Opening Statement (As Prepared)

Click here to stream the hearing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, Chairman Wittman, Ranking Member Norcross, and Chairman Bergman, for your partnership and leadership on issues affecting the Organic Industrial Base. And thank you to the witnesses for your service and participation today. 

The war in Ukraine demonstrated both the strengths and the gaps in the ability for the Organic Industrial Base, or the OIB, to surge in response to a conflict. However, many of those gaps are not new — they are the result of decades of inconsistent and insufficient investment. Much of the OIB’s infrastructure dates to World War II. The state of these facilities impacts the ability of the workforce to reset equipment, sustain combat systems, and ensure that the warfighter has what they need, when they need it. If we are serious about readiness and about supporting the soldier in the field, we must be equally serious about modernizing the facilities that sustain them. To the Army’s credit, it has developed a 15-year plan to invest $18 billion in modernizing the OIB. I look forward to receiving more details about this plan, including how the FY27 budget reflects this commitment. 

Modernization is not just about facilities — it is about people. There are over 16,000 skilled artisans across the Organic Industrial Base. Over the past year, this committee has heard concerns that resignation programs, hiring freezes, and reductions in permanent positions have strained depot capacity to perform critical ground vehicle maintenance and overhauls. The modernization plan must be driven by validated workload requirements and measurable readiness outcomes — not arbitrary workforce reductions. The Army needs a deliberate workforce strategy that recruits, trains, and retains the skilled employees required to sustain the force over the long term.

Lastly, is the issue of technical data rights. Across the services, limited access to technical data has restricted the ability to maintain taxpayer-funded weapons systems. For the Army, restricted access to technical data has been a significant contributor to declining mission capable rates of its ground vehicle fleet. This, combined with supply chain issues in getting the critical parts needed, is why maintenance costs have increased while mission capable rates have decreased over the last decade. 

 As we work towards FY27, I look forward to seeing how the Army’s modernization plan will increase mission capable rates, sustain the workforce, and incorporate the rights to technical data to perform maintenance on our assets. Thank you, and I look forward to the discussion.