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

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
                            FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 24, 2021

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 117-3

                                   __________

               Printed for the use of the Committee on the Budget

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Available on the Internet:
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    45-547                      WASHINGTON : 2021

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

                            COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                      JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky, Chairman
    HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         JASON SMITH, Missouri,
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York                Ranking Member
    BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania,      TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
      Vice Chairman                      TOM McCLINTOCK, California
    LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas                 GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
    DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina       LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
    JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois       CHRIS JACOBS, New York
    DANIEL T. KILDEE, Michigan           MICHAEL BURGESS, Texas
    JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
    STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada              BEN CLINE, Virginia
    BARBARA LEE, California              LAUREN BOEBERT, Colorado
    JUDY CHU, California                 BYRON DONALDS, Florida
    STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia            BOB GOOD, Virginia
    ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
    SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            JAY OBERNOLTE, California
    JIM COOPER, Tennessee
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California
    SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
    PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington

                               Professional Staff

                         Diana Meredith, Staff Director
                      Mark Roman, Minority Staff Director

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page
    Hearing held in Washington, D.C., June 24, 2021..................     1

        Hon. John A. Yarmuth, Chairman, Committee on the Budget......     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     4
        Hon. Jason Smith, Ranking Member, Committee on the Budget....     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Hon. Michael J. Mccord, Under Secretary of Defense
          Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of
          Defense....................................................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Vice Admiral Ronald A. Boxall, Director of Force Structure,
          Resources and Assessment (J8), The Joint Staff, U.S.
          Department of Defense......................................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Hon. Lauren Boebert, Member, Committee on the Budget, report
          submitted for the record...................................    50
        Hon. Sheila Jackson Lee, Member, Committee on the Budget,
          statement submitted for the record.........................    75
        Questions submitted for the record...........................    80
        Answers submitted for the record.............................    85

                          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE'S
                            FISCAL YEAR 2022 BUDGET

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2021

                               House of Representatives
                                        Committee on the Budget
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., at
    210 Cannon House Office Building and via Zoom, Hon. John A.
    Yarmuth [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Yarmuth, Higgins, Doggett,
    Schakowsky, Kildee, Horsford, Lee, Chu, Plaskett, Wexton,
    Jackson Lee, Cooper, Peters, Moulton; Smith, Kelly, McClintock,
    Grothman, Smucker, Jacobs, Carter, Cline, Boebert, Donalds,
    Feenstra, Good, Hinson, and Obernolte.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The hearing will come to order. Good
    morning and welcome to the Budget Committee's hearing on the
    Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget.
        At the outset I ask unanimous consent that the Chair be
    authorized to declare a recess at any time.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        We are holding this hybrid hearing in compliance with the
    regulations for committee proceedings pursuant to House
    Resolution 965 carried over to the 117th Congress via House
    Resolution 8. Members and witnesses may participate remotely or
    in person.
        I would like to remind Members that we have established an
    email inbox for submitting documents before and during
    committee proceedings and we have distributed that email
    address to your staff.
        For individuals who are participating remotely, consistent
    with regulations, the Chair or staff designated by the Chair
    may mute a participant's microphone when the participant is not
    under recognition for the purpose of eliminating inadvertent
    background noise. Members participating remotely are
    responsible for unmuting themselves when they seek recognition.
    We are not permitted to unmute Members unless they explicitly
    request assistance. If I notice that you have not unmuted
    yourself, I will ask you if you would like to have staff unmute
    you. If you indicate approval by nodding, staff will unmute
    your microphone. They will not unmute your microphone under any
    other conditions. Members participating remotely must have
    their cameras on and be visible on screen in order to be
    recognized. Members may not participate in more than one
    committee proceeding simultaneously.
        Finally, in light of the Attending Physician's new
    guidance, individuals physically present in the hearing room
    who are fully vaccinated do not need to wear a mask or socially
    distance, though they may choose to do so. Individuals who are
    not fully vaccinated must continue to wear a mask unless they
    are speaking under recognition and must continue to socially
    distance.
        Now, I want to introduce our witnesses. This morning we
    will be hearing from the Honorable Michael J. McCord, Under
    Secretary of Defense Comptroller and Chief Financial officer of
    the U.S. Department of Defense, and Vice Admiral Ronald A.
    Boxall, Director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment,
    the Joint Staff, U.S. Department of Defense.
        We welcome both of you.
        I now yield myself five minutes for an opening statement.
        I would like to welcome Vice Admiral Ronald A. Boxall.
    Thank you for your service and for joining us today to testify
    on the Department of Defense's Fiscal Year 2022 budget. Your
    expertise and insights will be enormously valuable to our
    hearing today.
        And I would like to congratulate The Honorable Michael J.
    McCord, on his recent confirmation and on being the first
    person to hold the Comptroller position at DoD a second time. I
    would also like to welcome you back to the Hill, specifically
    to the Budget Committee. In addition to being a long-time
    professional staff member of the Senate Armed Services
    Committee, Under Secretary McCord also served on the staff of
    the House Budget Committee. And I also want to thank you for
    your service.
        As we begin this hearing, I believe you both would agree
    that we all share a responsibility to provide the necessary
    resources to defend our country, and that includes maintaining
    a military that is second to none. I also believe you would
    agree our national security depends on more than just military
    might. It requires a whole-of-government approach, strong
    diplomacy, effective homeland security activities, aggressive
    mitigation of the destabilizing effects of climate change,
    readied pandemic defenses, robust veterans' programs, and an
    economy poised to compete and win, which underpins our national
    strength.
        The President's budget recognizes the undeniable connection
    between these goals and invests in a comprehensive plan for our
    national security.
        This commitment starts with our service members, who step
    up and put their lives on the line. As a nation, we should do
    everything we can to avoid conflict and call on them only when
    absolutely necessary, but we should also take care of them
    every step of the way.
        That is why the President's budget proposes a 2.7 percent
    pay raise for service members as well as $113.1 billion in
    funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which includes
    $97.5 billion for healthcare programs. On top of that, the
    budget proposes the largest increase in recent history to
    advance the VA's understanding of traumatic brain injuries, the
    effects of toxic exposure on long-term health outcomes, and the
    needs of disabled veterans. It is a budget that truly
    recognizes the invaluable service and the extraordinary
    sacrifices of our men and women in uniform.
        But the best way we can protect members of our Armed Forces
    is to keep them out of harm's way, to resolve conflicts through
    diplomacy and only turn to military action when there is no
    other option.
        As former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, famously said,
    if you don't fully fund the State Department then I need to buy
    more ammunition. That is why it is so important that President
    Biden's budget for 2022 fully funds diplomatic and foreign
    assistance operations by providing an 11 percent increase above
    the 2021 enacted level.
        The President's budget includes other strategic investments
    that will broadly strengthen our national security, increase
    our readiness, and ensure the Unites States remains a global
    leader. This includes the largest research and development
    investment ever requested, with investments in hypersonics,
    artificial intelligence, micro-electronics, 5G technology, and
    cyber capabilities. The reality is that our competitors and
    adversaries, including China, are already investing heavily in
    state-of-the-art defense technologies and we cannot risk
    falling behind.
        We also cannot ignore the risk that climate change poses to
    our military bases and mission-readiness. Already declared a
    national security threat, impacts of the climate crisis are
    directly threatening roughly two-thirds of the 79 mission
    assurance priority installations operated by DoD. That is two
    out of three of some of our military's most important bases and
    facilities. The President's budget addresses this threat head-
    on, making critical investments to enhance resilience and
    readiness while reducing the Department of Defense's climate
    impact.
        And finally, the President's plan restores accountability
    to the Department of Defense budget. The American people
    deserve to know how their tax dollars are spent, but for too
    long, the Overseas Contingency Operations, also known as OCO
    designation, has been exploited to skirt budget caps. The
    President's budget restores accountability by eliminating this
    loophole and funding all operations from within the base
    budget. This will provide more predictable funding streams,
    increased transparency, and better management of resources.
    Above all, it makes the budget more honest.
        Once again, I appreciate both of you coming today and I
    look forward to your testimony.
        With that, I would like to yield five minutes to the
    Ranking Member, Mr. Smith, for his opening statement.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Yarmuth follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Under
    Secretary McCord and Vice Admiral Boxall. Thank you for being
    here.
        President Biden and Washington Democrats are leading the
    effort in this budget to defund our men and women in uniform,
    but that is just part of a larger effort to defund the safety
    and security of the American people, whether it is at our
    border or in our local communities. And it layers billions in
    funding to satisfy the priorities of their wealthy friends,
    supporters, and political cronies. This is nonsense, or what we
    in Missouri call hogwash. This budget shows me there is very
    little concern for the safety and security of our troops and
    the American people. They serve bravely to protect. It shows an
    unwillingness to stand strong with our allies and will embolden
    our enemies. I have to say, I don't envy the position you're in
    right now.
        While President Biden is proposing to effectively flatline
    your budget, some of my colleagues on the other side and in
    this chamber are actually fighting about whether that is still
    too generous.
        If you will recall, just last year Senator Sanders and his
    progressive friends voted to slash your budget by 10 percent.
    And even some in this chamber are calling to cut more than 50
    percent from your budget, $350 billion dollars. Many of us are
    all deeply concerned about the effects on our military if they
    get their way.
        Our number one job is to keep Americans and their families
    safe at home. Blind cuts to America's military would be a
    disaster and take away important resources from our men and
    women in uniform, resources they need to stay safe and meet the
    challenges facing our nation, including the rise of China.
    Unfortunately, this budget falls short.
        The President is pushing a massive spending and tax plan,
    $17 trillion dollars to our debt, increases taxes up to $55
    trillion dollars. In fact, the President breaks his promise not
    to raise taxes on low-income and the working class and he does
    it in this budget.
        The Administration wants to give non-defense agencies a 16
    percent raise on average on top of the billions Congress has
    already provided in response to the pandemic. But, for your
    Department, it would reduce spending to the lowest level in
    over 80 years. The lowest level in over 80 years. By that time,
    under this budget Americans will pay more to settle the
    interest on our national debt that President Biden has run up
    than we will spend on our entire national defense budget.
        On top of that this budget request fails to keep up with
    inflation. The rising prices Americans are already seeing at
    the pump and in the checkout line are a direct result of this
    Administration's reckless spending.
        Continuing these policies will only make it worse and drive
    up procurement costs, the cost of the very equipment and tools
    our military members need to do their jobs safely.
        Many of my colleagues, myself included, are deeply
    concerned about the cuts inflation would force you to make
    because of this radical budget and the strategic advantage it
    will give America's enemies. But even the meager amount of
    funding this budget offers your Department, it fails to fully
    prioritize America's military defense. In fact, when I read
    this budget, I notice significant cuts to critical programs and
    a lot of that money will instead be used to impose Green New
    Deal policies on our military.
        President Biden's budget would repurpose $617 million
    dollars in funding toward climate resilience and energy
    efficiencies. These changes will undoubtedly require cuts in
    other areas, like equipment, for our military men and women,
    Navy warships, Air Force fighter craft, and reduce overall
    military procurement and resources for our troops.
        To put it simply, this budget cuts America's defense and
    gives massive raises to Washington bureaucrats by overspending
    and taxing the American people. It is clear President Biden and
    his Administration are out of touch with the working class.
        Last month at the Naval Academy Vice President Harris joked
    that service members would prefer to carry solar panels than
    batteries. Even though solar panels also require batteries to
    store energy. This budget for our military is a solution in
    search of a problem. There will always be areas in need of
    improvement in our federal agencies, but blindly cutting
    military spending is not the way to do it and just like the
    Vice President's joke, this budget does not land well with the
    American people.
        I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Jason Smith follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. I thank the Ranking Member.
        In the interest of time I ask that any other Members who
    wish to make a statement submit their written statements for
    the record to the email inbox we established for receiving
    documents before and during committee proceedings. We have
    distributed that email address to your staff. I will hold the
    record open until the end of the day to accommodate those
    Members who may not yet have prepared written statements.
        Once again I would like to thank our witnesses for being
    here this morning. The Committee has received your written
    statements and they will be made part of the formal hearing
    record. You will each have five minutes to give your oral
    remarks.
        Under Secretary McCord, you may begin when you are ready.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL J. MCCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF
    DEFENSE COMPTROLLER/CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
                                DEFENSE

        Mr. McCord. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth and Ranking Member Smith, distinguished
    Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    testify on the President's Fiscal Year budget request for the
    Department of Defense. It is a pleasure to appear today, along
    with Admiral Ron Boxall, who is a senior advisor to the
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on all military resourcing issues
    and played a key role in developing the budget.
        As the Chairman noted, nearly 20 years ago I served on the
    staff of this Committee and I appreciate the role you play in
    the difficult task of setting priorities as Congress exercises
    its power of the purse to address our nation's needs.
        Last month, as you note, President Biden released his
    Fiscal Year budget request, which includes $753 billion in
    discretionary spending for our national defense, of which there
    is $715 billion for the Department of Defense that we are here
    to discuss today. This represents a 1.6 percent increase and is
    focused on meeting the national security challenges of both
    today and tomorrow.
        The request makes smart and disciplined investments in
    national defense. It is guided by the President's interim
    national security strategic guidance, which came out in March,
    which aligns national security economics and domestic policies
    and outlines a balanced approach among our diplomatic,
    military, and other tools. The budget helps us maintain the
    capability and global posture we need to back up the hard work
    of our diplomats and our allies and partners.
        This budget supports the President's priorities, from
    fighting COVID-19 pandemic, which is so important to getting
    the economy back on track, to preparing us to better address
    the effects of climate change. For DoD this includes
    investments in energy saving platforms, resilient
    installations, and more efficient and diverse power sources.
        This budget is also guided by Secretary Austin's message to
    the Force, which lays out his three priorities for the
    Department, which are defend the nation first, take care of our
    people, and succeed through teamwork. So this request fulfills
    Secretary's Austin's direction to match our resources to our
    strategy and our strategy to our policy.
        The Department requests funds that makes up capabilities
    that are needed to most defend the nation. Our detailed budget
    materials have been provided to the Congress, so I am not going
    to read you a long list of what is in the budget, but I will
    just focus on a few main points if I could.
        With China identified as the pacing challenge for us, you
    will see $5 billion for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative that
    Congress created last year and broader investments to bolster
    deterrence and maintain our competitive advantage in the Indo-
    Pacific Region. The budget also addresses persistent threats
    from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and other transnational and
    non-state actors.
        Our draw down on our military forces from Afghanistan
    remains on pace and the Fiscal Year budget shows that the
    Department is engaged in a deliberate orderly draw down from
    Afghanistan. In conjunction with the end of that military
    mission in Afghanistan, the President's Budget terminates the
    Overseas Contingency Operations funding category, as the
    Chairman noted.
        To give us the traits based to focus on the future, the
    Fiscal Year budget proposes some tough choices to divest about
    $2.8 billion of older and less capable platforms that we do not
    believe are suited to help us fight and win in the future. As
    Secretary Austin has testified, we need to fight and win the
    next war and not the last one. To that end, the President's
    budget request for research and development funding is the
    largest ever at $112 billion. This includes investments in both
    the key enabling technologies that are crucial to the global
    competition that is already underway, such as artificial
    intelligence, micro-electronics, and 5G technology, as well as
    investments in the key military specific technologies and
    capabilities, which is hypersonics, long-range fire, space
    based systems, ship building, and nuclear modernization.
        Of course, the President's budget also invests in our
    troops and their families. As Secretary Austin noted in his
    message to the Force, taking care of our people is one of his
    top priorities. The budget request includes a 2.7 percent pay
    raise for both the military and civilian personnel and funds
    our healthcare, child care, and other programs for our people.
        Finally, I just want to close with a couple of comments
    related to the financial management of the Department, which is
    the other half of my responsibilities. The Department's leaders
    take very seriously the importance of being good stewards of
    taxpayer dollars and ensuring the transparency for the money
    that Congress provides us. On that front, while our journey
    down the path to a clean audit for the entire Department is
    going to longer than we would like, the Department is working
    hard to address our audit findings, and I am encouraged by the
    progress that has been made in recent years. I want to assure
    you this progress will continue.
        With that, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you
    today. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Michael J. McCord follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you, Mr. McCord.
        I now yield five minutes to Vice Admiral Boxall.

     STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL RONALD A. BOXALL, DIRECTOR OF FORCE
    STRUCTURE, RESOURCES AND ASSESSMENT (J8), THE JOINT STAFF, U.S.
                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished
    Members of the Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to
    testify to you today and I am honored to represent the
    soldiers, the sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians of the
    United States Joint Force, the most capable in the world.
        We are in an era of increased strategic competition. The
    strategic landscape is rapidly changing and we are witnessing a
    fundamental shift in the character of war. In particular, China
    is increasing its military capability at an aggressive rate. We
    must ensure that we retain our competitive and technological
    edge against this pacing threat.
        The Fiscal Year Budget develops, procures, and modernizes
    space, cyber, air, naval, and ground forces that will project
    greater power at longer ranges and with higher speeds than ever
    before. Further, it enhances our nuclear triad, missile
    defense, and long-range fire systems, laying the foundation for
    a Joint Force capable of dominating in a future multi-domain
    conflict.
        The Fiscal Year budget prioritizes nuclear modernization
    that will ensure a safe, secure, and effective future nuclear
    deterrent. Strategic deterrence is foundational to every
    mission the United States and our allies and partners execute.
    A strong nuclear deterrence enables U.S. diplomacy, reassures
    allies, deters adversaries, and leads to peaceful resolution of
    international disputes.
        However, key systems within the U.S. nuclear triad are
    beyond their original designed lives. The Fiscal Year budget
    invests over $27 billion to recapitalize cold war-era strategic
    deterrence systems.
        Adversary investment in ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic
    missile technologies elevate the threat of strategic attack on
    the U.S. homeland. This budget invests over $20 billion to
    enhance our missile defeat and defense capabilities. It also
    continues development of the next generation interceptor to
    defend the nation from missile attack. Additionally, this
    budget strengthens regional missile defense by fielding
    improved Patriot missiles, developing a new Terminal High
    Altitude Defense Interceptor and deploying four U.S. Army
    short-range air defense battalions.
        As China and Russia are fielding long-range and hypersonic
    weapons with the capability to threaten our allies, partners,
    and U.S. forces, the budget equips the Joint Force to counter
    these threats with $6.6 billion investment that transforms our
    multi-domain long-range fires capability. We will field new
    hypersonic weapons on air, land, and sea platforms and also
    procure and modernize subsonic offensive missiles.
        Our investments in new and modernized long-range fires will
    deliver a diverse portfolio capable of holding adversaries at
    risk in operationally relevant ranges at speed.
        China and Russia are also challenging U.S. advantage in
    space by fielding weapons to deny or destroy our space
    capabilities. Lasers, electronic warfare, grappling systems,
    and direct action projectiles are a few technologies our
    adversaries have fielded or are developing to blind, jam, or
    destroy U.S. space systems. The Fiscal Year budget invests
    $20.6 billion to modernize U.S. space capabilities that will
    enhance joint warfighting operations while improving the
    resilience of these systems.
        As in space, U.S. prosperity and military success depend on
    defending our cyber networks while deterring our adversaries
    and non-state actors with offensive cyber capability. The
    recent wave of ransomware and events involving critical
    American infrastructure demonstrate the need for a robust,
    modern, and ready cyber force. The Fiscal Year budget invests
    over $10 billion in programs designed to defend the homeland,
    compete with adversaries, and prepare for future conflicts with
    improved offensive and defensive cyber.
        In the air domain we are investing $52 billion to modernize
    and build capacity in fourth and fifth generation aircraft,
    while devoting $1.5 billion to develop next generation air
    dominance systems. It also recapitalizes the aging air mobility
    fleet.
        In the maritime domain, Fiscal Year budget invests $34.6
    billion to research, develop, and procure warships and
    submarines with credible combat to China. It also ensures on
    time delivery of the Columbia class nuclear ballistic missile
    submarine.
        In land domain the budget invests over $12 billion in next
    generation combat vehicles to increase Joint Force speed,
    firepower, and survivability while enhancing soldier lethality
    with improved squad weapons.
        In addition to modernization, the budget will enhance
    military readiness to ensure our service men and women remain
    the best trained and the best equipped in the world. The Fiscal
    Year budget requests $122 billion for military readiness. From
    ranges to flying hours, we are looking at addressing readiness
    differently than in past years by improving maintenance data
    analytics and parts availability, which will enable maintainers
    to repair ships, aircraft, and brigades in shipyards, hangars,
    and depots with greater agility.
        We will also work with Congress to divest legacy platforms
    that overburden military readiness accounts. Without
    divestments, we cannot afford to modernize to meet the rapidly
    changing environment.
        Finally, our budget reflects the President's decision to
    withdraw from Afghanistan, and as the Joint Force conducts a
    safe, responsible, and deliberate strategic retrograde from
    Afghanistan, this re-posturing will enable fiscal savings that
    will be realized toward our modernization efforts outlined
    above.
        I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Vice Admiral Ronald A. Boxall
    follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you very much, Vice Admiral.
        We will now begin our question and answer session.
        As a reminder, Members may submit written questions to be
    answered later in writing. Those questions and responses will
    be made part of the formal hearing record. Any Members who wish
    to submit questions for the record may do so by sending the
    electronically to the email inbox we have established within
    seven days of the hearing.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Higgins,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Higgins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Under Secretary McCord, under this budget it says that
    there is a request to eliminate the Overseas Contingency
    Operations Fund. Can you explain what that is?
        Mr. McCord. Yes, Congressman. Thank you.
        The Overseas Contingency Operations account was created
    about 10 or 12 years ago as an alternative to the practice that
    had preceded it for expenses in Iraq and Afghanistan to--of
    using supplementals only that came in partway through year were
    not included in the President's budget. It was intended as an
    improvement actually to increase at the time transparency by
    putting those costs in the budget and giving more oversight to
    the Armed Services Committee. In time it got to be--I would
    say, outlived its usefulness, so that account, which in recent
    years had primarily been related to expenses in Afghanistan,
    now that the President is withdrawing forces from Afghanistan,
    it seems timely to us to terminate that account and any
    remaining expenses that go to the larger overhead costs, if you
    will, of operating in a Central Command region are now going to
    be folded into the regular budget as they are with other
    combatant commands around the world.
        Mr. Higgins. So the Overseas Contingency Account was
    deficit financed?
        Mr. McCord. It was--it was--in terms of the deficit it was
    no different than any other spending. Yes, because we ran
    deficits you could argue that it was part of that. It certainly
    contributed to the deficits, and it was outside the Budget
    Control Act caps.
        But it was a conscious decision of those that wrote the
    Budget Control Act I would say. OCO spending, as it was called,
    existed at the time the Budget Control Act created, and it
    existed every time the Budget Control Act was amended. The
    system was left in place where that spending was over and above
    the base budget for defense, which I think got to be an issue
    and got to be a problem that was subject to abuse in some
    cases.
        And so that is part of the reasoning for the termination of
    it, is no Budget Control Act and the mission in Afghanistan
    winding down. There are, I think, two reasons that both--either
    one separately, and certainly both combined argue that this is
    the right time to move away from that construct.
        Mr. Higgins. Is the Taliban stronger in Afghanistan today
    than it was 20 years ago?
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, I am not in a position to assess
    that personally, but the Taliban, you know, has--is endemic to
    Afghanistan and certainly I think nobody is surprised that they
    remain a player both politically and in terms of the security
    situation there.
        Mr. Higgins. So after 9/11 we took out the Taliban and now
    we are negotiating for peace with the Taliban.
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, I would say that the goal after 9/
    11 was to deal with Al Qaeda and threats to the United States.
    I don't know that we ever had the goal of removing the Taliban
    as an influence in the country of Afghanistan. I think that
    would be an extremely difficult task.
        Mr. Higgins. Well, who did we take out in 2001 in
    Afghanistan? The Taliban government that was in control,
    correct?
        Mr. McCord. In terms of governing the country, yes, but
    removing them from the country, which I thought was your
    question, the answer would be no.
        Mr. Higgins. But they were in control, and they seem to be,
    you know, on the ascent today relative to controlling the
    country post American withdrawal.
        Mr. McCord. I would, again, as the CFO that is a little bit
    outside my area, but I would say it is too soon to make that
    judgment. They have influence in some provinces, not in others.
    I couldn't assess whether they are in any--you know, what is
    the likelihood that at some point they might regain political
    control writ large of the country. That is not where they are
    today.
        Mr. Higgins. What would estimate the total American cost in
    actually three wars in the Middle East over the past 20 years?
        Mr. McCord. I would say of the last two over the last 20
    years, about $1.7 trillion I believe, roughly, equaled Iraq and
    Afghanistan and related Syria. Going back 30 years to Desert
    Storm, if we are including that too, that was under $100
    billion, so it would still be in the neighborhood of about
    $1.7, I think, $1.75 trillion.
        Mr. Higgins. And where does that estimate come from?
        Mr. McCord. Those would be the obligations that we track
    separately as the cost of those wars. That is something that
    Congress has asked us to do, and we have done--the Department
    has done since Desert Storm. It is increment--keeping track of
    the incremental costs of those operations and reporting them on
    a quarterly basis.
        Mr. Higgins. Are you aware of studies that cite that the
    number is much higher, like between $4 trillion and $6.5
    trillion?
        Mr. McCord. I am. I am aware of those studies that project
    future healthcare costs and things of that nature, yes.
        Mr. Higgins. I see. What about Iraq? We have a situation
    where we went in there and took out, you know, a bad Sunni by
    the name of Saddam Hussein, put in a bad Shia by the name of
    Nuri al-Maliki, and it seems as though the Iran and the Shia
    militias are controlling Iraq today. Is that an accurate
    characterization?
        Mr. McCord. Again, Congressman, I am not in a position to
    assess the politics of other nations, but I would just say that
    given the large Shia population in both countries, I mean the
    idea that there would be no Iranian influence in Iraq is
    probably not realistic. I wouldn't assess them as controlling
    the country.
        Mr. Higgins. Would you----
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now yield 10 minutes to the Ranking Member.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Under Secretary McCord, thank you for appearing before our
    Committee today. As you know, this request will provide $753
    billion for the total national defense budget, a 1.6 percent
    increase. That does not even keep up with inflation. In the
    final five years of the budget, defense spending increases by a
    measly 1 percent a year. This budget would harm the military's
    ability to carry out its job effectively, keep our men and
    women in uniform safe, and defend and protect American
    families.
        The 2018 Bipartisan National Defense Strategy Commission
    made it very clear that the DoD budget requires 3 to 5 percent
    growth above inflation. However, when asked if this budget
    helps build a larger and more capable fleet during a House
    Armed Service Committee hearing, Admiral Michael Gilday said
    ``no, sir, it does not.''
        Mr. McCord, how does a budget that proposes to reduce
    defense spending as a percentage of the economy to the lowest
    level in 80 years give us the ability to protect our men and
    women serving our country while also maintaining our primary
    mission of keeping America safe?
        Mr. McCord. Thank you, Congressman.
        I would say that the chairman and the Secretary have
    testified before all four oversight committees in the last week
    or two. They have said at every committee, which I would agree
    with, that this budget gives us the resources we need to do the
    job. The percentage increase from last year I know is one valid
    yardstick. There are certainly others. The defense budget has
    grown about 20 percent in real terms--the base budget has over
    the last four or five years. So looking over a longer time
    period, this budget has had a pretty healthy increase.
    Certainly from when I last held this position, it is
    significantly larger. So----
        Mr. Smith. So would you commit that today the DoD will not
    cut or reduce spending on programs designed to protect, defend,
    and secure our country and the American people?
        Mr. McCord. Well, I would say this budget funds what we
    need to do the job. And I think that is the----
        Mr. Smith. So there is no chance that you are going to cut
    programs that would fall into that?
        Mr. McCord. I am not sure if I understand your question.
    The----
        Mr. Smith. I just want to make sure that you won't be
    reducing spending on programs designed to protect, defend, and
    secure our country and the American people.
        Mr. McCord. No, we----
        Mr. Smith. If you can just say yes, we won't, that is what
    I want to hear.
        Mr. McCord. The budget adequately funds those programs.
        Mr. Smith. OK.
        Next, I want to ask about recent efforts from some of my
    colleagues actually in this Committee to cut the defense budget
    by $350 billion per year. This means that the President's
    current budget, which flatlines military spending, would be cut
    further by 54 percent.
        I have right here a plan by Democrats that--that plan will
    use funds cut to keep our nation and our people safer.
        Under Secretary McCord, would a $350 billion dollar cut to
    defense ``keep our nation and our people safer''?
        Mr. McCord. No, Congressman. That would be just an
    extremely chaotic and disruptive cut to our budget.
        Mr. Smith. How would you prioritize those cuts if you were
    forced by Congress to cut $350 billion dollars?
        Mr. McCord. We would always want to try and take care of
    our people first and then not--you know, not force people out
    into the economy with no notice. So if we were trying to
    protect our people, we would--it would have to be, you know, a
    massive disruption to our program.
        Mr. Smith. It is very--it would be a huge disruption.
        So to date, how much money has DoD spent litigating and
    settling border wall contract disputes? And how many contracts
    has DoD canceled since Biden became President?
        Mr. McCord. I would have to get that for the record for
    you. I am not sure that any litigation we are involved in has
    gotten to the point of settling and, you know incurring legal
    expenses. But I anticipate that there will be litigation with
    both private landowners and others pursuant to these changes in
    policies.
        Mr. Smith. Do you know how many contracts have been
    canceled?
        Mr. McCord. I don't know the number, but we could certainly
    get that for you.
        Mr. Smith. I would definitely like that. I appreciate that.
        You know, every Member on this dais has had to assist
    members of our military or veterans get access to care for
    illnesses or injuries sustained in service. A good example is
    Agent Orange, where DoD and VA denied a link between the use of
    Agent Orange and serious illnesses like cancer. Veterans had to
    fight hard to get treatment for that cancer and compensation
    for their families. I voted just last Congress for the Blue
    Water Vietnam . . .
        [Inaudible]
        Chairman Yarmuth. If the gentleman will suspend and the
    witness will. I have been informed that the sound on the live
    stream is not working. House rules require that we suspend the
    hearing until it is back up. So we will pause momentarily.
    Members and witnesses should maintain their connection to the
    platform as the hearing will continue as soon as the live
    stream is back up.
        Thank you.
        [Recess]
        Chairman Yarmuth. All right, everyone, the sound on the
    live stream is back up. We will continue where we left off. The
    Ranking Member will have seven minutes for questioning.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        As you could imagine, the American people probably share my
    concern that we have a system wide outage when I am asking
    questions about UFOs, and whether it is the Chinese or the
    Russians or it is actually people in other places. So, let us
    try to ask this UFO question again and see if the systems will
    hold up.
        Under Secretary McCord, there has been a lot of discussion
    recently regarding unidentified aerial phenomena, UAPs,
    harassing U.S. Navy pilots and exhibiting technological
    advancements far beyond our current capabilities.
        The Senate Intelligence Committee voted to require U.S.
    intelligence agencies and DoD to compile a detailed public
    analysis of all information collected on UAPs. Additionally, a
    former top Pentagon intelligence official said the report could
    range from revealing an unknown threat or military
    vulnerability to there have been probes visiting our planet, or
    anything in between. Another top Pentagon official said that
    dozens of UFOs appeared to have carried out some kind of
    reconnaissance or surveillance of our nuclear technology and
    weapons.
        The UAP Task Force at DoD has stated its intention to
    release an unclassified report on this matter by Friday. Will
    the report provide the American people with answers on how we
    plan to continue investigating and counter these phenomena?
        Mr. McCord. I am familiar with the issue, and I understand
    that the report is, as you describe, imminent. My colleague,
    the Under Secretary for Intelligence and Security I know is
    going to be reviewing--or has reviewed or is reviewing that
    report this week. And so if the Committee does not receive that
    report or is not--receive that information, we commit on behalf
    of the Department to get that to you.
        Again, I am not personally going to be chopping on that
    report as the CFO, but I am aware that it is moving and it has
    been discussed with DoD officials that are in the intelligence
    area.
        Mr. Smith. Do you believe this report will reveal any
    serious national security threats that the American people
    should be aware of?
        Mr. McCord. I can't say at this time. I have not been
    briefed on the report myself. But I do understand that in the
    intelligence channels, both the Director of National
    Intelligence and then in the intelligence--Under Secretary of
    Defense Department, it has been--it is being reviewed and is
    expected to be released very soon, as you describe.
        Mr. Smith. There is a lot of interest, and even more
    interest as the days get closer.
        I will go back to my question on Israel since it was cut
    out during the feed as well.
        But, Under Secretary McCord, Israel is one of America's
    most important allies and the only democracy in the Middle
    East. Recently we have heard from people on the far left--in
    fact in the House chambers--who reject our support for Israel
    and even falsely equated Israel with terrorist groups operating
    in the region.
        As attacks on people of the Jewish faith rise around the
    globe, it's never been more important for us to support Israel.
    Wouldn't you agree?
        Mr. McCord. Yes, Congressman. Secretary Austin recently met
    with the Israeli defense minister, and they discussed the most
    specific current ask on the table or issue on the table, which
    is their request for assistance from the United States to
    replenish their inventories of the iron dome system that they
    have used to respond to the rocket attacks. And we in the
    Department are supportive of that request, we are evaluating
    that request to get information to the Congress on it. And that
    is I think the most near-term and concrete evidence of our
    existing strong relationship and support for Israel.
        Mr. Smith. Do you have an idea how this budget or the
    additional cuts proposed by some members will affect this
    funding?
        Mr. McCord. Well, the funding and the budget that was
    released a month ago, you know, was prepared over some months
    and did not anticipate and was not incorporating any--you know,
    the recent rocket exchange or recent attacks on Israel. So it
    wasn't built with that in mind. The funding that we are
    evaluating was a request from Israel on top of what is in our
    budget and on top of what Israel might have planned. So it is
    going to be probably some sort of supplemental type approach
    that we would--that Congress would have to consider to address
    that. It is not--our budget was built on more of a steady state
    support for iron dome and other Israeli cooperative programs.
        Mr. Smith. OK. That is unfortunate.
        The U.S. economy is experiencing the biggest surge in
    inflation in nearly 13 years. Last month the consumer price
    index rose by 5 percent from a year ago. Producer prices have
    climbed over 6 percent in the last 12 months, the fastest
    increase on record.
        With prices rising for consumers and producers, can you
    explain what areas of our defense budget are impacted the most
    by these increases?
        Mr. McCord. Probably the thing that we notice the most
    rapidly in the Defense Department is when fuel prices change
    because we are such a large consumer of fuel. And we have--
    there are sort of two aspects to this. Between now and the end
    of the Fiscal Year we have the appropriations, we have
    discretionary appropriations. As you know, the dollar amount is
    the dollar amount. So if we have--see inflation tick up between
    now and September 30, that is a management problem that I have
    with the rest of the financial management team to manage us
    through that. Starting in the new fiscal year, then we have a
    little more space and it is something that could be discussed
    between Congress and the President for Fiscal Year 2. In the
    future, for the budget that we will build the rest of this fall
    into the end of this calendar year that will be presented to
    you next February, then of course you have more options to look
    at--get updated economic forecasts and look at whether the top
    lines should be adjusted because of inflation.
        But obviously as you walk back from that to the near-term,
    you don't have really a lot of flexibility and you have to take
    more--it is more in the realm of management action. But we are
    certainly aware, as you say, that inflation concerns are out
    there and fuel is probably our most volatile issue in the near-
    term and perhaps other energy prices that derive from that.
        Mr. Smith. But this budget is focused on a 10-year window
    and it does not have the inflation concerns that all the
    economic statistics are showing. And so I am glad that you
    acknowledge that we need to look at that.
        So thank you, sir.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Doggett, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Doggett. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    gentlemen, for your service to our country.
        You know, I have met with enough gold star families, enough
    disabled veterans to appreciate how important it is for
    President Biden to be focused on the use of diplomacy first and
    our military as a firm, powerful but final line of defense only
    when our vital national interests are involved and there is not
    another alternative.
        It was recognized by General Milley in his testimony
    yesterday that many of the threats to our families are not from
    abroad but from within when he asked the question, what is it
    that caused thousands of people to assault this building and
    try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of
    America. Sadly, so many of our Republican colleagues, including
    those who are near hysterical this morning, want to disregard
    that. One Republican colleague has even suggested that this
    serious internal threat might have just been mistaken for
    tourists.
        There are a number of provisions in your budget that I
    applaud, beginning with the removal of this budget gimmick of
    the Overseas Contingency Operations account, or OCO. It is good
    to see that your budget includes a pay raise for both our
    service members and the civilian employees that are so
    important to our defense. And since I represent much of San
    Antonio, proudly known as ``military city'', I am pleased to
    see the restoration of funds for Camp Bullis and other defense
    establishments that were wrongly eliminated by President Trump
    as he defunded our defense for our worthless border wall.
        And I am pleased at the continued investment that you make
    in the best military medicine in the world, at BAMC in San
    Antonio. Healthcare that not only meets the needs of our
    military but has broad benefits for the civilian population.
        In my own hometown of Austin I am pleased to see in the
    budget recognition of the important role of the Army Futures
    Command as it has a growing presence and an increased
    investment in this budget. The engagement of the tech community
    in Austin and across the country is very important to our
    national security, and I salute the work of the Army Futures
    Command in preparing us for future threats.
        Regarding the nonsense that we have heard this morning
    that--in attacking the budget of President Trump on defense--
    President Biden on defense, that he is somehow weaker than
    President Trump, one need only look at the last few months of
    this Administration to recognize how much safer we are today
    than in the disastrous four years of the Trump Administration.
    We longer have a president who tells us because of a few love
    letters that we don't face a threat from North Korea, we don't
    have a president who is abandoning suddenly our allies, as
    President Trump did with the Kurds, and fortunately, unlike
    President Bush, he is not contemplating a totally unjustified
    invasion of another country at a likely cost of more than a
    trillion and the loss of so many precious lives.
        There can be no doubt that American families are safer
    today than they were a year ago when President Trump devoted
    his effort to attacking our military allies and appeasing our
    adversaries.
        You know, with the changes in our deployments overseas, one
    might expect that we would have a peace dividend reflected in
    this budget, but that never seems to happen.
        Mr. McCord, let me just ask you, isn't it true that over
    the last couple of decades the Defense Department budget has
    soared by over 50 percent?
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, thank you for your question. And I
    just want to also commend you and agree with you that Brooke
    Army Medical Center is, you know, just an important national
    asset for us.
        The defense budget, if you want to take--probably the most
    notable delineation is pre 9/11, post 9/11. It was about $300
    billion pre 9/11, so just in purely nominal terms, you are
    correct, it has more than doubled in 20 years. Of course
    inflation--you know, after--with taking inflation into account,
    the increase would be much less.
        Mr. Doggett. How does it compare--how does our defense
    budget compare with that of Russia and China.
        Mr. McCord. It is larger than either of theirs. As other
    have noted in other hearings, there are some real comparability
    problems because we have a high quality Force, volunteers that
    we compensate at market rates, and they do not. But----
        Mr. Doggett. Our budget overwhelms the budget of both our
    adversaries, Russia and China, and almost all the countries of
    the world already right now, doesn't it?
        Mr. McCord. We certainly have the largest defense budget in
    the world as measured, given that there are comparability
    discussions as we have discussed.
        Mr. Doggett. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Kelly,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you witnesses
    for being here.
        First of all, I want to talk just a little bit about those
    comparability problems. When they have a whole of government
    and communist or socialist form of governments, they have lots
    of other things that go into a defense budget, whether it be
    cyber or other things that are not included in ours that are
    completely separate. So it is really hard to compare apples and
    oranges. Agreed?
        Mr. McCord. That is correct. And I think you touched on
    another important point that I think was central to both the
    national defense strategy and our national security strategy,
    is that we are playing--we are in a competition----
        Mr. Kelly. Yes.
        Mr. Kelly [continuing]. with China and Russia----
        Mr. Kelly. Let me get to my next question.
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. using whole of government tools,
    not just military tools.
        Mr. Kelly. In the 1930's we had similarly situated folks,
    we had a rise in Germany, a rise in Japan, we had similarly
    situated folks in the United States who were advocating to cut
    our defense budget because we didn't need it, we didn't need to
    be able to project power, we didn't need to show strength
    through a strong military. And that resulted in 1941, December
    7 in an attack on Pearl Harbor that drug us into a world war.
        I believe in peace through strength. I do not believe in
    war. And although I have chosen to defend this nation, I
    believe that is what we should be, a defense. But peace through
    strength.
        Fox Conner, Major General Fox Conner, chief of staff to
    General Pershing in World War I, warned Congress then that it
    was looming that if we did not invest in our military that the
    result would be another World War. And that is what we got. I
    don't want that. That is why we must be. So in this budget,
    although we are calling it an increase, I would argue that it
    is a modest 1.3 percent increase against the Commission's
    recommendation, bipartisan, that said we should be 3 to 5
    percent real growth every year. We are cutting $2.8 billion in
    old equipment--or in equipment, with the majority coming from
    the Navy and Air Force. We are supposed to be redirecting on
    China and Russia, which requires Navy and strategic air, yet we
    are cutting those programs.
        Understand this in this budget, it is a cut. We are doing
    away with OCO. You can call it what you want. There is $617
    million that are going into green stuff. The last time we got
    promised a green fleet by President Obama that said it would be
    completely done by 2020, and it still doesn't exist, and we
    have no idea how much it cost America to do something that
    didn't produce anything.
        Not being prepared, just so you understand, creates a huge
    cost in both lives and treasure of the United States of
    America. With that being said, tell me how we are impacting our
    industrial base by cutting DDGs that should be built. The last
    time we did that, it cost us $2 billion to build a ship that
    was $1 billion before we delayed it a year.
        Tell us what the cost to the industrial base and to our
    defense, how much more is it going to cost us because we are
    delaying these budgets to buy new equipment?
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, let me briefly respond and then
    toss it to the Admiral, who can give you more detail on this,
    but the understanding in the Department is that the industrial
    base is backlogged on the DDG in particular to the point that
    we could have the ship in the budget this year or next year, it
    would deliver at the same time. And so the impact was not
    assessed to be significant.
        But let me ask him to give more detail.
        Admiral Boxall. Yes, I would just add that we--you know, as
    we look at the fleet we have now and the fleet that, you know,
    we are trying to get to kind of get to a more hybrid fleet, the
    make up of that fleet is going to take a little time to get to.
    As we look this year in particular, in 1922, I believe we
    have--you know, we are bringing in 17 ships. We are taking a
    few out, as you already said, but clearly one of the things we
    have to get at is how do we get to a more distributed connected
    fleet that can, you know, make it--the adversaries----
        Mr. Kelly. Taking my time back. I just--I want you to
    understand, taking that DDG is part of the integral air defense
    against missile systems that we need, yet we are taking one off
    the table, which is--with the Aegis System and other things is
    really important.
        The final thing I just ask you guys to do, and I brought
    this up with Chairman Milley and Defense Secretary Austin
    yesterday, please make sure we reimburse our Guard and Reserve.
    Our men and women have given too much to the nation over the
    last year to have their guard drills canceled at the end of
    this calendar year because we don't have the money to pay them
    for their COVID response, hurricane response, wildfire
    response, border response. I have got 155 BCT right now in the
    desert in California training. We owe them the $500 million we
    used to defend this Capitol.
        Thank you and I yield back.
        Mr. McCord. Chairman? If I could----
        Chairman Yarmuth. Yes, go ahead.
        Mr. McCord. If I could respond and comment.
        Yes, I agree with that. The Department has--the Department
    supports the supplemental that the House passed for the $520
    million. We do need those funds. Although the Defense
    Department budget is much larger than Guard's it is not--they
    cannot accommodate those Capitol security guards. And within
    weeks of this hearing, they are going to have to start
    notifying people they are canceling drills in the fourth
    quarter if we don't have a clear way ahead on reimbursing those
    costs. So we support the House for moving on that and certainly
    would urge the Senate to follow in your footsteps.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you for that response. The
    gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms.
    Schakowsky, for five minutes.
        Ms. Schakowsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    the witnesses. Really appreciate your being here and your
    service.
        Pretty much since I have been in Congress, which is quite--
    22 years, I have raised concerns about the costs of private
    military contractors. A 2017 report by the Department's own
    Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office found that these
    contractors often cost far more than DoD civilian employees. An
    additional study that was done by the Sustainable Defense Task
    Force estimated that currently--that curtailing the contractors
    work force by even 15 percent could save over $20 billion a
    year.
        Unfortunately, the data that DoD used to manage the labor
    costs is deteriorating. A February GAO report tells us that the
    DoD new system for collecting the data about the employees does
    not include what was in the previous system, including direct
    labor costs associated with contractor work force. And this
    data is essential for analyzing the right work force mix of
    military, civilian, and contractors.
        So, Under Secretary McCord, what are you doing to improve
    labor cost data collection and how do you plan to use the data
    to control the cost of private military contractors?
        Mr. McCord. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        There are two issues, I think. There is the policy issue of
    when there are cuts imposed as there have been in defense
    authorization bills, on headquarters staff in particular, there
    is an impetus to move to contractors because you are told to
    cut your government staff, whether military or civilian. So
    there is that. That is a policy problem we struggle with. That
    is where you have flexibility, so that is the direction people
    go. And then, as you say, then that brings you--but to the cost
    issue, have you really saved any money when you squeeze the
    government work force but the contractor work force is sort of
    considered separately.
        The data issue, I would have to get back to you for the
    record on which system you are talking about and what are the
    ways ahead on that. But it has been a struggle, both counting
    service contractor costs more generally, as well as the--you
    know, the cost compared to government civilians. But I will
    have to take for the record what are the deliverables that we
    might owe you.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I mean there has certainly been problems in
    just figuring out what the defense budget is. Have you been
    passing audits?
        Mr. McCord. The Department entered into a full move as I
    was leaving and moving into the last Administration and now
    coming back from audits of the Army, Navy, Air Force
    separately, different components separately to a full
    Department audit. We have not gotten a clean opinion, as I am
    sure you are aware on that audit. But we are in the full audit
    regime, but we have not gotten a clean opinion yet.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I wanted to ask about climate change. Many
    national security experts and members of the military have
    stated that climate change is a ``threat multiplier'', yet we
    still see the Department of Defense as the world's largest
    institutional user of petroleum and the world's single largest
    institutional producer of greenhouse gases.
        What are we doing about that?
        Mr. McCord. Well, as you say, we are the world's preeminent
    global power, so we do operate in a global way in which no
    other military does. We do consumer more energy to accomplish
    that. There are initiatives under way on both the installation
    side of the energy that is consumed at fixed places at bases
    and shipyards and such. And then there is the energy in motion,
    as you describe it. There are initiatives primarily at this
    point I think more on the vehicle side, which is the easiest
    place to make progress. On the air side, which is where most of
    the energy is consumed, that is going to be the harder
    challenge.
        Ms. Schakowsky. OK. I am just a little concerned that what
    you are saying is that addressing the issue of our carbon
    footprint is simply really not a priority and I think it is
    really important that we look for ways not to diminish our
    power, that is as a nation, but to reduce our use of carbon
    emissions.
        So I yield back.
        Mr. McCord. Congresswoman, I would just say if I made the
    impression it is not a priority, that is not what I--I
    misspoke. I am just saying it is technically harder to address
    the jet fuel issue than it is to address vehicles.
        Ms. Schakowsky. I hear that. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        And now I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
    McClintock, for five minutes
        Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Admiral Boxall, there is growing alarm by the military
    community in my district over what appears to be the military's
    fixation on social engineering, personal pronouns, critical
    race theory, gender reassignment surgery, maternity flight
    suits, and the private political beliefs of our soldiers and
    sailors.
        I asked one retired Navy captain what would he suggest I
    ask you. I had three questions. What are you doing to restore
    the discipline of seamanship so our ships don't collide? What
    are you doing to restore mission and fighting purpose so that
    whether confronted by Iranian gun boats or the Coronavirus, the
    first impulse of our commanders is not to surrender? What are
    you doing to assure the American taxpayer that every dollar is
    devoted to a Navy that is ready and willing to fight?
        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, Congressman.
        First I can tell you, on the first question, what are we
    doing to restore discipline, I mean I believe we have
    incredibly strong discipline in the military writ large. I mean
    the recent deployments we had----
        Mr. McClintock. When an Iranian gun boat--when our forces
    surrender when a shot is fired across your bow by an Iranian
    gun boat, I hardly think that statement is accurate.
        Admiral Boxall. Well, with all due respect, sir, I think,
    you know, again this was some time ago. There are going to be--
    --
        Mr. McClintock. When an aircraft carrier commander has an
    outbreak of COVID on his ship and sends through non-secure
    channels that he can't engage in combat because he has some
    COVID cases, again, that statement doesn't ring true to me.
        Admiral Boxall. Sir, again, I am just going to tell you
    that my experience I can speak to is as both a carrier strike
    commander, as a ship captain in two different cases, and my day
    to day involvement for 37 years almost with our Forces, is that
    I believe we that have a very strong discipline. I----
        Mr. McClintock. That is an opinion. What metrics do you use
    to determine readiness and lethality?
        Admiral Boxall. We actually use a lot of different
    readiness. We have short-term, near-term readiness metrics that
    we use. We evaluate----
        Mr. McClintock. What about----
        Admiral Boxall. Well, we look at ships readiness rates, we
    look at aircraft readiness rates, we look at--we have----
        Mr. McClintock. And how are we doing?
        Admiral Boxall. Well, generally most have been improving
    very steadily in different areas, as is usually the case.
        Mr. McClintock. I have heard reports that we have a large
    percentage of aircraft and ships that are simply not combat
    ready, particularly aircraft.
        Admiral Boxall. Sir, we have actually made incredible
    progress with aircraft specifically.
        Mr. McClintock. What is incredible progress?
        Admiral Boxall. Well, the commander of the Naval Air Force
    is specific, for example, has recently instituted an
    implementation plan for readiness of his aircraft and has----
        Mr. McClintock. I would like to get the figures for
    aircraft readiness and for ship readiness now, five years ago,
    and 10 years ago.
        Admiral Boxall. I will----
        Mr. McClintock. Can you get that for me?
        Admiral Boxall. Those are very broad statistics. We have
    series of different readiness metrics, but we will be--work
    with your office to get you exactly what you----
        Mr. McClintock. What do you think is the greatest threat
    facing our country?
        Admiral Boxall. As a military person, obviously we are
    concerned about the growth of the adversaries, China, Russia,
    the rise of North Korea. I mean these are----
        Mr. McClintock. I am glad to hear that. I was afraid you
    were going to say climate change. That is what the President
    told us he was being advised.
        Mr. McCord, the Chinese military is growing very rapidly
    relative to ours, yet we are spending three times more for our
    military than China is for its military. That sounds like a
    catastrophic management failure.
        How do you explain spending three times more than China
    while China is gaining ground on us at such an alarming rate?
    You said in response to Mr. Kelly that well it is because we
    take better care of our people. Well, if our people end up in a
    war against an enemy that is vastly better equipped and
    prepared, it is going to end very badly for our people and for
    our country.
        Mr. McCord. I agree that is the place we don't want to end
    up. Our military--their military is not vastly superior to
    ours. Ours is superior to theirs.
        Mr. McClintock. But they are making rapid gains on us. I
    don't think there is any question about that.
        Mr. McCord. That is correct. I am just saying they are
    not--they don't have a better military than we do.
        Mr. McClintock. And it will only be a few years until we
    are there at the current rate, and yet we are spending three
    times more for our military than they are for theirs.
        Mr. McCord. We do spend more----
        Mr. McClintock. There is a bang for the buck problem there
    that is pretty frightening.
        Mr. McCord. Well, there is--as I said, one reason, as we
    described, is that because we have higher quality people, and
    we compensate them.
        Mr. McClintock. Well, let me----
        Mr. McCord. The other is that we are a global power, China
    is not--is not--project power in Europe----
        Mr. McClintock. Well, let me ask you this----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. and other places where we----
        Mr. McClintock [continuing]. how much do you spend for your
    green energy programs?
        Mr. McCord. There are about $600 million in the budget out
    of $700 billion for climate programs.
        Mr. McClintock. What does a gallon of synthetic fuel for
    our jets cost?
        Mr. McCord. I would have to get that for the record.
        Mr. McClintock. Can you give me a rough estimate?
        Mr. McCord. No, I can't.
        Mr. McClintock. OK, well let me ask you this, how much does
    a gallon of convention fuel cost?
        Mr. McCord. I don't have the figures in front of me. We
    don't buy, of course, conventional fuel for our jets.
        Mr. McClintock. Is the magnitude about three or four times?
        Mr. McCord. I would have to get that for the record for
    you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Kildee,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for our witnesses,
    thank you for being here.
        I represent--rather proudly represent a small community in
    Northern Michigan called Oscoda. It was for a long time the
    home to B52s at the Wurtsmith Air Force Base, which closed a
    couple of decades ago, 30 years--nearly 30 years ago. The
    residents of that small community continue to live with some of
    the consequences of the Air Force presence there and it is in
    the form of toxic PFAS chemicals. I am sure this is a subject
    that you have heard a lot about. These chemicals have been
    linked to cancer, to thyroid disease, and it has been in the
    drinking water, in the groundwater in Oscoda because the use of
    AFFF in training and in fires at that base.
        The community has organized itself. There is an
    organization called Need Our Water. They deserve an awful lot
    of credit for bringing this subject to the attention of
    policymakers. They were talking about PFAS before anybody could
    even spell it. And their desire is to hold polluters
    accountable. Of course, that is something we all believe in.
        In Congress I have been working on this subject for a few
    years since it was brought to my attention. I co-chair a
    bipartisan task force, The congressional PFAS Task Force, along
    with Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, and we have
    brought Democrats and Republicans together on this issue and we
    have been able to address it. But, you know, as we know, this
    town that I represent, Oscoda, it is not alone. Our Task Force
    has about 60 members because they are hearing from their
    residents about PFAS contamination. And we know that a lot of
    the PFAS contamination is traceable to DoD installations. About
    300 DoD installations have confirmed PFAS in the groundwater.
        So this is an issue that is only going to get more serious
    and only going to require more attention. Just this week, the
    GAO issued a report that concluded the DoD will have to
    significantly increase spending to clean up current and former
    DoD installations that are contaminated with PFAS.
        So, Mr. McCord, in light of this report, I am curious as to
    why the DoD request this year is for less money for
    environmental remediation this year than for last year, given
    the fact that this issue along is one that is going to be
    demand significantly more investment and cleanup.
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, I agree. The Department recognizes
    this is a serious issue and a long-term issue that we are
    probably closer to the beginning than the end. My understanding
    is we have about a $2 billion liability on our books right now
    for the future cost of this, but we understand that figure is
    probably going to increase.
        The budget request for this year is intended to fully fund
    what we are able to do this year. I believe it is less than
    what Congress appropriated last year, although not less I think
    than what we have been requesting.
        The phase that we are in, as I understand it, is that we
    have to continue characterizing it--I believe there is over 600
    bases, of which yours is one, that have to be characterized
    under CERCLA. And so that is a process. We have to sort of
    follow the process. And when we get better characterization of
    the problems, then the remediation phase will ramp up more
    significantly.
        But we certainly do understand that both for communities
    where service members still are working as well as BRAC
    facilities, as you are describing, this is an important issue
    that I think the Department is committed to.
        Mr. Kildee. Well, I appreciate that. And I would just point
    out that I do think maybe down the chain there is not full
    communication up the chain, because in the case of Oscoda--and
    I am only talking about Oscoda, but I am going to operate on
    the assumption that this is the case in other facilities and
    Oscoda being a BRAC site--one of the constraints we have had as
    we have been able to get more money for cleanup is this tension
    between additional study and spending money to do the cleanup.
    We have a plan to clean up Oscoda. It needs to be expanded and
    accelerated.
        And so I would only take an issue with the notion that what
    is being requested is intended to be a reflection of what we
    can do, because at least in the case of Oscoda, I know with
    certainly that with more resources we can do much more much
    more quickly. And the issue for any community dealing with this
    is to get it cleaned up as fast as possible. The health
    implications continue, the economic impact on these communities
    are severe, and we need I think to be much more aggressive and
    accelerate our work in this space.
        So if you can work with us on that I would certainly
    appreciate it.
        Mr. McCord. We will.
        Mr. Kildee. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Smucker, for five minutes.
        Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCord
    and Vice Admiral Boxall, for being here. Thank you both for
    your service as well.
        Mr. McCord, we have briefly touched on the idea of
    investing ensuring that state Department and Diplomacy is fully
    funded to, you know, result in maybe less funding for DoD.
    There is also--I want to ask you, in your testimony you
    introduce I think a new emphasis or concept by the
    Administration linking foreign and domestic policy and
    spending. You say the Administration is moving away from
    traditional distinctions between foreign and domestic policy,
    you say President Biden believes that domestic renewal will be
    key to bolstering the Department's ability to defend the
    country. Does that mean--do you believe that means that funds
    that had traditionally been allocated for DoD were now diverted
    to domestic programs instead?
        Mr. McCord. Thank you.
        No, my point was more that the President has--believes, and
    I agree, that we need a strong economy to underwrite everything
    that we do, diplomacy and military strength. So that is the
    definition to think of security, economic strength.
        And then I would say the second aspect of that is issues--
    COVID has really highlighted this--supply chain issues that
    affect military, affect non military issues, micro electronics.
    You know, the issue, for example, of car makers not being able
    to get chips because they are only made in one place are across
    defense and non-defense issues. So those issues I think are--he
    views those as increasing insignificance.
        Mr. Smucker. Yes. Talking about domestic policy, do you
    believe that open borders pose a threat to our domestic
    security, our national security?
        Mr. McCord. I think borders are a security issue, yes.
        Mr. Smucker. Are you concerned about the individuals from
    dozens of countries, over 60 countries, including some of those
    countries on the terrorist watch list, have come across the
    border and have been apprehended, and we don't know who else is
    coming? Does that concern you?
        Mr. McCord. I would agree that who crosses our border is an
    issue for our--every country should have visibility over what
    is happening and----
        Mr. Smucker. So are you--so do you have any concerns that
    the Administration's open border policies can be exploited by
    foreign terrorists currently today?
        Mr. McCord. I can't speak to, you know, how well the
    Department of Homeland Security is carrying out its missions
    under current policies, but that is their role and the
    Department of Defense is a more limited supporting role.
        Mr. Smucker. But that would be a concern to you?
        Mr. McCord. If the Department of Homeland Security is not
    meeting their mission, that would be, but that is----
        Mr. Smucker. Do you----
        Mr. McCord. That would be an issue again of rebalancing as
    to whether or not, you know, different agencies have what they
    need.
        Mr. Smucker. Yes. There are many of us who believe that the
    Administration has not properly identified the crisis at the
    border. Vice President Harris has now said she will be visiting
    the border tomorrow, 92 days after being appointed as the
    Border Czar. Do you think that will result in better border
    policy that will protect the nation's security?
        Mr. McCord. I believe that the--you know, the border and
    immigration issues, which have been, you know, combined I think
    as a large problem that Congress and presidents have wrestled
    with for decades, remain, you know, a difficult issue for us as
    a nation.
        Mr. Smucker. Well, sir, it has been made much more
    difficult by this Administration's policies.
        I want to just touch on another one. I was interested to
    note the Chairman mentioned in his opening statement that two
    out of three of our bases are threatened by climate change. And
    I wondered if you would agree with that and how would you come
    to that position?
        Mr. McCord. I think the main reason that we have an issue--
    one of the main reasons we have particular sensitivity to
    climate change in the military is that after World War II our
    military, which was distributed differently prior to then,
    moved to the coast to a large extent along, you know, the south
    and the west in particular from----
        Mr. Smucker. So do you think that two out of three are
    threatened by climate change?
        Mr. McCord. I couldn't give you the exact number because it
    depends on whether you count every Guard recruiting station as
    an installation.
        Mr. Smucker. OK. So--and I am sorry to cut you off, but I
    would like--would you rank that compared to the threat from
    China or Russia? Or just rank it compared to our top 10
    threats.
        Mr. McCord. Climate change is an important--is important
    because it affects the environment we operate in as well as it
    acts on us as military people in terms of, you know, the health
    of our bases and the billions of dollars of damage that we have
    had.
        China is a different aspect in terms of its global--a
    global competitor to us, both inside and outside the defense
    realm.
        So both of these are global challenges that cross the
    defense/non-defense into the broader definition of national
    security.
        Mr. Smucker. So do you think it is a smart investment to
    redirect funds from addressing immediate threats like cyber
    attacks, like confronting China to combatting climate change?
        Mr. McCord. I would not characterize our budget as picking
    one of the other. We have the funding to do both.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired.
        I now recognize the gentleman from Nevada, Mr. Horsford,
    for five minutes.
        Mr. Horsford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
    witnesses for your service and for your testimony today. Last
    week, I asked General Brown about the Air Force's plans to end
    procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper. As I am sure you know, the MQ-9
    plays a critical role in my district. Creech Air Force Base is
    the hub for global ISR and unmanned Hunter-Killer operations in
    support of combat commanders.
        The airmen of Creech Air Force Base play an increasingly
    important role in protecting the Homeland as we shift to
    exclusively over-the-horizon operations in Afghanistan.
        For the second year in a row, General McKenzie's number one
    request was for an additional $53 million in funding for the
    MQ-9. He said that the planned Air Force MQ-9's reductions,
    ``greatly increases risk to deployed and redeploying forces.''
    He went on to say that combined with our much smaller ground
    force presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, MQ-9 reductions
    would, ``substantially reduce CENTCOM's ability to combat ISIS,
    Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups.'' I am concerned by this
    clear disconnect between the clearly articulated needs of the
    combatant commander and the Air Force's planned reductions. In
    response to my question last week, General Brown indicated that
    continued procurement of the MQ-9 platform, even at the modest
    Fiscal Year 2021 enacted level, would risk the development of
    next-generation ISR capabilities.
        In the context of the entire Fiscal Year 2022 budget
    request, the $53 million that is requested by General McKenzie
    or even the enacted level of Fiscal Year 2021 MQ-9 procurement
    of $343 million seems like a small price to pay for assured
    over-the-horizon access in Afghanistan. Given the savings the
    Department will realize due to the Afghanistan withdrawal, I
    don't understand why we shouldn't make this investment in
    maintaining our over-the-horizon access in the near to mid-
    term. Under Secretary McCord, does the Department of Defense
    support General McKenzie's request for additional MQ-9 funding?
        Mr. McCord. As with many other programs, what is in the
    budget represents our highest priorities, and commanders are
    invited to identify lower priorities that did not make the
    budget that they still think are worthy of consideration, and
    Congress requests that those be provided, and they are. I would
    say that--I will ask Admiral Boxall to speak about this in more
    detail because he has greater expertise, but over-the-horizon
    is going to be a challenge, I think, no matter how many assets
    you have just because of the distances----
        Mr. Horsford. I will repeat my----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. as we leave Afghanistan.
        Mr. Horsford. It was a pretty simple yes or no response. Do
    you believe that the continued MQ-9 procurement necessary to
    meet CENTCOM's over-the-horizon requirements would endanger
    ongoing efforts to develop and build next generation ISR
    capabilities?
        Mr. McCord. I think the overarching issue that you are
    getting at, which the chief of staff probably was addressing
    with you, is that these are not--these are not the assets most
    suited to the near-peer competition that we are looking at in
    the future, and therefore, you have to at some point move away
    from things that may work well in relatively uncontested
    environments that are not more survivable in a higher-end
    threat.
        Admiral Boxall. Sir, we have about almost 300 MQ-9s in
    inventory right now. The driver for the lines that we are using
    in the Middle East right now really have more to do with the
    150 or so people per line that it takes to operate those.
    General McKenzie's concerns are very valid, and we certainly
    respect those. But we can meet those needs as the commander
    requests through their allocation requests through the global
    force management process. So, we feel very confident that this,
    while you know we have to make difficult choices along the way,
    we need something that will get after the ISR needs for the
    future higher threat environments that we are going to face.
        MQ-9s will be part of that in some way as we transition.
    But again, this will be something that we will have to
    continually monitor and look to how better to use those MQ-9s
    with a less manpower intensive and perhaps a more AI driven
    ability through our ISR information gathering.
        Mr. Horsford. I will come back to this question both here
    and on the House Arms Services Committee. So, please, I look
    forward to working with your team and the Air Force to ensure
    CENTCOM has the resources that they need given our reduced
    ground presence in the region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
    yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Cline, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here. Mr. Under Secretary McCord and Vice
    Admiral Boxall, thank you for joining the Budget Committee
    today to review the DoD's proposed budget, and thank you for
    your service as well.
        One of the issues that I am most concerned with is our
    readiness to complete with our adversaries. And I am
    particularly concerned with whether this budget proposal does
    prepare us to meet these challenges. Mr. Under Secretary, I
    will start with you. What is the percentage increase in defense
    spending in the President's budget?
        Mr. McCord. As I think we have described, the percentage
    increase is about 1.6 percent from last year. In real terms, it
    is about 20 percent over the last four or five years.
        Mr. Cline. Right. Is it true that this is one of the
    smallest increases of any federal department and does not even
    keep up with inflation?
        Mr. McCord. It is a smaller increase in some departments if
    you look just compared to last year. But compared over a longer
    period, defense had basically already got its baseline increase
    prior to this year.
        Mr. Cline. We recognize the accomplishments of the last
    Administration in boosting defense spending. The Fiscal Year
    2022 request for national defense of 753 billion is only 1.6
    percent higher than last fiscal year's enacted level. As you
    stated, this growth increase is less than what the CBO
    projected for inflation. Vice Admiral, can the Department of
    Defense execute the requirements set forth by the most recent
    national defense strategy at this funding level?
        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, Congressman. The Chairman has
    been very clear that we have the resources we need to defend
    this country and to continue to make those investments. The
    challenge for us is always going to be one of risk. At any
    funding level, we have to kind of make difficult trades. And
    so, this budget we believe, and he also has communicated, that
    we are moving into the capability sets that we need. So, we are
    kind of in a transition to the change in the character of war.
    And the Chairman believes that we are making those significant
    investments. You heard about the RDT&E, the long-range fires,
    hypersonics, AI, space. A lot of these new capabilities are
    going to be needed. So, the answer is yes.
        Mr. Cline. Well, in addition to changes in technology and
    the like, would this funding level require the DoD to rethink
    and potentially change the national defense strategy?
        Admiral Boxall. Obviously, defense strategy is a function
    of the policy of the Secretary. We certainly believe that we
    always have to look at the changes of strategy. We have
    already--are in the process of redoing the strategy right now.
    We think that is a correct follow-on to the 2018 national
    defense strategy. So,----
        Mr. Cline. The answer is yes.
        Admiral Boxall. Yes.
        Mr. Cline. OK.
        Mr. McCord. I would just add, Congressman, the Secretary is
    required by law to do his own strategy assessment and the law
    is sort of structured that every new administration will be
    required to do so and that is underway.
        Mr. Cline. But that this funding reduction would require a
    shift and a change. And that was the question that I asked and
    was answered. Thank you.
        Mr. McCord. That is not necessary the case, no.
        Mr. Cline. OK. It is good to know you can do more with
    less. Last week, President Biden met with President Vladimir
    Putin on the world stage. Biden said he handed Putin a list of
    16 sectors of critical infrastructure, which are ``off limits''
    for cyber attacks. We believe that everything should be off
    limits from attacks of any kind from the Kremlin. Given that
    the President did not make this clear, it is even more
    important to invest in safeguarding our DoD networks and
    information systems. How does this budget build on the progress
    made in the military's cyber operations?
        Mr. McCord. This budget continues to invest in a very
    effective cyber command, which we already have. As I think you
    are aware, the most recent vulnerabilities have been on the
    non-defense side. And that stretches into the Homeland Security
    and even the private sector's areas of responsibility. That is
    probably where our greatest challenges lie. Our networks have
    been pretty good with respect to Solar Winds and any number of
    recent attacks have not really been a problem for DoD as they
    have been so much for other actors.
        Mr. Cline. OK. The single biggest reduction in proposed
    year over year cyber funding request appears to be in overseas
    Hunt Forward cyber ops with a $284.4 million cut to down to
    147.2 million in Fiscal Year 2022 versus a requested $431
    million last year. What is Hunt Forward and why is it no longer
    important?
        Admiral Boxall. Sir, I would say that Hunt Forward
    operations is the ability of the cyber teams to go forward with
    the permission of our allies to find threats to our networks
    abroad before they in fact invade our own networks. The money
    you are seeing here, I don't know the specific dollar amount,
    but what we also have added is four cyber mission teams that
    will assist in further improving. We actually did a $400
    million increase in cyber funding from 10 billion up to 10.4
    specifically to get after some of the issues you have there.
    Hunt Forward operations specifically because they are, you
    know, at the request of another government, is something that,
    you know, obviously we will continue to fund out of those teams
    that we help to perform those missions.
        Mr. Cline. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lee, for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Under Secretary McCord, for being with us today. A couple
    things. First of all, for those who have made comments
    regarding the so-called far left in terms of spending
    reduction, I just want to say a couple of things with regard to
    our support for our troops and support for our national
    security and our readiness. In no way have we presented any
    cuts that would tamper with any of our national security needs,
    especially as it relates to our troops. And in fact, we want to
    make sure that our troops are fully supported which we have not
    done in the past. So, I wanted to clarify that for the record.
    I am the daughter of a military officer, 25 years served in two
    wars. And there is no way that I would even think of going into
    trying to reduce defense spending that would hurt or harm our
    national security or our troops.
        For three decades now though the federal agencies have been
    required to pass financial audits, Under Secretary McCord. Now,
    last year we heard that--we were told that an audit would be
    ready from the Defense Department by 2027. Now, we are hearing
    the goal is 2028. And I want to know how we justified these
    increases in spending pouring into the financial system that
    cannot pass an audit or that won't conduct an audit per
    required by law?
        Second, I would like to just ask you with regard to the
    2016 study by the Defense Business Board, which identified $125
    billion in administrative waste at the Pentagon. The report was
    then shelved. And I wanted to find out and ask you, do you
    intend to revisit any of the findings of this study to look for
    savings, and do you plan to make these public?
        And finally, let me just ask you this. Now, we know that
    the Department continues to overpay for spare parts. Past
    overcharges have included $2,286 for landing gear that should
    have cost $10. Paying $71 for a pen that should have cost less
    than a nickel. And paying $8,124 for a beveled gear that should
    have cost $445. All of this was during the previous
    Administration. The Department tried to prevent--I know under
    the Obama Administration, tried to prevent these overcharges in
    seeking a revision to the definition of commercial terms. So,
    is there something that you consider submitting and supporting
    again to prevent taxpayer, quite frankly, rip-offs? And there
    again, we are talking about savings as it relates to waste,
    fraud, and abuse.
        Mr. McCord. Thank you. Let me address your three questions
    in order. On the audit, shortly before I was confirmed, I
    believe, the senior career officials testified before the House
    Armed Services Committee with the date of the 2027 date that
    you mentioned. I have not had a chance in my brief time in
    office here to confer with them and understand the rationale
    for those dates and whether I think it is just whether it is
    accurate, whether it could be faster, or whether it would be
    slower. So, I need to get back, work with my team and then get
    back to the Congress on whether or not there should be--that
    date should be reassessed. I certainly understand, you know,
    the frustration. The Department has, given our scope and our
    size, has had such a struggle with this issue, but we are
    committed to getting it right.
        On the Defense Business Board study, I am familiar with
    that. I believe we are talking about the same study. The
    problem that the Department had at the time with it was it was
    at such a generic level that you should be able to save money
    on functions like human resources and information technology
    without any specific actionable recommendations, I think, is
    the reason that Deputy Secretary Work at the time felt that it
    was not a useful report for us. That doesn't mean that we are
    not looking at the individual aspects of that for savings. Of
    course, we are.
        Finally, on the spare parts, the Defense Contract Audit
    Agency, which reports to me, has a particular mission to focus
    on non-commercial items. You know, and the more military unique
    things, that is where the Defense Contract Audit Agency focus
    goes. If something is a commercial item, that is a different
    challenge for us if something was maybe mischaracterized or was
    improperly priced as a commercial item. But we focus on the
    higher value military unique contracts. That is our first
    priority in terms of contract auditing for fair pricing.
        Ms. Lee. OK, thank you, Mr. Under Secretary. And I just
    wanted to close by saying that we know that, and it is
    unfortunate that the Pentagon has never been able to not only
    put forth an audit but pass an audit. The billions of dollars
    in waste, fraud, and abuse are very clear. They have been
    documented by very credible organizations, which know and
    follow defense spending. And so, for those who think that
    reasonable reductions in defense spending are just
    considerations of the far left, I want you to know that there
    are billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse in the
    Pentagon, which definitely could be positioned or reprogrammed
    for our troops and for other areas in terms of domestic
    spending that this country desperately needs. And so, thank you
    again very much for your responses.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Mr. McCord. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from
    Georgia, Mr. Carter, for five minutes.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank both of you
    for being here on this extremely important discussion, and we
    appreciate your participation. Gentlemen, Colin Powell has said
    the military was the only institution in America where, and I
    quote, ``The only thing that counted was courage where the
    color of your guts and the color of your blood was more
    important than the color of your skin.'' With that in mind, do
    teachings like critical race theory that is incredibly divisive
    and propose, and I quote again, ``The only remedy to past
    discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to
    present discrimination is future discrimination.''
        Look, I am all for reading and considering opposing views.
    And I think we all agree with that, as the Chairman of the
    Joint Chiefs has said. But this is intentionally divisive. And
    my question, Mr. Under Secretary, for you is, how do you expect
    a soldier or a sailor to fight for this country when they are
    being taught that it is not worth fighting for?
        Mr. McCord. Thank you. My understanding is that we are not
    teaching people critical race theory. As you describe, things
    are being, you know, offered up to consider, but not being
    imposed on people as official department policy to think a
    certain way.
        Mr. Carter. Are we funding that in any way at all?
        Mr. McCord. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Carter. It is my understanding that this is on
    recommended reading and it is even being taught in some classes
    at some of our institutions, some of our military institutions.
        Mr. McCord. It is quite possible that books are on reading
    lists, yes. That doesn't mean that we are--that it is
    department policy to make people believe a certain way.
        Mr. Carter. I understand that, but is it being taught? That
    is my question. And is it being financed to be taught?
        Mr. McCord. I would have to get back to you for the record
    on what is being taught. I am not in charge----
        Mr. Carter. Can you do that for me, please?
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. of professional military----
        Mr. Carter. Can you get back to me----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. education.
        Mr. Carter [continuing]. on the record for that?
        Mr. McCord. Certainly.
        Mr. Carter. I would appreciate that very much. If, indeed,
    Mr. Under Secretary, this is the case, how would that affect
    our future recruitment of an all-volunteer force if this
    teaches, if this type of teaching to our children to hate
    America and it is not worth fighting for? What impact do you
    think that would have?
        Mr. McCord. I am sorry. Are you asking about if it is
    taught in the military or if it is taught elsewhere?
        Mr. Carter. If this is the type of reading that we are
    recommending, that our military is recommending, if this is
    being taught and you are going to find that out and you are
    going to respond to me in writing if it is or if it isn't. But
    if it is being taught, do you think this would have an impact
    on us trying to recruit future volunteers?
        Mr. McCord. I believe that Secretary Austin's priority is
    to make sure that the force is inclusive and that the
    leadership of the force reflects the diversity that is already
    in the force. So, I think that we are actually moving in a good
    direction on this. I don't know that the issue you are
    describing will move the needle one way or the other on who
    chooses to join the force. It is a complex issue, as you know,
    recruiting and retention is a specialized field. And we compete
    with private sector. The services compete with each other, so
    it is certainly a complex challenge.
        Mr. Carter. So, we certainly should be concerned about what
    is being taught in our military institutions and what is being
    taught in our military and what is being recommended for them
    to read. Would you agree with that if recruiting as you
    indicate is so very important?
        Mr. McCord. Again, I don't know that what is being taught
    at West Point or some other place is----
        Mr. Carter. But my question is this----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. is crucial to this issue.
        Mr. Carter. My question is, wouldn't it be important for us
    to make sure that we are not including things such as this in
    our recommended reading? Wouldn't it be very important for us
    in the future recruitment of volunteers to make sure that we
    are making it clear that this country is worth fighting for and
    that we are not, indeed, proposing divisive material like
    critical race theory?
        Mr. McCord. I certainly agree this country is worth
    fighting for and I don't believe the Department teaches
    otherwise.
        Mr. Carter. OK. It is my understanding that according to a
    September 2020 memo, executive agencies spent millions of
    dollars on training claiming that there was racism imbedded in
    the belief that America is the land of opportunity or the
    belief that the most qualified person should receive a job and
    other tenets of what is known as critical race theory. Do you
    know how much the Department of Defense has spent on this type
    of teaching or if they have at all?
        Mr. McCord. I would have to get back to you for the record
    on whether there is, you know, on particular costs and
    particular type of training or reading.
        Mr. Carter. OK. I appreciate your willingness to get back
    with me, Mr. Under Secretary. And I appreciate your willingness
    to answer these questions. And I look forward with great
    anticipation to your written response to this. Thank you, sir,
    and I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Chu, for five
    minutes.
        Ms. Chu. Under Secretary McCord, I am concerned that in the
    150-page overview of the defense budget for Fiscal Year 2022,
    the word hazing does not appear anywhere. This is troubling
    because we know that hazing has been a persistent problem in
    the ranks, which I know first-hand. In 2011, my nephew, Marine
    Lance Corporal Harry Lew was a victim of hazing while stationed
    in Afghanistan. Under the guise of corrective action, other
    marines kicked, punched, and nearly smothered him with sand for
    several hours until he took his own life. At the same time this
    happened, Army Private Danny Chen was subject to weeks of abuse
    from his superiors who tortured him with physical abuse while
    yelling racial slurs and insults such as gook, chink, and
    dragon lady. He took his own life.
        After Harry's death, I heard from countless service members
    and their families who reached out to describe truly terrible
    acts of hazing. I also was able to get amendments in the NDAA
    for everything from GAO reports to directives for tracking and
    prevention measures of hazing. But still despite these
    directives, little progress has been made. From Fiscal Year
    2018 to 2020, the Army, Navy, and Air Force have not shown any
    improvements at tracking incidents. The vast majority of
    reported and substantiated hazing incidents have been reported
    by the Marine Corps each year.
        While the Marines have at least a system in place to report
    and track these incidents, it is clear that other branches have
    not followed suit. And, of course, hazing is not 50 times more
    prevalent in the Marines, which is the smallest service branch
    than in the Army, which is the largest. The problem instead is
    that up until now, there hasn't been urgency or accountability
    when it comes to addressing racism and hazing. So, could you
    please talk about the resources in this budget request that
    will be used to address racism and military hazing? And talk
    more broadly about how fighting racism and hazing fits into the
    Department's strategy in Fiscal Year 2022.
        Mr. McCord. The first thing I would say, Congresswoman, is
    I am certainly, on behalf of the Department, sorry for the loss
    in your family of your nephew. I understand you have spoken to
    the Deputy Secretary directly about that case and about our
    efforts in this area.
        Secretary Austin, taking care of the people, is one of his
    core tenets and I think everyone is aware that he has made a
    big effort to address diversity, equity, and inclusion. And
    then he has a separate task force on sexual assault. Suicide,
    and hazing are part of this larger effort. They don't get the
    publicity, I think, that the sexual assault, which has kind of
    dominated the headlines especially after the Secretary's recent
    statement, but I know it is part of the effort writ large in
    the personnel community. As the CFO, I don't have direct
    involvement in the training or setting up the programs, but I
    can certainly get any information for you for the record that
    you need.
        Ms. Chu. Thank you for that. And Under Secretary McCord, I
    see that throughout the budget that the Administration is
    turning our national security focus toward countering China. I
    understand the necessity of protecting our national security.
    But I also want to ensure that the rights and liberties of
    Chinese Americans are protected. The Trump Administration
    launched the China Initiative that put immense pressure on the
    Department of Defense to scrutinize and target Asian Americans,
    especially those of Chinese descent based solely on their
    ethnicity, which has had numerous consequences including having
    security clearances denied or revoked.
        In one instance, a 61-year-old founder of a machinery
    design company sought a security clearance to work on defense
    contracts. He immigrated to the U.S. in 1985, earned a
    doctorate degree, and became a citizen, had two daughters born
    in the U.S. However, because he was sending money to his 90-
    year-old father in China, his clearance was denied and his
    appeal was denied, despite the fact that he was never
    approached for sensitive information from the Chinese
    Government.
        So, as we view this budget and seek proposals to counter
    the influence of China, can you speak broadly about the
    importance of protecting the civil liberties of American
    citizens of Asian and Chinese descent while also protecting
    American national interests?
        Mr. McCord. Congresswoman, I would agree with you that
    central to what America is about is equal treatment under the
    law and equal treatment of people whether they are our
    employees, most especially, but also our contractor partners.
    So, I would agree with you it is important that we give people
    equal treatment and equal justice regardless of their race or
    ethnicity.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time----
        Ms. Chu. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentlewoman from Colorado, Mrs. Boebert, for five
    minutes.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    Ranking Member Jason Smith for holding this hearing. Thank you
    Vice Admiral Boxall and Under Secretary McCord for serving our
    country and taking time today to talk about the Biden
    Administration's defense proposal. The Biden agenda spends big
    on everything except our national defense. In our Ranking
    Member's opening remarks, he mentioned that this Administration
    seeks to defund our military, defund our police, which weakens
    our safety, our security, and emboldens our enemies.
        Whether this is at our southern border or to support our
    men in women in uniform, Biden's budget is light. Under Biden's
    budget, defense spending is essentially flatlined. Biden's
    budget would spend more on non-defense discretionary spending
    than defense discretionary spending. This Administration states
    that climate change is the biggest threat to our national
    security. I disagree. I would argue Biden's budget is a greater
    threat to our national security. It distracts from real
    national security threats like China, Russia, and the southern
    border being wide open to folks from all over the world pouring
    into our country illegally.
        Instead, this budget prioritizes a radical agenda through
    increasing funding for pandemic preparedness, climate change
    adaption, and bringing critical race theory ideologies into our
    military. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit a
    report by General Ed Eberhart and Lieutenant General Ed
    Anderson on the discussion to move U.S. space command into the
    record.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Without objection.
        [Report submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you. Admiral, thank you for being here
    today. Keeping in mind the context that I just laid out, I want
    to now turn to a study by a retired commander of Air Force
    Space Command and NORAD NORTHCOM and a retired lieutenant
    general. This study says that the decision to move the U.S.
    Space Command from Colorado Springs, Colorado to Huntsville,
    Alabama lacked evidence that cost was a priority. It says that
    leaving the Space Command in Colorado will save taxpayers more
    than $1.2 billion and get the Command to full mission
    capability seven years faster. Those numbers don't even include
    the costs of building survivable communications in Alabama or
    incentivizing civilians to move there. Given that the Biden
    Administration did not see fit to increase the defense budget
    at the rate of inflation, why would we waste $1.2 billion on a
    project that will delay mission capabilities seven years in the
    newest warfighting domain of space?
        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, Congresswoman. I have not read
    that study. I don't know the details of it or how those numbers
    were calculated. What I do know is that the Air Force is giving
    due diligence to the question. I don't know where it stands
    right now. I think it is--I have not been aware of any of those
    numbers that are used. So, until I have that, I wouldn't be
    able to comment.
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Admiral. Since the DoD IG and GAO
    are both investigating the decisions to move Space Command,
    will DoD also conduct a complete reassessment of the cost
    during this pause for the investigation?
        Admiral Boxall. Again, I am not familiar on the DoD
    portion. But I will say that cost is one aspect of it. There
    are a lot of things that go into those studies. Cost is
    certainly very important. Capability is critically important.
        Mrs. Boebert. Yes, sir.
        Admiral Boxall. So, all those areas----
        Mrs. Boebert. Thank you, Admiral. I don't mean to cut you
    short. I am sorry. My time is short. I do appreciate that, and
    I think the American people would be served best by a complete
    reassessment that includes costs and mission readiness.
        Now, with the time that I have left, I do want to turn to
    this budget's proposed increase for unconscious bias diversity
    training by $68 million. So, there are taxpayer dollars going
    to this critical race theory-based training. I have major
    concerns about spending taxpayer dollars to teach an ideology
    that undermines the principles of the Constitution our service
    members have taken an oath to defend. I have written the
    Secretary of the Navy to stop attempts through Task Force One
    Navy to insert this ideology into training regime for sailors
    in the U.S. Navy. And I also wrote to the Secretary of the Air
    Force regarding the removal of Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeier from
    his command due to the developing politicized environment in
    the DoD. This indoctrination and mandatory trainings have been
    taken too far. My time is up.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentlewoman from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Ms.
    Plaskett, for five minutes.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for the opportunity to question the witness. And thank you,
    Under Secretary, for being with us this morning. I wanted to
    ask you several questions. Many of my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle are criticizing this budget proposal for only
    providing a 1.6 percent--I am sorry. Is there someone else on
    the line off? Mr. Chairman, if you would----
        Mr. McCord. I don't believe so.
        Ms. Plaskett [continuing]. you reclaim the time? I am
    hearing--OK. Providing a 1.6 percent increase for the military.
    But the Department of Defense is an enormous operation. So, I
    think it is important to look deeper than just the topline
    funding levels. For example, the budget requests a 3.1 percent
    increase in military personnel, a 5.2 percent increase for
    research and development, and a 2.7 percent increase for
    military pay, while decreasing procurement by 5.7 percent. So,
    my question is to our witness. In your opinion, how should we
    review the adequacy of the Department's request? What do you
    hope we would look at when we determine the overall funding
    levels for defense?
        Mr. McCord. I know I would speak for both the Secretary and
    the Deputy Secretary that the most important thing for Congress
    to assess is what we are proposing, the details. What we are
    proposing to spend the money on rather than what it adds up to.
        Ms. Plaskett. I am sorry. The witness is on mute.
        Mr. McCord. I am sorry. Can you not hear me, Congresswoman?
        Chairman Yarmuth. Ms. Plaskett, are you able to hear? Yes,
    we will have to pause.
        Mr. McCord. Congresswoman, I had started to answer your
    question, but I am concerned you may not be able to hear me?
        Chairman Yarmuth. We ought to pause for just a minute,
    please. Yes, the hearing will be in recess until further
    notice.
        [Recess]
        Chairman Yarmuth. Ms. Plaskett, can you hear us now in the
    hearing room?
        Ms. Plaskett. Yes, I can.
        Chairman Yarmuth. All right. Well, then we will resume the
    hearing. The hearing is now back in order. And, Ms. Plaskett,
    you can continue your questioning.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. I believe the witness was
    responding to my question as to how should Members of this
    Committee review the adequacy of the Department's requests and
    how would you hope we would then look to determine the overall
    funding levels for defense?
        Mr. McCord. Understanding that the Budget Committee has a
    somewhat different role than the Arms Services and
    Appropriations Committee, I understand that you would look at
    the topline as part of your assessment here and possibly in
    comparison to the other priorities. I would point out just on
    that front, that we have--our discretionary request is
    basically equal to every other agency's combined. So, I feel
    like we have the resources that we need to do our job. I am not
    concerned whether we have a little more or a little less than
    some other agency. But I understand that that is part of the
    assessment you must make about whether you feel the balance is
    appropriate.
        Within our topline is where we really feel like we would
    like the Congress to focus. As you look at what we are doing,
    do you think we are on the right path? Do you think we are
    pursuing the right priorities? If you believe--if you agree
    with us on the assessment of what the priorities are such as
    concerned about the global competition with China, do you think
    that our programs are moving us in that direction? We think we
    have a good program and a good story on that. But I think that
    is where the focus should be.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you.
        Admiral Boxall. I would echo that we would hope that we
    look at that right balance of readiness, modernization, and
    procurement. Certainly, those are the criteria that we use to
    measure the difficult choices that we had to make inside this
    or any budget. So, we would hope that the Committee would
    review that we got those parts of it right. That we believe,
    you know, we need to modernize the force. We need to get after
    more important capabilities and restore the readiness that we
    have kind of had issues with that are continuing to improve,
    but we need to keep that going with personnel as well. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. And with that readiness and
    ensuring that our troops are, in fact, educated and mindful in
    the same way that you would teach them about the doctrine of
    communism or socialism or those individuals that we are working
    against. You would, in turn, also teach them about those
    principles and support the American people such as the
    Constitution and such as, as my colleague does not seem to
    understand, critical race theory is a legal doctrine, not one
    that is put forth in schools. And so, having sensitive and
    those troops who understand and are able to adequately support
    their fellow officers whether it is in the field, battlefield,
    or on the ships, or anywhere else, would be something that I am
    sure our troops are happy to have.
        One of the last questions I wanted to ask you was that an
    issue that I have concern about in my district is housing
    allowance for members of the active Guard Reserve in the Virgin
    Islands. As you know, members of the Guard on duty in the 50
    states currently receive the basic allowance for housing. But
    members on duty in the Virgin Islands only receive the overseas
    housing allowance, which is reimbursable allowance and offers
    less flexibility for members to find housing options that meet
    their needs. I understand, however, that Hawaii and Alaska are
    currently considered to be overseas locations, while still
    receiving the basic allowance for housing. As you may be aware,
    the Virgin Islands National Guard, members of the Guard, its
    leadership, our Governor, have all requested to extend the
    basic allowance for housing to Guard members serving in the
    Virgin Islands, as has my office. Does the Department of
    Defense plan to take any actions including under its available
    statutory authority to extend this to guardsmen working in the
    Virgin Islands? Thank you.
        Mr. McCord. Congresswoman, I am not familiar with the
    request, if it is on the table with the Department to consider
    how we treat the so-called OHA in the Virgin Islands compared
    to how Alaska or Hawaii are treated. But we will certainly get
    back to you.
        Ms. Plaskett. I would appreciate that. Thank you very much,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman yields back. I now
    recognize the gentlewoman from Iowa, Mrs. Hinson, for five
    minutes.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
    hearing today. I really appreciate the opportunity. Under
    Secretary McCord and Vice Admiral Boxall, thank you for your
    patience in taking all of our questions and being here today.
    Most importantly, I also want to thank you on behalf of Iowans
    for your service to our country. You are in a very tough role,
    and I know that. And I understand what you are doing to help
    protect everyday American families and Iowa families, and I
    appreciate that.
        I do have to start off by saying today that I was
    disappointed in the President's budget request. I believe it is
    a disservice to you and all the men and women who commit their
    lives to defending our freedoms. I feel the Department of
    Defense has been hit time after time since January. First, the
    announcement to remove the troops from Afghanistan without a
    clear plan in place to prevent a worsening situation. We have
    had questions today about the Taliban. We have heard about
    human rights violations in that country in the worsening
    situation. And then just recently on the floors of the House of
    Representatives, a move to repeal the 2002 AUMF without a
    replacement plan. These moves would leave our troops in nearby
    positions unguarded and vulnerable, and that is unacceptable.
        Then, of course, I think the most recent blow and we have
    heard about it today, is the President's decision to increase
    the budget by only a mere 1.6 percent. Which we have also heard
    about today after inflation, is actually a budget cut. So, in
    real world dollars, the Department of Defense will have less
    money in its Fiscal Year 2022 budget than in its Fiscal Year
    2021 budget. But again, before I begin my questions, I want you
    both to know I am here to support you. We want to make sure we
    can defend our country. The work that you carry out at the
    Department of Defense with taxpayers' resources is absolutely
    critical to protecting Iowa families. The safety and security
    of our country is paramount.
        So, my first question today, Vice Admiral Boxall, you
    mentioned a little bit earlier your concern about China and its
    threat developing specific weapons, space capabilities, those
    areas of concern. Can you elaborate a little bit on some of
    those areas of concern for people in the room today?
        Admiral Boxall. Sure, Congresswoman, thank you. Certainly,
    my experience over many years of being in the Pacific and also
    in the building, I have seen the trend, as we all have, of
    China in both space, hypersonics, missiles, growth, and so we
    worry a lot about that. I mean, that is kind of the trend that
    we were concerned about and why this budget gets after a lot of
    those concerns. This is the first one where we go after some
    hypersonics, some procurement. And it is also going to require
    new ways of thinking and fighting against that adversary. So,
    that is one particular. The cyber vulnerabilities of our force
    is concerning and you see those.
        So, while we look at, you know, whatever the number is,
    clearly inside those priorities from a military standpoint, we
    are looking for the joint force to get after those capabilities
    that we feel will shift from, you know, the wars that we have
    seen in the Middle East to the Pacific and to be able to keep
    up with a rising China.
        Mrs. Hinson. And I would like to also point out, I just saw
    a news article as we were sitting here a little bit ago, Russia
    is posturing quite dramatically as well against the West. So,
    that is a growing concern. As we look at the national defense
    strategy when it is recommending a 3 to 5 percent increase to
    keep up with that, I mean, I think everybody is concerned when
    we are hearing about this 1.6 percent increase that it is not
    going to jive with that recommendation. So, do you agree with
    the report? Do you think we need that 3 to 5 percent increase?
    Because that is a serious conversation we need to be having.
        Admiral Boxall. So, obviously we have seen the 3 to 5
    percent for a while and, you know, our job is to try to get the
    best joint force we can for whatever the budget is. As far as 3
    to 5 percent, that brings less risk the more money you have
    into the portfolio. So, at any funding level, you are going to
    incur some risk. I haven't been involved in one budget that I
    haven't had those difficult discussions. As the funding level
    is higher, you can get after more things more quickly. As you
    go lower, you have to divest and change more quickly. So, my
    concern at any budget level are those tradeoffs.
        Mrs. Hinson. So, do you believe that with a higher level of
    funding, that we could be better equipped for our military to
    handle these ongoing threats that China is posing, that Russia
    is posing?
        Admiral Boxall. More money will lessen the risk, as I just
    stated.
        Mrs. Hinson. OK. I am concerned about that risk at a 1.6
    percent increase. Another area that I just wanted to touch on
    that I have heard some conversation about today. It is evident
    that this priority in this budget is not necessarily the
    protection of Americans and our interests, but instead, it
    seems really focused on accommodating climate change policies
    and the agenda of this Administration.
        One thing being from Iowa that I would like to point out is
    that our biofuels industry stands ready to be a partner in this
    fight. Biofuels are readily available. They are a great
    alternative energy that would significantly reduce our carbon
    admissions while bolstering as well American jobs and reducing,
    again, those carbon emissions while helping our local
    economies. Have you had any considerations--either of you can
    answer this question--specifically about the impact of biofuel
    use perhaps on your carbon footprint at the DoD since you are
    such a large consumer of fuels?
        Admiral Boxall. I will say that I actually was the carrier
    strike group commander for the Great Green Fleet and we
    actually did get underway and operated completely with biofuels
    for both aircraft and ships. And we learned a lot from that
    activity. So, you know, we will continue to evolve those types
    of lessons as we look at other climate impacting decisions.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Mrs. Hinson. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. I now recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. Peters, for five minutes.
        Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. McCord
    and Admiral Boxall for appearing here today. I do support this
    budget request in terms of the topline. I think that given the
    bipartisan support that we have brought to increasing the
    budget over the last two years that this $715 billion is an
    appropriate amount.
        As Mr. McCord noted in his prepared remarks, the interim
    national security guidance from the President clearly
    articulates the need to make smart and disciplined choices
    regarding our national defense, responsible use of our
    military. A lot of the conversations around the divestment of
    legacy platforms and realignment of resources allotted to
    procurement, operations, maintenance, basic research,
    development, tests, and evaluation, I want to first start by
    saying I share the concern that Mr. Horsford expressed earlier
    about MQ-9s and MQ-4s, which seem to me to be a much more cost-
    effective way to handle particularly the ISR issues than some
    of the other ways.
        But I wanted to ask also about infrastructure and
    modernization of commands and infrastructure, particularly
    projects like the NAVWAR Redevelopment Effort in San Diego. I
    want to know if you could explain how the DoD and the services
    are going to prioritize modernization of infrastructure and
    what that would mean for something like NAVWAR?
        Admiral Boxall. So, I did get an opportunity to go out to
    San Diego and see some of those efforts first hand. I am not--
    --
        Mr. Peters. Lucky you, by the way.
        Admiral Boxall. Say again?
        Mr. Peters. Lucky you. It is always good to go to San
    Diego.
        Admiral Boxall. Well, it is always good to get to San
    Diego. I was only there for a few hours, unfortunately, but I
    did get an opportunity to get out there and see some of the
    things that they are doing. We are excited about a lot of the
    things that are going on out there. But, again, I don't know
    specifically what the requests are on the infrastructure
    impacts. What I can say is that what we are learning from those
    types of efforts and get after our joint all domain command and
    control issues, which are key and critical to this change to a
    future Joint Force, an all domain force.
        Mr. Peters. Sure, and I guess, I mean, we are looking at a
    project over a long period of time. But obviously, you have got
    assets like NAVWAR that are really critical to the mission and
    are let's say underserved in terms of their own infrastructure
    and property utilization.
        I also wanted to mention a follow-on to something that Ms.
    Schakowsky talked about, which was energy. You know, it is
    interesting that the military, and I agree with my colleague
    from Iowa, about innovation in the military and particularly
    the Navy has always been the big innovator in terms of energy.
    It went from sails to coal to nuclear. And you mentioned the
    Great Green Fleet, which I was happy to support when I was a
    member of the Armed Services Committee. These are changes that
    are made for operational and security reasons. They are not in
    any way because the Navy or the Marines are tree huggers.
        MCAS Miramar in my district is a pioneer in energy
    microgrids that enhance the commands' energy resiliency and
    reduce the base's footprint. The operational and strategic
    utility of this project is clear. They reduce an
    electromagnetic footprint and mitigate the need to rely on
    supply chains that transport traditional energy sources. And
    that would be particularly useful overseas.
        The developments increase the survivability the Joint Force
    needs to succeed in a future operating environment
    characterized by the proliferation of anti-access area denial
    threats. And so, my question to you is how can Congress support
    DoD's efforts to address the climate crisis impact while at the
    same time, making the force stronger and more lethal?
        Admiral Boxall. Well, to be honest, I am not really an
    expert in the types of things. I know we are working very
    closely. We have a group together. A task force has been
    created with the Secretary and also with the Chairman. We have
    members on that task force to get after some of those things.
    My experience is with demand. Certainly, operationally if we
    can lessen demand for ships or aircraft at sea, or anywhere,
    then we can certainly, you know, allow them to operate more
    freely. And that certainly is an advantage operationally. So,
    but as far as other initiatives, it is not my forte. I am
    certain that the task force is looking more closely at that.
        Mr. Peters. Maybe, Mr. McCord, you have something to add?
        Mr. McCord. I would just add that I think the important
    thing from my perspective is that we be allowed to experiment
    across a range of things. Fuel cells, for example, are
    something that allow you--energy is hard to store, right?
    Electricity, easy to produce but it has to be transmitted
    because it can't be stored easily. That is an important aspect.
    Fuels is another one. The efficiency of the vehicles that we
    use and as well as the thought process of looking at how
    climate change might change the problem sets.
        Mr. Peters. Right.
        Mr. McCord. And I will just reiterate. I agree with you.
    You touched on an important one was the logistics footprint
    that comes with how you use energy is important especially as
    you go to a more remote place like Afghanistan----
        Mr. Peters. And one of the most dangerous----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. can be very costly.
        Mr. Peters. One of the most dangerous things we do is
    transport large amounts of petroleum across the desert and when
    those convoys are attacked, we lose----
        Mr. McCord. Correct, I remember----
        Mr. Peters [continuing]. we are losing soldiers.
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. I think the same case you are
    talking about from Iraq that we had to do special coding on
    fuel trucks because snipers were shooting at the fuel trucks.
        Mr. Peters. Well, let me just encourage--and, Mr. Chairman,
    my time has expired--but I would say it is possible that
    someone in a room like this a few decades ago would have said
    don't spend money on the internet. Don't spend money on GPS.
    That would have been very shortsighted. So, I encourage you to
    continue to innovate in support of the mission. And I yield
    back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte, for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
    you to both our witnesses for being here on such an important
    topic. My first question is for Vice Admiral Boxall. You said
    in your testimony something that I thought was fascinating. You
    said that we were experiencing the most fundamental shift in
    the way that battles are fought in the entire history of
    warfare. Which I really think speaks volumes about what we need
    to do to ensure that America remains competitive when it comes
    to our military. So, I think what you have heard from a large
    number of us today is some alarm at the fact that the proposal
    is to decrease defense spending in real dollars given the fact
    that the 1.6 percent projected increase in budget is less than
    the rate of inflation. So, in your opinion, you know, given the
    fact that we need to fundamentally transform our capabilities
    in that way, does this budget give you adequate resources to do
    that?
        Admiral Boxall. I believe it does. I think we start the
    move from where we have been to where we are going in the
    future. There is a down payment on a lot of things here that
    are going to matter and they will matter more as time goes on.
    But certainly, as I described earlier to your colleague, we
    had, you know, we look at this as a function of risk. I mean,
    how quickly we move and how quickly we can change from the
    things we used to need to the things we need in the future is
    really a key in any budget future, but that is really kind of
    what we think about here from a military standpoint. And we are
    trying to get after inside the inside of the joint force a
    better way to characterize what those, you know, specific
    changes are going to be. We are throwing the rutter over, if
    you will, with the idea that will change into a different place
    and how we fight will be very different than how we have been
    fighting in the past.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you very much for that. And Under
    Secretary McCord, thank you for being here and recognizing it
    is a very difficult job that you have. I had a question about
    the deferred maintenance and infrastructure at our bases. I
    have the privilege of representing the district in which the 29
    Palms Ground Air Marine Corps station is located. And so, I
    don't know a lot about our bases in other parts of the country
    and the world, but I know a lot about that one. And I know that
    in that base, they have been struggling with the issue of
    wastewater treatment, which seems like, you know, a very
    nonmilitary thing to be worried about. But they, you know,
    there is a real need there. There has been for many years.
        The last Congress appropriated funding to build a new
    wastewater treatment plant for the base. Unfortunately, by the
    time the funding was appropriated, the cost of building it had
    risen and therefore, the money was insufficient, and now it is
    back on the unfunded priorities list. So, I find that very
    alarming. I hope that that is not the case with bases in other
    parts of the country. And I am wondering what the DoD's
    strategy is going to be to addressing the projects on the
    unfunded priorities list and making sure that we don't have
    situations like the one occurring in 29 Palms.
        Mr. McCord. While I am not familiar with the particular
    project, I understand the problem that you are stating. It does
    happen from time to time. There is a range within which if you
    are close enough, you can go back to the committees and do what
    is called a cost variation. But when you get above a certain
    threshold, it gets, as perhaps in this case, just too hard to
    do.
        Unfunded military construction project priorities are, you
    know, are something Congress looks at and something the
    Department looks at as it looks at each budget, the next
    budget. We have a little bit of a glut right now in that we had
    projects diverted for the border wall, which are competing with
    all the other unfunded projects. So, I think there is maybe a
    little more of a demand signal on the military construction
    side than there is otherwise right now. But as we work our way
    through that backlog, if your wastewater treatment project gets
    to a life, safety, health of people working and living there,
    then that will probably put it in a higher priority situation
    for action.
        Mr. Obernolte. Thank you. I hope we can work together to
    try and get that particular problem solved. But also, I want to
    highlight the fact that we can't achieve military preparedness
    if we can't maintain our base facilities. Thank you very much
    for both of you for being here today. I will yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman yields back the balance of
    his time. I now recognize the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
    Jackson Lee, for five minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
    the clock is not correct. Thank you very much. Let me
    acknowledge your service, Secretary McCord, and as well, the
    service of our Secretary of Defense. Please convey to him my
    best greetings and our appreciation for his historic service.
    It is enormously impactful here in this country and also with
    the new attitude. As you know, Secretary, we have just five
    minutes. And so, I am going to ask some yes or no questions and
    then maybe some that require a little bit more detail.
        First of all, I want to applaud, as a member of the
    Military Families Caucus, I want to applaud the 3.1 percent
    increase for military personnel. Quickly I want to know whether
    or not that is going to result in improved housing for our
    families, the diminishing of food stamps that many young army
    families and other military families have to access, and what
    does it do for--so I will let you answer those very quickly,
    housing and the use of food stamps by Army personnel because of
    the lack of resources.
        Mr. McCord. Thank you, Congresswoman. I would say that on
    the food stamps side, probably the biggest impact in the last
    year or so has been COVID and the impact it has had on people's
    outside employment, for example, military spouses. So, I think
    as the getting control of the pandemic, which allows us to grow
    the economy again is probably as important as anything we can
    do specifically within the defense budget. Housing----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, is the increase in salary going to
    help with the diminishing of the food stamp assistance need?
        Mr. McCord. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. OK. Let me just move on. What about
    funding for Army Reserves and Army National Guard? Is there a
    special concern and interest regarding them?
        Mr. McCord. I think the----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And when I say Army, all of the reserves,
    funding for them. And I need to go quickly because my time is
    moving.
        Mr. McCord. The answer is yes. I would just say that on the
    Guard side in particular, it has been an historically busy year
    last year because of COVID and other issues where the Guard was
    deployed in record numbers. So, that is a unique challenge for
    the Guard.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And so, your funding will focus on the
    resources that they have lost in all of that effort.
        Mr. McCord. We can't necessarily make up for if someone's
    civilian employment as a guardsman was impacted by COVID if
    like many other Americans, they lost employment income. That is
    not--you know, our programs are not designed to address that.
    But we do recognize the historic year the Guard has had, and we
    are very focused on making sure that we can take----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I am not----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. care of our people.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Right. I am not talking about employment.
    I am talking about the overall resources for the Guard. But let
    me just quickly, there is absolutely no money for the border
    wall. Is that correct?
        Mr. McCord. In the Department of Defense that is correct,
    yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And there is no reimbursement money from
    the Department of Defense for the border wall.
        Mr. McCord. That is correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. As it relates to Afghanistan and the draw
    down, I know that those were increased resources. But are using
    adequate resources to ensure even if military personnel are not
    there, that we are protecting the civilians during this
    transition period, and that is the Afghan civilians?
        Mr. McCord. If you are referring to the special immigrant
    visa population, that is being worked between the Secretary of
    Defense and the Secretary of State. With respect to the larger
    population and the impact on Afghanistan or what the future of
    civilian safety is between the Government of Afghanistan and
    the Taliban, that is sort of beyond the Defense Department's
    ability to make an assurance on.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I would like to get back with you
    and I would rather have that in writing. In addition, I would
    like to raise the issue of the Ellington Base in the Houston
    area and would like a writing back on the plans for Ellington
    Field, which has been a great asset to the community. And I
    would like to get some understanding of the vitality of that.
        I would also like to pursue the issue of the dealing with
    the sexual assaults and attacks on our young soldiers who
    really want to be part of the military. As I do that and ask
    you to give me that answer, I would clearly like to indicate
    the diversity teaching to our military is not critical race
    theory. It is relevant. It is America just like Juneteenth is
    and just like reparations, H.R. 40 is. But I would like you to
    answer the question on working on these cases that were like
    Vanessa Guillen. If you could give me that in terms of the
    strategic plan and funding to do that.
        Mr. McCord. We will.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I am sorry. I asked you what kind of
    funding plans you have for Vanessa Guillen? The attack on her
    and sexual assault training or different pathway for
    investigations. Do you have funding for that?
        Mr. McCord. I wouldn't say we have funding for a specific
    case. We have funding for the effort. I thought you were
    asking, are you expecting a question for the record--a response
    for the record on the Secretary's larger vision?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. No. This one I would like--this one I
    would like you just to answer on the whole process of a new
    approach to those investigations. You would have to have
    funding for that. Is that being taken into consideration?
        Mr. McCord. Congresswoman, I would say that as the
    Secretary is getting just this week more recommendations from
    his independent review commission, I would expect that some of
    those will require additional funding, and we will have to come
    back to the Congress for because they were developed after the
    budget was submitted.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Well, I would encourage you to do that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you. I now recognize the gentleman
    from Florida, Mr. Donalds, for five minutes.
        Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Vice Admiral--excuse
    me--and Mr. Under Secretary, thanks so much for being here.
    Well, let's just get into it. Obviously, the spending proposal
    from the President on DoD is roughly $753 billion. You talked
    earlier about comparability issues, comparing our military
    spending and apparatus to the Chinese military to the Russian
    military. Excluding personnel costs, healthcare, housing,
    things that actually deal specifically with the men in women in
    uniform, what is--how does this budget proposal for DoD compare
    to the Chinese military and the Russian military?
        Mr. McCord. Ours would still be larger probably by more of
    a factor of 2 to 1, if we excluded the 40 percent of our budget
    that goes to paying benefits of our people.
        Mr. Donalds. OK, and following up on that, the rate of
    growth of our equipment, ships, planes, et cetera, anything
    associated with that, are we able to keep up with the rate of
    growth from the Chinese military with the current budget
    proposal?
        Mr. McCord. I think that over a number of years in terms of
    counting numbers of aircraft or assets, China is increasing the
    size of their force faster than ours. Our quality is higher
    than theirs. And that gap is, the quality gap is particularly
    important for us to preserve given that they may have more
    numbers than us or may end up with more numbers than us in
    certain cases.
        Mr. Donalds. Answer me this, I mean, let's talk about the
    rate of modernization. What is the rate of their modernization
    of their military assets compared to ours?
        Mr. McCord. We could get you information for the record. If
    you have questions on particular aspects to mean aircraft,
    ship, or what kind of assets in particular, we will ascertain
    to get that for you. Of course, these would be intelligence
    estimates.
        Mr. Donalds. OK, fair enough. Let me ask you a question.
    Based upon current spending levels outlined by the Biden
    Administration, if we were to play this out over several years,
    and I am quite sure, Mr. Under Secretary, you have the
    experience, you have been in the game for some time, about how
    many years would it take for the Chinese military to catch us?
        Mr. McCord. Well, our goal is for them never to have a
    capability larger than ours. There are two factors here. There
    is their economic growth, which has been substantial in recent
    not just years, but decades, that gives them a greater
    capability to, you know, to draw on to resource. And then there
    is the specific military technology, some of which has been
    developed, some of which has been relied on technology stolen
    from us. So, there is the whole cyber security aspect as well
    that we have to take into account. The goal is for the Chinese
    Government never to think they have an opportunity to overmatch
    us and, therefore, have that influence their thinking and have
    them take risk, you know, thinking that the risks are greater--
    or smaller, I am sorry--than we do.
        Mr. Donalds. No, I understand that. I am glad that you
    elaborated. I really wanted to hear from you on that. But I am
    going to ask it again. Based upon the spending levels in the
    President's proposal and the rate of spending that if we were
    to control it, essentially, if we were going to take the
    President's spending levels and maintain that for a decade,
    let's say, how long will it take for the Chinese military to
    achieve parity with us? I know the goal is for them never to
    achieve parity with us. But, you know, if this is what the
    spending levels are going to look like, how long would it take
    for them to catch parity with us?
        Mr. McCord. I don't think it is purely a function of what
    we spend since it depends on their actions as well as ours. But
    we could try and get you an estimate for the record.
        Mr. Donalds. Let me ask you this question. And I know this
    is outside your purview looking at the entire federal proposal
    from the President, considering that we have inflation issues,
    considering that we could potentially have an issue where
    interest on the debt, Medicare, Social Security, also crowd out
    other federal spending. If our military spending capability is
    constrained by outside spending in other parts of the federal
    government, do you think that puts us in a competition issue
    with the Chinese military some time over the next decade?
        Mr. McCord. I would agree that we have a fiscal risk, if
    you want to call it that, of interest on the debt, of inflation
    increases that could change the fiscal picture. We have enjoyed
    a period where we have had, you know, large increases in the
    debt since the financial crisis of 2008 that have seen very
    historically low interest rates that have not really blossomed
    into interest on the debt consuming an inordinate part of the
    federal budget. But that is something that could change, and I
    believe the Treasury Department and others are looking at that.
    So, yes----
        Mr. Donalds. Real quick question----
        Mr. McCord [continuing]. there is a risk there for sure.
        Mr. Donalds [continuing]. because I have got 10 seconds.
    Quick question. Quick question, not to cut you off. If we don't
    get our fiscal house in order, does that hurt the military's
    mission long-term to protect our nation?
        Mr. McCord. It does increase the risk, absolutely.
        Mr. Donalds. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, for five
    minutes.
        Mr. Grotham. We will start out with the Vice Admiral. I am
    not an expert on military matters at all. I was never in the
    military. Nevertheless, when I read about the Battle of the
    Midway, you know, there are people who say that the Battle of
    the Midway, four Japanese carriers going down so quickly, kind
    of show that aircraft carriers were highly overrated and maybe
    even obsolete 80 years ago. From what I have read, even though
    we spend a lot of money on ships protecting the aircraft
    carriers, modern missiles would provide a big problem for these
    aircraft carriers. First of all, how many military people on an
    aircraft carrier, one of the big ones, the Nimitz?
        Admiral Boxall. Well, if you think about the carrier itself
    and the crew and the air wing, it is roughly 5,000ish.
        Mr. Grotham. OK. So, whenever I see us--what do we have 14,
    15 aircraft carriers out there right now? I wonder in a real
    rock 'em sock 'em big war, how long they would last. And two,
    if other countries would be able to sink them quickly, you
    would have such a huge loss of life so quickly. Do you care to
    comment on the rather large number of--well, we have got to be
    number one in military in the world. I will say that no matter
    what. We have got to be number one. Which is why that kind of
    bothers me because when you think of 15 aircraft carriers like
    this and not stupid people will agree that in a real rock 'em
    sock 'em war with a really topflight country like China, like
    Russia, they might not last too long. Do you think we maybe
    have too many aircraft carrier--we are too aircraft carrier
    heavy out there?
        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, Congressman. By having been a
    carrier strike group commander, I had firsthand kind of
    knowledge of what the capability of the aircraft carrier is.
    Some of this question will get into the classified realm and we
    are happy to come speak to you. But broadly, I can tell you
    that one of the advantages of the U.S. way of war is the way we
    fight as a joint all domain force. All domain, of which the
    aircraft carrier is a critical part of that.
        One of the things that concerns us, it is not just for the
    aircraft carrier, but with all capabilities, in the Pacific, is
    the advent of long-range missiles systems, the attacking, the
    space. All those things kind of contribute to a challenge for
    us in many domains. So, to your point, it is on us to figure
    out how we most effectively fight that force in the future
    given the change in threat and what we have to kind of get
    after that threat. So, today's 11 aircraft carriers are part of
    our plan. How that changes over time is something that we will
    continue to evaluate.
        Mr. McCord. And I would just add, Congressman, that an
    important part from a Chinese perspective of trying to deter
    your enemy is to make us believe that our carriers are
    vulnerable and, therefore, make us think that we would not be
    wise to get our carriers close to where, you know, to the
    theatre there. And so, to put in our heads that it won't work,
    therefore I shouldn't use my carriers, and us countering that
    is equally important from our perspective.
        Mr. Grotham. OK. My next question for Honorable Michael
    McCord is, you know, we have talked a little today about the
    importance of diversity and the importance of critical race
    theory. And I have talked to some people in the military who
    are bothered. As a matter of fact, some people went through our
    military academies and felt there was a little bit too much of
    emphasis on this sort of thing. One of the concerns of spending
    a lot of time talking about this is that perhaps one may
    promote people or put positions of people in authority based on
    the boxes they check rather than the best person for the job.
    Are you confident that none of that is going on in today's
    military?
        Mr. McCord. I think our military remains one of the most
    meritocratic institutions in the country. The Secretary's
    concern is that when you get to the top, although the force is
    very diverse, the top is still not as diverse as the force that
    they lead, and I think that is one of his focus areas as he
    tries to make the force better.
        Mr. Grotham. Yes, I talked to somebody recently, and I
    don't even want to tell you which academy he was from. But they
    felt that--I can't remember if it was the top person or the No.
    2 person there, some guy, was so diversity obsessed that
    perhaps some decisions were made that shouldn't be made, but
    you don't think that is happening?
        Mr. McCord. I think that is not true writ large. Within the
    military promotion system, no, I think that it is a very much a
    capability and merit-based system.
        Mr. Grotham. Do you want to comment on that, Mr. Vice
    Admiral?
        Admiral Boxall. I would agree. I mean, our system is
    designed to be as fair as we can possibly make it. And I think
    that is exactly what we--that expectation is put throughout our
    force in every level. I think we expect we are a meritocracy,
    and you should rise based on how you have performed, period.
    And I think that is the overarching desire.
        Mr. Grotham. OK.
        Admiral Boxall. But you still have to, I think, address the
    fact that the statistics aren't great. And so, why does that
    happen? I think we don't know. And so, I think it is worthwhile
    for us to understand it.
        Mr. Grotham. OK, thank you for the 5-minutes.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. I now
    recognize--we are at the homestretch--one more Republican
    questioner and then me. So, I now recognize the gentleman from
    Virginia, Mr. Good, for five minutes.
        Mr. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to both of
    our witnesses for being here today and also for your service.
    That is of such great importance to keeping our nation safe and
    secure. I am going to pose a few questions that will build on
    some of those from earlier today by my friend from Georgia, Mr.
    Carter.
        As you both probably know, Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of
    Naval Operations, has released a professional reading program
    list for the military that included Ibram Kendi's book titled,
    How to be an Anti-Racist. In his book, Mr. Kendi states, ``The
    only remedy to racist discrimination is anti-racist
    discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is
    present discrimination. The only remedy to present
    discrimination is future discrimination.'' Secretary McCord, do
    you believe the American taxpayer should be forced to pay for
    this critical race theory training for our military?
        Mr. McCord. Congressman, I am not sure that what you are
    describing involves any taxpayer funds if the CNO recommends
    that sailors read a book.
        Mr. Good. So, the book would not be provided if selected by
    the military?
        Mr. McCord. I don't have any information on how the Navy
    treats that, but we could get back to you on the record for
    that.
        Mr. Good. I continue to hear anecdotally from members of
    the military that I know in my district about critical race
    theory being promoted in the military. How do you think
    critical race theory training would impact our military's
    preparedness and ability to face threats such as Communist
    China?
        Mr. McCord. I am not aware that it is part of our training
    program. So, that is sort of hypothetical.
        Mr. Good. Would you believe that critical race training--
    spending time, efforts, resources on critical race training
    theory in our military would be beneficial to helping our
    preparedness?
        Mr. McCord. I think understanding diversity issues and
    training in that respect is probably useful. I don't think that
    that is part of our plan though is to--what you are describing
    is not part of the Secretary's initiative.
        Mr. Good. It is sad to hear about it because I have long
    believed and I did not serve as you have, Admiral, but our
    military for years, decades, have admired being ahead of the
    curve on integration and merit-based opportunities and the
    military's been a model for that for decades in our history,
    thankfully. The Biden Administration though has shown, I think,
    weakness in the face of China, seemingly taking a penitent
    approach in response to China's criticism back in March when
    Secretary of State Blinken said, ``We are not perfect. We make
    mistakes. We have reversals. We take steps back.'' Earlier this
    month, President Biden stated that, ``According to the
    intelligence community, terrorism from white supremacy is the
    most lethal threat to the Homeland today, not ISIS, not Al-
    Qaeda, white supremacists.''
        Earlier this month, he also said, he told our troops that
    climate change, when he was overseas in the United Kingdom,
    climate change was the biggest threat to the country. And so,
    it concerns me that this Administration appears to be more
    focused on climate change and criticizing an undefined
    extremism in our own military in standing up to entities such
    as the most pressing threat, Communist China. Admiral Boxall, I
    won't ask you about the climate change, the supposed threat of
    that being such a great threat, but do you believe that
    extremism in the military is a more pressing threat than
    Communist China, for example?
        Admiral Boxall. I have stated already that I believe, again
    from my view as a military member, that threats from Russia and
    China are near the top. We are engaged in a strategy review
    that will validate, you know, what we believe as a department
    and what we recommend by the Chairman to the Secretary as they
    go through that review, will be part of that. And I think we
    will put those in the right perspectives. So, I feel confident
    that we will have those as they have been in 2018, we saw a
    national defense strategy review that, you know, a lot of that
    will remain valid as we move into the next few years.
        Mr. Good. That is what I expected your answer to be, and it
    is reassuring to hear that, and I appreciate that, sir. The
    Department of Defense recently convened a Countering Extremism
    Working Group to, ``better understand the scope of the problem
    of extremism in the military.'' Admiral Boxall, do you know
    what the definition of the extremism is that this working group
    plans to study?
        Admiral Boxall. I do not. But I can tell you that the
    Chairman, you may have heard him yesterday as he spoke, and I
    stand behind that 100 percent. You know, he like all of us in
    uniform wonder, you know, exactly what was driving some of the
    actions we all saw and were, you know, frankly, very concerned
    by on January 6. And, you know, we have to look at the facts
    and the data and they say that there was a military membership
    of that. And I think it causes us to force ourselves to look
    inward and determine, you know, how does that occur and is
    there something that we could do to ensure that we make sure
    that we have done everything we can to eliminate those things
    which are prejudicial to good order and discipline in our
    service.
        Mr. Good. Thank you. I want to just express my views and I
    believe the views of most Americans that we are in great debt
    and gratitude to our military. Thank you everyday for what you
    do to keep us safe. And very concerned and disappointed with
    how the military has been disparaged by some in this
    Administration in this past six months. So, thank you very much
    for being with us today.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The gentleman's time has expired. And
    apparently, I lied. Mr. Moulton from Massachusetts is entitled
    to his five minutes. So, I yield those to him now.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you hear me OK?
        Chairman Yarmuth. We hear you. We hear you.
        Mr. Moulton. Unlike my colleague who just spoke, I am a
    veteran. And I am very proud of my service in the United States
    Marine Corps. I am very proud of all the troops who are out
    there serving today, and I am very proud of the Marine Corps in
    general. But I can tell you for certain that there is racism in
    our military today. It hurts our operational effectiveness. It
    makes us a less capable force. And I admire the leadership of
    our Department of Defense as our articulated so brilliantly by
    the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley,
    yesterday in the hearing before our House Armed Services
    Committee that attacking this problem is time well spent.
        But I think what is most shocking about this moment in
    American history is I cannot think of a better example of
    cancel culture than Republicans in Congress trying to tell our
    military academies what books you should read and what books
    you should not. There is nothing that sets us apart more from
    Communist China, no greater advantage that we have as
    Americans, as United States military than our ability to think
    critically. I thought we got past McCarthyism in the 1950's.
    This is the kind of discussion that you expect to have in
    Communist China where they do censor what their citizens read.
    They dictate how educational institutions are to be run and
    what is to be taught. It is unbelievably un-American and un-
    patriotic to be doing that here.
        A budget, of course, is a statement of your values. And if
    you look at how this Administration is spending its budget, I
    have some critical questions. But clearly, they are
    prioritizing the fight against China. Clearly, they are
    prioritizing the threat of Russia. And they are trying to
    balance that with the other threats throughout the globe. Let's
    not forget that our previous President, Mr. Trump, disparaged
    the military almost every day. He called our troops suckers for
    volunteering. He called our killed-in-action losers for having
    died on the battlefield. So, I am pretty shocked that my
    colleague on this Committee would talk about the Biden
    Administration disparaging our troops. Where is the evidence
    for that? Yet, we saw it every single day from the Trump
    Administration.
        I would also like to point out to Ranking Member Smith and
    other Republican Members harping on the topline that President
    Biden increased the DoD budget this year by $11 billion. A $715
    billion topline up from $704 billion the year before. Do you
    remember what President Trump did to the budget in Fiscal Year
    2021? He decreased it by $1 billion. It started with $705
    billion in Fiscal Year 2020. He cut it down to $704 billion in
    Fiscal Year 2021. So, I think the Ranking Member might want to
    be careful about who is hog-washing whom here when attacking an
    administration for its budget plan.
        Vice Admiral Boxall, earlier this year China's Premier
    announced that central government expenditures on basic
    research will increase by 10.6 percent. That is just basic
    research the increase for total R&D. The bipartisan Future of
    Defense Task Force has emphasized that we need to invest more
    in basic research to get a competitive edge in the future. But
    I am concerned about a detail of your budget, which is where
    you are cutting basic research. Right now, it says you have got
    $6.1 billion. It comes down from $6.4 to $6.7. Talk to me about
    that. Obviously later stage R&D is important, and you have
    increased funding for that. But one of the clear conclusions of
    our report is that we need funding for research to increase
    across the board if we are going to meet the technological
    threat of our adversaries.
        Admiral Boxall. Thank you, sir. I would say that this does
    have, as you already state, a much more focused effort in the
    later parts of the RDT&E network. The S&T part of it probably
    didn't get the same share. However, as you look toward having
    to get to field capability more quickly, and how you want to
    get after it, you kind of move from the research in the S&T,
    basic research, and push it into the more further right in the
    chain into prototyping and testing and development of
    capabilities that will actually field more quickly. So, it is,
    I think, a fair criticism for us to look and make sure that we
    are probably balanced between S&T and RDT&E. But, again, I
    think for what I have seen this year given that this is the
    largest budget increase ever in the history of RDT&E writ
    large, I feel good about that from a military perspective.
        Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Admiral. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Great. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I now yield myself 10 minutes, which I will not use because you
    all have been patient enough and long enough.
        Mr. Moulton began a part of a response that I was going to
    give, and I am working from a little bit different set of
    numbers than he is. He was dealing with discretionary budget
    authority. But in terms of the function 050, national defense
    budget, are you familiar with that, Mr. McCord?
        Mr. McCord. Yes.
        Chairman Yarmuth. In President Trump's fiscal 2021 budget
    request, is it accurate to say that his request was for a .3
    percent increase?
        Mr. McCord. I don't have the percentage at my fingertips,
    Chairman, but I believe the percentage increase, the change was
    very small from 2020 to 2021, yes.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Exactly, at far below 1.6 percent. And do
    you know whether in any of the 10-year budgets, 10 fiscal years
    that were projected in his budget, he got anywhere near a 3 to
    5 percent increase in the defense budget?
        Mr. McCord. There were in the Fiscal Year 2018-2019
    timeframe a large increase, but not so in the future
    projections. One did occur a few years ago.
        Chairman Yarmuth. And are you familiar with the fact that
    for Fiscal Year 2026, 2027, 2028, 2029, and 2030, that
    President Trump's budget request projected no increase?
        Mr. McCord. In real terms, yes, that is correct.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Exactly. And isn't it more accurate to
    say that the 1.6 percent increase is really if you take out the
    expenses, the costs related to Afghanistan and then applied the
    budget request to all of the other activities of the
    Department, minus that, that the percentage increase would be
    significantly larger than 1.6 percent in terms of the funding
    for the remaining activities?
        Mr. McCord. I would agree that the decrease in Afghanistan
    is probably the biggest single year-to-year change that we see.
        Chairman Yarmuth. The number we had is it is actually if
    you took out the Afghanistan funding, you reallocate that to
    the rest of the activities, and it would actually mean a 3.6
    percent increase in the total budget request for the remaining
    activities.
        Mr. McCord. I don't believe the Department thought about it
    that way, but I don't dispute your characterization.
        Chairman Yarmuth. OK, thank you. You know, the number of my
    Republican colleagues have I wouldn't say ridiculed, but close
    to it, the allocation of $617 million to climate-related
    activities. What percentage, approximately, of the total
    Defense Department budget would that represent?
        Mr. McCord. That would be approximately 1 percent.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Would it be 1 percent or .1 percent?
        Mr. McCord. .1 percent, I am sorry.
        Chairman Yarmuth. .1 percent. Would you say that the threat
    posed by climate change represents more than .1 percent of all
    the threats that we face?
        Mr. McCord. I would, especially if you think about society
    writ large, the impacts on agriculture and disruption, all
    those things, yes.
        Chairman Yarmuth. I do want to clarify one thing. Mr.
    Smucker referred to my opening statement and questioned you as
    to whether you thought the threat of 2/3 of our installations
    was accurate? And you said it depends on what kind of
    installations we are talking about. And what I referenced was
    the 79 mission assurance priority installations. Would you say
    that that statement about 2/3 of those 79 priority
    installations was accurate being threatened by climate?
        Mr. McCord. Yes, if you are looking at those larger
    installations it would tend to fall much closer to the coast.
        Chairman Yarmuth. Thank you. And, finally, I told you
    before I wasn't going to ask about critical race theory and I
    am not going to ask about it. But I do have to pushback as Mr.
    Moulton did on a couple of things that were said, and primarily
    what we heard from Mr. Carter.
        When he posed the question, do you really think it would--
    that the troops would feel it was worth fighting for a country
    that studied critical race theory? And I had to think, you
    know, was it worth--is it worth fighting for a country that
    keeps its citizens ignorant? Or would it be more worth to fight
    for a country that keeps its citizens informed, that wants its
    citizens to know its history, and wants it citizens to
    understand when there are flaws in that country? And it seems
    to me that we fought a country in World War II that made all
    sorts of efforts because basically their raison d'etre to keep
    their country--their citizens ignorant of the truth of the way
    their country acted.
        And, finally, it seems to me that Mr. Carter basically
    insulted the troops, our troops. Because it implies that our
    troops couldn't handle that information. That our troops aren't
    smart enough to understand our history and think critically
    about it.
        Mr. Carter. Mr. Chairman, I object to that, that statement
    because that----
        Chairman Yarmuth. You are out of order.
        Mr. Carter. That is----
        Chairman Yarmuth. You had your time. You had your time.
        Mr. Carter. That is a violation of House rules, the motives
    of Members.
        Chairman Yarmuth. I was not at all impugning his motives. I
    just said it seems to me that he is implying that our troops
    can't handle it. And I think that is----
        Mr. Carter. That he is insulting troops.
        Chairman Yarmuth. That is not motivation. I am not going to
    respond.
        Anyway, again, it seems to me that even though we are not,
    apparently, teaching critical race theory and I don't know of
    one school, one K through 12 school in the country that is
    teaching critical race theory, although legislatures all over
    the country now are passing legislation to prevent it. This is
    kind of like passing legislation to prevent non-existent
    election fraud. But this is something that is very disturbing
    because it is once again, it is a group of citizens stoked by
    forces in the country that only want to divide the country and
    find reasons for citizens to be afraid of non-existent threats.
    And that it almost, this movement, anti-CRT movement, is almost
    something that I think actually supports the premise of CRT
    that there is institutional racism in the country, and we ought
    to understand its sources and what we can do to combat it.
        So, with that I will say thank you again for your
    testimony. Thanks for being so patient. I apologize for all the
    technical glitches. And I thank you for your responsiveness and
    your service. And if there is no further business, this meeting
    is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               [all]