U.S. Representative Rob Wittman (R-VA), Chairman of the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, delivered the following opening remarks at a hearing on Army modernization plans and investment programs for combat and tactical vehicles, artillery and long range fires programs, individual soldier equipment, ammunition and munitions including tactical missiles, as well as combat service support systems in the fiscal year 2024 budget request.
Rep. Wittman's remarks as prepared for delivery:
I want to thank the witnesses for testifying on the Army modernization strategy for fiscal year 2024.
The Army has been particularly harmed by the President's budget request for fiscal year 2024 and force structure and force modernization have served as the bill payer for the President's domestic priorities. With essentially a flat budget from last year, inflation will provide a 5% reduction in real procurement for the Army. For example, fiscal year 2024 budget request for brigade equipping has been particularly limited for Army including a 60% reduction in Abrams tanks and a 50% reduction in Stryker and Paladin howitzers. While I look forward to further discussions with our witnesses today, I am convinced that Congress will need to step in and once again reverse this dangerous trajectory offered by the administration.
I am also concerned about the lack of INDOPACOM prioritization by the budget request. RAND recently completed a report that indicated "large-scale maneuver forces may be relevant for the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Korean peninsula but are difficult to envision for a China-specific contingency." RAND was particularly critical of reductions in logistics connectors, ISR capabilities and communication networks. RAND further questioned Army's long range precision fires and Army's ability to use this capability effectively in theater. I share many of these concerns with the Department's ability to respond to Chinese provocation and Army's ability to adequately support the joint force and I look forward to shaping an Army that is relevant to the INDOPACOM area.
As we work to enhance the Army's lethality and relevance to contend with the challenges we face today, every dollar must go further and deliver superior value; this requires evaluating programs for technology maturation and feasibility. Another Army modernization priority has been an Integrated Visual Augmentation System or "IVAS". Previous iterations of IVAS have left the majority of soldiers reporting at least one symptom of physical impairment to include disorientation, dizziness, eyestrain, heads, motion sickness, nausea, neck strain, and tunnel vision. We have already spent $1.5 billion on this program and in April 2022, the DOD Inspector General completed an audit citing concerns that this program "could result in wasting up to $21.9 billion in taxpayer funds to field a system that Soldiers may not want to use, or use as intended." I am particularly concerned about a product that would cost over $60 thousand per soldier and think that the IVAS system needs to be carefully scrutinized to ensure that soldier lethality is enhanced and that Army's limited budget is maximized.
I also want to discuss Army's arbitrary climate strategy and the almost $200 million proposed in the budget request for tactical vehicles. When Army decided to publish their climate strategy that would require "fully electric tactical vehicles by 2050", I was particularly troubled. I support investments that provide a reasonable return on taxpayers investments and innovations that increase soldier lethality. Unfortunately, the budget request appears to be yet another Presidentially driven investment strategy that may ultimately reduce soldier lethality and degrade our national security in the near-term.
But all is not bad. For example, I am supportive of the administration's budget request for conventional munitions. It is a bold request to address the particularly decrepit state of the munitions industrial base and meet the long-term munition objectives of our partners and allies. Still, we must continue to ask hard questions. For example, the weapons accounts have historically been rife with boom/bust spending sprees to address critical munitions shortfalls. My fear is that a 500% increase in 155mm artillery rounds may not be sustainable and that a longer term plan to restore production may be a better strategy. Additionally, Ukraine has also taught us that the timeframe for conflict have been particularly undervalued. Rosy projections of reduced conflict timelines, that limited critical munitions requirements, were particularly misguided. The Total Army Munitions Requirement needs to be significantly overhauled to ensure that Army is able to respond tonight to worldwide military provocation.
There is much to discuss at this hearing and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.
