Opening Statement:
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Chairman Tester and esteemed members of the subcommittee: This is my final testimony as the 29th Chief of the National Guard Bureau. It has been the honor of my life for Kelly and I, our Senior Enlisted Advisor, Tony Whitehead, and all of team 29 to represent the soldiers, airmen, and families of the National Guard. I'm proud of their service and sacrifices, and I'm grateful for this subcommittee's efforts and support.
I'd also like to thank the subcommittee for robust and reliable National Guard and Reserve Equipment account (NGREA) funding that supports our overall readiness. Our nation's investment in the National Guard comes at a pivotal moment. Our strategic competitors are seeking advantages in every domain. If we are to compete, and if necessary, prevail in combat, we must invest in our people. Specifically, our people include our pilots, maintainers, and support personnel working in our fighter squadrons.
As a recent RAND study concluded, many have nearly double the experience of their active counterparts, and we operate our aircraft at significantly less cost. Providing capability and capacity we must retain, at a time when the global demand for fighters grows ever louder. Pilots and maintainers cannot be rapidly replaced or regenerated. Maintaining all 25 existing Air Guard fighter squadrons is essential to keep pace with global demands.
Additionally, the cap on active Guard and Reserve positions, and a federal technician program that is no longer competitive in today's economic environment, must be addressed to ensure we have the full-time personnel required to ensure our formations, who are predominantly part-time soldiers and airmen, remain deployable, sustainable, interoperable, and ready. Meanwhile, every member of our force must be medically ready to fight and win our nation's wars or respond to our communities in the time of need.
However, not all Guardsmen have consistent access to health care. All National Guard and Reserve component service members, regardless of status, need medical and dental health care benefits. This is a matter of addressing affordable access, a matter of recruiting and retention, and a matter of duty to the Guardsmen who serve and sacrifice for our nation. When we ask them to step on the field, we have to make sure they're medically ready to play their position.
The National Guard is a dynamic operational force that is integral to the success of the National Defense Strategy, and I will continue working with the subcommittee to build the combat-capable National Guard our country needs. With your continued help, we will keep our promise to America. Promise to be always ready, always there. Thank you for your time, your friendship, and your support.
I look forward to your questions.
Question 1:
Senator Jon Tester:
Each year, Congress adds hundreds of millions of dollars to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account. It is important to us to make sure you have modern equipment so you're ready when you're called upon. This money is an addition; it is an addition to the Department's budget request and recognition that the active forces usually have first pick.
That said, it is concerning to me that despite the funding gaps each of you have, these funds are spent very, very slowly. A couple of things: I'd love to have you explain that. And then I would also love to have you explain how this budget process can become more effective and more efficient. What could you do better? What can we do better? We'll start with you, General Hokanson. We'll go in the same order as you spoke.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Yes, Chairman. As in my written statement, my opening statement as well, NGREA is absolutely fundamental to the readiness of the National Guard. It allows us not only to find commercial off-the-shelf solutions—80 percent of the solution at 20 percent of the cost—but it also allows us to purchase equipment that the services don't have the resources to do, which directly impacts our readiness. In terms of the budgeting process, Chairman, any time we have a continuing resolution (CR) for any period of time, it has a significant impact on our organization—not only readiness, but equipment, Military Construction (MILCON), everything, particularly the state partnership funding, as we're not allowed to access it until the CR ends. So any help that we can get to eliminate the CRs would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Question 2:
Senator Jon Tester:
This question is for you, General Hokanson. The National Guard is now in the seventh year of serving on the Southern Border in support of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. During that time, things have gotten worse under the administration's failed border policies. So General Hokanson, I'm going to ask the same question I asked Secretary Austin when he was in front of this committee last month: How many Guards personnel are currently serving on the Southern Border, and what does this mean for Guardsmen’s operational readiness for other duties?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Chairman, when we look at it, we're about just under 2,500 Guardsmen on the Southwest Border under Title 10, serving under U.S. Northern Command. As I've expressed within the building as well, there is no military training value for what we do. This is a law enforcement mission under the Department of Homeland Security. I know that we're providing additional support along there. But for our Guardsmen there, they might as well be deployed to Kuwait or somewhere overseas because they're away from their families. They're doing mission sets that are not directly applicable to their military skill set. And so it increases their personal operational tempo. And that time, I think, would be better utilized building readiness to deter our adversaries.
Question 3:
Senator Susan Collins:
General Hokanson, you've stated that one of your top priorities is the need to recapitalize the Air National Guard's fighter fleet because a disproportionate number of new fighter aircraft procured by the Air Force are delivered to active-duty units rather than to Guard or Reserve units that comprise the total Air Force. This disproportionate fielding of aircraft also affects other kind of aircraft as well. For example, I understand that the current KC-46A basing plan would place 71 percent of the new KC-46s with the active units, 14 percent with Reserve units, and 15 percent with Guard units. Now that is the plan, even though the Guard flies about 38 percent of all Air Force tanker aircraft. So, could you explain why this allocation is done this way, and also give me your opinion on whether the fielding of new aircraft, in a manner that would be concurrent and more proportional, would help improve the operational readiness of the Guard and the total force?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Vice Chair Collins, that is a great question. So, if you look at where we are today, as you mentioned, the Guard's about 37 percent of the aerial refueling. So, we are being fielded concurrently; we're just not being fielded proportionately. So, under the current plan, from the 183 KC-46s, 32 will go to the Guard. So, we'll go from 37 percent down to about 16 to 17 percent of the new aircraft.
The reason why this is concerning to me is a current or recent RAND study looked at the operational rates of Guard and active-duty units. And we still meet the same readiness requirements, but we operate at about 34 percent less of the cost of the KC-135, and we think it would be similar on the KC-46. So, the end result is, I think by not putting more in the Guard and Reserve, it's going to be more expensive. And a lot of our experience and capability reside there in the Guard.
Senator Susan Collins:
I think that's a really important point that it's going to be more expensive, and plus, that's where the capability is. Thank you.
Question 4:
Senator Jeanne Shaheen:
The Senate Armed Services Committee enacted historic reforms several years ago to address Sexual Assault and Harassment in the military, including taking those offenses out of a service member's chain of command. That was the result of years of work on that issue. Unfortunately, as we have discussed, these reforms don't necessarily apply to the National Guard, given the state and local jurisdiction of National Guard units. And some states have adopted similar reforms on the state level, but some haven’t. And instances of Sexual Harassment in the Guard continues to be an issue, including in my home state of New Hampshire. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes legislation that I was pleased to introduce to require the Defense Advisory Committee to study this issue and to report to Congress, and we appreciated the help we got from your office in drafting that legislation. And also to strengthen the Office of Complex Investigations and their ability to look at command climate as part of the investigations. So the Guard Bureau can play a really important role in looking at this issue. Can you talk about how you, and whoever succeeds you, will be able to use your position as Chief of the National Guard Bureau to incentivize states to take active measures to address this issue?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator Shaheen, this is one of the priority things that I'll share with my successor when that person’s named. But at the end of the day, Sexual Assault is absolutely not anything ever condoned within any aspect of the U.S. military. And we have to use every tool we have available to us to ensure that we rid that from our formations.
Now, you can look at the statistics—they have gone down this year—but until they get to zero, we'll always have work to do. So we'll utilize our Prevention Workforce that we're hiring now. Also, our Office of Complex Investigations to help states bridge that gap between the state law and the federal law, depending on the duty status they're in.
Our General Counsel is very involved in that. And as we've seen with New Hampshire, we'll send staff assistance teams to go out there to take a look at their program and make recommendations. And we follow up with those as well because at the end of the day, we have to eliminate this from our formations. And so I think everybody here on this table understands just how important that is. And I don't think there's anything that we're not doing to help promote that.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen:
Are there other measures that you think the Congress should take to better encourage states to take action and to better support efforts that the Guard can undertake?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator, fully funding our Prevention Workforce is one thing to make sure so that we've got those folks in every brigade, every wing, so that any soldier or airman knows exactly who to go to get the help they need, but also to help identify inappropriate behaviors that were made, so we can basically end it well beforehand and identify those potential perpetrators.
Senator Jeanne Shaheen:
Well, thank you. I think it's an, as you know, an ongoing issue that we've got to continue to work hard to address.
Question 5:
Senator Jerry Moran:
General Hokanson, let me follow up. We begin with Senator Collins’ questions of you. I would add some additional thoughts on the KC-46A basing. A recent RAND study shows that the Reserve component pilots are more experienced and cost-effective than their active-duty counterparts. The study recommends that the Air Force reevaluate its bed-down plans for the KC-46A to maintain an efficient balance between Active and Reserve components. In your best military advice, does the Air Force's current KC-46A basing plan adequately equip the Air Guard fleet to maximize the benefits highlighted in the RAND assessment?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator Moran, thank you for the question, and Sir, when we look at concurrent proportional, I don't think it does. We're currently 37 percent of the aerial refueling fleet, but the KC-46 plan has us going to about 16 to 17 percent. And when you look at the fact we operate our KC-135 at 34 percent less cost than the active component, I would argue by putting more in the active-duty, you're incurring greater cost, whereas the same readiness levels are met within our Air Guard units. And the amount of air refueling that we do is very significant. So I would argue that more fielding within the Reserve component reduces the cost, yet retains the same capability that our nation needs.
Senator Jerry Moran:
On a similar subject, Congress appropriated $350 million to procure one company of Gray Eagles in the National Guard division. This is a fine start, but all Guard divisions should mirror the active component’s operational capabilities. I particularly think this is true; I mean, the war in Ukraine has highlighted for me the value, the necessity, in fact, of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), and it seems to me a terrible mistake that our Guard and Reserve would not have the capabilities that are necessary. In your best military advice, do you agree, not with my assessment, but with the assessment of the need for more active component parity?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator, I would argue one of the greatest missions of the military is to prevent war by deterring others to do things that they might want to do. And by ensuring that our Reserve and Guard units are manned, trained, and equipped just like their active-duty component, then I think it increases the greater deterrent value. If you look at the fact we have eight divisions within the National Guard, ensuring that they have the same capability and capacity, so when called forward, if that need arises, they bring the same capabilities to the battlefield, and that our adversaries understand that it doesn't matter if it's Guard or Reserve, they bring the same capability. And the Gray Eagles, as you mentioned, the drone capability, the reduction of putting manpower forward, but the capability is something we need absolutely in every one of our eight divisions.
Question 6:
Senator Tammy Baldwin:
General Hokanson, I have appreciated working with you over the past few years on expanding health care to service members. And I appreciate your mentioning that in your opening remarks. Like you, I believe that increasing access to health care and dental care, especially for our Guard and Reserve members, would pay dividends in readiness, especially for short-notice deployments.
Last Congress, I introduced the bipartisan Health Care for Our Troops Act, a bill that would provide all National Guard and Reserve service members with premium-free health care coverage. And I understand that the Defense Health Agency is working to study this issue, and I look forward to seeing those results. So, General, can you please describe the progress that your team has made towards this goal during your tenure and what you see as the feasible next steps?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator, thank you, and I greatly appreciate your support for this, really, my number one priority, and it's been my number one priority since my time as the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. When you look at the health care progress we continue to have the conversation, the act that you mentioned, and more and more the conversation is taking place, and we knew this would take time. We look forward to helping with the study in any way we can to really clarify the costing. Unfortunately, we have to assume that every single member would take the premium-free health care, which drives the cost up significantly, when we know that would not be the case. Many of them do have health care through their civilian employer. But there’s a lot of other things related to this. We think it would have a significant impact not only on recruiting, but also retention. So that the family would know as long as our service member is serving in the Guard and Reserve, that they have health care. And so if they're injured on deployment, or responding to a disaster in their community, that they're going to have the health care to get better and come back not only to be the breadwinner for their family or part of that, but also to continue to serve their country. And so anything we can do to help promote that, answer those questions, I think is going to be really important. When you look at the economic environment today, most businesses do offer that health care, and so for us to be competitive in the recruiting environment, it's also a requirement for us as well.
Senator Tammy Baldwin:
Thank you. Tactical wheeled vehicles are essential to supplying combat vehicles with fuel, ammunition, and spare parts to seize and control ground. In other words, tactical wheeled vehicles are a critical backbone of the logistics needed to sustain and win a fight. I'm proud that many of these vehicles are made wholly or in part in the state of Wisconsin. As this committee has discussed many times, clear communication with industry, and consistently funded demand signals are critical for allowing our industrial partners to plan for and meet future demand. General Hokanson, can you provide the committee detailed National Guard vehicle requirements and planned purchases for both the family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles and the family of Medium Tactical Vehicles across variants, and across the Future Years Defense Program?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So, Senator Baldwin, I'll have our staff get the exact numbers. But as you mentioned, the heavy, and the light, and the medium tactical vehicles are absolutely critical to our ability to move across the battlefield, but also to logistically support our forces. And so, as I mentioned earlier, it's important that all of our Guard formations are manned, trained, and equipped, like their active-duty counterparts, to reduce the variance of systems, but then also we can operate more efficiently. So we'd love to do that, and we will continue to advocate, as we field new systems, that all of those come into the Guard and Reserve.
Question 7:
Senator John Boozman:
General Hokanson, I've heard you mention the need to keep 25 of the 25 fighter squadrons in the Air National Guard to meet the demands of the National Defense Strategy and keep pace with our peer adversaries. Is the Air National Guard on track to keep 25 fighter squadrons? If not, what is the impact of losing fighter capability?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator Boozman, thank you. When you look at the current 25 fighter squadrons that we have, we're currently in jeopardy of losing two of those—Martin State in Maryland and Selfridge in Michigan. Both of those are A-10 units. In fact, the unit from Maryland is now redeploying from a tour, a deployment in the Middle East. When you look at the fact the Air Force is short about a thousand pilots and 4,000 maintainers, I don't think we can afford to lose a single formation. And we actually looked at a plan by a, we call it a temporary cross-component aircraft transfer, where we could cascade older fighter aircraft into these formations to retain them until production can catch up with replacing those aircraft. When you look at the 48 fighter squadrons in the Air Force right now, and I believe the requirement is 60, we're already critically short, and the demand for those aircraft globally only goes up not only for capabilities, but also the deterrent value that they provide. And so we're willing to do just about anything we can to retain those formations because once we lose them, then we literally lose them forever.
Question 8:
Senator Chris Coons:
We look to you for advice and insight as we try to finalize our appropriations decisions. I'm from Delaware. The Delaware Air National Guard is one of four states that are still working to secure C-130Js. I co-led a letter with Senator Barrasso to continue frankly, to complete what has been, I think, an important acquisition process that helps support national security and ensure interoperability. I'd be interested, General Hokanson, in how you see the Guard Bureau's role in completing the procurement of C-130Js and how that outfitting, in your view, might support national security and how congressional support might be relevant.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Thank you, Senator. And when you look at the C-130 fleet, obviously, with any system, if we can peer fleet to the same model, it reduces maintenance, training, all sorts of costs, and we gain many efficiencies. And so the intent for us to continue to advocate for the fielding of the C-130J and all of our squadrons so that we can capitalize on those cost savings. And so we will continue to do that. I know we have four squadrons left to go, and our intent is to hopefully complete that within the next couple of Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
Senator Chris Coons:
That's a high priority for me and for my home state. We also have, in Delaware, an Air National Guard unit that is, I think, both Guardsmen and Reservists, that is a strong cyber unit. It has both offensive and defensive capabilities, and it's, in my view, a great example of leveraging the private sector. We have very large data centers. Many of you are probably carrying credit cards issued from the state of Delaware. And so, state-of-the-art, very high-performing, very capable cyber professionals in the private sector have the opportunity to join and serve in both Guard and Reserve roles. I'd be interested in hearing from you, General Hokanson, as also Lieutenant General Healy, how Air Guard units successfully leverage private sector resources, support national security at a lower cost, and what else do you think we could be doing to support the outfitting, deployment of cutting-edge cyber units?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Mr. Senator, when I look at it, we've got 66 units in the National Guard, both Army and Air, in 42 states, and the capability they provide is pretty amazing, in fact, up to the highest levels within Cyber Command (CYBERCOM). And this is because of our ability to leverage not only their military training but their civilian training. In fact, a lot of the young kids say they can do things in their civilian job they can't do in the military, and they get things they could do in the military they can't do in their civilian job. But by learning from both sides, they develop incredible capability. And not only on their military side but also under State Active Duty to help mitigate cyber-attacks or issues with networks within their community where the governor has the authority under State Active Duty to leverage them.
Question 9:
Senator Chris Coons:
Last question, if I could. The State Partnership Program is something I've strongly supported. I've had a chance to visit state units in the field from the Baltics to West Africa to Southeast Asia. It's 30 years old, there's 92 partnerships touching 106 countries. I think Montana's partner is Kyrgyzstan, if I'm not mistaken, and I think Maine is Montenegro, Delaware … Mongolia, a country squeezed between China and Russia and eager for American help. What I've seen about the State Partnership Program is that it allows long relationships. No disrespect, but you know, active-duty folks tend to cycle in and out of a country, and I think the National Guard is the best example we have of civilian control of the military, integration into civilian missions, disaster response, infrastructure, otherwise. What do you see, General, as the challenges to sustaining the State Partnership Program, what are the opportunities, what more could they be doing? I think some of the work we did with Ukraine, between 2014 and 2022, made a transformational difference, and so I'm a huge fan of the State Partnership Program.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Senator, we greatly appreciate your support of that program. And just as an example, if you look back to 2023, we did 1,750 global engagements. And as mentioned earlier, that's on one percent of our budget related to international interactions. When we look at the challenges we face going forward, is as we add partners, we've actually added seven this year, the start-up costs are initially a little bit high, about $800,000 per partnership, but then the sustainment numbers continue to go down over time. And so stable, consistent funding, not having a Continuing Resolution so we can have access to that fund early in the year, greatly appreciates it. When we get the funding late in the year, sometimes our state partners can't adjust their schedules quick enough, and so the earlier the better. But as you mentioned, Senator, the great thing is, in many cases, our state military or their state National Guard is about the size of the country's military. And because we're there, like they are, throughout their career, those relationships are critically important, not only to develop capability and capacity but their ability to protect their citizens. But also to have additional U.S. presence to counter the messaging they may see from some of our adversaries.
Question 10:
Senator Lisa Murkowski:
Let me ask you General Hokanson, because we have talked a lot about the Air National Guard transition of the 575 Active Guard-Reserve (AGR) positions to technician billets. Alaska takes the greatest cut in the AGR Airmen, but Senator Shaheen mentioned it from New Hampshire's perspective here. In the House NDAA, there was an increase to the Air National Guard's AGR ceiling, it added 403 positions. Does this provide enough stability to the Guard to pause the current full-time leveling? As we have discussed, Alaska is on a year pause; that's helpful, but is this the answer here? And as you're answering that, if you can share with me whether you've had conversations with either Northern Command (NORTHCOM), the Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), General, excuse me, Secretary Kendall or General Salzman on the impact that the full-time leveling would have on their ability to perform their missions.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Yes, Senator. So when you look at the addition of about 400, that just moves the conversation one or two-years down the road. And what I asked our team is, I said, look, we have to stop iterating. Tell me what the actual solution is that we need. And so when they did that full analysis, and Alaska is a great example, what we're doing is we continue to ask more and more of our National Guardsmen, but we don't provide the full-time manning to sustain that, particularly when you have 24/7 operations. And this week alone, we had an Air Force, or a rescue unit, save six people in an airplane crash in Alaska. That capability is made possible by the full-time manning within those units. And so when I told them, stop looking at the iterative, tell me what the actual answer is. And so they came up with 29,100, and we can actually show you exactly where that manning would be, to prevent making a decision where somebody has to go from an AGR to a technician position. As I mentioned earlier, we do have a legislative proposal in to fix the Technician Act because it's just not competitive at all in today's environment. You can't live on that in Alaska. Those are very expensive environments, but we ask a lot of them. And so as a result, you know, my best advice is to get 29,100 AGRs within the Air National Guard, and then also to fix the technician program. I know we're working with your state to mitigate the impacts of that. We pushed it back a year while we get this, hopefully, support, and all the data, so that we can get the right answer, so we can continue to provide the capabilities that our communities and, frankly, our nation need every single day.
Senator Lisa Murkowski:
When I appreciate your response to that, but I also recognize that as I talk to these AGR folks back home, they've got decisions to make. They have family commitments that they're looking to, and all they see right now is instability. And thank you for the one-year reprieve, but this is not the only thing that they're looking at with concern. We've also talked an awful lot about the Space Force considerations. The fact that Air Force wants to force our Air Guardsmen into the active-duty Space Force. There's been a lot of back and forth from the National Guard Bureau saying it's not going to cost that much, Air Force says it's going to cost a lot, but what is really going to cost us is when these people vote with their feet when they leave, and then we lose that experience that we have invested in them. And so I know that this is, again, one of those issues that is generating a lot of debate out there. But I look at that, and I listen to what's being discussed up at Clear Air Force Station as they are manning that operation. I look at what's going on with this leveling and the greatest benefit that you have with your Reserves has been the stability that comes with these positions. And I note that, Lieutenant General Healy, you've shared that the recruiting efforts are great with active-duty and Reserve forces, but they're lagging within the Air National Guard. And it just causes me to wonder whether or not this self-inflicted instability is having a very detrimental impact on our ability to execute the mission and really do right by our AGR folks.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Yes, Senator, and as you know, it's all about our people. The equipment is nothing without them. And we look at every one of our families. They want to take care of their family. And so they need that stability. And we all need that. And so we're trying to do everything we can to provide that stability. And I've been very clear in my conversations about the Space Force from day one. You know, we actually have a Space National Guard, we're just not willing to admit it. We have Space Forces that have been doing…
Senator Lisa Murkowski:
They should come up and see, right?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
For 27 years. So it actually does exist, we just don't name it that. And when you look at the full-time manning requirements, 74 percent in our latest survey said that they want to stay in the Air National Guard. And frankly, we've been doing this for the past over four years since the creation of the Space Force. And we can continue to do that. But if we don't take care of our people, if we don't give them predictability, those decades of experience that they have, that will take decades to replace, they're going to vote with their feet and they're going to do something else. And at this point, the critical point in the history right now of global environments, now is not the time to lose those people.
Question 11:
Senator Shelley Moore Capito:
The West Virginia National Guard has done the Ridge Runner Irregular Warfare Training every year, which is a partnership with the Irregular Warfare Center and the Ridge Heeler Exercise, which focuses on austere medicine. So I'm proud of these programs and have supported them through the appropriations process. And there are 11 partner countries now from the European and Indo-Pacific theaters that are training in irregular warfare and prolonged field care. Not to mention this provides the training and the validation for the Air National Guard Special Forces. So I'm not sure how familiar you are with Ridge Runner, but do you view this as a value add for the Guard Bureau and for the DOD, and I'd be interested in your perceptions if you're familiar with this program.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So, Senator Capito, I'm familiar with the exercise, and it's done there for a reason. And 11 nations come there for a reason because of the capability and what they can learn in that environment. The team there does a great job. And the reason why it continues to grow is people see the value from that. It also helps us validate our Special Operations Forces before they deploy. And so when you look at that field and Special Operations, they go where it works, and that works extremely well.
Senator Shelley Moore Capito:
Well, we're very proud of it, and I know it's growing, and certainly, I'll continue to support it through the appropriations process.
Question 12:
Senator Shelley Moore Capito:
What specific modernization priorities could help your component meet today's requirements and be ready for a future conflict?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So, Senator, the great advantage we have in our Reserve component is not only capability but capacity. And what we see is fights aren't over in two weeks. And so it's great to have capability, but if you don't have capacity, like we have in the Reserve component, then you jeopardize really a lot of your strategy. So when I look across the Air Guard specifically, as I mentioned before, it's our fighter aircraft, those are the ones most urgent, followed closely by tankers and then C-130Js. On the Army side, we have to make sure that our divisions are fully capable to deter somebody from doing something. And so we need to grow to make sure we have attack helicopters and Gray Eagles in all of our divisions. And then also, as the Army develops these multi-domain task forces to operate in the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) Area of Responsibility (AOR), to make sure that we also field those in the Reserve component, so we have the capacity to show that our adversaries realize, not only capable, but we've got depth so we can last.
Question 13:
Senator Jon Tester:
General Hokanson, go a little parochial with you then. The Guard announced, spring of ‘26 to the fall of ‘26, the C-130Js will be delivered to Montana. Does the date still stand?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Yes, Senator, those dates still stand. I think April ‘26 to October ‘26, and then initial operating capability and fully operational capability shortly thereafter.
Senator Jon Tester:
Okay, and will they be, will the Js, will the Hs, the museum pieces called the C-130H, be swapped out for the Js on a one to one basis?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So right now, I believe it's a two for two, that we'll send two at a time and make sure that our aircrews and maintainers are well trained in it in advance.
Senator Jon Tester:
Okay. My last question is for you and General Daniels. General Hokanson, General Daniels, this subcommittee's been made aware of two Antideficiency Act investigations involving the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. Both involve budgeting areas that happened during COVID. I would just like to have you both explain what happened, the status of the investigation, and what corrective actions have been implemented. Go ahead, General, good sir.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So, Chairman, I can follow up with you on that because that investigation has not been concluded yet. We're waiting for the conclusion and any recommendations or disciplinary actions.
Senator Jon Tester:
Do you anticipate their conclusion?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Chairman, I've been following it weekly. I'm hoping that it's done by the end of this month or mid-July at the latest.
Senator Jon Tester:
When do you retire out?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
September 1st, Chairman.
Senator Jon Tester:
So that's a little time. Okay. Go ahead.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
Before I leave, Chairman.
Senator Jon Tester:
Okay, good.
Question 14:
Senator Susan Collins:
General Hokanson, I want to follow up on a question that Chairman Tester started going down the road on, and that has to do with the obligation of funds. From 2015 to 2024, only 4.4 percent of the DOD procurement budgets were allocated to Guard and Reserves. And this year's request, as I mentioned earlier, is barely 2 percent. I think that's totally inconsistent with the tremendous contributions that each of the components make to our national security. So what Congress did in response is to fund the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account, NGREA, as it is called. And it provides procurement funding separate to address critical Guard and Reserve modernization needs. Now, I'm very much aware that in the last two years, Congress has funded this separate account at one-billion per year. However, to follow up on the Chairman's point, a substantial fraction of the amount appropriated over the last three years is still unobligated. Now, I understand how terrible continuing resolutions are for your ability to get your jobs done, but we're talking three years, and it looks like more than half has remained unobligated. It's difficult for us to make the case, which we want to make if you're not obligating the money; and this seems to be across the board. So tell me why it's taking so long to put the funding on contract for such needed equipment.
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
So, Vice Chair Collins, when you look at our historically, our execution rate was 99 percent at the end of the period. And unfortunately, when we look at the demand for equipment, sometimes the delay is manufacturing capability to meet with it. But we do execute 99 percent or over 99 percent of the funding at the end of the three-year time frame. But because of COVID and manufacturing issues, sometimes at the one-to-two-year mark, it looks completely off, but we're usually able to obligate all of it, or 99 percent of it, within the time that we're authorized to do it.
Senator Susan Collins:
I realize that you have a period of time that you can use, but is it accurate that about half of the funding appropriated over the last three years is still unobligated?
General Daniel R. Hokanson:
I can follow up with that, Vice Chair Collins, but my understanding is that it all gets executed. It's just a matter of when we can get the contract signed within the time frame so that we do make sure we don't leave money on the table. But sometimes the contracts are delayed, and we can't get them as soon as we would like them.