[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


.                                  
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-87]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                         FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                   ON

         DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                              MAY 12, 2022


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-851                     WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                                   
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                    ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MO BROOKS, Alabama
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland,          SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California                TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 MATT GAETZ, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       DON BACON, Nebraska
JASON CROW, Colorado                 JIM BANKS, Indiana
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice      MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
    Chair                            STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
SARA JACOBS, California              LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
JIMMY PANETTA, California            PAT FALLON, Texas
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas

                     Brian Garrett, Staff Director
                 Liz Griffin, Professional Staff Member
                Kelly Repair, Professional Staff Member
                      Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     2
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

McConville, GEN James C., USA, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.........     5
Wormuth, Hon. Christine E., Secretary of the Army, U.S. Army.....     3

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Wormuth, Hon. Christine E., joint with GEN James C. 
      McConville.................................................    65

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Carbajal.................................................    89
    Mr. Johnson..................................................    91
    Mr. Larsen...................................................    89
    Mr. Waltz....................................................    90

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Bacon....................................................   101
    Mr. Crow.....................................................   104
    Mr. Fallon...................................................   107
    Mr. Franklin.................................................   106
    Mr. Garamendi................................................    95
    Dr. Green....................................................   106
    Mrs. Hartzler................................................    96
    Ms. Houlahan.................................................   103
    Dr. Jackson..................................................   107
    Mr. Keating..................................................   101
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................    95
    Mrs. McClain.................................................   106
    Mr. Scott....................................................    97
    Ms. Speier...................................................    97
    Ms. Stefanik.................................................   101
                        
                        
                        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
                    FISCAL YEAR 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                            Washington, DC, Thursday, May 12, 2022.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
       WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Good morning, all. We have a full committee hearing this 
morning. The Department of the Army is going to present their 
fiscal year 2023 budget request. We welcome our two witnesses, 
the Honorable Christine Wormuth, the Secretary of the Army; and 
General James McConville, Chief of Staff for the U.S. Army.
    Before we begin, we are joined by a new member on the 
committee this morning. Congresswoman Sylvia Garcia was just 
appointed to the committee yesterday and is now part of the 
Armed Services Committee. We welcome her. She represents the 
29th District of Texas, which includes Houston, South Houston, 
Galena Park, Jacinto City, and Pasadena.
    She is a former judge and social worker and joins the 
committee having previously served as Houston's city 
comptroller, Dallas County commissioner, and Texas State 
senator. During her time in Congress, Sylvia Garcia was 
particularly focused on the incidents surrounding the death of 
Vanessa Guillen and was incredibly important in getting the--
passing the reforms to how we handle sexual assault in the 
military.
    So even before joining this committee, Ms. Garcia has had a 
huge impact on our policy. We appreciate that leadership, and 
we are very happy to have her on board. Welcome. Thank you for 
being here.
    As I mentioned this morning, we are hearing from the Army, 
part of our continuing posture budget hearing conversation, and 
there is a ton of details here. But the two most important 
things to me are the Army personnel and modernization.
    I think the Army has really been a leader in this starting 
with the ``night court'' process that started back I believe 
when Mr. Esper was the service secretary. They really took a 
hard look at everything that the Army is spending money on and 
said, ``Does this make sense?'' and ``What is the future of the 
fight?'' Something we talk about a lot on this committee.
    How do we catch up with the rapid pace of technology that 
is making survivability harder, information more important, and 
things like long-range fires and drones and communication 
systems even more important? I think the Army is headed in the 
right direction on this. The committee looks forward to hearing 
from you on how we can continue to support that effort and what 
some of the decisions and tradeoffs are that are involved in 
there.
    Obviously, the amount of money matters. We have the defense 
budget that was offered by the President. There is already some 
controversy about that, and we will talk about what the numbers 
should be. As I always say, I am vastly more concerned about 
how we spend that money than how much there is. The President 
put forward a budget somewhere around $800 billion, which is a 
significant amount of money, but the modernization challenges 
are enormous.
    We have to update our systems and be ready for the fight 
that is here today and not the one that was there 30 years ago, 
so that involves some very difficult decisions. The other big 
issue, obviously, is personnel. The Army has struggled to meet 
its recruiting goals. Obviously, you know, the last 2 years of 
the pandemic have scrambled everything about that.
    So, it is hard to reach any definitive conclusions about 
some sort of, you know, overarching problem. But we want to 
figure out, what can we do to help the Army meet those goals, 
to be able to recruit and retain the personnel that they need. 
So, we look forward to hearing your comments on that as well.
    With that, I will turn it over to Mr. Rogers for his 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA, 
          RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
the witnesses for being here and for your service to our 
country. These are very important hearings, and I really 
appreciate you making yourself available for them.
    This is our last posture hearing of the year. Each of these 
hearings have made one thing very clear: the President's 
defense budget proposal is woefully inadequate. We have heard 
from General Milley that it fails to keep pace with record 
inflation. It is so bad that Deputy Secretary Hicks indicated 
last week that the Department may need a supplemental for 
fiscal year 2022 to deal with it.
    We have heard from combatant commanders and service Chiefs 
that the budget falls far short of providing our warfighters 
the resources they need to carry out their mission. That is why 
they have sent Congress a $29 billion in unfunded priorities.
    We've heard from Admiral Aquilino about the growing threat 
from China and how that threat is manifesting much quicker than 
he anticipated. And we read his 1242 Report that lists over $1 
billion in requirements needed to deter China that didn't make 
it into this budget. Further, we have heard from the leaders of 
the other services about the unnecessary risks they will absorb 
if this budget becomes a reality.
    Today we will hear the toll it is taking on the Army. Like 
the leaders of the other services, Secretary Wormuth and 
General McConville have had to produce a strategy based on a 
budget number, not a budget number based on a strategy, and the 
results aren't pretty. The Army is seeking to slash end 
strength by 12,000 soldiers. It is facing cuts of 7 percent in 
procurement, 6 percent in research and development, and 41 
percent in military construction.
    The Army is trying their best to manage risk by dividing 
investment between long-term modernization priorities and 
short-term requirements. They've been able to target investment 
in some of the Army's highest priority--highest modernization 
priorities, such as long-range precision fires.
    There is no question that we need to make investments like 
these. Doing so ensures we have at least some capability to 
deter and defeat China; but it also means we are making 
dangerous gambit that risk in the near term will be low. I 
suspect that is not the case, and I suspect that that is why 
General McConville has sent us a list of over $5 billion in 
unfunded priorities.
    The list includes critical vertical lift and ground vehicle 
modernization programs. It also includes imperatives like 
additional Stinger missiles. These capabilities are critical to 
deter and defeat adversaries in the near term. Russia's illegal 
invasion of Ukraine highlights just how vital it is that we 
pass a robust budget that reduces both near-term and long-term 
risks.
    Unfortunately, this budget proposal makes those choices 
mutually exclusive, and that is unacceptable. Our warfighters 
need the training and capability to deter and defeat any 
adversary anywhere anytime. I am very concerned that the 
President's budget will leave the Army and the rest of the 
services unprepared to do that.
    I look forward to working with the majority to pass a real 
defense budget that supports modernization and ensures credible 
deterrence.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, you are recognized for your opening 
statement.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 
                           U.S. ARMY

    Secretary Wormuth. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking 
Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. Thank 
you for your ongoing support of the Army as we significantly 
transform to meet future threats.
    We have accomplished a lot this year, but we have a lot 
more work ahead of us. We remain focused on our three key 
priorities: people, readiness, and modernization. The fiscal 
year 2023 budget request enables us to support the National 
Defense Strategy, take care of our people, and meet operational 
demands abroad and at home.
    We are investing $35 billion in modernization, almost $2 
billion in military housing and infrastructure, and we are 
funding 22 combat training center rotations in fiscal year 
2023.
    We are modestly reducing our end strength. We are doing 
this because we want to focus on maintaining a high-quality 
force. We didn't want to have to lower our recruiting 
standards. At the same time, we are also working hard to adjust 
our recruiting enterprise, given the challenging recruiting 
environment that we and the other services are facing.
    We are also committed to maintaining momentum on our six 
major modernization portfolios. In fiscal year 2023 alone, we 
will field four long-range precision-fire systems: the Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon, our ship-sinking Mid-Range Capability, 
the Precision Strike Missile, and the Extended Range Cannon 
Artillery. We are also modernizing our air and missile defense 
systems, and we are funding both the development of FLRAA 
[Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft] and FARA [Future Attack 
Reconnaissance Aircraft], which we plan to field in 2030.
    As important as it is to maintain our momentum on 
modernization, people are the strength of our Army and our 
greatest asset. This budget increases soldier and Army civilian 
pay and funds a number of quality of life improvements, 
including barracks, family housing, and various childcare 
initiatives.
    To reduce harmful behaviors, we are building out a 
prevention workforce that will help us with our efforts to 
build strong, cohesive teams that are trained, disciplined, and 
fit. Our SHARP [Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and 
Prevention program] Fusion Center Directorate pilot brings 
together in one place all of the resources to support victims 
of sexual harassment and sexual assault, and these pilots are 
up and running.
    We are also continuing to strive to present--to prevent 
suicide in our ranks. We have started conducting 100 percent 
mental health wellness checks in some of our units, and we are 
surging behavioral health resources to where they are most 
needed, even as we confront a nationwide shortage of providers.
    As we focus on taking care of soldiers and their families, 
and transforming to meet future threats, the Army is also 
playing a key role in the here and now. Today we have over 
47,000 soldiers in Europe to reassure our allies, deter 
aggression against NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] 
territory, and to help Ukraine defend itself.
    As you all know, the Army has provided a wide range of 
lethal assistance to Ukraine. And while we are focused on 
Europe, we are not taking our eye off the pacing challenge of 
China in the Indo-Pacific. Through Operation Pacific Pathways, 
we have deployed thousands of Army forces and equipment sets to 
the region for exercises that strengthen joint force 
integration, demonstrate combat capability, and promote 
interoperability.
    In just the last 2 years, for example, the 5th Security 
Force Assistance Brigade has sent over 40 advisory teams to 14 
different countries. This kind of interoperability and 
relationships that our Army forces are building with countries 
in the region increases the potential for additional access and 
combined action if there is a future crisis.
    Our access, presence, and influence around the world are 
enduring advantages that contribute to integrated deterrence. 
And to continue building our enduring advantage relative to our 
adversaries, we have to pursue cutting-edge experimentation and 
innovation. Much of our experimentation activity will culminate 
this fall in Project Convergence 22, where our sister services 
will join us with operational units and new technologies to 
work together to solve important operational challenges.
    America's Army is fit, trained, and ready when called upon 
to fight and win the Nation's wars. We are transforming for the 
future, something we have to do given the dangerous environment 
we face today. I am very proud of all that our soldiers are 
doing to protect our country and look forward to your questions 
this morning.
    [The joint prepared statement of Secretary Wormuth and 
General McConville can be found in the Appendix on page 65.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General McConville.

STATEMENT OF GEN JAMES C. MCCONVILLE, USA, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. 
                              ARMY

    General McConville. Good morning, Chairman Smith, Ranking 
Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee. Thank 
you for the opportunity to be here today and for your continued 
support to the Army and our people: our soldiers from all three 
components, our families, our civilians, and our soldiers for 
life.
    The men and women of the United States Army stand ready to 
fight and win our Nation's wars as a member of the joint force. 
I could not be more proud of each and every one of them. The 
Army is well aligned with the National Defense Strategy through 
our existing priorities of people, readiness, and 
modernization. And we win through our people. They are our 
greatest strength and our most important weapons system. That 
is why people remain the Army's number one priority.
    We are in a war for talent. That means recruiting our 
Nation's best and modernizing our talent management systems. 
That means retaining our best. We recruit soldiers, but we 
retain families. So we are ensuring access to quality housing, 
healthcare, childcare, spouse employment, and PCS [permanent 
change of station] moves.
    When our soldiers get the call that it is time to deploy, 
we want them to be laser focused on their mission, knowing that 
their families will be well taken care of at home. Above all, 
putting our people first means building cohesive teams that are 
highly trained, disciplined, and fit, where everyone is treated 
with dignity and respect, and they are ready to fight and win.
    But being ready today is not good enough. We must also make 
sure we are ready tomorrow, and that is what our modernization 
is all about: future readiness. The Army continues to undergo 
its greatest transformation in over 40 years, and we remain 
committed to our six modernization priorities. We have 24 
signature modernization systems that we will have in the hands 
of soldiers by fiscal year 2023, either for testing or 
fielding.
    Also in fiscal year 2023, we will stand up the third of our 
five multi-domain task forces. The U.S. Army never fights 
alone, so we continue to invest in strengthening our 
relationships with allies and partners across the globe.
    We can see the return on those investments in our response 
to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Never before have we asked so 
many to move so quickly. We could not do it without the access 
and presence our allies and partners provide.
    In less than a week, the 1st Armored Brigade and the 3rd 
Infantry Division was able to deploy from Fort Stewart, 
Georgia, and be on the ground in Germany starting live-fire 
exercises with tanks drawn from Army prepositioned stocks in 
Europe. This is a testament to our tactical and strategic 
readiness, to the quality of our incredible logisticians, and 
to the investments Congress has made over the past several 
years in setting the European theater.
    When it is time to go, we go with the Army we have, and the 
Army we have is the world's greatest fighting force. We must 
ensure it stays that way. And with your continued support, we 
will.
    I look forward to your questions.
    The Chairman. Thank you both very much. Two questions. One, 
I know the Army has been very focused on long-range fires, and 
this is one of the main features of the modern battlefield that 
we are seeing play out in Ukraine. You know, you have to be 
able to see and target the enemy before they can see and target 
you, and there are a ton of layers that go into that--secure 
communications, you know, drones, information being able to be 
moved about.
    Can you walk us through sort of what the Army programs are 
to give--and distance is another thing. You know, the further 
away you can fire the missile, you know, the quicker you can 
get there. What are the systems that are going to put you into 
position to win that fight? Like the fight that is playing out 
in Ukraine right now where the Russians have a lot of drones, 
they are able to see when the Ukrainians are coming, and then 
put target right on them, or they are able to steal their 
communications and do that, and back and forth. How are we 
preparing for that fight in the Army?
    General McConville. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, what I will start 
with is our number one priority, which is the long-range 
precision fires, and I equate those to being the arrows that we 
have. And it starts with hypersonics. We have great range, 
great speed, and very precise, and that gives us some 
capabilities.
    The second priority is Mid-Range Capability. That gives us 
the ability to sink ships.
    The third capability is our Precision Strike Missile, which 
they are developing right now. It will be a land-to-land 
system. It is going to be 500 kilometers or greater. And it 
also is going to in the near future have the ability to think--
to sink ships.
    But that is just part of it. Now you have the arrows. You 
actually have to find the targets, and that takes a layered 
joint force solution. It takes space, it takes aerial 
capability, it takes multiple other ``ents,'' if you want to 
call it, to bring that together.
    But the real secret sauce that we are working on is what we 
call convergence, the ability to take multiple sensors, bring 
them into an integrated battle command system, and then pick 
the appropriate shooter to get the lethal effects we need. That 
is what we are doing right now. We have put it in place and are 
working very closely with our other services. And this fall we 
will work with our allies and partners to continue to develop 
that capability.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Secretary Wormuth--and I should point out, as I understand, 
your mother and your aunt have joined us this morning? I want 
to be sure and recognize them and thank them for being here and 
tell everyone that now they have to be nice to you.
    [Laughter.]
    The Chairman. It would just be rude to----
    Secretary Wormuth. They are here to watch our great 
democracy at work.
    The Chairman. Okay. We will try to live up to that. Did you 
have anything to add to the----
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I just want--I guess what I would 
add, first, I would underscore, you know, we are working with 
the other services through the Project Convergence series to 
really test out, you know, how we link all of the platforms, 
not just in the Army but with the Air Force, Navy, Marines, and 
Space Force.
    And there is a lot of fascinating work there that I think, 
you know, you would all be interested in, and I would encourage 
you, those that can, to come out and see it in the fall. But 
really, you know, our six major modernization portfolios are 
designed to sort of help us tie the archers, the arrows, and, 
you know, all of that together. So, you know, we have got to 
have the air and missile defenses to be able to protect our 
forces, for example. We have got to have the network. You know, 
we are working hard to become a more data-centric Army. So, you 
know, and then, of course, we have got to have the vehicles and 
platforms to allow our forces to maneuver on the ground.
    So, we have really tried to take a comprehensive approach 
to modernization, so that we can bring all of that together.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Like I said in my opening 
statement, I very much appreciate that forward-leaning thought. 
And as we are talking about, you know, spending money within 
the defense budget, this is where we need to spend it. We have 
got a lot of existing programs and older programs and older 
systems that are not contributing in a positive way to that 
fight. We need to move off of those and get the systems that 
you just described.
    And the last piece of it is we have to make sure that all 
of that is secure, and that is where a lot of upgrading needs 
to be done, of just basic software and systems. You know, if we 
are flying a drone, we have to make sure that our adversaries 
can't take over from a cyber ability, you know, hack the system 
and start flying our drone. Our systems are not as secure as 
they need to be right now.
    Last question, on personnel. What are the like two or three 
things that you think are most important in being able to 
recruit and retain? You mentioned some of that, but what 
support can we give you to be able to meet those numbers?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congressman, one of the things 
we have to do is really find a way to tell the Army's story to 
as many young Americans as we can. You know, we really have a--
I think over 80 percent of the folks who are in the Army now 
come from families where they have had military background. So, 
we really need to expand our outreach to a much broader slice 
of America.
    And I think, you know, things you all can do to support us 
is we are--we are looking at, you know, things like potentially 
expanding the number of Junior ROTC [Reserve Officers' Training 
Corps] programs that we have. We are trying to do a deep dive 
into our recruiting enterprise to really try to find some 
creative solutions, and there may be things that we could use 
Congress' help with. There may be some new authorities that we 
might need.
    So, we will look forward in the coming months to coming 
back to you all to asking for specific help. But in the 
meantime, you know, we have a range of incentives that we have 
put out to try to help us with recruiting. We have some new 
marketing that is going out to, again, I think help us tell the 
Army's story more effectively. And we are--the early returns on 
that data are promising.
    The Chairman. Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Great. Thank you. And I share completely the 
chairman's concern about that, and I appreciate General 
McConville making the point that people is your number one 
priority because it needs to be.
    General McConville, we had Admiral Gilday here yesterday 
testifying about the impact of inflation on his service and 
what it has done to raise the cost of shipbuilding, MILCON 
[military construction], fuel, housing for the people. How is 
it affecting your service, or is it?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, I am very concerned 
about the impact of inflation on our soldiers and families, our 
most, you know, important weapon system. And, you know, as we--
as sure as the other folks testified, the budget was planned 
around about a 2 percent inflation rate. And I am not an 
economist or a comptroller, but here is what I do know.
    I know that in the budget we wanted to give our soldiers 
and families a 4.6--and our civilians a 4.6 percent pay raise, 
and that was based on the employment cost index. And we wanted 
to give them a subsistence increase, and that was based on the 
USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture] food cost. And we wanted 
to give BHA [basic housing allowance], all these type things.
    And that number is a lot less than 8 percent. I don't know 
what it is going to be, but this affects our soldiers' and 
families' buying power. And, you know, we would like to see 
them have that capability because we want--we are in a war for 
talent. We want to take care of our soldiers and families.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you. And I would like both of you to 
address this question. I am really concerned that--about the 
lack of funding for combat vehicles in this budget, 
particularly Strykers and Abrams. Has something changed that we 
don't any longer have a combat requirement to fill full 
brigades of these vehicles?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we absolutely still have a 
requirement for Strykers and Abrams. The reason that we have 
sort of slowed the buy, if you will, with--and, you know, we 
have gone--we have decreased the buy from about three-quarters 
of an ABCT [armored brigade combat team], for example, to a 
half a BCT [brigade combat team] a year, and we have done that, 
frankly, because we are trying to strike the balance between 
continuing to invest in our enduring platforms, like Strykers, 
like Abrams, but also maintaining our modernization on 
developing the new systems, you know, developing the robotic 
combat vehicles or the optionally manned fighting vehicle. So 
that is why you are seeing that.
    Mr. Rogers. General.
    General McConville. And, Congressman, we are trying to give 
you the best Army we can with the resources we get, and it is a 
delicate--we are trying to find that sweet spot where we keep 
our modernization priorities going, and we have done that, and 
we are very pleased with that--with that pace. But we also want 
to take care of soldiers and families, and we also want to take 
care of enduring, you know, systems.
    And the Abrams is not going anywhere, the Stryker is not 
going anywhere, the Apache is not going anywhere, the Black 
Hawk is not going anywhere. These systems are going to stay in 
place. But as we improve them, which we feel we need to do, we 
also have to, you know, balance the future of the Army, and we 
have to invest in the Army in the future.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you made my point, both of you did right 
there. We have to have these platforms, but you are trying to 
work with the funding you have got and a proposal that is under 
budgeted. That is my whole point.
    Secretary Wormuth, the fiscal year 2023 defense budget 
request did not factor in Russia's invasion of Ukraine or the 
ongoing response by the U.S. Are you getting what you need 
through the various supplemental appropriations to fund these 
operations, replace vehicle and equipment transfers, and 
replenish diminished stockpiles?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, Congressman. I think, you know, the 
supplementals that you all in Congress have provided have been 
helpful in terms of allowing us to fund the operations, you 
know, as I mentioned, the 47,000 Army soldiers who are there in 
Europe. Some of those were permanently assigned in Europe 
before the invasion, but many of them have moved there.
    And I think, you know, right now we feel comfortable with 
the fact that we are able to manage our costs. I think, though, 
this conflict could be protracted. It doesn't appear that Putin 
is changing his objectives. So, I think we have to be prepared 
to expect that this conflict may go on, and the costs, you 
know, would then continue as well.
    Mr. Rogers. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Langevin, who is joining us 
virtually, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me 
okay?
    The Chairman. Yeah. We got you. Thanks.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
witnesses for their testimony today and all you do for our men 
and women in uniform and for our national security.
    Let me begin with Secretary Wormuth. Secretary, it is my 
understanding that the Army's concept of multi-domain 
operations calls for a few specialized new units, such as a 
cyber warfare battalion and a hypersonic weapons battery, for 
example. So, these are key issues that I am glad the Army is 
taking a dedicated look at, and I think it is moving in the 
right direction.
    But how will the Army ensure that the proper training and 
equipment is acquired for these units, should they come to 
fruition.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman Langevin. The 
Army actually has, you know, invested in cyber and in 
developing its cyber force for some time, so I am very proud of 
everything that we are doing at Army Cyber. You were 
specifically talking I think about our multi-domain task 
forces, which will have a battalion that will include 
capabilities to not just look at cyber but also space and 
electronic warfare, as well as having a long-range precision 
fires battalion.
    But we are--we are working to develop the personnel for 
those formations, and we have a cyber center of excellence at 
Fort Gordon where we are doing a lot of the training and 
development of those kinds of soldiers.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you. And that goes equally with a plan 
to acquire the equipment?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes. Yes. Again, we have been working on 
developing our cyber capabilities for some years now, and 
actually we have three of the multi-domain task forces already, 
you know, out, fielded, if you will. There is one at Joint Base 
Lewis-McChord in Washington. We have one that is operating in 
Europe. So those capabilities are in use right now.
    Mr. Langevin. All right. Thank you.
    General McConville, the JADC2, Joint All-Domain Command and 
Control concept, is--is absolutely critical to the 
modernization of our forces and national defense. How would you 
describe the Army's progress when it comes to JADC2 and Project 
Convergence?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, I think we are 
making good, solid progress. As we discussed with Project 
Convergence, when we started that, the first year we made sure 
that our Army systems could pass data and do that very, very 
quickly. We just finished a session, a buildup with our--the 
joint force and making sure that all joint forces can pass data 
very, very quickly, which allows us to do it.
    And this fall coming up we will bring in our allies and 
partners and again work with them in developing a data fabric 
that is both secure, resilient, and robust, is really the 
future is. And what we are finding is it gives us the 
capability to have lethal or non-lethal effects in matters of 
seconds vice matters of minutes or hours, and we think this is 
extremely important for the future battlefield.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General. And are you able to 
effectively work towards the JADC2 concept with the Joint 
Staff? And do you have any concerns with the current process?
    General McConville. I think we have a good process. In 
fact, we are meeting with the Chiefs very shortly just to make 
sure we are all online.
    This is a very sophisticated, complex problem, but I think, 
working together--and one organization that we stood up at 
Aberdeen is called the Joint Systems Integration Lab, which is 
very, very helpful because it is really all about the ability 
to pass data between different weapon systems, and that is a 
very complex challenge. And what we have found, by bringing 
systems together and practicing this, and then, we take them 
out in the desert where it is about 115 degrees, and you can 
find out if the stuff really works. But doing the pre-work is 
really allowing us to learn a lot and be much more effective in 
getting after this problem set.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, General.
    And continuing on with you, let me say I am pleased that 
the Army is heavily investing in cyber workforce development 
and unit formation. How is the Army working with the Joint 
Staff or the other services as you bolster the workforce in 
support of offensive and defensive cyber operations?
    General McConville. Well, we think cyber is critical for 
the future. One of our biggest initiatives is moving from our 
Industrial Age personnel management system to a 21st century 
talent management system. We have tremendous talent in our Army 
that, quite frankly, we can't see sometimes because it is 
masked by their grade and their military operational specialty.
    I will give you a quick example. We have a medic who is a 
specialist who is in our software factory, and he codes at the 
Ph.D. level, and it is just absolutely incredible. We continue 
to find these young men and women that have extraordinary 
talents. We are sharing this----
    The Chairman. Thank you. I apologize, the gentleman's time 
has expired.
    General McConville. Okay.
    The Chairman. And I should warn you, as we get down to the 
clock, even if you are answering a question, you know, that is 
the end of the time.
    General McConville. Okay. Sorry about that.
    The Chairman. And we go to the next person. I should have 
given you that heads-up earlier.
    General McConville. A lot of passion about that.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Yes, I know it helps in some ways.
    But Mr. Wilson is also appearing virtually and is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I am really grateful, Madam Secretary and General, for 
your being here with us today and your service.
    And I particularly appreciate both of you referencing Fort 
Stewart, where I trained and where my sons have trained. What a 
great installation that is.
    And then, I am also grateful that, in my service in 
Congress with Congressman Rick Allen, that I had the 
opportunity to support Fort Gordon. And what a future that has 
for the American people to provide for cyber security.
    Madam Secretary, Putin's war on the people of Ukraine has 
demonstrated the importance of American presence on Europe's 
eastern flank. Our NATO allies in the Baltics and Eastern 
Europe have been enthusiastically welcoming to our forward-
deployed American troops stationed in their countries.
    I have seen firsthand, visiting a German-American base in 
Lithuania on the border with Belarus, just 5 miles from, sadly, 
a new Russian military base. Several of our allies are willing 
to build permanent bases for these troops, led, as we have 
seen, by President Andrzej Duda of Poland, to join with the 
very effective bases of Novo Selo in Bulgaria and MK Air Base 
in Romania.
    What are the plans to provide for expanded permanent change 
of station tours in Europe, to include the bases in the Baltics 
and Eastern Europe?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    I think at this point, you know, I would say there is 
definitely a robust conversation going on here in the United 
States, but also with NATO about what the future force posture 
might look like in Europe. And certainly, our sort of frontline 
states, like Poland, like the Baltics, are very interested in 
having permanent presence. And that is something I think that, 
again, the NATO countries will be discussing at the Madrid 
Summit.
    We stand ready in the Army to support those decisions, once 
those decisions are made as to where we might have a continuing 
presence of U.S. troops and whether those would be permanent or 
rotational.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
    And, hey, we have seen the success of American troops, not 
even a large contingent, as we have in Kosovo and Pristina, 
which was still an amazing indication of providing security in 
the Balkans.
    General McConville, I am grateful for the bipartisan 
American resolve to provide for the courageous Ukrainians 
defensive weapons needed to protect their homeland from the 
murderous war criminal Putin. Begun by President Donald Trump, 
and now continued by President Joe Biden, we have the success 
of Javelin missiles and Stinger missile systems. Additionally, 
I am very grateful that we have the circumstance of providing 
these to all of our allies in Central and Eastern Europe.
    What are we doing for these particular systems to make sure 
that there is proper replenishment, so that our stock is in 
place and also for our allies that need backfill for providing 
these systems to Ukraine?
    And also, a final question. With the leadership of Chairman 
Adam Smith and Ranking Member Mike Rogers, the lend-lease bill 
was signed by the President this week. What are the plans to 
immediately assist Ukraine and benefit our other allies, such 
as Moldova and the Republic of Georgia?
    General McConville. Yes, Congressman, we are, with your 
support, we are able to begin the replenishment of the 
Stingers, of the Javelins. We are working very closely with 
industry, we're identifying requirements to do this. As far as 
the Stingers go, you know, we haven't built Stingers in a long 
time, but we are going to use them in the future. Our mobile 
SHORAD [short-range air defense] system actually uses the 
Stingers, and we have some modernization capabilities. We want 
to fly the Stingers, so it is more effective unmanned aerial 
systems in the future. So, we are doing that. We are in the 
progress right now. We know we need to replenish that, and with 
your support, we will.
    Mr. Wilson. And with the lend-lease, is this being 
implemented immediately for the benefit of the people of 
Ukraine?
    General McConville. Yes. Yes, it is. We are sending--
certainly, we are sending not just Javelins and Stingers--we 
are sending artillery. We are sending armored vehicles. We are 
sending unmanned aerial systems. We are sending radars and a 
lot of other systems to make sure they have the capability that 
they need to be successful in their endeavors.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
    And as I conclude, too, I am very honored to represent Fort 
Jackson. I trained there. My Army sons have trained there. And, 
General and Madam Secretary, you are always welcome to visit 
Fort Jackson. Just a wonderful institution and installation.
    So, thank you very much.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    That's kind of rapid-fire. I will note that I don't have 
time for a question on Pacific Pathways, but I would like a 
brief on that----
    General McConville. Yes.
    Mr. Larsen [continuing]. At some point in the future, 
please.
    So, for Secretary, let's start with you. As of April of 
this year, this last month, the Army has yet to provide 
documentation sufficient to close some recommendations that GAO 
made regarding to guide and monitor recruitment and retention 
of women service members. When do you expect to close those 
recommendations?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I just looked at that 
report, actually, yesterday. And I think we do need to get back 
to you on laying out more specifically what we are doing to 
recruit and retain women. We are focused on that. You know, 
women right now are about 18 percent of the Army. I think that 
is an area where, frankly, we could potentially grow in terms 
of, you know, given that women are 50 percent of the 
population.
    But we are doing things like looking at, for example, 
female recruiters tend to be more successful recruiting women 
into the force. So, I think, looking at the ratio of our 
recruiters who are females, it is something that we need to be 
doing. But I commit to getting back to you to lay out more 
specifically what we are doing to recruit and retain women.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 89.]
    Mr. Larsen. Thanks.
    And with regards to General McConville's statements at the 
beginning about recruiting talent, no matter where it is, for 
the United States, we need to think more broadly than we have 
in the past. I appreciate that.
    Again, a followup for either of you. The GAO [Government 
Accountability Office] published a report in April, again, last 
month, assessing suicide in the military, providing 14 
recommendations for the DOD [Department of Defense] and the 
services broadly. Has the Army looked at that particular report 
and the issues relative to the Army, and how are you addressing 
those? Maybe General McConville?
    General McConville. Yes, Congressman. We are very, very 
concerned about suicide. In fact, my daughter is a clinical 
social worker, a captain in the Army. So, I get some pretty 
good feedback from the ground floor.
    But we are finding that especially during the pandemic, 
having soldiers become disconnected from their leaders and 
getting more isolated, and going through transitions alone, is 
something that we are really getting after. So, it is behavior 
health, but it is also we talk about building these cohesive 
teams where everyone is looking out for each other. So, if a 
family sees a soldier going through problems, they know who to 
call; they get to that squad leader. And we certainly don't 
want them to do the counseling, but we do want them to get to 
the behavior health professionals. We want to make sure we 
eliminate the stigma. We want to make sure we are trained to 
identify those issues that soldiers are going through.
    And I would argue that soldiers don't commit heart disease; 
they die of heart disease. Soldiers don't commit suicide; they 
die of suicide. And we need to look at it the same way.
    And we have soldiers, just like with heart disease, that 
are higher risk; they are a higher risk for behavior health. 
And we have got to work that and make sure they get the help 
they need, so we can save their lives.
    And this year--again, too early to tell--we have actually 
had significant progress over the last 5 or 6 months. I never 
like to say that publicly because things can change very 
quickly, but we are pleased with the way we are moving the 
Army, and to include the Vice Chief of Staff has led a pretty 
significant effort to get after this concern that we really are 
concerned about.
    Mr. Larsen. Yes. Secretary, to follow up?
    Secretary Wormuth. I would just reiterate, you know, for 
example, there has been a lot of focus on Alaska. There has 
been a particularly high rate of suicide there. And so, we are 
surging 5 additional behavioral health providers, 19 military--
or excuse me--17 military family life counselors, and 19 
chaplains, to go up there for the next 6 months to really sort 
of help us understand what is going on there and making sure 
that our soldiers have support, behavioral health support.
    Mr. Larsen. All right. And, Secretary, one last question 
for you, but you need to leave me 20 seconds. Just quickly with 
regard to Army Forces Command and your directive of May 3rd 
with regards to acquisition, tech and logistics, bringing those 
two more in aligned.
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, what I was doing with that 
directive was just trying to clarify some roles and 
responsibilities. There was some ambiguity around the role of 
Army Futures Command and our Assistant Secretary that does 
acquisition and logistics. That directive in no way downgrades 
Army Futures Command or diminishes its role. It still remains 
an incredibly important part of our acquisition enterprise.
    Mr. Larsen. All right. Thanks.
    And then, just finally, a few of us were in Vicenza Army 
Garrison a few weeks back as part of a trip. And we had a 
chance to sit down and have a meal with the women and men from 
our States. To a person, they know their mission in the defense 
and deterrence mission with regards to Russia and NATO, all of 
this relative to Ukraine. But we had some MILCON issues, and we 
will follow up on those MILCON issues at Vicenza. And you have 
great leadership there, but, more importantly, you have got 
some great women and men who know their mission, and it was 
great to meet with them. And I just wanted to pass it along.
    Thanks.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary, General, I want to revisit the issue that 
our ranking member was raising and, in part, what Joe Wilson 
was raising.
    As you are aware, we have significant deficiencies in our 
acquisition strategies. So, many times, especially where it 
comes to vehicles, we act like we are going to a car dealership 
to buy a vehicle, instead of the fact that we own many times 
the production facilities, but the supply chains, the 
workforce. When we manage our acquisition strategy, we do 
little to project out the effects on those.
    General, you said that the Abrams isn't going anywhere. 
Well, the workforce does, and the supply chain does, and 
certainly, you are going to see that with Stingers. As we go 
for the surge with Stingers and Javelins, you are going to have 
similar issues.
    Inefficiencies in production result in delays. They result 
in our losing core competencies. They result in increased cost. 
So, trying to save in the short term by having a lower buy, to 
cannibalize for modernization later, results in increased 
costs, as you try to then--try to replace those.
    I am raising this as an issue because I am very concerned, 
as we have had the conflict with Russia, our allies have 
already indicated that they want to replace their legacy 
systems that are Russian, in part. There is an increase in 
allied investment, including Germany. There is going to be 
increased demand from those. We are going to have increased 
needs as we look to forward-deploy troops and capabilities.
    And, General, as you mentioned, we have got to do 
modernization. We can't do this at the expense of 
modernization, or we are buying the Army we have today instead 
of the Army we need for tomorrow. And we got to replace what we 
left behind in Afghanistan, because we have a gap.
    Give me some idea as to how we can improve this system. 
Because I don't think you have the tools; I am not certain that 
you even have the authorizations to really do the projections 
to be able to say, you know, it is not just that I need this 
many tanks; it is also that the supply chain needs to be at 
this level. The workforce needs to be maintained.
    You know, so many times we talk about a line keeping warm. 
Warm doesn't translate into--you know, what any MBA [master of 
business administration] would come to you and say, ``How does 
that affect your cost structure? How does that affect the 
workforce? How does that affect the parts that you are going to 
need, even for just maintenance?''
    Talk to me a bit about that process, of not just your 
aggregate needs, your aggregate budget, but how do you project, 
then, how those costs can spiral?
    Madam Secretary, General?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, we try 
to work on that in a couple of different ways. First of all, we 
are trying to look ahead with our modernization strategy and 
anticipate what that means in terms of what kind of depot 
capacity do we need to have, or how do we need to adjust our 
infrastructure to be able to maintain those new systems at 
installations around the country?
    So, one of the things that we have done through Army 
Materiel Command is to build a 15-year organic industrial base 
strategy. And that really tries to look at making sure that we 
have the workforce, to your point, at our arsenals, depots, and 
ammunition plants. So, that is one thing that we are doing.
    I think predictability is a really important piece of this 
in terms of working with industry. So, as you all know very, 
very well, the Department and the Army have been living in an 
era of continuing resolutions sort of year after year. And I 
think, to the extent that we can bring back predictability to 
our budget and to our appropriations process, that would help 
us a lot. That would help industry.
    And we are also trying to work very, very closely. I think 
that is one of the things that, coming into the Army, I have 
been struck by the close partnership we have with the defense 
companies to try to look at and work with them on things like 
supply chain fragility, which the pandemic has very much 
illuminated.
    Mr. Turner. General.
    General McConville. Well, we try to balance a lot of 
requirements. We know where our priorities are. And when we 
take a look at it, we are trying to do the best we can with the 
resources we get. But I think we are learning a lot and we can 
probably amplify that discussion from Ukraine. You know, you 
don't want to invest in a lot munitions if you are not going to 
use them because they sit in a warehouse somewhere and you 
haven't used them for 15 years. Then, you spend a lot of money 
to either extend their life or you spend a lot of money to 
demil [demilitarize] them, which is very, very expensive. So, 
there is always a fine line, and everyone is trying to find 
that sweet spot where they only buy just enough for within 
their resources.
    And the second part of that is I think we have got to 
recognize we are not into selling arms to other countries, but 
that really helps. The fact that they use the same equipment as 
ours and they buy America, there are some opportunities there 
to get interoperability, there's some opportunities to keep our 
industrial base going, when we do that.
    Mr. Larsen [presiding]. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair recognizes Mr. Courtney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
    On page 5 of the testimony that was submitted to us, there 
was mention made of we are very close to a decision point with 
the Future Vertical Lift program. And I realize the ``cone of 
silence'' is over that whole process, and it should be.
    But, from a general policy level, I mean, we have spent 
years now kind of trying to untangle, I think, bad choices that 
were made with the F-35 program in terms of the scope of the 
contract that did not factor in sustainment costs, MILCON 
issues, facility issues in terms of--and the government just 
ceded so much control over software. I mean, it has really 
hindered and driven up costs for the program that, again, is 
just--it is going to be around for decades.
    So, in terms of--from a policy standpoint with Future 
Vertical Lift, I mean, are you factoring in, again, the tail, 
the sustainment costs, whether or not there is really 
capability in terms of MILCON and depots repair? Because they 
are going to be all over the place, and that, we know now from 
GAO and others, with F-35, was really overlooked to the 
detriment of the government and the taxpayer.
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, Congressman, we are trying to do 
exactly that. Future Vertical Lift, whether FLRAA, the 
replacement for the Black Hawk eventually, or FARA, the Attack 
and Reconnaissance helicopter, those will be expensive 
platforms when they are fielded. So, we are looking early at 
affordability issues. We are trying to look very early at the 
sustainment costs, the maintenance costs, and to try to factor 
that in, as we go forward with the program. Because, as you 
point out, so often in the past, those have not been looked at, 
and that really can be what balloons the cost of these 
programs, when you sort of look at entire lifecycle costs. So, 
we are trying to look at that very carefully.
    And we are also trying to build in--I'm sorry--to your 
point, not just in the helicopter platforms, but in many of the 
other platforms, is an open systems architecture approach. So 
that we are not sort of captive to one particular company.
    Mr. Courtney. Right. Well, again, I think a lot of us, 
because of, again, just the experience that has gone on for 
years here, are going to be watching that piece of it very 
closely.
    It sounds like, within a few weeks or so, there is going to 
be a major decision by the country of Finland and possibly 
Sweden to join NATO. And obviously, that is going to increase 
the border of NATO with Russia. Finland is no stranger, I 
think, to the Army and other services.
    General, maybe you could sort of comment in terms of the 
integrated deterrence policy and how that would fit in with 
Finland, which has not been part of NATO, but certainly been an 
ally.
    General McConville. Right, Congressman. And we routinely 
train with the Finns and Swedes. And so, we run operations up 
there. We're certainly--there's plans right now. I talked to 
General Cavoli and our team over there. And as they take a look 
at what the requirements are to reassure our allies and 
partners, just like we did in Lithuania, just like we did in 
Latvia, just like we did in Estonia.
    There is certainly that capability of forces to do that, 
and they are in the process of making those type decisions, and 
what that will look like; what type of exercises go on. They 
happen routinely anyway. And how do you get the right amount of 
force structure in place so everyone is confident, as they move 
ahead during this transition time.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
    And again, the embassy has been, actually, very much 
engaging in outreach with members because I do think that--I 
mean, it is just extraordinary. They have gone from a country 
that was at 30 percent in support of NATO to 76 percent. And 
now, the President and Prime Minister yesterday announced that 
this thing is really imminent.
    It is quite extraordinary. I mean, it certainly shows that 
whoever was calling NATO obsolete a few years back, events have 
definitely, I think, validated the enduring value of NATO. And 
obviously, that is another decision point that is coming and 
something that this committee will be tracking closely.
    I will yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
    Mr. Lamborn is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General McConville, thank you to you and the Secretary for 
your service to our country.
    I am pleased that the Army is planning to field the Long-
Range Hypersonic Weapon next year. While 10 years overdue, it 
is remarkable that the Army has made such rapid progress in the 
past few years. I think that the Army's risk-acceptant approach 
to developing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon is a significant 
reason that the program has been successful.
    We frequently hear from military leadership that we must be 
willing to accept some failures in technology development, but 
we don't always see that in action. China seems to have taken 
the approach of accepting failure and learning from it.
    Can you elaborate for the committee on the approach the 
Army has taken to develop and rapidly field the Long-Range 
Hypersonic Weapon? And what lessons can we learn and apply to 
other programs?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we have leaned forward in 
terms of developing the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, which we 
are working with the Navy also as well. So, I think it is a 
good example of sort of joint development.
    And really, we have done that under the auspices of the 
Rapid Critical Technologies Office, and they have been able to 
make good use of some new authorities that Congress has given 
us to be able to work on development and acquisition more 
rapidly.
    A big part of what we are doing is a soldier-centered 
design process. We are taking good advantage, as I said, of 
these new authorities that you all are giving, and we are just 
really trying to proceed on a very rapid development and 
testing schedule. And I think we have really seen that pay off 
in the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon System program, in 
particular.
    We already have the ground equipment for that system out at 
Joint Base Lewis-McChord. And I think we have some important 
tests coming up. But we feel very good about fielding that in 
fiscal year 2023.
    Mr. Lamborn. We are still far behind our near-peer 
adversaries. Is there anything we can do to accelerate this 
even more?
    Secretary Wormuth. My own view, Congressman, is that we are 
going as fast on this particular weapon system as is prudent. 
But certainly, I think continued congressional support for 
letting us use some of these more rapid and more innovative 
acquisition authorities is very much appreciated, and letting 
us apply that across the six portfolios that we are pursuing.
    Mr. Lamborn. We will be supportive, and we will be pushing 
you even harder.
    Changing subjects, General McConville, you have made it 
clear that retention is a priority. In fact, you said, ``We are 
in a war for talent.'' And yet--and yet--I have military 
constituents in my district that have reached out to me because 
they are seeking a religious exemption from the mandate to 
receive the COVID vaccine. As of March 10th, the Army had 
approved only 1 religious exemption, had disapproved 536, and 
had 3,760 pending cases.
    So, out of the 537 that have been advocated, were 536 lying 
about their beliefs, and only 1 was telling the truth? Why is 
the Army involuntarily discharging soldiers for not receiving a 
vaccine that have requested a religious exemption?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, we've taken a very 
deliberate and measured approach to the vaccination. It starts 
with we want to make sure, ideally, for life, health, and 
safety of our soldiers and families, we want them to have 
vaccination, so they can do their job. It is also affects their 
buddies, as we go forward. And it is also a legal order.
    And we pick, and if someone has an exception, we have--I 
think right now there are 8 religious and 22 medical 
exceptions, and there is an appeal process. And what we suggest 
is they go through the process, but we do want them to get the 
vaccinations and we do want our soldiers to obey legal orders.
    Mr. Lamborn. There is going to be a lot of discussion in 
this committee during the NDAA [National Defense Authorization 
Act] about this issue. And I think there is going to be a lot 
of proposals to address it. And I know there is legislation 
pending to address it.
    I am just concerned, with our need for retaining good 
people, that some of our very best people, well, we are losing 
them in all of the branches, not just the Army. And if vaccines 
protect people, and most of the soldiers under your command 
have been vaccinated, they should be okay, right?
    General McConville. Right.
    Mr. Lamborn. And those who haven't been, it is on them. I 
mean, I would urge people to be vaccinated. I have been 
vaccinated. But, nevertheless, sometimes people bear personal 
risk and are willing to live with that. But if they are young 
and healthy, not always, but mostly, they will be okay, anyway.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Norcross is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman.
    We are witness to a war taking place in Ukraine, the 
Russians invading. We are seeing the use of Stingers and 
Javelin literally pick apart much of the Russian armor. We have 
provided funds for much of that replacement.
    Secretary Wormuth, I am just looking for an assessment of 
our industrial base, not just the ammunition side, but the 
hardware side, in light of what we are providing. Where do we 
stand in terms of our industrial base and its ability to 
replace that?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I think, Congressman, it varies, 
depending on the particular weapon that you are talking about. 
You know, I think that we are better positioned to be able to 
replenish our Javelin stocks, for example, than Stingers. And 
that is, as General McConville said, we have not been producing 
Stingers for a while; whereas, you know, Javelins, the 
production line is open.
    So, I think that Lockheed Martin is leaning forward to try 
to be able to ramp up production, so that we will be able to 
replenish our stocks for what we need and, also, continue to be 
able to provide Javelins to the Ukrainians.
    With the Stingers, I think we have some work to do with 
Raytheon. We are going to be able, I think, to find parts to be 
able to build some additional Stingers, but I think that is 
going to take some more work because we do have some part 
obsolescence that we are going to have to work through.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you.
    Certainly, we have been focused on the ammunition base and 
the products that go into that. And I think we are in good 
shape there. But certainly, I have to agree with Mr. Turner's 
assessment of our industrial base, and we have been trying for 
the past several years with a proposal I have had to buy 
American to secure our U.S. and key allies our industrial base.
    But I just want to shift a little bit. Witnessing this war 
and seeing that the Russian armor tanks just being picked apart 
by our Javelins, General McConville, what is the major 
difference between what we are witnessing in Ukraine and our 
armor? We do have the best tanks, armored personnel carriers, 
in the world. How are we able to defend against what we are 
doing to the Russians? Are they just inept? Are they just built 
rotten? What is the major difference between what we have and 
what they have?
    General McConville. Well, I would suggest that, first, we 
have the best tanks and armored personnel carriers available. 
But, to me, it is also how you employ them. And we employ our 
systems with the combined arms. And there are ways of using 
fires and maneuver and drones and intelligence, and working 
them all together, which is at least what I have seen with the 
Russian forces they haven't done.
    So, it is very, very important, at least from where I sit, 
that we do what we call combined arms. We use fires to maybe 
take out the infantry or pre-assault fires. You have infantry 
securing the way for the armored forces.
    And some of these things don't change. We go back to D-Day 
and the 101st took the bridges at Carentan, infantry force. So, 
they get off the beaches.
    And if you are going to move, you want armor because you 
want mobile protected fire and you need that capability. And 
you don't want to have infantry without that capability 
because, quite frankly, with fires and other people shooting, 
you are going to lose a lot of infantry. So, you want to work 
them both.
    And what you really want to do is present your adversary 
multiple dilemmas. So, if he goes after the tanks and he wants 
to shoot Javelins at them, you make sure he can't do that 
because it is infantry or fires preventing him from getting 
that close. We have active protected systems that are also 
pretty effective on some of our tanks to get after those type 
things. But it is also using drones and using fires and using 
intelligence and bringing together a composite picture to 
present the enemy multiple dilemmas that they can't attack you 
like they have with the Russians.
    Mr. Norcross. But to be more specific, we are being asked, 
gee, tanks are a thing of the past. To the degree that you can 
have this discussion in an open forum and not classified, our 
armor is in a much different position to defend against those 
Javelin or missile attacks, isn't that correct?
    General McConville. I would take that to a classified 
level, if we could. But I would still advocate the idea of 
combined arms, when we talk about different missile systems and 
which part of the vehicles. We could give you a detailed brief 
on where they are, you know, what type of capability----
    Mr. Norcross. We are in a better position than they are?
    General McConville. I think we are in a much better 
position when it comes to at least what I have seen with our 
troops. And there is this thing called will. Very important 
that the people exercising those weapon systems want to do that 
and they are willing to use them.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Wittman is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary 
Wormuth, General McConville, thank you so much for joining us 
today. General McConville, I want to begin with you.
    Last March, you said that you had concerns about cutting 
end strength and what that was doing to stress on the force. I 
think at that time, the Army end strength was 485,000. Today as 
we speak, I think it's around 476,000. The budget request takes 
it down to 473,000.
    First of all, do you still think that end strength is an 
issue? And do you think the current end strength allows us what 
we need with our Army to combat the threats we see, both in 
Europe and the INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command]? And if 
there were additional resources, would you suggest an increase 
in end strength?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, first of all, I am 
concerned about end strength. I stand by my concerns. But I 
believe quality is more important than quantity.
    And, you know, we're coming out of a tough place with COVID 
and recruiters are getting back into high schools, there's a 
lot of things going on. A lot of businesses having a hard time 
hiring. So, there's a lot of things going on in the country 
right now.
    And so, if you could ask my advice, we take a pause; we 
keep the quality up; we talk a lot about the call to service.
    As the Secretary said, 83 percent of the young men and 
women that come in the Army are military family members. And 
so, it's really become a military family business. And I 
believe that the Army and a lot of other services should be an 
American family business.
    And so, we've got to get more access. We've got to show 
people the value of serving their country. I think we need to 
do this over the next couple of years.
    And so, as the threat changes, we can take a look at 
bringing quality people in. And again, I'm not doing a 
commercial, but I think there's a lot of value for working-
class kids like me that came in the Army. I signed all my kids 
up, and I'd like to see everyone else do the same.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. General McConville, thank you. 
Secretary Wormuth, listen, I believe we have the best Army on 
the face of the Earth, period, no question. The challenge is 
going to be if conflict breaks out, how do we get those 
soldiers to the fight?
    Listen, our soldiers are great. But you know what? They 
can't walk on water. I wish they could, and they probably could 
find a way to do that. But short of that, we need to get them 
to the fight.
    Ninety-five percent of the ability to get our soldiers and 
equipment to the fight is done by sealift. Today as we speak, 
the Ready Reserve Force--which your Ready Reserve fleet, which 
is what we will use to take soldiers to the fight--only about 
40 percent of those ships would actually be available to sail 
today.
    So, we can do all the great things about recruiting and 
retaining and training and having the best Army on the face of 
the Earth, which we do. But if they can't get to the fight, 
then the question is, what are we doing? Do you believe that 
more needs to be done to build surge sealift capacity so that 
we have that? And what more can the Army do to advocate for 
that, to make sure that happens?
    Because right now as we speak, the Navy is not doing it 
because the Navy can get to the fight. They don't have a whole 
lot of concern about surge sealift. But I would argue it's one 
of the most logistical parts of our military that's in atrophy 
today.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, you're absolutely right 
that military sealift is critical for us in getting our forces 
and our equipment over to Europe or into INDOPACOM, for 
example. So, we do have an active conversation with the Navy 
about what they are doing with their sealift capability and 
capacity.
    Ultimately, it's the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of 
Defense who make those decisions. But through our program 
budget review process, we have a dialogue with the Navy. And we 
certainly hold up our hand and say, hey, we need to have some 
support from you all to get our folks over to where they need 
to be.
    Mr. Wittman. Secretary Wormuth, would you be willing to do 
more than just hold up your hand? Would you be willing to pound 
on the desk a little bit to make sure that surge sealift is 
part of this? Because I am so afraid that with all these 
efforts that we're putting forth that if we can't get to the 
fight, it's going to take more than just raising your hand.
    Sometimes you have to shake things up a little bit. 
Sometimes you have to say, Mr. Secretary, this is a critical 
need, a critical gap for the Army. And that has to happen.
    We've hollered about it on this committee for years. And 
the Navy kind of slow-plays it. We've given them authorizations 
to purchase multiple ships.
    They just started down the road of purchasing two ships. 
We're not where we need to be. So, I just want to get your 
perspective, if you're willing to hit the table.
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I certainly always try to be a 
very strong advocate for the Army and for our requirements. And 
I'll continue to do that.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you, Secretary Wormuth. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gallego is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our 
witnesses. Secretary, thank you for your testimony. In your 
unwavering and our commitment to defend every inch of NATO, I 
really appreciate how ironclad you are on that.
    I strongly support this administration's so far robust aid 
packages to Ukraine which included small platforms like 
Switchblades and the Phoenix Ghost. I've also seen reports that 
the Pentagon is considering sending larger, more sophisticated 
equipment like the MQ-1C Gray Eagle which Ukraine has formally 
requested.
    Can you share any updates on this potential transfer to 
Ukraine? Is the Army in favor of it? And what more can, and 
should, we do to further strengthen security from your 
perspective?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. I was actually 
not aware that the Ukrainians had requested the Gray Eagles. 
There's a very robust policy discussion about what systems can 
be provided, how they will be used, what the security concerns 
are. But if the policymaking conversation gets to a point where 
they decide that is something that makes sense to provide the 
Ukrainians, I think the Army would very much want to support 
that.
    Mr. Gallego. General, I want to ask you about the threat 
that Russia poses in the gray zone. As I've said before, if we 
draw any lessons from the ongoing war in Ukraine, it's that we 
need to ensure our allies and partners are too prickly for any 
adversary or competitor to swallow. That is why irregular 
warfare training is so crucial. Recognizing that we are in an 
unclassified situation, what insights can you share about how 
the Army is approaching this challenge? And are there 
additional steps that we should be taking to bolster irregular 
warfare capabilities.
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, I think you make a 
great point. We're talking a lot about large-scale ground 
combat operations. But we still need to be able to do 
counterinsurgency. We need to do irregular warfare. We need to 
do counterterrorism. Those threats are not going away.
    I think we're well suited with some of the organization we 
developed. Certainly, our special forces are experts at that. 
But we also have stood up our security force assistance 
brigades which could provide that type of training that they 
need to do. And also our National Guard does a great job with 
their State partnerships.
    And so, the more we can do to build the capacities and 
capabilities of our allies or partners or just friends is 
really important. And for a lot of folks, we've been training 
the Ukrainians for 8 years, and that's been some really good 
training. And in fact, 22 of their brigades or about 75 percent 
of their brigades went through what we call a combat training 
center-like experience which has really been very helpful for 
them.
    Mr. Gallego. Excellent. And I've met many times with 
Ukraine special forces. And they have commented also on the 
amount of training they've gotten from the United States. And 
certainly, we could tell it's paid off.
    Another question, General. You know the old saying, 
military is trained to fight the last war. And we see what 
Russia has learned that lesson again. The Army has been 
training its troops for Iraq and Afghanistan for the past 20 
years.
    And counterterrorism, CT, operations will remain important 
obviously going forward. But there is no doubt in my mind that 
strategic competition is the challenge we are facing today and 
in the future. Can you share how the Army is transitioning from 
a CT focus to a renewed emphasis on large-scale combat 
operations?
    General McConville. Yes, we can. And part of when we talk 
about this transformation of every 40 years, the right time is 
now where they're at that inflection point. And it really 
starts with doctrine. And the doctrine is multi-domain 
operations which is different than AirLand Battle that a lot of 
us kind of grew up with many, many years ago.
    It's standing up new organizations. The Secretary talked 
about the multi-domain task force which will provide long-range 
precision effects and also long-range precision fires, It's 
stand up the SFAB [security force assistance brigade]. We're 
standing up organizations that can do things with information 
operations, with cyber, electronic warfare, and space.
    All those are coming together. The modernization priorities 
with long-range precision fires, Next Generation Combat 
Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the network, air and missile 
defense, and soldier lethality, all those are coming together 
and with talent management that give us the Army so--it's not 
about win the last fight, it's about win the next fight. And 
that's what we're trying to do.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Hartzler is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, Secretary 
Wormuth and General McConville. As you probably know, the 
modernization of the ammunition production facilities has been 
a top priority of mine for several years. And as you know, many 
times in the past, these accounts were neglected and they were 
used as a bill payer for other priorities.
    But that resulted in crumbling infrastructure at several 
key facilities. But fortunately, due to the work on this 
committee, we've reversed that trend, and these accounts have 
received a much-needed increase.
    And at first, I was pleased when I reviewed the Army's 
budget request to see that Lake City Army Ammunition Plant in 
Missouri would receive 313 million dollars in funding. However, 
as I looked at it closer, all of this requested funding is for 
the next generation squad weapon ammunition facility. And this 
is a needed facility.
    We're excited to have it at Lake City. But Lake City has 
about 95 million dollars in urgent safety repairs for their 
current facilities, including $29 million for new roofs where 
water is getting in. They have mold concerns, high winds.
    A new HVAC [heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning] 
system, $34 million is needed; the refrigerant utilized in the 
system is no longer manufactured. Switches, waste lift 
[inaudible], propellant handling, et cetera. So, what is the 
Army's justification for not funding critical safety upgrades 
in this year's budget?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I certainly would agree 
with you that we have work to do in our organic industrial 
base. I haven't been to Lake City yet, but I was at McAlester 
not too long ago. And there was a lot of good work going on 
there, but there was clearly some additional work that was 
needed. What we're trying to do in our--first of all, if there 
are life and safety issues at the Lake City plant, I will look 
into that because we certainly want to make sure that those are 
taken care of.
    That said, we have a very large organic industrial base 
footprint. And with the resources we have, we aren't going to 
be able to make all of the repairs everywhere all in one year. 
But that's really what we're trying to do through our 15-year 
organic industrial base plan is to try to map that out and get 
on a predictable schedule that will be able to allow us to take 
care of all of those issues over a period of time.
    Mrs. Hartzler. I'll go back and look at that plan to see 
where these needed changes are. And I appreciate you being 
willing to look into that and also invite you to come out. And 
I think you'll be very impressed by what we're doing there.
    Also, I wanted to--we talked a little bit about suicide 
prevention in some earlier questions. And I really appreciate 
your focus on that. And, you know, that's been an area that 
I've been very focused on as well and have been very encouraged 
by the many nonprofit organizations run by former veterans that 
are doing great, great work out there.
    And I know we visited about that, General McConville, a 
while back. So, I was just curious. What changes has the Army 
made to resilience and suicide prevention programs? And is the 
Army exploring partnerships with these nonprofit organizations 
to help the situation?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, we are very open to 
partnerships with nonprofits in this area. I think we have 
really made an emphasis in trying to engage our chaplain corps 
in this area. As I mentioned, we're sending a large number of 
chaplains up to Alaska, for example. But we have done a lot to 
try to invest in resilience and helping our soldiers be 
connected, making sure that our commanders know the tools they 
have to help with this. But certainly, we're very open to 
partnering with nonprofits who want to help in this space.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Anything you want to add, General?
    General McConville. One of the things I've learned, I've 
watched this, and it just breaks my heart when we lose a 
soldier or a family member. But watch the transitions. It just 
seems like--we talk about what's higher risk.
    When you take a look at someone with heart disease, someone 
that maybe has high cholesterol or does certain things they're 
at higher risk, I think this is the same thing when we take a 
look at suicides and behavioral health. People going through 
transitions, they have a relationship that's not going very 
well. That's when people need to come together and be with 
them.
    We see it with soldiers that leave the Army. They're going 
through a transition. They were part of a cohesive team, and 
they go out into the civilian sector. And they may think that 
no one cares about them. And they've done this service and they 
don't feel good about that stuff. So, the more we can do to 
help with transitions, whether it's relationships, whether it's 
financial issues or it's criminal or it's transitions out of 
the service, I think the more we can get after this problem 
set.
    Mrs. Hartzler. I appreciate your focus on chaplains. I 
really believe that that's--the faith base is very, very 
important to this whole thing. And I was visiting with one of 
the nonprofits yesterday talking about a mentorship program 
where they're reaching out to people who are about to come out 
of the Army and they're linking them up with people ahead of 
time that will be with them for the next year and mentor them.
    And I thought that was a great idea. So, I just encourage 
you to continue to work with the nonprofits because they're 
doing great work. So, thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thanks very much. Mr. Carbajal, who is 
joining us virtually, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Wormuth 
and General McConville, in October 2017 the Department of 
Defense under the Trump administration issued a policy that 
unfairly and without reason changed the historic and 
longstanding procedure for legal permanent residents, LPRs, 
serving in the U.S. military to be considered for expedited 
citizenship. This was later proven unlawful in the courts.
    The policy increased the minimum service requirements, 
contrary to existing law, for noncitizen personnel serving in 
the U.S. military. An August 2020 court order found the minimum 
service requirement unlawful. However, a March ruling by the 
United States District Court for the District of Columbia found 
that there were still instances within the Army's training 
installations that were still refusing to process 
naturalization certificates, adhering to the August 2020 court 
ruling.
    The judge noted there was a cause for concern that the Army 
isn't effectively implementing the order. While I understand 
the Army has taken steps to inform the service of the court 
ruling, please walk me through how these policy changes are 
distributed to the force and also how are noncitizen soldiers 
informed of the rights afforded to them when it comes to 
naturalization opportunities.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, it's my understanding--I'm 
not familiar with all of the ins and outs of the court cases 
that you just spoke to. But it's my understanding that soldiers 
as they come to basic training if they're lawful permanent 
residents are eligible for naturalization. And I think we make 
our soldiers aware of that when they come to basic training.
    And we have tried to make sure that our commanders are 
aware of that as well. And so, we can certainly work with 
Training and Doctrine Command who runs our training base to 
reiterate what the current policy is and when lawful permanent 
residents can be eligible. But that is my understanding of 
where we stand on this issue right now.
    Mr. Carbajal. Well, Secretary, if you could get me some 
more information with specifics, I would really appreciate it 
because that was a lot of generalities. And there's a lot of 
people whose rights are being negated. And I think a better 
understanding is important for you to have and for me to 
understand how that is being implemented. So, I would 
appreciate that.
    Secretary Wormuth. I'd be happy to get that for you, 
Congressman. And I would also just add that particularly given 
the recruiting environment, I'm very eager to have folks who 
are lawful permanent residents know that they're able to be 
naturalized if they come into the Army. So, I think this is 
something I'd be happy to get you more specifics on.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 89.]
    Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you so much. Secretary Wormuth, 
in the Army's unfunded priority list [UPL], the service 
includes almost $67 million for female and small stature body 
armor. This committee is well aware of the lack of properly 
fitting gear for our female soldiers and how it impacts their 
health and safety.
    Accompanying the request the UPL states, if not funded, 
this will create a personal safety issue due to lack of proper 
fit of small standard body armor. If Congress appropriates this 
funding, how many soldiers will benefit? Can you also speak to 
the future years' funding needs to ensure all soldiers receive 
properly fitting PPE [personal protective equipment]?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I don't know off the top of 
my head how many body armor sets right now are in the Chief's 
unfunded priority list for female body armor. What we try to do 
with the unfunded priority list is we invest in body armor for 
our soldiers in the base budget. And to the extent that 
Congress wants to give additional money to the Army, that 
allows us to obviously buy additional body armor sets. And I 
don't know----
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    General McConville. I guess I could add is we're committed 
making that happen. Just about everything we need in the Army, 
we have a priority and we have a plan. And then I'm the one 
that puts together the unfunded priority list.
    And if there's additional resources available, then we can 
accelerate that plan. And some of that is depending on what we 
got the year before in the funding. And it's a long-term plan 
to get things done quicker.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Having served in the Marine Corps, 
I know about plans. And they're only as good as their 
implementation. So, thank you very much.
    Secretary, Wormuth, with the increased demand for air and 
missile defense capabilities, the operational tempo [OPTEMPO] 
for air and missile defense is at an all-time high. With that, 
is the Army considering reevaluating its current requirement 
for Patriot batteries? And how are the global requirements 
impacting the readiness of our Patriot batteries?
    Secretary Wormuth. We do continue to watch OPTEMPO for our 
air defense units very carefully. That community has been 
stressed by requirements for ongoing operations. We are 
investing in an additional Patriot battery, though, in our 5-
year defense plan.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you very much. Mr. Chair, I'm out of 
time. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Dr. DesJarlais is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you. We've had some preliminary 
discussions on the long-range hypersonic weapons today. So, 
I'll forgo that and looking past the LRHW [Long-Range 
Hypersonic Weapon], Secretary and General, what discussions 
look like within the Department of the Army to serve as the 
adopting service for DARPA's [Defense Advanced Research 
Projects Agency's] OpFires [Operational Fires] hypersonic 
system?
    It seems to me that the capability would likely serve an 
answer to the Army's medium-range gap. While you have the LRHW 
and the MRC [Mid-Range Capability] at your disposal, you don't 
currently have a weapon that is both intermediate range and 
hypersonic like the OpFires. So anyway, I would like to get 
your thoughts on how you see the OpFires program fitting into 
the Army's vision, if at all, over the next decade.
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, what I think is we 
take a look at the requirements. There's some very good systems 
out there. But when we take a look at our long-range precision 
fires, we feel with the hypersonic capability, with the Mid-
Range Capability, and the Precision Strike Missile, coupled 
with our Extended Range Cannon Artillery, we're in a pretty 
good position for fires. And with the resource we have, we 
think that is about as much as we can afford when it comes to 
long-range precision fires.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Secretary.
    Secretary Wormuth. I would just echo that, Congressman. And 
I would also say that while, again, I'm very pleased and proud 
of the long-range precision fires portfolio that the Army is 
pursuing, we're also looking at the joint force and the fires 
that the joint force brings. And so, I think between what the 
Army is doing and the Air Force and the Navy, we have a good 
suite of capabilities overall or are in development of that.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. Just to get your opinion, both of 
you, do you feel like we're currently behind both Russia and 
China in terms of hypersonic glide weapons?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think, you know, I feel very good 
about where the Army is on the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon. 
Clearly, we've seen the Russians use some hypersonic weapons in 
Ukraine. But I think as I look overall at our capabilities, 
vis-a-vis Russia and China, I think we are on pace.
    Dr. DesJarlais. General, do you have anything to add?
    General McConville. No, I'm just very proud of what General 
Neil Thurgood and his team have done to accelerate long-range 
hypersonics and working with the Navy to field it. And what I 
would say, in acquisition terms, 3\1/2\ years is a pretty good 
job.
    Dr. DesJarlais. So are you both saying that you're ruling 
out the OpFires at this point? Or are you not pleased with the 
progress they've made? Or you just don't think it fits well for 
the Army?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congressman, what we're looking 
at is we have a finite set of resources. And we feel like as we 
look across the range of requirements, the programs we're 
pursuing now meet those requirements as we look to the future.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. General, I didn't come here today 
really intending to talk about the vaccine mandate. But Mr. 
Lamborn talked about it, and I just had a few questions 
regarding to that because this pandemic, as we know, has 
evolved. We've learned several things.
    We started with a vaccine, then we had a booster. Is it 
currently the military or DOD's stand that the soldiers should 
have an additional booster? Or is it just the vaccine and 
booster adequate at this point?
    General McConville. Well, right now, the vaccination is the 
requirement. The booster, there's some that recommended. I'm 
fully boosted. But again, that's not the requirement right now.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. I'm vaccinated and boosted as well. 
But we're a different age than a lot of the fighting men and 
women who we've seen some side effects. We've also learned that 
the vaccine's longevity was not what it was supposed to be, 
thus all the boosters.
    We've also learned that prior infection with COVID has been 
proven protective and probably more so than even the vaccine. 
So, I guess at this point, one thing I heard you say was that 
the troops need to obey orders. So, at this point in the game, 
we're not wearing masks on airplanes anymore. We're not wearing 
masks in this hearing room.
    Dr. Fauci has said we've moved into a new phase. We're 
transitioning out of the pandemic. So, at this point, is it 
more about protecting the soldiers' health by forcing this 
vaccine mandate? Or is it more about obeying orders and 
insubordination?
    General McConville. Well, I think we have a policy from the 
Secretary of Defense that says the troops will be vaccinated.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Whether it's good for them or not?
    General McConville. I'm not a doctor, so I'll----
    Dr. DesJarlais. I am.
    General McConville. You are a doctor. So, I'll defer to you 
then. I mean, what we want to do in the Army is--in the Active 
Duty, we're about 98--almost 98 percent vaccinated and----
    Dr. DesJarlais. So, with 4 seconds left, we're 98 percent 
vaccinated.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    General McConville. We're 97.4 percent, right, 97.4 
percent----
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. And the 
bottom line is that DOD's opinion is it is still in the best 
interest of the health of the entire service to have everybody 
vaccinated. It's a healthcare conclusion. Go ahead, I'm sorry.
    Dr. DesJarlais. That conclusion is not finite yet. The 
science is evolving. A lot of things have changed.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Dr. DesJarlais. And if prior infection is better than the 
vaccine, then why are we forcing someone to take the vaccine?
    The Chairman. Yeah, I can answer that. First of all, you 
don't know exactly who has been prior infected. Second of all, 
I would, from a medical standpoint, disagree with you slightly 
on the conclusion. I don't think--I think it also is not at all 
clear that prior infection is better than vaccine. They're 
still evolving that. But the official position, I'm not arguing 
the rightness or the wrongness.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Dr. DesJarlais. But I would also add that we need to look 
at the age group. Certainly, if you're 60 or older----
    The Chairman. Sure. There's a lot of things we have to look 
at. All I'm trying to say is the official position of the 
Department of Defense through their health folks is they're not 
just doing it for fun.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    The Chairman. I'm sorry. We've got to move on to another 
issue.
    Dr. DesJarlais [continuing]. Discharge wrongfully----
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    The Chairman. Okay. And that could well be the case. All 
I'm saying is that is the policy. And the reason behind that--
we can argue that conclusion. But that's the reason behind it.
    On hypersonics, I think it's really important to point out 
we are behind the Chinese and the Russians right now because 
they have deployed them. Okay? I'm impressed that we're coming 
up. We've got a bunch of programs, they're moving forward.
    We're going to get there. We haven't deployed them yet. So, 
we got to keep moving. We're moving in a good direction, and 
I'm quite confident that a year from now when we have this 
conversation we will be caught up.
    But I don't want to give anyone the misimpression that 
we're caught up. We're not, because we haven't deployed them 
yet. So, we've got to get to that.
    Mr. Moulton is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General McConville, 
where are you from?
    General McConville. I'm from Quincy, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Moulton. I'm very proud of that. I figured it'd be good 
to start with a softball here. But thank you very much for 
your----
    General McConville. Home of two Presidents.
    Mr. Moulton. That's right. That's right. General 
McConville, what lessons have you learned from Ukraine? And how 
are they reflected in this budget?
    General McConville. Well, first off, what we've seen is 
some of the--we've kind of run down our modernization 
priorities. Long-range precision fires are extremely important. 
We're seeing the value of that or not the value of that as 
we've given the Ukrainians more capability. If we had our 
capabilities, the ability to sink ships, the ability to hit 
command posts long range, we certainly could do that. The 
future Next Generation Combat Vehicle to move troops in combat 
is really important.
    Future Vertical Lift, with the range that provides. Air and 
missile defense, extremely important. The drones, both anti-
drone capability and drone capability. And then the whole idea 
that most of our systems, it's really about speed, range, and 
convergence and bringing all those systems together. Doing 
combine arms as a joint force coming together would give you 
the capabilities that you need to be very, very effective to 
what's happening in Ukraine.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, I certainly don't have the expertise or 
experience that you do. But I agree with that assessment. 
Secretary Wormuth, how does the budget reflect an increased 
investment in drone technology?
    We've seen drones eviscerate tanks. There's obviously some 
debate about the role of tanks in the future. But we can't 
argue drones are going to be critical. How are we investing in 
them?
    Secretary Wormuth. We are investing in counter UAS 
[unmanned aerial systems] sets for our divisions. For example, 
that's one of the things that we have in the budget. And then 
the Army also has a joint program office that's looking at 
future drone technology and counter-drone technology. We also 
are looking at as part of our Future Vertical Lift portfolio we 
have future unmanned aerial systems as a part of that in 
addition to the two actual helicopter platforms.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, it seems that unmanned aerial systems 
are not only critical, but if you look at the exponential rise 
in their use and effectiveness, I think we'll very, very 
quickly get to a point where we have far more unmanned systems 
than we have manned aerial systems. And what you're doing in 
the Army is also going to set the standard for the rest of 
NATO.
    There are a lot of NATO countries that are expanding their 
defense budgets and modernizing them. If they buy old stuff 
that doesn't work very well, then that's going to be a huge 
detriment to the security of NATO and ultimately to our 
national security as well. So, I just encourage you to move as 
aggressively as possible in this direction.
    Secretary Wormuth, do you believe the Army is modernizing 
more or less quickly at this point than China?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, Congressman, that would be a 
little hard to discuss in an unclassified session. But I think 
the Army is modernizing very, very quickly. Certainly, this is 
the most aggressive and comprehensive modernization that we've 
undertaken in 40 years. A lot of what the Chinese do, frankly, 
is steal our intellectual property which gives them basically a 
little bit of a head start. But we are, I think, modernizing at 
a very aggressive pace.
    Mr. Moulton. I think the other thing that the Chinese have 
done quite successfully over the last few years is divesting of 
a lot of things that don't work that well anymore. And that 
obviously gives them the resources to invest in new technology 
and indeed devote resources to copying ours. Madam Secretary, 
do you believe your mission and mandate is to advocate for the 
Army or to advocate for our overall national security?
    Secretary Wormuth. I am very much first and foremost the 
Secretary of the Army. So, my role is to advocate for the Army. 
But it's for the Army as part of the joint force.
    We fight as a joint force. And I certainly think it's 
important for the Army to think about how it contributes to the 
joint force's ability to fight and win.
    Mr. Moulton. Well, look, I'm an infantry guy at heart, and 
I love what you do. And there are a lot of times where I was 
very proud to serve right alongside hand in hand with the Army 
in Iraq during my time there. But I also think that the reality 
of the China threat is that we are not going to invade China 
with a massive land Army.
    And if you look at how our budgets have been apportioned in 
the last 10, 15, 20 years where we had massive land wars on the 
ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, we obviously gave far more 
resources to the Army and the Marine Corps than we did to the 
other services. But I fear that the traditional one-third, one-
third, one-third balance that we have among the services is not 
really attuned to the China threat where we obviously have to 
invest more in cyber and space and in the Navy. So, I just 
think that we need Secretaries who are going to not only 
advocate for their service but really take this broader 
perspective that we may need to rebalance that apportionment to 
meet the new threat.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Wormuth and 
General McConville. I'd like to follow up on that a little bit 
with a specific weapon system, the JSTARS [Joint Surveillance 
and Target Attack Radar System], the manned GMTI [ground moving 
target indicator] capability. For the first several years that 
I was here, we had a JSTARS recap [recapitalization] program to 
provide a business-class jet, ground moving target indicators, 
and other systems.
    It was an Air Force platform, but it was predominantly used 
by the Army. When the Air Force decided that they did not want 
to move forward with recap, the Army did not stand up for the 
system. And as a result, recap was cancelled.
    Today, the Army has asked for a manned business-jet class 
ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] capability 
referred to as HADES [High Accuracy Detection and Exploitation 
System]. And this is an example of where I think if there was 
more coordination among the services, that the platform that 
you've asked for in the recent budget would be coming off the 
assembly line right now. And my question is, are there 
significant differences--and maybe they can't be discussed in 
this class [classification]--in HADES and what the new 
recapitalization of JSTARS would've provided to the Army?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, our view 
is that we have some unique requirements that are distinct from 
the Air Force, and HADES is something I think that we need in 
terms of looking at our future ISR requirements. You know, we 
have been in discussions with the Air Force about their role, 
as well as our role. But I think right now we feel like this is 
something that we need to be able to provide for the Army.
    Mr. Scott. Ma'am, I realize this occurred before your time, 
but the Army always needed manned ground moving target 
indicator capabilities. And instead of taking the recap program 
from the Air Force and saying we will move ahead with this 
development, in which case you would have the systems that 
you've just asked for coming off of the assembly line now, not 
5 or 10 years from now. And I realize this happened before your 
time, but there is an extreme lack of coordination. Again, 
before your time and before General McConville's time, among 
the Chiefs at the DOD leadership, in saying if the Air Force is 
not going to provide this, then the Army needs to take on this 
system.
    And so, I think that's just an example of a mistake that's 
been made from lack of coordination and turf protection and the 
Air Force saying we don't want this coming out of our budget 
and the Army should have said, well, that's fine, we'll take it 
on. And then you'd have your system because everybody here 
thinks you always needed manned ISR capability.
    So, when do you expect HADES to actually be functional and 
in the air?
    Secretary Wormuth. Chairman, off the top of my--sorry. 
Congressman, off the top of my head, I don't have the first 
unit fielded date. I don't----
    Mr. Scott. General McConville, do you have any idea----
    General McConville. I can--again, Congressman, what we're 
looking, as we have, as you know, propeller-driven ISR 
platforms, and one of the things, as we take a look at the 
future, is because of their range and speed and what we see as 
the threat, we see them as probably, in some situations, they 
are not the best aircraft to do that, which leads us to why 
we're taking a look at--HADES is flying right now. It's a 
campaign of learning. We're trying to determine, what the Army 
is trying to do right now with a lot of systems is kind of fly 
before we buy, so to speak, to get the requirements right, to 
make sure it's providing that capability, and that's what we're 
doing with HADES right now.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. I want to, we had a brief discussion 
beforehand, and we met with one of the leaders from the Middle 
East yesterday. I won't call the name or--but I do want you to 
know that there's extreme concern about the political and civil 
unrest that will come in other areas as a result of what has 
happened with Russia, the inability to move grain and 
fertilizer and other things that are needed for food through 
the Black Sea. And I just want to make sure that, in the 
various areas of operation, that we're looking at what a 
reduction in the food supply means, especially in countries or 
continents like Africa, the countries in Asia. Anywhere you've 
got a high density of population, I think we need to be 
prepared for political and civil unrest.
    With that, I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Slotkin is recognized for 5--
--
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you. Madam Secretary, it's great to see 
you and welcome to your family. If this is your idea of a 
Mother's Day gift, I question your judgment. But you're welcome 
here.
    So, Secretary Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, mentioned 
yesterday that the Russian military was so desperate for 
microchips for their military vehicles that they were pulling 
them from dishwashers and refrigerators. And while I am always 
thrilled to see the failures and the desperation of the Russian 
army, it did send a bit of a shiver down my spine, coming from 
Michigan where I represent a place where one of my two GM 
[General Motors] plants have been largely dormant for the 
better part of a year because we can't get a $0.14 microchip, 
where my farmers can't get a new John Deere because there's no 
microchips, where we can't get our cars repaired because 
there's no microchips.
    Representative Gallagher and I led a defense task force on 
supply chains, and we identified the same vulnerabilities, of 
course, particularly in the Army and particularly with land 
vehicles because we all depend on these same legacy chips. And 
we know that there's a lot of common interest between the auto 
industry and you all on needing those chips.
    Can you tell me very briefly what you have done to help 
deal with this supply chain problem, mitigate this supply chain 
problem?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I think what we're trying 
to do is, just as you said, identify where those specific 
vulnerabilities are and then try to work with our industry 
partners to see what we can do to get ahead of those. One 
thing, I think, an idea that we're exploring is, you know, 
using sort of an advanced procurement authority where we might 
be able to buy chips, for example, in advance of actually 
buying the entire system that they might go into so that we can 
stockpile, essentially, that kind of thing. And I believe that 
the authority to do that, there's a new request for that in the 
latest Ukraine supplemental.
    Ms. Slotkin. Great. We would welcome that, I'm sure. You 
know, literally, I go to events in my district and people yell, 
``Chips, we need chips,'' at me, so it's really sort of sunk 
into the consciousness.
    The United States makes zero percent of the legacy chips 
that go in our vehicles, so different even from the 5G-capable 
chips. These are the same chips that appear in our Stingers, 
Patriots, missile defense systems, drones, helos, and fighter 
jets. So, I really see this as a major vulnerability.
    Unfortunately, as we've been sitting here, I've just gotten 
reports out of the conference committee for the CHIPS Act or 
what we call the American Innovation Act. It's a bill we've 
been working on in the House and Senate to try and incentivize 
the semiconductor industry to build facilities in the United 
States so that we can at least make some of the chips we are 
now all so dependent on. I believe it's a matter of economic 
security. We have to control some of what is so important to us 
economically, but I want to publicly call out the leadership on 
both the House and the Senate for not moving this fast enough. 
There is not a sense of urgency even from within the conference 
committee.
    So, can you help us make the national security case? If I 
can't get them to understand the economic security case, the 
national security case, what would it mean if, for instance, we 
were unable to get chips from Asia right now and we couldn't 
get chips for all those systems that I just mentioned? What 
would that do to your Army, Secretary and then General 
McConville?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think it would be very problematic, 
Congresswoman, obviously. And, again, I saw, frankly, the 
silver lining of the pandemic, if there is one, is that it cast 
a light on a lot of these supply chain issues in a way that, 
frankly, we weren't paying attention to before. And I think, 
you know, those types of chips and other kinds of critical 
components are very important to the functioning of our 
systems, and we need to be thinking now about how we avoid a 
situation like what you're outlining.
    Ms. Slotkin. Is it fair to say that depending on suppliers 
almost exclusively in Asia for the chips to run our vehicles, 
our Stingers, our Patriots, our helos, is a vulnerability that 
we need to mitigate in short order?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes. We don't want to be dependent on 
countries who are our adversaries for equipment in our weapon 
systems.
    Ms. Slotkin. General McConville.
    General McConville. And one thing I advocate is you never 
want to be a one-option commander. You don't want to have one 
option. So, when you look at a supply chain, I argue for supply 
networks. We have kill chains, I argue for kill networks. We 
have multiple paths, so if [inaudible] goes down you have other 
options. And I think we need to invest in those type 
capabilities and have, you know, resilience we need. And that's 
what we try to do in every military operation.
    Ms. Slotkin. Well, coming from Michigan where we feel like 
we've been screaming with our hair on fire on the need to have 
an indigenous American industry around chips, we would love the 
help of the military because you depend on them just as much as 
we do, if not more. And given your mission set, it's so vital 
that you have access to those.
    So, we welcome your partnership in fighting to make sure we 
get this across the finish line. Thanks so much. Yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kelly is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary and Chief, 
the first thing, I just want to associate myself with 
Congressman Wittman's comments about the Ready Reserve fleet. 
Guys, we have to be able to get to the fight and then continue 
to resupply the fight. And without that--and we have got to 
pound because the Navy is not going to do it. Just like the Air 
Force doesn't care about your intelligence needs or your ISR 
needs, the Navy doesn't care until it's too late for us to do 
something about it. So, we have to keep pounding, and, if that 
means reassigning a line to the Army so they execute the buying 
of the reserve fleet because we're going to be the end user, us 
and the Marine Corps.
    Same thing applies to hospital ships. You know, we have to 
be able to both soft power and hard power to have hospital 
ships in a large-scale employment. So, I hope that we'll 
continue to pound those.
    I want to talk a little bit about the M1. I think, first of 
all, we have a faulty sample if we look at the Russians' 
performance and assume all tanks are defunct because the 
Russians performed poorly. First of all, they don't have the 
NCO [noncommissioned officer] corps and the teamwork at that 
level that we have.
    I think the second thing is--is we have to look at our 
history and in Desert Storm and the initial invasion of Iraq in 
2003, we performed against those same T-72s maybe and we didn't 
lose very many tanks and they lost a ton of tanks. So, I would 
say there is a difference between the M1 and the T-72. I don't 
know what that is in an unclassified environment, but I can say 
that there's a difference in the systems and how they function.
    Going to that, the Marines are divesting of M1 tanks in 
some areas where we need that armor power, and I still think we 
need armor power. What about using pre-positioning stocks and 
maybe Guard rotational or Army rotational to go to pre-position 
stocks in places like--new places like Finland or Poland, so 
that we have the equipment there so we don't have to use that 
Ready Reserve fleet to get them there, but we have folks who 
are training. And I think that kind of goes with how you're 
doing your Regionally Aligned Readiness and Modernization 
Model, but how about using the Guard and Reserve or Active 
Components and pre-positioned stocks to be ready? What do you 
think about that, General McConville?
    General McConville. I think that's a great idea. And, 
Congressman, we saw that work in practice with the 3rd Infantry 
Division. We sent that brigade over there. As you know, having 
commanded, you know, an ABCT yourself, it takes a while to move 
tanks and Bradleys. You've got to put them on ships and you've 
got to sail them across the sea. But having pre-positioned 
stocks in Europe allowed us to get there [in] basically a week 
to have that brigade on the ground. They were shooting, doing 
their mission. That's how you get the speed you need, and I'm a 
firm proponent of that. And in other places, the position that 
gives us the posture we need to respond very, very quickly.
    Mr. Kelly. And I know the Marines divesting in some places 
that I think we probably still need an armor basis, and they're 
divesting of M1s, and so I think that's appropriate for the 
Marine Corps to do that. Have we reached out to our sister 
service, ground service, who does the fighting and said, hey, 
can we have an alignment where a Guard battalion or brigade or 
an Active Component battalion or brigade with pre-positioned 
stocks trains with those Marines in locations where we might 
have pre-positioned stocks to replace those tanks with Army 
tanks so that we have an armor force in the area?
    General McConville. We haven't exactly done that exact 
process, but I do routinely talk to the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps, and we're going through this process right now as 
far as getting our posture set, and that's certainly a 
discussion we can have.
    Mr. Kelly. And then final question, General McConville--
and, Secretary, I'm not trying to leave you out. You all both 
answer the same, I hope that you do, because you should be that 
lockstep in your answers. But I understand the Army's new 
multi-domain task forces are a modernized force designed for 
command and control of long-range precision fires and effects. 
The Active Component has two now with three more brigades 
coming online.
    What do you see the role of COMPO [Component] 2 and 3 with 
these new multi-domain task forces and operations?
    General McConville. One thing we've asked General Hokanson 
to do is take a look at it, you know, the same thing. He's been 
very committed to making sure that the National Guard reflects 
the Active Component, and we're certainly having that 
discussion. We're having some discussion on some of the other 
things we're doing, too.
    Mr. Kelly. Secretary and General McConville, I do think we 
are having a premature discussion about the invalidity of main 
battle tanks and combat systems on the ground, but I think we 
do need to look at that and see. We don't want the battleships 
of World War II when we need aircraft carriers, but I don't 
think we're there. But I do think you guys need to study that.
    I just recently visited the Lima Tank Plant. I visited 
TACOM [U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command]. And 
so, I've talked to those, but we have to get out in front of 
this because, if not, there's a huge movement to say the 
Russians failed and therefore we will fail, and I just don't 
think that's an accurate assessment and we have to do the work.
    With that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Sherrill is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. General McConville, a U.S. 
INDOPACOM report estimates that by 2025 China will have at 
least 50 hypersonics ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic 
missiles], 50 hypersonic IRBMs [intermediate-range ballistic 
missiles], and 100 hypersonic MRBMs [medium-range ballistic 
missiles]. Additionally, the Russians claim to be using 
hypersonics inside of Ukraine with some estimates stating 
between 10 to 12 hypersonic strikes have occurred since the 
beginning of the conflict.
    Do you believe that the Army is doing everything it can to 
close the hypersonic gap between the United States and our 
adversaries?
    General McConville. I do.
    Ms. Sherrill. And Secretary Wormuth, in your statement for 
the record, you described the Army as the backbone of the joint 
force in the Pacific, as it is our priority theater for 
responding to China as our pacing challenge. So, as the Marines 
build a more limber littoral force, how will the Army modernize 
to support operations in the Pacific? And more importantly, how 
will Army fires support the joint force in a sensor-dense 
environment over long distances, possibly between island 
chains, and what do supply trains to move ammunition to these 
platforms look like?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, I would highlight two 
things primarily in response to your question. First is our 
multi-domain task force. We have three of them right now, as 
Congressman Kelly just noted. Two of them are aligned, if you 
will, to the INDOPACOM theater. And inside of that task force 
you have a fires battalion, and that fires battalion could 
have, eventually, the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon, it could 
have the Mid-Range Capability which provides a ground-based 
ship-sinking capability, for example. The task force also has a 
battalion that is focused on non-kinetic effects, cyber, 
electronic warfare, intelligence capabilities. And then there's 
also a protection battalion that will provide, you know, look 
at air and missile defense threats. So that really is a premier 
contribution, I think, the Army can make in INDOPACOM.
    Another thing I would highlight is we are investing in 
additional watercraft. The Army actually had some pretty big 
boats for a ground-based service, and those platforms are going 
to be very important, I think, to the logistics and sustainment 
in the theater.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. So, yesterday I spoke with General 
Berger about the future of the Marine Corps formations and how 
they are going to operate to support the joint force in the 
Pacific, and he testified that the focus for the Marines is 
survivability, maneuverability, and the ability to remain 
hidden, the ability to displace. He said size matters if they 
can detect you. The battlefield we are going to operate on will 
be saturated with sensors. You have to operate within that 
space.
    The concept of survivability is critical to the next 
generation of fires, especially in an environment that is, as 
the Commandant alluded to, saturated with sensors. Adversary 
counter-battery radar and early warning detection systems 
present a substantial risk for any artillery, either cannon or 
missile, to survive for extended periods on the battlefield. 
And a CRS [Congressional Research Service] report on the Army's 
Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon states that the LRHW batteries 
will consist of four launchers, each with two missiles, a 
mobile battery operation center, and a number of support 
vehicles, such as the Army's currently-deployed Heavy Expanded 
Mobility Tactical Truck to transport the LRHWs. So, there's no 
doubt that such a formation would not only generate a large 
signature on the battlefield and require a large surface to 
occupy, increasing the risk of counter-battery fires and 
interceptability, so one could speculate that occupation and 
displacement times would be significantly longer than self-
propelled platforms.
    Secretary Wormuth, General Berger, the importance of long-
range precision fires for the joint force cannot be overstated. 
In fact, you both said it is the number one priority of the 
Army. So, cannon and rocket artillery platforms must be able to 
survive and maneuver in the Arctic, in the Pacific, Europe, and 
beyond. To that end, it's essential that the warfighter 
supported by a maneuverable platform that can easily displace 
generates a small signature and provides commanders with the 
ability to service targets hundreds of miles beyond the forward 
line of troops.
    So, Secretary Wormuth, I have to be honest with you, I'm 
concerned. I don't believe that the decreases for long-range 
fires research in this year's budget request reflects the 
urgency of our future forces' artillery needs.
    So, with that, I thank you for your time and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you. General McConville, you've had a 
couple of questions about multi-domain operations. My 
understanding is there is going to be a new pub [publication] 
on that coming out soon, FM-3 TAC [Tactics]. What's the 
timeline for that?
    General McConville. It is going to be June, Congressman.
    Mr. Gallagher. Okay. I'm particularly interested in the 
applications of a multi-domain operation task force in the 
defense of Taiwan. So, in plain English, could you describe 
what particular capabilities such a unit would provide in the 
defense of Taiwan?
    General McConville. What I would like to do is just 
describe generally, you know, not particularly to Taiwan, but 
I'll just kind of go generally, so we don't go--but what I take 
a look at----
    Mr. Gallagher. Well, I mean, you are thinking about 
deploying them in the Pacific, right? I recognize we can't talk 
about everything in this setting but----
    General McConville. If I could, what I'd like to----
    Mr. Gallagher. I'm not asking you to say anything 
classified, sir.
    General McConville. I know. I'm just trying to--if I could 
just--so when I take a look at an island, it could be any 
island, that someone wants to seize, I would argue that there's 
really three ways of doing it. You have to do a forced entry. 
You have to do an amphibious operation, you have to do some 
type of airborne operation, very similar to a D-Day type 
capability. So, you have to, you know, assuming that island, 
the people on there are willing to defend themselves, you are 
going to have to do some type of forced entry operation. Not 
that we're going to do it like D-Day, but, you know, go back to 
D-Day and look what happened across 80 to 90 miles, you know, 
what it took for that force to get a lodgment.
    And what I would argue is you want to prevent that from 
happening. So, what do you want to prevent? An amphibious 
operation, you do that with long-range precision fires that can 
sink ships. Now, it doesn't have to come from the land. It can 
come from the air, it can come from the sea, but you want to 
have multiple options to sink those ships.
    If they're going to do some type of airborne operation, 
which they probably should, or an air assault operation which 
they can with helicopters because it's about 100 miles across 
our strait, you want to have the capability to shoot those 
helicopters down, you want to have the capability to shoot 
those airplanes down. And what you don't want to allow them to 
do is to get a foothold on an island and then, from there, they 
can expand the foothold and go from there.
    So, when I think about what the Army can provide in those 
type situations, the reason we're going with long-range 
precision fires because--and air and missile defense--is we 
want to provide those type of capabilities. And we certainly, 
if we were working with a friendly force, we would want to make 
sure that they had those capabilities so they could sink ships, 
they could shoot airplanes down, they could shoot helicopters 
down, and prevent that force from getting a foodhold, which I 
would argue they probably need to do, some type of ground force 
is going to have to seize their capital if they're going to 
take it.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, if we were interested in denying the PLA 
[People's Liberation Army] a lodgment on Taiwan, do you, at 
present, have the basing access or agreements with allies 
necessary to deploy a multi-domain operation task force and 
employ those long-range fires either to sink PLA Navy ships or 
sink aircraft or helicopters that are trying to land PLA 
soldiers on the Taiwan mainland?
    General McConville. Well, as far as agreements, there's 
discussions, and that's a policy question, at least from where 
I'm sitting, is providing those type of requirements. I can 
talk about other places where we didn't think we would have 
that capability. We did not have in place, but, as situations 
developed, we are seeing changes. And, again, from where I see, 
as the Chief of Staff of the Army, is I'm providing options to 
the combatant commander, and then I defer to the policymakers 
on, you know, where we can get access.
    But the other thing, too, as far as expeditionary fires, 
those systems----
    Mr. Gallagher. Where they're going to be, right? To make 
sure they're in range of----
    General McConville. Well, that's right.
    Mr. Gallagher. So, yes or no----
    General McConville. I would be glad to----
    Mr. Gallagher [continuing]. Negotiating such agreements, 
but, clearly, you have a view on whether we are where we need 
to be to deploy multi-domain operation task forces [MDTFs].
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I would just add, you know, 
I think we have, obviously, a very close alliance with Japan, 
you know. We've made good progress with the Philippines with 
the defense cooperation agreement. So, I think, you know, 
there's still conversations and work to be done, but I think, 
you know, a country like Japan, it's remarkable how its threat 
perception has changed over the last few years.
    So, I think there are possibilities for basing the MDTF, 
but I also think we have to have a pretty robust diplomatic 
effort with other countries in the region to try to open up 
opportunities for basing and access.
    Mr. Gallagher. I would submit this is probably our top--
with respect to everything happening in Ukraine right now, I 
got it--at least in INDOPACOM, this has to be our top 
diplomatic priority.
    And if we are going to talk about integrated deterrence, 
and I've been a critic of integrated deterrence, full 
disclosure, what we should integrate is the State Department 
moving heaven and earth to negotiate basing agreements with key 
allies so that we can deploy teams of Marines or soldiers in 
order to deny a PLA invasion of Taiwan.
    I'm out of time.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Ms. Escobar is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. Good to see you 
again. Thank you for your service to our country and thank you 
for being here to discuss the administration's fiscal year 2023 
budget.
    As you know, I have the incredible privilege of 
representing Fort Bliss here in Congress, America's second 
largest military installation and the largest joint 
mobilization force generation installation in the Army. Fort 
Bliss also retains many different assets and missions critical 
to the Army's readiness and modernization plans, such as the 
1st Armored Division and Joint Modernization Command.
    From day one, I have worked hard to ensure I understand 
Fort Bliss's needs and what we can do in Congress to ensure 
that it remains a world-class premier military installation. I 
was pleased to see the $15 million request in the Department's 
budget for a new fire station at Fort Bliss to serve the area 
surrounding the William Beaumont Army Medical Center, and I 
will work to ensure that it is included in this year's NDAA.
    However, it's my hope that this is just a first step for 
the Army's investment in Fort Bliss for the coming decade. In a 
letter that I sent to the Assistant Secretary of the Army 
earlier this year, I described two investments that are badly 
needed. The first is the railhead, the second are the barracks. 
I've spoken with both of you before about this. I have seen the 
barracks for myself. And while I'm pleased that there is some 
3D printing and some innovation involved with the barracks, and 
I'm encouraged by the Assistant Secretary's response saying 
that these investments are slotted for the fiscal year 2024-
2028 investment plan, I still want to hear a little bit more 
about the plans for Fort Bliss from both of you directly.
    Could you please expand on the Army's plans for investment 
in Fort Bliss and what role you see Fort Bliss playing in the 
Army's modernization plans?
    Secretary Wormuth. Certainly, Congresswoman. And thank you 
for your great support of Fort Bliss and your work for your 
district. We really appreciate your support for the Army.
    In the 5-year budget plan, we have about, I think, $280 
million in MILCON at Fort Bliss and several hundred million 
dollars in O&M [operation and maintenance] for renovations and 
modernizations, whether it's permanent barracks or transient 
barracks, as well as things like the railhead.
    So we are, you know, again, through the facilities--excuse 
me, our infrastructure plan, we are trying to program that out 
over time, and we'd be happy to talk with you and, you know, 
give you a briefing that lays it out in detail.
    As I've said to a couple of other members of the committee, 
the challenge the Army has year over year is taking the finite 
resources we have and balancing it among modernization for all 
of the great weapon systems we have been talking about or 
quality of life for our soldiers or infrastructure. But there 
is a plan for quite a bit of investment in Fort Bliss over the 
next 5 years.
    Ms. Escobar. Great. That's music to my ears. Thank you so 
much and would forward to that briefing.
    I want to shift now to legacy systems, and I know there has 
been a lot of conversation this morning around that issue. And 
I agree completely with my chairman when he says he has got 
more concern about how the money is spent versus how much, you 
know, the debate over how much, and I could not be more in 
agreement. And I will tell you, after having received 
classified briefings around China and the threats posed by 
China, and I realize we are in an unclassified setting, I do 
believe that Congress needs to do more to let go of legacy 
systems and to have a broader, more ambitious vision for the 
Department of Defense.
    And so, my question to you in the limited time that we 
have, what can we in Congress do to support you as you move 
away from these legacy systems?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, thank you. I think, for 
the most part, through the Army night court process that has 
gone on in the last few years, we have largely divested of most 
of what we would truly call legacy platforms. But, you know, 
there may be a few specific instances where we have systems 
that we want to shed and just, you know, I think what you can 
do is bring that understanding that we are trying to transform 
to the future and, you know, and move away from systems that 
don't make sense for the future fight.
    Ms. Escobar. General McConville, anything you would like to 
add?
    General McConville. I agree with the Secretary. I think 
we're in pretty good shape. Our challenge is we have enduring 
systems that we want to keep, and we have been incrementally 
improving them over the years. And those are what we're going 
to fight with today, and we are trying to find that sweet spot 
where we continue to incrementally improve them because they 
are going to be around for a while. At the same time, we don't 
give up our modernization for the future.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you both so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired. Mr. Gaetz 
is recognized for 5 minutes. He is virtually appearing with us.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General McConville, 
you said that we are focused on quality more than quantity with 
our recruiting numbers, but isn't it true that we are 
experiencing a recruiting crisis in the Army?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, we're certainly 
experiencing some recruiting challenges. And what I mean by 
that is 83 percent of the young men and women that come in the 
Army are military family members, and we would like to see 
others do that. And only 23 percent of Americans are qualified 
to come into the Army.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, and you gave testimony to the Senate 
regarding the physical fitness of a lot of our youth as 
disqualifying. Is America too fat to field the Army that we 
need?
    General McConville. Well, I think we could do more as far 
as physical and mental fitness. I think that's something that 
we are looking at. We're very pleased, one of the interesting 
facts that I've learned about is the high schools that have 
JROTC [Junior ROTC] in them, 44 percent of the young men and 
women that attend those high schools come into the military and 
they are only in 10 percent of our schools. And they are not 
necessarily in JROTC, but what they are is they have been 
exposed to the military.
    And, again, I have a thesis, not proven, but the people 
that tend to come into the military are those who have been 
exposed in some way, whether it is a family member or it's, you 
know, in their schools. And I think that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Gaetz. I agree. And I would observe, as I'm sure many 
of my colleagues would, that some of our best applicants for 
military service academies actually come through our ROTC 
programs. But that alone won't meet our recruiting needs. We 
are 12,000 troops below where we were previously. We have an 
overall force that has fallen below a million for the first 
time in two decades; is that right?
    General McConville. That's about right, Congressman.
    Mr. Gaetz. And, General, it appears--well, let me ask it to 
you this way: How many people are going to be separated from 
the Army one way or the other as a result of the vaccine 
mandate?
    General McConville. I don't know. There's been about----
    Mr. Gaetz. Shouldn't we know that?
    General McConville. Well, it depends because there is a 
very deliberate and measured process that we are going through. 
About almost 98 percent of the Active Duty soldiers have taken 
the vaccination. There's many that are not that are in the 
process of going through either a religious or a medical 
exemption process, and we are giving them----
    Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry to interrupt you, General, but you 
have only approved 8 permanent religious exemptions, you have 
only approved 22 permanent medical exemptions. And so, while 
you describe the process as deliberate, I would describe it as 
dilatory because you have thousands of people who have 
submitted requests that haven't even heard back.
    Does it strike you as odd that you have given testimony to 
the Senate that America's youth are not physically fit enough 
to populate the Army or at least that that's a major challenge, 
and, yet we are taking people who are otherwise physically fit 
and we are separating them?
    General McConville. Well, Secretary, do you want to----
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, and I think General 
McConville has spoken to this earlier in the hearing, we are 
trying to, first of all, make all of the information available 
to our troops about the benefits and the safety of the 
vaccine----
    Mr. Gaetz. I don't want to hear about that. By the way, I'm 
not interested in that testimony. I am well aware of it. My 
concern is you are saying people aren't healthy enough to meet 
your recruiting needs, and then you are taking otherwise 
healthy people and you are separating them, and those positions 
are in conflict. So, I'm not interested in the propaganda or 
the education campaign to get people to get the vaccine. I'm 
concerned about the separation.
    And I would also observe, you know, the Army, at one point, 
had the greatest recruiting slogan of all time: Be all you can 
be. And then it went to the Army of one. And while I'm sure a 
few, you know, while I'm sure a few on the other side of the 
aisle would agree with me, when we have a military that seems 
to invoke this sense of wokeness and where we're, like, on a 
snipe hunt for White supremacy every day in the military, I 
think that that causes people who might otherwise sign up for 
the Army to not do so. The tone and tenor that comes out of the 
Secretary of Defense particularly is a retarding element to the 
recruitment that we need.
    And I would finally observe with my remaining seconds that 
it's quite something that we had the Secretary of Defense 
before the committee. I said, ``Well, gee, Mr. Secretary, we 
are behind on hypersonics while we are focused on this 
wokeness,'' and he berated me for the suggestion that we were 
behind on hypersonics and he said, ``How did you get that? 
Where did you get that?'' And now, I guess when he comes back, 
I can say I got that from the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Smith, who just moments ago said we are, in 
fact, behind Russia and China.
    I see my time has concluded.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I will note 
that we've had several hours, probably at this point, like, 5 
hours' worth of hearings with the Army, the Navy, and the 
Marine Corps this week, and Mr. Gaetz is the very first person 
to mention White supremacy or wokeness, I think, for like a 
couple of weeks now. The only person----
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, not on the basis of----
    The Chairman. It's my time now, Mr. Gaetz. I'm sorry. Your 
time has expired. It is my time. The only person on this 
committee who seems obsessed with White supremacy and wokeness 
is Mr. Gaetz, and that is not helping us at all, number one.
    And number two, what the Secretary took issue with is the 
accusation that the military wasn't ready because of wokeness. 
Mr. Gaetz chooses to focus on the hypersonics, but the reason 
the Secretary was upset is because Mr. Gaetz, who has never 
served in the military, was telling a decorated veteran that he 
wasn't doing enough to prepare our military to fight. And I 
think our Secretary rightly took that personally, as well he 
should have.
    I just want to set the record straight.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, we'll play the video, Mr. Chairman, and 
we----
    The Chairman. Please cut off his microphone. His time has 
expired. Mrs. Luria is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you. And General McConville, I wanted to 
follow up on the topic that my colleague, Mr. Gallagher, was 
discussing with some of the capabilities that you are trying to 
develop. You said in your statement ship-sinking Mid-Range 
Capability missiles. Can you describe what you mean by Mid-
Range?
    General McConville. You know, about a thousand kilometers.
    Mrs. Luria. A thousand kilometers?
    General McConville. Yes.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. And from where do you anticipate using 
this capability? I know Mr. Gallagher touched on that, but I 
still don't understand, like, in the first island chain, did 
you plan on placing these perhaps on Taiwan? I'm not sure if I 
understand the concept where a thousand kilometer missile is--
--
    General McConville. Yes, I'd like to talk to you maybe in a 
classified setting, if we could, on those type issues, where we 
would put those type things. But I could give you plenty of 
examples around the world where we think it would be helpful.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. But was that not the same question Mr. 
Gallagher just asked and there was not any identified basing 
locations that we have access? Maybe the Secretary would follow 
up on that.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, as I said to Congressman 
Gallagher, you know, I think we have relationships and, in some 
cases, alliance relationships in the region with a country like 
Japan, with countries like Australia. You know, we have our 
cooperative agreement with the Philippines.
    I think we are going to have to sort of, you know--I don't 
think it would be wise for us to wait to develop the kinds of 
weapon systems that we need for a future conflict until we had 
the diplomatic agreements signed. We----
    Mrs. Luria. But we have weapon systems that have this 
capability. It was just tested last year using the Naval Strike 
Missile. The Marine Corps did it as part of their EABO 
[expeditionary advanced base operations] concept, and we have 
missiles now that you can put on land and launch at ships, 
moving targets at sea.
    Secretary Wormuth. I was trying to answer your question 
about sort of where potentially we----
    Mrs. Luria. So, I mean, that's the next question I have 
because I feel that the Marine Corps is also developing a 
similar concept. How much are you working in unison with them 
for commonality of the weapon systems and interoperability?
    Secretary Wormuth. We are working, I would say, you know, 
we're certainly in active discussions with the Marine Corps. 
They are participating in our Project Convergence set of 
experiments where they are bringing capabilities and 
technologies, we are bringing capabilities and technologies. 
And my own view is I see the multi-domain task force that we 
are developing and the Marines littoral combat regiment as 
complementary.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. I want to shift because, you know, I had 
the opportunity to read the most recent National Defense 
Strategy. It focuses a lot on this idea of integrated 
deterrence. What is the Army's role in integrated deterrence, 
General?
    General McConville. Well, it's multiple. One, is providing 
a combat credible capability. Another is being part of the 
joint force. The other is working with allies and partners----
    Mrs. Luria. So those are all, we're working with our allies 
and partners in a military sense, interoperability with those 
allies and partners.
    General McConville. Well, it's also reassuring allies and 
partners. I can tell you, from what we saw recently in Europe, 
the ability to stand side by side with our allies----
    Mrs. Luria. That's using military forces side by side with 
their military forces.
    General McConville. That's right. That's part of what we 
see, and I think when we, you know, I'll defer to the policy 
side of the house when they talk about integrated, but it is 
much more than just a military capability. There is certainly 
diplomacy involved. There is information operation----
    Mrs. Luria. You are doing diplomacy as an----
    General McConville. Say that again.
    Mrs. Luria. You are doing diplomacy?
    General McConville. No, I'm not. No----
    Mrs. Luria. What I am trying to get at is everything you 
are describing to me, it is hard power. Like, the military's 
role in integrated deterrence is to be the military. Do you 
agree?
    General McConville. Yes. I think it's supporting diplomacy 
is part of what we do.
    Mrs. Luria. You led exactly to my thought. You are 
supporting diplomacy. Okay. So, we get into a conflict. It's 
very clear you have a supporting/supported commander, the 
military is the supported commander, all the other levels of 
government are supporting that. But in the gray zone or 
peacetime environment we are in now, the military is supporting 
all those other levels of government, but who is the supported 
commander? Who are you supporting? Who is in charge? Maybe the 
Secretary can answer those.
    Secretary Wormuth. Who is in charge of our diplomatic 
efforts? Is that the question?
    Mrs. Luria. Of integrated deterrence. Because it would be 
all levers of government. It would be diplomatic. You would 
have energy, agriculture, every department of government has a 
role----
    Secretary Wormuth. I think, Congresswoman, my view of the, 
A, I think, for the Department of Defense, you know, what we 
contribute to integrated deterrence is our combat credible 
forces. But I think to bringing it altogether with all of the 
tools of government, that's orchestrated through the National 
Security Council----
    Mrs. Luria. But who is the supported commander now? The 
National Security Council is the supported----
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, that is the venue where we use to 
try to coordinate between DOD, the State Department----
    Mrs. Luria. But who is in charge of integrated deterrence?
    Secretary Wormuth. It's a concept. I don't think that there 
is someone is in charge of the concept. It is a way of----
    The Chairman. I'm sorry. We're talking over each other a 
lot here. We've got to sort of at least let her get through a 
sentence there, and maybe we can get to a better understanding. 
Go ahead.
    Secretary Wormuth. You want me to go ahead? I think 
integrated deterrence is just a way of trying to describe how 
you bring sort of layers of deterrence together. You've got a 
military layer; you've got a diplomatic and economic layer. You 
then can add, you know, allies and partners, where they're 
present, to provide integrated deterrence.
    The Chairman. That's a good answer. I mean, at the end of 
the day, the President is in charge of integrating all the 
different aspects of government and directly below him would be 
the national security advisor who is in charge of trying to 
pull all that together. And it's not an easy job.
    Mr. Banks is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. General, I want to get back to the recruiting 
subject that Mr. Gaetz was asking about a moment ago. Why is it 
so hard today to recruit more soldiers into the United States 
Army? Why are we having this challenge?
    General McConville. Well, I think it's because of 23 
percent of Americans are qualified. Many Americans have not 
been exposed to the military, and I think we need to do a 
better job of that. As I said, 83 percent of the soldiers that 
come into the Army or recruits that come in have a military 
family member, so they have been exposed, they know what it's 
about, and they want to serve. And also, we see young men and 
women that have attended high schools with Junior ROTC programs 
coming into the military.
    Mr. Banks. Are you concerned?
    General McConville. Absolutely.
    Mr. Banks. Is this concerning for our Nation's security?
    General McConville. Well, I think, you know, again, three 
of my kids serve and my son-in-law serves. My wife was----
    Mr. Banks. So, you're concerned that we are having a hard 
time meeting or coming close to our recruiting goals?
    General McConville. Well, what I would like to see is--and, 
again, you know, there's a lot of discussion. We are an 
apolitical organization. We are really trying to stay out of 
those type things. But at the end of the day, we want everyone 
to have an opportunity to serve. And it's a great place for 
working-class people to come from and to get an education----
    Mr. Banks. You are saying you are concerned that we are not 
coming close to our recruiting goals? It's a simple question. I 
understand your children serve; that's great. I served. But 
that's not answering my question. You're concerned that, for 
our Nation's security, that----
    General McConville. Well, if your question is am I 
concerned that we have challenges with 23 percent of Americans' 
ability to enter the military, that is a concern.
    Mr. Banks. And you would admit that we are not coming close 
to our recruitment goals? That's a--is that a failure of the 
United States Army to reach its goals?
    General McConville. Well, if we're not reaching our goals, 
we are going to need some help to do that. And COVID certainly 
hasn't helped, you know, as far as getting to high school and 
exposing people and those type things. But that is something we 
are very concerned----
    Mr. Banks. Let me move on. It's projected that 2,879 
soldiers, the size of a couple of Army battalions, have not 
taken the COVID-19 vaccine and will likely be separated from 
the Army. Is that number approximately correct, and do you 
expect that number to be higher?
    General McConville. Well, right now, we know on the Active 
side we have about 2 percent, 1.5 percent to 2 percent that 
fall into that category that have not got vaccinated.
    Mr. Banks. So, is that loss of personnel going to hurt the 
overall end strength of the United States Army? Yes or no. 
Simple question. Is that going to hurt us?
    General McConville. Well, it's going to reduce the--if 
that's what the end strength, if you mean----
    Mr. Banks. Does it make your job harder when you lose 
nearly 3,000 soldiers?
    General McConville. Well----
    Mr. Banks. Does it make your job, I mean, does it make it 
harder to meet our end strength goals? Does that affect the 
strength of the United States Army to lose about 3,000 
soldiers?
    General McConville. Well, when I look at the Army, you 
know, we have a legal order in place, and we want our soldiers 
to obey legal orders.
    Mr. Banks. So, I don't think it's any coincidence that the 
Army is now offering a new $50,000 signing bonus to recruits as 
they struggle for you to fill the spots left vacant from the 
personnel that did not take the vaccine. Can you comment on why 
the new signing bonus is specifically $50,000, which seems 
unprecedented to me.
    General McConville. Well, we have different levels of bonus 
depending on the skill set. Some skill sets are higher. We are 
in a war for talent. We want the best and brightest to the come 
to the Army, and that's one way to incentivize some to come.
    Mr. Banks. Why $50,000?
    General McConville. Because we've done analysis and, again, 
we have taken a look at what the levels are, and a larger bonus 
of that type for certain people, we are going to see how that 
works.
    Mr. Banks. So, what certain people would get a $50,000 
bonus?
    General McConville. Well, we have certain skill sets, you 
know, on the high end, and it depends how long they are going 
to stay and what type of skill set they are going to have.
    Mr. Banks. Sir, do you ever remember a time when the United 
States Army was offering a $50,000 signing bonus to recruit new 
soldiers?
    General McConville. I don't.
    Mr. Banks. Yes, it seems unprecedented. At the same time 
that we're flushing out 3,000 soldiers, the size of a couple of 
Army battalions, once again, because they have not taken a 
politicized COVID-19 vaccine, which you admit affects your 
overall end strength in the United States Army, makes your job 
more challenging, we're flushing out thousands of soldiers and 
then we're offering $50,000 signing bonuses to try to attract 
new young men and women to come and join the United States 
Army.
    I don't get it. I really don't get it. I think it's 
foolish. I think you have said enough today to let us know that 
you agree. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thanks. Mr. Kahele is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Secretary, it's great to see you, 
General McConville, for appearing before this committee today. 
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Hawaii's 
impending lease expiration of major military landholdings, 
including Army lands throughout Hawaii, including one very 
important landholding on the island of O'ahu's leeward coast. 
This would be the Makua Military Training Reservation.
    Two months ago, I introduced the Leandra Wai Act, a bill 
that would remediate and restore Makua Valley and its military 
reservation and return the land back to the State of Hawaii.
    In my humble opinion, the United States Army does not need 
this land for training. The last time that the Army has 
conducted any live-fire training in Makua was in 2004. And even 
during 20 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. 
military did not train at Makua.
    Furthermore, returning the land back to the people of 
Hawaii is a necessary right to correct a historic wrong. As 
only the second Native Hawaiian to serve [in] Congress since 
statehood, it is my kuleana, my responsibility, to break that 
silence and elevate this conversation at the Federal level.
    When Hawaii was governed under martial law in 1941 
following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. military seized 
Makua for training. Families, Native Hawaiian families, who 
were living there for generations were evicted and the military 
condemned Native Hawaiian land grants. The military promised to 
return the land back to its rightful owners 6 months after 
World War II, but that promise was never kept.
    Within Makua Valley exists temples, Native Hawaiian 
shrines, petroglyphs, and other sacred sites. It's home to 41 
endangered species of plants and animals. This land also has 
tremendous economic potential with extensive agricultural 
terracing, and access to important offshore fisheries.
    I'm urging this committee to hold a hearing on this bill, 
the Leandra Wai Act. Leandra Wai was the co-founder of a Native 
Hawaiian-led nonprofit dedicating her life to bringing Makua 
back to the people of Hawaii.
    So, Madam Secretary, my question is, in regards to Makua, 
if the Army has not conducted any live-fire training since 
2004, Makua's lease expires in 2029, the leased lands that the 
United States military leases from the State of Hawaii, what 
would be the justification for keeping Makua in the Army's land 
inventory, continuing to pursue a new lease with the State of 
Hawaii, rather than returning the entire Makua Military 
Reservation back and remediating it before it is returned back 
to the people of Hawaii?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. It's good to see 
you. I think both the Makua Valley training area and PTA 
[Pohakuloa Training Area] on the big island are critical 
training areas for the U.S. Army. And while we may not have 
conducted live fire in Makua, there are, I think, other kinds 
of training that go on there that General Flynn, our U.S. Army 
Pacific Commander, views as really essential for us to be able 
to have our forces in the Indo-Pacific maintain their 
readiness.
    The Army tries very hard to be good stewards of that land, 
and, you know, I've talked with General Flynn and Senator 
Hirono about this and look forward to talking more with you and 
with the Native Hawaiian community about how we can, you know, 
be an even better steward to protect those species that you 
referenced, to make sure that the Native Hawaiian groups have 
access to the land to be able to go to those sacred sites.
    But I think we view those training areas as very important 
to maintaining our readiness.
    Mr. Kahele. As a Native Hawaiian, in my opinion, the next 
10 years, the next decade in Hawaii, is a very pivotal time in 
Hawaii regarding the military's role in Hawaii and working 
together with the people of Hawaii. Best example I can use most 
recently is Red Hill. Red Hill is a turning point in Hawaii 
regarding the military's presence and how that military 
presence moves forward in Hawaii.
    And so, I'd welcome the opportunity to sit down together 
with you and General Flynn and talk about how we can turn a 
page on how the military operates in Hawaii, its presence in 
Hawaii. We know it is important to Hawaii. It is a big economic 
driver for the State. A lot of people are employed by our 
United States military. But we have to find a balance. And I 
think it's time that Makua Valley be returned to the State of 
Hawaii and its people.
    Maholo, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary 
Wormuth, your May 3rd directive removes the commander of Army 
Futures Command as the head of the Army modernization 
enterprise, and I'm wondering who is in charge of Army 
modernization now and what was the rationale, why did you 
decide to make that change?
    Secretary Wormuth. Sure, Congressman. I appreciate you 
bringing that up actually. The directive did not remove or 
downgrade Army Futures Command's role in our acquisition 
effort. You know, at the end of the day, General McConville and 
I are ultimately responsible for the Army's modernization 
progress, and we have a team approach to modernizing in the 
Army. Army Futures Command plays an important role. The PEOs 
[program executive officers] and ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary 
of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology)] play an 
important role. So, the directive I signed was just clarifying 
those roles and responsibilities. It was not downgrading the 
importance of Futures Command at all. I am very much pleased 
with the progress and the contributions that Futures Command is 
making.
    Mr. Johnson. So is AFC, is that AFC commander still in 
charge of approving material requirements for the Army?
    Secretary Wormuth. Futures Command is, you know, one of 
their major responsibilities is helping us develop requirements 
for future capabilities, and they retain that responsibility.
    Mr. Johnson. And will they still influence Milestone A, B, 
and C decisions? I mean, does he get a vote on that?
    Secretary Wormuth. There's a very active dialogue between 
all of the folks at Army Futures Command and ASA(ALT). You 
know, ultimately, it is the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition 
and Logistics that has the authorities for Milestones A through 
C.
    Mr. Johnson. So given the change, the question is, I guess, 
and I'm not the only one asking, but does the breadth of 
responsibilities that Futures Commands retains, does that still 
necessitate a four-star command or does your directive make 
them duplicative in some way?
    Secretary Wormuth. We fully intend to see a four-star 
general leading Army Futures Command. Our acting commanding 
general, Lieutenant General Jim Richardson, is doing a great 
job. We are working on getting our nominee for a four-star 
commander over to the Senate.
    Mr. Johnson. Great. Let me switch topics to the COVID 
vaccine, Madam Secretary. Have any soldiers been granted a 
religious exemption from the COVID vaccine requirement who are 
not in the process of leaving the service? And if so, how many?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I believe that we've 
granted eight religious exemptions at this time, and I know 
some of them were on the way out from the Army already, but 
some of them may well have been, you know, granted religious 
exemptions. I don't think all eight of them were already 
intending to leave the Army, but I can check that and get back 
to you for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 91.]
    Mr. Johnson. So, according to the Army data from March 31, 
at least 8,000 soldiers have requested exemptions or refused 
the vaccine. So, I mean, the ratio of 8 out of 8,000 is pretty 
bleak. If the Army discharges all 8,000, here's the question, 
and the taxpayers pay at least $50,000 to train each soldier, 
aren't we just throwing away over $400 million of investment? I 
mean, if over 97 percent of the force is vaccinated already, is 
that worth it?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we are in the process of 
working our way through adjudication of those religious 
exemptions and medical exemptions. So, at this point, I can't 
tell you, you know, ultimately, how many people will be 
separated. And I think our view is, you know, while, yes, we 
have certainly spent money on our soldiers and those that are 
separating, we spent money training them, but at the end of the 
day we have to make sure that we have a ready, deployable force 
and that we have soldiers on our teams who are following lawful 
orders.
    So, we are trying to be very deliberate. We don't want to 
separate one more Army soldier than we absolutely have to.
    Mr. Johnson. Why won't the Army accept natural immunity as 
a substitute for the COVID vaccine, like the Army does for 
other illnesses?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, in conversations I've had 
with Army doctors, they have explained to me that, while if 
you've had COVID you do have some natural immunity, but you 
only have natural immunity for the strain of COVID that you got 
sick with the first time. And as we know, there have been a 
variety of additional variants of COVID coming forward.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, and the news we're getting this morning 
is that they're anticipating 100 million Americans will get 
infected in the next, in the coming months, and that's because 
they're saying that the vaccine, the effectiveness is wearing 
off.
    So as the science changes, I hope the Army will follow the 
science on that. But in the meantime, it seems to us to be a 
colossal waste of investment to just release all those soldiers 
for something like that.
    But I'm out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallego [presiding]. Representative Horsford.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
start off discussing the talent management and diversity. I'm 
curious if you've seen any early indicators that the Army 
talent alignment process is improving officer diversity and 
retention. Now that commanders have more authority to select 
officers for assignments from the talent marketplace, I'm 
concerned that this system may unintentionally introduce 
additional unconscious bias against minority officers for 
selection to key positions.
    General McConville, now that there have been several 
assignment cycles using the Army talent alignment process, have 
you identified any trends that diversity metrics are improving 
in key positions or in minority officer retention, and what 
steps does the Army take to combat unconscious bias in 
assignments?
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, you know, we are 
seeing more diversity across our commands and our key 
leadership positions, so that is happening. We watch this very, 
very closely. And one of the things that the Secretary and I 
have is on boards, you know, people talk about unconscious 
bias, and we took pictures out of the promotion boards and, at 
the same time, putting people, you know, the studies we did 
that people tend to pick people that have similar backgrounds. 
So, if you're an infantry officer, you'll maybe pick an 
infantry officer, if you're an armor officer or something along 
those lines. And so, we want to make sure that our boards are 
very representative and that's what happening, and the results 
we're getting, I think, are in a positive direction.
    Mr. Horsford. Okay. On a related issue, though, we know 
that a significant number of senior leaders and general 
officers come from combat arms branches and that minority 
groups are underrepresented in these career fields. So, to your 
last point, now that the Army has implemented the talent-based 
branching system, has there been an increase in the number of 
minority officers commissioning into combat arms branches?
    General McConville. We have seen that.
    Mr. Horsford. Okay. If you could supply that to the 
committee or to my office, I would appreciate that.
    General McConville. Sure.
    Secretary Wormuth. And, Congressman, I would also just add, 
I think----
    Mr. Horsford. I want to move on to another topic. Thank 
you. I would like to shift now to the Army National Guard. It's 
my understanding that the Army is currently working to 
establish eight division headquarters and align downtrace units 
with these headquarters to prepare for large-scale combat 
operations.
    Secretary Wormuth, can you update the committee on the 
progress being made towards this realignment and if any units 
are expected to be reassigned to different States as a result 
of this change.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. Certainly, as we 
are looking at how the Army is going to pursue multi-domain 
operations and large-scale combat operations in the future, 
we're looking at that from a total Army perspective, so we are 
working closely with General Jensen in the Army Guard and 
General Daniels in the Army Reserve to make sure that their 
units have a role to play.
    At this time, we do not have any plans to move units from 
one State to another. What we're really looking at is, you 
know, the schedule for when we might see some of the new weapon 
systems that we're developing be going into Guard units in 
various places, and we're still working through that effort.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you. Finally, I understand that earlier 
this month 10 Maryland Air National Guard A-10s deployed to 
Europe to support the Army's Swift Response exercise. This 
comes shortly after testing at the Nevada Test and Training 
Range in my district confirmed the effectiveness of the 
aircraft against modern armored threats. To quote the Air Force 
press release, and I quote, ``The A-10 is well suited for agile 
combat employment roles, and this test proves the A-10 can 
continue to deliver massive rapid firepower with devastating 
effects on enemy vehicles in a contested environment.''
    General McConville, can you speak to the importance of the 
A-10 in supporting ground maneuver during exercises like Swift 
Response, and is the A-10 platform still being employed 
effectively to maneuver commanders in the European theater?
    General McConville. Well, I think what I can do, 
Congressman, is speak to the effectiveness of close air support 
from the Air Force and both from being an Apache pilot from the 
Army, and I think that's extremely important. And I defer it to 
General Brown and how he wants to provide that capability 
within the United States Army. As Chief of Staff of the Army 
with a statutory responsibility for requirements, I lay that 
out when it comes to Apaches and other type aircraft.
    Mr. Horsford. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Representative Horsford. Next up we 
have Representative Franklin.
    Mr. Franklin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Madam 
Secretary. thank you, General McConville, for being here today 
and your guests. This is a long process. Appreciate your 
patience.
    Secretary Wormuth, on October 8th, 2021, the Biden 
administration signed an Executive order stipulating that the 
entire Federal Government, including the Department of Defense, 
would be required to purchase only 100 percent zero-emission 
vehicles by 2035. The Executive order also states that the 
requirement for net-zero emissions from Federal procurement no 
later than 2050.
    So, in 13 years, DOD will be forbidden to purchase anything 
other than electric vehicles or non-zero emission. Then in 
2050, there will be no fossil fuel vehicles remaining in 
service.
    Were you consulted regarding the potential impacts this 
Executive order would have on the Army prior to its being 
signed into effect by the President?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I am not under the 
impression that the Army will be--let me state this 
differently. The Executive order is not putting up any 
obstacles for the United States Army to continue to have tanks 
that rely on fossil fuel, for example. We do have a strategy to 
move to all light-duty non-tactical vehicles being electric by 
2027 and then all non-tactical vehicles by 2035. But I think 
that we very much will be continuing to have many of our combat 
vehicles still using fossil fuel.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. I'll need to look at that more closely 
because my understanding was that was going to be for all 
vehicles. Even in light of that, is it your opinion that the 
technology is advancing quickly enough that's going to enable 
us to field those electric vehicles--set aside tanks and things 
like that--but just the general support vehicles that will be 
necessary? And then General, I would also like your input on 
that, as well.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think for our non-
tactical vehicles, I'm pretty confident that the technology is 
coming along well. I mean, there's some amazing things being 
done with electric vehicles and hybrid vehicles, and we're even 
looking at a hybrid version of our joint light tactical vehicle 
[JLTV].
    You know, again, I think, for some of the heavier things 
like tanks, you know, we're probably some time away from being 
able to move from fossil fuels. But for the JLTVs and non-
tactical vehicles, the technology is there.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. General, your thoughts on----
    General McConville. Yes, my thoughts, Congressman, is, you 
know, from a readiness standpoint, especially with the bigger 
vehicles, hybrid is probably the way to go if you can reduce 
fuel. Some of our bigger vehicles use a lot of fuel, and that 
puts 5,000-gallon tankers on the road. And if we can bring that 
down, I'm fine with that.
    And the other thing is they actually reduce the noise in 
some cases. So those are the readiness values. But for some of 
these bigger vehicles, it's going to be--unless the technology 
really changes, it's going to be a while before we can get 
there.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. I have a report, it's called ``Powering 
the U.S. Army of the Future.'' It was produced by the National 
Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, looking into 
this very issue about the feasibility of the technology. Has 
the Army conducted its own research into determining, I 
understand moonshot kinds of promises and ambitious goals to 
try to reach certain initiatives, but are we layering over the 
requirements to see if the technology is actually going to be 
there? Because just to cut to the chase, and I can provide this 
report into the record and would be happy to, it does a deep 
dive and there's a lot of smart folks that are looking at it, 
but their general assessment, the bottom line, is that the 
battery technology isn't going to be there anytime soon, the 
energy density just isn't there. We also have recharging 
problems. The ability to do that out on the field just isn't 
there. And my concern is that we're signaling to industry that 
they need to be gearing up, that that's the direction the 
administration is headed, but the technology doesn't seem like 
it's going to be there in time.
    I would just welcome your thoughts on that.
    Secretary Wormuth. I think Congressman, what I would say 
is, you know, we--again, I think what we have signaled to 
industry is that we're very interested in being able to move 
towards electric for our non-tactical vehicles.
    And they're already working on that in the commercial 
space, you know, just to look at, I think, what GM is doing. 
You know, you're absolutely right, that for things like tanks, 
you know, we're not going to have charging stations in 
battlefields of the future.
    And so again, I think, you know, we're--we're not going in 
that direction. We still, you know, the folks who build our 
tanks, are still working from an assumption that we're going to 
be using fossil fuels.
    Mr. Franklin. Okay. All right. Anything to add on that, 
General?
    General McConville. No, we're looking for efficiency when 
it comes to fuel. Even, you know, an ITEP engine, the improved 
turbine engine that we're developing, we're getting a lot more 
power out of a lot less fuel.
    And again, how well we can best optimize the force, that's 
what we want to do.
    Mr. Franklin. Roger that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Gallego. Representative McClain.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you. And thank you both for being here. 
I really appreciate it.
    In reviewing what the Army has put out, I understand that 
the major priorities for the Army, is the development of 
optimally manned fighting vehicles. Right?
    Well, I can appreciate the Army is working with limited 
resources. And we must make decisions on whether to invest in 
readiness, modernization, and people, of course.
    But that being said, the budget seems to be, in my opinion, 
it seems to greatly abandon any focus on readiness. Or at least 
a great reduction of focus on readiness.
    Like the ranking member mentioned earlier, programs such as 
the Abrams tank and the Stryker combat vehicles are underfunded 
in your budget request, which seems disconnected kind of from 
the realities on what's going on on the ground in Europe.
    In fact, the budget request cuts the procurement of these 
two programs by roughly half. Quite frankly, it seems like 
you're putting a lot of stock into modernization rather than 
readiness, while there's a hot war going on in Ukraine.
    And especially with the nuclear power and all the 
modernizations that we're seeing. I know this budget was 
crafted several months prior to what was happening in Ukraine.
    I guess my question is, is now that things have changed, 
and the landscape has changed a little, are you all having 
internal conversations, and possibly shifting priorities more 
towards readiness, and less towards modernization, with 
everything that's going on? I'm sorry.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman--oh, sorry. Congresswoman, 
we have actually, I think, tried to invest significantly in 
readiness. Because, and we've seen how important it is to have 
ready forces because of what's happened in Ukraine.
    So, this budget, for example, funds 22 combat training 
center rotations. Where we're able to send our battalions and 
brigades to be able to do sort of major training in the desert, 
or at Fort Polk, or in Germany.
    And that's actually two more rotations then we did last 
year.
    Mrs. McClain. So, you think there's a--that we're, I don't 
want to put words in your mouth. But you think that we are in a 
good spot as it pertains to readiness, even with the funding 
for those two being cut by half?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, yes. I think we're--I think the 
Army is in a good place in terms of readiness. And we, for the 
last few years, we've been investing to kind of rebuild our 
readiness coming out of sequestration.
    We have made a decision in this budget in terms of 
investing in modernizing our enduring systems, like Abrams or 
Stryker. We have slowed that down a little bit to allow us to 
continue to proceed our transformational modernization.
    So, we're trying to strike a balance with this.
    Mrs. McClain. So, long term versus short term.
    Secretary Wormuth. Exactly.
    Mrs. McClain. In essence.
    Secretary Wormuth. Sort of future versus present, exactly.
    Mrs. McClain. Okay. To follow up on that question then, the 
budget request contains a reduction of 12,000, 12,000 soldiers 
at the end strength.
    The Under Secretary of the Army has stated that this 
reduction was not a budget-driven decision. But you went on 
record last year stating that in your professional opinion, the 
Army is too small.
    It seems like a little bit of a, of a contradiction. In 
fact, you said, when I take a look at what historically we 
needed, and now that we're in a time of great power 
competition, I'm very, very concerned about the size of the 
Army.
    My question is, if the nationwide inflation wasn't an 
issue, right, if we weren't at historic inflation rates, would 
you still make the same decisions to cut 12,000 troops?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, our decision to reduce 
our end strength was really more driven about--it was about 
wanting to keep the quality of our troops up in the face of a 
challenging recruiting environment.
    To--our issue is not that we can't pay for those additional 
12,000 soldiers, it's that we would have to lower our standards 
and let people in who do not meet our standards.
    That--and we made the decision that we'd rather have a 
slightly smaller Army that has quality standards, rather than 
to lower our standards.
    Mrs. McClain. And I would, I would challenge you to think 
about, I think we could do both. I mean, I believe in the 
people.
    I believe in the Army. I believe in the United States of 
America. That we can figure out how to do both. And I would 
only encourage you, since I'm out of time, to look at other 
solutions.
    And perhaps it may be a little bit easier if we didn't have 
all the COVID mandates that we have for the Army personnel.
    And with that, I'm out of time. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Gallego. Representative Green.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. And 
I want to thank the Chief and the Secretary for being here 
today. Thanks for your life of service to the country.
    President Biden's budget continues to, I think, stick the 
Army with the bill for other services' modernization and 
procurement costs. I think it's a significant and dangerous 
miscalculation.
    The Army and its soldiers have borne the brunt of the past 
two decades of warfare. Consequently, they're lagging behind on 
some modernization efforts to prepare our Nation for the 
threats against Russia and China.
    These generational challenges require state-of-the-art 
equipment, advanced training, and additional soldiers. Yet, the 
Biden budget proposes to cut 12,000 soldiers from the Army, an 
Army currently providing forward-deployed troops to our NATO 
allies in Eastern Europe.
    And, I might say, bearing, surprisingly to many, the 
majority of the taskings in the INDOPACOM region. It's 
unacceptable. It's unacceptable that they be compelled to live 
by a budget that doesn't fairly recognize this.
    My recent visit to Poland and the 101st Airborne troops 
stationed there, illustrated that most of us, what we've known 
all along, a modern and fully manned Army remains an essential 
component to executing the National Defense Strategy and 
serving America's interest abroad.
    The rapid response capabilities of the 101st depend on our 
Nation's most valuable resource, the men and women who choose 
to wear the uniform. We cannot, and should not, try to replace 
that.
    Our main concern, the civilian leadership at the Pentagon 
and the White House, seem more focused on the false promise of 
integrated deterrent strategy than on backing up those 
soldiers.
    While I certainly agree that a whole-of-government approach 
across the entire DIME paradigm--informational, military, 
diplomatic, economic tools--is critical, this cannot be used to 
justify significant cuts in the Army personnel.
    Integrated deterrence may sound good in White House 
meetings, but I can tell you that on the ground in Eastern 
Europe, and in the South Pacific, it just doesn't fly.
    Additionally, I understand that the Biden administration 
wants to cut funding from modernization in order to spend more 
money on climate change and social policies within the DOD. And 
let me be clear, the United States military should not be a 
social engineering experiment.
    Members of this committee should reject the budget, those 
aspects of the budget, and craft responses that prepare the 
Army to not only defeat current and future threats, but to 
dominate them.
    My questions today, first to the Chief, what is the percent 
of taskings for INDOPACOM that are the Army's?
    General McConville. Well, I can get you the exact number. 
But, at least as far as when we take a look a--as a worldwide, 
the Army produced about 60 percent of the taskings.
    And I can probably get you a better number for----
    Dr. Green. Sixty percent is a pretty big number. I think a 
lot of people seem to think this is, you know, China is going 
to be a Navy thing.
    And clearly, our Navy is critical. I heard the testimony. 
We had testimony yesterday on that. But I just--60 percent, 
that's huge. And I think bringing the recognition of that is 
something I want to make sure today, in my comments, we do.
    You look at how we responded to the Ukraine, or the issue 
in Ukraine. And it was because of these predisposition or pre-
positioned forces. And you look at Romania, and the ability too 
very quickly, and very agile, you know, send a Stryker brigade 
to Romania.
    Do we have that capability in the Pacific if something 
happened with Taiwan? And if not, what can we do, or what 
should we do about it?
    General McConville. Well, I think, I think the notion of 
having the right posture. And I think the great example is 
actually Europe, because we have permanent forces there. We 
have rotational forces there. We've rehearsed with our allies 
and partners. We have pre-positioned stocks. And we have 
logistics, which is extremely important.
    And I think that's a good model for other places we may 
want to operate.
    Dr. Green. So, is--that's something we should be thinking 
about for other parts of the world, particularly the Pacific. 
Okay. Thank you.
    I know, I've previously expressed concerns to Chairman 
Milley on the loss of JSTARS and AWACS [airborne warning and 
control system]. I want to make sure, and if you can give me 
some assurances today, that that capability is--we still have 
that capability with those aircraft going away.
    I mean, do we? We have--or is that loss going to really 
hurt the Army?
    General McConville. We need to come back to this----
    Dr. Green. And talk offline?
    General McConville. [Nods in assent.]
    Dr. Green. Okay. Okay. In March, I think you testified to 
the committee, 74 percent of the Active Component brigade 
combat teams have the highest levels of tactical readiness.
    We know since then the Army's topline funding in real terms 
has gone down with inflation. And I know you've probably been 
beaten up about this.
    Yo--if you look at the overall budget, it's down 10 
percent. With those inflation--inflationary impacts, has there 
been an impact on readiness of the brigades?
    General McConville. Right now, the brigades are ready.
    Dr. Green. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Gallego. Representative Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman. I just want to talk a 
minute about modernization. And thanks for sticking with us 
today in this important hearing.
    The Army, as you well know, has 24 programs that have been 
delivered in low-rate production tranches, completed by FY23.
    And incredibly, this has been done in less than 5 years. 
Which I don't think has been done, really, to this, this fast 
and to this scale since the 1980s.
    So, my question is, why are you taking authority away from 
warfighters, and essentially giving it back to the bureaucracy?
    I mean, my concern in particular is that you're taking away 
funding decision authority from the Army Futures Command 
commander on 6.1 through 6.3, as well as the requirements, as 
well as requirements driven from the Chief in supporting the 
military.
    General McConville, you've been through this process since 
the beginning. Do you agree with those decisions?
    General McConville. Well, the decision, the requirements 
still--I have statutory requirements for requirements. The way 
I--at least with the, as we took a look at the civilian control 
of the military, and the authorities that lie within the 
secretariat, that's what is outlined in the directive.
    And----
    Mr. Waltz. Do you agree with it?
    General McConville. We're going to make it work. I do.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, if I may?
    Mr. Waltz. Sure.
    Secretary Wormuth. We are not, you know, I think there's 
been a little bit of misunder----
    Mr. Waltz. I'm just trying to look at what was working. I 
mean, we did a lot of reforms.
    Secretary Wormuth. I absolutely agree with you.
    Mr. Waltz. You can't reset the clock every time we get a 
new Secretary of the Army note.
    Secretary Wormuth. And the directive that I signed does not 
take away or diminish Army Futures Command at all. I was 
explaining this to another member.
    You know, there were some ambiguities, frankly, in the 
roles between AFC and ASA(ALT), that this directive was just 
cleaning up. I think there was language that talked about AFC 
leading the modernization effort.
    And we had heard other concerns, frankly bipartisan 
concerns, about making sure that it was clear that the 
statutory authorities resided with ASA(ALT).
    But this is not taking away any--any responsibilities or 
authorities that Army Futures Command has.
    Mr. Waltz. I can just tell you from my perspective, let's 
push it out to the warfighter, not pull it back into the 
building.
    Secretary Wormuth. Agree.
    Mr. Waltz. It seems like the directive was doing the 
latter.
    Secretary Wormuth. That was not our intent.
    Mr. Waltz. Well, to me----
    General McConville. Congressman, I'd like--you know, to me, 
the proof's in execution. And I'd like to come back to you if, 
as we can----
    Mr. Waltz. Because I think the execution's been moving in 
the right direction the last 5 years. If it ain't broke----
    General McConville. [continuing]. Keep it moving too. We 
want to keep that momentum going. So, I'll get back to you.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 90.]
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. Just a couple of other points. Madam 
Secretary, delivered the climate strategy. Appreciate that.
    Part of that was to field an all-electric vehicle fleet, 
2035. But importantly, a fully electric tactical or combat 
vehicles by 2050.
    And my concern there, is I spent a lot of time on the 
Science Committee securing our rare earth and critical mineral 
supply chains. And as you know, China controls 90 percent of 
lithium, cobalt. I don't see that in this strategy.
    So, to me, without that, that doesn't seem to be wise or 
realistic.
    Secretary Wormuth. Well Congressman, you know, we set a 
goal of 2050. But we want to, you know, we're going to 
continuously assess our ability to make progress towards that 
goal.
    And if we determine that because of the rare earth con--the 
Chinese control of rare earths, that the technology to make 
good on that goal isn't possible, we'll revise that----
    Mr. Waltz. How about we work with the interagency to secure 
our supply chains. Because we don't just need it for an all-
electric military vehicle fleet. We need them for our economy.
    Secretary Wormuth. We do need them.
    Mr. Waltz. We need them for everything that runs on a 
battery.
    Secretary Wormuth. We do need them.
    Mr. Waltz. How about if we move in that direction. But 
separately, I would hope, and I'll just leave you with this, 
that the Army always has a goal to have the most lethal vehicle 
fleet, not the one that emits the less carbon.
    And so, I mean, let's focus on killing bad guys and 
protecting our guys with our vehicle fleet. And not get--and if 
we happen to decide that an electric-driven fleet also does 
that, then great. That's a secondary benefit. But, in my view 
shouldn't be the primary benefit.
    And if you're looking to apply funds towards that, as a 
primary goal, that gives me real concern.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, our focus is on fighting 
and winning the Nation's wars, first and foremost. That's what 
we're focused on.
    Mr. Waltz. That is reassuring to hear. And then finally, 
just because I'm running out of time, real concerns on moving 
away from, or moving back to gender-specific Army combat 
fitness test.
    I think it made sense to make it job specific. It obviously 
takes a lot more physicality being an infantryman then to be a 
cyber warrior or a pilot.
    And I'll just take for the record what you're thinking was, 
because I think it diminishes a lot of great women who are 
hitting those standards, like in Ranger school and others.
    But now are going to go to an infantry unit and have 
different standards. That takes away from what they've 
accomplished.
    Secretary Wormuth. I'm happy to take that for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 90.]
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, for your 
indulgence.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you. And thank you to our witnesses. And 
we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

?

      
=======================================================================



 
                            A P P E N D I X

                              May 12, 2022

=======================================================================

      

?

      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                              May 12, 2022

=======================================================================

      
      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.001
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.002
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.003
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.004
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.005
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.006
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.007
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.008
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.009
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.010
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.011
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.012
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.013
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.014
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.015
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.016
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.017
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.018
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.019
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.020
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8851.021
    

.eps?

      
=======================================================================


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                              May 12, 2022

=======================================================================

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN

    Secretary Wormuth. The Army is committed to providing a ready all-
volunteer force by selecting the best qualified soldiers, regardless of 
gender, for each job in the Army. All soldiers, regardless of gender, 
complete the same training and must pass the same requirements to be 
awarded a military occupational specialty in any career field.
    Historically, the Army has successfully recruited a diverse 
grouping of new soldiers. The implementation of gender-neutral 
requirements for all Army jobs has resulted in an increase in female 
enlistments, which should eventually result in noticeable increases in 
minority female populations as well. All jobs are open to anyone who 
meets the qualifications. By taking an in-depth look through the Army's 
research and evaluation of our current recruiting methods, we have the 
ability to action different markets rapidly, which will in turn allow 
the Army to create a force that embodies the diversity of the nation we 
serve. Ultimately, in the all-volunteer force, the Army's diversity is 
a reflection of those individuals who are willing to serve, without 
regard to an individual's gender or race.
    Analysis shows that recruiters generally recruit in their own 
image, so investments to increase the number of female recruiters is 
one means ensure an increase in female enlistments. The U.S. Army 
Recruiting Command makes every attempt to have a woman assigned to 
every recruiting station where feasible. The Army has assigned 1,160 
women as recruiters, and they make up 12.6% of the recruiting force. 
When we return to normal post-COVID operations, the Army plans to 
increase female enlistments by 1% to 2% annually, with the ultimate 
goal of the annual recruited population being at least 25% female 
within the next five years.   [See page 13.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. CARBAJAL
    Secretary Wormuth. Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) are informed 
of their naturalization options before and during initial entry 
training. Based on guidance from U.S. Army Recruiting Command, 
recruiters are required to advise LPRs during initial and subsequent 
contact that they may apply for accelerated naturalization via the U.S. 
Customs and Immigrations Services' website. These LPRs are also advised 
that they will be required to complete the N400 and N426 forms and they 
are instructed on which documents they must hand-carry with them to the 
training base to ensure they possess the correct documentation for 
naturalization.
    During basic training, the training brigade's legal teams are 
provided with rosters of non-citizen trainees who are eligible to apply 
for naturalization by the reception battalions. The basic training 
units work in conjunction with the brigade legal teams to help initiate 
the naturalization process for trainees while they undergo their basic 
combat training. Similarly, soldiers in the National Guard and the 
Reserves are authorized to request certificates of honorable service 
for the purpose of naturalization immediately upon entering active duty 
or attending drill with their selected Reserve unit. This includes 
recruits in the training pipeline attached to the Recruit Sustainment 
Program. The approval authority must certify or deny a soldier's 
certification request and return it to the soldier within 30 days of 
submission.
    Ultimately, naturalization is an individual Soldier decision, and 
Soldiers are afforded the opportunity to pursue their naturalization 
from the outset of their Army service. While there may have been 
earlier isolated confusion about the naturalization process among some 
units, the Army has adequately relayed that message to the field and 
will continue to ensure that the Legal Assistance Offices can assist 
when needed. Finally, the Army recently notified its non-citizen 
Soldier population, via email, of their opportunity for expedited 
naturalization through military service. [See page 27.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    Secretary Wormuth. After the review of an independent RAND study 
required by Congress (FY21 NDAA), combined with the information 
gathered by the Army from nearly 630,000 ACFT scores, and three years 
of ongoing analysis and Soldier feedback, Army leaders determined that 
the ACFT would be implemented as a general physical fitness test. The 
recent revisions to the ACFT maintain the Army's strong commitment to a 
culture of physical fitness, for all demographics and MOSs alike.
    Key changes include:
      Moving from a gender and age neutral standard, to 
performance-normed standards, based on age and gender, similar to the 
previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with 20 groups varied by age 
and gender.
          The Army will use the ACFT as a general fitness 
        assessment for the Total Army, not related to job-specific 
        physical demands, as opposed to an occupational test.
      The removal of the Leg Tuck with the Plank as the sole 
core exercise.
          RAND observed that the leg tuck was not an accurate 
        predictor of core strength for all Soldiers. The leg tuck 
        requires a minimum pre-requisite upper body strength that made 
        it impossible to measure core strength in all Soldiers.
          In response, the ACFT now uses the plank as the sole 
        exercise to assess core strength, using recognized standards 
        from sister-services as a baseline and modifying the scales 
        based on the Army's point system.
          Moving to the plank allows the Army to verify that 
        the ACFT properly measures all Soldiers' core strength equally, 
        and ensures Soldiers have a similar testing experience and 
        opportunity to succeed during every event of the ACFT.
          The leg tuck is still a great holistic core exercise 
        and is still encouraged as part of unit training outlined in 
        ATP 7-22.02.
      The addition of the 2.5-mile walk as an alternate ACFT 
aerobic event.
      A phased implementation for recording test scores to 
allow Soldiers a minimum of six months to train in order to increase 
training opportunities, minimize potential for injuries, and ensure 
maximum performance using the Army's H2F resources.
      The establishment of an ACFT governance body, working 
with RAND, to continue assessing test data, assess impacts to Soldiers, 
and recommend future modifications, as appropriate.
    The Army has commissioned analytic support from RAND to assess data 
from the revised ACFT following implementation in April 2022, which 
will inform the Army's oversight of the ACFT in the future. With these 
changes, the Army expects that the ACFT will have the same impact on 
recruiting and retention as the previous APFT. The Army has established 
an ACFT governance board to continue to assess test data and monitor 
impacts, and this governance board will deliver an assessment to the 
Secretary of the Army in April 2023.   [See page 59.]
    General McConville. Army Directive 2022-07 (Army Modernization 
Roles and Responsibilities), signed by the Secretary of the Army on May 
3, 2022, did not change Army Futures Command's (AFC's) role in 
developing warfighting concepts and requirements. Rather, it was issued 
to clarify current roles and responsibilities in Army modernization, 
which involves the contribution of many organizations. Additionally, 
Army Futures Command is an enduring four-star command and will continue 
to play a vital role in defining requirements for new systems to field 
to Soldiers, which in many ways is the most influential part of the 
acquisition process.
    The delivery of new warfighting capabilities requires two 
complementary processes: the definition of requirements for new weapons 
systems, led by the military user and represented by AFC; and the 
development and acquisition of capabilities, led by the Army's 
acquisition professionals and represented by the Assistant Secretary of 
the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology (ASA(ALT)). Prior 
guidance issued in 2018 and 2020 inadvertently blended these 
complementary roles and created ambiguity in the statutory acquisition 
oversight role that Congress vested in the ASA(ALT). The new directive 
signed by the Secretary of the Army on May 3rd codified AFC`s role in 
developing warfighting concepts and requirements and distinguished it 
from ASA(ALT)'s role in the development and acquisition of new 
capabilities. Ultimately, the directive does not remove authorities 
from AFC and ASA(ALT). Instead, it codifies the current execution of 
their functions.   [See page 58.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
    Secretary Wormuth. As of 7 June 2022, 4 of the 14 approved 
religious exemption requests were not already pending separation from 
the Army.   [See page 50.]
     
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                              May 12, 2022

=======================================================================

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

    Mr. Lamborn. The administration's budget requests 85 million 
dollars for unemployment benefits. There has been increased concern 
about lack of soldiers utilizing the Army's Career Skills Program, and 
my office has seen some evidence of commanders restricting second term 
soldiers or highly focusing on first term Soldiers. How many Soldiers 
are currently being turned away from CSP, formally or otherwise, 
including those who are turned down by their installations before being 
able to formally apply?
    Secretary Wormuth. The Army does not track the number of Soldiers 
informally denied participation in the Career Skills Program (CSP), as 
that is determined by unit chain of command. Annually, the Army has 
approximately 6,500 soldiers enrolled in a CSP/Skillbridge Program. Of 
the number enrolled, approximately 75% are enlisted personnel attending 
trade-based programs, and 25% are officers mostly attending individual 
internships. Commanders across the Army are encouraged to allow 
participation in the CSP to the greatest extent possible without 
impacting readiness, ensuring they can maintain their unit's ability to 
meet operational requirements.
    Mr. Lamborn. What operational communities or missions would the 12 
thousand Soldiers be coming from in the Army request to reduce manning?
    General McConville. The Army will use the Total Army Analysis (TAA) 
process to make that determination. TAA accounts for required 
capabilities to address threats across time. The Army Campaign Plan, 
FY23-FY30, addresses Army needs across three lines of effort: people, 
modernization, and readiness. This process ensures we have the quality 
and quantity of personnel necessary to meet operational readiness 
requirements as we modernize and develop the Army of 2030.
    Mr. Lamborn. What is the total number of COVID-19 exemption 
requests? What is the number of religious exemption requests? How many 
exemption requests have been approved? How many religious exemption 
requests have been approved? How many are still pending decision?
    General McConville. As of 8 July 2022, the Army has received 1,092 
requests for permanent medical exemptions, of which 30 have been 
approved and a separate 54 are pending adjudication. The Army has 
received 7,728 requests for religious exemption, of which 19 have been 
approved and 5,942 are currently pending adjudication.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GARAMENDI
    Mr. Garamendi. There is discussion that the Strykers currently 
stationed in Alaska will be replaced with other capabilities. This 
comes as U.S. Army Alaska looks to reorganize to better support their 
INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM missions. When will the Army decide what units 
and capabilities best align to their assigned mission sets? Can U.S. 
Army Alaska effectively be the U.S.'s Arctic Force, and meet competing 
INDOPACOM and NORTHCOM missions sets? When will the Army identify 
equipment requirements to compete in the Arctic?
    Secretary Wormuth. The implementation of the Arctic strategy is a 
multi-year effort to improve the Army's ability to support Combatant 
Command campaign efforts in the Arctic and other extreme cold and 
mountainous environments. By re-aligning existing force structure, the 
Army will tailor the Alaska-based forces to improve capabilities within 
the Arctic environment where they serve. The conversion of 1/25 Stryker 
Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) to an Infantry Brigade Combat Team (IBCT) 
consisting of two maneuver battalions and the establishment of the 11th 
Airborne Division Headquarters provides the foundation for a force that 
is more appropriately manned, trained, and equipped for these 
environments, and enables the reutilization of the Stryker vehicles for 
more appropriate missions. These actions improve operational 
effectiveness and unit cohesion, while also allowing for enhanced 
ability to support both INDOPACOM requirements in the priority theater 
and meeting our number one priority of homeland defense. Our continued 
analysis and increased understanding of Arctic requirements, through 
continued war gaming events and exercises with allies and partners in 
the region, will inform our modernization efforts and be codified in 
future Total Army Analysis and programming efforts.
    Regarding equipment requirements, the Army's FY23 Budget requested 
$102M in support of the Arctic Strategy: $24M for Cold Weather All-
Terrain Vehicle (CATV), $25M for winterization of equipment, $13M for 
exportable combat training center (CTC) support, and $40M for 
organizational clothing and individual equipment (OCIE). With this 
funding we will be able to continue execution of our exportable CTC 
capability, field CATVs to units beginning in FY23, and mitigate some 
shortfalls in clothing and individual equipment. If not funded, the 
Arctic Strategy will be hindered by the lack of proper equipment and 
will impact overall readiness. Additionally, it will be unable to 
outfit all Soldiers assigned to train in or deploy to arctic 
environments elevating risk to Soldier safety.
    Mr. Garamendi. The choices made during the acquisitions process 
when procuring new platforms affect the decades of sustainment that 
follows. One area that affects lifecycle sustainment is what 
intellectual property (IP) and technical data rights are acquired. 
Observers such as the GAO have said that DOD has not always been 
consistent in its acquisition and licensing of IP developed at private 
expense in the past, resulting in ``reduced mission readiness and 
surging sustainment costs'' in some instances. How is the service 
improving how it acquires IP and technical data? How will the service 
balance the cost of procuring IP or technical data during the 
acquisitions process with the long-term sustainment benefits?
    Secretary Wormuth. As weapon systems are increasingly reliant on 
rapidly evolving technologies, commercial components, and software 
content, acquiring and licensing the appropriate intellectual property 
(IP) is vital to ensuring that weapon systems and equipment remain 
functional, sustainable, and affordable over the system's lifecycle. 
Through early planning for sustainment requirements and appropriate 
investment in IP, the Army develops options to enable modernization 
through upgrades and technology insertion, which will improve 
readiness, reduce sustainment costs, and increase operational 
availability across the lifecycle of weapons systems and equipment. In 
recent years, to address the changing technological environment, the 
Army has fundamentally altered its IP approach to ensure this upfront 
and thoughtful planning.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. HARTZLER
    Mrs. Hartzler. We understand the Army's plan is to field nine 
battalions, so a break in production would be bad for the program. We 
understand the need for M-SHORAD systems, especially watching what is 
going on in Ukraine today. Does the Army still plan to field nine M-
SHORAD battalions? Does the Army still plan to field nine M-SHORAD 
battalions?
    Secretary Wormuth. The Army continues to make investments in air 
and missile defense to reduce capacity and capability gaps to support 
the recently published National Defense Strategy. While the Army's plan 
remains to field nine Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) 
battalions, as the Army conducts Total Army Analysis, we will balance 
air defense investments across all Army components, and as part of the 
joint force, to provide the most capable formations in support of the 
Department of Defense.
    Mrs. Hartzler. We understand the Army's plan is to field nine 
battalions, so a break in production would be bad for the program. We 
understand the need for M-SHORAD systems, especially watching what is 
going on in Ukraine today. Does the Army still plan to field nine M-
SHORAD battalions? Does the Army still plan to field nine M-SHORAD 
battalions?
    General McConville. The Army continues to make investments in air 
defense to reduce capacity gaps to support the recently published 
National Defense Strategy. While the Army's plan remains to field nine 
Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) battalions, as the Army 
conducts the Total Army Analysis, we will balance air defense 
investments across all Army components to provide the most capable 
formations in support of the Department of Defense. Secretary Wormuth 
has made Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) one of the Army's 
top modernization priorities.
    Mrs. Hartzler. The Army submitted a request for an additional $275M 
for M-SHORAD systems as part of the Unfunded Priority List for FY23. If 
Congress does not fulfill the Army's request, what is the risk 
associated with not fully funding the M-SHORAD systems for the first 
four battalions?
    If the submitted unfunded requests are not approved, will there be 
a break in the M-SHORAD production line?
    How will the Army mitigate a break in production so there are not 
impacts on future fielding of the urgently needed M-SHORAD capability?
    General McConville. The Army received funding for three complete 
battalions in previous budget cycles. The $275M for the Maneuver Short 
Range Air Defense (M-SHORAD) on the unfunded priorities list (UPL) 
addresses three efforts to reduce capacity gaps. First, the Secretary 
of the Army approved a materiel design change for the M-SHORAD 
Increment 1 system to remove the Hellfire system and replace it with a 
second Stinger Vehicle Universal Launcher (SVUL). The second effort is 
to procure the ten remaining M-SHORAD systems, along with the two 
remaining systems for the Institutional Training Base, to meet the 
directed requirement. Additionally, if the UPL for M-SHORAD is not 
funded, the Army will not meet the fielding of the four M-SHORAD 
battalions or adequately train soldiers on the system. As a result, the 
Army's third effort is to preclude a production gap in Fiscal Year 2025 
(FY25) by funding 12 systems in FY23 (minimum production rate) that 
keeps the production line open. If unfunded, there will be an 
approximate $32.4M of additional funds required in FY24 to restart the 
line.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
    Ms. Speier. Secretary Wormuth, in May 2020, GAO published report 
GAO-20-61, which recommended that ``The Secretary of the Army should 
develop a plan, with clearly defined goals, performance measures, and 
timeframes, to guide and monitor the Army's female active-duty service 
member recruitment and retention efforts. (Recommendation 2).'' DOD 
concurred with this recommendation; however, the GAO recommendation is 
still open because the plan has not yet been completed.
    When does the Army expect to complete the plan requested in 
Recommendation 2 of GAO's May 2020 report on recruitment and retention 
of female service members?
    What progress has the Army made so far in addressing this 
recommendation?
    What actions has the Army taken, and what actions is the Army 
planning to take, to improve recruitment and retention of female 
service members?
    Secretary Wormuth. The Army's officer and enlisted recruitment and 
retention programs are gender neutral. While the Army currently does 
not have any gender specific recruiting mission requirements, it 
continues to focus on ``Quality over Quantity'' recruiting efforts and 
strives to recruit all qualified individuals regardless of race or 
gender, mirroring the diversity and ethnicity of the United States. 
This concerted effort will ensure that Army retention programs recruit 
and retain all Soldiers at comparable rates. To address specific 
concerns, the Army continues its long-term studies on gender 
integration to address unique concerns of women throughout the Army.
    Analysis shows that recruiters generally recruit in their own 
image, so investments to increase the number of female recruiters is 
one effort to actively increase female enlistments. Additionally, U.S. 
Army Recruiting Command makes every attempt to have a woman assigned to 
every recruiting station where feasible. The Army has assigned 1,160 
women as recruiters, and they make up 12.6% of the recruiting force. 
When we return to normal post-COVID operations, the Army plans to 
increase female enlistments by 1% to 2% annually, with the ultimate 
goal of the annual recruited population being at least 25% female 
within the next five years.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Scott. Which one of your Assistant Secretaries of the Army is 
responsible for the Army's explosive ordnance disposal program?
    Secretary Wormuth. While the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Installations, Energy and Environment (ASA(IE&E)) has primary 
responsibility for certain technical aspects of the Army's Explosive 
Ordnance Disposal (EOD) program, other Assistant Secretaries have 
equities as well. For example, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisitions, Logistics and Technology (ASA(ALT)) has responsibility 
for the oversight of research, development, test and evaluation, 
distribution, fielding, and procurement of Army-specific EOD material 
and equipment. The Army currently has a working group exploring options 
to enhance the efficacy of this important program.
    Mr. Scott. The National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal Years 
2019 and 2020 included provisions to transition the U.S. Army Medical 
Research and Materiel Command to the Defense Health Agency no later 
than September 30, 2022. Is the Army committed to completing the 
transition in accordance with the requirements and timeline set forth 
in the National Defense Authorization Act? Is the Army committed to 
providing continued leadership with the necessary subject matter 
expertise at the General Officer level to the Defense Health Agency 
Research and Engineering Directorate to complete the transition of the 
U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command as required by law?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, the Army remains committed to continued 
partnership and collaboration during this transition. However, on 21 
April 2022, the Army submitted a legislative proposal to Congress for 
the Army to retain elements of the U.S. Army Medical Research and 
Development (MRDC) that closely support the Army's Title 10 
authorities. MRDC and the leadership of the Defense Health Agency are 
engaged in multiple transition meetings to comply with existing law and 
to meet the statutory timelines and will comply with any potential 
statutory changes. The Army is committed to the success of DHA and 
fulfilling Title 10 authorities.
    Mr. Scott. The overall FY23 defense budget makes important 
investments into autonomous platforms including in the next generation 
fighting vehicles, the optionally manned fighting vehicle, and unmanned 
surface vehicles. What role do you see autonomous weapon systems 
playing in future ground combat? How do we ensure these systems are 
operations ready to fight a near-peer conflict and our forces fully 
training to execute combat operations in that scenario? What steps are 
being taken to develop trust in these autonomous systems with both the 
warfighter and the American public?
    General McConville. I believe autonomous systems will be 
increasingly employed to reduce risk to soldiers or to accomplish the 
same tasks with fewer soldiers in harm's way. For example, autonomous 
reconnaissance platforms, both air and ground, can be employed to scout 
in front of maneuvering forces to identify where the enemy is or is 
not, or to conduct economy of force operations where the threat of 
enemy action is reduced. Autonomous capabilities may also be able to 
conduct dangerous and complex operations such as mine clearing or the 
breaching of obstacles to optimize maneuver force operations and reduce 
risks to the force.
    Experimentation and training are key to ensuring autonomous 
capabilities can perform assigned tasks and that soldiers and leaders 
know how to best employ and sustain them. Soldiers and leaders will 
develop confidence in autonomous capabilities with the more first-hand 
experience they have. If Soldiers and leaders trust the autonomous 
capabilities of these systems, I believe the American public will too.
    Mr. Scott. According to the GAO, close to 4,000 warfighters died 
due accidents in legacy ground systems between FY10 and FY19. What are 
we doing to increase both the safety and combat survivability and 
capability of these legacy systems to include autonomous upgrades?
    General McConville. Soldier health and safety is a top priority, 
and the Army is committed to improving safety and enhancing force 
protection through multiple programs. Recognizing that the majority of 
these tragic incidents involve the Army's light tactical vehicle (LTV) 
fleet, the Army is prioritizing modernization of its High Mobility 
Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), through the Joint Light 
Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) program. Every JLTV--unlike their 
predecessors--will come equipped with an anti-lock braking system and 
electronic vehicle control (ABS/ESC), integrated front and rear cameras 
to increase driver awareness, and a crew compartment that enables 
increased survivability in the event of an accident. The competitive 
contract for the JLTV is purposely intended to incentivize industry and 
bring additional driver enhancement technologies into the enduring 
solution. Concerning the legacy HMMWV, important efforts underway 
include retrofitting the field with ABS/ESC kits which became standard 
after 2018. This technology, also commercially available, directly 
mitigates rollover accidents and their corresponding risk of fatal or 
serious injury to crew members. The Army is also piloting an effort to 
integrate autonomous capabilities on the Palletized Load System (a 
different section of the Army's wheeled vehicle fleet) in order to 
reduce risk to personnel during logistics missions.
    Mr. Scott. As the world has watched what was considered a superior 
conventional fighting force, the Russian military, struggle to execute 
offensive operations against a smaller and technologically inferior 
Ukraine military, many experts are looking to see if there are lessons 
the United States can learn from this war. We know Russian logistics 
was a complete failure and the Ukrainian people's will to fight has 
imposed a heavy cost on Russian forces. From a technology viewpoint, 
what lessons have you learned from this war--command and control, 
platform vs network-centric warfare, use of artificial intelligence and 
autonomy and modern vs legacy systems?
    General McConville. Command and Control: Events continue to confirm 
the importance of interoperability between joint and partner networks 
and systems, and the impact that a lack of interoperability can have on 
all warfighting functions. Observations of Russian command and control 
challenges reinforces the Army's need to create a modernized, 
integrated network that will enable our commanders and forces to 
achieve a holistic picture of the modern battlefield and enable a 
united joint and multi-national force to cut through the fog of war and 
make informed decisions, quickly. The Army remains on a path to create 
a unified network, which will converge and secure separate networks 
into a modern, integrated global NIPR, SIPR, and MPE environment.
    Platforms v. Network-centric: The Army has also observed the 
importance of operationalizing data, including the value of hybrid 
solutions for data and application hosting, where operational elements 
must have access to both local and off-site computing and data storage 
capabilities. The military, other elements of the federal government, 
and our partners will benefit from a dedicated focus on achieving an 
informational advantage built on resilient ``zero trust'' unified 
networks and data platforms with analytics for decision making, command 
and control, and reliable strategic reach-back. A combined capability 
set hosted locally will also provide higher analytic processing power, 
granting a tactical advantage through its use of faster network-centric 
solutions and enabling commanders to make decisions more rapidly than 
adversaries.
    Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous: The Army and the Joint 
Force have observed some basic uses of AI and autonomous-enabled 
systems by the Russian military similar to observations made in Syria 
and other conflicts over the past decade. These observations include 
Russian use of autonomous drones to enable more accurate targeting and 
the use of AI-enabled internet technologies to enhance Russian dis- and 
mis-information campaigns. Our Army continues to dedicate efforts to 
observe, orient, and react to these systems, including through our 
counter unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) capabilities, information 
advantage efforts, and in cyberspace.
    Modern v. Legacy Systems: We've watched the Ukrainians leverage 
commercial technology, innovate with their legacy systems, and quickly 
adapt to use modern technology and services. Likewise, the U.S Army and 
our allies are integrating legacy programs with new technology and 
commercial services to enhance intelligence, surveillance and 
reconnaissance (ISR) and situational awareness, shorten the speed and 
range of military effects, and enable quick reaction capabilities. The 
Ukrainian forces are adapting fast, and our Army is moving quickly to 
apply those lessons at scale.
    Logistics: At the forefront of lessons observed and learned is 
Russia's failed logistical performance across the spectrum of 
operations. Logistics is the foundation that projects and sustains 
warfighting capabilities. Logistics conducted at speed and at scale 
enables the warfighting capabilities to initiate and maintain momentum 
against the adversary, especially in a protracted conflict. The lessons 
learned from the Russian invasion of Ukraine reiterates the importance 
of our logisticians, sustained investments in replenishment, and the 
continued evolution in logistical doctrine to maintain the Army's 
ability to project and sustain globally.
    Mr. Scott. Under Secretary Heidi Shyu and the White House Science 
and Technology Offices have prioritized of directed energy 
capabilities, and specifically high power microwave technological 
development. How is this being carried over to the development and 
execution of Army's Defense Strategy? How are Directed Energy systems 
being leveraged to meet the priority threats and the capabilities of 
the competition?
    General McConville. The Army is currently executing three Directed 
Energy programs. First, the Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air 
Defense (DE M-SHORAD) is on track to deliver its first combat-capable 
platoon of directed energy weapon systems in the 4th Quarter of FY22 
and will continue delivering prototypes in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD 
is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon system--integrated onto a 
Stryker platform--that protects divisions and brigade combat teams from 
Group 1-3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), rotary-wing aircraft, and 
indirect fire threats. These directed energy weapons are paired with 
kinetic weapons to form an integrated and layered defense. Second, the 
Army will also deliver 300kW-class High Energy Laser (HEL) and High 
Power Microwave (HPM) prototype weapon systems in FY24 as part of the 
Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) battery to support multi-
domain operations. As part of tiered and layered defense for fixed and 
semi-fixed sites, IFPC-HEL and -HPM are designed to counter threats by 
Group 1-3 UASs, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, indirect fire, and 
Group 1-2 UAS swarms.
    Third, in support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role 
as Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-
sUAS), the Army is fielding a 10kW capability in June 2022 for 
deployment OCONUS. This capability is focused on countering threats by 
Group 1-3 UASs, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, and enemy indirect 
fire capabilities. This 10kW capability will be followed by a 20kW 
capability by the end of this year.
    Mr. Scott. Our adversaries and non-state actors alike are rapidly 
proliferating the development and execution of Unmanned Aerial Systems 
(UAS) that pose a real threat to U.S. forces and infrastructure. Is the 
Army seeing an increase in UAS overflight over its personnel and 
installation in the U.S. and overseas? What actions is the Army taking 
to defend against UAS threats? How is the Army addressing the UAS 
threat from the top-down? Is the Army looking at utilizing directed 
energy, to include lasers and high power microwave technology, for base 
security and integration on Army ground vehicles?
    General McConville. A. The number of documented Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (UAS) overflights has increased in both the U.S. and at our 
overseas installations. In turn, increased training and fielding of UAS 
detection systems have enhanced our awareness of the UAS threat and the 
Army's need for continued observation both at home and abroad. As 
directed by the Joint Staff's Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Reporting 
Execute Order, the Army is reporting UAS incidents in a single joint 
database for documentation and enhanced analysis.
    B. As the DOD Executive Agent for Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (C-sUAS), the Army established the Joint C-sUAS Office (JCO) to 
lead the development and integration of emerging Joint C-sUAS 
capabilities, emphasizing rapid innovation, the synchronization of 
material and non-materiel solutions, and fostering partnerships. As one 
of its first actions, the JCO conducted an operational assessment of 
current C-sUAS capabilities and selected ten initial Joint C-sUAS 
systems--which are already proving their effectiveness to detect and 
defeat fixed-wing and quad-copter style sUAS attacks. Additionally, the 
JCO published the first-ever DOD C-sUAS Strategy and its associated 
implementation plan and released joint C-sUAS operational requirements 
to address current and future C-sUAS capabilities. Further, the JCO and 
all military services are working closely with the Army Fires Center of 
Excellence to establish joint training and doctrine required to enhance 
C-sUAS operations.
    Additionally, the JCO is also working with industry leaders to 
modernize current capabilities. As part of this effort, the JCO and 
partner agencies across all services host semi-annual industry 
demonstrations to evaluate emerging technologies that close gaps, 
inform requirements, and promote innovation. The JCO's Rapid Response 
Team is also supporting combatant commanders with in-depth analyses of 
the operational threat environment and providing these commands with 
materiel and non-materiel recommendations that reflect C-sUAS best 
practices.
    The Army is also continuing development of specific programs to 
mitigate specific capability gaps concerning the defense of fixed/semi-
fixed sites and mounted or dismounted configurations. As the efforts 
mature, the Army will continue to inform this committee of our 
progress.
    C. The Army continues to validate, plan, and source counter-small 
unmanned aircraft systems (C-sUAS) capability requirements in support 
of contingency operations around the world. The Army remains focused on 
providing critical C-sUAS capability to divisions in the operational 
force, while also growing protection of vital fixed and semi-fixed 
sites in accordance with current requirements with a goal of 
accelerating the procurement and fielding of C-sUAS division sets to 
the operational force, the Army has programmed funds to begin this 
effort in FY22.
    Beyond our Service-specific efforts to address the unmanned 
aircraft systems threat, the Army also serves as the Department of 
Defense's OS Executive Agent for C-sUAS. In this role, and through the 
Joint C-sUAS Office (JCO), the Army leads and directs the development 
of joint doctrine, requirements, materiel, and training efforts. The 
Army's efforts to identify and develop solutions within a joint 
architecture enhances warfighter capabilities across the DOD.
    D. Yes. The Army is developing directed energy capabilities for 
base security, maneuver fire protection, and for integration onto Army 
ground vehicles. The Army is currently executing three Directed Energy 
programs. First, the Directed Energy Maneuver-Short Range Air Defense 
(DE M-SHORAD) is on track to deliver its first combat-capable platoon 
of four prototype directed energy weapon systems in Fiscal Year 2022. 
DE M-SHORAD is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon system integrated 
onto a Stryker platform, that protects division and brigade combat 
teams from Group 1-3 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), rotary-wing 
aircraft, and indirect fire threats. These directed energy weapons are 
designed to be paired with kinetic weapons for an integrated and 
layered defense.
    Second, as part of a tiered and layered defense of fixed and semi-
fixed sites, the Army will also deliver 300kW-class High Energy Laser 
(HEL) and High Power Microwave (HPM) prototype weapon systems in FY2024 
as part of the Indirect Fires Protection Capability (IFPC) battery to 
support Multi-Domain Operations (MDO). The threat set addressed by 
IFPC-HEL is Group 1-3 UAS, rotary- and fixed-wing aircraft, and 
indirect fires. The threat set addressed by IFPC-HPM is Group 1-2 UAS 
swarms.
    Third, in support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role 
of the Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-
sUAS), the Army is fielding a 10kWatt capability in June 2022 for 
deployment OCONUS. Focused on Groups 1-3 UAS, this fielding will be 
followed by a 20kWatt capability by the end of this year.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK
    Ms. Stefanik. The 10th Mountain Division has been the most deployed 
Army division since 9/11, primarily to CENTCOM. However, having an 
Arctic capable force in Fort Drum does little for the CENTCOM 
Commander. When will the Army know the Arctic requirement for future 
operations? Additionally, can you assure me that as long as the Army 
considers the 10th Mountain Division as an Arctic-capable unit they 
will remain a priority for Arctic modernization efforts?
    General McConville. The Army continues to refine our understanding 
of what we need to be able to do to support the National Defense 
Strategy and Combatant Command Arctic requirements. Our initial efforts 
focus on the formations based in Alaska, with the establishment of the 
11th Airborne Division and re-designation of the supporting brigade 
combat teams. We have conducted a series of exercises and a war game to 
better understand the strategic and operational demands for ground 
forces in the Arctic. The outputs from these and future war games will 
further inform our modernization efforts. Although 10th MTN Division is 
regionally aligned to the CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR), which 
drives their current modernization and equipping path based on CENTCOM-
specific mission and training requirements, the unit is authorized 
Level 7 cold weather gear for use for cold weather training. As we 
conduct further Arctic analysis and exercises, we will develop greater 
fidelity as to the unit's requirements to inform future programming and 
modernization efforts.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KEATING
    Mr. Keating. 1. The Army has repositioned several Patriot and LT 
batteries globally, most notably in the CENTCOM and EUCOM areas of 
responsibility highlighting the increasing demand for the capability 
for each combatant commander. Can you speak to the importance of these 
systems, particularly in combination with the lower-tier air and 
missile defense sensors they are now utilizing?
    a. Are they being utilized in the Ukrainian conflict? i. If so, are 
they proving successful?
    b. In the FY23 budget request, I've noticed that the low tier air 
and missile defense capability is at $328 million, which is similar to 
the fiscal year 2022 enacted amount. In your opinion is this 
sufficient?
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Commander of U.S. 
European Command has repositioned Patriot and short range air defense 
batteries within his area of responsibility in response to the Russian 
invasion of Ukraine. These batteries remain within NATO territory and 
are protecting U.S. forces and our allies in the region. The Army 
provided Ukraine with Stinger missiles and two Sentinel radars that 
were provided as part of presidential drawdowns (PD) 5 & 7. The Lower 
Tier Air & Missile Defense Sensor (LTAMDS) is not currently employed by 
any operational units. There are two LTAMDS prototype radars and both 
are currently at White Sands Missile Range for developmental testing. 
The $328M submitted in the FY23 budget request for the LTAMDS is 
sufficient to meet our current requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON
    Mr. Bacon. After the fall of Kabul it has come to my attention that 
there has been little to no outreach to Gold Star families of those 
killed in the war, and they are struggling. Furthermore, I am concerned 
about the lack of long-term counseling services for Gold Star and 
Surviving families. Does the Army have a strategy to address these 
issues?
    Secretary Wormuth. Currently, survivors have access to multiple 
sources of behavioral health (BH) counseling support that includes non-
medical, primary-care based, and BH specialty-care counseling. The 
Army's Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) webpage has been updated to 
include available virtual BH services for eligible surviving family 
members. The Office of the Surgeon General of the Army (OTSG) and the 
U.S. Army Medical Command (MEDCOM) recommended the continued 
advancement of BH services into the virtual space. Acknowledging the 
growing shortage of BH providers both in the Army and nationwide, OTSG/
MEDCOM spearheaded a total Army assessment of BH professional 
recruitment and retention in October of 2021. The final report is 
currently in staffing. The Army is currently assessing whether 
additional authorities are needed to expand access to medical 
treatment, including mental health treatment, as defined by the 
Secretary of Defense, for surviving children of service members by 
increasing the age limitation to qualify as a dependent child to age 
26. In addition, SOS coordinators are required to reach out and make 
direct contact with at least ten percent of the surviving population 
for the cases they are responsible for overseeing each month in 
addition to fielding inquiries from survivors.
    Mr. Bacon. It has come to my attention that Commanders from all 
three Army Components cannot get access to Gold Star and Surviving 
family's contact information because Army Survivor Outreach Services 
(SOS) will not share contact information due to privacy concerns. We 
are working on making legislative changes to this but would like to 
hear what the Army is doing to address this and ensure that Gold Star 
and Surviving families remain part of each Army unit's outreach and 
community. What is the Army National Guard doing to create best 
practices for casualty processes and outreach to Gold Star and 
Surviving Families? Does the Army National Guard have a list of their 
Gold Star and Surviving Families? Is the CSA tracking that the Army 
Reserves has cut funding to their Survivor Outreach Service program and 
that most of their coordinators have other responsibilities with SOS as 
an additional duty?
    General McConville. A. As the Army is highly sensitive to 
protecting survivors' personal information, any release of Gold Star 
and surviving family member information outside of the Army survivor 
outreach services (SOS) staff is subject to Privacy Act requirements, 
including next of kin written consent. All Army SOS staff within the 
active and reserve components utilize a database called the SOS Module 
to maintain survivor records and case notes. There are no legal or 
policy barriers to commanders coordinating with SOS staff to conduct 
outreach to Gold Star and surviving family members on the command's 
behalf. The Army and the Department of Defense (DOD) recognize that the 
policies and systems put in place in the early 2000s to support 
survivors need to be modernized for the 2020s and beyond. The Army is 
currently collaborating with DOD on a modernized version of the Defense 
Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) which will include both 
a survivor (customer) portal and long-term case management functions. 
This modernization will enhance the operational capability for outreach 
to surviving family members, while meeting the requirements of the 
Privacy Act.
    B. The National Guard Bureau (NGB) maintains 122 survivor outreach 
services (SOS) coordinators throughout 51 of the 54 states and 
territories. Currently the NGB maintains a 99.4% contact rate annually. 
NGB conducts sensing sessions with survivors quarterly at survivor 
events to ensure issues and concerns are addressed. Survivors annually 
receive a personal note from the Commander of the NGB each Memorial Day 
acknowledging their sacrifice and reminding them that our SOS 
coordinators are available for assistance if needed. Additionally, the 
NGB provides new hire training, quarterly training, and annual training 
informed by survivor feedback.
    C. The Army National Guard's SOS coordinators are authorized to 
access information to include lists of Gold Star and surviving families 
through the Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) and 
the SOS Module. Army SOS keeps a list of the National Guard's Gold Star 
and survivor families, which commanders and commands may utilize by 
working with the SOS coordinators who can communicate information to 
surviving family members.
    D. The Chief of Staff of the Army is aware of the funding reduction 
for the Army Reserve's Survivor Outreach Services (SOS) program. The 
funding reduction results from a redesigned service delivery model. In 
FY2020, the Army Reserve transitioned SOS from a contractor-provided 
service model to a government-provided service model. This transition 
reduced the Army's contractual expenditures by approximately $3.2M, 
while also ensuring there was no degradation or disruption to the 
quality of services provided to our survivors. Currently, the Army 
Reserve employs 22 Department of Army civilians (DAC) who serve as SOS 
Coordinators. These SOS Coordinators nationally provide services for 
over 200 county coverage areas. These coordinators manage training and 
outreach efforts to ensure survivors receive quality long term care.
    Mr. Bacon. Is the CSA aware of the FY22 NDAA casualty requirements 
and working group, and what is he doing to be directly involved?
    General McConville. I am aware of the casualty requirements 
outlined in Section 626 of the FY22 NDAA, and am providing oversight of 
the Army Staff representation on the Casualty Assistance Reform Working 
Group established by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 
Readiness. The Working Group is collectively reviewing and providing 
recommendations in 11 task areas. Of these 11 tasks, the Army is the 
lead on two:
    (1) Create standards and training for CAOs/CACOs across the 
military departments, (2) Explore the possibility of establishing a 
unique badge designation for (i) CAOs/CACOs who have performed duty 
more than five times; or (ii) professional CAOs/CACOs.
    Army Casualty and Mortuary Affairs experts are members of multiple 
working groups that are examining ways to improve casualty support 
provided to eligible beneficiaries. Additionally, Army Cemeteries/
Arlington National Cemetery and DCS G-9 Survivor Outreach Services are 
also providing their expertise in multiple sub-work groups, as some of 
the prescribed tasks fall under the scope of their programs and 
expertise.
    Mr. Bacon. As we prepare for the real possibility of a near peer 
conflict, what are we doing to ensure that we have a seamless, easily 
replicated process for casualties in the case of a mass casualty 
scenario?
    General McConville. The Army remains postured to account for its 
war casualties in the event of near peer conflict. Recently, the 
Defense Casualty Information Processing System (DCIPS) underwent a 
refresh to better posture DCIPS to support casualty reporting and 
tracking at the level of large-scale combat operations. The DCIPS 
refresh will allow the Army Service Component Command and assigned 
forces deployed within a joint operations area to quickly and 
accurately report casualties under such conditions. Correspondingly, 
the Army's Casualty and Mortuary Affairs Operations Division, which 
includes the Joint Personal Effects Depot at Dover Air Force Base, have 
Mobilization Table of Distribution and Allowances (TDA) authorizations, 
along with scalable contingency contracts in the event of a near-peer 
conflict. The Mobilization TDA and scalable contracts will enable 
additional personnel and resources to be applied to casualty support 
operations. Additionally, the Army Human Resources Command has staff 
actions prepared to seek applicable exceptions to policy, either at the 
DOD or HQDA level, for limited exceptions to policy to maintain force 
readiness in the event of a large influx of casualties.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
    Ms. Houlahan. What metrics will the Army Recruiting Command utilize 
to assess the effectiveness of its ``Mission Modernization'' policy 
which it recently instituted? How will this program impact the 
effectiveness of each individual recruiter and recruiter team?
    Secretary Wormuth. The three measures of effectiveness of Modern 
Missioning are:
      Recruiter Productivity Rate (the number of gross 
contracts a recruiter produces at any given time),
      Market Penetration (the proportion of enlistments from 
the total of DOD enlistments for a specific geographic region and 
period), and
      Market Share (the number of U.S. Army Recruiting Command 
enlistments per 1,000 qualified military available population of 17-24 
year-olds for a specific geographic region)
    This program will give each recruiter their own distinct market and 
schools from which to conduct recruiting operations. Recruiters will 
become more linked with key terrain, prospects, and influencers; and 
thus, be more effective in each of the 31,000 assigned zip codes. With 
the shrinking pool of candidates who are disposed and qualified to 
serve, the Army must work towards saturating all markets. By assigning 
each recruiter their own recruiting area, each will have a 
corresponding mission accomplishment plan detailing specific 
performance metrics such as number of contacts, appointments, tests, 
and contracts. As recruiter performance is monitored in each of these 
areas, identified strengths and weaknesses can be a point of focus for 
additional training or incentives to maximize effectiveness. Individual 
recruiter improvement will elevate the entire recruiting team.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CROW
    Mr. Crow. The Army has recently removed a significant hurdle 
service women face in obtaining abortions, adopting new guidance just 
as the Supreme Court appears poised to overturn the landmark ruling 
that legalized the procedure nationwide. The Army is moving in the 
right direction by removing commanders' powers to deny leave to service 
members seeking abortion care and only being required to tell their 
commanders that they are taking leave for a medical procedure. In 
addition to this measure, and in light of Roe likely being overturned, 
what else is the Army doing to ensure service members can safely and 
affordably access abortion care, especially for those Soldiers 
stationed in states that plan on completely banning abortion care?
    Secretary Wormuth. The implications of the Supreme Court's Dobbs v. 
Jackson Women's Health Organization decision are complicated and must 
be assessed in light of various state laws and the views of the 
Department of Justice. Additionally, any future actions that the Army 
may take must be aligned with OSD guidance when it is provided. 
Currently, federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to provide 
abortions when the life of the mother is in danger should the fetus be 
carried to term, or when the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. 
Health care providers will continue to follow existing departmental 
policy, and the leadership of military medical treatment facilities 
will implement measures to ensure continued access to care. The Supreme 
Court's decision does not affect the Department's leave policies, and 
existing policy authorizes active duty service members to travel as 
necessary to receive required care, taking into account individual 
privacy concerns. As always, the Army seeks to take every action within 
our authority to ensure the safety and health of each and every member 
of our team.
    Mr. Crow. Energy Resiliency is a vitally important factor 
supporting the Army's ability to fight and win our nation's wars. The 
Army has taken meaningful steps towards addressing climate change in a 
serious manner. With the Army Climate Strategy, one of the developments 
I find important is the effort to install micro-grids on every Army 
installation by 2035. Can you provide an update on the microgrid 
installation process and speak to any specific installations that have 
begun this effort?
    Secretary Wormuth. Multi-domain operations require Army 
installations to have secure and reliable access to energy to achieve 
mission objectives. Because of their role in critical defense missions 
and preparing and deploying forces, Mission Assurance Installations, 
Power Projection Platforms, and Mobilization Force Generation 
Installations have priority for energy resilience investments such as 
microgrids. The Army is also actively seeking to install microgrids 
where assured access reviews determine that existing microgrid 
components are already present, making microgrid creation more cost-
effective. The table below provides a summary of current planned Army 
microgrid development efforts through Fiscal Year 2024: 6 microgrid 
projects are in construction, 10 in design, 5 pending congressional 
approval, and 9 in early planning stages.
    Mr. Crow. As of late April, the Pentagon said it had sent Ukraine 
over 1,400 Stinger systems and over 5,500 Javelin systems which has 
significantly depleted U.S. stockpiles of these systems. The Stinger 
has been out of production for the U.S. military for 18 years and 
because the system's design is so old, some of its components are 
obsolete and nearly impossible to source. Last month, Raytheon CEO Greg 
Hayes said that the company would likely need to redesign some 
electronics in Stinger's seeker and missile head. How is the Department 
of the Army working with industry to ensure that the U.S., Ukraine and 
other allies will have access to additional Stinger systems in a likely 
protracted conflict with Russia? In addition, how is the Department of 
the Army assisting industry with scaling up Javelin production 
facilities so that critical demand can be met?
    Secretary Wormuth. For Stinger missiles, we are addressing 
inventory shortages on multiple fronts. The Army has awarded two 
contracts to Raytheon: one for new production that will replenish the 
1,468 directed to the Ukraine by the presidential drawdowns, and a 
second contract to address the obsolescence of the driver within the 
missile seeker. We also initiated refurbishment of unserviceable 
missiles through McAlester Army Ammunition Plant to increase our 
serviceable inventory. In addition to this investment, the Army is 
working with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to identify 
possible areas to invest in over the next two years to increase 
production capacity. These combined efforts will mitigate U.S. Army 
Stinger inventory pressures until the next generation Soldier Portable 
Air Defense missile system can be introduced into the Department of 
Defense inventories.
    For the Javelin missile, we are negotiating contract modifications 
with the Javelin Joint Venture (Raytheon/Lockheed Martin partnership) 
to increase production capacity from an optimized 850 to 2,100 missiles 
annually and to accelerate initial production capacity for the new G-
model missile in FY24.
    Mr. Crow. Cyber and Space are two domains in which the Army is 
heavily investing, including establishing new formations. a. To what 
extent is the Army working with the other services and Joint Staff to 
develop equipment for offensive and defensive cyber operations? b. Now 
that the Army has transitioned the majority of its space personnel to 
the Space Force, what efforts do you envision remaining Army core 
competencies when it comes to the Space domain?
    Secretary Wormuth. A. The U.S. Army has worked extensively with 
U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM), the Joint Staff, and the other services 
to develop capabilities supporting USCYBERCOM's Joint Cyber Warfighter 
Architecture (JCWA). Army requirements for offensive and defensive 
cyberspace operations are validated in the Joint Capabilities 
Integration and Development System (JCIDS). Unique tools/capabilities 
are also validated in USCYBERCOM's requirements and registry process. 
The Army has developed numerous tools/capabilities that have been 
shared with other services. The Army coordinates and collaborates at 
various levels of effort depending on the tool/capability and the 
service equity/mission, including serving as the lead component for 
development on several joint programs.
    The Army is also responsible for leading a geographically oriented 
Joint Force Headquarters Cyber for three Combatant Commands. As such, 
the Army provides tools and capabilities specific to those missions.
    B. The Army is currently transferring its communications satellite 
payload planning and control, as well as planning the eventual transfer 
of its theater missile warning and battlespace characterization 
function and related formations to the Space Force. Despite these 
transfers, the Army is retaining core organic space capabilities 
designed to meet service-unique needs to deny adversary intelligence, 
surveillance, reconnaissance, and communications; enable navigation 
warfare; and effectively employ long-range precision fires. The Army 
will continue to retain space professionals who have developed 
expertise in support of ground operations and the application of space 
technology. These professionals will continue to advise Army leaders 
and they will be able to identify and define requirements for future 
and emerging space capabilities in support of ground operations to 
maintain the warfighter's information advantage contributing to the 
effectiveness of ground operations. The Army space team, including 
Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Futures Command, is also 
experimenting with a variety of space-based and high-altitude systems 
through Project Convergence and other research and development 
activities, in coordination with Space Force and Interagency partners, 
to satisfy Army-specific requirements.
    Mr. Crow. I am pleased to see that the Army has taken the steps to 
establish the ACFT as the physical fitness test of record. I understand 
that it is a much more comprehensive indicator of a Soldier's physical 
fitness. One of the concerns that I have is the Army moving back to 
gender-based scoring. With more women joining the ranks of our combat 
units and elite organizations, has the Army considered the perception 
of women in these units when it comes to different scoring standards 
from their male counterparts and will it seek to mitigate these 
concerns as it rolls out the final version of the ACFT?
    Secretary Wormuth. After the review of an independent RAND study 
required by Congress (FY21 NDAA), combined with the information 
gathered by the Army from nearly 630,000 ACFT scores, and three years 
of ongoing analysis and Soldier feedback, Army leaders determined that 
the ACFT would be implemented as a general physical fitness test. The 
recent revisions to the ACFT maintain the Army's strong commitment to a 
culture of physical fitness, for all demographics and MOSs alike.
    Key changes include:
      Moving from a gender and age neutral standard, to 
performance-normed standards, based on age and gender, similar to the 
previous Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) with 20 groups varied by age 
and gender.
          The Army will use the ACFT as a general fitness 
        assessment for the Total Army, not related to job-specific 
        physical demands, as opposed to an occupational test.
      The removal of the Leg Tuck with the Plank as the sole 
core exercise.
          RAND observed that the leg tuck was not an accurate 
        predictor of core streongth for all Soldiers. The leg tuck 
        requires a minimum pre-requisite upper body strenogth that made 
        it impossible to measure core strength in all Soldiers.
          In response, the ACFT now uses the plank as the sole 
        exercise to assess core strength, using recognized standards 
        from sister-services as a baseline and modifying the scales 
        based on the Army's point system.
          Moving to the plank allows the Army to verify that 
        the ACFT properly measures all Soldiers' core strength equally, 
        and ensures Soldiers have a similar testing experience and 
        opportunity to succeed during every event of the ACFT.
          The leg tuck is still a great holistic core exercise 
        and is still encouraged as part of unit training outlined in 
        ATP 7-22.02.
      The addition of the 2.5-mile walk as an alternate ACFT 
aerobic event.
      A phased implementation for recording test scores to 
allow Soldiers a minimum of six months to train in order to increase 
training opportunities, minimize potential for injuries, and ensure 
maximum performance using the Army's H2F resources.
      The establishment of an ACFT governance body, working 
with RAND, to continue assessing test data, assess impacts to Soldiers, 
and recommend future modifications, as appropriate.
    The Army has commissioned analytic support from RAND to assess data 
from the revised ACFT following implementation in April 2022, which 
will inform the Army's oversight of the ACFT in the future. With these 
changes, the Army expects that the ACFT will have the same impact on 
recruiting and retention as the previous APFT. The Army has established 
an ACFT governance board to continue to assess test data and monitor 
impacts, and this governance board will deliver an assessment to the 
Secretary of the Army in April 2023.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. GREEN
    Dr. Green. What percentage of Army BCTs are at the highest levels 
of tactical readiness now?
    General McConville. As of 15 April 2022, 77% of Army Active 
Component BCTs are at the highest levels of tactical readiness. If the 
assessment includes Active Component deployed BCTs, the rate increases 
to 84%.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FRANKLIN
    Mr. Franklin. In December 2021, the Biden administration signed an 
executive order stipulating that the entire Federal Government, to 
include the DOD, would be required to only acquire ``100 percent zero-
emission'' vehicles by 2035. The EO also states the requirement for 
``net-zero emissions from Federal procurement no later than 2050.'' 
Please confirm whether this requirement will apply to military tactical 
vehicles.
    Secretary Wormuth. The Army is committed to reducing the energy 
consumption of the force. Executive Order (EO) 14057 does not exempt 
our tactical fleets from the requirement to acquire only zero-emission 
vehicles by 2035, but it does provide a process for the head of an 
agency to grant waivers under certain conditions, one of which is in 
the interest of national security. The Secretary of Defense, as the 
agency head, has indicated there will be no blanket waivers for 
tactical and combat systems, and any waivers will be narrowly tailored 
based on available technology and market conditions to ensure the 
Department's decarbonization efforts align with operational readiness 
needs. The Army will ensure our future vehicle acquisitions meet 
warfighter needs while being mindful of the EO requirement to implement 
its purposes and goals ``to the maximum extent practicable and without 
compromising national security.''
    As outlined in the Army Climate Strategy, the Army's objective is 
to field purpose-built hybrid-drive tactical vehicles by 2035, and all-
electric tactical vehicles by 2050. We expect the electrification of 
tactical and combat fleets to reduce fuel consumption by over 20%. 
Near-term Army developments to electrify the fleet are progressing. 
Multiple vehicle demonstrators with anti-idle technologies or hybrid-
electric drivetrains are being tested, which informs the Army about the 
maturity of the technology.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCCLAIN
    Mrs. McClain. Right now, U.S. Army soldiers are deploying to Europe 
as part of our Armored Brigade Combat Teams, which include a Vietnam 
era armored personnel carriers, the M113, which was designed in the 
early 60's. This is a vehicle that has been criticized for its lack of 
maneuverability and survivability, so much so, that Army commanders in 
Iraq would not allow it in combat. In order to address this urgent 
capability gap, the Army Next Generation Combat Vehicle cross function 
team identified Army's modernized personnel carrier, the Armored Multi-
Purpose Vehicle or AMPV, as its top priority. The need for this vehicle 
was so strong that the previous administration considered producing it 
at 2 brigade sets per year. Yet, the recently published FY23 
President's Budget Request only requested half a brigade set, despite 
the capacity to manufacture at a higher rate. This decision sends a 
clear statement to soldiers that the department has once again deferred 
both safety and capability while asking soldiers to bear the risk of 
their budget based decision.
    Are you comfortable with soldiers deploying with the M113?
    How do you justify the decision not to replace them as quickly as 
possible?
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army is on schedule 
to deliver the first brigade set of Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicles 
AMPVs in FY23. The Army remains committed to replacing M113s within our 
formations as quickly as possible given fiscal constraints and 
competing modernization requirements.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. JACKSON
    Dr. Jackson. We need to ensure we have the medical personnel with 
the right readiness levels needed to support any future operation in 
which a MEDEVAC could be necessary.
    Secretary Wormuth, will the cuts to the Army's end-strength effect 
the Army's medical readiness capabilities? Further, how important is 
medical manning to the Army's foundational priorities of People, 
Readiness and Modernization?
    Secretary Wormuth. No, the cuts to the Army's end-strength will not 
affect the Army's medical readiness capabilities. Medical readiness and 
manning is a critical requirement Army leadership frequently discuss 
with the Surgeon General of the Army in order to ensure that we have 
the right people, in the right location to meet the Army's, and in 
multiple locations, the joint forces' needs. Additionally, the Army 
Medical Department continues to actively recruit and retain America's 
best and brightest medical providers to ensure that the Army is 
medically ready and has a ready medical force able to help the Army 
fight and win the Nation's wars. Army leadership is extremely proud of 
our military providers and the unique capabilities they bring to our 
force and provide our service members and families all around the 
world.
    Dr. Jackson. General McConville, with the decision expected later 
this year for which FLRAA aircraft the Army will select, would 
additional funding over the President's Budget Request be helpful for 
the program to sustain momentum as it moves into the next phase of the 
procurement process?
    General McConville. At this time, the Army's Future Long Range 
Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) is fully funded in the FY23 president's budget 
request and additional funding is not needed to sustain program 
momentum.
    Dr. Jackson. General McConville, because the Future Attack 
Reconnaissance Aircraft will be a critical part of a potential conflict 
in the Indo-Pacific, could you please explain the cuts to the program 
in the budget and what does this setback mean overall for the Army's 
Future Vertical Lift modernization effort and priorities?
    General McConville. The Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft 
(FARA) funding requirements decreased in FY23 due to reduction in 
certain up-front costs associated with development as this reflects the 
current status of the competitive prototyping process. The FARA program 
has completed the design, build, and initiation of flight test 
demonstration as part of the Army's competitive prototyping process. 
The FY23 funding will support the continued use of government furnished 
equipment and the modular open system approach, as well as the weapons 
system's preliminary design efforts. The Army remains committed to the 
development and fielding of the FARA.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    Mr. Fallon. I understand that the Army Rapid Capabilities and 
Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) is leading the U.S. Army's 
Directed Energy Maneuverable Short-Range Air Defense, or DE M-SHORAD 
program. Given the recent live fire results of DE M-SHORAD 
demonstrating combat utility, what are we doing to make sure that we 
are getting these to our commanders in the field and our allies as 
quickly as possible?
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army is on track to 
deliver its first combat-capable platoon of four prototype directed 
energy weapon systems--Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense 
(DE M-SHORAD)--to the 4-60th Air Defense Artillery in Fort Sill, 
Oklahoma in the 4th Quarter of FY22 and continue delivery of prototypes 
in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD is a 50kW-class laser prototype weapon 
system integrated onto a Stryker platform, that protects Divisions and 
Brigade Combat Teams from Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS); rotary-wing 
aircraft; and rocket, artillery and mortar (RAM) threats. Following the 
Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office's (RCCTO) 
successful combat shoot-off event at Fort Sill in June 2021, RCCTO 
exercised the option to buy the additional three prototypes to equip a 
platoon no later than the end of FY22. In March 2022, the DE M-SHORAD 
weapon system further demonstrated system capabilities against UAS and 
RAM threats during system characterization activities at White Sands 
Missile Range, NM. The team continues to make great strides in 
equipping the first platoon and looks forward to participating in 
Project Convergence 22 later this year.
    Mr. Fallon. What are your acquisition and deployment plans for this 
DE M-SHORAD? When can we expect DE M-SHORAD to move to a program of 
record to maintain our technological edge? Are there additional 
resources you need to accelerate this program?
    Secretary Wormuth. The program path forward is to deliver the first 
platoon to 4-60th Air Defense Artillery (ADA) Battalion at Fort Sill, 
OK, in 4th Quarter of Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) and continue delivery of 
prototypes in FY23 and FY24. DE M-SHORAD is projected to transition 
from the Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies (RCCTO) to 
Program Executive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space in FY25 and we are 
developing acquisition strategies to transition into a program of 
record once PEO Missiles and Space assumes responsibility. No 
additional resources are needed at this time.
    Mr. Fallon. DE M-SHORAD high energy laser maturity should have 
wider applicability across the Department of Defense. For example, the 
U.S. Air Force and USMC will also require low-cost, logistically light 
protection from UAS and RAM attacks for Agile Combat Employment and 
Ground based Air Defense. How are the other services working with the 
Army to leverage the maturity on DE M-SHORAD?
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. At this time, the 
Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense System (DE M-SHORAD) 
is an Army effort; however, the Army welcomes future collaboration with 
the other Services on DE M-SHORAD so they could leverage our 
development in this area if it meets their operational needs. The Army 
is a participant in the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and 
Engineering-led Directed Energy Working Group, a collaborative effort 
directed by Congress in the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense 
Authorization Act, designed to synchronize and share directed energy 
technologies across the Department of Defense. The Army Rapid 
Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office also partners with the 
Joint Counter-small Unmanned Aircraft Systems Office (JCO) to support 
semi-annual demonstrations of C-sUAS technologies to evaluate emerging 
technologies that close gaps, inform requirements, and promote 
innovation.
    In support of the Joint Force and as part of the Army's role of 
Executive Agent for Counter small-Unmanned Aircraft Systems (C-sUAS), 
the Army is fielding a 10 kilowatt capability focused on countering 
groups of 1-3 UAS in June 2022 and deploying it OCONUS. This will be 
followed by a 20 kilowatt capability by the end of this year.
    Mr. Fallon. Over the life of the HMMWV Anti-lock Brake System and 
Electronic Stability Control Program it has been perpetually 
underfunded. Last year, the Army seemed intent on continuing this 
trend. However, Congress stepped in to authorize and appropriate an 
additional $183 million to rectify this. This year's budget request of 
$10 million and UPL of $50 million falls tragically short. Why is the 
Army accepting such a high level of risk by not adequately funding this 
program when it could have prevented deaths as recently as last month?
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville. The Army takes the safety 
of our soldiers, civilians, and their families very seriously and the 
loss of any soldier in training is tragic and unacceptable. The Army 
recognizes the need to equip the light tactical vehicle fleet with 
anti-lock brake system and electronic stability control (ABS/ESC) 
capability, while also modernizing our force for large scale ground 
combat operations and multi-domain operations against near-peer threats 
within the budget we are given.
    While we use training enhancement to address most factors affecting 
HMMWV safety, we have also developed a three-pronged material approach 
to complement the training. We are procuring new Joint Light Tactical 
Vehicles (JLTV), manufactured with ABS/ESC capability, to replace a 
large portion of our HMMWV fleet. We are also procuring new HMMWVs 
manufactured with ABS/ESC capability to replace some of our aging 
HMMWVs. Finally, we are procuring ABS/ESC kits that can be retrofitted 
on HMMWVs currently in use by our soldiers. In FY23, we invested 
heavily in the modernization prong of our approach by investing over 
$700M in JLTVs, an increase of over $100M from FY22.
    Concurrently, and in accordance with the July 2021 Government 
Accountability Office report, these vehicle safety efforts coincide 
with our development and implementation of an improved driver's 
training program designed to prevent vehicle accidents.
    Mr. Fallon. What are your acquisition and deployment plans for this 
DE M-SHORAD? When can we expect DE M-SHORAD to move to a program of 
record to maintain our technological edge? Are there additional 
resources you need to accelerate this program?
    General McConville. The Army is on track to deliver its first 
combat-capable platoon of four prototype directed energy weapon 
systems--Directed Energy Maneuver Short Range Air Defense (DE M-
SHORAD)--to the 4-60th Air Defense Artillery in Fort Sill, Oklahoma in 
the 4th Quarter of FY22 and continue delivery of prototypes in FY23 and 
FY24. DE M-SHORAD is projected to transition from the Rapid 
Capabilities and Critical Technologies (RCCTO) to Program Executive 
Office (PEO) Missiles and Space in FY25 and we are developing 
acquisition strategies to transition into a program of record once PEO 
Missiles and Space assumes responsibility. No additional resources are 
needed at this time.

                                  [all]