave
[2:53:52] the invitation on the table, Mr. Secretary. We'd love to have you back in Kansas for that.
[2:53:57] I would also say on that, you know, one of the things that maybe we can explore, you know,
[2:54:01] we train, I say we, they train majors at Fort Leavenworth and do an excellent job of it.
[2:54:06] You have the sergeant major behind you and I think the folks down south do a great job in that as
[2:54:10] well. And it's a very good partnership. I'm just wondering, are we thinking through the training
[2:54:16] methods and timelines for everybody, but that would include the sergeant majors? You know,
[2:54:22] there may be ways to do things more quickly. I think other services may move their equivalent
[2:54:27] folks along a little faster. And are those things that are part of the thinking through of how we
[2:54:31] transform the Army? Sir, we're always looking at different ways to move noncommissioned officers
[2:54:39] and officers through our education system. There's efficiency and there's also the effectiveness of
[2:54:45] having, you know, that some of the cohorts come through and spend a longer, a longer time together,
[2:54:52] because there's a, there's a relationship that you can't, building that you don't want to speed up and
[2:54:59] and throw away over time. We, we just went out together and did the, the pre-command courses with
[2:55:05] battalion commanders, sergeant majors, brigade commanders and sergeant majors, division command
[2:55:10] course. And the linkages between those two, you know, it was, we condensed the course and now we're
[2:55:18] taking a look at that we need to add maybe another week back into it. Just based off of the integration of
[2:55:24] those two, you just can't, you can't, uh, throw away that secret sauce of, of what, uh, those courses
[2:55:30] actually provide for our force across the, across the board. And I know he's sitting in the back,
[2:55:35] but Sergeant Major, I don't know if you want to add anything to that. Thank you. My time is up. We
[2:55:41] thank you both in general. We, uh, are grateful and certainly trust your judgment on that. Thank you,
[2:55:46] Congressman Schmidt. We now proceed to Congresswoman Goodlander of New Hampshire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[2:55:51] Thank you, Mr. Secretary General for being here today for your service to our country. You are here
[2:55:58] today to make the case for the department of the army, the department of the army's fiscal year 2027
[2:56:05] budget request. It's a historic budget request in a number of respects, um, including the top line
[2:56:11] number, $252.8 billion. Um, I appreciate the graphics that the army created for us, um, to really see a
[2:56:19] breakdown of this request. And one of the things that stands out as I look at your graph here, army
[2:56:26] budget trends over time, a big chunk of this request, $37.7 billion are designated mandatory.
[2:56:36] Am I right that this is money you expect to be appropriated through the reconciliation process?
[2:56:41] Correct. Congresswoman. So Mr. Secretary, you testified at the outset that
[2:56:46] you want this to be a bipartisan budget. I share that goal. The reconciliation process is a fundamentally
[2:56:52] partisan process. Um, and you have budgeted for a really important, uh, set of investments in critical
[2:57:02] munitions. This is the biggest chunk of this portion of reconciliation funding that you're seeking is
[2:57:09] going towards critical munitions. Uh, this may have been a decision out of your lane, but my question is,
[2:57:15] what is your plan, uh, to make up for the shortfall if you do not actually get what you need through
[2:57:21] this partisan reconciliation process? Congresswoman, um, our commitment is to meet with every member
[2:57:28] who it would be helpful. We, we want that process to also be bipartisan. We think that what is in the
[2:57:33] army's, uh, mandatory request are the types of things that have bipartisan support. Um, and so the first
[2:57:39] bit is we hope it doesn't happen. The second one is the United States army for 250 years has done with
[2:57:44] what we've received. We are trying to be good custodians and cut our costs. And so I appreciate
[2:57:50] a lot of your colleagues who are frustrated when we go cut 2 billion in civilian spending every year,
[2:57:55] but that's $10 billion we save over the fight up to invest in our own innovation. And so, um, we will
[2:58:01] make do with what we get. Thank you. I want to ask you about the audit and are you on track to pass a
[2:58:08] clean audit this fiscal year? Um, his, if I was, if you're asking me to make a guess based off history,
[2:58:15] I would say no. Um, if you were asking me, do I think we will be ready by the statutorily
[2:58:20] designated time in 2028? I think we are moving in that direction. Good. Well, I general. Yeah,
[2:58:25] I concur secretary. I think, uh, with some of the changes, uh, especially the company, uh, that was
[2:58:32] helping us do it. I think we're off on a, on a right direction and we're linked in with the OSW
[2:58:36] process, uh, uh, to get us across. I concur with his, with his assessment. Look, it is so critical
[2:58:43] for public trust and it is so critical for us in making the case and doing our jobs. You're asking
[2:58:49] for a historic budget. No small business that I represent would ever be able to manage failing
[2:58:57] chronically basic audits year after year and continuing to ask for record spending. So I, I look
[2:59:05] forward to working with you and your teams on this. I want to thank you for your leadership on
[2:59:09] right to repair. And I'm, um, you see that this is a bipartisan issue, uh, on this committee. You saw
[2:59:15] the same thing on the Senate armed services committee, Mr. Secretary, you pointed to one of the examples
[2:59:20] that looms large in my mind, uh, a tiny knob on a black Hawk helicopter that would cost $15 for the army
[2:59:28] to produce with a 3d printer, $47,000. It's, it's outrageous and it's undermining our readiness. And I
[2:59:35] want to ask for your commitment to support our bipartisan bicameral warrior right to repair act
[2:59:41] in this year's national defense authorization act. Unequivocally. Yes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
[2:59:48] I appreciate that. Um, you, you both testified and I appreciated that the people of the United States
[2:59:57] Army are your greatest asset. Uh, that includes the thousands of women who are serving today
[3:00:02] in the United States army. Another important piece of legislation that we're working on here
[3:00:07] on the committee, uh, is the warrior act, which does something that we shouldn't have to do, but
[3:00:13] clarifies, uh, that gender neutral standards for occupations in the military should prevail that no
[3:00:21] one should be excluded on the basis of their gender. If you can meet the standard, if you can do the job,
[3:00:27] then you should get to do the job. Do you agree with this basic principle? Yes. Unequivocally.
[3:00:34] I agree with that, ma'am. And I'm, uh, have a personal side of this too. You know,
[3:00:39] my daughter's in the army. Um, she, uh, just graduated last night, um, with her master's degree,
[3:00:45] and she's going up to teach at West Point. Um, she agrees with, uh, the high standards, uh, you know,
[3:00:54] and, and general neutral standards. Well, I appreciate that. And I thank you again,
[3:00:58] both for your service. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the bipartisanship. And indeed,
[3:01:05] I'll highlight today, congratulations, general, to your family on your daughter's graduation.
[3:01:10] Thank you, sir. She's much, much smarter than me. Well, hey, but hey, hey, this really sets up
[3:01:15] another great member of Congress, Congressman Crank, all the way from Colorado.
[3:01:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. Uh, Secretary, thank you both for, for being here and
[3:01:25] for your service to our country. Secretary Driscoll, last year, the sheriff in my county
[3:01:30] reached out to my office with alarm, uh, as the Army's decision to deactivate the 11th Expeditionary
[3:01:37] Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Carson. Um, in addition to ensuring, uh, the Army has the ability
[3:01:43] to surge capabilities and maintain expertise in its ranks, the 11th ECAB is an essential tool that
[3:01:50] supports search and rescue missions along Colorado's front range. And as Mr. Luttrell said earlier,
[3:01:57] in last year's NDAA, we secured language to delay the deactivation until the Army presented a plan
[3:02:04] detailing how they were going to maintain the expert pilots and support crew for future needs and
[3:02:10] backfill the emergency response capabilities my community relies on. Unfortunately, the responses
[3:02:16] we received were lackluster and left more questions than answers. And in response, Congressman Luttrell,
[3:02:22] Tron and I sent a letter last month seeking more assurances that the Army has a plan that makes
[3:02:29] sense that won't leave our communities at risk. With markup for this year's NDAA rapidly approaching,
[3:02:35] it is imperative that we receive an answer to our letter ASAP. When can we expect a response and can
[3:02:42] I count on you to continue working with the members of this committee to find a way forward that meets the
[3:02:47] Army's needs as well as our districts? Yes, sir. You know, as a response earlier to Congressman Luttrell,
[3:02:56] we will both follow up with with all offices to ensure that we meet that the timeline
[3:03:03] that you alluded to earlier. So, yes. Well, and thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Secretary, this week,
[3:03:11] Fort Carson is hosting and you alluded to this. You alluded to what's going on in Colorado. Fort Carson,
[3:03:18] is hosting the Army's right to integrate hackathon where major defense primes worked alongside
[3:03:24] non-traditional firms to break down the siloed nature of our weapon systems in a combat environment
[3:03:30] where a lag in data sharing translates directly to casualties. Any lack of interoperability is a
[3:03:38] strategic liability. Can you provide your perspective on how we can break down these software silos and
[3:03:44] how Fort Carson's leadership on next-gen command and control is avoiding these pitfalls?
[3:03:49] The leaders of Fort Carson have been a beacon for our Army transformation and I very sincerely want
[3:03:56] to praise, again, just the primes and the other large defense actors who moved, I think I called them,
[3:04:03] about two and a half weeks ago and they all committed immediately to sending participants. They've sent
[3:04:08] thousands of pieces of equipment and they're helping us get after this because this is the right thing
[3:04:12] for the American soldier and they're moving at a speed that I would humbly say no other nation
[3:04:18] could pull this off at this scale. This is what makes the Army so special and this is what makes
[3:04:22] our defense industrial base so special is that when we see a problem and we know we have to get after it,
[3:04:28] we can just move heaven and earth to do it and I'm incredibly grateful to your state and that base for
[3:04:32] hosting. Great. Have you been down, Mr. Secretary, to Pinyon Canyon? I don't believe I have. Okay.
[3:04:40] Would love to have you come down. It's, of course, not contiguous to Fort Carson, but it's an associated
[3:04:46] training facility. You can do a full brigade size maneuver there. We had a state environmental agency
[3:04:54] that was trying to hassle the Army, I would say, about environmental issues there. Fort Carson was
[3:05:03] acquired over 50 years ago. They do a great job of environmental stewardship. In fact, I'd argue that
[3:05:08] some of the assets that they have, their old homesteads and things, the Army does an amazing job
[3:05:14] of protecting those assets and still doing training around them. If there's an old homestead, they put
[3:05:19] Seibert stakes around it and they say, that's a minefield, we don't go there. If that same facility
[3:05:25] would be on, say, public land or National Forest Service land, it would probably be rummaged through.
[3:05:31] But the Army has done an amazing and incredible job of preserving that environmentally.
[3:05:40] While we're trying to work with states and, you know, make sure that we preserve these historic sites,
[3:05:47] I mean, we can't impinge training or stop training to preserve these things. We can do both things.
[3:05:54] Any thoughts on that? Do you have this issue pop up in other states as well?
[3:05:58] Congressman, the vast majority of communities where our soldiers exist and the vast majority
[3:06:02] of states that host our bases are incredible partners. There are absolutely times where there
[3:06:07] is tension between what a local community would prefer and what we think we need to do for national
[3:06:11] security. And I would say in the vast majority of instances, we end up in a place where our soldiers
[3:06:16] get to continue to train how they need to to fight and win our nation's wars.
[3:06:19] Great. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
[3:06:22] Thank you, Congressman Crank. And we now proceed to Congresswoman Elthrift of Maryland.
[3:06:27] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Secretary General, for being here.
[3:06:29] Mr. Secretary, thank you for helping us solve the Fort Meade Gate Guard issue a few months ago.
[3:06:34] They now have every ability to hire life and safety folks to keep that critical base secure. So we want
[3:06:39] to thank you and your team for that. I also want to align my position with a number of folks here,
[3:06:44] including supporting UARCs, incredibly important across this country to have that independent
[3:06:48] research done. The right to repair, thank you for leading on this. I also want to reiterate the
[3:06:54] comments you heard here about our forces in Poland. It feels a little bit like Groundhog's Day. We just
[3:06:59] went through this in Romania this time last year. So I just want to align myself with that. I do
[3:07:05] appreciate, Mr. Secretary, you seem like you are a man who wants to tackle the hard issues head on
[3:07:11] and not avoid them. And I really appreciate that. You said in general, you both have said many times,
[3:07:15] you want to cut the bureaucracy to get soldiers what they need. So I'm going to start with what
[3:07:19] feels like a small issue, but it's actually important really in Maryland and a lot of the
[3:07:23] labs and research we do at Aberdeen, Dietrich, Meade. You are probably familiar with the fact that our
[3:07:29] MNCON threshold is at nine million right now. Now, it was raised in FY23 for lab revitalization,
[3:07:37] but its purchasing power over the last few years obviously has gone down significantly.
[3:07:40] This committee on a bipartisan basis attempted to raise it from nine to 12 million last year.
[3:07:46] We had a classic House-Senate issue. I just want to get your feedback on getting our soldiers what
[3:07:51] they need starts in those labs, and we can't get them what they need if we have the bureaucracy
[3:07:57] holding up things like repairing leaky roofs and other things that are important to that research.
[3:08:02] We will, to the specific remark, Congresswoman, I'll take a look and follow back up with your
[3:08:08] office quickly. To your broader point, one of the places we are not doing a good job as the United
[3:08:13] States Army is with our research and our development. We spend between five and seven billion dollars
[3:08:19] some year just as an army. And my understanding is the entire secretary, like the entire Pentagon
[3:08:24] collects between like 10 and 15 million in royalties. And from that research that has been going on for a
[3:08:30] very long time. And so one of the things that the United States Army is trying to do is stand up an
[3:08:34] intellectual property office, almost similar to how a research university would do it. And what we
[3:08:39] think this will allow us to do is for all of the money that you give us on behalf of the taxpayers to
[3:08:44] invest in weapons of war, tools for our soldiers, we should be able to collect returns for those
[3:08:50] taxpayers to help with things like what you're describing.
[3:08:53] And some really cool research, especially around batteries, which could not be more important in
[3:08:57] contested environments right now happening in Aberdeen. And we just need to kickstart that
[3:09:01] because it has implications for civilian life as well. So thank you for focusing on that.
[3:09:05] I want to return to the issue of Poland and the the BCT deployment that was was pulled back. I want to
[3:09:10] be clear here. Was there a forced posture review conducted prior to this decision being made?
[3:09:16] Appreciating it wasn't your decision, but I want to understand the whole context of EUCOM.
[3:09:20] So two part answer to that, ma'am. One, there's always a continuous posture review going on. I think
[3:09:32] in in the reference to this, I think that's a question with with General Grinkovich on his
[3:09:38] internal posture review, his consultation with the with the Secretary and the Joint Chiefs on on the way
[3:09:45] forward. I was part of that consultation with him of going back and forth on, you know, advice on
[3:09:52] on force structure and all that. Ultimately, you know, the the decision was made. Again,
[3:09:58] Title 10, we're going to we're going to get forces in and get forces out as ordered.
[3:10:04] I just I think you heard on both sides of bipartisan concern of the signal that that sends
[3:10:09] to Russia. So staying on this, it's our understanding or at least it's been reporting that part of that
[3:10:14] decision was based on the 1.4 billion dollar shortfall you all have from DHS. And Mr. Secretary,
[3:10:21] you said you expect a return of that money from DHS to DOD or sorry to army in the next one to two
[3:10:28] weeks. Are you going to receive the full 1.4 billion or is it some type of payment plan we're
[3:10:34] talking about? Can you give us committee some some light? Congresswoman, I can follow up with your
[3:10:39] office on the specifics. What I can say is Secretary Mullen and his team have been incredibly receptive and
[3:10:45] active and he is relatively new to the seat, but he's been working quickly to help us. I think if
[3:10:51] it is truly forcing these, I wouldn't say reckless, but I think not sustainable or helpful decisions in
[3:10:57] other theaters this shortfall, we we need to have a right hand left hand conversation about getting
[3:11:02] that money to you as quickly as possible. And you heard the bipartisan nature of that concern. If you
[3:11:08] could please follow up with us committee almost every day until you get that 1.4 billion. I know we'd all be
[3:11:13] very interested in that. I thank you for your time here. And Mr. Chair, I yield back.
[3:11:16] Thank you, Congresswoman Bipartisan for Poland. And indeed, I'm really grateful we now have
[3:11:24] Congressman Jim Moylan from the very beautiful and strategic territory of Guam.
[3:11:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. The Army's had, of course, a great role for the liberation of Guam.
[3:11:39] This July 21st will be the 82nd liberation of Guam. When the Army's 77th Infantry Division
[3:11:50] came along with our Marine Corps and defeated the Imperial Army that was there for about three
[3:11:56] years during World War II. And now the Army's coming back even even stronger with our Missile Defense
[3:12:02] Agency. And it's well welcomed. It's for the defense of the nation. It's for the defense of the people of
[3:12:09] Guam, the citizens there, the most western soil of the United States there is. We play a big role
[3:12:17] as the hub and in the defense for Indo-Paycom area. The footprint when the buildup started was,
[3:12:25] I believe there was an agreement where that it's going to remain in the footprint. And as we build
[3:12:30] out the missile defense areas, of course, we're going to need some other things going on. In this budget,
[3:12:36] Army is seeking $29 million to acquire land in Guam. We've been reaching out, asking which land,
[3:12:42] how much land, and haven't received an answer. Are you able to provide that answer to me, please?
[3:12:50] I don't know the specifics right now, Congressman, but we will follow up with your office quickly.
[3:12:54] Yeah. So it's very concerning. Of course, land is precious on Guam as well. And the community
[3:13:01] wanting to understand and look at that, and the government wanting to be able to understand.
[3:13:06] Of course, we had to provide infrastructure services as well. So wanting to work with you
[3:13:11] to do that, and then to answer the questions of the people of Guam, where and how is this, and reduce
[3:13:19] any kind of tension. So that will be helpful. I appreciate that, sir. Thank you. In addition to this,
[3:13:26] we also are very patriotic on the islands. And we have so many proud members who joined the army,
[3:13:31] as myself. I think that changed my life. I was able to go to jump school too. And
[3:13:36] from an average grade student to all of a sudden, you know, you can do what the army tells you to do.
[3:13:41] You can do excellent in school. And that's very helpful for me. So I'm proud to be a member of the
[3:13:46] armed forces. And I wish more people could join and understand how important it is. Our nation is
[3:13:52] going to be 250 years here pretty soon. So it's great. We should continue to serve. We would have
[3:13:58] double the recruiting capabilities as I spoke to my recruiters for all branches on Guam, but we don't
[3:14:04] have a MEP center. We share this with the army national guard. When we, when it's scheduled, sometimes
[3:14:11] it has to fall off the scheduling plan because something the guard is doing with their rooms.
[3:14:16] Likewise, for the ABFAP testing, we don't have anything. We're, they're borrowing basically,
[3:14:24] but our recruiters can basically double, uh, and, and we'll reduce a lot of wait time and,
[3:14:32] and losing recruits because, oh, you got to come back next month and then they change their mind.
[3:14:37] Is there any way that we can get, uh, something more permanent? Can we look into this to get
[3:14:42] something permanent, uh, to allow our, our, our recruiters to do the best they can? Um, we will
[3:14:48] connect with the recruiting team and follow back up with your office quickly, Congressman.
[3:14:52] Okay. Appreciate it. And, and finally, uh, secretary, we, we met in, uh, after my meeting with, uh,
[3:14:59] secretary head staff, uh, when he, one of his first trips to Guam. Uh, so it's been many years. Well,
[3:15:06] actually there has never been a medal of honor winner, uh, or I'm sorry, winner, uh, recipient of,
[3:15:12] uh, the medal of honor from, from Guam. Uh, but yet we have many who, uh, would qualify,
[3:15:18] and we've been asking for decades, uh, to relook at their submitted, uh, documents. And I've resubmitted
[3:15:25] also, and we had an opportunity to talk, uh, there was Joseph, uh, Paris, Martin McGlogan, John Bloss.
[3:15:32] Um, and so there's still no answer. I, I appreciate a follow up on that. If we can continue to bring this
[3:15:39] up, it will, uh, it's very important to the people of Guam who are so well dedicated, uh, and,
[3:15:45] and really respect our nation. Uh, we've been, uh, Guam has been part of the United States since,
[3:15:51] uh, uh, uh, uh, Spanish American war and that's hundreds of years and we continue to send and
[3:15:58] defend our nation. And we just want the recognition to be honored with something well deserved. And I,
[3:16:03] I, I appreciate it if you can bring this once again to your attention. We will follow back up,
[3:16:08] Congressman. I, I thank you very much. And of course, I welcome you both to the 82nd Liberation
[3:16:13] Day celebration on Guam, July 21st. Uh, general, have you had the time to visit? I hope. No,
[3:16:20] sir. We, we are planning a trip, uh, here, uh, in the, in the summer, uh, out to the Pacific.
[3:16:27] Let's do that together. Secretary, have you been? Uh, I, I did get to, uh, go visit some soldiers
[3:16:32] there. Okay. Please come back. Of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much,
[3:16:37] Congressman Jim Moylan. And indeed, uh, Congressman Moylan is, uh, really too humble to tell
[3:16:42] you the whole story. And that is that Guam has the highest percentage of membership,
[3:16:47] uh, volunteers of any state or territory. Uh, and so the people indeed, uh, of Guam, uh, remember,
[3:16:55] remember the liberation. With that in mind, we now have, uh, Congressman Tran of California.
[3:17:00] Thank you so much, Chairman. Uh, thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
[3:17:04] As an army reserve veteran and the proud representative of joint forces training base,
[3:17:10] Los Alamitos, where I also served, let me say for the record, go army. You know,
[3:17:15] I want to focus, uh, today on Los Al, uh, because frankly, I am concerned about some of the army's
[3:17:21] decision related to that base. Los Al is both a critical gateway to the Indo-Pacific theater
[3:17:28] and essential base for disaster relief for the entirety of Southern California. It also will
[3:17:34] be the staging area for 15,000 reservists coming to support the LA 28 Olympics.
[3:17:40] Yet there are plans to deactivate some of our reserve units and a lack of support for military
[3:17:45] construction projects to improve the services, uh, that our, our soldiers desperately need.
[3:17:51] General Laniv, when you testified before the red readiness committee subcommittee in April,
[3:17:57] I brought up the deactivation of the expeditionary combat aviation brigade brigade and the impact that
[3:18:04] it will have on my community. You committed then to have more conversations about the ECAB
[3:18:09] deactivation. And I'm grateful that Rep. Luttrell and Rep. Crank have already started the conversation
[3:18:15] today. Uh, I share many of their questions and I hope that we can all work together on this very
[3:18:20] important issue. Two weeks ago, Secretary Hegseth described to this committee that the department
[3:18:26] is reviewing multiple, uh, places within the army transformation initiative to ensure that they
[3:18:31] don't create capability gaps, uh, general or secretary, can you describe the specific areas of ATI that the
[3:18:40] army is reviewing and what metrics you are using to evaluate whether a capability gap would be created?
[3:18:46] Yes, sir. You bring up a great one, our rotary wing, um, to make sure that, uh, again, that the decisions
[3:18:54] were made, which were all the, on the side of angels were, are still, uh, in the same site picture that,
[3:19:00] that we have right now. Um, also on, on some of our, uh, our, our ground fleet to make sure that we're
[3:19:07] going after the right mix of equipment. Um, as we, as the resources are small, um, in order to, you know,
[3:19:15] move to modernization. I know that's a tough thing to say, uh, is what we've asked for. Um, but we want to
[3:19:22] be stewards of the resources. And that's why I describe it really is, you know, the, the legacy
[3:19:26] systems that we have to discard, the enduring system that we know we're going to have, uh, and
[3:19:32] then the, the platforms that we know we need to go after to be more, uh, more, you know, uh, lethal,
[3:19:39] uh, against our pacing threat. And Congressman, I was going to, um, the, this is not to make light of
[3:19:47] it. These are tough decisions because you are, um, we are trying to forecast when we send our forces
[3:19:52] forward to some unknown place at some unknown time, what might they need? Um, and so we are
[3:19:58] constantly in conversation with OSW. We are constantly in conversation with you and your
[3:20:02] colleagues to try to figure out the right mix. Yeah, no, look, I appreciate the, the answer.
[3:20:06] And, you know, the, the unit being deactivated at Los Alamitos is a medical evac unit. Um, and it
[3:20:13] supports FEMA and disaster relief missions across Southern California, you know, deactivating them
[3:20:19] would create a pretty large gap in capability for the entire region, uh, that I represent and
[3:20:25] Southern California as a whole. You said you will follow up with our office, but can I count on you
[3:20:31] two to commit today to adding the ECAB units to the list of areas that are being reviewed, please?
[3:20:37] Yes. Yes, sir. Thank you. Now, I've also learned recently that the army did not include funding for
[3:20:45] a new army reserve center at Los Al in the unfunded priority list for this year or in the future
[3:20:51] years, uh, defense program, which is concerning. You know, General Laniv, uh, how does the Department
[3:20:58] of Army determine, uh, what military construction projects are included on the unfunded priority list
[3:21:04] and why might a project be left off? Sir, it's a, it's a, it's a balancing of, of what resources we
[3:21:11] have, what resources we think we can, uh, you know, attain, uh, and, and there's a list across the board.
[3:21:17] We look at, uh, at everything across, uh, the United States and frankly, where the army is has,
[3:21:24] you know, our power projection platforms, our MFGIs, uh, where we're going to mobilize at large numbers
[3:21:32] to try to, to look at where we need to continue to invest, um, where we, we might take a lapse for a
[3:21:38] little bit in order to get, uh, you know, money into a, a, a program and a higher priority, uh, uh,
[3:21:45] for us. I appreciate that. And, you know, with the, uh, LA Olympics coming up, um, with the 15,000 reserves,
[3:21:52] uh, being, uh, placed in my district, you know, I want you to all understand I'm here as a resource
[3:21:59] and my office is, uh, here to help. Thank you. Thank you, Congressman. Now Congressman Pat Fallon of Texas.
[3:22:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and it's great to see you, Secretary, uh, in general. We live in a country
[3:22:15] where 20 years ago, Secretary Driscoll, where were you? Uh, sorry. Approximately, when were you?
[3:22:24] Approximately Iraq. Uh, before that, when were you? Basic training, OCS. Basic training when? 2006?
[3:22:32] Yeah, basic training would have been September 2007. Okay. So less than 20 years later, you're here as the
[3:22:39] Secretary of the Army. It's a great country to live in, isn't it? Uh, and I, I want to tell you,
[3:22:43] I've been doing this for six years, uh, representing the fourth district. And we have a lot of people
[3:22:49] that come before this committee, most of, most of which are impressive, not all. But I've, I've never
[3:22:54] had the good fortune, uh, to work with somebody with as keen an intellect as you. And, uh, you lead
[3:23:01] by example and you and the general genuinely care about the troops and you're authentic. And that's what
[3:23:07] true leadership is leading by example. And I mean, I could go on and on, but I do love the way you're
[3:23:11] doing the job with the innovation that you're bringing. Uh, you're trying to make changes.
[3:23:16] You're, you're trying to leave a mark for the country and you're accessible. And so thank you.
[3:23:21] And I know that, uh, you, you might sometimes we all feel like maybe a little bit too accessible,
[3:23:25] but you're transparent as well. So bottom line, thank you for your service to the Republic
[3:23:30] and general same goes for you. I wanted to talk to you real quickly about one thing. I visited Fort Jackson
[3:23:37] and looked at the, uh, I asked the general there and his command, if you could, if I could give you
[3:23:43] this one, one, one thing, what would you want? And they talked about BCT five and they said,
[3:23:48] you know, listen, we've got some brand new barracks and we've got barracks that are really old.
[3:23:52] So I said, you know, that's why we go and visit these places, right? So you see it, you can smell it.
[3:23:56] And what I saw was a barracks that was built when LBJ was president. And it's just design flaw. You can't
[3:24:03] put enough band-aids on the damn thing. It's an artillery, artillery wound and they need it to be
[3:24:08] bumped up. And that's someone that we're working on. I would really like to work with you in general
[3:24:12] on getting it bumped up to, they're not going to start construction till like probably 2032. And we
[3:24:16] really got to, I made them a promise that I would make it one of my priorities. It happens to be in
[3:24:20] the current chairman's district. So that's a little bit serendipitous, but I just wanted to let you know.
[3:24:26] And I mean, these kids are sleeping outside in the summer outside because it's cooler outside than in the
[3:24:30] barracks that are supposed to have HVAC. So thank you for your help on that.
[3:24:37] General, I want to talk to you a little bit about the administrative burden on company and battalion
[3:24:42] level commanders, because it's been cited as having some issues and it's a drag on unit readiness and
[3:24:49] leadership development and what have you. As the Army transforms, what specific steps is the Army
[3:24:54] going to take to reduce that burden? And whether through policy changes, whether it's automation or force
[3:24:59] structure adjustments, how can you how can we measure whether things are changing and freeing up time
[3:25:07] and training for warfighter tasks? Sure. One, thanks for the question and thanks for your support.
[3:25:15] You know, the secretary has us looking across the board of what what bureaucracy above our leadership
[3:25:22] can we reduce in order to give the time back to back to commanders. I'll give you an example of what
[3:25:29] we're going to do a pilot at one of our two brigade combat teams. When I was a company commander,
[3:25:38] my hand receipt was pretty small. It was pretty easy to do a 10% hand receipt inventory that you're
[3:25:45] required to do monthly. As a matter of fact, it was pretty easy. You could do it a couple of, you know, 30,
[3:25:51] 40 minutes before you released everybody on a Friday. We had company commanders right now,
[3:25:56] rifle company commanders across our force that have hand receipts, you know, 40 plus pages,
[3:26:03] which takes an incredible amount of time to just do the inventories to stay compliant. We're going to
[3:26:10] do a test to try to automate this as fast as possible. So you could walk into a motor pool with a device
[3:26:17] and it automatically populates that your equipment is there. So you're not having to go out and, you know,
[3:26:22] touch every piece of equipment. It just tells you with a, you know, a small device, companies do this.
[3:26:29] No, that's great. In general, I apologize. I only got 30 seconds left. I wanted to touch on recruiting
[3:26:33] and something that we'll obviously have to take for the record or follow up with your staff. But
[3:26:37] I'd love for your help. We're going to do some cleanup language ourselves because it's the big stuff
[3:26:41] all the way down to little stuff. The Marines have always hit the recruiting goals. We finally have
[3:26:44] for the first time in 24 and credit where credit's due. Great job. We need to continue with that,
[3:26:49] make sure that we have Manning, that we all know that's our, you know, greatest natural resources,
[3:26:54] uh, our troops. But I'm going to work on some cleanup language as well for the reg for an issue
[3:26:58] that you and I had discussed because I thought it was solved. It's not. I'll get with your folks
[3:27:02] and talk to you after. But thanks very much. You're doing a great job and thank you for your service.
[3:27:06] God bless. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman Fallon. And indeed,
[3:27:11] you are highly perceptive that Fort Jackson basic trainees can be successful,
[3:27:16] as the secretary is proving. And also, uh, we really appreciate, uh, Congressman Fallon himself
[3:27:21] was a superstar, fully engaged on his tour of Fort Jackson, and we appreciate his visit. And we're
[3:27:28] very fortunate now with Congressman Bindman of Virginia. Thank you, Chairman. Secretary, just feel
[3:27:35] good to see you again. Uh, Sergeant Major, we have, uh, Sergeant Major of the Army, uh, good to see you again
[3:27:40] as well. Um, Chief, we haven't met before, but as a proud Blue Falcon, um, Second Brigade 82nd, uh, I
[3:27:48] welcome you as the, uh, new Chief of Staff of the Army and look forward to working with you. So let me
[3:27:53] just start, um, by saying on the record, I think canceling the rotation of the, uh, Brigade to Europe,
[3:27:59] it was a terrible mistake. It's an own goal. And frankly, it's a boon to Putin. It comes on the heels
[3:28:06] of the U.S. reneging on its role in facilitating the POW transfer. So, uh, we keep handing, uh, Putin
[3:28:14] a lifeline, uh, especially at a time when the Ukrainians are actually on the offensive in many
[3:28:20] places. And I think it's a, it's unfortunate and we need a change in policy there. Um, Secretary
[3:28:27] Driscoll, let me, uh, first say thank you for being here again. And I was pleased with your statements
[3:28:32] last year at AUSA, where he said the following, if small arms define the 20th century, drones will
[3:28:38] define the 21st century. They are the perfect convergence of artificial intelligence, advanced
[3:28:43] materials, batteries, propulsion systems, sensor fusion, and much more. They will absolutely
[3:28:48] dominate warfare in the 21st century. Drones are reshaping how humans will inflict violence on
[3:28:54] each other at a pace never witnessed in human history. They're cheap, modular, precise, multi-role,
[3:28:59] and scalable and will rapidly integrate. Uh, we will rapidly integrate them into our formations,
[3:29:05] basically cheap, attributable ammo, but I'm a little bit concerned that your budget doesn't reflect
[3:29:10] this. Um, to achieve mass with unmanned systems would require a drone required drone industrial base
[3:29:18] signals, uh, that are predictable. And last year, the, uh, the U S army's small, uh, small unmanned
[3:29:26] aircraft systems line was 426 million this year. It's 291 million. Um, and the funding profile for
[3:29:34] future years is flat. Can you talk to me about that discrepancy? Um, Congressman, um, thank you for
[3:29:42] reading back my remarks to me. My, my team knows my love language is hearing my own quotes. Uh, so I
[3:29:47] appreciate that. But so, uh, we are actively moving out as an army and, um, we were doing a lot of things
[3:29:54] to set the stage for this, um, drone led autonomous world. Um, I won't hit operation jailbreak again,
[3:29:59] but basically freeing up our data and allowing everything to exchange information. We are all
[3:30:03] of our new systems that we are getting our open architecture so that we can plug in autonomous
[3:30:08] systems like drones beside them on the counter drone side under Jada 401. We are investing enormous
[3:30:14] resources into the tools to track, uh, and intercept whether, um, in all sorts of different forms.
[3:30:20] And I get that, but the signal to industry comes from the funding and why is the funding request
[3:30:27] down this year and flattened future years? Um, we believe that that funding request is sufficient
[3:30:33] for us to have a, um, um, a base level number of small UAS systems for our soldiers to train on. And
[3:30:42] what is important to us is having the industrial base to scale in a conflict. So if you look at what
[3:30:47] Ukraine is producing, I think it's about 5 million drones, Russia is about the same. We are not going
[3:30:52] to be at a place where we need to manufacture back your, as a nation, 5 million drones until
[3:30:56] we're in conflict, but we need to be able to get there really quickly. And so that's where we're
[3:30:59] investing time and resources. One of the things I think you are tracking as well is that, um,
[3:31:04] there's a large reconciliation funding request for 55 billion. And you know, that hope is not a
[3:31:10] strategy. Obviously reconciliation is not the same as a base budget request. So, uh, I hope that we
[3:31:17] can get the right funding at, and so the, the, the rhetoric matches the investment going forward,
[3:31:23] because this is a critical area just switching gears. Um, uh, general, how is the army planning
[3:31:29] on integrating these systems? Like how is the army plan to develop and codify drone warfare doctrine?
[3:31:35] What is the timeline for getting that doctrine into the hands of formations? Yeah, sure. So, uh, two ways.
[3:31:41] So the, the first one, we're taking a lot of lessons learned from both the Ukraine, uh, and, uh,
[3:31:47] OEF. It's moving at a much faster rate, uh, into our, uh, schoolhouse, um, and into our doctrine.
[3:31:55] I think, uh, from what you would have seen when you were in the, in the Blue Falcons, um, we're also
[3:32:01] using some tools to be able to scrape, uh, all of our lessons learned, uh, out, out at CAC in order to
[3:32:07] get those lessons learned at a faster pace, uh, into the schoolhouse. And then the last part,
[3:32:13] and you know, the criticality of this and our combat training centers are using these new TTPs
[3:32:18] to be able to pose, uh, you know, a different threat picture to the brigades as they go through
[3:32:23] the training base to be able to learn how to counter this threat. General and secretary,
[3:32:28] I just want to reinforce that this is probably the most important thing the army can do. And so
[3:32:32] I hope we move out and, uh, airborne. Let's go. Thank you very much, Congressman Vindman.
[3:32:39] As we conclude, we have a closing statement by the ranking member, uh, Smith, Adam Smith.
[3:32:45] Thank you. Just a couple of quick comments, building off of the drone conversation,
[3:32:49] figuring out how we can encourage a domestic drone manufacturing on the commercial side.
[3:32:55] I was out in Silicon Valley recently talking with GoPro and Skydio, and there's a lot going on there,
[3:33:01] but the, the undercutting by China is making it difficult for us to build that. And I think on the
[3:33:06] military use drones, we've got some pretty decent focus, a lot of good companies out there,
[3:33:11] investment capital going into them. But I think all that would be easier if we could figure out
[3:33:15] how to compete on the commercial side. I think this is an area where industrial policy is needed.
[3:33:20] Um, maybe even, and I'm not terribly fond of the whole equity stake thing, but in this context,
[3:33:26] there might be an area where DOD or the government more broadly could help encourage domestic,
[3:33:32] uh, commercial drones. I'd like to follow up and talk with you more about that. I've not had a chance to
[3:33:35] talk to with you since I had those conversations with the folks out in California. And then just
[3:33:40] to really emphasize two points that came up here repeatedly, um, on the civilian harm. I,
[3:33:46] and I think a good number of members on this committee do not trust, uh, the secretary of
[3:33:50] defense on civilian harm. Um, and we don't trust the notion that it's just being moved around. It
[3:33:56] seems like it's being gutted, um, and that there is no focus on it whatsoever. So we're going to want
[3:34:00] to have, you know, follow up on that to make sure that the law is followed. And then, as we've said,
[3:34:05] repeatedly, just some sort of explanation for the force posture in Europe. Um, but there's arguments
[3:34:12] out there. We can have those arguments. Um, but just having the department just make a decision like
[3:34:17] this, and then the people who are implementing the decision saying, meh, I don't know. I just work
[3:34:22] here. That's what they said. So we're doing it. Um, we can do a little bit better than that. Um, why?
[3:34:28] Well, how does this fit into the larger strategy? But I thank both of you for this. And again,
[3:34:32] I close where I opened what the army is doing on transformation. I am very impressed by. Um,
[3:34:38] I think we need to speed it up and keep going, but we want to be helpful and cooperative as you,
[3:34:42] uh, walk down that road. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[3:34:46] Thank you, ranking member. And indeed, you see the bipartisanship. And I, uh,
[3:34:50] want to reference again, the article in Washington times yesterday about drone capacity, uh, how the
[3:34:56] Ukrainians have just, um, uh, made such progress. It's almost daily progress, uh, that, uh, that we
[3:35:03] can, uh, obviously work with them as we've worked over the years with missile defense with Israel.
[3:35:08] With that in mind too, as we conclude, I want to congratulate, uh, you, uh, both of you with
[3:35:14] working with Secretary Pete Hegseth. To me, this is a year of historic achievements working with Syria
[3:35:21] as dictator Assad has fled to Moscow, arresting dictator Maduro of Venezuela, elimination of
[3:35:28] dictator Khomeini of Iran, heroic, uh, rescue of the pilot down in Iran, leaving no one behind.
[3:35:36] The people of Syria, Venezuela and Iran now have an opportunity for peace and prosperity. And this
[3:35:41] also encourages the people of Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and the Republic of Georgia to work for fair and free
[3:35:48] elections. And this is because the success of the American military. With that, we are adjourned.
Related Transcripts from Right Side Broadcasting Network