[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]