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


                     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                                 FOR 2022
      _______________________________________________________________________

                                  HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                               ____________

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

                     BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota, Chair

  TIM RYAN, Ohio			KEN CALVERT, California	
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland	HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio			TOM COLE, Oklahoma	
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas			STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  DEREK KILMER, Washington		ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  PETE AGUILAR, California		JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois		MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

   Chris Bigelow, Walter Hearne, Brooke Barnard, Ariana Sarar, Jackie 
                                 Ripke,
    David Bortnick, Matthew Bower, William Adkins, Jennifer Chartrand,
    Hayden Milberg, Paul Kilbride, Shannon Richter, and Kyle McFarland
                            Subcommittee Staff
                                ___________

                                  PART 2

                                                                   Page
  United States European Command........                                                             
                                                                      1
                                        
  United States Africa Command..........                                
                                                                     27
                                        
  United States Central Command.........                                
                                                                     47
                                        
  United States Navy and Marine Corps...                                
                                                                     79
                                        
  National Guard and Reserves...........                                
                                                                    197
                                        
  United States Army....................                                
                                                                    347
                                        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                               

                                   ___________
                                   
                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-585			      WASHINGTON : 2022                       
                                   
                                   
 
                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  TIM RYAN, Ohio
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  KAY GRANGER, Texas
  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
  CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)
                                           Tuesday, April 20, 2021.

                     UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND

                                WITNESS

GENERAL TOD D. WOLTERS, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE,
COMMANDER, UNITED STATES EUROPEAN COMMAND

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. The hearing will come to order.
    This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony and an 
update on U.S. military activities in the European theater.
    Before we go any farther, I would like to recognize Ranking 
Member Calvert for a motion.
    Mr. Calvert. Chair, I move that this portion of the hearing 
today, which involves sensitive material, be held in executive 
session because of the sensitivity of the material to be 
discussed.
    Ms. McCollum. So ordered. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    This morning, the subcommittee will receive testimony from 
U.S. European Command. Our witness today is EUCOM Commander 
General Tod Wolters.
    General Wolters, welcome back to the subcommittee, and we 
look forward to hearing your testimony.
    The President's initial budget outlines priorities and the 
need to counter threats from destabilizing actions in Russia 
and in China. The emphasis: the need to return to work with our 
allies and partners, particularly those in NATO, to defend our 
democratic values and the rule of law. Each of these 
priorities, I believe, reinforces the other. This too should be 
our focus, and our witness will describe for us the tools which 
EUCOM utilizes to attain these goals.
    Russia continues to be the primary driver of destabilizing 
activities in Europe. After the Russians invaded Crimea and 
attacked Ukraine in 2014, the Obama administration requested $1 
billion in OCO funds to address the threat Russia posed, and 
each successive administration has continued to request funds, 
for a total of approximately $27 billion over the past 7 years.
    These funds have increased U.S. military presence, expanded 
training activities, improved and created new infrastructures, 
prepositioned equipment, and built the capabilities of our 
allies, including Poland and the Baltic States.
    Our witness will detail if these efforts have improved 
Ukraine's ability to defend itself, enhance readiness of 
European troops in Europe, and bolster our relationships with 
our partners.
    Russia's most recent action on the Ukrainian border 
continues to threaten not only Ukraine but the entire 
continent.
    I look forward to hearing how the administration and the 
Department of Defense will work with our allies and our 
partners to resolve the situation diplomatically with Russia.
    We will also ask the witness to describe for us the threat 
China poses to the continent, particularly through economic 
pressures.
    As we have discussed in previous hearings, the Arctic plays 
a vital role not only in the defense of our Nation but in the 
security of Europe and the Arctic nations. Both Russia and 
China are staking adversarial positions against the United 
States and our allies in the Arctic, and I look forward to your 
views on the tools we can use to limit their attempts to 
control this region.
    And finally, we know that the European continent continues 
to be hit hard by COVID-19. The committee will want to know if 
the virus limited your ability to conduct operations, the 
status of vaccine implementation efforts, and how service 
personnel and their families are doing a year after the 
pandemic has started.
    Now, with that, I want to thank everyone for participating 
in today's hearing. And I now want to recognize our 
distinguished ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for his remarks 
before I recognize the full ranking member chair of the 
Appropriations Committee.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    General Wolters, welcome back to this subcommittee. We 
appreciate your service to our country. Your appearance before 
us is important. As we move through the budget process, this 
subcommittee will do its best to work with you on your key 
requirements and to support the men and women in your command.
    Seven years after Russia first invaded Ukraine and annexed 
Crimea, Moscow is visibly massing military forces along the 
common border. I hope you will speak to whether Putin is 
primarily deploying this force to put political pressure on 
Ukraine, what he might be trying to signal to Washington, our 
European allies, or whether these deployments are, in fact, a 
prelude to a renewed Russia aggression.
    I also look forward to your assessment of the health of our 
NATO alliance, prospects for greater transatlantic coordination 
on China, and whether we are maintaining momentum toward 
greater allied burden sharing and investments in defense 
modernization.
    While we don't know the results of Secretary Austin's 
Global Posture Review, it is critical that the U.S. sustain our 
contribution to NATO's deterrence and defense posture through a 
robust forward and rotational presence.
    With proposed redeployments to Germany, I trust this 
administration will consult closely with this committee and 
with our allies on any U.S. force posture adjustments in 
Europe.
    I also hope you will address ways in which EUCOM and this 
committee can help support our partners along NATO's eastern 
flank, deter and respond to the Kremlin's cyber and information 
warfare, and develop a strong consensus on countering Russia 
with our allies.
    I look forward to your testimony.
    And with that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    And it is my honor to recognize the full ranking member of 
the Appropriations Committee, former chair of this 
subcommittee, Ms. Granger.

                         Remarks of Ms. Granger

    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    General Wolters, it is good to see you again.
    As recent events have made clear, the transatlantic 
alliance remains critical to U.S. interests and to the security 
and defense of Europe. This committee and the Congress have 
repeatedly made our commitment to NATO and our longest standing 
military partnership a priority.
    I hope you will tell us how we are working with our allies 
to set a forward-looking agenda for the alliance. In 
particular, we need to know how we are going to counter Russian 
aggression and keep China's actions in the region in check.
    I know my colleagues and I share concerns about the current 
situation in Ukraine, and we need to hear your assessment of 
Russia's intentions.
    I also continue to have serious concerns about China's 
investments as well as their aggressive and coercive behavior 
in European countries. Please update us on what discussions are 
going on in NATO.
    I look forward to hearing your testimony and learning what 
you need from Congress.
    Thank you again for your service. We look forward to your 
testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much for your comments.
    General Wolters, we have your full written testimony and it 
will be placed in the record and members all have copies. I 
encourage you to summarize your statement in 5 minutes and to 
be complete but succinct when we go to answering questions so 
we can get as any rounds in as possible.
    Sir, the time is yours.
    [The written statement of General Tod D. Wolters follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to the classification of the material 
discussed.]

 
                                         Wednesday, April 21, 2021.

                      UNITED STATES AFRICA COMMAND

                                WITNESS

GENERAL STEPHEN J. TOWNSEND, COMMANDER, UNITED STATES AFRICA COMMAND

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. The subcommittee will come to order. This 
morning, the subcommittee will hold a hearing on the posture of 
U.S. AFRICOM.
    Before we get started, I would like to recognize the 
Ranking Member Calvert for a motion.
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chair, I move a portion of this hearing 
today, which involves classified material, be held in executive 
session because of the sensitivity of the material to be 
discussed.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I would remind members that any 
materials placed in front of you marked classified--most of it 
is not marked classified that is in on the front of you right 
now--should be left at your chair at the conclusion of this 
hearing.
    Today, we will receive testimony from our witness AFRICOM 
Commander Stephen Townsend. General, we welcome you back to the 
subcommittee. In fact, your last hearing was here in person, 
the subcommittee held on March 11. So, you are coming in the 
wave of COVID at the beginning and, hopefully, now the end.
    General Townsend. Hopefully.
    Ms. McCollum. That was the same day, to really put it in 
perspective, that the World Health Organization made the 
assessment that COVID-19 could be characterized as a global 
pandemic and paused all in-person events around the world. So, 
it is good to see you back here today, good to see you healthy, 
and we look forward to your testimony.
    This hearing takes place in an important time for U.S. 
foreign policy and our global defense posture. As we are all 
aware, the 2018 National Defense Strategy emphasized 
competition between great powers as a greater long-term 
challenge to U.S. national security and the threat of 
terrorism.
    Over the past two decades, China has deepened its reach in 
Africa, financing large infrastructure projects, opening 
military bases in Djibouti, deploying peacekeepers, and 
spreading its culture and its language by funding Confucius 
Institutes around the continent. Further, Russia has 
aggressively increased activities in Africa and is the 
continent's top arm dealer.
    But, as our intelligence officials point out, threats to 
our national security from terrorism and violent extremism from 
the African continent continues to be substantial. We need only 
to look at last month's horrific ISIS-claimed terrorist attack 
in Mozambique, with the killing of more than 55 people, to 
witness the threat of unchallenged violent extremism remains.
    Additionally, I would like to highlight a quote from Africa 
Annual Threat Assessment that was released by the Office of 
Director of National Intelligence last week, and I read from 
it: ``East Africa will struggle with ethnic conflict in 
Ethiopia, power struggles within transitional government in 
Sudan, continued instability in Somalia, while a volatile 
mixture of ``intercommunal violence and terrorism will threaten 
West Africa's stability. Conflicts, undergoverned spaces, the 
marginalization of some communities, and persistent 
communication connectivity are likely to fuel terrorism during 
the next year, particularly in Sahel, parts of Eastern and 
Southern Africa. And throughout the Sub-Saharan Africa, strings 
of contentious elections will elevate the risk of political 
instability and violence.'' And that is the end of the quote 
from there.
    To meet these growing challenges, the United States, on a 
whole-of-government level, must be more engaged in Africa and 
not less. We need to ensure that we are working well with our 
partner agencies towards both diplomacy and development and 
economic bridges in the continent.
    So I would like to hear about your relationship with our 
most significant partner in the Department of State, how it 
plays an essential part in joint activities in your area of 
responsibility. But the military, certainly, has a meaningful 
role. And as someone who has traveled to Africa many times, I 
have to say how dismayed I was that the previous administration 
chose to reduce American Forces from the continent despite 
increasing threats that pose--you know, pose great threats to 
ourselves and our partners.
    I assume AFRICOM has been making the case that this needs 
to be reversed, and that its bases and its missions that are 
run from them are critical to U.S. interests. And we would 
appreciate hearing those details from you today.
    And this brings us to our oversight responsibilities. 
First, as long as we have troops in the region in harm's way, 
we should make sure they receive the best training, the best 
equipment, and they are not left exposed or behind. Second, we 
need to make sure that the funds we appropriate to carry out 
the programs in the region are executed efficiently and 
effectively.
    And, finally, if the administration is going to challenge 
our posture--if the administration is going to change our 
posture in the region, we need to look at the tradeoffs and how 
long such changes would affect our national security in the 
fiscal year 2022 budget.
    It is in this context that I hope we can discuss several of 
these important issues today, so, General, we look forward to 
hearing your testimony.
    But, first, I would like to recognize Ranking Member 
Calvert for his opening comments.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    General Townsend, it is good to see you again before the 
subcommittee. Last year, at this time, we were focused on the 
potential impact of Secretary Esper's Global Posture Review, 
which sought to realign our military resources with the 
priorities of the last National Defense Strategy. Now, 
Secretary Austin has embarked on a similar task with uncertain 
consequences for how the review will impact your mission, and 
the men and women under your command.
    Notwithstanding the review, there is a broad recognition 
that Africa is increasingly important to the United States' 
interest and to our national security. Our modest military 
presence there not only helps protect our homeland security, 
but to effectively compete against the corrupting influence of 
China and Russia.
    Despite the impact of ongoing ethnic and communal 
conflicts, terrorism and violent extremism appear to remain 
Africa's greatest security threat. As noticed in the latest DNI 
threat assessment, internal conflicts and governance challenges 
remain likely to fuel terrorist threats, particularly in the 
West and parts of the Eastern and Southern Africa.
    AFRICOM and its unique interagency construct has a critical 
role to play in addressing causes of instability. Beyond these 
missions, growing competition with China and Russia makes it 
important that AFRICOM be enabled to become the security 
partner of choice for countries across the region.
    We want to assist you where we can with appropriate 
resources, such funding for security cooperation, and 
requirements for additional ISR across your vast AOR in spite 
of our budget challenges. I want to conclude my brief statement 
by thanking you and the men and women under your command for 
your service, and I look forward to your testimony.
    With that, Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    So with that, please proceed with your testimony. As you 
know, your full written statement will be placed in the record. 
Members all have copies at their seats, and I would like to 
have as much time possible for questions. I think you will find 
us very engaging, so I would encourage you to summarize your 
statement and to be complete, but yet succinct, in answering 
questions.
    [The written statement of General Townsend follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to the classification of the material 
discussed.]

                                         Wednesday, April 21, 2021.

                     UNITED STATES CENTRAL COMMAND

                                WITNESS

GENERAL KENNETH F. MCKENZIE, JR., COMMANDER, UNITED STATES CENTRAL 
    COMMAND

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. The hearing will come to order. The 
subcommittee will receive testimony on the posture of U.S. 
Central Command. Mr. Rogers is always having to tell me to put 
on my microphone. Thank you.
    Our witness is CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie. 
General McKenzie, welcome back to the subcommittee. We look 
forward to your testimony.
    Before I recognize Ranking Member Calvert for a motion, 
Members, when you are speaking, if you have been vaccinated, 
you can remove your mask. Please put it on when you are done 
speaking, because we have our recorder team in here, and we are 
happy to see them. But we did that this morning, and it worked 
out better, and I think people could hear better.
    So, I would like to recognize the ranking member, Mr. 
Calvert, for a motion.
    Mr. Calvert. Madam Chair, I move this portion of the 
hearing today which involves classified material be held in 
executive session because of the sensitivity of the material to 
be discussed.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I would also like to remind 
members that any material placed in front of them that is 
marked classified, and it will be clearly marked, must be left 
at your seat at the conclusion of the hearing. If you have any 
questions on that, please ask any of the staff here whether or 
not it is classified. So let's get started.
    Today's hearing comes at an important time for U.S. policy 
and involvement in the region. Last week, President Biden 
announced U.S. troops are coming home after two decades of war 
in Afghanistan. I support the President's decision. 20 years 
after September 11, 2001, it is time for the Afghan people to 
take ownership of their own country's future. I am pleased that 
U.S. diplomatic and development support will be continued. The 
President also stated that U.S. support for the Afghan security 
forces would continue, and that our counterterrorism 
capabilities in the region would be reorganized to prevent the 
reemergence of terrorists.
    This subcommittee has an important role in funding and 
oversight to plan these transitions, and we look forward to 
working with the Department on these issues. And many of us, 
sir, attended a classified briefing on this topic just 
yesterday.
    Iran is another country where we see policy change. It has 
been 3 years since the Trump administration pulled the United 
States out of the Iran nuclear deal without another deal in 
place. The Biden administration has begun indirect talks with 
Iran to bring them back into compliance, and is exploring how 
the U.S. may also rejoin the agreement. We look forward to 
hearing today how CENTCOM is postured to meet the threat of 
Iran, and how that might change in the event of an agreement.
    The war in Yemen is yet another area where we see a shift. 
After many years, the U.S. is ending support for offensive 
operations in Yemen. We know that there is no military solution 
to the conflict in Yemen, and I strongly support President 
Biden's renewed efforts to reach a diplomatic resolution to the 
conflict.
    And then Syria. It is hard to believe that the war has now 
been going on for 10 years, with hundreds of thousands killed, 
and millions of people displaced. The subcommittee would like 
an update on the fighting and the humanitarian situation there.
    We also understand from the President's budget outline that 
the United States is shifting its focus from the Middle East 
towards Asia. At the same time, we continue to face several 
national security challenges, threats to the stability of the 
region, including ISIS and other terrorist groups.
    Escalating tensions between Pakistan and India. We must 
remain engaged and work with our allies and our partners on our 
common interests. So we look forward to hearing how CENTCOM is 
postured to do that, and is resourced to address these 
challenges to support the 500,000 military personnel serving 
the CENTCOM area of responsibility.
    I want to thank everyone for participating in today's 
hearing. And now, I will recognize our distinguished ranking 
member for his opening remarks.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    General McKenzie, we are pleased to have you back before 
the subcommittee. Thank you for your service.
    The backdrop for this hearing is Secretary Austin's global 
posture review and the publication of the administration's 
interim national security guidance in March. There is a 
widespread belief that the administration views conditions in 
your AOR as ripe for rethinking of our military footprint in 
the Middle East. For example, the interim national security 
guidance promises to take, or to right-size the U.S. military 
presence in the region. It also emphasizes the need to 
responsibly end the war in Afghanistan, an issue will I will 
turn to in a moment.
    We need your best advice as to what the mix of U.S. 
military assets are required to deter a hostile and aggressive 
Iran. It is critical that we not leave a security vacuum in the 
region, only to be filled by China, or, perhaps, Russia. The 
administration may want to stress development and diplomacy 
around the world, but it would be naive to believe that our 
foreign policy can succeed without the backing of a strong 
American military.
    In Afghanistan, it is fair to say that all choices are 
agonizing. The strategic question regarding the President's 
decision to withdraw is whether a remote counterterrorism 
posture can advance U.S. national interests at a lower cost and 
less risk than our present level of commitment. I am deeply 
skeptical of prospects for a power-sharing deal with the 
Taliban break with Al Qaeda, but I look forward to your 
assessment of the situation, and your recommendation as to what 
is our least bad option.
    From an appropriations perspective, I will say that the 
proposed withdrawal creates a number of uncertainties as to how 
to legislate responsibly, not the least of which is how to 
balance the desire to provide continuous support to the Afghan 
security forces without trainers on the ground, contract 
maintenance support, or effective U.S. oversight.
    In closing, I certainly hope the subcommittee will support 
efforts to ensure that you continue to have the critical 
capabilities to advance our interests and protect our men and 
women in uniform, and including persistent ISR. Thank you again 
for your service, and I look forward to your testimony. I yield 
back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    We are pleased today to have the ranking member of the full 
Appropriations Committee, Ms. Granger here.

                         Remarks of Ms. Granger

    Ms. Granger, your opening statement, please.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank 
you, General McKenzie. Welcome back to the subcommittee. We are 
reminded every day how important your area of responsibility to 
the American national security.
    I am concerned today about the announcement the President 
made. He decided to withdraw forces from Afghanistan on 
September 11. I have many questions about this decision. We 
will never forget the events, of course, of 9/11, and must be 
sure an attack on the United States and our interests abroad 
can never come from Afghanistan in the future. We also need to 
know how we will protect the diplomats serving in our embassy 
after our forces leave.
    Iran remains a very real threat to the United States and 
our allies. As the administration continues its diplomatic 
efforts, this must be backed by military strength. I would like 
for you to describe the resources you need to prevent Iran from 
achieving its nuclear ambitions.
    I know we are all concerned about the growing presence of 
China and Russia in the Middle East, and how their plans may 
work against our interests. We also have many close 
partnerships in the region, including with our close allies in 
Jordan and with the Kurds in Iraq. I hope you can address the 
recent instability in Jordan, and how we can help preserve the 
Kingdom's strength so it can remain one of our most reliable 
partners. I would also like to know what support we propose to 
provide to the Kurds and other Iraqi security forces that are 
fighting to keep ISIS in check.
    That is a lot of questions. There is a lot on your plate. I 
hope you can get to that. If not, we will welcome you back 
again. Thank you, again, for your service, and we look forward 
to your testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ranking Member Granger. A lot of 
the questions on there are, I think, questions on everyone's 
mind, so thank you.
    General McKenzie, your full written testimony will be 
placed in the record. Members have copies at their seat. In the 
interest of time, I encourage you to summarize your statement 
in 5 minutes or less, but feel free to take the full 5, because 
we want to get as many questions as we can in. And so, when you 
respond to our questions, if you choose to be succinct, that 
just means we will have more questions. So we will see how many 
questions you want by how long it takes you to answer. Please 
proceed.
    [The written statement of General McKenzie follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to the classification of the material 
discussed.]
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:] 
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                          Thursday, April 29, 2021.

                  UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

                               WITNESSES

GENERAL DAVID H. BERGER, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
ADMIRAL MICHAEL GILDAY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
HON. THOMAS W. HARKER, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
    Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
    This afternoon the committee will receive testimony on the 
posture of the United States Navy and Marine Corps. Our three 
witnesses are the Honorable Thomas Harker, Acting Secretary of 
the Navy; Admiral Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations; 
and General David Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    All three witnesses have a long and distinguished career 
serving our country.
    Secretary Harker, this is your first time testifying before 
the committee, and we welcome you, and we thank you for your 
service.
    Admiral and General, you have both testified before this 
committee before, last year. We welcome you back, and we thank 
you for being here.
    Now, while today's hearing will cover multiple topics, I 
just want to quickly highlight a few.
    Earlier this year, the committee held a hearing on climate 
change and its effects on national security. There can be no 
doubt that our climate is changing, and the Department of 
Defense must be prepared or suffer the consequences.
    No military service is going to feel the effects of climate 
change as uniquely as the Navy and the Marine Corps with 
missions that rely on being able to navigate our waters and 
also find safe harbors.
    Additionally, we must ensure that we understand and prepare 
for how the changing climate will affect the Arctic region and 
its security.
    Turning to shipbuilding for a minute, over the past several 
years the Department of Defense has maintained a requirement 
for a 355-ship Navy. However, past budgets have not fully 
supported this requirement, and then the committee has been 
left to find additional resources.
    I would like to better understand the thought process of 
the Department regarding this year's shipbuilding plan.
    Additionally, we understand that the Marine Corps is 
embarking upon a modernization effort, Force Design 2030. This 
will require investments in research, development, as well as 
divestment of legacy platforms that may no longer have a role 
in this new method of operation. The committee looks forward to 
receiving more details on Force Design 2030 in the fiscal year 
2022 budget request.
    Now, it must not be lost on our discussion on issues of 
procurement or force design that people should be the 
Department's number one priority. And the committee is 
interested in hearing about the programs that prioritize the 
welfare of our sailors, marines, and their families, including 
ensuring that prompt medical care, childcare, and family 
programs are available worldwide.
    We also need to hear how the Navy and Marine Corps are 
combating sexual assault and extremism in your ranks. The 
number of incidents, are they increasing or declining? And are 
you doing everything to ensure that they are moving in the 
right direction? And are you properly resourced to handle this 
task?
    We understand that this is a challenging time for the Navy 
and the Marine Corps, and we want to work in coordination with 
you to ensure you are receiving the required resources to 
maintain readiness, support personnel, and modernize for the 
future.
    At the same time, we must conduct a thorough oversight of 
every dollar requested to ensure that taxpayer funds are being 
spent wisely. We will continue to ask the difficult questions 
to ensure that the right programs are being fully funded.
    And finally, we are holding this hearing before the release 
of the full budget. We understand that this might limit your 
ability to answer certain questions.
    Given the tight timeframe we will have to write the bill, I 
ask you to be prepared to respond to members and the committee 
on any specific budget questions that you are asked here today 
immediately after the full budget request is submitted.
    And with that, I want to thank you again for appearing 
before the committee to discuss these important issues.
    I will also ask you to summarize your statement in a 
moment. But first I would like to recognize our ranking member, 
Mr. Calvert, for his opening comments.
    Mr. Calvert.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    Acting Secretary Harker, Admiral Gilday, General Berger, we 
are pleased to have you here with us today.
    As our Nation's sailors and marines continue to serve on 
the leading edge of our operations in the era of great power 
competition, it is critical that we hear from you about all the 
challenges facing the United States Navy and the Marine Corps.
    I wish we were able to have this hearing with your budget 
request for fiscal year 2022, but I am sure we can have a 
productive conversation, nevertheless.
    In prior fiscal years, this Congress, in coordination with 
our services, have made great strides in moving towards the 
right balance of modernization and readiness. Yet I continue to 
be concerned about the impact that the overall budget pressures 
in these coming years may have on our current and future 
forces.
    I believe this is most evident in our Navy and Marine 
Corps.
    Faced with increased capabilities from China, Russia, and 
other adversaries, the three of you here today have started the 
hard work preparing our services for the conflicts of tomorrow.
    This includes investing in integrated unmanned systems and 
other advanced technology, such as artificial intelligence, 
rightsizing our force, and developing next-generation combat 
capability.
    You are also committed to ensuring that critical 
acquisition programs, like the Columbia-class submarine, 
frigates, and the Joint Strike Fighter, all stay on schedule 
and deliver capabilities to the fleet that are needed now.
    In addition to these resource challenges, the Navy and the 
Marine Corps are also responding to many issues facing the 
force. These include, of course, impacts from COVID-19, the 
physical and mental effects of 20 years at war, readiness and 
training, shortfalls that ultimately resulted in the death of 
Corporal Villaneuva and Private First Class Baltierra in July 
of 2020.
    As we discussed yesterday, we should never lose a sailor, a 
soldier, airman, marine, or guardian in training. Congress must 
ensure that the U.S. military can meet its training needs in 
the safest and most effective way possible, even if the budget 
falls short of doing so.
    All these issues are critical for us to understand and 
properly plan as we prepare our sailors and marines to defend 
the Nation.
    Thank you again for your service, and I look forward to 
your testimony.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    And now it is my honor to recognize the ranking member of 
the full Appropriations Subcommittee, Ms. Granger, for her 
opening comments.
    Ms. Granger.

                         Remarks of Ms. Granger

    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Admiral Gilday, I want to say first it is good to see you 
again after your visit to Fort Worth. I enjoyed it very much 
and appreciate your coming.
    Today it is important that our sailors and marines continue 
to play a central role in protecting American military power. 
As countries like China continue to build up their naval fleets 
and threaten our allies, it is critical that we provide 
sufficient funding for our Navy and our Marine Corps.
    This includes increasing the number of battleships in our 
fleet, rapidly developing new technologies, and expanding our 
forward posture, particularly in the Pacific.
    Furthermore, there is no question that the COVID-19 has had 
an impact on our military. I am interested to hear how you have 
responded to those challenges.
    I look forward to your testimony on these and other 
important issues facing the Navy and the Marine Corps, and I 
thank you for your time.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
    Gentlemen, we do have your full written statements and they 
will be placed in the record and members have copies available 
to them. They were made available earlier. So I would like to 
have as much time as possible for members to ask questions, so 
I would encourage each and every one of you to summarize your 
statements. Be complete but also succinct when you are 
responding to questions.
    And with that, Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General, get over to 
you for your opening remarks.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Harker

    Secretary Harker. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your 
bipartisan efforts on behalf of the sailors, marines, and 
civilians in the Department of the Navy.
    It is an honor to be here with Admiral Gilday and General 
Berger. I support and appreciate their efforts to build a more 
integrated [inaudible] Force Design 2030. We are unified in our 
determination to deliver the most capable, lethal, and ready 
force possible within the confines you provide.
    We will stay ahead of the pacing threat of China and other 
global challenges with hard choices to divest the less capable 
platforms and systems, to invest in a superior future force.
    The top priority for each of us is to invest in our sailor, 
marines, and civilians to ensure they are prepared and equipped 
to execute the missions and return home safely to their 
families.
    We are fighting the scourge of sexual harassment and sexual 
assault through efforts like The Watch List, a tool that uses 
Navy and Marine Corps data to alert commanders to conditions in 
their units that might lead to these toxic behaviors.
    We have also prioritized the mental health of our force, 
speaking out at the senior level about the importance of 
counseling and the availability of mental health professionals, 
chaplains, family counselors, and other support group 
[inaudible].
    We are investing in this area this year, and you will soon 
see a reprogramming request for that funding to provide 
additional mental health practitioners to our sailors and 
marines at operational [inaudible].
    In order to ensure every dollar is maximized to equip and 
prepare our warfighters, we are building on our financial 
statement audit successes, to improve our business systems, 
account for every asset, and leverage data as a strategic 
asset.
    Through the Performance to Plan initiative, we are making 
data-driven decisions through rigorous self-assessments, backed 
by accountability and the demand to improve effectiveness and 
efficiency.
    We are committed to building strong partnerships with our 
vital industrial base and suppliers. I have visited all four of 
our public Navy shipyards, and I am fully committed to the 
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program and other vital 
physical and IT infrastructure investments.
    These will increase the capability and resiliency of these 
100-plus-year-old installations by increasing the size and 
capability of our dry docks, while also providing our 40,000-
plus person workforce with the modern tools they need to 
maintain our force [inaudible] and more lethal assets.
    Around the world and around the clock, the sailors, 
marines, and civilians of our integrated Naval force are 
keeping the watch and executing the mission. On behalf of each 
of them and their families, thank you for your time, effort, 
and your appropriations.
    I look forward to your questions, Madam Chair.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much.
    Admiral Gilday, please begin.

                  Summary Statement of Admiral Gilday

    Admiral Gilday. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your 
enduring support for our Navy and Marine Corps team and the 
opportunity to discuss both our posture and future priorities 
this morning with Secretary Harker and Commandant Berger.
    Today, more than 40,000 sailors and marines are at sea on 
more than a hundred ships. Most of them are forward-deployed. 
They are deterring conflicts, they are safeguarding 
opportunity, and I think they are keeping America and our 
allies safe.
    In the last year, our sailors and marines operated above, 
on, and under the seas from the Arctic to the Cape of Good 
Hope, from the Caribbean to the South China Sea, to the 
Atlantic, the Indian, and the Pacific Oceans, and our routine 
presence includes major economic arteries like the Suez and the 
Panama Canals, the Straits of Hormuz, Malacca, and Gibraltar.
    Our cyber teams stood watch and are standing constant watch 
over our networks.
    Your ballistic missile submarines are maintaining their 
steady, silent patrols.
    Expeditionary medical teams and hospital ships deployed to 
COVID hotspots across our country, and we continue to assist 
with vaccinations today.
    We demonstrated our first successful standard missile 
intercept of an ICBM. We disabled a target aircraft using 
shipboard laser technology. And we just finished this week our 
largest exercise to date using the full range of unmanned ships 
and aircraft.
    Your sailors, your Navy civilians, and our families made 
all of this possible, along with patriots in our shipyards, in 
our aircraft maintenance facilities, and our mobilized Navy 
Reservists, and our partners in industry, companies large and 
small who kept the production lines moving and sustainment of 
our Navy with a very high OPTEMPO possible.
    All of this in a global pandemic.
    Those people really are the foundation of our strength, and 
I could not be more proud to serve alongside them.
    And their strength is needed now more than ever. 
Competition on, under, and above the seas is intensifying. 
China and Russia are rapidly mobilizing their militaries, 
attempting to undermine our alliances, and degrading the free 
and the open international order we have worked so hard to 
sustain.
    Our joint force relies on the Navy and the Marine Corps to 
control the seas in conflict and project power ashore. Those 
missions are timeless. And while our fleet can deliver on those 
missions today, we will be increasingly challenged to do so in 
the future.
    We have studied the threats, we have refined our 
operational concepts, and we have analyzed what the joint force 
needs from your Navy and your Marine Corps.
    The results of analysis over analysis in the past 5 years 
has been consistent and crystal clear: America needs a larger 
and more capable Navy, we need greater numbers of submarines, 
smaller and more numerous surface combatants, and more lethal 
offensive capabilities, a host of unmanned platforms under, on, 
and above the seas, and a modern strategic deterrence. We also 
need and are working hard on a more robust, resilient network 
infrastructure.
    But importantly, Naval power is not a function of ship 
numbers alone, nor is it simply a result of the lethal systems 
on our ships. It also comes in the concepts that shape how we 
fight and the means to maintain, train, and equip our forces to 
win in combat.
    And fundamentally, and most importantly, it comes down to 
our sailors and to our Navy civilians. And we are committed to 
developing sailors who can outthink and outfight any adversary.
    Let there be no doubt, the world's oceans are crucial for 
America's security and our prosperity. With your continued 
support, we will field--your Navy is committed, your sailors 
are committed and determined to field a lethal Navy today and 
deliver the Naval power America needs tomorrow.
    Again, we are grateful for your support to our Navy and 
Marine Corps teams. I look forward to answering your questions. 
Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    And now we will hear from the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps, General Berger.

                  Summary Statement of General Berger

    General Berger. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify on the posture of your Marine Corps, our 
priorities, and the resource requirements necessary to fund it 
all.
    As Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday noted, we greatly 
appreciate both your efforts to provide the timely funding, as 
well as your enduring commitment to our marines, sailors, and 
our families. Your bipartisan support is critical to creating 
and sustaining our strategic advantage now and into the future, 
particularly as competing national priorities increase pressure 
on defense budgets.
    I recognize the difficult decisions this Congress faces, 
especially in the broader budget context of resources required 
to address things like COVID-19, aging infrastructure, climate 
change, systemic social inequality, and the competitiveness of 
our domestic economy.
    I also recognize the tough choices this committee must make 
as it evaluates the budget priorities of the citizens, our 
combatant commands, and the agencies across the Department.
    In a recent hearing, Chair McCollum asked: What kind of 
defense budget do we want to see, not only in fiscal year 2022, 
but as we shape our national priorities 5 and 10 years out? How 
can we take a harder look at or even cut strategically 
unnecessary or outdated programs that just aren't working?
    These questions get at the heart of the difficult decisions 
before Congress and leaders in this Department. We must look 
over the horizon, a decade ahead, when shaping our national 
defense priorities.
    At the same time, we must move beyond programs designed in 
another era that are strategically unnecessary, outdated, and 
just aren't working.
    In his recent testimony, the INDOPACOM commander, Admiral 
Davidson, stated that the greatest thing for the United States 
in this competition is the emergence of conventional 
deterrence. Combat-credible, conventional deterrent posture is 
necessary to prevent conflict, protect U.S. interests, and to 
assure our allies and partners.
    I could not agree more. This is what has been driving our 
Force Design 2030 efforts over the past [inaudible]. 
Recognizing the challenges of the current budget environment, 
we pursued a cost-neutral approach, self-funding all Force 
Design 2030 programs by divesting of legacy capabilities.
    With this committee's support we have attempted to make 
difficult decisions by cutting outdated programs, reinvesting 
those resources into the cutting-edge capabilities that will 
create an advantage and deter our competitors [inaudible].
    Additionally, with the counsel of the ranking member, we 
have looked for savings in other non-programmatic areas to 
include our personnel accounts. For example, we are in the 
process now of reducing our headquarters staff by 15 percent. 
These reductions will help fund investments for necessary 
personnel talent management and sustainment programs.
    To be clear, Force Design 2030 is about modernizing 
capabilities, not just our equipment sets, also our personnel 
systems, our training, and sustainment programs as well.
    After all of our internal self-funding over the past few 
years, I believe we have maximized every dollar you have 
provided.
    However, further modernization with internal resources will 
incur what I believe to be unacceptable risk. We will need the 
help of this committee to generate the resources for cutting-
edge capabilities your Naval forces need to compete with China 
and Russia.
    We welcome the opportunity to work with this committee. 
Look forward to your questions both in this hearing and in the 
weeks that follow.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                             ARTIC STRATEGY

    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, gentlemen.
    I am going to ask a question that I know you will get back 
to me on.
    First off out here, I want to know how climate change is 
impacting your installations, and then I want to see how the 
President's budget is addressing those and what kind of 
priority is put in that. So that is the first--I am a former 
social studies teacher--that is your first piece of homework 
after you get the budget in.
    And kind of going off of that, I would like to talk about 
the Navy Arctic strategy. On January 21, the Navy released its 
new Arctic strategy, entitled, ``A Blue Arctic.'' The document 
provides some strategic guidance on how the Department will 
apply Naval power in the Arctic and talked about how to 
integrate with allies and other partners.
    The ``Blue Arctic'' provides an idea that the Arctic is 
gradually turning from white to blue, in other words, from ice 
to water, right? That reduced ice coverage is making the Arctic 
more available and more navigable.
    We know that there are things that we have to be looking at 
doing to keep those waters navigable, as well as protect our 
shoreline, Alaska, and work with our other democracies in the 
area.
    So, Secretary, my question is--my first question for you 
is, how do you envision the Navy and the Marine Corps' presence 
in the Arctic?
    And then, General Berger, is a cold-water weather 
modernization, has that been included in your Force Design in 
2030?
    And, Admiral, what challenges and resources do you foresee 
needing with the increasing opening of the Arctic waterways?
    Thank you.
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, ma'am.
    As we discussed yesterday, we have a strong relationship 
with allies and partners in the Arctic. Several of the 
countries up in the Scandinavian region are our strong allies 
and partners and provide a lot of capability.
    We have also had a strong presence in the Arctic, both 
under the sea, up in the air, and then partnered with the Coast 
Guard. The Coast Guard is also in the process of recapitalizing 
their polar icebreakers. We are busy underneath the sea with 
submarines, and we also have aviation assets on top of the 
Arctic, and we work closely with our allies and partners.
    General Berger.
    General Berger. The Arctic Strategy that the CNO and I have 
worked on is nesting and built on the same foundational 
principles as the National Defense Strategy, which was, we need 
a strategy for the north that deters, first of all, provides 
deterrence, because that is the underpinnings of our overall 
National Defense Strategy, but puts us in a position where we 
can respond if there is a crisis.
    For us, your question is, is it included in Force Design 
2030, the modernization aspect? Yes, ma'am, it is, from a 
couple different angles, and I will just touch on that quickly.
    One is training. We need to make sure that we fund the 
training that we have to do in that region, and as you point 
out, critically, with partners and allies.
    In our case, it starts with the allies like Norway, where 
we have prepositioned supplies for decades now, which allow us 
to train up there and also enable us to defend the region.
    The second part, of course, is the equipment itself, which 
has to be modernized.
    So on both fronts, it is a part of Force Design 2030.
    Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, I will get to your question in a 
second. I would like to tell you what we have invested in with 
the money you have given us so far over the last couple of 
years. We have stood up 2nd Fleet in Norfolk, and we stood up a 
submarine command in Norfolk as well.
    And so those are expeditionary headquarters that we have 
deployed not only to exercise with the Marines down in North 
Carolina, but we also deploy them to places like Iceland, where 
they are in command and control in there with NATO during major 
operations and exercises.
    We have just come off of a 4-month anti-submarine warfare 
operation with our key partners in the north, so the 
Norwegians, the Dutch, and the Brits in particular. We are on 
the cusp of two more exercises, one in the high north in the 
Norwegian Sea with an amphibious ready group.
    So the United States Marine Corps, along with a carrier 
strike group if we can get it up there, out of the Middle East, 
and with our allies and partners, including the British 
aircraft carrier the Queen Elizabeth with Marine Corps F-35s 
deployed on it.
    In the past 18 months, we have done about 20 different 
exercises and operations in the high north and the Arctic, and 
nearly all of those have been with allies and partners along 
with the Marine Corps.
    In terms of challenges in the future, I would tell you, I 
think it comes down to not technology, per se, but numbers of 
ships. And it is more--that is becoming a more and more 
competitive space for the reasons that you outlined, going from 
white to blue.
    And so right now, as I mentioned in my opening statement, 
about a third of your Navy is at sea right now. We have got 296 
ships. We are well short of the legal requirement for 355.
    We know through our analysis that, based on our current top 
line, we can sustain a Navy of about 300 to 305 ships. So as I 
said in my opening statement, I see in the future it is going 
to be more difficult for us to maintain that kind of forward 
presence that we know we need in places like the Western 
Pacific, in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean, and now in 
the high north, in order to compete and be in a position to 
deter both China and Russia.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert, please.

                          TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Admiral, this is for you. Obviously, we have some budget 
challenges. As we were discussing yesterday, the Chinese are 
significantly ahead of us in the number of ships, and their 
capability is pretty good since they stole most of our 
technology. And that is a significant problem.
    But speaking of technology, I want to speak to something 
that is a concern to me.
    On April 12, I read an article about a new Navy software 
factory called The Forge, and about how the Navy wants to 
reshape how ships get upgraded. The article states: The sea 
service envisions a new way of doing business where it can 
field software fixes and entirely new software-based 
capabilities as soon as they are developed by a small business.
    I must say I am concerned. The Navy has been pursuing this 
capability under a Navy SBIR initiative that became a program 
of record in 2012 called ATRT, an Automated Test and Retest. 
Two years ago, the Office of Naval Research expanded ATRT to an 
initiative called Cloud to Edge, or CTE.
    The Navy has validated ATRT and CTE concepts and technology 
with over 100 successful demonstrations and has shown 
significant productivity improvements for both time and cost, 
nearly 90 percent over current methods.
    One such high-profile demonstration was successful, AEGIS/
ATRT Virtual Twin in April 2019. Despite the many 
demonstrations that dramatically improve outdated legacy 
process, the Navy is not aggressively letting this effort 
scale. In fact, it intends to stand up its own enterprise to 
replicate what is already being done.
    My concern is, rather than follow SBIR law, which states 
that an agency shall use a SBIR awardee to the greatest extent 
practicable when pursuing their technology, all too often the 
Navy brings the capability in-house and gives it to an 
incumbent prime.
    This is why we don't see rapid business growth or 
innovation companies in defense markets. They just don't trust 
you.
    As you can imagine, the behavior has a depressing effect on 
the number of entrepreneurs who want to do business with the 
DOD, and it slows down our ability to maintain a competitive 
edge against our near-peer adversaries.
    I believe that the Department's resistance to permitting 
SBIR awardees to scale their technologies neglects the vital 
importance of entrepreneurial innovation and risks our national 
security.
    The only two people I can think of--the only two people--
that I can think of that have been able to disrupt the 
Department and force change are two billionaires, Elon Musk and 
Peter Thiel. It must not take a billion dollars and a team of 
lawyers to bring viable disruption to the Department.
    When a SBIR company develops something as innovative as 
AEGIS Virtual Twin and then the Navy brings it in-house, we are 
sending a signal to all entrepreneurs that their products and 
technology will not be protected. I expect the Navy to assist 
entrepreneurs in applying their technologies to Navy 
challenges, not to take those opportunities away.
    We are facing a race for digital superiority, and we are 
not going to get there by discouraging entrepreneurs or 
limiting their opportunities.
    To say I am frustrated is an understatement. I believe the 
Navy has conflicts of interest with its labs and the Warfare 
Center. I don't see how they can oversee entrepreneurial 
initiatives if they are allowed to then bring them in-house.
    ATRT is just one example of how the Navy treats 
revolutionary technology that would transform how the Navy 
operates to make it more efficient, more capable, and more 
deployable.
    My question is to you. How are you going to ensure that the 
Navy removes those conflicts of interest, creates a culture 
that invites disruption and productivity, and engages and 
advocates for the entrepreneurs? Sorry for such a long 
question, but it is something that has been bothering me for 
years.
    Thank you, Admiral. Please.
    Admiral Gilday. Certainly. The short answer is, we are 
leveraging industry best standards now.
    You mentioned Naval Forge and we have NavalX, which puts us 
into touch primarily with small businesses across the country 
so that we can leverage and put their technology to use to 
scale it as quickly as possible. And there are a number of 
success stories with respect to that.
    I think, sir, some of the criticism from industry is 
warranted. I think some of it is outdated. And I also think 
that the direction that we are moving in to apply industry best 
standards makes it more competitive and forces us, and forces 
industry, forces the cream--forces us to take a closer look at 
the cream that should rise to the top, instead of just anybody 
that comes to the plate with a new technology.
    There is plenty of different mouse traps up there. We are 
trying to set the environment so that we can pick from among 
the very best in a competitive environment and put it to use 
and scale it.
    With respect to where we are moving with software, right 
now it takes us sometimes over a month to get a software update 
completely out to the fleet, to test it against all of our 
systems, make sure it is not going to break anything, and then 
push it out to the fleet.
    Right now, we are applying industry best standards to do 
that in hours instead of days and weeks.
    And so, sir, I am fully committed, I accept your criticism. 
I think we are turning a corner on it. I have talked to members 
of industry.
    In fact, the past two months, most of the travel I have 
done have been with industry folk, small business and large, to 
get a better sense of their criticism, where the opportunities 
lie for us, to really leverage the latest technology, 
particularly from small companies.
    I do think we are headed in the right direction. I am not 
satisfied yet that we completely have it right, though. And I 
would like to spend more time with you, sir, to lay out where 
we are and where we are going to go.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, I appreciate that.
    In closing, Madam Chair, I just want to say, I hope the 
Admiral and the Commandant--I am sure you both read the book 
``The Kill Chain.'' And the problems that we are having and the 
so-called Valley of Death on these entrepreneurs when they--you 
know, and the problem is right now.
    I talk to these guys all the time. They are all in 
California, it seems, but a lot of them are around the country. 
But they don't want to do business with you because they start 
out, and they get promised certain things, and then the rug is 
pulled out from underneath them.
    Let's talk about that. We got to change that, or these 
folks aren't going to do business with you. Simple as that.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Calvert, I thought that was a very 
important question and something that you and I should figure 
out how to follow up on after the budget is done and out. I 
hear from Minnesota businesses about other branches of the 
service and how it is not very transparent. Thank you for your 
question.
    We have been joined by the full committee Appropriations 
chair, Ms. DeLauro.
    Ms. DeLauro, I turn the floor over to you.

                             CH-53K PROGRAM

    The Chair. Thank you so much, Madam Chair and the Ranking 
Member. Appreciate the opportunity to be with you.
    I am going to be very parochial in my question, which has 
to do with the Third Congressional District of Connecticut.
    And, General Berger, great to see you here today. I am so 
sorry I missed you when you came to Sikorsky.
    Let me ask a couple of questions as they have to do with 
the CH-53K. It provides the Marine Corps with a 21st century 
capability, increased lift, range, survivability, 
maintainability. And my constituents build this aircraft and 
proud to support the Marines.
    And a question, really two questions. I know that on 
programs like this, there are always unit cost concerns. This 
one is no exception.
    Please tell me and us, has the unit cost with the CH-53K 
been coming down year over year? And do I understand correctly 
that the two aircraft this committee added last year produced 
an even greater unit cost reduction?
    Please, General Berger.
    General Berger. Okay. My trip up to Sikorsky, ma'am, was 
timely. It was really informative for me. I had never been 
there before to look at that production line. As you point out, 
the workers there, the folks there are really dedicated to 
giving us the capability that we need. And they are great 
patriots.
    Then I went down to North Carolina where they are actually 
flying the aircraft, because it is really difficult to assess, 
you know, a program, a capability, unless you get in the back 
of it and see where it is at. Both of those two together were 
very helpful for me.
    There are two aspects which you highlight that I am focused 
on, that I think we need to focus on. One is the procurement 
cost, the unit cost, certainly, absolutely key. The second one 
is the sustainment cost.
    And both of which I spoke with the Sikorsky and Lockheed 
Martin executives while we were in Connecticut. The cost, 
ma'am, has gone down from the initial lots of procurement. It 
is in a better spot now than it was a couple years ago.
    But I emphasized to them that they have to do everything 
possible to drive the cost out of the program as we go forward.
    This second part is just as important, because this is an 
aircraft that we are going to fly for 25, 30, 35 years. So that 
the long-term costs, the cost per flight hour, the reliability 
of the components, we talked through all of that when we were 
in Connecticut.
    I asked them to really focus on not just driving the 
initial purchase price, but also the sustainment costs all the 
way through the supply chain, to the vendors. Every component 
has to last the number of hours that they advertise or else the 
ratings goes down as you well know.
    The Chair. Thank you very much. And it is also my 
understanding that given the capabilities and how fly-by-wire 
eases the actual burden of flying an aircraft, that really lets 
the Marines focus on what the mission is.
    I thank you. I thank you for the visit. And I understand 
the need to bring the cost down, as I am sure that Sikorsky and 
Lockheed Martin understand that as well.

                         HEAVY-LIFT CAPABILITY

    To Admiral Gilday and to Secretary Harker, I will just want 
to say, Secretary Harker, it was great to see you again. We had 
the opportunity to meet in Connecticut and tour the plant.
    And my question for the two of you is, your thoughts on the 
heavy-lift capability needs of the Navy. Because I understand 
that you are getting ready to retire your fleet of MH-53s, 
which perform this airborne mine countermeasure mission.
    Let me just get your sense of what your capability needs 
are and--anyway, let me ask you to go forward with that first, 
okay?
    Secretary Harker. Yes, ma'am. Thank you for the opportunity 
to comment. It was great meeting up in Connecticut--it was 
great meeting you up in Connecticut and going to the Sikorsky 
plant and being able to take a tour of the plant, and listening 
to all the things being done to pull the cost out of the 53K.
    We definitely have need for heavy-lift capability. The 
warfighter is probably the best suited to answer that question.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, ma'am. Thanks for the question.
    A couple of points on the 53, which, as you know, is an old 
platform. And we are moving the smaller ships, particularly as 
we operate in high density areas like the Strait of Hormuz in 
the Arabian Gulf or in the South China Sea.
    And the systems that we are employing--actually, in a 
recent visit to California I watched them being tested. They 
are robotic, remotely operated vehicles that operate under the 
sea.
    And so instead of towing an immense contraption from a 
helicopter, we are now controlling small robotic vehicles that 
do a much better job at finding mines and neutralizing them 
actually using AI.
    And I would love to be able to share the demonstration 
where we use artificial intelligence among robotic vehicles 
under the water to basically search, find mines, and neutralize 
them. It is very, very neat.
    The second thing we are doing is we are putting a new mine 
countermeasures capability on our littoral combat ships. And 
what that allows us to do is deploy a system off the back of 
that ship that is highly reliable, and at the same time deploy 
a smaller robotic system from that, from a smaller helicopter, 
that allows us, with longer range, to move out and to search 
areas more effectively.
    What we are doing, ma'am, is we are essentially divesting 
of a legacy platform to a much more capable high-tech, reliable 
platform.
    The Chair. Thank you. And, you know, I know this is just a 
very, very brief description, but it would be interesting to 
me, I think, hopefully to the committee, if you could tell us, 
you know, the Navy plans of how you plan to proceed once the 
MH-53s are retired. You know, what happens there. And if you 
could give us that information it would be helpful. And again, 
wondering if the 53K is something that you all are thinking 
about as well.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, ma'am. We will come back to you with 
more detail. But the short answer is, there is a transition 
point here. We are not going to have a gap in capability.
    The new capabilities are really coming online within the 
next 18 months. We will be fielding them on our ships. We are 
still testing right now, but we will be fielding them later on 
this year and into 2022. And until those systems are certified, 
we don't bring the older systems--we don't retire the older 
systems.
    The Chair. I thank you. I thank you all. I thank you for 
the work that you do.
    And I want to just yield back and thank the chair and the 
ranking member for the opportunity to participate this morning. 
Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Great questions. I learned a lot.
    To the full ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, 
Ms. Granger.

                                SOUTHCOM

    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Two weeks ago, we heard from U.S. Southern Command about 
the positive impact that increased Navy deployments are having 
on the region. Recently, two littoral combat ships deployed to 
SOUTHCOM to put significant pressure on transnational criminal 
organizations and conduct exercises with regional partners. As 
Admiral Faller put it, these deployments made a difference.
    Many of us on this subcommittee continue to be concerned 
about the challenges in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility, 
especially as we continue to watch the crisis on our southern 
border unfold.
    Do you share these concerns? And can the Navy better 
resource SOUTHCOM by keeping the LCS ships in service?
    And I would address that to whoever can answer that 
question.
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, ma'am. I think in my 20 years' 
experience in the Coast Guard, I have spent a lot of time 
operating in that SOUTHCOM AOR countering the transnational 
drug threat. I have spent a lot of time interdicting drugs at 
sea, made several drug seizures.
    And so I definitely appreciate the importance of that 
mission, and I believe that the LCS, as currently configured, 
is a good asset to use for that mission CNO has more experience 
in that Warfighting area.
    Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, the littoral combat ships do an 
excellent job down there in the SOUTHCOM AOR, as well as in the 
Western Pacific.
    There are two issues with that ship that we are trying to 
get after. The first is reliability on the odd-numbered hulls.
    And so as most of you probably know, there is a problem 
inside a foreign-built combining gear that has been a big 
problem with these type of--reliability of those. A few months 
ago, we had to tow one back into Florida because it broke down 
at sea.
    And we have halted our acceptance of any of those ships 
from the shipbuilder, number one.
    Number two, we are forcing the vendor who designed and 
delivered those combining gears to go back to the drawing board 
to redesign, to do testing, which they are doing the testing 
right now, and then come back with that fix to back fit our 
ships.
    We have got to get the reliability piece resolved, 
particularly if we are going to put those ships in the 
Caribbean for long, sustained times.
    The other piece of it is lethality. And so we are putting 
missile systems on 31 of our 35 littoral combat ships, as well 
as both an anti-submarine warfare capability on about 15 of 
them and a mine capability on about a similar of number of 
ships. And those last two capabilities will come online in the 
next 18, about 18 months.
    So, ma'am, in a nutshell, we are very bullish on LCS and 
where we are headed.

                         DECOMMISSION OF SHIPS

    Ms. Granger. Good. I am glad to hear that. Let me just 
follow up on that.
    The Navy proposed many ships before the end of their 
projected lives to be mothballed. This committee pushed back on 
that proposal. We are now hearing that the Navy will propose 
additional decommissions this year in spite of the concerns we 
raised.
    So why would we want to get rid of these ships well before 
the end of their useful lives and jeopardize our ability to 
counter China when it has so many more ships?
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, ma'am. That is a good 
question.
    You know, we are still in the process of having those 
discussions about the 2022 budget and what will be in it and 
what won't be in it. I can't go into detail on that. But it is 
definitely something that we are in the process of discussing 
with [inaudible] And with OMB, and we hope to be able to give 
you more information.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Granger.

                        LATIN AND SOUTH AMERICA

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
    I also want to follow up on what the ranking member, Ms. 
Granger, mentioned a few minutes ago because I am also 
concerned what is happening in our own backyard. I am talking 
about not only Central America but South America.
    And if you look at the presence of what especially the 
Chinese have done in South America, it is a little concerning. 
It is not only the international criminal organizations, but it 
is also the presence of the Chinese, the Russians, and of 
course the Iranians to an extent also in a couple of countries 
down there.
    I know that we are waiting--I think it is on July 31--we 
are waiting for a report on an inventory of what the Department 
of Defense, our Department of Defense, USAID, and the 
Department of State should be doing down in those countries, 
what I call our own backyard.
    Could you give us what your vision is, or your thoughts are 
as to what we can do to counter the Russian, but especially the 
Chinese presence in our own backyard? Because I don't want to 
see the 1980s again where the U.S. wakes up and says, ``Oh my 
God, look what has happened in Nicaragua,'' and then we wake 
up, but in the middle of the night. I would like to be 
prepared.
    Can you all give us your vision and your thoughts on our 
own backyard, just to follow up on what Ms. Granger asked?
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, sir. That is a good question.
    I know that, as we discussed, the great power competition 
with China and Russia. Admiral Faller down at SOUTHCOM has been 
very focused on the impact of those nations in our backyard 
down in Central America and South America. It is something that 
we are definitely watching and paying attention to and that he 
has focused a lot of his resources on.
    As Ms. Granger mentioned, we do have several large ships 
that are deploying down there, both for counternarcotic 
missions, and we also do training and other missions with many 
of the countries that are in that region. And we work closely 
with their embassies and their Defense Attaches. The 
warfighting aspects of that the CNO might have additional 
comments.
    Admiral Gilday. Sure. If I could give you a couple of 
examples of where, sir, I think that we can make impact--or 
have made impact.
    Part of this working with Admiral Faller as an example is, 
what is the right tool to bring to bear in that area of 
responsibility that is going to make a difference in the 
competitive space.
    About a year and a half ago, he asked us to deploy a 
hospital ship down there, and we did. And that hospital ship 
saw almost 60,000 patients. More than 2,000 surgeries changed 
the lives of people, children that never had eyeglasses before 
as an example, dental work, and orthopedic work.
    Across the board, our medical teams did phenomenal work 
down there and, I would argue, made friends for life.
    And at the same time, the Chinese hospital ship, the Peace 
Ark, also deployed. But while the Peace Ark was providing 
support to Venezuelan elites, the U.S. Navy and the Marine 
Corps were providing help to Venezuelan refugees in countries 
like Colombia.
    So that is an area where we are not bringing a jet down 
there with bombs, we are not shooting guns, but we are bringing 
the right kinds of capabilities that we have to bear to really 
make stronger partners and allies in the region.
    Another good example would be deploying combat engineers, 
setting up field hospitals, doing those types of things, which 
might be more impactful in that region and gain us a better 
long-term investment than, let's say, perhaps a carrier strike 
group.
    I hope I answered your question sufficiently, sir.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And I agree. I mean, it doesn't have to 
be that type of hard power. I think what you are talking about 
will develop a lot of good will among those countries. I mean, 
just showing up to a place brings a lot of good will. I mean, 
they want to associate with America.
    I look forward to working with you all, and then hopefully 
after this report that will come out July 31 we can follow up 
on this. But I appreciate what you all do down there and across 
the world.
    And I know that you all are stretched out pretty thin. I 
know what is happening in the Indo-Pacific. I understand all 
that. But I am one of those believers that I just don't want to 
wake up in the middle of the night and realize that we got 
folks in the backyard.
    But I appreciate it. Thank you so much.
    I yield back the balance of my time, Chairwoman.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Cuellar.
    Next up is Mr. Rogers, and then after that, Mr. Kilmer.
    Mr. Rogers.

                             CYBERSECURITY

    Mr. Rogers. Admiral Gilday, about our cybersecurity 
capabilities. China, Russia, increasingly aggressive in the 
cyber domain. And with so much of today's technology at risk to 
cyber-attacks, I am concerned about the vulnerabilities we have 
across the spectrum in defense.
    Could you please tell us about your approach to cyber-
attacks?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
    Firstly, in support of U.S. Cyber Command, the U.S. Navy 
currently has 40 cyber teams. We are increasing that number; I 
think by four or five. I would have to go back and check the 
exact number. But we are providing additional cyber forces to 
General Nakasone at USCYBERCOM.
    In terms of the U.S. Navy approach, and as Secretary Harker 
said in his opening remarks, in terms of his priorities for 
investments, we are moving to the cloud off of legacy 
infrastructure, which, as you know, is vulnerable.
    And so we are trying to transfer our data and our 
applications to an environment that is much more homogeneous, 
better protected with the latest technology that industry can 
bring to bear, and essentially using industry best practices, 
instead of relying on a system of legacy networks that have 
just been cobbled together over time.
    The Navy and the Marine Corps had the largest single 
transfer of an application to the cloud over the past year, and 
that was a financial tool that we used with 70,000 users. And 
so that is a big approach for us, including using integrated 
cyber tools that allow us to defend our data better.
    Mr. Rogers. As I am sure you are aware, one of the key 
elements of advancing our cyber capabilities is through 
partnership with the private sector.
    How are you working with industry leaders to not only 
ensure we have the best technology available but also have the 
type of talent necessary to be dominant in the cyber domain?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would make two points with respect 
to that.
    As I mentioned earlier, when answering the question for 
Ranking Member Calvert, we are applying industry best 
standards. And so those tools and applications that are the 
latest and greatest and most effective with respect to 
defending our networks is what we are investing in.
    But we are not just doing it alone. We are doing it in 
conjunction with the other services because it makes sense. It 
makes sense to go after those contracts as kind of an omnibus 
instead of singularly a number of different contracts going 
after different--going after a number of different 
technologies.
    I think the second thing I would offer you with respect to 
talent is that we are casting a wider net, and I will give you 
an example.
    So typically, we would go after those with 4-year degrees 
to fill specific jobs, cyber jobs that we have. Four-year 
degrees are not really perhaps the number one requirement or 
something that, let's say, coders, hackers, are typically 
interested in acquiring.
    And we spend a lot of time now engaging community colleges, 
as an example, to tap into that talent, to attract them in a 
very competitive space.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Sir, you have about a minute left, and I 
think the Commandant might want to add something if you would 
like to hear from him.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    Commandant.
    General Berger. If I could just pick up where the CNO left 
off.
    Mr. Rogers. Yes.
    General Berger. We are looking also, to your point about 
the people themselves, at more creative ways to keep the talent 
within the Navy and Marine Corps that we have.
    In other words, the old days of you grew up in uniform and 
served for 20 years and retired, or whatever, are not going to 
allow us to keep the people that are trained, that want to 
serve.
    So we have to find creative ways where Lieutenant Berger or 
Staff Sergeant Harker can serve in uniform, then go serve in 
industry, then come back into the service again, back and 
forth, so that we can enable them to have a career on both 
tracks.
    But that is a creative approach to the way we manage the 
program we haven't needed to take in the past, but we are 
convinced we are going to need to be that sort of creative 
going forward.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you very much, and thanks, 
gentlemen, for all your service.
    I yield.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. That was interesting to see how 
they are trying to keep career paths going.
    I have Mr. Kilmer and then Mr. Womack.

                         SHIPYARD MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And, Mr. Secretary, I want to just start by saying thank 
you for coming out and visiting Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in 
my neck of the woods earlier this week. It was a pleasure to 
chat with you and show you around the shipyard that is such an 
important part of ensuring our sailors are ready to protect our 
country.
    As you are likely aware, Admiral Lescher, the VCNO, and 
Vice Admiral Galinis, the Commander of NAVSEA, also visited the 
shipyard within the last week, and I very much appreciated the 
opportunity to meet with all of you and talk about the role our 
public shipyards, including Puget, play in our Nation's 
security and our mission readiness. PSNS is our Nation's 
largest public shipyard and repairs and retrofits our carriers 
and our submarines and plays a critical role in our Nation's 
defense posture in the Pacific.
    I know you mentioned it in your opening remarks, but I 
would like you just to expand on the role our four public 
shipyards play and the importance of ensuring that they are 
modernized and optimized in accordance with the Shipyard 
Innovation and Optimization Plan that was laid out in 2018. And 
if you can speak to what risks to fleet readiness and to force 
posture do you foresee if we do not make these shipyard 
investments now?
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, sir.
    Our Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan provides a 
much-needed investment in our 100-plus year-old public 
shipyards that will bring modern technology into the hands of 
our 40,000-plus American shipyard workers. It will increase the 
size and capability of our aging dry docks, enabling them to 
serve the larger and more capable advanced weapon systems that 
are created with our industry partner. This is a generational 
investment that will increase the resiliency of our shipyards, 
creating a more productive and environment-friendly footprint 
that leads our national security for decades into the future. 
It is vital for our success.
    Mr. Kilmer. I found it very compelling as we looked at--you 
know, obviously, the shipyard in our neck of the woods is a 
130-year old shipyard, so there is a fair amount of 
modernization that needs to happen, including, you know, things 
like making sure that we have dry docks that can maintain the 
new generation of carriers.
    I just value any insights you have on how this committee 
can help ensure that this vital work gets done.
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, sir.
    I believe that the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization 
Plan right now is a 20-year plan that is upward of $20 billion 
is something that we could look at accelerating if additional 
funds were available.
    So I know there has been talk by different folks on the 
Hill about putting that into the infrastructure bill, and it is 
something that we would appreciate the opportunity to 
accelerate that program, because it is very critical for our 
success going forward.
    Admiral Gilday. Could I?
    Secretary Harker. Yes.
    Admiral Gilday. If I could for the committee, just broadly, 
I know we have mentioned shipbuilding, but just through 
strategic investment areas for the Navy right now that are 
pressurizing our budget; one is the Columbia-class ballistic 
missile submarine. So that will account for 25 to 33 percent of 
our shipbuilding budget. That is a must-deliver-on-time 
capability given now the 40-year-old Ohio-class submarines that 
we currently have at sea performing that no-fail mission. So 
that is one pressure.
    The second pressure is strategic sealift, and so, Congress 
has been gracious in allowing us to look at and do some market 
analysis, instead of buying new seaman ships for $300 to $500 
million, to buy new ships that have 20 years of life left on 
them and to buy them at a tenth of the cost, say, $20 to $25 
million, and, so, we are moving out purchasing vessels like 
that could close the capability gap that is only widening with 
China and Russia.
    The last place is the shipyards. The four public shipyards, 
21 dry docks, we have not, as the Secretary said, this is a 
once-in-a-century opportunity to upgrade these facilities, and 
we have to. We are putting new submarines in the water, 
Virginia-class Block IIIs and Block IVs. They are larger 
submarines. We need to be able to get them in dry docks to work 
on.
    And as you probably know, those four public shipyards are 
the only ones that really do the lion's share of the work on 
all of our nuclear-powered ships, our aircraft carriers, our 
ballistic missile submarines, our data missile submarines, our 
SSGNs, as well as our attack submarines.
    And, so, our infrastructure on those four shipyards is over 
60 years old. So, we are capitalizing those buildings as well 
as the dry docks. Based on that support of Congress, we have 
nine ongoing MILCON projects across those four shipyards right 
now.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Womack, and then Mr. Crist.

                           FORCE DESIGN 2030

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the 
gentlemen for your service.
    Before I begin with my questions, Madam Chair, I just want 
to note that this is our first service posture hearing since 
the skinny budget was put out. And just for the record, I want 
to note my strong opposition to the top line number for 
defense. It doesn't even make up for inflation, which, to me, 
means it is a cut, and isn't the increase we need to compete, 
to deter, and to win against our pacing threats. So, I consider 
it to be dangerous, and I hope we can come together and inject 
some common sense into the situation and increase it more 
appropriately, in the words of Ronald Reagan, so that we can 
continue to have peace through strength.
    So that said, General Berger, good to see you, albeit 
virtually.
    I want to focus on the Force Design 2030, specifically on 
your belief that the Marine Corps needs to have advanced 
capable ground-based anti-ship missiles. Now, I have had the 
opportunity to speak with you and your staff about it, and I 
understand why you feel so strongly that you need this 
capability to compete with our pacing threat, China. You have 
been adamant about getting this capability into the fleet by 
2023.
    Help me understand the capability and the need, why this 
particular time frame is so important to you and the Corps.
    General Berger. Sir, thanks.
    I will start where the CNO left off a couple of questions 
ago, about the needs, the essential role of the Naval force to 
control the seas, to make sure commerce is open and flowing and 
how critical that is to our economy. You need an able force to 
do that. Our role in contributing to that, sir, is to make sure 
that where denial, where control has to happen from a tactical 
to operational perspective that we can contribute. We can do 
that by moving the capability around that holds an adversary's 
navy at risk, both, from ship and from shore.
    Timely, the question, because this morning, I saw an 
article, kind of surprised me, but an article this morning 
about--this has a picture of it. I have blown up a picture of 
it so you can see it. A picture of, looks like a vehicle with a 
missile on the back of it, and it turns out absolutely that is 
true. This is our joint light tactical vehicle with a missile 
system on the back in a live fire shoot.
    And the reason I mention that, sir, is this is the speed at 
which we have to develop a capability like that. This joint 
light tactical vehicle is our new vehicle. We are probably 20 
percent into the fielding of it. The missile on the back is 
already on Naval ships right now.
    So, this is the brilliance of a couple of young officers 
and Oshkosh and a few other people putting together 
capabilities long before they are even thought all the way 
through. This joint, light tactical vehicle is unmanned, but 
the people in Oshkosh thought, and a couple of majors, we can 
do this. So they took the cab off the back and they put a 
missile in the back and a fire control system.
    Now we can move this around on vessels, bring it ashore, 
and hold an adversary's navy at risk in order to ensure that 
the lines on the sea are kept open. This is the speed at which 
we have to move.
    Our job, I think, is to support the fleet commander. The 
fleet's job is to support the joint force commander, and this 
is one way.
    Mr. Womack. Fascinating technology that exists, and the 
ingenuity of the people that we have developing, so, I am with 
you on it.
    Madam Chair, with a half minute to go, I yield back my 
time.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Kirkpatrick and then Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                     ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SPENDING

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
    First, I want to associate myself with the statement on the 
top line number that Mr. Womack made. I think we are, frankly, 
not dealing with reality with that top line number. Number two 
is, our honorable chairwoman has been, I think, a strong leader 
on climate change issues, and she has recognized that. I want 
to, if you could--I know you are not going to have the answer 
now--if you could get me how much the military is currently 
spending on climate change issues, on environmental issues, 
because I know there is different silos of this, so kind of 
like a total of how much we are spending in the military on 
environmental climate change issues currently; and, also, what 
is the forecast as to how much we may be spending for the 
next--you are foreseeing to be spending, you are recommending 
to be spent on those issues again in the next year.

                                AVIATION

    Gentlemen, you have heard a lot about Southern Command. I 
think there is a lot of concern about how we kind of sometimes 
neglect what is going on in our own hemisphere, and as you all 
know, every dollar spent there actually saves, directly saves 
American lives. And so, I just hope you take to heart the 
concern of this subcommittee on making sure that SOUTHCOM has 
what it needs as far as assets, and that is really gray ships, 
to do the job that they need to do. I am not going to get into 
specifics and details, because I think a lot of that has 
already been said.
    Let me ask you a little bit about tactical aviation. What 
is the Navy's tactical aviation shortfall this year, and what 
effects could that have on the safety and the readiness of both 
our aircraft and our pilots?
    Secretary Harker. Sir, if we can start with the climate, 
one thing we are doing is we are mapping the resources that 
were in the fiscal year 2021 budget that weren't specifically 
tied towards climate to figure out how that would translate 
into the 2022 budget. So we are going into the financial system 
and looking at all of our different investments and identifying 
which ones would be, you know, in 2022 that we have spent how 
they would be tagged similar to what you will see in the fiscal 
year 2022 request, so we would be able to compare apples to 
apples.
    The second thing, SOUTHCOM forces, it is something we 
believe in. I personally lived in south Florida for 9 years. I 
spent a lot of time working in that area during my Active Duty 
Coast Guard time, interdicting drugs, working to stem all of 
the challenges that come in that SOUTHCOM air war, and we 
believe it reinforces a requirement that we support.
    On the tac-care side, I will defer to the work warfighting 
expert, Admiral Gilday.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, just real little quick on climate 
change. I just took a look at the projects related to climate 
change. Particularly, this should come as no surprise from the 
Navy, with our bases along the coast and the problem with sea 
level rise, 49 projects over the past 3 years since 2018, and 
that includes projects that are ongoing right now. I think 
everything from pier work and installations along the 
waterfront to investments in solar energy and green energy 
capabilities. And, of course, we are working the 2022 budget 
proposal right now.
    With respect to tactical aviation, so the Navy right now, 
along with the Marine Corps, is making a transition to a 
mixture of fourth and fifth generation aircraft. So, in other 
words, for the Navy, we will have a mix of about 50 percent F-
18 Super Hornets, and then 50 percent F-35 joint strike 
sliders. We are deploying our first F-35 squadron oversea right 
now. By 2025, I don't see a--based on the current budget line, 
and we are still working our way through it, but our goal is to 
have six aviation wings out of 10 that have the F-35 capability 
by 2025.
    And so, that is--right now that is our plan. We hope to 
remain on glide slope. We will see what happens as we work 
through the budget numbers here in a couple of weeks.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that, gentlemen. Yes, on the 
climate change, again, because it is hard to kind of track it 
down, so exactly what you just said is what--if you could get 
us those numbers once you have them, it would be helpful.
    My time is up. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much, and I 
yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I couldn't agree more to see how 
the climate change is going to affect this budget.
    Ms. Kirkpatrick, then Mr. Cole, and then Ms. Kaptur, and 
that will end this first round.
    Ms. Kirkpatrick.

                              HYPERSONICS

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very 
much.
    Admiral, you discussed in your testimony the Navy's need 
for long-range, high-speed weapons that can survive an 
adversary's defense system. The district I represent is home to 
cutting-edge research and development in the area of 
hypersonics and optics, and these capabilities are of 
particular interest to me. I have two questions regarding that.
    How is the United States Navy prioritizing investment in 
hypersonic research to include the manufacturing of high-
temperature materials and optical components? And what efforts 
is the Navy taking to secure the supply chain associated with 
this research and development?
    Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, so with respect to our research and 
development budget, hypersonics is our top priority, and so, we 
are working very closely with the Marine Corps, with the Army, 
and with the Air Force to reach a capability that we can 
deliver to the fleet in 2025. And we intend to do that on the 
latest and greatest destroyers that we have to zoom all class 
destroyers, so those are our Stealth destroyers. Our intentions 
are to first put the weapon on those destroyers, and then on 
our Virginia-class Block V submarines. And right now, our 
projection is that capability would be on our submarines by 
2028.
    As you are probably aware, we had successful fielding of a 
weapon or testing of a weapon this past year with the Army, and 
this was a weapon that was fired thousands of miles with very, 
very, obviously, very large beam, but also very high precision. 
We are very excited about the path that we are on right now 
with hypersonics. We are confident in the delivery timeline 
that I just outlined with respect to that being reliable.
    I am not sure, ma'am, if our vendor base includes companies 
in your specific district. I wouldn't be surprised if it 
doesn't. That work is ongoing services across a wide swath of 
small businesses and large prime vendors across the country.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    General Berger, in your testimony, you addressed your 
vision of the future of the Marine Corps, and identified the 
ground-based anti-ship missile as one of the highest ground 
modernization priorities for the coming year. I understand you 
can't comment specifically on the fiscal year 2022 request, but 
could you give us some insight into how procurement funding in 
fiscal year 2022 would support initial deliveries for this 
system and help build inventory?
    General Berger. Last year, we learned a lot with the 
coordination and coaching of folks on this committee and their 
staff about how to explain, when we are doing the research and 
development and fielding in a more rapid manner, using other 
transaction authorities and acquisition authorities, how do we 
make sure that we communicate clearly, what path we are on, and 
that the civilian oversight within the Department of the Navy 
is on top overlooking what we are doing?
    Fiscal year 2022 is critical. We need this capability in 
the field. The Fleet Commanders need this capability forward, 
so that they can control, deny the regions that they need to. 
But we learned a lot last year in the process of building the 
budget and explaining it. This year is critical. We need the 
funding in order to get this capability in the field in 2023.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    I have one more question. How is the Marine Corps 
leveraging current acquisition programs, like the Naval strike 
missile, to maximize limited dollars?
    General Berger. Two things, ma'am. First is the benefit of 
having a Naval strike missile is that it is a common munition 
so that we can move coordinates between the missile itself, the 
contender between the ship and its coordinates, it is the same 
missile. So as needed, the commander can move the ordnance 
where it is needed most.
    The second one is it speeds up our ability to field it. It 
is a proven missile. Like the picture that I held up, this is 
not a new missile system. We know how it performs. So we are 
riding on the backs of something that is already developed, 
putting it on a platform that we are very confident in, giving 
the commander the capability.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cole and then Ms. Kaptur.

                            ADDITIONAL FUNDS

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and, 
gentlemen thank you for being here with us today.
    You know, my district has Fort Sill Army Post and Tinker 
Air Force Base, so people think I really care about the Navy 
and Air Force, and I do. But we have 1,800 sailors at Tinker 
that fly the Navy E-6 wing and, of course, we are privileged to 
host marine artillery at Fort Sill where they train. What you 
gentlemen do is extraordinarily important to people in my 
district.
    I want to begin by associating myself with the remarks of 
Mr. Womack and Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart, two good friends of mine, 
on the overall top line budget, and I say this with no 
criticism of anybody involved. I think in the end, though, if 
we are going to get to a deal--and I know everybody in this 
committee wants to avoid a CR--we will end up bringing up the 
defense number, probably bringing down the domestic number a 
little bit. That is just the nature of a deal.
    I think what you--I mean, and I respect the Secretary and 
the CNO and the Commandant certainly need to support the 
administration budget. That is your obligation. On the other 
hand, I think what you put in your unmet needs request is going 
to be extraordinarily important to what this committee looks 
at, if it does arrive at a deal and does get more money.
    So I am curious--and I have asked this same question in 
private discussions with the other service chiefs--if you got 
more money than you asked for, what would you spend it on?
    Secretary Harker. This is one where the law requires the 
service chiefs provide that to Congress so I will let them 
answer that.
    Mr. Cole. I am sorry, Mr. Harker, I had a hard time hearing 
you. Could you repeat that?
    Secretary Harker. I am sorry, sir. I believe the law for 
the unfunded priority list (UPL) is that if you fund the 
service chiefs direct to the Congress. I will allow the CNO to 
answer that.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    General Berger. Okay. I will start, and then the CNO can 
pick up for the meeting.
    For us, it is the parts of Force Design 2030, sir, which we 
need to move faster on or move at speed, driven by our pacing 
threat. So, it is things like ground-based anti-ship missile, 
the ISR platforms that will give the Naval force a picture 
forward. It is the elements of Force Design 2030 that we need 
to move quickly on in order to give our capability to the force 
forward.
    But it is also more than hardware, of course. It is beyond 
equipment. It is the people part, and it is the training part, 
both of which are largely, you know, 30, 40 years old, sort of 
industrial models for how we recruit, train, and keep our 
people. All of which has to be modernized, because it doesn't 
do any good to have an idea of where you want the force 10 
years from now if you can't man it and you can't train it. So, 
we have to bring those into the current day and the future as 
well.
    Admiral Gilday. The last time we were in a situation like 
this, we were trying to recapitalize the strategic deterrent 
and grow the conventional force, was 1981 and 1985. During that 
time, DOD budget rose at an annual rate of about 7.5 percent. 
Right now, our buying power has been flat since 2010. We know 
that based on our current--based on our 2021 top line, that we 
can afford a Navy of about 300 to 305 ships. That is not just 
the hulls. It is the people. It is to fill the magazines with 
munitions. Right? It is to train the people. It is all of those 
things that give you a whole fleet that can fight.
    So if we go back, as I said in my opening statement, sir, 
if we go back to 2015, the cascading assessments have been 
done, whether inside the Pentagon, by industry, by think tanks, 
have called for a larger, more capable Navy north of 355. 
Right? 355 is the law.
    So, the short answer from me is more ships, but they have 
got to be manned, they have got to be filled with weapons, so 
it is a wholeness piece that goes along with it.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you. That is very helpful.

                         ANTI-SHIP CAPABILITIES

    One quick question--I don't have a lot of time--Admiral, to 
you. In my discussions with the Army, they talked about their 
discussions with the Navy, and one of the things that the Navy 
wanted was the development of capability to take out ships. 
Probably haven't done much like that from the Army since the 
old coastal defense days, so a big new mission, very important 
mission. I am curious if you could give some insight as to what 
you are looking for in terms of that additional capability to 
work with you.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. So General Berger's Force Design 
speaks directly to that. Right? It is an expeditionary basis, 
and you can move around very quickly with the capability that 
he showed you on the screen. This is from the land the ability 
to not only control the seas but to deny it to an adversary, 
right, in a way that you could move around. Marines are used to 
moving fast anyway, and so--the Army not so, but if they are 
interested, they could shoulder in. But it is really the Marine 
Corps concept that I would point to that has such value in the 
way that we have been practicing, to not only operate, but 
fight potential adversaries, that, I think, has tremendous 
value.
    Mr. Cole. Terrific. Very helpful. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                      FOREIGN INFLUENCE ON ENERGY

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary, Admiral, 
and General, thank you for your patriotic service to our 
country.
    I come from Ohio. I am up on the fourth seacoast, and I 
have no major production companies related to the Navy across 
our coast, from Cleveland to Toledo. However, we have a very 
high recruitment in our region, certainly for the Marine Corps. 
And I do represent the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines that lost, 
about a decade-and-a-half years ago, 14 of their members. I 
just point that out as you begin to shift units, and so forth, 
please don't forget the fourth seacoast and please don't forget 
this region that is very patriotic. And many, hundreds and 
hundreds of individuals are under your command from our region.
    The Kaptur name is in the Marine Corps annals, going all 
the way back to World War I, so you have a friend here.
    I want to ask a couple of questions. Number one, we were 
shown a map the other day of the Americas and the Chinese and 
Russian nuclear installations. You are experts in that. I would 
be interested in your view of the expanding presence of 
installed equipment in several countries that come from Russia 
and China, and also servicing contracts that go along with 
that. It is a concern of mine, and I just want to hear what you 
think about it.

                           ENERGY INNOVATION

    Number two, the Marine Corps has led in terms of energy 
innovation within the entire Department of Defense, and it is 
my understanding that right now, DOD currently segregates 
energy into two categories. One is installation energy, which 
accounts for about 30 percent of the total, and operational 
energy, which accounts for about 70 percent.
    I am very interested in what more the Marine Corps is doing 
to lead the Department of Defense to help America advance in 
the energy sector more quickly, and I am particularly 
interested in hydrogen systems and any research that you might 
have going on there. I am interested in them all. I am 
interested in base energy, dependent, solar, geothermal, 
thermal heat exchange, all of it.
    But I am interested in hydrogen and what you might be able 
to bring to the table to propel us to use that technology more 
quickly. If we were to have all electric vehicles in our 
country right now, the grid cannot take it. The grid is about 
50 percent under capacity for what we have to do. We have to 
have a variety of vehicles, and I am interested in your 
research on hydrogen. If you cannot answer me today, a letter 
would suffice. And, again, I just thank you for your service 
and would welcome any comments.

                  RUSSIA AND CHINA NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY

    Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, on your first comment about Russia 
and China kind of invading the market with respect to the 
Americas and their nuclear technology, I will tell you that 
more broadly one area of competition for the United States 
where we really have to focus on is foreign military sales--and 
other areas, high technology areas.
    But I will give you an example. The S-400 Russian missile 
system that was purchased by a NATO ally, Turkey. We should 
never be in a position where we lose a sale like that, let's 
say, of a Patriot missile system, to a NATO ally against a 
competitor like the Russians. The same thing with India that is 
also looking at missile systems from China.
    And so that is competitive space that we ought to be after 
in a big kind of way with respect to industry, not just foreign 
military sales but, obviously, other high technology areas, 
ma'am. Just my opinion.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, Admiral and Mr. Secretary, I would very 
much appreciate your looking around the Department and seeing 
what they can provide us, with a more refined set of materials, 
on what the Russians and Chinese are investing in, in the 
Americas, including servicing contracts, and what that means 
for us long term.
    They are also investing, obviously, all over the world with 
the Belt and Road Initiative. But I am interested on the energy 
front. How much is that? It was actually astounding to me to 
see the maps. I am just interested in further clarification 
there.
    What about hydrogen systems? What about research? What 
about DARPA? How do we help our country advance more quickly in 
the energy sector?
    Ms. McCollum. Excellent questions, and you have got 8 
seconds left. But I think, Ms. Kaptur, your suggestion of 
putting it in writing and getting it back to the committee is a 
wise one because I think those are things we would all be very 
interested in. I thank you for your questions.
    We are going to go to another round of questions, but we 
are going to keep it to 3 minutes because we have several 
people still on, and I will go at the end. So we are going to 
do Mr. Cuellar, then Mr. Calvert.

                    MILITARY EQUIPMENT STREAMLINING

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Real quickly, talking about the military equipment that we 
sell, I think we all know that the situation with the Russians 
and the Chinese, they have a very streamlined process. I know 
the equipment is not as good as ours. I understand all of that.
    But can you all submit to the committee a way that we can 
streamline our process so we can sell equipment faster to our 
partners that want to buy our equipment, but if it is going to 
take too long, they are going to go somewhere else even if it 
might be cheaper or not as good equipment?
    Just your quick thoughts, but I would rather have it in 
writing and submit it to the committee.
    And thank you.
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, sir.
    I know we have been working to try to increase our speed of 
relevance with regards to foreign military sales. When I was 
down at OSD before coming back as the Navy Secretary there was 
a lot of efforts taken last fall to increase the sale of some 
MQ-9s to India, working with some of the weapon systems there, 
and it was a whole of government effort to try to get that 
through, and it is something we are definitely focused on.
    Gentlemen, do you have any additional thoughts?
    General Berger. I think--I don't want to speak for the CNO, 
but you are absolutely--there is a competition right now on the 
market. We have to move faster. We know what they need because 
we work with those partners all the time, and they are 
frustrated if they can't get it fast enough or we hold the 
intellectual rights. They want the intellectual property to 
build their own parts, et cetera.
    We are going to have to relook how we market the systems 
that are very interoperable with ours in a different way 
because there is definitely competition for the market right 
now.
    And I pass to you.
    Admiral Gilday. The only--I couldn't agree more with both 
the Secretary and the Commandant's remarks.
    The last thing I would add is one of the things that the 
U.S. brings to the market that I think is very attractive is 
kind of a holistic approach with respect to support.
    It is not just providing the hardware. It is providing the 
training. It is providing the parts support from the time that 
you actually purchase all through the life cycle in the system. 
And the Russians and the Chinese don't do that. If they do it, 
they don't do it as effectively as we do.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes. And, again, less than 30 seconds. I 
understand all of that. I agree with you. But can you put 
something in writing and give us some ideas how we can 
streamline the process to all of you?
    But with that, thank you so much for your service. God 
bless.
    And I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
    Mr. Calvert, and then Mr. Kilmer.

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just want to carry on with what Mr. Womack, Mr. Cole, and 
I think everyone on our side, is that the allocation that the 
administration has come up with for our defense budget is not 
adequate. And I know our Senate colleagues on my side feel 
exactly the same.
    I believe that the number that General Mattis came up with 
in order to meet the National Defense Strategy of this country 
should be at least a 3 percent-plus number net of inflation or 
other initiatives that may be put into the budget. At that, 
that would be about a $739 billion number in order for us to 
meet that requirement.
    And I bring that up because, as we listen to this 
testimony, and we want to stay on track with the Columbia-based 
submarine and the hypersonics, the number of ships we have, as 
we know, the Chinese already have 60 more ships than the United 
States, and they are very capable ships. As we looked at that 
chart the other day of our assets within the South China Sea, 
we are significantly behind.
    And that is not to mention the other requirements that we 
have outside of the Navy and the Marine Corps, the B-21 bomber 
and the KC-46, the nuclear triad which has to be rebuilt, not 
to mention our nuclear weapon system which needs to be redone.
    I bring that up as a statement because I don't know if I 
will be able to have time in the next round. But I do want to 
ask the Secretary, how are you going to meet the National 
Defense Strategy with the budget allocation that you have been 
given?
    Secretary Harker. Sir, we are going to build the most 
capable and most ready Navy, Marine Corps that we can within 
the top line that we have been given. Right now, that top line 
is us being able to provide around 300 ships and the 
Commandant's Force Design 2030. We are able to execute that at 
the pace----
    Mr. Calvert. You are making a statement here today that we 
are not going to be able to get to the 355 ships based upon 
this number?
    Secretary Harker. We have not been able to get to 355 ships 
over the last several years, and the trajectgory to get there 
would require additional topline.
    Mr. Calvert. Admiral, would you agree that you are not 
going to be able to get to the--which the Navy, as I understand 
it, thought that was the minimum number necessary, 355 ships, 
based on the budget allocation we presently have?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. I go back to the shipbuilding 
plan that the Department of Defense submitted under the 
Secretary in January of this year. And so that plan put us on a 
path to 355 ships by 2031 to 2033, but it was predicated on the 
assumption that we would have 4.1 percent growth. So at least 
2.1 percent for inflation and another 2 percent for real 
growth.
    If you don't have that growth above the 2021 top line that 
we had, then you can't responsibly grow the fleet in a way 
that, as I spoke to earlier, making sure you are taking care of 
people, making sure you are taking care of all of the other 
things that give you a fleet that is whole.
    Mr. Calvert. Right.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I would like to go to Mr. Rogers.

                        STRIKE FIGHTER INVENTORY

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Gentlemen, when I chaired the full committee, I remember 
the Navy staring down the barrel of a perilous shortfall in its 
Strike Fighter inventory. Luckily, the Congress intervened to 
protect the F/A-18 line and continued support for the service 
life program, both of which were necessary to support the 
tactical aviation needs.
    But I have got to tell you, it feels a little bit like dj 
vu all over again. Despite a known of shortfalls in its 
inventory and carriers embarking on double pump deployments to 
combat a magnitude of threats from Iran, China, Russia, the 
Navy has, once again, signaled its intent to stop buying new F/
A-18s, scrapping previous plans to buy three squadrons' worth 
of new aircraft.
    Admiral Gilday, can you tell us about the Navy's Strike 
Fighter inventory? Is there a risk associated with the decision 
to stop buying new Super Hornets?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, based on the top line that we have 
right now, as the Secretary just mentioned a moment ago, what 
we are trying to do is we are trying to balance modernization 
with current readiness.
    And so we are trying to upgrade our capabilities with the 
Joint Strike Fighter, the F-35, at the same time we are 
taking--and I was just out at the production line last week out 
in St. Louis on the F/A-18s looking at the upgrades that we are 
giving our existing fighters to give them another 4,000 to 
5,000 hours of service life.
    So they are coming in right now at the very end of their 
service life at 6,000 hours, and we are taking that aircraft 
and we are breathing new life into it, making that investment 
to maintain a whole fleet with respect to our air wings.
    And, again, that fourth, fifth gen mix, along with longer 
range weapons that we are buying as well, are making it a much 
more effective--making those much more effective air wings than 
our carriers.
    I think we are on the right path, sir. I think the real 
issue is maintaining the proper funding in order to keep that 
aircraft mix healthy.
    Mr. Rogers. Given that we don't know what the White House 
budget in detail is yet, would taking the F/A-18 back into 
play, would that be possible under the current budget that you 
are going to get?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I can't answer that until we see what 
that real top line is and those tough trades that we are likely 
going to have to make not only within the Navy, I think, but 
across the Department of Defense and then when our proposal 
finally comes up to the Hill.
    I don't mean to be evasive, sir. I just think those are 
tough decisions to make here in the next few weeks.
    Mr. Rogers. I understand.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. We are waiting for that budget, 
aren't we, Mr. Rogers?
    Mr. Kilmer.

                     MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And I am not sure if I should address this to Secretary 
Harker or Admiral Gilday. I would like to ask you briefly about 
the Military Health System reform. As you know, the DOD has 
been [inaudible] Working to realign medical treatment 
facilities.
    In my district, the realignment has affected Naval Hospital 
Bremerton by reducing about 100 billets from their manning 
document over the past year. So, when hospital personnel retire 
or separate or move to another location, the billets aren't 
being backfilled.
    And I have heard concerns from the folks that I represent, 
including Active Duty service members and veterans and their 
families, that the realignment has impacted their access to 
quality care. And I am concerned about that. I am concerned 
about the availability and quality of civilian providers to 
compensate for the drawdown at the Navy hospital.
    So, what is the status of the MHS reform? And what steps do 
you recommend are taken before realignment is fully implemented 
to ensure that service members and their families have access 
to quality providers?
    Secretary Harker. Thank you, sir.
    That is a very important question for all of us here. 
Taking care of our service members is one of the most important 
things that we are entrusted to do as a Service Secretary.
    People are our greatest assets, and I am very familiar with 
the challenges that come with personnel reductions of medical 
servicemembers. It is a very tough balancing act for us.
    The overall force structure and the composition of our 
military is one of the areas which are increased by our top 
line. As we look at how can we increase the investment in 
shipbuilding and readiness, this is one of the things that, 
from our perceived feedback from folks that are traveling down, 
like I was last week, that this is a challenge here, 
[inaudible] Taking care of their residents, so it something 
that we are looking at.
    Admiral Gilday may want to comment on that as well.
    Admiral Gilday. I think we learned a lot during COVID. It 
gave us a lot of insights into where are likely friction points 
with respect to military healthcare reform. I think it probably 
deserves a deeper look, sir, to be honest with you.
    As an example, the Navy and Marine Corps deployed a number 
of our personnel forward at COVID hotspots, and also, we are 
doing still vaccinations, and so that has put a strain on our 
military hospitals, as you would expect.
    What we did to balance that deployment of personnel is we 
actually reduced the services that those military healthcare 
facilities, not emergency care, but elective processes during 
the height of the pandemic over the past year.
    That is probably not satisfactory over the long run in 
terms of how we manage it. And I think that any transition is 
going to have--it is going to be brittle in some areas.
    I just don't think that we have full insights yet on how to 
resolve all of those issues. We can see the leading edge of it, 
though, on some problems that presented during the pandemic.
    I know that my answer is not completely satisfactory, but 
just be honest, it is something we do owe ourselves and our 
families to take a closer look at.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. We are going to have a hearing just focused 
on healthcare, and so we need you to be making sure that you 
work with the staff so we have the right people after we have 
the President's budget to address that.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Womack, you are next. Thank you.

                            TOMAHAWK MISSILE

    Mr. Womack. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Admiral Gilday, as I promised, I am going to come back to 
long-range precision munitions, and it is strictly a Tomahawk 
question.
    I know you can't discuss fiscal year 2022 budget request 
quantities, but could you discuss the Navy's plans for Block V 
Tomahawk and the Maritime Strike Tomahawk as we head into the 
future? And then I have got a follow-up question.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. I will just say that we are very 
fortunate [inaudible].
    So, as you are well aware, in the 1990s the Navy backed off 
offensive capabilities in a big kind of way. The Chinese now 
breathing down our neck, we have put a lot of money into that 
program. Depending upon what the top line looks like, it is 
still a priority for us in terms of making investments in 
offensive weapons with range and speed.
    The Maritime Strike Tomahawk fills a critical gap for us, I 
will just say that, sir, and it remains a priority for us for 
all of the reasons that I think----
    Mr. Womack. I am glad to hear that.
    Can you just briefly articulate the need for us to have a 
stockpile of these expected use weapons, like the Tomahawk, in 
the event of a conflict? I mean, you have got to have them when 
you need them.
    Admiral Gilday. I think--using what is going on with Iran 
in the past year-and-a-half is a really good example.
    So we need to be able to provide national command 
authorities with the flexibility to flex our muscles or perhaps 
even the next strikes if required in every AOR, and so you have 
got to have those weapons stockpiled all over the globe in 
order to give you flexibility.
    Particularly, as outlined in the National Defense Strategy, 
these threats are not just located in the Pacific or in the 
Central Command in the Middle East. They cross, they are trans-
regional, and they are multi-domain. You have got to treat them 
like that, and you can't just seduce yourself into thinking 
that if you put all your eggs into one basket you are going to 
be okay.
    Because, as I think Ranking Member Calvert talked about 
earlier, the Chinese are moving all over the place, and we have 
got to keep up with them and the Russians.

                         FUNDING AND MESSAGING

    Mr. Womack. Yes. And my last question is just a general 
one, maybe more of a statement. As we talk about this budget 
top line number, one of my concerns is that the message that we 
may be sending--we have got an all-volunteer force. It is part 
of our genius as a country. It doesn't have a peer in terms of 
the talent pool that we pick from.
    The message we send when we start cutting budgets like 
this, hollowing out our military, our ability to execute our 
National Defense Strategy, what message does that send to the 
pipeline of people that we are going to need in the future, 
real quickly?
    General Berger. I am happy to start.
    First of all, sir, we are not going to have a hollow force. 
We will have the size force that is well trained and well 
equipped. And if the top line doesn't support it, we will have 
a smaller force, but we will not have a hollow force.
    So, to your point, we have obligations around the globe. A 
smaller top line or a flat top line equals increased risk for 
the Nation. But we are not going to have a hollow force that 
has equipment without people or people that are not trained. We 
are committed not to have that.
    Mr. Womack. I know my time has expired. And, Admiral 
Gilday, I would love to hear your response.
    But, Madam Chair, this is just one of those really 
intangible areas that I think are in the crosshairs if we can't 
adequately fund National Defense Strategy in our budget 
process. And I sure hope, as Mr. Cole said, that domestic 
number can come down and that defense number can come higher.
    And I appreciate the time I have gone over, but remember I 
gave you 30 seconds back a few minutes ago. So, thank you so 
much for the time.
    Ms. McCollum. Yes, you did. And I am going to save my 
remark on the President's budget for when I do my question.
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    I want to pick up where my friend from Arkansas left off, 
and I am going to give you the time to respond, Admiral, to the 
question that he put to you in terms of hollowing out the force 
with the current budget.
    Admiral Gilday. So, the priority is going to be people, 
ideas, and technology, and things in that order.
    So, our advantage over the Chinese and the Russians are our 
people. The investments that we are making in things like the 
Naval Community College that develops critical thinkers among 
our enlisted force you can't match in any military in the world 
in terms of the talent that we bring in, the leaders that we 
are trying to develop that can outthink and outfight any 
adversary.
    I will just tell you, sir, I am just doubling down what the 
Commandant said. It has to be, it has to be our top priority.
    We can buy the best stuff out there, but we need to man it. 
We need to man it with the best force that we have, including 
in areas like cyber and space. And that is what we are trying 
to do.
    Mr. Cole. Well, I agree 100 percent with what you are 
saying, but in another life, I used to be a British historian. 
I can tell you, the British in 1940, thinking about the 
Japanese, said the superiority would be British seamanship. 
They were outnumbered and outgunned and they paid the price for 
it.
    So mass ships numbers matter. I do believe our people are 
the best in the world. I don't have any doubt about it. But I 
don't want to put you in a fight where that is what we are 
counting on and you are outnumbered and outgunned. That is just 
not fair to the men and women we ask to do the job. I really 
think that is what this debate on this budget is going to be 
about.

                         SUPPLY CHAIN SECURITY

    I have some specific questions I am going to submit for the 
record, if I may, on Marine base protection and on the E-2D 
Advanced Hawkeye. But I have one last question, with the time I 
have, Mr. Secretary, for you.
    You have got an extraordinary difficult job in managing 
really complex supply chains for multiple weapon systems. And 
we have really seen this last year, everything from COVID-19, 
to ships getting caught in the Suez Canal, you name it, we have 
seen how supply chains can be disrupted.
    I am curious what you are doing in terms of managing that 
risk. Do you need additional capabilities and platforms to do 
that? Because I worry about we have a lot of just-in-time stuff 
that needs to come on line as quickly as they can bring it, and 
I know we are asking you to do a very tough job. I want to make 
sure you have got the tools that you need.
    Secretary Harker. Yes, sir. That is a great question.
    We have a lot of effort going into improving our supply 
chain. Our financial statement audit has identified some 
challenging areas, as well as other things that we have looked 
at where we have to increase our investment. Some of the 
business systems to track our supplies; also, some of the 
various support trips to carry supplies for the [inaudible]. We 
run exercises as a common challenge. I definitely view that as 
an area where we can [inaudible].
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. Yield back.

                         SUBMARINE MAINTENANCE

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I have a couple of questions here, and then I will close 
her up.
    I want to talk about submarine maintenance for a few 
minutes here. So, Secretary Harker, Admiral Gilday, I 
understand recommendations are being provided to you from the 
CBO to address the significant delays in submarine maintenance 
activities. Could you show the committee what you feel might be 
best to get underway to get these repairs done?
    And I am going to talk about one repair in particular. The 
committee has been closely monitoring the repair of the USS 
Boise, which was originally scheduled to enter shipyard in 
2013, but still, 8 years later, is waiting.
    So just on that ship alone, could you tell us what the 
estimated cost to repair the submarine and when you think those 
maintenance efforts will be underway, or are we going to wait 
another 8 years?
    Secretary Harker. We are definitely not going to wait 
another 8 years.
    I will turn it over to Admiral Gilday.
    Admiral Gilday. Boise right now, we are doing what we call 
a fast start on her maintenance before she goes into the 
shipyard. We are waiting to get a ship out of maintenance so we 
can get Boise in. Her maintenance is fully funded, ma'am, and 
that maintenance will begin in 2021 once we get that second 
ship out.
    With respect to more broadly, as you mentioned, delays with 
respect to the submarine maintenance, that is primarily done in 
our four public shipyards, although we are doing some 
maintenance availabilities with supplier vendors.
    With respect to the public yards, the key thing we are 
trying to get after is we are trying to eliminate delay days. 
We are trying to ensure that we can perform all the maintenance 
in accordance with specifications in the timeframe allotted.
    So, in the past 18 months, we have gone from 7,000 delay 
days down to 1,200. So, we have knocked it down about 80 
percent. We are not satisfied yet in terms of where we are, but 
we think we are headed in the right direction. That is inside 
the lifelines of the Navy to fix most of that.
    With respect to private vendors, I will tell you that they 
are not delivering on time. And it has been disappointing for 
us. I have been down to Hampton Roads to meet with the vendor 
down there that does the work for us, the same thing up in 
Groton, Connecticut.
    It is an area that industry just has to step up, as well as 
the Navy stepping up, to deliver these ships on time.
    And so with Boise, Boise is an example of a ship that fell 
behind because we just didn't have--we just fell behind in 
terms of moving ships through the maintenance phase at the 
right cadence that they are supposed to.
    Secretary Harker. And I will add to that, one comment to 
that.
    One of the things that I mentioned in my opening comments 
was our business systems. Some of the business systems we rely 
on at our shipyards are antiquated. We use COBOL, which is a 
programming language that was antiquated back when I was in 
college 30-plus years ago.
    We have got to invest in updating those systems. We don't 
have an electronic time and attendance system at our public 
shipyards. We have got a lot of problems that need to be fixed.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, we will be looking at the CBO report, 
looking at the budget, talking to you more about implementation 
to get that back on track. And climate change also plays a 
little bit of a factor in that with you being able to move 
ships and shut down some of the shipyards when we have some of 
these super storms going through.
    I am going to ask you to--you know, once again, we are 
looking forward to the information on the Marine Corps Force 
Design 2030, rollout on that. And also, in the President's 
speech last night, he talked about buy American. So we would be 
looking to see in your budget how the Navy begins to invest in 
development for the next generation, whether it is submarines 
or other large combat ships and amphibious ships, what we do to 
make sure that we keep our industrial base and our domestic 
supply base healthy as we move forward.
    The last comment I would make before I adjourn. And I 
didn't interrupt; I let things keep going as my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle were talking about the budget.
    I want to be clear, though, President Biden's proposed 
budget is an increase for DOD of $11 billion. And that is 
substantially more than the $2.5 billion proposed increase in 
the defense spending from fiscal year 2020 to 2021 that was 
what President Trump had in his last appropriation cycle.
    Gentleman, I want to thank you so much for your testimony, 
for your courtesy of reaching out to the offices ahead of time.
    We look forward to seeing the budget. You already have some 
homework assignments to get back to the committee and to 
members on some of the questions that you were not able to 
answer, through no fault of your own, because the budget was 
not in front of us.
    So, thank you for your service. I hope you and your 
families and all those who serve alongside of you and under you 
stay healthy during this time of COVID and all of your missions 
are completed safely.
    With that, I will conclude today's hearing, and this 
subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Clerk's note.--Questions submitted by Mr. Ryan and the 
answers thereto follow:]

                     Air Combat Training Capability

    Background. From recent INDOPACOM briefings to the Committee and 
public statements from Navy Flag officers, we understand the 
requirement for a realistic training environment to properly prepare 
our warfighters to win decisively on night one of a peer/near-peer 
fight. Fielding a Live-Virtual-Constructive (LVC) training solution 
that enables our aviation, surface, and sub-surface teams to conduct 
Fleet Training that is secure and interoperable with DoD and Coalition 
partners seems to be a priority. I am very encouraged to see the 
significant strides the Navy is making at Pax River through the 
continued technology maturation of SLATE--the Secure LVC Advanced 
Training Environment--that started in 2015 as a Joint effort and was 
successfully demonstrated in September 2018. But, we can't drag our 
heels on this technology yet another year--clearly we need this 
capability now to train our operators in the most realistic threat 
representative environment. I look forward to seeing the flight 
demonstration this fall at Pax River and hope to see you gentleman 
there.
    Question. Acting Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday, my question 
for the Navy is simply this: With a successful flight demonstration 
event this fall, what is the Navy's plan to accelerate the fielding of 
this game-changing LVC air combat training capability?
    Answer. DON and USAF remain committed to TCTS II/P6 and plan to 
incorporate additional LVC training and LVC testing capabilities/
attributes, such as those being demonstrated by SLATE Advanced 
Technology Demonstration and others, into the Program of Record as the 
most adaptable and executable path forward. The complex LVC environment 
must not only ultimately provide high end training across multiple 
platforms, domains, and services, but must also have ties to the flight 
test environment to enable affordable development of future 
capabilities needed to outpace our adversaries. The DON and USAF will 
continue to collaborate on the necessary requirements, infrastructures, 
investments, and acquisition strategies.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Ryan. 
Questions submitted by Mr. Ruppersberger and the answers 
thereto follow:]

                       Guam and Triton Production

    Question. Acting Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday, last year the 
U.S. Navy deployed two MQ-4C Tritons to Guam. I have heard positive 
reports on Triton's Guam operations, and we also consistently hear 
about the rising threats in and the increasing global significance of 
the INDOPACOM AOR. Can you discuss any benefits that Triton has been 
providing in its Guam operations and its alignment to the future 
maritime surveillance needs in INDOPACOM more broadly? Given that we, 
on the Subcommittee, consistently hear from Combatant Commanders about 
the need for ISR--can you discuss the Navy's plans to ensure that there 
isn't a damaging break in Triton production and detail the current 
deployment plan for Triton?
    Answer. The MQ-4C Triton UAS, operating from Andersen AFB, Guam 
since February 2020, has regularly contributed to expanding Fleet 
Commander maritime domain awareness by providing persistent 
Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. 
Triton has participated in several exercises as well as recurring 
fleet-support operations, where this much needed maritime surveillance 
information is shared real-time/near real-time with other on-station 
U.S. forces as well as Maritime Operations Center watch floors, 
ultimately enhancing decision making through a clearer understanding of 
the operational environment. INDOPACOM, the largest Combatant Commander 
geographically and with an expansive maritime domain, will continue to 
need Triton and its persistent maritime surveillance capabilities to 
meet ISR requirements in theater.
    The Navy is assessing program requirements to ensure resources and 
risk are balanced appropriately. The current Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 
enacted budget continues the production pause in FY 2022; however, some 
mitigation steps are already in place. The enacted Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act, 2021, which is included in Division C of 
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, included funds for one (1) 
Congressional Add aircraft that enabled the Navy to achieve the Minimum 
Sustaining Rate (MSR) of three (3) aircraft per year when this aircraft 
was combined with the two (2) FY 2021 Royal Australian Air Force 
aircraft already on order. This allowed the Navy to work with Northrop 
Grumman to manage production flow and shortened the production gap 
caused by the budgeted FY 2021 and FY 2022 production pause from 
approximately 25 months to 20 months.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. 
Ruppersberger. Questions submitted by Mr. Cuellar and the 
answers thereto follow:]

                   Military Equipment Selling Process

    Question. Acting Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday, we all know 
that the Russian and Chinese have a very streamlined process of selling 
military equipment. Can you submit to the committee for the record a 
way we can streamline our military equipment selling process to where 
it will be faster to talk to our partners encouraging them to buy our 
equipment?
    Answer. Cognizant of the ever-increasing competitive nature of 
defense equipment transfers to support our Allies and Partners, the USN 
has taken proactive steps to reduce bureaucratic processes to increase 
responsiveness to help maintain our position as partner of choice. We 
have eliminated non-value added process steps, delegated authority to 
the lowest level possible, and initiated parallel processing during 
policy generation and Letter of Offer and Acceptance (LOA) development. 
Speed of delivery of LOAs to our partners has increased by 19% since 
2018. Areas for consideration towards increasing speed of our FMS 
efforts:
    -Continued focus on early, parallel, proactive, and whole of 
government prioritized foreign disclosure policy. Prior to discussing 
Price and Availability (P&A) and classified capabilities with our 
partners associated with military equipment procurement, we must ensure 
a reasonable likelihood exists that release of the capability requested 
is achievable. To make that determination, an analysis of the system/
capability requested must be undertaken by numerous agencies slowing 
initial response to the partner.
    -Additional financial tools to offer prospective Security 
Cooperation partners to better directly compete with major global 
competitors. The Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program is 
predominantly focused on grants. Use of the FMF loan authority requires 
direct effort by Congress and the interagency, and the process is slow. 
Many middle-income partners--newer NATO members and those in 
INDOPACOM--face budget gaps when pursuing defense modernization and 
investments. The Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (EXIM) is the USG's 
export credit agency with the operational capability to fill this 
financing gap. EXIM's current legislative authority prohibits financing 
defense exports. A legislative change as advocated by Defense Security 
Cooperation Agency (DSCA) could provide benefit in this area.
    -Continued improvements made to USG acquisition execution and 
ensured capacity to address increasing FMS demands will serve to 
benefit speed of U.S. FMS execution.
    -Proactive Exportability Development. Consideration of a revolving 
fund to incorporate exportability features into a system earlier in the 
acquisition process as advocated by DSCA. Exportability features are 
not generally developed and tested until after a system is in 
production for U.S. customers. A reimbursable fund that allows for 
development of technology protection features up front allows partners 
to be briefed on capabilities sooner and ultimately acquire the systems 
at lower cost and in less time.
    Additionally, Navy has been proactively supporting the National 
Defense Strategy's Line of Effort (strengthening alliances and 
attracting new partners) and the Defense Trade Modernization memo 
requiring early exportability decisions, agile tech release, 
prioritization of countries and capabilities to capture key markets, 
and to forecast international demand. Navy has aligned efforts with 
OSD's ``Guidance for Development of Allies and Partnerships'' to 
increase market share and interoperability with key allies and partners 
and will continue to improve responsiveness. Recommendations made above 
are all focused on increasing our competitive position, streamlining 
processes and procedures, and reducing our response times as our Allies 
consider procurement of military equipment.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cuellar. 
Questions submitted by Ms. Bustos and the answers thereto 
follow:]

                     Deep Drawn Munition Components

    Question. Acting Secretary Harker, Cornerstone OTA offered a 
solicitation in Nov 2020 due to a requirement from Naval Surface 
Warfare Center, Indian Head. The objective of this effort was to 
develop manufacturing processes, validate operations, and run pilot 
trials and pilot production of DoD unique deep drawn munition 
components and case products at the Quad City Cartridge Case Facility 
(QCCCF) at Rock Island Arsenal. Can you provide a status update on this 
effort or if a prototype has been developed as a result of this 
opportunity? Can you provide more information on this effort and what 
is ultimately envisioned by this effort?
    Answer. The Quad City Cartridge Case Facility (QCCCF) Other 
Transaction Agreement (OTA) at Rock Island Arsenal was awarded on 
February 19, 2021 to Defined PRO Machining LLC. The OTA is for 
prototype efforts for large caliber deep drawn steel cartridge cases, 
such as the MK 109 for the Navy 5-inch gun weapon system and the 
M148A1B1 steel cartridge case for the Stryker mobile gun system, as 
well as future DoD identified deep drawn cartridge case requirements. 
The period of performance for this prototype effort is four years.

                  Fleet Architecture Integration Tool

    Question. Acting Secretary Harker, a September 2019 memo from ADM 
James Kilby clearly outlines how the N9 views development and 
implementation of the Fleet Architecture Integration Tool (FAIT). The 
memo specifically spells out goals and requirements to meet the Navy's 
intended purpose. How is the Navy N9 using that memo to solidify its 
requirements for the build out of the tool?
    Answer. The VADM Kilby memo was utilized to initiate the Rapid 
Investment Strategy Evaluation (RISE) and CORAS Rhapsody Pilot Solution 
(CRPS) pilot efforts. However, in Jan 2021 OPNAV expressed efforts to 
stand up a Digital War Room, which encompasses the Combat Simulation, 
War Gaming, and Future Fleet Architecture components of RISE and CRPS. 
Combined, these requirements comprise all but one capability of FAIT. 
As the final capability, Warfighting Readiness assessments, aligns with 
Force Level INTegration (FLINT), the FAIT program was de-scoped with 
the warfighting readiness assessment functionality realigned under the 
FLINT program.
    Question. Acting Secretary Harker, has the Navy issued a work 
stoppage for entities engaged in the development of the FAIT tool, and 
if yes, why and what is the current timeline for completing the FAIT 
tool and deploying it to be used by relevant Navy entities?
    Answer. Due to the de-prioritization of RISE and CRPS, the FAIT 
program's sole focus turned to the final component, warfighting 
readiness assessments. As this program component aligns with FAIT's 
counterpart, FLINT, OPNAV opted to issue a FAIT work stoppage and 
realign its efforts under the FLINT contract. The timeline for FLINT 
release with initial warfighting readiness assessment capabilities is 
FY23Q2.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Ms. Bustos. 
Questions submitted by Mr. Cole and the answers thereto 
follow:]

    Background. Acting Secretary Harker, I understand that the Navy 
Program Executive Offices Integrated Warfare Systems currently uses a 
platform to monitor supply chains for the development of 80 different 
weapon systems, and in fact has a contract for commercial-off-the-shelf 
supply chain risk management tools to help the office improve its 
supply chain resiliency for these critical systems. These tools have 
the ability to map, monitor, and even model supply chain relationships, 
risks, and potential disruptions. In light of recent events, such as 
Solar winds, the Suez Canal blockage, and COVID-19, monitoring our 
supply chains has become an increasingly important component of risk 
management.
    Question. Can you provide an update on how the Navy Program 
Executive Offices Integrated Warfare Systems is utilizing supply chain 
risk management tools to better protect critical programs from supply 
chain disruptions? How long has the Navy Program Executive Offices 
Integrated Warfare Systems contracted for this service? And does the 
Navy have any plan to continue or expand contracting for this important 
service to ensure resiliency in our supply chains for critical national 
security programs?
    Answer. PEO IWS is involved in multiple Supply Chain Risk 
Management (SCRM) efforts across the Navy and broader DoD enterprise 
that leverage multiple, government and contractor organizations, due 
diligence processes, procedures, and tools that enable SCRM data 
sharing and collaboration across the United States Government. SCRM 
data is used to ``illuminate'' the relationships between programs, 
primes, and lower tier vendors across the Defense Industrial Base, then 
Artificial Intelligence and analytics are used to generate supplier 
risk assessments based on a variety of factors and to develop and/or 
validate mitigation strategies.
    PEO IWS has contracted for these services and tools for 
approximately one year. PEO IWS is working in coordination with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and 
Acquisition (ASN RDA) Supply Chain Management Team and Office of the 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD A&S), 
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) 
team to integrate within the Department of Defense and Department of 
the Navy enterprise SCRM solution that includes the Intelligence 
community.

                     E-2D Advanced Hawkeye Aircraft

    Background. Admiral Gilday, it appears that the ongoing E-2D 
Advanced Hawkeye aircraft production and fleet introduction is 
successful and on track so far. However, it's notable that the system 
design is over twenty years old, and some of the technologies included 
are much older. For example, it uses a mechanically-scanned antenna 
that has significant limitations--primarily that each plane can only 
lock onto and track one target at a time.
    Question. How significant would it be to meet current needs to 
upgrade the system with an electronically scanned antenna array that 
can provide high volume tracking while scanning and other features that 
are needed but not present in the E-2D system? Congress has funded 
research into this issue for a number of years and the proposed system 
is nearing full-scale testing. In what ways would use of and ESA 
enhance ISR and better serve the warfighter?
    Answer. The Navy greatly appreciates Congress' support and 
investments in modernizing the radar and antenna of the E-2D. Congress' 
steadfast appropriations of funds for investments in advanced radar 
capabilities are the foundation of E-2D program, resulting in the 
fielding of the APY-9 as a two-generational improvement over the 
retiring E-2C's APS-145 radar. To date, five (5) of the nine (9) E-2 
squadrons are equipped with E-2D and its newer radar, accounting for 
65% of the existing aircraft inventory. Continued investments in 
advanced radar and antenna technologies are vital to sustain the Navy's 
ability to modernize our sensor technology. The E-2D program, Northrop 
Grumman, Lockheed Martin and numerous mission partners have achieved 
significant progress towards this objective in the past few years.
    The current APY-9 radar and ADS-18 antenna on the E-2D is the most 
advanced airborne radar in the Navy, and it is capable of both 
mechanical and electronic scanning options. This hybrid configuration 
provides the E-2D an unmatched capacity to simultaneously detect, 
track, and identify thousands of air and surface targets, paired with 
the agility to dynamically adjust surveillance coverage over areas of 
more than 250,000 square miles.
    Development of an improved ESA would indeed enhance detection, 
tracking, and identification capabilities, and would allow the E-2D to 
remain ahead of emerging threats in a highly contested electronic 
attack environment. In turn, this would improve the capacity of Naval 
forces to counter anti-access and area denial (A2AD) strategies and 
offer new tactics and options to our operational commanders.
    The advanced antenna technology in development continues to show 
great potential for current and future Naval missions, the E-2D 
program, and future airborne command & control aircraft. Continued and 
focused investments in E-2D, APY-9 radar modernization and new antenna 
technology is vital to our national security and maritime strategy. 
These investments deliver targeted efforts to identify and address 
future capability gaps and supported by the Navy's and industry's 
ability to deliver results, will ultimately ensure the developed 
capabilities are effective.

                     Expeditionary Force Protection

    Background. General Berger, the Marine Corps is seeking to 
modernize its counter intrusion and force protection capabilities to 
address shortfalls in fixed site security at both permanent and 
expeditionary sites. Recent intrusions onto installations at home and 
abroad have further highlighted increasing vulnerabilities and the need 
to modernize/automate these capabilities to reduce manpower 
requirements.
    Corps leadership has recently stated that Marines must learn to 
trust artificial intelligence to fully utilize the power of AI 
technology and the efficiencies it brings. The Marine Corps has been 
experimenting with and employing advanced capabilities for force 
protection that can be infrastructure independent, minimally 
environmentally invasive, and energy resilient. Incorporating both 
artificial intelligence and sensor fusion, these systems automate many 
processes that are manpower and resource intensive, including ground 
vehicle patrols and maritime surface vessel patrols.
    Question. Understanding that the Marine Corps has identified 
requirements to modernize their base force protection capabilities at 
permanent and expeditionary sites, what is the status of the Corps' 
experimentation with these systems, and what is the acquisition 
strategy to go beyond experimentation to acquisition and deployment?
    Answer. The Marine Corps conducted a limited objective assessment 
with Anduril Industries systems at multiple installations across the 
Continental United States (CONUS). These systems are representative of 
the capability we are assessing for potential fielding. This 
experimentation will provide valuable data as we refine a formal 
requirement for all-domain counter-intrusion at permanent and 
expeditionary sites. The Marine Corps is also experimenting with a 
variety of vendors at both CONUS and outside of CONUS (OCONUS) sites. 
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Enabled Force Protection software 
capabilities are also rapidly being integrated into exercises for user 
validation and model refinement, and will be baselined across legacy 
platforms in the current fiscal year (FY) for continued development.
    Question. The committee understands that an assessment of 
capabilities currently deployed at multiple Marine Corps installations 
is expected to end in FY2021. Are there plans to seek funding as part 
of the FY22 budget process to retain these capabilities and begin to 
scale beyond this footprint?
    Answer. The Marine Corps does intend to seek funding for these 
capabilities in FY22 and beyond. With consideration towards future 
investment, our Warfighting Laboratory's Rapid Capabilities Office 
recently executed an assessment of an installation force protection 
capability under project ``Expeditionary Counter-Intrusion System 
(ECIS).'' The ECIS assessment was based on Anduril Industries 
technology and focused on a subset of counter-intrusion. The assessment 
was conducted at six Marine Corps (CONUS and OCONUS) installations and 
included identifying and mitigating surface, terrestrial, and limited 
air-based small unmanned aerial systems (sUAS), and personnel threats 
utilizing AI and machine learning while also incorporating Anduril 
Limited Objective Assessments. Additionally, Program Manager, Ground 
Based Air Defense (GBAD) is continuing with Anduril's contractor-owned/
Government-operated service contracting approach to support a limited 
number of CONUS installation Counter-UAS (C-UAS) activities. The Marine 
Corps will continue to assess the reliability of these systems in 
various operational scenarios, the limitations on scalability, and 
their ability to be compromised by both cybersecurity threats and more 
sophisticated attacks to the decision boundaries of the AI algorithms 
themselves (these attack strategies are sometimes referred to as 
``model drift'').
    Question. How will modernizing these systems reduce manpower costs 
associated with the Corps' legacy installation force protection 
systems? Does modernizing these systems and reducing the manpower 
requirements for them provide you with added flexibility in your force 
structure requirements?
    Answer. The ECIS project assessed AI enabled counter-intrusion 
capabilities at multiple Marine Corps facilities, and demonstrated the 
ability to enhance observation, while reducing the manpower necessary 
to monitor a given space. Through these tests, the Marine Corps 
observed that AI-enabled detection and tracking capabilities are 
notably superior to the visual range, indications, and early warning 
capabilities of manned posts. AI enabled observation systems also 
provide increased perimeter observation, enhanced situational 
awareness, enabled faster decision making, and delivered enduring 
coverage. These observations serve to facilitate a reduction of 
manpower requirements, while improving force protection; AI enabled 
counter-intrusion will significantly decrease the need for mobile 
patrols, lessen the requirement for operators to monitor and track 
systems, and reduce operator cognitive overload. However, AI capability 
retrofitted onto existing systems is often underwhelming due to the 
graphics cards based computational requirements of AI and hardware 
design for typical security post surveillance. In sum, AI and advanced 
sensor integration will revolutionize and markedly improve early 
warning and force protection, while reducing organizational and 
individual manpower demands; however, this must be balanced with 
appropriate advances in infrastructure investments to ensure full 
employment of this capability.
    Question. What is the Marine Corps' plan to adjust its future 
requirements and budgets to support this modernization amidst personnel 
and resource reductions?
    Answer. Through research, testing, evaluating, and incorporation of 
both internal and external R&D resources to the maximum extent, the 
Marine Corps is identifying AI enabled observation systems that enhance 
awareness, protection, and security with an associated imperative for 
reducing associated manpower requirements. As noted above, the FY22 
plan is pre-decisional and is contingent upon funding availability and 
institutional modernization priorities.
    Question. As the Marine Corps acquires new systems, are you 
planning to first employ these systems in relatively benign 
environments first at CONUS facilities prior to future deployments in 
denied environments? Please describe the advantages of this approach?
    Answer. The existing test, evaluation, and assessments paradigm is 
being executed across both CONUS and OCONUS facilities, providing a 
baseline of data to support proof of concept, while providing valuable 
lessons and insights for future development, training, testing, and 
eventual operational employment. Additionally, operational insights and 
data are being harvested to inform future program objectives to ensure 
the best possible capability in support of future operations. As we 
forward deploy the threat landscape becomes more complex. The type of 
AI systems presented here make assumptions that we have previously 
characterized normal from anomalous events and/or objects of interest. 
This will present new challenges as the AI system is forward deployed 
into new environments that are less understood. We may have a need to 
reassess the amount of algorithm training that may be required and the 
amount of overlap between what is considered normal and abnormal as 
operational environments change. In addition, as our tools become more 
sophisticated, so do our adversaries efforts to subvert them. We are 
tracking work at DARPA on deception with AI and are planning to 
maintain a heightened awareness of the pros and cons of the systems we 
deploy.
    Question. What challenges do you face in establishing the 
organizational acceptance, experience, and muscle memory of 
incorporating AI and advanced technologies at scale as you prepare to 
deploy to more challenging forward deployed environments?
    Answer. The challenges to incorporation of AI and advanced 
technologies can be generally associated to technical, training, and 
legal/policy concerns. Technical concerns are focused upon massive data 
storage requirements (expected to be in excess of 125 terabytes, per 
system, per year), which necessitate a yet to be identified Cloud 
storage solution. This massive data-volume requirement necessitates a 
robust and reliable network infrastructure sufficient to push data for 
real-time situational awareness and targeting. New training and Rules 
of Engagement must also be considered, developed, and tested. Finally, 
we anticipate AI enabled capabilities will face steep domestic and 
international policy considerations and limitations. As an example, 10 
USC Section 130-I, governs and restricts the use of AI enabled systems 
upon military installations in a Counter-sUAS role but is not expansive 
enough as written to cover a like capability for perimeter, gate, or 
maritime Counter Intrusion.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Cole. 
Questions submitted by Mr. Womack and the answers thereto 
follow:]

                        ``Constellation'' Class

    Question. Admiral Gilday, The Constellation class unit cost is 
currently quoted at 15% less per thousand tons than the LCS Freedom 
class variant and 36% less per thousand tons than the DDG-51 Flight 
III. How specifically will the Navy meet its unit cost goals for the 
Constellation class given the class's departure from the historical 
Navy shipbuilding norm of cost per thousand ton?
    Answer. The Navy remains confident in its cost estimate for the FFG 
program. The Navy typically does not use weight as the only basis for 
cost estimates. There are distinct differences in equipment density and 
operational capability between ship classes that are oversimplified if 
only using weight to develop cost estimates. Specifically, for ship 
construction costs the Navy uses shipyard-specific labor rates, 
learning curves based on current performance, and discrete material 
costs (where available) which are not weight-based. Commodity material 
costs (such as steel plate and piping) are weight-based.
    There are also cost differences between FFG-62 and DDG-51 due to 
business and industrial base factors such as acquisition strategy and 
number of shipyards constructing the ships. The FFG 62 contract was 
competed as a full & open for a single winner while the DDG 51 contract 
was a limited competition between two shipyards using a Multiyear 
Procurement contracting strategy.

                           Navy Requirements

    Question. Given the contract structure (Firm-Fixed Price), will the 
Navy accept a ship not meeting the stated requirements in order to meet 
cost goals?
    Answer. No. The Navy will not compromise on requirements to meet 
cost goals.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. Womack. 
Questions submitted by Mr. Aderholt and the answers thereto 
follow:]

                      Navy and Missle Development

    Background. Acting Secretary Harker, the Navy is developing a 
hypersonic strike missile called the Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) 
weapon, which the Army will also use for their Long Range Hypersonic 
Weapon (LRHW). With China and Russia already deploying similar 
hypersonic weapons, it is imperative that the development of these 
weapons proceed without unnecessary hindrance or bureaucratic delay. 
However, my understanding is that the Navy recently decided not to 
provide indemnification for unusually hazardous risk to the contractors 
developing CPS which is creating problems in the development of these 
weapons that will serve two of our military services. Under laws passed 
decades ago (10 USC 2354 was passed in 1951 and PL 85-804 was enacted 
in 1958), Congress has authorized the DoD to provide indemnification 
above commercially available insurance for weapons development that 
present potentially extremely hazardous risks should an accident occur. 
The solid propellant mass for CPS has twice the TNT equivalency of the 
1993 World Trade Center bombing, which resulted in 8 deaths, 1000+ 
injuries, and over $3.0B insurance claim in today's dollars. That is 
objectively an unusually hazardous risk as defined by the relevant 
statutes.
    Question. Please explain why the Navy's interpretation of these 
statutes differs from the other military services, NASA, and other U.S. 
Government agencies. Has the Navy provided indemnification to similar 
size and power missiles in the past? If so, please explain why this 
policy has changed? Launch vehicles of similar size and power to the 
CPS missile are indemnified by the U.S. Government under PL 85-804. 
Please explain why the Navy believes the CPS program should be treated 
differently.
    Answer. Indemnification under Public Law 85-804 and 10 U.S.C. 
Sec. 2354 is a discretionary authority granted to each of the 
Secretaries of the military departments and other Government agencies 
as extraordinary contractual relief. Acting through the Secretary of 
the Navy, the Department of the Navy (DON) takes a case-by-case 
approach to indemnify contractor performance. With respect to the risk 
associated with conventional weapons, historically, those risks have 
been covered by commercial insurance or self-insurance obtained or 
provided by contractors. The same is true for the risks associated with 
Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS). Such is not the case with nuclear 
weapons, and the Secretary of the Navy exercises his discretion to 
indemnify contractors who serve as the contractor for nuclear-powered 
vessel and nuclear-capable missile contracts.
    The Secretary of the Navy has exercised his discretion in 
accordance with the statutes that provide him this authority. Neither 
statute requires indemnification for any risk for which another agency 
has granted indemnification. The DON does not judge the hazardousness 
of a missile based solely on its size and/or its power.
    CPS is a conventional weapon for which the contractor has been able 
to obtain commercial insurance or provide self-insurance as other Navy 
contractors of conventional weapons have routinely done. In other 
words, the Navy's decision to not indemnify CPS is consistent with its 
decision to not indemnify other conventional weapons. It is also 
consistent with the DON's approach to indemnification, that the 
Department does indemnify unusually hazardous high energy propellant 
when that propellant is used to propel a nuclear-capable missile where 
the risks associated with that weapon system cannot be covered by 
commercial insurance.
    Indemnification is an extraordinary action, and the DON takes its 
exercise of this authority seriously. The DON does not believe its 
position in the case of the CPS weapon creates any unnecessary 
hindrance or bureaucratic delay or a problem in the development of the 
weapon. To the contrary, the current CPS contract, which was recently 
signed by the contractor in March 2021 without indemnification, is 
proceeding without delay in accordance with the terms of the contract.

                          Task Force Navy One

    Question. In 2020, the Navy stood up Task Force Navy One--a task 
force ``designed to identify and make recommendations to dismantle 
barriers to equality while creating sustainable opportunities.'' As we 
all know, one of the recommendations in the report from the Task Force 
recommended a pledge ``to advocate for and acknowledge all lived 
experiences and intersectional identities of every Sailor in the 
Navy.'' The pledge immediately sparked controversy because there is not 
consensus on what some of this terminology means, nor on what is the 
best way to address problems. Admiral Gilday, can you confirm that 
Sailors will not be forced/expected to take that pledge?
    Answer. Sailors were not and will not be asked, forced, or expected 
to take the pledge. The 56 recommendations from the Task Force One Navy 
Final Report do not reference nor do they require Sailors to take the 
pledge.

                             Space Command

    Question. The U.S. Naval Institute recently published a report that 
provided an update on the Marine Corps' Force Structure 2030 plan. A 
lot has been accomplished in the past eighteen months, and I commend 
the Marine Corps for the progress you have made. One interesting 
accomplishment on the list was the creation of Marine Corps Forces 
Space Command. To the extent that you can provide information that is 
not classified, can you comment on how that command fits into the 
bigger picture of what you are hoping to achieve with your force 
design?
    Answer. Operations in and through the space domain are critical to 
global Fleet Marine Force (FMF) operations across the warfighting 
functions. The Marine Corps relies heavily on space-based capabilities 
for weapons systems navigation and guidance; network timing; force 
protection; command and control; missile warning; environmental 
monitoring; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. Space 
operations are a critical enabler in building a naval expeditionary 
force that contributes to and enables Naval and Joint campaigning 
across the continuum, in all domains.
    The 2019 National Defense Authorization Act directed the 
reestablishment of U.S. Space Command (USSPACECOM). On 1 October 2020, 
the Marine Corps activated Marine Corps Forces Space Command 
(MARFORSPACE), the Marine Corps' Service Component representation to 
USSPACECOM. This command advocates for Marine Corps equities and 
advises USSPACECOM on employment of and support to Marine Forces. 
Additionally, the Service component supports the development of Joint 
concepts, education, training, and doctrine; advocates for space-based 
capabilities; and integrates those capabilities into the Marine Corps.
    In April 2021, the Commandant of the Marine Corps published the 
Force Design 2030 Annual Update which presented key findings and 
priorities for capability development, directed actions, and 
investments. A key finding was that in order for the forward deployed 
naval expeditionary forces to create positional and temporal advantage 
for the fleet and joint force, command and control arrangements must be 
characterized by structures, systems, and nodes that remain functional 
as Stand-in forces move along the competition continuum. Space 
operations are decisive for achieving the Force Design 2030 findings 
and priorities. MARFORSPACE is the critical FMF enabler for space 
operations and synchronization.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, the Marine Corps will be embedding MARFORSPACE 
Marines across the USSPACECOM and U.S. Space Force (USSF) formations: a 
detachment of five Marines with the USSF's 527th Space Aggressor 
Squadron to provide Positioning, Navigation, and Timing and Satellite 
Communications in denied environments in support of Marine Corps and 
Joint training and exercise events; eight Marines to Combined Forces 
Space Component Command (CFSCC) to integrate with execution of 
operations at the Combined Space Operations Center; nine Marines to 
Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) to grow tactical space support 
teams; and eleven Marines to HQ USSPACECOM to support planning, 
capability development, joint targeting, exercises, and operations.

    [Clerk's note.--End of questions submitted by Mr. 
Aderholt.]

                                              Tuesday, May 4, 2021.

              FISCAL YEAR 2022 NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES

                               WITNESSES

GENERAL DANIEL R. HOKANSON, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DAVID G. BELLON, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JODY J. DANIELS, CHIEF OF THE ARMY RESERVE
VICE ADMIRAL JOHN B. MUSTIN, CHIEF OF THE NAVY RESERVE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL RICHARD W. SCOBEE, CHIEF OF THE AIR FORCE RESERVE

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual and we are going to go over 
our housekeeping matters, again. For today's meeting, the chair 
or the staff designated by the chair may mute participants' 
microphones when they are not under recognition for the purpose 
of eliminating background noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If you notice that you have not unmuted yourself, please do so 
when you are called upon for a question. If I notice that you 
haven't unmuted yourself, I would ask if you need the staff to 
help you. Please indicate by nodding and the staff will unmute 
your microphone.
    All members and witnesses, the 5-minute clock is up on the 
corner. It should be displayed, and we will be using the 5-
minute clock for questions. If there is a technical issue, I 
will move to the next member until the issue is resolved and 
you will retain the balance of your time. So you won't lose any 
time due to a technical issue.
    You will notice the clock on the screen how much time is 
remaining. At 1 minute, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 
seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind 
members that their time has almost expired. When your time has 
expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin recognizing 
the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forth in the House rules beginning with the chair; the ranking 
member; and then members at the time the hearing was called to 
order, they will be recognized in order of seniority; and, 
finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called 
to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything that 
they wish to submit in writing to any of our hearings or 
markups, and that email address has been provided to your 
staff.
    The Subcommittee on Defense is now in order, and this 
morning the committee will receive testimony on the posture of 
the National Guard and the Reserve components for the Federal 
fiscal year 2022 budget. It will be a two-panel hearing. Panel 
one recognizes the chief of the National Guard Bureau. Panel 
two will recognize the Reserve component chiefs--the Army, 
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force Reserves. And I encourage all 
members to participate in both panels.
    We have five witnesses across the two panels testifying, so 
I am going to be brief, very brief in my opening remarks. The 
subcommittee provides funding for the National Guard and 
Reserve, personnel costs, operation and maintenance, and 
equipment funding, including the National Guard Reserve and 
Equipment Account, and that is an appropriation which is not 
included in the President's budget and will probably be 
referred to the rest of this hearing as NGREA. Funding is also 
provided for activities such as counterdrug operations, Humvee 
modernization, helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, and more. And 
I am particularly interested in hearing how that funding 
supports your missions and what capability gaps exist today. I 
would also like to receive your input on the current pace of 
operations.
    Our National Guard Forces are called upon to support a 
variety of missions, including humanitarian missions and civil 
unrest. And many of us have had the National Guard in our 
communities helping with civil unrest. They support the 
Southwest border, overseas operations, and, of course, the 
latest, the support of our Capitol security. I want you to know 
that each member of this committee and all Members of Congress 
are extremely grateful for the tireless efforts from the 
National Guard.
    I am interested to hear about how these seemingly endless 
calls to duty are affecting our troop morale, readiness, and 
retention efforts. It is also vitally important that you are 
providing a high level of quality care for our soldiers. 
Incidents of sexual assault, harassment, and extremism are all 
too common among the ranks.
    Your leadership in addressing these disturbing acts has 
never been more important, and I would like to know exactly 
what you are doing to reverse these harmful and dangerous 
trends.
    Now, with that, I would like to recognize our distinguished 
ranking member, Mr. Calvert from California, for his opening 
remarks.
    Mr. Calvert.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Chair McCollum.
    I would like to welcome General Hokanson to this 
subcommittee for the first time. You had a lot on your plate in 
the first 8 months on your job, so I appreciate your taking the 
time to meet with us today.
    Over the past year, our Nation has become even more reliant 
on your nearly 450,000 citizen airmen and soldiers. From 
responding to COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest to continuing 
operations abroad, I would like to thank all the guardsmen for 
their ongoing and steadfast commitment to our Nation.
    I struggle to think of another time in American history 
that we have asked the Guard to do the range of missions and at 
the tempo in which they have been operating over the past year, 
and I share the chair's concern about the morale and retention 
of our Guard.
    As we continue to hopefully move past the worst of the 
COVID-19 pandemic and look to the light at the end of the 
tunnel, it is important that we hear from our witnesses today 
about the current and future requirements of our Guard and 
Reserve components. This includes evaluating readiness, 
modernization shortfalls, understanding where the support of 
the National Guard is most needed, and preparing for the 
conflict in the era of great power competition, particularly in 
the cyber and space domain.
    It is critical that we ensure that the Guard and Reserve 
components are adequately trained, equipped, and connected with 
our Active Duty partners to meet our national security 
objectives. As a Representative from a border State, I look 
forward to hearing about the Guard's role in responding to the 
ongoing crisis at our southern border. I was out there 
yesterday. It is a challenge. I will give you that.
    And so, I look forward to hearing from you about that. I 
want to conclude by thanking you for your service. I look 
forward to your testimony.
    And, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    It appears that the full committee chair and ranking member 
are not joining us at this hearing. I will move to witnesses 
unless one of them joins us later; we will, of course, allow 
them.
    Mr. Calvert. Point of clarification, Madam Chair. I was 
going to do an opening statement for the second panel. Are we 
going to have time for that, or were you doing that all in one 
time?
    Ms. McCollum. I was just giving one, but if you want to 
give it now, feel free to do so, Mr. Calvert. If you would like 
to do it in front of the second panel, I am fine with that too.
    Mr. Calvert. You are the chair. I will do whatever you 
like. I will just wait till the second panel.
    Ms. McCollum. Perfect. All right.
    I would now like to recognize our witness for the first 
panel, and that is General Daniel Hokanson, Chief of the 
National Guard Bureau, member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 
Welcome.
    And, as Mr. Calvert pointed out, this is your very first 
time testifying in front of the subcommittee, and we are so 
pleased to have you here.
    General, your full written statement will be placed in the 
record, and members do have copies available at their offices. 
I would like to give you as much time as possible for you to 
interact with members so they can ask questions. I encourage 
you to summarize your statement to be complete but succinct 
also in responding to our questions.
    General, we look forward to your opening statement. Please 
proceed.

                 Summary Statement of General Hokanson

    General Hokanson. Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member 
Calvert, and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to 
join you virtually today on behalf the soldiers and airmen of 
your National Guard. For nearly 385 years, the National Guard 
has taken on our Nation's greatest challenges. As a primary 
combat reserve of the Army of the Air Force, we are manned, 
trained, and equipped to fight our Nation's wars. In times of 
emergency, our people, training, and equipment help us respond 
to our communities. This is our job, and we are proud to do it. 
In 2020, however, our motto of ``Always Ready, Always There'' 
was put to the test.
    Last June, more National Guard troops were mobilized than 
at any time since World War II. Nearly 120,000 soldiers and 
airmen were deployed supporting the warfight overseas or 
involved in domestic operations here at home. This included 
responding to the COVID-19 pandemic in a wide variety of roles, 
responding to civil unrest in our cities, and responding to 
historic wildfires and hurricanes across the country. We also 
continued our military training in 2020, and despite the COVID 
environment, the National Guard met every overseas deployment 
requirement. And it was the Minnesota National Guard's First 
Armored Brigade Combat Team who completed the first National 
Training Center rotation in a COVID environment in July of last 
year.
    In January, in response to the attack on the Capitol, we 
mobilized and deployed over 26,000 National Guardsmen to 
Washington, D.C., in less than 2 weeks. Using organic National 
Guard air support and logistics, soldiers and airmen from every 
State and territory arrived to help secure our 59th 
presidential inauguration.
    While the past year has provided countless examples of the 
National Guard's extraordinary work, today I would like to 
highlight just a single weekend, Labor Day of 2020. That 
weekend, while many Americans were on holiday, more than 64,000 
National Guardsmen were on duty around the world. Roughly 
20,000 of these soldiers and airmen were deployed across 34 
nations in support of our combatant commanders. More than 
18,000 were helping their communities fight COVID-19 or manning 
testing sites to cleaning long-term care facilities to working 
in food banks so our fellow Americans wouldn't go hungry.
    More than 1,500 were protecting the rights of peaceful 
protesters and safeguarding communities against violence in 
Georgia, Texas, Kentucky, and Wisconsin. More than 3,500 were 
helping their communities recover from Hurricane Laura in Texas 
and Louisiana. In Alaska, a team of Guardian Angel Airmen 
rescued two hikers, one who fell more than a hundred feet off a 
cliff and was seriously injured. For their actions, they were 
awarded the Wilderness Rescue of the year by the American Red 
Cross of Alaska.
    And out West, specially modified C-130s from the California 
Nevada Air National Guard teamed up with National Guard MQ-9 
unmanned aerial systems and helicopters from multiple States to 
fight record wildfires. This included the dramatic rescue of 
240 people trapped by wildfires in the Sierra National Forest 
by the California National Guard's 40th combat aviation 
brigade. This daring night rescue in heavy smoke was possible 
because our crews had modernized helicopters and the latest 
generation night vision goggles. For their heroism and 
extraordinary achievement, those air crews were awarded the 
Distinguished Flying Cross. This one weekend tells the National 
Guard's story. Our country and our communities needed us, so 
the men and women of the National Guard left their civilian 
jobs, their families, and proudly served as soldiers and 
airmen. Their selfless service is both important and inspiring 
and is reflected in our recruiting and retention.
    Today's National Guard is an operational force, and we are 
full partners with the Army and Air Force in our Nation's 
defense. This would not have been possible without your 
investments over the last 20 years to transform the National 
Guard from a strategic reserve to today's operational force. I 
am grateful for the committee's support in helping us provide 
our soldiers and airmen with the facilities, equipment, and 
training resources they need to be interoperable on the 
battlefield and responsive in our communities.
    Combined with our commitment to partnerships at every level 
from local first responders to FEMA to our 82 international 
State partnerships, we our posturing for the future; however, 
there are still places we fall short. Our equipment must be 
deployable, sustainable, and interoperable. Our facilities must 
be repaired or replaced if they are no longer functional and 
our level of full-time support must increase so we can become 
more efficient and effective.
    There are also distractions our soldiers and airmen face 
every day. If they don't have healthcare, what happens if they 
get sick or injured when they come off orders? If they are 
doing the same job as their Active or Reserve counterparts, why 
are they treated differently? And if they have invested their 
career in the space mission, will there still be a home for 
them in a Space National Guard?
    Every day our team is working to address these issues, and 
there are solutions, and I am committed to working with the 
Army, the Air Force, and you to find them. Among my most 
pressing concerns are premium free healthcare for every 
guardsmen who serves in uniform, the establishment of a Space 
National Guard, and elevating the rank of six of our general 
officers commensurate to level, responsibility, and authority 
they are given.
    These are not only strategically important issues; they are 
just the right thing to do. The National Guard is about 20 
percent of our joint force and anything that impacts our 
readiness, reduces are Nation's ability to deter, and makes the 
total joint force less competitive, less capable, and less 
lethal.
    Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 
to be here today, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                               HEALTHCARE

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    So, General, I am going to pick up on healthcare coverage. 
You spoke to the staff a little bit after our meeting and you 
had mentioned 600,000 Guard personnel do not have health 
insurance and that the lack of coverage and copays for those 
with coverage had made it difficult to ensure that everyone has 
access, and at that time, you were focusing primarily on mental 
health.
    I would like to learn more, and we are going to have a 
panel that addresses on healthcare and health services. I think 
some of the things that we need to understand is a breakdown 
that the staff will be asking you--so you don't have to provide 
it today--by State who lacks health insurance, whether or not 
it is available for folks and they have chosen not to sign up 
for it. I know, in Minnesota, between MNsure and some of the 
things to the Affordable Care Act, we have very high insurance 
rates and great premiums for the coverage in Minnesota. I want 
to see how this breaks down by State because if States aren't 
offering policies that are affordable, that can become a 
different issue that we will need to address.
    But I would like to know how you, especially when it comes 
to mental health that you mentioned, on not having a soldiers--
airmen, marines, and guardians--without healthcare coverage, 
how you see this full impact on here? I also need to 
understand, when we do our health panel, how TRICARE fits into 
this? Are people refusing to take TRICARE in some cases? Is it 
unavailable in some locations?
    I want to ferret out the health insurance issue a little 
more with you. The staff will be following up with questions. I 
look forward to working with you to resolve that.

                          COUNTERING EXTREMISM

    So I am going to go to a question that I would like you to 
answer a little more today, and that is, in January, as you 
know, Secretary Austin ordered a Department-wide stand down to 
address extremism, and earlier this month, he established a 
Countering Extremism Working Group to examine how the services 
would implement the immediate and long-range goals.
    So could you tell me where the Guard is in its short-term 
and long-range goals in addressing extremism within the ranks, 
and how pervasive have you found, just kind of doing your 
short-term goal and assessment, that it is for extremism to be 
found in the National Guard? Do you think it is similar? Have 
you had conversations, because you are part of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staffs, is it similar to your Active Duty counterparts? And 
then, you know, what things that you are looking at doing? Some 
of them is going to be funding; some of it is not going to be 
funding. So just kind of help this committee understand short 
term what we are doing on extremism and some of the things you 
think we need to do long term to have people realize standing 
up, taking an oath of office to protect and defend the 
Constitution of the United States is something that they need 
to implement not only in their life as a guardsperson but, you 
know, how that doing things privately can affect their ability 
to serve based on the way that we are going to be examining 
extremism within our ranks.
    General Hokanson. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    So, when I look at the fact we are component of both the 
Army and the Air Force, within the Air National Guard and the 
Army National Guard, they are following the training that has 
been put out by the services. And I have actually attended the 
Army one as well. Due to the nature of the fact we just drill 
one weekend a month in our summer training, we have until June 
to complete that. And so, on our weekly calls with the 
adjutants general, I remind them of that--the importance of 
getting that done in the scheduled timeframe.
    When we look at the pervasiveness across the force, I do 
not see it as very pervasive from all the information that I 
have been given. However, any case at all, as far as I am 
concerned, is not acceptable not only within the National 
Guard, but within the Department of Defense. And as you 
mentioned, every one of the members of the National Guard do 
swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States and they 
also swear an oath to the Constitution of the State in which 
they serve. And I have been close in touch with our senior 
leaders within the organization to really reemphasize across 
the force that if our soldiers or airmen see something, that 
they say something. And then that allows our chain of command 
to deal with it, or if it exceeds their responsibilities, it 
goes on to work with local law enforcement to make sure that 
everything goes addressed and nothing gets overlooked.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert.

                          UNFUNDED PRIORITIES

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Just on that subject, General, if you could get us a 
definition of how you define extremism, I would like to know. 
If you could get that for the committee, how the military in 
general is looking at that, that would be helpful to me.
    But I am going to go unfunded priorities.
    General, the fiscal year 2021 National Defense 
Authorization Act added the chief of National Guard Bureau to 
the list of officers required to provide an unfunded priorities 
list of Congress. We will be receiving the unfunded priorities 
list from you, I guess, sometime this fiscal year following the 
transmission of the budget request. Hopefully that is soon. Any 
comment on that?
    General Hokanson. Sir, thank you for the opportunity. I 
think that is very important to recognize for us also our 
unfunded priorities list because, in many cases, our stuff is 
dual-use equipment that we could use not only in the warfight 
but also here domestically. And I think recognition of that and 
the ability to provide that is greatly appreciated by the 
entire National Guard.

                          SPACE NATIONAL GUARD

    Mr. Calvert. Okay. Well, we will be looking forward to 
getting a hold of that list.
    General, you know, as you know, I have been very supportive 
of the creation of a Space Guard, especially for States that 
have existing significant space missions, such as California. 
Can you update the subcommittee on the progress the Department 
of Defense is making in providing recommendations on the 
creation of a Space Guard?
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir. In fact, I believe we are 
fairly close on that. I will meet with the Secretary of the Air 
Force tomorrow and the chief of space operations. And we have 
had an opportunity to brief the Deputy Secretary of Defense 
already, and I think our final meeting will be in preparation 
of meeting with the Secretary of Defense. And, right now, both 
the Secretary of the Air Force and the chief of space 
operations are in agreement with us of a two-component 
construct, that of an Active and Reserve combination, the 
combined component, and then a Space National Guard.

                  GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT ACCOUNT

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Look forward to seeing that. One 
other question in this series, Mr. Womack, as you know, is 
former guardsman and, as you know, both of you know that you 
are both painfully aware of, the Guard often ends up being the 
bill payer for when defense budgets are tight, and I suspect 
this year is going to be a real tight bill it seems. Given the 
lack of growth in this year's proposed defense budget and the 
critical importance of maintaining readiness, lethality, 
equipment, weapon systems, what are the foreseeable 
circumstances or consequences if Congress does not prioritize 
the Guard and Reserve Equipment Account?
    General Hokanson. When I look at that, I am not sure 
exactly what those consequences we will be. That is something 
we will look at very closely when the budget rolls out, but any 
flat lining or reduction at all will obviously have an impact 
on our readiness and potentially our equipment maintenance and 
also our facilities maintenance. But as we look to the future, 
there is also other possibilities there where we look our 
Nation's need to retain certain capability and capacity, that 
there might be a time to really look at our Active/Reserve 
component mix to now identify if some of our forces maybe/
should be moved into Reserve component where we can maintain 
that capability at a lower cost.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. I will look forward to working with you 
on that.
    And I will yield back and look forward to the second round. 
Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And when you are reporting, 
General, Mr. Calvert asked great questions. I am looking 
forward to a breakdown on how much this is going to cost to set 
up a Reserve and a Guard Space Force, as you are referring to, 
what would it look like in all 50 States, and if it is kind of 
a hybrid where you are using facilities that are already in 
existence with the Air Force where they are in States. We will 
follow up with some questions, but I think Mr. Calvert has 
launched some particularly good questions.
    Mr. Cuellar, you were dealing with a flat tire. Are you in 
a position now in your office where you can ask a question, or 
I can go to Mrs. Bustos and let you catch your breath?

                        ASSISTANCE AT THE BORDER

    Mr. Cuellar. No. I am ready. I was looking for Pete Aguilar 
to help me change the tire, but he wasn't around.
    Ms. McCollum. Oh, we can barely hear you, Henry.
    And, Pete, you should help colleagues with their tires. So 
you want to try it, again, Henry, Mr. Cuellar, so we can hear 
you.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Yes.
    And, first of all, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you--
--
    Mr. Cuellar [continuing]. To our witnesses. Let me just ask 
you this question about the issue of the National Guard on the 
border. I really appreciate what you are all doing on the 
border, but is there any way--because I have seen the National 
Guard, you know, be at the detention centers or the shelters.
    Is there any way you can help the Border Patrol with a 
strategy on securing the border? I mean, I know that you all 
are in communication with them, and you work closely with them, 
but I still think that your military training can help us and 
help the Border Patrol secure the border for better. And I am 
not talking about the unaccompanied kids or the family units. 
Those are not danger to our communities. I am talking about the 
single adults that are trying to come in into the U.S. that 
have a different motive.
    Can you all come up with a different strategy instead of 
being at shelters taking care of babies? And I have seen them 
do several things. Any way you all can come up with a different 
strategy with Border Patrol?
    General Hokanson. Congressman, that is a great question, 
and the primary responsibility for that falls under U.S. 
Northern Command under General VanHerck, and I know the Joint 
Task Force North is commanded by a National Guard officer, 
actually Randall Simmons. I know that they worked closely with 
the Border Patrol, but I am not sure if they have asked for 
assistance to do that, but if asked and approved, I am sure 
that is something that we would love to help with if asked.
    Mr. Cuellar. And just to finish up on this, look, I have 
seen your men and women, they do a great job. The support 
services, I have seen them man cameras. I have seen them at the 
shelters with the logistics of the food, but I think your 
capacity or your abilities are not being utilized effectively, 
and if you all could just direct us, the committee, as to where 
we ought to be looking at to get you to be--so we can fully 
utilize your capabilities at the border instead of, with all 
due respect, babysitting cameras, babysitting, you know, the 
unaccompanied kids. It is very important; I understand that. 
But I think with the training that the men and women, the 
professionals that they are, I think you all could be better 
utilized at the border, with all due respect.
    And I always tell my friend Ken Calvert, I don't come 
visit; I live on the border. I, actually, am going to the 
border in about an hour and a half on a particular side, but I 
just want to utilize the abilities of the professionals, men 
and women, at the Guard.
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir. And we look forward to the 
opportunity to follow up with you and also with U.S. Northern 
Command.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank 
you, Madam Chair.
    I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers and then Mrs. Bustos.

                             MISSION IMPACT

    Mr. Rogers. Let me say that if the gentleman needs an extra 
tire, I will find it. I will find him one. But I knew he would 
one of these days run the wheels off that car. I want to thank 
you for being with us today, but, more importantly, thank you 
for the service to your country that you have performed for 
many, many years.
    And we want to thank you, again, as the chair indicated 
earlier, for you and your soldiers, for the security that you 
gave to Members of Congress, to the Congress itself, as well as 
the whole country. Many thousands of soldiers left their 
families and their hometown jobs to render service to us, and 
we thank you for that.
    And as of April 30, you still had 298 guardsmen and airmen 
from 18 States and D.C. supporting civilian authorities, 
including the Capitol Police and Secret Service, in the 
national capital region related to January 6 and post-inaugural 
security. You are still with us, and we thank you for that 
service. That is fewer personnel than had been deployed last 
summer when 41,500 were supporting State and local law 
enforcement in support of civil unrest operations.
    Let me ask you just how taxing has all of this been, 
including the border, not to mention civil unrest all across 
the country, how taxing has this mission been for the Guard 
over the last year?
    General Hokanson. So, Congressman, I keep in very close 
touch with the adjutants general, and I actually speak with 
them once a week. And in my visits there, we have been 
fortunate to meet every single mission requirement we were 
given over the past 16 months really going back prior to COVID, 
but as you highlight, a lot of these missions have become more 
enduring. It adds a little bit more stress on each of our 
soldiers and airmen, and everything we try and do is balance 
their ability to manage their civilian career, their military 
career, and their family. And we never want to put them in a 
situation where they have got to choose one for the other.
    When we look at the economic impact to our Nation over the 
past year, in many cases, this employment provided relief to 
some of those soldiers, but as our economy continues to 
improve, the employers are asking for their soldiers to come 
back to work, and so we are watching that very closely, looking 
at every tasking. And if you look at the State's willingness to 
support, of course, we are heavily involved in vaccinations 
right now, but as that stabilizes, we are hoping to off-ramp 
some of that mission set to reduce the operational tempo.

                              UAV TRAINING

    Mr. Rogers. Let's switch gears. As a former guardsmen, I 
know firsthand the importance of interoperability between the 
Guard and the Active Components of our military. Because of 
that, I am concerned that the Army Guard doesn't operate and 
train with any MQ-1C Gray Eagle drones vital to within the 
Active Component.
    What are your plans to ensure maximum interoperability, 
especially regarding UAV capabilities?
    General Hokanson. Well, sir, thank you for that question 
and thank you, sir, for your service in the National Guard as 
well. When we look at the Army Guard, in particularly, last 
year, we were able to start realigning the eight divisions in 
the National Guard with the subordinate brigades, brigade 
combat teams, combat aviation brigades, and maneuver 
enhancement brigades.
    And so, what we are trying to do is to provide our Nation 
not only 10 Active Duty Army divisions, but also eight National 
Guard divisions. And that is where this specific case comes 
into place. Or when you look at a division level asset, we know 
that we need to modernize our formations and we work very 
closely to make sure whatever the Army modernizes, we have the 
same equipment in the National Guard so that we are 
interoperable on the battlefield.
    And so, when we look with the Army on their long-term work 
with their program, sir, we want to be part of that to make 
sure we look, act, and operate the same.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Rogers, I don't know if we are having a 
technical issue. You had about 20 seconds left. It looks like 
we are having a technical difficulty and if your staff gets a 
hold of our staff, we will add that on to your next question.
    Mrs. Bustos and then Mr. Cole.

                         DECREASE OF THE C-130

    Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much, Chairwoman 
McCollum, and also, I want to thank Ranking Member Calvert for 
holding this very important hearing.
    General Hokanson, thank you for your service, your 
leadership of our citizenship soldiers and our airmen. I know 
how proud you are. We are equally proud. As you noted in your 
opening testimony and answers today, the effectiveness and the 
efficiency of our National Guard depends greatly on their 
flexibility--on logistics, on transportation. And you know that 
I am also proud to represent the great airmen of the 182nd 
Airlift Wing in Peoria. We have talked about that many times.
    They regularly maintain the highest mission capability rate 
in the Air National Guard C-130 community. They are doing this 
with Vietnam era aircraft, yet they are to the motto always 
ready and always there, providing tactical air mobility when we 
need them whether it is for homeland or overseas operations.
    What I would like to ask you, General, the 182nd at Peoria, 
like many other Air National Guard C-130H units, is at risk of 
losing their aircraft as the Air Force continues to push to 
decrease the overall number of C-130s in the Nation.
    I am wondering, does it make sense to you to decrease our 
tactical airlift capabilities? That is question one. And 1B of 
that would be, how would this affect your ability to respond to 
homeland emergencies while also providing airlift for Federal 
missions overseas?
    General Hokanson. Congresswoman, thank you for that 
question. And so, when I look at the number of C-130 Wings, in 
fact, I would really look at all of our flying squadrons in the 
Air National Guard, I think it is absolutely important that we 
retain every single one of those flying squadrons because of 
what they bring for our Nation. And one of the concerns I do 
have is when you look at the mobility capabilities study that 
is done annually when they look at that, they often times don't 
take into account the domestic use or domestic operations that 
our C-130s particularly do. And if you look at last year, it 
was over 600 missions done by 75 different aircraft in 16 
different States. And when you don't account for that, I think 
it gives you a different picture that would make you think that 
you could reduce that capability. But when we look at the fact 
that the homeland is no longer a sanctuary and is an area that 
we need to be very concerned about any future operations, we 
need to account for that and make sure that we have the 
capabilities resident within the Nation to respond to those.
    Mrs. Bustos. General, how important is the 182nd in Peoria 
when you look at the domestic missions and the C-130Hs? Can you 
talk specifically to that?
    General Hokanson. Ma'am, if you look--I will just use the 
D.C. mission as an example. We were able to bring 26,000 
guardsmen here in less than 2 weeks, and 14--or just under 
14,000 of them were transported by Air National Guard aircraft. 
And had we not had the ability to draw on those aircraft 
literally at no notice, it would have really compounded the 
timeframe it would have taken us to get everybody here. But, 
ma'am, those are absolutely critical to all of our communities 
and everything that we do. Not only that but also to our 
warfight overseas. The tactical capability that they provide, 
which is the reason we have them in the National Guard, is 
critical to our Nation's defense.
    Mrs. Bustos. So, if you play that out in the 182nd at 
Peoria with the C-130Hs, let's say, under the circumstances 
that we have all just lived through, where you had these 
missions and you got the 26,000 men and women in uniform out to 
Washington, D.C., you take the 182nd out, how does that play 
out under the circumstances that we have all just lived 
through?
    General Hokanson. So I don't know the specifics related to 
that squadron, ma'am, but I think the overall intent we would 
like to do is see every one of our squadrons modernized so that 
they remain relevant well into the future for whatever our 
Nation needs them to do.
    Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Consider me a partner in this. I have 
got a question about healthcare, but with 35 seconds left, I 
know the chairwoman is strict about her time, and I am glad she 
is. So, General, again, thank you for your service, and I 
appreciate your perspective on this. Very helpful.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Bustos.
    And Minnesota and Illinois National Guard delivered people 
on time.
    Mr. Cole and Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                      IMPACT FROM GUARD DEPLOYMENT

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Following my 
good friend from Illinois, I would be remiss not to say we 
serve on this committee and on the Labor-H Committee together, 
how much I am going to miss her. And certainly, respect her 
decision--we all leave when we want to, but my friend from 
Illinois and I have dealt with legislation together. She has 
been a very productive member of the Appropriations Committee 
and the United States Congress, and we will miss you, my 
friend.
    I will also just add, for the record, we are normally in my 
committee, I sit between Mr. Rogers, who is not only a former 
member of the Kentucky Guard but was the Kentucky guardsmen of 
the year in 1960 and belongs to the Kentucky Guard hall of 
fame, and then, on my left, I have got Steve Womack, who did 30 
years in the Arkansas Guard and left as a full colonel. So, I 
feel like I really should be quiet and listen to these two. But 
I have got a couple of questions.
    First of all, General, like everybody on this panel, I am 
going to tell you how much I appreciate your personal service 
and the service of the men and women of the Guard and what a 
difference it makes in all of our States and what a difference 
it makes to our country. You are coming off a really tough 
year. You have been deployed in multiple circumstances. None of 
us like you to see us deployed in civil disturbances, but you 
have had to do that obviously in Washington, D.C. We have all 
seen the tremendous job your men and women did here, and we are 
all grateful for that. We have also seen multiple times in 
other States around the country when you have been called upon 
by local authorities, by the Governor of States.
    I am curious, I know these sorts of situations aren't 
remotely predictable, and there is considerable expense 
obviously involved in all of these kinds of deployments. So, 
number one, can you give us some idea of the scope of the 
expense to the Guard of the activities dealing with civil 
unrest over the last year, all of them across the country? And, 
second, what, you know--how will you be compensated?
    I know you have had to sort of rob Peter to pay Paul out of 
multiple accounts here to get these things done. We need to be 
very cognizant of that and recognize that you have ongoing 
operations and maintenance and things like that that we know.
    I am just trying to get a handle on the number we would 
need to think about to make sure that you are whole after this 
unusual series of deployments?
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir. When we look at the mission 
schedule to go through the 23rd of May and the current funding 
that we have identified that the cost is basically $521.9 
million or just under $522 million. The key there is that we 
will really need assistance with that by the middle of May. And 
if we don't receive the funding by the first of August, it 
could add a significant impact on our readiness and maintenance 
across the force.
    Thank you for bringing that and made the department here 
well aware of the importance of that funding.
    Mr. Cole. Are there other missions around the country that 
are similarly civil run that are additional costs there, or has 
that been covered adequately up to this point?
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir. So, if we go back to the height 
in June when we had 43,000 guardsmen mobilized across the 
Nation in support of civil disturbance operations, a lot of 
those costs were basically taken by the States under State 
Active Duty. And I don't know the full amount by State how much 
was spent, unlike COVID-19, where that was reimbursed through 
FEMA.
    Mr. Cole. Okay. Thank you very much. One other area I want 
to pick up on a topic that my friend the ranking member raised. 
I do think these unmet needs, you know, document is going to be 
very important to this committee. My personal belief, and I 
speak only for myself, is that just looking at the President's 
standing budget, it is too much domestic spending, too little 
spending on defense. My guess is if we are going to get to a 
deal, one number is going to go up, the defense number, and the 
other number is probably going to come down, and there is 
probably a deal to be had there somewhere, but I think it is 
really important that we get a feel for exactly what you need 
if that occurs so that we are not just throwing money willy-
nilly out there.
    I would just--I know this is the first time that we are 
going to see this kind of document, but I think it is 
extraordinarily important that we prioritize because if we did 
have extra money, we spend it in a way that was most useful to 
you and the men and women under your plan.
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Okay.
    With that, Madam Chair, I don't have a lot of time left and 
I am going to follow the example of my good friend from 
Illinois, recognize the power of the chair and yield back 
before I offend her.
    Ms. McCollum. The chair thinks you asked an excellent 
question to get a real good detailed look.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                      GUARD COUNTERDRUG OPERATIONS

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam 
Chair.
    I appreciate so much the General's testimony. I represent a 
border district, and the National Guard has been so important, 
and I have been very, very impressed at how quickly they 
mobilize when we need them, and these are men and women who 
have other jobs, you know. A lot of them do the National Guard 
part time, and they respond immediately.
    And so, my question is, you know, we really, really count 
on your, especially in the border communities, to keep us safe 
from drug trafficking and crime. That is our top priority. So, 
the National Guard counter for drug programs are vital force 
multipliers if we are getting narcotics from entering and 
spreading throughout our country.
    In your testimony, you shared that the National Guard 
counterdrug operations supported over 1,300 law enforcement 
agencies and 439 community-based organizations to include 
training nearly 60,000--60,000--law enforcement personnel. The 
impact of the program is clear, and it needs to continue. 
However, since fiscal year 2013, the budget requests for these 
efforts have decreased, and Congress has consistently added 
money.
    Do you anticipate an expansion of these programs in fiscal 
year 2022? Will the budget request reflect the importance and 
impact of these programs?
    Thank you so much.
    General Hokanson. Congresswoman, I know we have not seen 
the budget yet, so I am not sure of the exact figures, but I 
looked at the historical, we really relied on congressional 
adds to fill the full requirement, and we greatly appreciate 
that support.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, do you have a follow up?
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    I yield back. No. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Great.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart and then Mr. Aguilar.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 
General, again, I would just add my words of gratitude to you 
and to all of the guards, heroes who do an amazing job. So 
thank you.

                   EXPENSES ON NON-TRADITIONAL ISSUES

    A lot of the things that I was going to ask, Madam 
Chairwoman, have already been covered, which is good, but I do 
want to ask a couple things. I am concerned, as was said before 
by the ranking member, that the Guard usually pays the bills if 
there are reductions to be had.
    One of the areas that I think it would be interesting just 
to know if and how much you are spending is on nontraditional-
related Guard issues? And what I mean by that, for example, 
environmental expenses. If you are on alternative fuels, on 
climate change, that kind of stuff? It would be great to have 
an accounting of how much you all are spending on that kind of 
thing just to know. Because there is so many different buckets 
of that and how much you are foreseen to spend in the next 
year. That is point number one.

                               EXTREMISM

    Point number two, on the issue of extremism, which I think 
is a crucial issue. I would argue that, obviously, you know, 
Communism, Marxism whether it is the North Korean model, the 
Chinese model, the former Soviet model, the Cuban model, the 
Venezuelan model, is obviously an extremist ideology, and I 
don't think anybody would disagree with that.
    So the question I think it was--I don't know who it was who 
asked you how the military is now defining extremism. Is a 
group that claims to be--their leadership claims to be trained 
by Marxists, would that be considered an extremist 
organization? I just am curious to know if Marxism is one of 
those groups, one of those ideologies, which obviously is a 
dangerous anti-American ideology that you are also looking at 
and considering to be extremists. If so, great. If not, why 
not?
    And so, as I said, Madam Chairwoman, a lot of my questions 
were already asked on the budgetary issues. So, we are all 
being really well behaved, Madam Chairwoman, and we are all 
returning time, which is kind of unusual. And I will lead by 
doing that as well.
    I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    And Mr. Diaz-Balart, I think you ask a really good question 
as did Mr. Calvert. The definition needs to be universal, well 
understood, and meet the needs of protecting our Constitution 
and protecting our democracy. So, what does extremism mean? I 
really appreciate the discussion that we are starting to have 
about that, and I hope the authorizers are having it as well.
    Mr. Aguilar, and then, Mr. Ryan, if you are still 
available, could your staff let us know?
    And then, after Mr. Ryan, it would be Ms. Kaptur.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                               WILDFIRES

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Mr. Ranking Member 
and General Hokanson.
    Just following up on my friend from Florida and my 
colleague from California, the ranking member, I think that 
those are fair questions to ask the Secretary when he comes 
before us as well as he details and as the Pentagon details the 
definition for extremism.
    General Hokanson, in your testimony, you highlighted that 
Guard members have fought fires over 9 million acres in 2020. 
In my home State of California, the National Guard has become a 
key player in fighting wildfires, and this has been especially 
true during this fire season that is very untraditional now and 
is extended basically throughout the year.
    What resources does the National Guard require in the 
upcoming fiscal year to continue to support efforts to combat 
wildfires in the West and respond to other natural disasters?
    General Hokanson. Congressman, when I look at the fires and 
having grown up in that area, when we look at the scope and 
scale, it is really almost unprecedented. We look back in 
history; I think it was over 10 million acres were burned this 
past year. And so, one of the most important things we look at 
is the use of our C-130s with the MAFFS or the Mobile Airborne 
Fire Fighting System. And we really appreciate the add last 
year to allow us to buy the first two of what we determined as 
eight is a requirement to be upgraded, and there are six 
additional systems at a cost of $60 million that would allow us 
to equip all of our C-130 MAFFS aircraft to continue to fight 
forest fires.
    Aside from the MAFFS aircraft, we also use our MQ-9s or 
unmanned aerial systems for fire mapping, which is extremely 
helpful, not only for our folks but also in terms of the Forest 
Service and also the State forest managers.
    We also use a lot of our helicopters as well, and so we 
often use our NGREA funding to buy additional buckets or 
firefighting equipment related to that. We also do train ground 
crews as well, and we equip those locally within the State. 
Those are also assets that we can provide. And as you 
mentioned, we look at it more now as a fire year no longer a 
fire season, and one initiative that we did start this year is 
we had a firefighting symposium earlier this year, and we are 
starting to look at it more like hurricanes where we meet and 
do an all-hazards conference in New Orleans every year. This 
year we did it virtually, but we recognized all the States that 
may be impacted and potential capability shortfalls within 
their State either because units may be deployed, or they just 
don't have that capability. And now we are looking at doing the 
same in the Western and all those States that suffer from 
forest fires to help identify if those helicopters are being 
mobilized, like Washington and California this year, to 
identify and train those air crews prior to season so if there 
is an additional need in any of the States, they know exactly 
where they will draw those from and hopefully minimize the 
impact of those fires.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, General.

                           COVID-19 VACCINES

    One last question. Early in the pandemic, we all know that 
the Guard was instrumental in the supply chain logistics to 
ensure that front-line workers had the supplies that they 
needed, and recently the Guard has helped administer over 6 
million COVID-19 vaccines to Americans across the country.
    Here in the West, we know that the Guard has played a key 
role at Cal State Los Angeles at vaccination sites as well. As 
we continue to vaccinate millions of Americans, what do you 
foresee the role of the Guard in supporting and combating the 
pandemic and as that changes?
    General Hokanson. So, Congressman, I am actually happy to 
announce, we went over 10 million shots this morning, and that 
is a great testament to our cooperation with all of the local 
communities and the support that we get. And it is a very 
interesting question, so I want to go back to the first time 
that the adjutant general from Washington State mentioned that 
they had an outbreak in one of their long-term care facilities.
    What we have done and how we have supported our communities 
continues to evolve, and I think it is the great relationship 
and partnership we have with our local communities that help 
identify those needs that we can fill in the short term until a 
community can develop the capability to meet that.
    So, going forward, I am sure that we will continue to help 
with vaccination efforts as long as needed. And then, you know, 
just depending on what the future holds, we will be ready there 
to meet whatever our committees ask of us.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, General.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Great questions.
    Mr. Ryan.

                          IMPROVING THE GUARD

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I appreciate, General, great to see you. After a ton of 
phone calls, it is good to at least see you live and in person. 
I appreciate your leadership. Thank you for everything post-Jan 
6. You were showing an enormous amount of leadership. So I 
think, on behalf of everyone, we just want to say thanks to you 
and all the men and women who were here from around the country 
to help to make sure that the Inauguration and we were able to 
get our house in order here a little bit. So I want a special 
thanks to you for all of your leadership.
    Two quick questions. A lot has been covered that I wanted 
to ask as well. Representative Palazzo and I, we have 
introduced legislation that provided a tax credit to small 
businesses that employ members of the Guard. We are getting 
ready to introduce a bill that would provide special and 
incentive paid parity to both the Guard and the Reserve, and I 
also believe that the restoration and maintenance backlog is 
extremely important.
    Is there anything else we can do, this subcommittee can do, 
to help the Guard perform its mission? I know you touched on 
healthcare piece as well with recruitment and retention and all 
of that.
    General Hokanson. When I look at that, I know we have 
touched on a lot of these already. The TRICARE Reserves Select 
or healthcare I think for all of our servicemembers who serve 
in uniform would be critically important. Also, and I know you 
touched on it, the FSRM, additional funding for our facilities. 
Many of those are extremely old. In fact, I think over 30 
percent of our Army National Guard armories are over 60 years 
old. So additional help there.
    And then, lastly, I would say full-time support. We are in 
a very good place with the Air National Guard. We are about 30 
percent of our force is full time. On the Army National Guard, 
our full-time support is about 16 percent, but more concerning 
is it is only about 64 percent of what the established 
requirement is. And so, any additional funding we could get to 
support our full-time support within the Army National Guard 
would really help us become more efficient and I think 
effective with the resources we are given.

                           MENTAL HEALTHCARE

    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Quickly too, General, and I know you 
touched upon this, and I hope you can get in a little bit more 
detail. I know you implemented several initiatives related to 
issues around mental healthcare and the Guard. Can you explain 
a little bit more about these programs and speak as to whether 
or not you have the resources you need to make sure our members 
of the Guard are taken care of from a mental health side and a 
mental health promotion side? Are we doing enough in training 
to promote the kind of resiliency and, you know, the other 
issues around mental health that maybe we can take care of with 
regard to some of the training?
    And I know some of these, you know, it is hard to unpack, 
some of these from issues around finance and stress and 
personal life and a lot of the other things that are going on, 
but if you can expand on that a little bit.
    General Hokanson. Yes, sir.
    If you go back to my priorities as the chief, my number one 
priority is people, followed by readiness, modernization, and 
reform. And throughout that you will see we have really, as I 
came on board, we have taken our warrior resilience and fitness 
throughout the organization and consolidated it into a 
directorate.
    Because what we found was really silos of excellence but 
not a lot of crosstalk. And we felt that there were things in 
certain areas that could apply to other when it comes to any of 
these concerns that our people face.
    But one specific program I can talk about is a SPRING 
program, and what it does is it takes data analytics from 
across the country, I think down to county level, and looks at 
the various risk factors.
    And we are trying to get it, to use it as a predictive 
analysis of certain areas of the country that may be stressed 
more than others, and to make the chain of command aware so 
that they can look for any symptoms within their organization 
that we could address in advance or preemptively before it is 
too late.
    Mr. Ryan. I would love to see that data once you get it. 
That would be very interesting for us to know.
    One of the things we are working on, too, is to try, across 
the board in the military, is get a better sense of the adverse 
childhood experiences. The data on this is incredible as a 
predictor of behavior, probably of things like post-traumatic 
stress and other things that happen based on how many adverse 
childhood experiences you have had.
    And so, we have that knowledge now. Why wouldn't we want to 
understand more about that with the men and women who are 
serving?
    I appreciate it. Yes, when you get that data let us know. 
And thank you so much for all your leadership. We appreciate 
you, General. Thank you.
    General Hokanson. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                       STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
    General Hokanson, it is great to see you again. And I hail 
from northern Ohio, Toledo to Cleveland. Thank you for 
everything that you have done to help us with this pandemic 
situation and also on January 6.
    I want to draw attention to a few areas. Number one, your 
State Partnership Program, which I fully support. I would 
appreciate a 1- or 2-page summary on what we could do to expand 
and improve that program based on your vast experience. Our 
region is connected to Hungary and to Serbia, and we have 
issues in Hungary. I would be very interested in 
recommendations you might have.
    I helped found and co-chair the Hungarian Caucus in the 
Congress, and we would look for recommendations there, if 
possible.

                            YOUTH CHALLENGE

    Number two, in the area of Youth Challenge. Thank you so 
very much for expanding that reach across our country. Again, I 
would like a report there.
    In Ohio, we have tried to stand up a Youth Challenge, the 
only one that is being anticipated of being established in 
Ohio. I have talked to General Harris. We can't seem to lift 
that off the ground. Could somebody in your staff please tell 
me what is missing, why we can't do that?
    And also, thank you for your help on STARBASE. I support 
your efforts there very much.

                           MILITARY MEDICINE

    I wanted to ask your recommendations in two areas on a 
cross-government approach to two challenges. One, Congressman 
Ryan and others have talked about military medicine.
    I am very interested in a cross-government approach from 
the military in a region like I represent where I have many 
Guard and Reserve units who either have their command 
structures in the State capital or an adjoining State.
    I have pieces of the dream in the region, and as I try to 
address issues like trauma and psychiatric care, it becomes 
very difficult.
    For example, we worked for years to place a Guard unit next 
to the only teaching hospital in the entire northern quarter of 
Ohio, northwest quarter of Ohio. And it was all set to go, and 
we ended up with an MP unit next to this medical hospital.
    It is like, if I am trying to help military medicine as 
well as civilian medicine, how did that happen? I wish somebody 
in your command structure could explain that to me.
    I very much would like to have a medical unit there because 
we are very, very, I think, short in the military in terms of 
medical backup, and it has been almost impossible to achieve.

            TRANSPORTATION MANUFACTURING AND NEW ENERGY AGE

    The other thing I wanted to ask about was a cross-
government approach using the Guard, but not only the Guard, on 
what we are about to endure in this region with the 
transformation of our transportation manufacturing and the move 
to a new energy age. If we don't do this right, we could end up 
like Appalachia.
    And I support and chair an energy committee in the 
Congress, but I am very concerned about the way this is going 
to play out.
    And I think the military, with the units that are here 
through the Guard, we have an air base with F-16s, we have a 
Reserve base with transport companies, we have an MP unit with 
transport, I think the Guard could become a showcase for new 
age energy vehicles.
    And I would like to challenge you, as we face this across 
the industrial heartland, to think about a way of becoming a 
star show, where you are able to showcase vehicles, invite the 
community, show what is happening in the military with a lot of 
the new inventions that are occurring.
    And I just wanted to throw those at you. I don't expect you 
to answer this. You can comment today. But on our State 
Partnership Program, on Youth Challenge, on medical backup in 
the military, and then an enlarged role for the Guard, and then 
on a cross-government approach to new vehicular manufacturing 
and the development of innovation, what role might you play?
    Thank you.
    General Hokanson. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. McCollum. General, does that mean you are going to get 
back to Ms. Kaptur, everything in writing, or do you want to 
take a minute?
    General Hokanson. Ma'am, we actually have that all written 
down by staff. I have got one person here helping me do that. 
And we will definitely follow up on all of those, ma'am. Thank 
you for those questions.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. I yield back my additional time.

                                COVID-19

    Ms. McCollum. So, General, before we turn to the second 
panel, there are a couple things that we are going to be 
submitting to the committee for you to answer.
    One of them is a little more information on COVID-19. We 
would be interested in knowing who has received the vaccine, 
what have been the impacts of some of your training efforts 
over the past year, and then whether or not the pandemichas 
made it more difficult to execute funding, particularly since 
military personnel and operation and maintenance dollars are 1-
year funding.

                      WORKFORCE AND CYBERSECURITY

    And then workforce. It has been a big issue that is going 
to come up in the service and in the private sector when it 
comes to cyber. So we are going to follow up with some 
questions about asking what you are doing to recruit people 
from Active-Duty service when they leave to maybe join the 
Guard and providing some of the cybersecurity units that we are 
looking at, how the training has been going, do you have enough 
trainers available.

                               C-130 PLAN

    And then a final question that we have. The Air Force, as 
you know, is planning on divesting its C-130 National Guard 
wings, the aged C-130s, and replacing them with National Guard 
cyber units known as Information Warfare Wings, primarily on a 
Title 10 mission. So we have been trying to get some more 
information as to what that looks like, what the costs are 
going to be. And so we are going to follow up and ask you again 
for that in more detail.
    So, General, thank you for your time and your attention to 
the committee's service. We wish you and those who serve under 
you and their families all the best health and well-being and 
thank them so much for their service.
    Members, before we start the second panel, we are going to 
do a short recess. You don't have to do anything. The technical 
folks on the end are going to make sure that the next panel is 
ready to go. So hang tight. It will only be maybe a minute or 
less.
    So for right now, we stand in recess until the call of the 
chair.
    [Recess.]

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. We now moved to panel two, consisting of the 
leaders of the Reserve Components: Lieutenant General Jody 
Daniels, Chief of the Army Reserve; Vice Admiral John Mustin, 
Chief of the Navy Reserve; Lieutenant General David Bellon, 
Commander of the Marine Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General 
Richard Scobee of the Air Force Reserve.
    I welcome all of you distinguished general officers to be 
witnesses today and thank each of you for your service.
    And before I turn over to the testimony, I would like to 
recognize the ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for a brief remark.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum. In the interest of 
time, I will keep my remarks brief. But I would like to welcome 
our second panel of esteemed witnesses, particularly those who 
are appearing before us for the first time.
    Just as with the Guard, our Reserve Components have been 
quite busy this year, especially as they serve tirelessly to 
contribute to COVID-19.
    I am interested to hear more about the needs facing each of 
your services and what we as a subcommittee can do to help.
    With that, Madam Chair, I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Mr. Calvert.
    So I am going to ask you to please go through your 
testimony in the order in which I introduced, and we will start 
with the Chief of the Army Reserve.

                  Summary Statement of General Daniels

    General Daniels. Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member 
Calvert, distinguished members of the committee, on behalf of 
the 200,000 soldiers and civilian employees of America's Army 
Reserve, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 
today and for your continued support for our soldiers, 
families, and communities.
    In an era of great power competition, the Army needs forces 
able to compete with adversaries, respond to crises, win in 
conflicts, and prepare for the future. That mission requires a 
dedicated Federal Reserve force that is ready now and prepared 
to meet the challenges of tomorrow. That force is the Army 
Reserve.
    Although the Army Reserve accounts for only 20 percent of 
Army personnel, we contain nearly half of the Army's maneuver 
support and a quarter of its force mobilization capacity at a 
cost of just 6 percent of the total Army budget.
    Over the last 3 years, the Army Reserve has focused on 
rebuilding collective readiness to contend with a near-peer in 
Large-Scale Combat Operations as we transform form multi-domain 
operations. However, last year, like the rest of the world, we 
encountered an unforeseen threat.
    Our readiness paid dividends in unexpected ways. Within 24 
hours of the President invoking involuntary mobilization 
authority in response to COVID-19, the Army Reserve aggregated 
critical medical capabilities and initiated one of the largest 
domestic mobilizations in our history.
    Within days, we assembled over 2,800 soldiers, including 
1,200 healthcare professionals, and deployed them to crisis 
zones around the country. To date, over 4,500 Army Reserve 
soldiers have mobilized to support the Nation's COVID-19 
response.
    The Army Reserve continues to support COVID-19 response 
operations while ensuring the readiness and training of our 
soldiers and formations.
    Early in the pandemic, we focused on individual readiness 
and began using cloud-based tools to conduct virtual battle 
assemblies, and we implemented control measures to decrease 
risk during in-person gatherings.
    Despite an uncertain training environment, the Army Reserve 
has also continued to support combatant commanders. Since March 
1, 2020, we have mobilized almost 18,000 soldiers in 268 units 
to support operations around the globe.
    We have also developed a readiness concept known as the 
Army Reserve Mission Force, or ARM Force, to prepare our 
formations for competition, crisis, conflict, and change, or 
the four C's. The ARM Force nests under the Army's Regionally 
Aligned Readiness and Modernization Model, or ReARMM, and 
provides a commonsense framework to align resources across the 
component and unit readiness skills.
    The Army Reserve has created the 75th Innovation Command 
[inaudible] And to leverage the vast subject matter expertise 
gained through our civilian careers to assist Army Futures 
Command in its mission.
    Readiness and modernization, however, mean nothing without 
the soldiers in our formations. Ready and resilient soldiers, 
capable leaders, cohesive teams, strong families, and 
supportive employers are the key to a ready and capable 
Reserve.
    We are aggressively addressing corrosives such as sexual 
assault, sexual harassment, extremism, racism, and stressors 
that are contributing to suicide that threaten to undermine our 
ability to build cohesive, fit, and disciplined teams and are 
counter to Army values and a culture of dignity and respect. We 
are embracing and operationalizing the philosophy of ``This is 
My Squad.''
    Sustaining critical operational capabilities requires 
consistent, adequate, and predictable funding to ensure the 
Army Reserve can meet the needs of our Army and our combatant 
commands across the full range of military operations. We are 
grateful for consistent appropriations that positively impact 
Army Reserve readiness and modernization efforts, including 
support of the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account.
    The future holds many challenges, but today's Army Reserve 
is the best trained, best equipped, and striving every day to 
be the most ready Army Reserve in our Nation's history.
    With your continued support, we will continue to build our 
strong foundation to meet the needs of the Nation and shape the 
Army Reserve of tomorrow.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.

                  Summary Statement of Admiral Mustin

    Admiral Mustin. Good afternoon, Chair McCollum, Ranking 
Member Calvert, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. It is 
my distinct honor to report to you on the status and the vision 
of America's Navy Reserve.
    I would like to take this opportunity to recognize my wife 
Kim, whose steadfast support through my three-decade Navy 
career exemplifies the sacrifices and the service typical of 
our military spouses.
    I would also like to express my gratitude to Navy Reserve 
Force Master Chief Chris Kotz, my partner and confidante, who 
tirelessly advocates every day for our enlisted sailors across 
the force.
    Finally, I would like to recognize the 109,000 sailors our 
nearly 500 dedicated civilians, and the families who support 
them, as well as the thousands of employers who value and 
enable the service of our citizen-sailors worldwide. They are 
all stakeholders in the success of our Navy Reserve.
    Your Navy Reserve sailors are flexible and responsive. This 
past year, in response to the coronavirus-19 pandemic, the Navy 
Reserve activated over 7,000 sailors in direct support of the 
Nation's emergency response. I remain humbled by their agility, 
their capability, and their sacrifices, as well as the enduring 
support of their families.
    The Navy Reserve is strategic. Aligned with the National 
Defense Strategy, the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, and the 
Chief of Naval Operations' Navigation Plan, the Navy Reserve is 
at an inflection point, pivoting to develop the essential 
strategic depth necessary to support integrated, all-domain 
Naval power.
    This renewed focus will be critical to address the 
aggressive behavior we experience daily from a rising China, a 
resurgent Russia, and other authoritarian States who seek to 
disturb the rules-based international order.
    To this end, the singular priority of the Navy Reserve is 
simple: warfighting readiness. Modernization of our equipment, 
training systems, and mobilization processes will generate 
efficiencies that enhance our contribution to the total force 
at an attractive, resource-informed cost.
    Your Navy Reserve sailors are operational. To ensure our 
sailors are operating relevant, modern equipment, procurement 
of the Juliet Variant to replace legacy C-130 aircraft is the 
Navy Reserve's number one equipment priority. Given the Air 
Force and the Marine Corps have already transitioned to the 
Juliet, we are the sole service still flying the Tango 
airframe, which pressurizes our supply chain.
    With an average age approaching three decades and a 
mission-capable rate of 25 percent, the current C-130 Tango 
fleet is challenged to meet sustained fleet logistics 
requirements.
    The C-130 Juliet, on the other hand, with a mission-capable 
rate of 75 percent, would provide an additional $200 million 
per year in transportation cost savings to the Navy.
    Similarly, modernization of the Navy Reserve's high end 
Adversary aircraft is aligned with the Navy's divestment of 
legacy F/A-18 Hornets. Increasing Navy Reserve capability and 
capacity to support Navy Adversary requirements will extend 
Active Component Strike Fighter service life while concurrently 
enabling the dedication of precious fleet aircraft and flight 
hours to fleet-specific operational missions.
    The Reserve force prioritizes outcomes over activities. The 
totality of the Navy Reserve modernization also includes 
enhancing the processes and systems employed to mobilize our 
sailors.
    The first structural modernization since 9/11, Adaptive 
Mobilization, will increase current activation capacity 
fifteen-fold while reducing the mobilization timeline by 80 
percent, effectively activating our entire force in 30 days.
    Integral to this process is the implementation of the Navy 
Personnel and Pay system, NP2, the most significant, important 
administrative enhancement in decades, which will be fully 
operational in January of 2022.
    Navy Reserve sailors are one team. Central and vital to the 
generation of critical enduring advantage are our people. The 
Navy Reserve continues to forge a culture of excellence based 
on the Navy's core values of honor, courage, and commitment, 
and our core attributes, integrity, accountability, toughness, 
and initiative.
    We are dedicated to fostering the diverse, inclusive 
culture that generates our decisive warfighting advantage. They 
are a warfighting, winning team, and they are ready.
    That said, delivering surge and warfighting-ready maritime 
forces to the total force would be impossible without your 
continued support. Timely delivery of a fiscal year 2022 
appropriations bill will provide predictability to our sailors, 
to their families, and to our global combatant commanders.
    Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, I remain humbled 
every day by the commitment and contribution that I see in our 
sailors, our dedicated civilians, and the supporting families 
that collectively are your Navy Reserve. They all serve our 
Nation with distinction every day, in every theater around the 
globe, 24/7, 365. They are the sentinels of our security.
    I thank you for your support and your attention, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I know that the Air Force screen has gone blank again. I 
know they are working on things. But we are going to hear from 
the Marines next. Thank you.

                  Summary Statement of General Bellon

    General Bellon. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, and 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today and to testify on behalf 
of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your Marine Corps 
Reserve.
    I am honored to appear with my fellow Reserve Component 
service chiefs and my senior enlisted advisers, Force Sergeant 
Major Carlos Ruiz, who is here with me today, and Force Command 
Master Chief Carrie Weser.
    The mission of the Marine Corps Reserve is to augment, 
reinforce, and sustain the Active Component. We have Reserve 
forces forward deployed alongside and integrated into their 
Active Component counterparts, supporting numerous combatant 
commander requirements on a daily basis.
    Over the past year, more than 1,000 marines and sailors 
from the Reserve Component activated and deployed to support 20 
operational requirements across six geographic combatant 
commands.
    Despite the ongoing global pandemic, the Marine Corps 
Reserve has continued to train, equip, and prepare for the next 
fight, ensuring the safety of marines, sailors, and their 
families during each in-person drill and exercise that was 
conducted.
    I want to thank each of the members for your support to the 
Marine Corps' Force Design Initiative over the past year. While 
this has necessitated the closure of our Reserve tank units and 
bridging companies, we could not have begun our transition to a 
more nimble and lethal force without your assistance.
    I want to thank my fellow service chiefs, particularly the 
National Guard, for their support. They have been tireless in 
helping Reserve warriors find new places to serve during our 
force design transition period.
    I would also like to acknowledge Admiral Mustin and the 
United States Navy Reserve For being an outstanding partner in 
our ongoing effort to better integrate our Navy and Marine 
Corps Reserve teams to ensure we are postured for the future 
fight.
    Despite the tremendous pressures and obstacles of COVID-19 
that has presented, I am pleased to inform you that the morale 
in your Marine Corps Reserve remains high, as evidenced by our 
Reserve Component end strength maintaining 99 percent of our 
total requirement. Not only are we attracting new Marines, but 
they are also committing to service beyond their contractual 
obligation.
    On any drill weekend, an average of 25 percent of the 
marines standing in formation are not contractually obligated 
to be there. Every month, these marines have a decision to 
make, and they choose to continue to serve with and lead their 
fellow marines and sailors.
    I am always impressed by the professionalism, competence, 
dedication to duty, and motivation of our Reserve marines. The 
way they balance family responsibilities, civilian careers, and 
school with their military service is nothing short of 
extraordinary. Like their Active-Duty brothers and sisters, 
they serve selflessly to protect our great Nation. They 
continue to answer their irrational call to serve.
    As Secretary Austin highlighted, our most critical asset is 
our people. The Marine Corps Reserve must promote and retain 
the very best marines and sailors, regardless of race, gender, 
ethnicity, or background. Through the diversity of thoughts and 
actions, we can find more creative and innovative solutions to 
future problems.
    We are actively developing new initiatives and strategies 
to help achieve a more diverse and, ultimately, a more talented 
Marine Corps Reserve. We will need all the marines and sailors 
to contribute to solving the increasingly complex problems that 
we will face in the future.
    I want to thank this committee for your continued support 
to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Appropriation. As 
you may recall, last year I requested your support for my 
effort to use NGREA funds to remedy the deficiency of 
individual combat clothing and equipment with the Marine Corps 
Reserve. As ICCE becomes more expensive in the future, a more 
flexible NGREA is a key tool Congress can help employ to help 
protect our warfighters.
    In closing, I want to extend my gratitude for your ongoing 
efforts to provide timely appropriations each year. This does 
have a direct impact on your Reserve marines and sailors and 
their limited number of training days.
    Your continued support will help to ensure the Marine Corps 
Reserve will have predictable and uninterrupted training 
schedules to maximize personnel, materiel, and training 
readiness.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert, it appears that Lieutenant General Scobee is 
having problems getting his video up. If his audio is working, 
are you comfortable with him just giving his presentation 
without a video?
    Mr. Calvert. Sure. He can do it on the--on that. That is 
great.
    Ms. McCollum. Kyle, let's see if Lieutenant General Scobee 
can hear and start his testimony.
    General Scobee. Chair McCollum, I am having no trouble 
hearing you. And I apologize. My video is frozen here. But 
everybody else's appears to be working.
    Ms. McCollum. We can hear you just fine, so please go 
ahead, sir.

                  Summary Statement of General Scobee

    General Scobee. Chair McCollum and Ranking Member Calvert 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is an honor 
for me to be here today with my other service counterparts and 
to represent the airmen of the Air Force Reserve. I am joined 
virtually by Chief Master Sergeant Tim White, my senior 
enlisted adviser.
    As a command team leader, I am continually amazed at the 
accomplishment of our Reserve citizen-airmen despite every 
challenge that has emerged over the past year.
    The Air Force Reserve is a cost-effective, accessible, and 
ready force. We provide strategic depth with rapid surge 
capability across every Air Force core mission set, and we do 
so cost effectively because we are predominantly a part-time 
force.
    We are accessible as a force, contributing globally to the 
joint force operations daily.
    And finally, we are a ready force. When the Nation needed 
rapid pandemic response, we had medical personnel on the ground 
in New York and New Jersey within 48 hours.
    We provide strategic depth for national defense while 
operating on only 3 percent of the total Department of the Air 
Force budget.
    We are committed to attracting top talent by fostering a 
culture of inclusion in which every airman is valued and can 
thrive.
    With Congress' assistance, we preserved pre-pandemic gains 
in both individual and unit level readiness across the force 
through innovations such as virtual training.
    We have modernized key weapon systems, and we lessened the 
critical manpower shortfalls we had been suffering through 
previous years.
    We increased our organizational effectiveness and enhanced 
our ability to provide excellent care for our citizen-airmen 
and their families through internal reforms and process 
improvements.
    The Air Force Reserve invests every congressionally enacted 
dollar for maximum return. We are grateful for the $19.5 
million we received in CARES Act funding which allowed us to 
rapidly scale our telework capability to protect our workforce 
during this pandemic.
    We are also grateful for the continued direct hiring 
authority for critical career fields. Last year, with this 
authority, we significantly increased our Air Reserve 
technician pilot manning from where it was at 75 percent to 
today to 97 percent.
    Our requested fiscal year 2022 budget will ensure the Air 
Force Reserve meets the National Defense Strategy's objectives 
with the multi-domain force that we need. We are in lockstep 
with the Chief of Staff of the Air Force's vision to 
``accelerate, change, or lose.'' And, in order to do that, we 
have to be able to compete with our Nation's adversaries across 
the spectrums of conflict.
    We must continue to capitalize on our readiness gains. We 
diligently request only those funds we can execute. Our Reserve 
Personnel Appropriations and operations and maintenance funds 
drive our readiness. These accounts fund our training, our 
flying hours, our mobilization requirements, our equipment 
maintenance, and our salaries.
    In particular, our flying hours and civilian pay programs 
have taken considerable reductions in recent years, rightfully, 
due to insufficient justification and an overestimation of the 
funding requests that we needed. We have made significant 
internal strides in adjusting these accounts. I look forward to 
working with you to enhance readiness and reduce risk within 
our fiscal year 2022 budget.
    I also want to thank you for enabling access to TRICARE 
Reserve Select, which we have heard a lot about today. We are 
all in agreement this major legislative accomplishment will 
offer affordable continuity of care for our members and their 
families. However, the legislation currently does not go into 
effect until 2030.
    To improve our readiness and improve our Reserve force's 
quality of life, I request your support for accelerated 
implementation of funding of this healthcare access.
    And one final area I would like to touch on is equipment 
parity. We accomplish this primarily through the National Guard 
and Reserve Equipment Appropriation, NGREA. It enables us to 
modernize equipment, sustain our capability, and replace 
obsolete equipment to maintain parity with our Active Component 
when recapitalization is not feasible.
    Parity is critical to seamless total force integration. We 
remain grateful for these appropriations. I cannot overemphasis 
how vital they are to our readiness. I appreciate your support 
for NGREA now and in the future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
and for your steadfast support as we ensure the Air Force 
Reserve remains prepared to defend our great Nation and the 
American people. I look forward to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. You came in loud and clear.
    It is my intention to save my question and kind of some of 
the homework assignments that I gave the first panel at the 
end. So, the order in which I am proceeding with, Mr. Calvert, 
you help me if there are other members on your side who are 
going to want to log back in. This is the order I would have it 
be: Ms. Kirkpatrick, yourself, Mr. Calvert, Mr. Aguilar, Mr. 
Cole, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Diaz-Balart, and then I would save my 
summary questions for the end.
    Okay. So, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, are you able to join us?
    If not, the next Democrat, because I am going to go at the 
end, would be Mr. Aguilar.
    Ms. Kaptur, Would you like to start?

                     AIR FORCE AND CYBER RESERVISTS

    Ms. Kaptur. In terms of the Air Force, General Scobee, I 
wanted to ask you, relative to cyber reservists, do you look at 
cyber as a growth area for the Air Force Reserve?
    General Scobee. Congresswoman, that is absolutely what we 
look at is in a growth area. The areas that we have really been 
focusing on for the last almost decade now is cyber, ISR, and 
space.
    Cyber has been one of those growth areas. And, along in 
concert with my other service chiefs that are here today, we 
have been looking hard with General Nakasone on how we would 
make sure that we are bringing in not only airmen and DOD 
personnel that are great at cyber, but also those that we can 
capture from the civil work that they are doing in their 
communities as well.
    I would say it is absolutely that way. And what we want to 
do is make sure that we are meeting what General Nakasone needs 
from us by bringing in the right skill sets at the right time.

                        DIVERSITY IN RECRUITMENT

    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Are you looking in communities that 
are diverse to recruit?
    General Scobee. Yes, ma'am. Diversity is one of the 
strengths of the things that we do in the Air Force Reserve. We 
look across all communities.
    What we try to do is bring in not only in the areas where 
there is high potential for attracting cyber folks, and the Bay 
area would be a good example of that, but also in communities 
across our Nation where there are folks that have that talent 
and the skill set that we need.
    And then working with the rest of the services and the Air 
National Guard, ensuring that we have cells of expertise where 
we can bring in these folks so they don't have to travel so far 
to be able to work with the military.
    Ms. Kaptur. I would encourage you to take a look at the 
180th Fighter Wing in Ohio and see what kind of a marriage you 
might develop there. I appreciate your answer.

                        RUSSIA AND CHINA THREAT

    And we don't have much time, so I have to go to Naval 
Reserve here for a second and ask Vice Admiral Mustin.
    In terms of the Naval Reserve, do you have to change 
structurally because of the threats from Russia and China? And 
I am particularly interested in Russia, not that I don't care 
about China, but Russia is in my focus clearly with what is 
happening right now.
    And so, what resources will you require to meet the needs 
of a new day on the sea?
    Admiral Mustin. Thank you, ma'am, for the great question.
    The short answer is, yes, we are changing. And it is not 
just about Russia. I know that is your focus. But I would say 
at a broader level, the transition from the global war on 
terror to the great power competition environment requires us 
to build new capabilities, often in areas that don't exist now, 
as well as to build additional capability in those that exist 
already.
    Your great question to my colleague, Rich Scobee, about 
cyber is, indeed, a growth area for us. That is an area that is 
directly applicable across the Atlantic and looking at our 
adversary, Russia.
    We are also working very closely with our fleet commanders, 
however, to determine what they need specifically from their 
Reserve force. In general, it is surge capability and enduring 
capability for command and control, as well as afloat and 
expeditionary maintenance and restoring seagoing ratings to the 
fleet.
    The short answer is, yes, we are going to continue to 
evolve, and that is, frankly, part of our initiative that 
transitions us for GPC readiness.
    As it relates to what we will require, I have presented to 
our Vice Chief and our Chief of Naval Operations already a 
multi-phase transformation which takes existing end strength 
within the Reserve and divests legacy capabilities in lieu of 
underwriting new capabilities. So, I can do this with the 
existing end strength.
    But there may be opportunities for us to grow the Reserve 
force. That, however, is not a decision that is solely within 
the Reserve. That is a Navy decision and a joint force 
decision.
    Together with my counterparts in the Reserve and the Active 
Component, we will define the requirements wherein the Navy 
Reserve can offer the best solution, and where so, we will 
build new capabilities, and that----
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I have to interrupt you.
    Admiral Mustin. Yes, ma'am.

                       MEDICAL NEEDS OF RESERVIST

    Ms. Kaptur. Because I do have less than a minute left, and 
I wanted to go to Army Reserve for a second, to General 
Daniels, and to mention the 983rd Transport Company in Ohio.
    By letter, could you let me know what I can do to build on 
the capability there and to better serve those who served in it 
medically?
    General Daniels. Absolutely, ma'am.
    Ms. Kaptur. Because the command structure is in Illinois, 
the reservists are here in Ohio in the general Great Lakes 
region. I am very interested in their medical needs, what more 
you can tell me, what we can do to help them.
    General Daniels. Yes, Congresswoman. We will take a look at 
that and report back to you.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    And we have got 5 seconds we can yield back. Thank you, 
Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert, and then Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                            EXTREME WEATHER

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This is for General Scobee.
    First, I want to thank the General and the 53rd Weather 
Squadron. The Air Force Reserve Weather Reconnaissance Squadron 
has been and continues to be looking into the atmospheric river 
issue in California.
    As you know, we are in a severe drought, and looking at the 
forecast for those events is extremely important. And as you 
observe and hopefully see weather storms coming our direction 
that may form over the Pacific, it is critical for the State of 
California. So I thank you for that mission.

                              ISR AND MQ-9

    Going back to--you mentioned ISR. And I know the chair and 
I listen to every combatant commander that comes before us, and 
they always mention the need and the inadequacy of the existing 
ISR that they have.
    What is your current and steady state surge capacity with 
the MQ-9 combat lines, and is that sufficient?
    General Scobee. Ranking Member Calvert, thank you for your 
appreciation of what we bring in our special missions from the 
Air Force Reserve.
    And to talk about what we are doing in particular with ISR 
and the MQ-9 mission, right now we are purely in associations 
where we supply manpower to the Active Component missions. We 
have the surge capacity, both in special operations down at 
Hurlburt Field, and also what we are doing out at Creech Air 
Force Base in Nevada with missions across the spectrum.
    We are currently manned to do everything that we need to do 
to be able to produce currently four combat lines out of 
Nellis--excuse me, out of Creech. We have the manpower there, 
and we are doing really well with it. But we are folding in on 
what the Active Component is in that association.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, I know that at March Air Force Base, I 
have been told that there have been delays at the operations 
center there. Do you have the pilots you need? Do you need any 
contracting support? Or do you think you have adequate----
    General Scobee. So, at March Air Reserve Base, it is 
actually the Air National Guard MQ-9s that are stationed there. 
We are the support unit for that organization.
    Mr. Calvert. Right, but you coordinate with them.
    General Scobee. Yes, sir, we do.
    And so, right now I am unaware of any limitations that are 
occurring at March. And what we will do is we will take it for 
the record, and I will get my staff to look at what support is 
needed and if we are not providing what will get them the lines 
that they need to be able to accomplish.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. I look forward to hearing from you on 
that.

                 DEMAND FOR CYBERSECURITY PROFESSIONALS

    On the cyber issue, I am going to come back to that. 
Obviously, that is one of our biggest challenges. And I just 
recently cosponsored a bill, as you may know, to establish the 
Civilian Cybersecurity Reserve Program to provide the 
Department of Defense with cybersecurity-trained civilian 
personnel to ensure the U.S. Government has the talent needed 
to address cyber.
    Obviously, I know that it is a challenge to get people who 
are trained in that because there are so many opportunities in 
the private sector, and obviously it pays well. We have to be 
extra vigilant to try to find young people who want to serve 
this country.
    I guess this is for everybody, Generals, Admiral. The 
demand for cybersecurity professionals, I know, well outpaces 
the current inventory. Could you share with the subcommittee 
some of the initiatives that you are pursuing to recruit some 
of the most talented individuals, obviously with the skill sets 
you are going to need in the future?
    General Daniels. This is General Daniels. I can start, if 
that is that okay.
    Mr. Calvert. Sure.
    General Daniels. Which is we have two initiatives. One is 
to look at direct commissioning, so individuals can come in at 
higher grades and have to go through lesser ranks to get 
commensurate with where they are already performing on the 
civilian side.
    And then another initiative that we are taking is looking 
at credentialing and giving credit for those things that they 
already do on the civilian side, so they don't have to redo 
that to be a part of the military force.
    We are using those to leverage existing talents rather than 
having to rebuild them.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    General Bellon. This is General Bellon. I can answer.
    We are taking a little bit of a different model. So, what 
we have, our access is to 100,000 young people who have already 
screened and become marines. They have already earned the 
title. They usually demonstrate an exceptional growth and 
aptitude, personal discipline, and personal development while 
they are with us.
    We look at those 100,000 souls, and we see potential. And 
we are looking at a program that will help us build--I think it 
was another member of the panel that asked the question about 
how do you diversify that group of cyber professionals.
    Well, we take a warrior first. And then, if they have the 
aptitude over an arc of 10 to 20 years, we can build the skills 
to fight in that particular domain.
    Candidly, it is much easier for us to make a cyber 
professional than it is to make a bona fide marine.
    So we are taking young people that have demonstrated the 
aptitude to be marines first, enabling a greater opportunity to 
diversify our warrior population, and build that capability 
over a period of decades instead of a 3- or 4-year hitch and 
then they are out to the next contract.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Admiral, anything?
    Admiral Mustin. Similar to Lieutenant General Daniels, and, 
frankly, with Lieutenant General Bellon, we are pursuing a 
number of traditional and nontraditional approaches to tap into 
this absolutely critically important talent pool.
    Another way that we are trying to tap into the investments 
that we have made as a service is through the creation of a 
full-time support community wherein Active-Duty sailors can 
transition to Reserve support but maintain their credentials 
and provide that benefit directly to the cyber forces.
    We work closely with our Recruiting Command, but also 
within our own service to tap into that talent.

                             MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Calvert. Yeah. Good. Thank you.
    Another subject and a comment, and I will be talking to the 
chair about this. Obviously, modernization. For a number of 
years, the subcommittee has made efforts to ensure that the 
Reserve Components are not forgotten as we work to modernize 
our military forces. And I know that all of you want to be on 
par with the Active force. And so please let us know in advance 
what your needs are so we can stay up with that as we go 
through this budget process.

          IMPACTS OF EVENTS TO THE GUARDS AND RESERVIST BUDGET

    One last thing. As you know, we have had a lot of 
challenges this year. Obviously, the biggest is COVID, and not 
to mention with the Guard's commitment to security at the 
Capitol and what is going on with the border, et cetera, et 
cetera. And we don't want to be taking that out of your budget 
for this year.
    And so I don't know, Chair, if we are going to be--what the 
mechanism is going to be with this, but, obviously, we are not 
going to be doing an appropriation bill, I suspect, any time 
soon. I hope there is some plan maybe to do a supplemental of 
some sort to pay back these extraordinary costs that are going 
into these various functions that weren't planned for in the 
beginning.
    Ms. McCollum. Great point. And that is one of the cleanup 
things I am going to be asking for at the end, Mr. Calvert, 
their status on COVID, as I did with the National Guard and you 
and I have both been doing with the Active Duty. Thank you for 
your questions.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and then Mr. Cole.

                       FUTURE PLANS FOR AIRCRAFT

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so 
much.
    My question is for General Scobee.
    I was happy to hear that the Air Force Reserve was standing 
up a new Reserve wing at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. I know 
Davis-Monthan and its 1,300 Reserve airmen are glad to have the 
administrative support on the base, and they look forward to 
welcoming the new organization.
    Focusing on your efforts to maintain and improve your 
fleet, our subcommittee's fiscal year 2021 bill restored funds 
for the A-10 and the KC-135 for the Air Force Reserve. After 
they were scheduled for divestiture by the Air Force, you 
discussed the need to synchronize both modernization efforts 
and divestment with the Active-Duty Component.
    Can you advise the committee on the impact of these funds 
and what future plans the Air Force has advised for 
transitioning to other air frames?
    General Scobee. Congresswoman Kirkpatrick, thank you for 
your question, because it is so vital to us that we do set up 
an organization to make sure that our airmen and their families 
are cared for. So, Davis-Monthan is very important to us.
    The second part of your question, which has to do with the 
A-10s and with the KC-135. Right now we have the funding, and 
across our Air Force it is about the balance between what are 
some of the legacy systems that we have to ensure that we have 
the capability and capacity to fight the wars the American 
people will need us to fight, and then also, what is our 
ability to modernize and bring in new systems that are going to 
be able to take us through the really high end fights that we 
need to be able to be capable of doing.
    The funds that we have for the A-10 and the KC-135 are 
critical to ensure that as we transition this, which will be in 
the 2030 timeframe based on what the Air Force's plan is 
currently, is that we will need to make sure that the wings 
that haven't been upgraded continue to be upgraded. And then 
the weapon systems on the A-10 in particular will continue to 
evolve and do everything they need to be able to do.
    On a KC-135, our oldest tanker, that is the same thing, and 
really what it comes to with real-time information in the 
cockpit so that the situational awareness of our tanker crews 
has increased dramatically. And that is the thing that we are 
modernizing within our tanker fleet.
    Make no mistake, we will have to keep these weapon systems 
on point until the replacements come. Right now, there is 
robust planning for both strategically with our tankers to 
transition from older KC-135s and KC-10s into the KC-46, but it 
will be a combination of 135s and KC-10s in order to take us 
forward.
    And the same thing as we move from older weapons systems to 
newer ones. The Air Force is keeping the Reserve in lockstep 
with what we are doing to go forward to improve and replace the 
older equipment with new equipment.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, General. Thank you for your 
answer. This is really important to me and important to my 
district, of course. And so we are tracking this, just so you 
know. And if there is anything we can do to help you, please 
let me know.
    And with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Next up is Mr. Cole, then Mr. Aguilar, then Mr. Diaz-
Balart. And it appears that Mr. Ryan has joined us again.
    So, Mr. Cole.

                        CHALLENGES FOR RESERVIST

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    This question is really to all of our witnesses.
    As the members of this committee know, I also sit on the 
Labor-H Subcommittee of Appropriations. And it has been amazing 
to me as we have dealt with everything from teachers to 
researchers to you name it, everybody has been under enormous 
stress because of COVID over this last year. And what we have 
seen in profession after profession is an increase of 
depression, mental illness, an increase of drug addiction, 
alcoholism, all kinds of problems.
    I am just curious if we have seen the same sort of 
challenge to the respective Reserve forces that you deal with. 
And if we have, what are the measures that you are taking to 
try and help those people in your force that, again, have 
fallen victim to what has really been a very difficult disease 
for us to deal--a virus, excuse me--for us to deal with in this 
country?
    I can start with any of them, Madam Chair.
    So if someone wants to take a crack at it, I would be very 
interested in any response.
    Ms. McCollum. That is a fabulous question.
    Please, all of you, answer in whatever order you wish.
    General Bellon. Sir, this is General Bellon. I will start.
    For us, we have a disproportionately young force. What we 
realized at the end of last spring was that the continued 
isolation that our young marines and sailors were dealing with 
as a result of COVID and the lack of training, that aggregate 
of risk was greater to us than actually the return to training.
    By that, I mean we have professional responsibilities to 
generate specific combat power for the Nation in time of 
crisis. But also, if you put yourself in the boots of those 
young marines and sailors, they thrive on the community that 
they have elected to join.
    And so we began to return to in-person drills and full 
training as early as last May. And what we have found is the 
units that had been the most aggressive with that and the most 
engaged, kneecap to kneecap, intimate leadership, have done the 
best in regards to mental resiliency and morale, which I guess 
is no surprise, right?
    And so we have really done the best we can to collect 
information as the environment has evolved around us and to 
empower our subordinate leaders. And for those units, the young 
warriors are thriving.
    Hope that answers your question, sir.
    Admiral Mustin. I will build on this, too, to say, not 
surprisingly, that like the rest of society, the Navy Reserve 
has dealt with the impacts of COVID and what that means for 
travel and engagement and interaction and connectedness.
    That said, the Navy has a number of programs that are built 
specifically to address our mental resiliency. Our Sailor 
Assistance and Intercept for Life, we call it SAIL, is one.
    But even within the Reserve force, our team within a team 
here, we developed a Psychological Health Outreach Program we 
call PHOP that is unique to the Reserve force to reach out and 
have one-on-one interactions to ensure that our sailors are 
getting support and access to the services they need if they 
have questions or note behavior that differs from the norm, 
either in themselves or in others.
    We are really trying to demystify the notion of reaching 
out for help in that outreach, and I think that what I can tell 
you is our sailors are very resilient.
    Over.
    Mr. Cole. Terrific. Thank you, Admiral.
    General Daniels. From the Army side, in the Army Reserve, 
we did see a slight increase in suicides last year. We are not 
seeing that same trend this year. We are back to the prior year 
values.
    We did find that because we converted so quickly to an 
online platform, which then allowed junior leaders to that 
outreach to their squad and team members, that actually we 
covered 6,000 of our nonparticipants by having that good 
leader-soldier interaction with them.
    So, of course, we want to get back to in person as soon as 
possible, but this gave us another person-to-person contact 
point that we had been lacking before.
    The other thing that we did was we enabled--we put out a 
policy that allowed the buddy to be able to go on a set of 
orders to get paid if they saw their friend in crisis. So they 
could go into a duty status to get them to the help they needed 
as that good Samaritan assistance.
    We gave the leader that tool to say, yes, your soldier is 
helping another one, let's go ahead and make it financially 
viable as well for their time. And we are also looking at 
resilience, like the others, what else can we do, what more can 
we enable.
    So that is what we are up to.
    Mr. Cole. Wow.
    General Scobee. From the Air Force side, as you would 
imagine and you would want, the four of us actually meet on a 
regular basis, and this is one of the things that we talked 
about in our last meeting.
    I would say from my perspective, I am in lockstep with the 
rest of my witnesses here. And in the Air Force Reserve, what 
we have really focused on is the resiliency piece and how we 
stay connected with our airmen.
    As you can imagine, a predominantly part-time force, 75 
percent of us being part-time, the rest of the job market that 
is out there and the strain that is put on the airman has 
actually compounded some of our problems.
    What we have done, along with our command chief, is focused 
on the resiliency piece, and we put together a resiliency 
package. We put 45 full-time first sergeants, one in each one 
of our wings, and that was in order to ensure that the airmen 
always had a place to be connected to so they never felt like 
they were by themselves.
    The other thing that we did was add 10 full-time chaplains 
to our formation, and that really gets after a lot of the 
counseling and things that help our airmen cope with some of 
the problems they are having. And then we capture that so that 
we can give wing commanders feedback on what their formations 
may be suffering from so they can be more proactive.
    That is what we have done in the Air Force.
    Mr. Cole. Well, thank you very much.
    And thank you for the extra time, Madam Chair. I yield 
back.
    Ms. McCollum. No. Fabulous question.
    Mr. Aguilar, then Mr. Diaz-Balart, followed by Mr. Ryan.

                     RECRUITMENT FOR CYBERSECURITY

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I just wanted to follow up a little bit on Ms. Kaptur's 
question related to cyber.
    Reservists are critical members of our military who supply 
the DOD with valuable and reliable technical expertise, 
including those who work in this field of cybersecurity. I have 
consistently advocated for provisions that will diversify DOD's 
cyber professionals and servicemembers.
    I will ask the entire panel, and if we could start with 
Lieutenant General Daniels. What efforts are conducted to 
recruit those of diverse backgrounds to fulfill these cyber 
missions?
    General Daniels. Thank you, Congressman.
    We go out to a number of different universities to make 
sure that we are getting across the population. We are looking 
at ROTC and other special scholarships similar to ROTC 
scholarships out at some of these habitually underrepresented 
populations to see if we can start in their ROTC pipeline, then 
to bring them into the Reserve Component afterwards.
    Mr. Aguilar. Vice Admiral.
    Admiral Mustin. Well, similarly, our liaison with our 
Recruiting Command leads us to find new and creative ways to 
tap into this vein of expertise.
    So, in some cases, the direct commission opportunities are 
exposing us to folks without any military experience that we 
can bring in at relatively senior levels so that they don't 
have to start as an E-1 or O-1. So that is number one.
    Secondly, we certainly are trying to create the incentive 
packages that would drive those with the expertise in the 
civilian sector into a career in uniform.
    But then, as I mentioned before, thirdly, the most 
beneficial way for us is to access Active-Duty sailors who are 
transitioning into the Reserve Force so we make an appealing 
and attractive offer to them as well.
    Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate that.
    Lieutenant General Scobee.
    General Scobee. Thank you, Congressman.
    I would say that all of our cyber airmen, both enlisted and 
officer, are on our critical skills list. That makes them 
eligible for bonuses and reimbursement for travel.
    So, we go out to schools and places that may be harder to 
get to, and we can recruit because we can bring them to where 
we need to in order for them to serve their Nation.
    The other thing is, in the 2018 National Defense 
Authorization Act we were authorized to participate in being 
able to give our airmen constructive credit for what they have 
already done on their civilian side. So, we can do that in a 
combination of education and experience that qualifies them to 
commission into a rank up to 0-6, which was just discussed. 
That is what we are doing in the Air Force.
    Mr. Aguilar. Yes. I think that is critical. The direct 
commissioning is, obviously, a tool that I think can be 
enhanced and can help you. And, obviously, nothing is better 
than getting folks in this field over to minority-serving 
institutions and let those young people see what practitioners 
do in the career fields that you folks have. So, to the extent 
that you can continue to do that, that would be great.
    I am sorry. Lieutenant General.
    General Bellon. Yes. The first thing we did in 2018 was 
build the Reserve structure of cyber defense companies within 
the Marine Forces Reserve.
    And that gave us an opportunity to first lateral move into 
those structures currently serving reservists who have the 
civilian expertise and begin to migrate them over to the unique 
permissions and security clearances that are required to serve 
within the Department of Defense.
    It also gives us a chance to directly assess, as was 
already mentioned, from the Active Component.
    From my personal perspective, to get to the heart of the 
question, is how do you provide this opportunity to a wider, 
more diverse population? And that goes to my comments earlier.
    We attract a lot of people into the Marine Corps that are 
trying to overcome the circumstances that they were born into. 
And what we discover is, if they have the heart and the 
aptitude, they are exceptionally trainable.
    And so, we look at it with a decades-long approach about 
how do we empower them with the training and the specific skill 
set that matches the character that they have already uncovered 
in service as a marine.
    And so that combination, I am quite certain by 2030, it is 
a pillar of our force design, and that is how we are 
approaching this, by looking at the talent that we already have 
and providing them opportunity as we harvest the expertise that 
already resides within the civilian professions in the service.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much. Appreciate your answers to 
that question.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.

                   END STRENGTH NUMBERS FOR RESERVIST

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Another great workforce question.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart, and then Mr. Ryan, if he is still 
available.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart, you disappeared, or maybe he pushed the 
wrong button, Mr. Calvert. Should I see if Mr. Ryan's available 
and then go back?
    Mr. Calvert. Sure. Go ahead.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Ryan, if you are available.
    Is the staff checking with Mr. Diaz-Balart's office?
    We are checking that right now.
    While we are waiting, so I don't keep things going any 
farther, let me ask my general question.
    The combatant commanders and the Active Duty rely on the 
Reserve Components to provide technical support and 
capabilities--I mean, just everything--engineering, medical, 
signals, maneuver support, help with military police, military 
intelligence, civilian affairs capabilities. And it is not only 
for here, but it is for abroad, too. So, it is a vast set of 
skills that you are looking for.
    In order to increase the overall Reserves' end strength, 
that means we need to be increasing the capacity to generate 
deployable soldiers, providing all these different enabling 
capabilities to the total force.
    Reserve units are primarily filled by traditional 
reservists, members of the Selected Reserve who are usually 
required to work one weekend a month, 2 weeks a year.
    However, Reserve units are also staffed by full-time 
civilian and/or military employees. These employees, known as 
full-time support personnel, are assigned to organize, 
administer, instruct, recruit, train, maintain supplies, 
equipment, and aircraft, perform other functions as required on 
a daily basis, and the execution of operational missions and 
readiness preparations.
    So, to all of you, what is your outlook for the overall end 
strength numbers this year and next, and how will your troops 
be utilized? Could you describe the importance of having the 
full-time support as part of your mission? And do you have the 
adequate level of full-time support you need in order to be 
ready to fulfill a mission assigned to you?
    And whoever would like to start first. I would like to hear 
from all four of you.
    Admiral Mustin. I will start then, ma'am. Thank you for the 
great question.
    The Navy Reserve has 10,000 full-time support sailors. We 
currently are going through what I refer to as a rebalance to 
determine where they are assigned and how they are being used, 
given the definition that you described was my initial filter 
on: That is why we have them, what are they doing.
    In some cases I am beginning to maneuver where those full-
time support sailors are detailed in order to get after the 
Reserve capabilities and depth that I described earlier, ala 
distributed mobilization and activation.
    Critically important for me to use those FTS sailors to 
enable that function. And that is why I am distributing them 
now to large Navy operation centers and regions and our 
operational units to enable that. So that is number one.
    Back to your question about do we have adequate numbers. 
There is a standard POM rigor, the annual budget rigor that 
looks at requirements related to Active-Duty and Reserve force, 
and then we come up with what is the optimal way to solve 
against the requirement.
    I would tell you that right now our end strength is where 
we want it to be. However, I would offer that in 2023 and 
beyond there is a likelihood that we could see an increase as 
we divest legacy Active end strength and then recapitalize 
those at a fraction of the dollar for the Reserve force.
    Over.
    General Daniels. Sir, this is General Daniels. I will 
follow on if that is okay.
    So, again, we are looking at what forces do we need for the 
future fight, what sort of capabilities will we need in 2028 
and 2035, how will that mesh with the Active-Duty resources and 
capabilities, what percentage should be in the Reserve versus 
Active, as the others have mentioned.
    Our end strength is looking fairly good. We are probably a 
little light and we are taking some aggressive measures through 
the rest of this year to get us at full strength.
    Like the others, we would probably appreciate additional 
full-time personnel to help with that readiness, help with that 
myriad of activities that you mentioned, particularly as we get 
into more and more technical fights in the future.
    We are at about 13, 14 percent full-time support and a 
proportion of that is our military technicians. We continue to 
look at our resources, make sure we are replacing them, like 
the Navy, in all the right places to have the maximum 
effectiveness and efficiency.
    Ms. McCollum. Air Force and Marines want to add anything?
    General Scobee. Chair McCollum, it is General Scobee from 
the Air Force.
    And very similar to my counterparts, we are in the same 
way. Our end strength is looking very good this year. Our 
recruiting and retention efforts have been going really well. 
Our loss rate for our component is about 10 percent and 
normally historically it runs about 11 percent. So, we have 
seen a boost, basically, from what has been going on with 
COVID.
    Our full-time support is based on two things, and you 
articulated it correctly. It is requirements based on our 
mission that we are going to do and our care for our airmen and 
to make sure that we do that.
    In general, as we go through the programming cycle, we will 
need some more full-time support, but what we are trying to do 
is balance that full-time support with what we have in our 
part-time force because that is the savings.
    You know, we are the best value approach to defense. We are 
so much less expensive than a full standing force because of 
those part-time people that we have that we need to take a very 
measured approach to be able to give the American people the 
greatest combat capability we can at the least burden to our 
taxpayers.
    We study that on a regular basis and do manpower studies to 
see what that full-time support is needed. But I can tell you, 
because of what has been going on especially over the last 4 or 
5 years, we definitely could use some more full-time support in 
order to make sure that we are getting after the administration 
that we need for our airmen.
    And that is all from the Air Force.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Last, but never least, the Marines.
    General Bellon. Our model is a little different, probably 
no surprise. We don't have full-time support. We actually 
rotate Active-Duty Marines into the Reserve Component. We refer 
to them as inspector instructors.
    And the idea there is that they bring in the most current 
tactics, techniques, and procedures that are learned as the 
Marines are operating globally back into the Reserve Component, 
and they teach and instruct. And they also provide the 
sustained care and feeding of any Reserve unit.
    And that is true in every single unit of employment we 
have. That model has worked well for us for decades and it 
still continues to work well.
    I think to get to some of your questions, as we acknowledge 
that we are moving deeper and deeper into the information era, 
how will we structure our units to maybe more efficiently blend 
Active and Reserve for sustained operations.
    And I think that in this particular domain, in the 
information era, whether it is space or cyber, there are things 
that are required globally 24/7, like [inaudible], ISR, and 
other things.
    Our Fourth Marine Air Wing has operated for years with a 
significant percentage of Active-Duty structure within the 
Reserve structure, and that gives us a responsiveness and a 
capability that is unique and very cost-effective.
    I think my hunch is professionally that those same models 
will apply in space and cyber in the years to come, and we are 
already looking at some of the designs to do that.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. And as the Marine Corps 
rolls out its 2030, that will also be part of a discussion I 
think, too, about the Reserves.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart, my understanding, Mr. Calvert, is having 
computer issues. I am going to go to Mr. Ryan. And if Mr. Diaz-
Balart comes back, we will definitely include anything he might 
want to add himself or we will submit it for the record.
    Mr. Ryan.

                    IMPROVEMENTS TO RESERVE STATIONS

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it. Cue the 
dogs up. They haven't barked all afternoon until I turned off 
my mute.
    Thank you. It has been a great hearing.
    General Scobee, I appreciate you being so attentive to us 
in Ohio. I wanted to ask you how important it is that we have 
continued improvements, including the widening of an assault 
strip and the construction of an unpaved assault runway, these 
improvements to occur at the Youngstown Air Reserve Station.
    Are these improvements necessary to ensure that the station 
is able to execute the aerial spray mission, the only such unit 
in the military capable of performing what we believe is a 
critical mission for us?
    General Scobee. Thank you, Congressman Ryan.
    A very interesting mission. Aerial spray has been critical 
to the things we have done, especially after hurricane relief.
    But, in particular, widening the runway and the assault 
strip that we are putting in at Youngstown Air Reserve Station 
are critically important for two reasons.
    One is, the mission that Youngstown does with tactical 
airlift outside of aerial spray as well is critically 
important. And not only that, but it is a regional center of 
excellence for being able to do those things. And it is not 
just the C-130, it is also our C-17 assets as well.
    So this, widening the assault strip and adding the assault 
strip, are going to be two major things that we are going to 
improve in order to bring better readiness and better 
capability across the Air Force, not just the Air Force 
Reserve.

                           MENTAL HEALTHCARE

    Mr. Ryan. Great. Appreciate that.
    We talked when you were in town a lot about mental health 
and mental health promotion. Can you talk a little bit about 
some of the efforts General Hokanson talked a little bit about, 
the efforts that he is implementing that are specific to the 
National Guard? What specific efforts have you engaged in, in 
the Air Force Reserve, to address this critical issue?
    General Scobee. Congressman Ryan, we are taking a holistic 
look at comprehensive airman fitness, and this is a critical 
piece of what that entails, because it is not just what has 
occurred with our airmen since they have been part of our 
formation, since they entered the Air Force, it is also what 
has happened to them throughout their lives.
    And so, what we are trying to do is make sure that we are 
bringing all these things into looking at what we can do for 
our airmen. We just hired an additional ten therapists that 
will help us get after that resiliency piece, and they are 
full-time people that sit in our organizations in order to help 
assess our airmen when they are having difficulty.
    I would say we are in lockstep with where the Air Force is 
going. But as you also saw, the Guard has been very 
instrumental in this as well.
    So all of us are working together in order to make sure 
that we are bringing in the right people, the right resources, 
and looking at our airmen not just while we have them, but it 
is everything, while they are in their civilian employment, 
what they did as children growing up, all those things that 
make them who they are.
    Mr. Ryan. Yeah. I appreciate that. And we are having lots 
of discussions across the military now.
    And you mentioned just growing up. The research behind 
adverse childhood experiences and that effect on kids long-term 
and really being a predictor of addiction or post-traumatic 
stress or other kinds of sicknesses, we could almost find out 
who is more susceptible if we take a little bit of time on the 
front end to understand what maybe they have gone through as 
kids.
    I am working to try to get a comprehensive assessment done 
as people come into the military to really try to understand. 
And that can help with placement, too. There will maybe be 
certain people you don't want to place into combat, but can 
serve the country and the military in another substantial way.
    I am glad you are talking about it. I appreciate your 
leadership. You know I love you and everything you are doing. 
So just keep it going and let us know how we can continue to 
help you and just keep up the great work.
    General Scobee. Thank you, Congressman Ryan.

                   Closing Remarks of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you so much.
    So, Mr. Calvert, it does not appear that Mr. Diaz-Balart 
will be able to join us back again. But I just want to point 
out, he is one of the early birds, always on right away when 
these start. So I am extremely disappointed for him that we 
don't have his question, but we will get it to the committee 
members.
    So some followup. We are going to follow up as we did with 
the first panel on COVID, workforce development, with cyber, 
and also with being able to retain pilots.
    Healthcare. We are going to be having a hearing on 
healthcare, and you will be able to maybe help our committee as 
we prepare for that hearing.
    And then extremism, as it has come up. What is the 
definition of that? What does it mean? And we need to have 
uniformity as to what that means in the Reserve, in the Guard, 
and in our Active Duty. So it is very important that we get 
that right, we get that right the first time.
    I want to thank everybody. Everybody had some technical 
difficulties this time, from tires to video not working to 
computers--I won't say blowing up, but not cooperating at the 
end. So I thank the panelists and I thank all the committee 
members for their patience during that.
    To the four of you who testified today, thank you all so 
very much for your service. Thank you for the support of your 
families while you go through serving our country. We know that 
it is a family effort, it is a team effort to make it an 
American effort to protect our national security.
    And so with that, I am going to adjourn the meeting. Thank 
you again.
    The meeting is adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                            Wednesday, May 5, 2021.

               FISCAL YEAR 2022 UNITED STATES ARMY BUDGET

                               WITNESSES

HON. JOHN E. WHITLEY, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL JAMES C. MCCONVILLE, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
    This hearing is fully virtual, and we must once again 
address some housekeeping issues.
    For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the 
chair may unmute participants' microphones when they are not 
under recognition, for the purpose of eliminating background 
noise.
    Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. 
If I notice that you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you 
if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate this 
approval by nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
    I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock 
applies. If there is a technology issue, we will move to the 
next member until this issue is resolved, and you will retain 
the balance of your time.
    And, Mr. Calvert and to the committee members, when we get 
to questions, I am going to ask for your indulgence. We had a 
member who had their screen on the whole time--the whole time--
and then, when it was that individual's time to ask a question, 
there was a total failure of the system, virtually and 
audially, to let that person participate. So I want to do 
something special for them today, but I will get to that with 
questions. Just to put you on notice.
    You will notice a clock on your screen that will show you 
how much time is remaining. At 1 minute remaining, the clock 
will turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap 
the gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. 
When your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will 
begin to recognize the next member.
    In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set 
forward in the rules of the House, beginning with the chair and 
the ranking member. Members present at the time when the 
hearing is called to order will be recognized in order of their 
seniority; and, finally, members not present at the time that 
the hearing is called to order.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything that 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or 
markups. That email address has been provided to your staff.
    So, with that, we will begin the hearing.
    The Subcommittee on Defense is in order, and this afternoon 
the committee will receive testimony on the posture of the 
United States Army.
    Our two witnesses are the Honorable John E. Whitley, Acting 
Secretary of the Army, and General James McConville, Chief of 
Staff of the Army. Both witnesses have long and distinguished 
careers.
    Secretary Whitley, this is your first time testifying 
before the committee. The General has testified before the 
committee before. We welcome both of you to be with us today.
    And while we enjoy the strong working relationship we have 
with both of you, I would be remiss if I didn't commend 
President Biden for his recent nomination of Christine Wormuth 
to be the first female Secretary of the Army. It is long 
overdue, and we welcome the opportunity to work with Ms. 
Wormuth.
    Gentlemen, your message to the public is, and I quote, 
``People first.'' Now, more than ever, we need to ensure that 
the health and welfare of our soldiers and their families is 
truly our number-one priority. We have soldiers deployed in 140 
countries around the world, and our Army National Guard has 
been called upon to execute unprecedented numbers of missions.
    The committee expects continued investment in the health 
and safety and wellness of our soldiers and their families. 
This includes that Army leadership is being proactive in 
eliminating instances of sexual assault, harassment, and 
ideological extremism in the ranks.
    I am also concerned about the constant pace of the Army 
National Guard deployments. Our Guardsmen and -women are 
currently engaged in missions addressing issues such as civil 
disobedience, the Capitol complex security, southern border 
missions, and overseas operations.
    I am concerned about deployment fatigue, what it does to 
the morale of our soldiers, and how you are addressing 
retention issues as a result of that. I look forward to hearing 
how your request for resources are going to attack these 
issues.
    Simultaneously, the Army is embarking upon a modernization 
effort, the likes of which we have not seen over the past four 
decades. The initiative requires significant investments in 
research and development to be successful, and I think you will 
agree that this committee has been very supportive of your past 
efforts.
    We have also supported the Army's Future Command as a way 
for the Army to consolidate its modernization strategy under 
one roof, and I look forward to your honest assessment of how 
your newest command is performing.
    While we have not yet received the fiscal 2022 budget 
request, I hope we can discuss the priorities in the coming 
year.
    I am particularly interested in your continued ``night 
court'' process that reviews legacy programs to identify 
duplication and excess in order to fund higher-priority 
programs. It is vitally important that all the services 
continue to perform a budgetary review process to ensure 
appropriate funds are invested wisely, and I think everyone on 
this subcommittee would like to hear more about the, quote/
unquote, ``night court'' and your definition of it.
    We want to continue to be a partner in executing the 
National Defense Strategy, but we need a high level of fidelity 
in your proposals to reduce or eliminate certain programs in 
order to fund higher-risk R&D efforts.
    Given the benefits of your modernization pursuits, 
including working with small businesses and the public sector, 
I want to be sure that we give every opportunity to understand 
how your acquisition approach works.
    We understand that this is a challenging time for the Army, 
your soldiers, and their families, and this committee is 
responsible to provide you with a sufficient level of resources 
to support readiness, improve facilities, and modernize the 
force. But, to be clear, this committee is an equal partner 
with the President in achieving our national security goals. 
And it is our responsibility to achieve those goals efficiently 
for the taxpayers, as well as conduct oversight of programs 
that we fund.
    Fiscal year 2022 could be a challenging year for the Army, 
and I would like to hear how you are prioritizing the programs 
across the Army.
    With that, I thank you gentlemen for appearing before the 
committee today to discuss and address these important issues. 
We will ask you to present your summarized statements in a 
moment, but, first, I would like to recognize our ranking 
member, Mr. Calvert, for his opening remarks.
    Mr. Calvert?

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Acting Secretary John Whitley, General McConville, welcome, 
and thank you for taking the time to meet with us virtually 
today.
    Normally this hearing would be an opportunity, as you know, 
to review the Army's funding needs. This is, after all, a 
budget hearing. But, unfortunately, to quote my good friend 
Adam Smith, the Biden administration has been dragging their 
feet. So, we don't have a budget to review. So, this delay is 
very concerning to me; I know it is to the chair. And it 
increases the risk of a continuing resolution that nobody would 
like to have.
    What we do know about the defense budget is that the 
President has proposed, I believe, an irresponsible top line, 
one that doesn't even keep up with inflation. Last year, 
Secretary McCarthy warned that without a net 3- to 5-percent 
funding growth in 2022, which was the line which General Mattis 
had laid out for the National Defense Strategy, the Army would 
face difficult choices as it balanced current demands with 
modernization. Clearly, those difficult choices are now upon 
us. So, I will be interested in hearing how you plan to address 
them.
    I would also like to hear more about the Army's new 
multidomain operations construct and how it supports the Joint 
Force. Given the woefully inadequate defense funding proposed 
by the President, it will be critical that we literally get the 
biggest bang for the buck across the services. This means 
focusing on each service's core competencies and avoiding 
duplication of effort.
    Finally, there is the issue of the size of the Army. 
General McConville, you are on record stating that the Army 
needs to be larger, but you don't have the resources to fund 
it. So it will be helpful for us to understand the risks 
associated with the current size of the force and the potential 
shrinking of the Army.
    Thank you again for joining us, gentlemen. Thank you, both 
of you, for your service. And I look forward to your testimony.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much.
    And we do not have the full committee chair or ranking 
member with us, so we will go right into testimony.
    Secretary Whitley, thank you.
    General McConville, thank you for being here.
    And, Mr. Secretary, please proceed with your opening 
statement.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Whitley

    Secretary Whitley. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your 
continued support for the Army and our people. It is an honor 
and a privilege to appear before you today.
    I would like to take a moment to thank my wife and 
children. And I would like to thank my teammate, General 
McConville, for your lifetime of service to our Army and to our 
Nation. And I would like to thank Secretary Austin and Deputy 
Secretary Hicks for their return to public service and 
providing their leadership to the Department of Defense.
    I have continued to be amazed and impressed with the state 
of our Army and with the professionalism and hard work of our 
soldiers and leaders. When crises happen, our Nation calls upon 
our Army, and we respond--in support of COVID-19 pandemic, 
natural disasters, civil unrest, the southwest border, and 
deterrence in the Middle East and across the globe.
    I would like to use my remarks to highlight four key 
observations on the state of our Army that I have made in my 
3\1/2\ months in this position.
    First, the Army is now a DOD leader in technology and 
concepts. From AFC to the cross-functional teams, to our Rapid 
Capabilities Office, to individual unit commanders, the Army is 
prototyping and experimenting with new capabilities and 
formations. The Army is at the forefront of developing and 
fielding new technologies in areas such as counter-UAS, assured 
PNT, directed energy, hypersonics, next-generation soldier 
equipment like IVAS, pushing software coding to the edge, and 
many other areas.
    Second, the Army is at the center of opening doors in the 
Indo-Pacific and Europe. The Army is key to engaging Indo-
Pacific and European allies and partners to win in competition, 
establish credible deterrence, and set conditions for success 
in conflict. Deterrence requires boots on the ground, and DOD 
must be present to succeed in conflict. The Army is recognized 
as an enduring, reliable partner that can directly contribute 
to improving their defenses by bringing resources, training, 
and expertise. This partnership can lay the groundwork for 
contingency access and cooperation in a crisis.
    Third, the next fight will be an all-domain fight. Conflict 
in the Indo-Pacific or Europe will be in and across all 
domains, with ground forces to secure terrain, penetrate A2/AD 
defenses, and achieve objectives. The Army's transformation is 
directly aimed at supporting joint warfighting that will depend 
upon JADC2, expeditionary joint logistics, and joint maneuver 
across domains. If the Army does not modernize, we will lose 
overmatch with near-peer adversaries, making conflict more 
likely and making its consequences more severe.
    Fourth, the Army's readiness gains and modernization 
procurement requirements need consistent budget support to 
survive. Several years ago, we recognized that readiness had 
declined precipitously after years of reduced funding and 
uncertain budgets. And we also recognized that we needed to 
modernize concepts, capabilities, and posture to be competitive 
in Europe and the Indo-Pacific.
    Working in coordination with Congress, we rebuilt 
readiness. We established night courts that internally 
realigned funding to invest in modernization. The Army 
established a deliberate, achievable path to deliver a ready, 
modernized Army.
    We have made tremendous progress, but success is not 
guaranteed. Consistent, predictable, and sustained funding 
enables us to sustain readiness today and modernize for 
tomorrow. The Army has taken manageable risk to deliver the 
speed and capability needed to match our adversaries, but 
unforecasted operations and inconsistent funding are paid for 
from readiness, infrastructure, and modernization accounts.
    Finally, the Army must also contend with threats from 
within. The harmful behaviors of sexual assault, sexual 
harassment, racism, and extremism cannot and will not be 
tolerated. People are the Army. Our responsibility is to ensure 
every soldier has the right leadership, policies, and resources 
to thrive in trained, disciplined, and fit cohesive teams. That 
responsibility also extends to an inherent right to safety and 
our ability to effectively mitigate crimes and relentlessly 
prosecute criminals to ensure we maintain our focus on placing 
people first.
    Our Army is in a great place, but we still have significant 
work to do. We remain one of the most trusted institutions in 
the world, and we will continue to support the Nation.
    I would now like to turn the floor over to General 
McConville, and I look forward to taking your questions in our 
discussion.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Sir, you are recognized.

                Summary Statement of General McConville

    General McConville. Thank you, Chair.
    And, Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 
here today and for your continued support to the Army and our 
people, our soldiers, our families, our civilians, and our 
soldiers for life--our retirees and veterans.
    The Army currently has 485,000 soldiers in the regular Army 
and a little more than 1 million in the total force. That is 
roughly the size of Army that we had on 9/11. And today Army 
soldiers, as you said, are presently supporting combatant 
commanders around the world in more than 140 countries. They 
form the most lethal and decisive land force in the world, and 
they stand ready to fight and win the Nation's wars as part of 
the Joint Force. As their chief, I could not be more proud of 
each and every one of them.
    Since last October, the Army's priorities have been people, 
readiness, and modernization, making us well-aligned with the 
emerging national security guidance.
    Putting people first means recruiting and retaining the 
best talent our Nation has to offer, maximizing their 
potential, and taking care of them. We are building a culture 
of cohesive teams that are highly trained, disciplined in 
fight, where everyone is treated with dignity and respect. That 
is how we prevent the harmful behaviors that hurt our soldiers 
and break trust with the American people--these being sexual 
assault and sexual harassment, acts of racism or extremism, and 
death by suicide.
    All three of my children--two sons and a daughter--plus my 
son-in-law, are currently serving in the Army. Providing a safe 
and secure environment for our soldiers is not only my 
responsibility as Chief of Staff of the Army, it is also a 
deeply held personal commitment.
    We win through our people. The best fighting forces in the 
world ensure that their soldiers and their units are masters of 
their craft. That is why we are shifting to a foundational 
readiness model that prioritizes training at the company level 
and below first.
    The Army has rebuilt a high level of readiness with the 
support of Congress, but that readiness level is fragile. We 
must sustain that high-level readiness while continuing our 
most comprehensive transformation and modernization efforts in 
over 40 years. That is the only way we will maintain our 
overmatch against near-peer competitors and potential 
adversaries.
    This year, we are turning our multidomain operations 
concepts into real doctrine. We are not only developing but 
delivering on our six modernization priorities, including our 
31-plus-4 signature systems. With new doctrine, organizations, 
and equipment, the Army is offering multiple options to 
combatant commanders and multiple dilemmas to our competitors 
and adversaries.
    And we are doing so alongside our sister services and 
alongside our allies and partners. The U.S. Army never fights 
alone. We are the strongest land force in the world, and a 
great source of that strength comes from our alliances, our 
allies, and partnerships. As a people-based organization, we 
are uniquely qualified to foster these relationships.
    Thank you for your continued support to America's sons and 
daughters in uniform. I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          ORDER OF QUESTIONING

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentlemen.
    So, Mr. Calvert, before we go to questions--and I know that 
you are aware of what I am going to do here. Yesterday we had a 
technical problem. Mr. Diaz-Balart is usually the first on and 
the last off, with his camera on all the time. Yesterday was no 
exception. When it was his turn to be up to bat, the screen 
went dark.
    So, Mr. Calvert, and with the committee's--because people 
are supposed to reserve their time if there is a technical 
issue. Mr. Calvert, with the committee, unless anyone objects, 
I would like to have Mr. Diaz-Balart ask the first question.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. No problem, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. McCollum. Committee members?
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Diaz-Balart, you are now recognized to 
ask the very first question.

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, Madam Chairwoman, that was highly, 
highly--well, very kind of you. Again, it doesn't surprise me. 
Your kindness never surprises me. But I am touched. Thank you 
very much. My computer just died. It just turned off. So I 
apologize for that. It was on my side.
    Again, thank you, gentlemen, for your service.
    A couple of questions. Actually, referring to--I echo the 
opening statement of the ranking member as to the top line, 
which I think is highly irresponsible.
    But I would also like to know how much you are currently 
spending and how much you are projected to spend on things that 
are not directly focused on readiness, on lethality, on 
modernization, you know, on the traditional military issues, 
including on things that I obviously may support, like 
remediation for sea-level rise, et cetera.
    So how much are you spending on nontraditional issues, such 
as environmental concerns, global warming, and that kind of 
thing now, and what do you expect to spend?
    I don't expect an answer right now.
    But I am also concerned that you don't have the necessary 
funding--you will not have the necessary funding to execute the 
National Defense Strategy. Obviously, every service is expected 
to readjust priorities based on what I believe are really 
inadequate funds. And, oftentimes, as the largest of the 
services, the Army seems to, frankly, pay the bills for defense 
cuts to minimize defense cuts everywhere else.
    So, specifically, how do you think you will be able to--if 
the top-line number remains, what will that do to, potentially, 
your end-strength numbers?
    General, you have talked about that in the past. And so any 
idea as to--we don't have the President's budget yet, but any 
idea as to what you are looking at may be your end-strength 
numbers, with the numbers that are out there as far as the top 
line?
    Secretary Whitley. You want to go with end strength?
    General McConville. Yeah, I will go.
    And, Congressman, thanks for the question.
    On the end strength, as I said in the opening statement, 
the size of the Army right now is 485,000 regular Army and a 
little over 500,000 Reserves. And, basically, it is about a 
million-person Army, total force. That is the same size of the 
Army that we had on 9/11.
    You know, at least--and I am on record for saying I would 
like to see a larger Army if the demands remain the same. You 
know, some of you have discussed about the stress on the force. 
And our force has been heavily committed over the last 20 years 
in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Syria, and, quite frankly, around 
the world. Many of our units are on what we call a one-to-one 
or one-to-two type dwell, where they are not home very much, 
and they have been doing it for 20 years.
    And so my concern is--two reasons. One is, we want to make 
sure we can reduce the OPTEMPO on our troops. That includes our 
National Guard and Reserves, who have also been very heavily 
employed over the last 20 years, whether it is home in the 
country or it is overseas.
    And so, when we take a look at end strength, I would like 
to grow the Army. We have done analysis. My previous chief 
talked about 540,000 to 550,000 as about the right size of the 
Army. I recognize that, quite frankly, we just can't afford 
that, at least with what I see as budgets.
    But what we must do is keep that force we have, the force 
we have ready. And that is the second, kind of, bucket of 
money. We must keep the force ready.
    But, even more importantly, as I look around the world and 
I see competitors there--and we want peace through strength--we 
must transform the Army. And that is modernizing it in the 
multidomain operations concepts; that is bringing on new 
organizations and also the six modernization priorities and 
working very closely with the Joint Force to do that.

                         READINESS OF THE ARMY

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Now, General, you mention readiness, and, 
you know, that is usually an area that gets hit first, right, 
when the budgets are tight.
    Talk to us about reducing readiness, what that does to our 
soldiers and to your mission and to--you know, what does that 
do, when you start cutting readiness numbers, as far as budget 
numbers?
    Secretary Whitley. So the first is, we have data from what 
happened the last time, in the sequester cuts. It becomes--it 
can happen quickly, it can go deeply, and it takes a long time 
to rebuild.
    And what I would say--actually, I would combine readiness 
and modernization--is, if we let readiness slip or if we don't 
continue our modernization to maintain our overmatch, what they 
do, Congressman, is, they become provocative and they make a 
conflict more likely, and they make the consequences of a 
conflict more severe if it were to occur.
    So that is really the bottom line, Congressman.
    General McConville. Yeah, I would say, you know, kind of by 
way of example, if you are, you know, a professional sports 
team and you never practiced and then you were expected to go 
in the Super Bowl and actually play the game, we would never 
consider doing that.
    And it is the same thing with our troops. They have to 
train. And, really, what that is is deliberate practice and 
rehearsals and making sure that they are masters of their 
craft. Our ground troops have to do that. Our aviators have to 
do that.
    And the other thing that tends to happen is you start 
cutting. You start not spending maybe the money you need for 
spare parts. You don't necessarily, you know, maintain. You 
will wait for maybe 6 months to do the services that you need. 
And then you start building up a readiness gap that you just 
don't quite want to happen.
    You have been very supportive over the last couple years. 
And, as the Secretary said, our readiness is in a good place, 
but that readiness can become fragile.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, thank you, gentlemen.
    And, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for recognizing me first. 
I was not ready for that. Luckily, I had just finished 
swallowing my peanut-butter-and-jelly lunch. So thank you, 
Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.

                              NIGHT COURTS

    Ms. McCollum. An all-American lunch.
    Gentlemen, picking up a little bit on readiness, it would 
be interesting for me to have you speak to, just for a minute--
I had another question--but I think it is important to talk 
about Congress's failure to do a BRAC--and that is, close 
installations and shut down facilities that no longer serve 
mission--and our inability--because I did ask you to speak a 
little bit to this night court, and could you explain what the 
night court is? I know what it is, but we do have Americans 
participating at home who are listening to this--what night 
court is--and Congress's failure not to remove legacy 
equipment. Because that is certainly, if you want to talk about 
a foot-drag, that is a big foot-drag on your budget.
    Secretary Whitley. Yes, Chair McCollum. That is an 
excellent question, and I would be happy to talk about our 
night court process.
    So, we really started about 3 years ago--and the Chief 
mentioned it, and I have mentioned it--and that was the 
imperative of modernization. And we knew that resources were 
going to be scarce even at that point in time.
    So, what we started to do is, we combed through every line 
item of the budget, and what we looked for were programs that 
were lower priority than our modernization priorities. And it 
was not to say that any of those programs were unimportant or 
did not contribute, but what we were looking for was the 
prioritization of programs.
    And so, what we did in that first round was, we either 
eliminated or reduced about 180 programs. We continued that 
in--that was in the 2020 budget-build process. We continued 
that in the 2021 budget-build process. And we will continue 
that and you will see the results of that in the 2022 budget 
process.
    What it is is prioritizing and making sure that we are 
putting our dollars to dollars you have entrusted to us, that 
the taxpayers have entrusted to us, to our highest priorities, 
which are, as we have said, people, readiness, and 
modernization.
    General McConville. If I could add one thing from, like, 
strategy. You know, the last major time that we modernized the 
Army was really in the 1980s, late 1970s, and that is when we 
came with our big five modernization priorities: the Abrams 
tank, the Bradley, the Black Hawk, the Apache, and the Patriot. 
And there were some other systems.
    And what we have done over the last 40 years is 
incrementally improve those systems. And those systems are much 
better than they were when they started, and they have gotten 
progressively better. But we find ourselves in a place where we 
need to transform those systems, take advantage of the 
technologies available today, and replace those systems over 
the next 10 years, so for the next 40 years we have the ability 
to incrementally improve the new systems that we have.
    And we realize that we have to do that ourselves, as far as 
manage the money within the Army. We can't do everything. And, 
as the Secretary said, that is why we prioritize where those 
recommended cuts would be.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentlemen. I have other questions, 
but, at this point, I would look to turn to our ranking member, 
Mr. Calvert, for his. And then it will be Mr. Kilmer.

                              AFGHANISTAN

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    On April 14, President Biden said, while we will not stay 
involved in Afghanistan militarily, our diplomatic and 
humanitarian work will continue.
    On May 1, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff said, in 
the worst-case analysis, you have a potential collapse of the 
government, a potential collapse of the military, you have a 
civil war, and you have all the humanitarian catastrophe that 
goes with it.
    General, the Army currently has a majority of the troops 
still in Afghanistan. From the Army perspective, how do you 
avoid the worst-case scenario and continue the diplomatic and 
humanitarian mission in Afghanistan with no troops on the 
ground?
    General McConville. Well, you know, we are going to be 
dependent on the Afghan Security Forces.
    And I, myself, commanded the 101st Airborne Division in 
Afghanistan. I was there as a deputy commanding general. When 
we first got there, American soldiers did almost all the 
fighting. And then we moved into a phase where, we called it 
``shana bashana,'' we were fighting side-by-side with the 
Afghan Security Forces.
    When I arrived there as the commander of the 101st Airborne 
Division, my job was to get the Afghan Security Forces in the 
lead, and we were able to do that. And we drew down--I had 
25,000 soldiers in Regional Command East, and we went down to 
about 7,800 and turned it over to then Steve Townsend, and he 
did the elections and took it from then.
    And, right now, as you have seen, we are at a much, much 
lower level, around 2,500 soldiers. But, as our soldiers leave, 
the Afghan Security Forces are going to have to pick up that 
security capability. And, right now, we have to wait and see 
how that is going to play out.
    There is other diplomacy going on, because there is going 
to be some type of political solution. I think as General 
Milley has talked about, there are a lot of alternatives that 
could be. And we are in a position right now where we are 
executing the President's decision, and we have to wait and see 
how that turns out.
    Mr. Calvert. Secretary, we all know that withdrawing troops 
has a price. Salaries, other expenses for the Afghan National 
Security Forces will endure as long as they are around. There 
are contracts for a lot of property, buildings, equipment, a 
network of private entities.
    Afghanistan is obviously landlocked, so moving items by 
truck is much trickier, given its location, availability of 
seaports and airports nearby. Yet air and sea lift would cost 
anywhere from two to five times as much as using a wheeled 
vehicle for transport.
    Finally, moving troops out of Afghanistan is really just 
dealing with the problem from far away, which adds to expense.
    So, when you talk about saving money on the withdrawal, has 
the Department even begun to calculate these long-term costs 
that are associated with the withdrawal?
    Secretary Whitley. Yes, sir, we are working on that, but as 
I think you were pointing out in your question, it is a very 
difficult estimate to make.
    So, right now, the bulk of the costs for the change in 
posture are 2021 budgetary costs, and we will see how that goes 
and if we are able to cover that with the available resources 
or if we have to readjust or realign.
    The next challenge after that will then become the 2022 
funding level. We are still working out what the policy will 
be. We still have to see what the results of the change in 
posture will be. So, what you will see when we do submit our 
2022 budget to you is you will see a reduction in funding but 
you will see some funding remain.
    And the risk that we face and the conversation, the 
dialogue we will have to have with you is, as we get more 
information and as events unfold on the ground, we will learn, 
is that amount of money that has been left appropriate, is it 
too much, is it too little, and we will make adjustments as we 
need to, working with you and your colleagues.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes, Secretary, it is my experience with these 
estimates that they are never accurate, and it always costs 
more than we assume that it will be. So we will see how that 
goes.
    One last----
    Secretary Whitley. That has been our experience as well, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Calvert. Yes.
    Secretary Whitley. I am very much with you, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. Add to this, are there going to be contingency 
plans if things go terribly wrong? I would hate to see another 
ISIS-type situation, you know, mass executions in Afghanistan. 
Are there any contingency plans you are setting up in case 
something like that occurs?
    General McConville. Well, I will take that. As far as 
General McKenzie and General Miller, in coordination with the 
Secretary, there are contingency plans.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Appreciate it.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer and then Mr. Rogers, please.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Whitley, I was happy to see in your written 
testimony you mentioned the Army's commitment to prioritizing 
mitigating the impacts of climate change.
    The DOD certainly can be a leader in combating climate 
change, particularly through using innovative building 
materials. Renewable materials and composites, including cross-
laminated timber, look to be a critical tool in the Army's 
efforts to combat climate change.
    I often say that we have more trees than people in my neck 
of the woods. Growing up in the Olympic Peninsula, I certainly 
saw firsthand how important timber and wood products are to 
supporting good-paying jobs in our communities. Not only is 
cross-laminated timber a job-creator, but it is resilient, and 
it has a smaller carbon footprint.
    So, Secretary Whitley, I know that the Army has been a 
leader in using CLT, with six Army lodging facilities that have 
been constructed using the material. I was pleased to hear that 
the latest CLT construction project at Fort Jackson resulted in 
an over-40-percent reduction in crew size and man hours when 
compared to the construction of a conventional Army lodging 
facility. In fact, estimates are that CLT lodging facilities 
will be completed 37-percent faster than conventionally framed 
facilities.
    I think these benefits underscore the importance of 
collaboration between the Army and Congress to expand the use 
of these innovative and sustainable building materials.
    So, here is my question: Have you encountered any barriers 
to using CLT or other innovative materials that Congress can 
help remove? And has the Army identified other projects where 
the use of CLT could be beneficial?
    Secretary Whitley. So I asked that question after I learned 
of your interest and support in this, Congressman. And what I 
can say right now is, there has been extensive use, the use 
that you cited. That has primarily been with Army partners. And 
so, what we are exploring right now is the Army's direct use of 
those. And my understanding is, there are some regulatory 
challenges we are working through.
    I am not personally conversant in those at the moment, so 
we are working through that. They are educating me. And what I 
would commit to you, Congressman, is, as we finish that and we 
understand what those challenges are, we would like to sit down 
with your team and work through those and figure out what the 
right way forward is.

                      NEXT-GENERATION CAPABILITIES

    Mr. Kilmer. I sure appreciate that. Thank you.
    And let me shift gears. General McConville, I know the Army 
is focused on delivering next-generation capabilities to the 
force at the speed of relevance. The Integrated Visual 
Augmentation System is a prime example of a technology system 
which was recently approved to move from rapid prototyping to 
production and rapid fielding, allowing the technology to get 
into soldiers' hands faster.
    In your written testimony, you mention that soldier-
centered design was a key component and best practice in the 
IVAS prototype and production process.
    So here are my questions: One, what lessons learned from 
the IVAS process and the soldier-centered design could be 
applied to other materiel modernization efforts? And can the 
IVAS technology of a sensing, decision-making, target 
acquisition, and target engagement situational awareness tool 
translate to other larger Army platforms and weapons systems?
    General McConville. You know, I think IVAS is a good 
example of where we are trying to go with acquisition as a 
whole.
    You know, we had an idea of a transformational capability. 
It was really an improvement on our night-vision goggle 
capability. But I always use as an example the phone. The phone 
was incrementally improved, and then the iPhone came in with 
that kind of transformational capability. We were incrementally 
improving our night-vision goggle capability, and then all of a 
sudden IVAS came in.
    You know, we are still using soldier touchpoints. So we 
have had soldiers working with engineers as we have gone 
through the process. We are learning a lot about that. And, you 
know, the company orchestrating that was someone we didn't even 
know they had that capability. But we had put a problem set out 
there, we put characteristics out there, and then were able to 
go through the process of developing that capability.
    But that capability, I think, is going to transform how our 
soldiers operate. We have some more work to do on it. I don't 
want to overpromise, you know, where we are at. But we have a 
lot of visionaries that can see that thing being used in a 
whole bunch of ways that we never even conceived of: the 
ability to provide information to soldiers, but also the 
ability to put our soldiers on the battlefield, where they 
don't necessarily need to be in harm's way, because they can 
take advantage of the augmented reality or diverse reality and 
actually be in a place, with senses, where they are not at. You 
know, you can be under an armored weapon system and be able to 
see outside and what we are doing with our troops.
    But, again, we have more work to do on that. We are not 
done yet. But we are moving very, very quickly because we are 
working really closely with the engineers.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I probably don't have time to slip in one more 
question, so I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, we know that your district is 
beautiful, your people are wonderful, and your wood is strong. 
So you are right on message. And thank you for the time I was 
in your district.
    Mr. Rogers and then Mr. Aguilar.

                             BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Chair.
    General McConville, good to see you again.
    And welcome to both of you for being here today.
    I want to ask the General about the future of the Chinook 
helicopter in a moment, but let me first join many others who 
are frustrated that we have yet to receive the President's 
budget request for the next fiscal year. We have had a so-
called skinny budget application, which would not even keep the 
military up with inflation. It would actually be a cut in 
spending.
    So what do you think? Can you manage the confrontations we 
are facing around the world with less than you had this year?
    Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Whitley. So I think there is a lot of risk in the 
budget, Congressman. What I can say is--and I said this a 
little bit in my opening remarks--you know, we have rebuilt 
readiness. That was hard. We realized, once it got down to the 
low level it got, how hard rebuilding it was. And we have 
started and we are in the early stages of what we think is and 
what we hope to be one of the most successful modernization 
efforts in the Army's history.
    So, on one hand, the Army is in a very good place today. 
But, on the other hand, to get there, we have built risk into 
the budget. We know that readiness can turn on a dime. And as 
we have talked about, through the night-court process, we have 
self-funded, we realigned resources to fund a lot of that 
modernization effort.
    The Army's budget has actually been flat for the last 2 to 
3 years. So our concern is, to keep these efforts going, we 
need to have consistent, sustained, and predictable funding. 
And we are in very good shape today, but what we have learned 
and what we know is that there is risk and you can lose those 
gains very quickly.

                      FUTURE OF CHINOOK HELICOPTER

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    General McConville, let me take you back to your old 
stomping grounds at Fort Campbell, where you commanded the 
101st, and is the home base of the Chinook. And there has been 
some debate about the future of that great machine.
    Where are we on it now, and what are the plans?
    General McConville. Well, as you know, Congressman, the 
101st Airborne Division is the premier air assault division in 
the world. It is highly dependent on helicopters. And, quite 
frankly, the CH-47 has been the workhorse really around the 
world but specifically in Afghanistan. There is also another 
unit there, you know. The 160th Special Operations Aviation 
Regiment also flies the CH-47. It is a great aircraft.
    It is our newest aircraft right now in the United States 
Army. I think we are right around between 470 and 500 of those 
models. And, you know, a decision that is going to need to be 
made is, what do we do with those aircraft as we move into the 
future?
    You probably know that we have a Block II model, which is 
in the process of being developed, that is going to give us the 
capability to lift things like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle 
and give us a much greater payload. And the decision the Army 
is going to have to make, based on the resources, while trying 
to understand the importance of maintaining the industrial 
base, is--you know, where we are at, from my point, we want to 
get the Block II. You know, if you don't get the Block II, then 
you have a different discussion. But you need to get that 
aircraft with the Block II. That is where we are supporting to 
make sure you have that capability. That will put that aircraft 
in a much better place.
    And then, based on the resources that we have and the 
prioritization, that will drive the decision made on where we 
go with the CH-47.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, you are testing the Block II now, aren't 
you?
    General McConville. We are. And, again, I don't want to get 
into where we are, but, you know, the intent is to work that. 
And we have invested in that capability, and we want to make 
sure we can get that through the operational test to make sure 
we have that capability. But that is a capability that we want, 
and that will drive the decision-making in the future.
    Mr. Rogers. Will you be requesting money for the Block II?
    General McConville. Well, right now--I would defer to the 
Secretary.
    Secretary Whitley. I mean, unfortunately, I really can't 
talk about--I mean, one, it is still being finalized, and, two, 
I can't really talk about the fiscal year 2022 request. You 
know, we do have the fiscal year 2021 funding. We are executing 
that funding now. And we will come in at the appropriate time 
and walk you through everything that is in the 2022 request, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Just for the record, I too am disappointed we don't have a 
full budget in front of us. It would be a much different and 
more robust discussion that we would be having. But President 
Trump, in his first year of administration, his full budget 
wasn't out until May 22. We need to remember that we had COVID. 
You know, it is still among us, affecting some of our 
productivity. And we had a transition that did not go smoothly. 
We are all very aware of that, as well as the disturbance on 
January 6.
    So, as of right now, I agree it would be great to have a 
budget in front of us, but the Biden administration--I think we 
need to be mindful of when the Trump budget came out, on the 
23rd of May, and the three challenges--COVID, the transition, 
and January 6.
    Mr. Aguilar and then Mr. Womack, please.

                              HYPERSONICS

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to the Acting Secretary and the General.
    I was pleased to see that your written testimony 
highlighted the Army's development of a ground-based, long-
range hypersonic weapon. In the prior fiscal year, this 
committee provided the Army with $60 million above the 
President's request to support these efforts.
    So why don't we start with Acting Secretary Whitley. How 
will this funding help the Army achieve its mission to win 
against any adversary?
    Secretary Whitley. Well, hypersonics is a critical 
capability to maintain overmatch with, with our adversaries, 
with near-peer adversaries.
    I actually, in my previous job, I was the Acting CAPE 
Director, and we led a large effort, analytic effort, looking 
at long-range precision fires, and developed what is now the 
Department's portfolio-based approach to that, with the Army 
having the ground component of that.
    So, when you look at Europe, when you look at the Pacific, 
and particularly in the Pacific, where you see the ranges that 
you see and the anti-access/area-denial environment in which we 
would be operating, hypersonics is a critical capability for 
our overmatch.
    And your funding and the funding you will see in the 2022 
request and in future requests is going to start fielding real 
capability. We hope to have a real capability fielded in fiscal 
year 2023, the first battery, and then to be fielding 
additional capability in the years following that.
    Mr. Aguilar. But we will continue to make progress with the 
fiscal year 2022 request?
    Secretary Whitley. Yes, sir.

              WHITE SUPREMACISTS AND EXTREMIST IDEOLOGIES

    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that.
    Like a lot of my colleagues, I have been concerned about 
White supremacists and extremist ideologies in our Armed 
Forces. In fact, I introduced some legislation which would have 
required DOD to act upon some recommendations based on NDAA 
language that we secured a few years ago, and not just at time 
of enlistment. We know that that responsibility to identify 
individuals with extremist ideologies doesn't end after 
recruitment.
    Acting Secretary, what steps are you taking to align with 
Secretary Austin's DOD-wide stand-down to prevent and address 
extremism?
    Secretary Whitley. We executed the stand-down that the 
Secretary directed. We had 100-percent compliance by the date 
with the Active Duty, and the Reserve folks should be finishing 
up very shortly.
    We are 100-percent aligned with the Secretary. It is an 
issue that we had seen and that we had been following and that 
we had been taking action on already.
    And, you know, the Chief and I have both made very clear to 
our soldiers that extremism, racism, these types of behaviors 
are just unacceptable in the Army. They are inconsistent with 
the Army's values. We have talked to our soldiers, I have 
talked to soldiers about, you know, advocating for violence, 
about things that are disruptive, you know, racist behavior 
that would be disruptive to a unit. That is a readiness--that 
is a directly--you know, it is an attack on our soldiers, and 
it is a direct hit to the readiness of the military.
    We have been very actively involved with the Secretary's 
initiatives.
    Mr. Aguilar. Anything to add, General?
    General McConville. I just think it is these--we talked a 
little in my opening statement about harmful behaviors. You 
know, we are very blessed that the American people trust their 
Army, they trust their military. And if we have harmful 
behaviors like extremism, racism, sexual harassment, and sexual 
assault, parents aren't going to send their sons and daughters 
to the Army. And so, we take that very, very seriously.
    You all have to trust us that we are going to do the right 
thing the right way. And so, these behaviors cannot be in our 
Army. And even if they are small numbers, they taint the 
heroism of all those soldiers who serve honorably. We just 
can't have that.
    Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Secretary, do you anticipate any 
additional resources being needed to accomplish some of the 
objectives with respect to this?
    Secretary Whitley. Well, that is being worked out within 
the Department, and I don't want to get ahead of the processes 
that Secretary Austin has directed and is leading. So I would 
say that is being worked out.
    But what I would say overall, though, is this is not 
primarily a resource issue. This is a cultural issue, and this 
is a leadership issue. And that is the primary approach that we 
are taking.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you both. Appreciate it.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar. Great question. Good 
discussion.
    Mr. Womack and then Mrs. Bustos.

                           SERVICE ACADEMIES

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thanks, Mr. Secretary and the Chief. Great to see both of 
you again. Appreciate your service.
    Most of you already know that a little over a week ago I 
took Ranking Member Calvert, Mr. Cuellar, a couple of others up 
to West Point, where I have the honor and privilege as serving 
as the Board of Visitors chair. I want to give a shout-out to 
Darryl Williams, the supe up there, for the great hospitality 
that they gave.
    And to my fellow colleagues here on the Defense 
Subcommittee, any time that you would like to go up to the U.S. 
Military Academy--and I know the same would go for Air Force 
and Navy as well, but particularly as it concerns West Point--
let me know, and I would love to be able to help arrange that 
trip and accommodate you in whatever capacity we can.
    I think having an opportunity to sit down or visit a 
classroom of some of these young men and women that have 
pledged themselves to becoming military officers in the 
greatest Army in the world, it charges my batteries, and I know 
it would do the same for you. So, if you ever have an 
opportunity to do that, please coordinate with me, and we will 
make that happen.

                               READINESS

    I want to get back to the readiness question for a minute, 
because, you know, I join Ranking Member Calvert and all my 
other colleagues that have talked about the inability to have a 
budget right now and to be able to talk about it. I am afraid 
that when we do have a budget that we can talk about we are not 
going to be pleased with the results, because it is going to 
force us into making some terrible decisions, some very 
unfortunate decisions.
    We make our decisions, though, based on threats, known and 
perceived, around the world, and where we may have to be 
required. But I want to talk about the requirements piece of 
what eats away at the budget. And these are not necessarily 
issues regarding our adversaries; it is just what we ask our 
Army to do above and beyond its trained specialty.
    So, Mr. Secretary, General McConville, we have to come to 
grips, as a country, that if we are going to accept less 
resources, those requirements are going to have to be pared 
down as well. Am I correct?
    Secretary Whitley. Absolutely, Congressman. I mean, when 
you look at what your Army is doing today--and it is not only 
overseas; it is domestically as well. It is what we have done 
with COVID, what we are doing on the southwest border, what we 
did with Capitol security. And all of those were important 
missions, and when our Nation asks, the Army will always 
respond. But it gets to your exact point, which is, our Army is 
overextended today.
    And, as the Chief mentioned a little bit ago when he was 
talking about end strength, end strength is driven by the 
requirement. And, right now, the requirement exceeds the 
available resources.
    Mr. Womack. General McConville, do you want to comment?
    General McConville. I absolutely agree with the Secretary.
    You know, we often say we are going to take risk. And, you 
know, what do we mean by taking risk when we don't give the 
resources that we need? That means that risk is going to be on 
the back of our soldiers, it is going to be on the back of our 
soldiers' families, who are going to have them deployed much 
more than they probably should, or we have to reduce the 
demand.
    But, you know, we are going to set the supply with the 
resources that we have. And these soldiers that we have in the 
Army right now have been in constant conflict for the last 20 
years, and as I look at the history, we haven't seen that, at 
least in my experience.
    Mr. Womack. I have a quick question about talent 
management. You know, we are now, what, 2 or 3 years into the 
talent management piece that we have gone to. How is it 
working? What tweaks are we making?
    Because I know this is also a consideration of the budget, 
because the better you manage your talent, the fewer people, 
maybe, you have to train over time, because you can keep them 
longer and have them focused on their areas, which helps 
retention.
    So, this is a big piece of our budgetary considerations, is 
it not?
    General McConville. Yeah, can I take--I am very 
passionate--thank you for asking that question.
    You know, we are in a war for talent in the United States 
Army and the United States military. And what we have to do 
with the young men and women today as we compete for their 
talent, we have to manage their talent, we have to recognize 
what their knowledge, their skills, their behaviors--and we 
have even added a ``P'' for ``preferences,'' which probably in 
the Army is a little blasphemous. We want to know what people 
want to do and where they want to go.
    And what we are finding is, when we get people in the right 
place, in the right job, and take advantage of their talents 
and provide them the quality of life that they want, we are 
getting incredible people across the force in areas that we 
never thought we could.
    We just stood up a software factory. And I ran into a young 
specialist who was a medic but we broadened their capabilities 
and asked people that had the capability to code--and he is one 
of the best software coders that we have in the United States 
Army. He is a specialist in the Army. I asked him why he would 
do this. You know, quite frankly, he would probably be making 
mid-six-figures outside the Army. It is because we recognized 
his talents. He wanted to be part of this team, and he saw 
purpose in what we was doing. Now, we are going to take care of 
him coming up the ranks, but we have a million soldiers like 
that in the Army.
    And I have three millennials that are serving, and they 
want us to recognize their individual talents. We are moving 
from an Industrial Age system to a 21st-century talent 
management system. And we are aggressively going after and 
competing for diversity, so we represent the Nation and 
everyone has an opportunity to feel part of the team.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you so much.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    And Mr. Womack is correct; please reach out to him if you 
are interested in attending West Point. I was on one of the 
trips, and it was very enlightening.
    And thank you for your leadership on that committee, as 
well as those who serve on the Air Force and Naval Academy.
    Mrs. Bustos, then Mr. Carter, then Mr. Ryan.
    Mrs. Bustos.

                 MATERIEL MODERNIZATION TRANSFORMATION

    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you very much, Chairwoman McCollum. And 
I want to thank you and also Ranking Member Calvert for holding 
this important hearing.
    General McConville and Acting Secretary Whitley, thank you 
for your service. Thank you for your leadership of our 
soldiers. Thank you for your testimony and your thoughtful 
opening remarks.
    What I would like to focus on is your materiel 
modernization transformation.
    The Rock Island Arsenal, which is--I know my colleagues on 
this subcommittee know this, but it is in the congressional 
district that I serve. You may be aware of this already, but it 
is literally on an island in the middle of the Mississippi 
River. Right between Iowa and Illinois, but it is represented 
by the congressional district that I serve. We are really 
encouraged by the important work that they are doing at the 
arsenal. That supports the warfighter. It sustains the Army.
    And I also want to thank you for your investment in the 
additive manufacturing capability at the arsenal. It allows the 
arsenal to process parts that, we understand, are providing big 
dividends to sustaining readiness.
    That said, we are particularly excited about the 
development of a Jointless Hull that uses an entirely novel and 
very, very large 3D printer.
    Either one of you can answer this, or both of you can 
answer this. But, in the past, we have talked about how we see 
additive manufacturing capabilities to be more mobile and 
deployable downrange. I think we have some examples where these 
mobile additive manufacturing systems are being sent downrange.
    But I also wonder if you can comment on how the Army is 
looking to ensure that these new and these innovative 
capabilities are built into existing or new major acquisition 
programs like the Jointless Hull.
    Secretary Whitley. I think you have been there.
    General McConville. Yes, I have. I have actually been to 
Rock Isle. I think that is a great example of--I want to say 
this politely: Sometimes we want to stay in the past. There is 
an arsenal that is moving in the future. It is recognizing that 
maybe the way we did business in the past has got to change, 
and so we are very supportive of added manufacturing.
    And here is how I see it is, you know, the ability to make 
parts--you know, historically, we use the strategy, some people 
called it iron mountain. You bring a whole bunch of things with 
you and it is very, very expensive. And, like, every commander 
wants to have every part with them, which goes against the 
business practice, which is just-in-time logistics because no 
one wants to have a part that is just a little late. From my 
feeling, what added manufacture does, it allows you to take 
risks in some parts. You may have a part that you don't really 
carry because you only use it once a year, you know, and why 
carry around 20 parts and have that expense, but with added 
manufacturing, you can manufacture that part right there and 
reduce that risk and you don't have to carry a large supply, 
which, again, requires more vehicles, requires all these other 
type things to do that.
    So, I think that is extremely important. So, what are we 
doing to get after that? What we are seeing is working with 
manufacturers. You have to actually get the parts from them and 
get the diagrams, and then you can put them into the machines 
and make sure that you--you basically order the parts through 
the machines. Some is--I think it is University of Wichita that 
has actually done a UH-60, the whole thing. They are taking 
total weapons systems, basically putting them in the machine so 
you can manufacture--some people call it print--those parts.
    But I think that is the future. I think you are going to 
see added manufacturing at the leading edge of the battlefield. 
And you want to be able to reach back and say, we don't want to 
wait 18 months, we don't want to wait this long to get that 
part; we want to be able to manufacture it right now.
    Mrs. Bustos. Very good. Acting Secretary, anything that you 
would like to add to the General's comments?
    Secretary Whitley. No, no. I just agree with what the chief 
said. I think this is, we are getting it right now at the depot 
and arsenal level, and we are learning from that. Where this 
ultimately is going to go is to the tactical edge and I think 
it is going to be a real potential in a war fight.

                        IMPACT OF MODERNIZATION

    Mrs. Bustos. So along those same lines, obviously, we have 
been talking a little bit about the budget and my personal 
concern that the Navy's modernization may result in cuts to the 
Army's budget, and I know you specifically cannot comment on 
details of the budget, but wondering what impact it could have 
on adopting innovative capabilities into the Army's program?
    Secretary Whitley. Yeah. It will have an impact and this 
is--and I don't want to repeat myself, but, you know what? What 
we have got right now is an Army budget that has risk built 
into it. It was prudent risk. It was risk taken to fund 
modernization and to be a good steward of the taxpayer 
resources, but what that means is, then when funding becomes 
unpredictable, you don't have buffers. You don't have the 
ability to absorb that as easily as you otherwise might.
    So, there is risk in the budget. We are going to protect 
modernization and we are going to fund modernization because of 
its high priority, but there is risk there and there will be 
things that we cannot do.
    Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Very good. My time is expired.
    Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mrs. Bustos.
    Mr. Carter and Mr. Ryan and then Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Carter.

                       END STRENGTH AND READINESS

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr. Secretary, 
General, welcome. Appreciate you keeping me in the loop when 
you came by the office and we visited.
    As it looks for us, we know--I am not going to beat that 
dead horse about a late budget. We all know you are unhappy 
about that, but what we really ought to be concerned about is 
that it looks like the Army's going to take the lion's share of 
the cuts as we look at the Defense Department.
    As we look at that, the three priorities which are almost 
mandatory priorities that you listed, General, are our main 
concern for the men and women who serve in our United States 
Army. So I want to ask you, first and foremost, futures 
command, as you know, is something I believe in. The concepts 
that you are working on now are really good. Mrs. Bustos, what 
she pointed out, that is great stuff.
    And that is all coming out of the Army's new way of 
thinking, but if we have to cut our futures looking at our 
plans for our near future, if we have to cut soldiers, those 
two things are items that are going to--we just can't afford to 
cut.
    You can't create a sergeant major once you have fired him. 
So we have got to figure out some kind of compromise because 
taking all these. I once ready in an article that if the Army 
took the full load, we would probably lose an armored combat 
brigade.
    Would you like to comment on that?
    General McConville. I guess, you know, we are certainly, at 
least from where the chief of staff of the Army serves is I 
know very clearly where we need to invest in and we have a 
very, very good program. We have laid out what our, you know, 
we think our end strength requirements are, we know what our 
readiness requirements are, and, quite frankly, we think we 
have a very good approach that we are continuing from, you 
know, General Millie and myself as the vice and modernization 
priorities have not changed and we continue to experiment with 
them to make sure they are the right ones, but we believe that, 
at least from the military standpoint, we are offering the 
right way ahead for the Army.
    And the resources we get, we know where we will have to 
make cuts. And if we don't get the resources that we think we 
need, by law, I have an obligation to come back to you and lay 
out what those unfunded requirements are.
    Secretary Whitley. I would just add, Congressman, you can 
think about the risks when you think about end strength, when 
you think about readiness, that is two operations today and 
that is being ready to go today. When you think about 
modernization, that is to maintain our overmatch into the 
future against our adversaries. And when you think about our 
recapitalization of units with the equipment that they have 
today, that is about the next several years in maintaining our 
capability over the coming years.
    So, as I said before, we have risk in the budget today. 
There is not a situation where we can say if we have less, we 
will still continue to do the same level of effort. The 
question is, where are we going to take that risk? Are we going 
to take risks against operations today? Are we going to take 
risks against our fielding of replacement equipment for 
operations over the next several years? Or we going to take 
risks against modernization and our ability to maintain 
overmatch with near-peer adversaries? That is the choice facing 
the Army at the moment.

                           MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Carter. And I think we all realize you are going to 
face that choice, to being the home of a lot of, you know, 
armored brigades, that is a concern that I have. That is why I 
am asking the question. I know that the brigade combat teams 
armored are the most expensive combat teams. There is no doubt 
about that.
    Aside from the those material, the human beings, what I am 
worried about, because if you are cutting soldiers--you can buy 
a tanker on the market, you can buy guns on the market, but you 
can't buy a soldier. Once he is gone, he is gone. And you can't 
train him back up. Most chances you don't get him back in. That 
is a decision that I don't want to see the Army have to make.
    And I hope as we look at budgets, we got to first take care 
of these people who have been in harm's way now for 20 years on 
our behalf and the Army has taken the lion's share of the 
casualties and the lion's share of the work. We have been 
helping our allies, we have been a helping our fellow warriors 
to every one of the services, but they have been in the blood 
bath.
    And the partnership at the end is awfully rough. That is 
one of the things I am really concerned about. And I don't 
think we will see 540 or 550 in this next budget as far as end 
strength. So we are going--I just don't want to see us cut our 
end strength if we don't have to. That was my number one 
question.
    Another thing is high level readiness. I am worried about 
us losing training time. So let me just ask you the questions, 
you going to be able to keep the levels with the cuts we 
anticipate on training time?
    Ms. McCollum. The gentlemen can answer that quickly for Mr. 
Carter based on your information on what is--what you can speak 
about to the budget I would appreciate that.
    General McConville. What I can do is, I can say commitment. 
We are not going to send young men and women into combat that 
are not trained. And so when it comes to readiness, we are 
going to make sure they have that and, again, that is why it 
puts stress on really on end strength or it puts stress on 
modernization because if the resources are reduced, something 
has to give or it could be a quality of life for our soldiers 
and families.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, both. Thank you for your service.
    Ms. McCollum. Important questions to have answered when we 
see the budget, Mr. Carter. Thank you for raising them.
    Mr. Ryan and Mr. Cole, then Cuellar, and Kaptur.
    Mr. Ryan.

                        ABRAM TANK MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 
panelists.
    General McConville, in the recent budget request, the 
Army's funded a brigade and a half of upgraded Abrams tanks, 
which are made in Lima, Ohio, and this is a clear demonstration 
in my mind of the Army's commitment to its armored brigades. 
And in light of the Army's continued focus on our near-peer 
adversaries, it seems to me that there would be no reason to 
decrease production of upgraded Abrams tanks in the coming 
years.
    I understand fully that you are looking to find funding for 
modernization, but I want to caution the Army against doing 
that on the back of our defense industrial base. If the Army 
sees a future in eventually modernizing the Abrams tanks, we 
need to have a robust production line to help get us to that 
point. And I was hoping that you could share your expectations 
about the Army's continued level of commitment to the Abrams 
tank program.
    General McConville. Well, I think you bring up a great 
point. First of all, some have questioned why we continue to 
invest in the Abrams tank, and it goes back into Congressman 
Carter, the first combat division. We got a lot of experience; 
a lot of senior leaders have used armor in places like Sadr 
City in Iraq and in any urban environment. We think that is 
very, very important to have.
    The question becomes, and this is the tough decisions that 
this Secretary and with my advice will have to make as we get 
our resources and we talk about CH-47s, we talk about the 
Abrams tank, we talk about all these great weapon systems that 
we need, and then what do you do if you don't get the resources 
you need?
    Well, what that drives you to is maybe slowing down what 
you want to do. And, again, we are going to have to come back 
once we see what the resources are and that may drive us to 
make some tough decisions that people are not going to like.

                       FOOD AND NUTRITION ISSUES

    Mr. Ryan. Well, we have been in this boat before. The 
concern is we ratchet it down to a level that becomes nearly 
impossible or super expensive to ramp it back up.
    Madam Chair, I would like to put a question in the record 
with regard to some of the food and nutrition issues with the 
Army. We pay a lot in healthcare costs. The VA healthcare 
costs, a lot of it around diabetes and issues like that that I 
think are coming directly from the food system in the Army and 
other branches of the military.
    So I will be asking the question for the record on that, 
and I hope, General, that you can get me that information.

                         NUCLEAR MICROREACTORS

    Mr. Ryan. The other thing that I find interesting and I 
hope you can maybe share a little bit about is the Project 
Pele, the transportable advanced nuclear microreactor 
prototype. And if you could just explain--I know the tremendous 
use of energy in the Army and really across the military, and 
we talked a little bit about, you know, some of these 
innovative ways.
    Can you talk a little bit about how the Army's preparing to 
adopt this technology, different technologies, but more 
precisely the nuclear microreactors?
    Secretary Whitley. I will just lead off with that, 
Congressman. I would say we are aware of the project. We are 
watching it. We are watching it closely with interest. And, as 
you say, we have significant energy needs in theater and as we 
start thinking about some of the other things that we are 
working on like potential electrification of some of the 
vehicle fleet and things like that, that is going to increase 
our power needs in a deployed environment.
    We are watching Pele very closely, and we hope that it 
proves successful. We will look at other options as well, and 
we do have to solve the forward power problem for the future.
    Do you want to add anything?
    General McConville. I would just say, what they call SKO is 
being done at the office of the Secretary of Defense; it is not 
really an Army program right now.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And I hope, Mr. Ryan, your 
question includes whether Department of Defense schools for our 
students are there as well.
    We have--Mr. Cole, good to see you, Mr. Cole. And then we 
have Mr. Cuellar and Kaptur. And somebody has their microphone 
on. If they would just take a second and check that out so Mr. 
Cole can ask his question uninterrupted.
    I think you are ready to go, Mr. Cole. I think we have got 
it all calmed down for you. Take it away.

                         SKINNY BUDGET CONCERNS

    Mr. Cole. I appreciate it very much, Madam Chair. And sorry 
I am late. But as you know, I was at another hearing, and thank 
you for indulging me. I want to make a general point about the 
overall budget and then ask specific question. And my general 
point I have to agree with the chair in the sense that I am not 
critical of the administration for being a little late getting 
their budget to us. I understand the new administration. It 
happens to all of them. It is not unusual, and this one has had 
unusual circumstances to deal with. I think that is a fair 
point.
    I am concerned just looking at the skinny budget at what 
the level is. And I make this point and not in a partisan way, 
but just to remind the committee, look, we can do what we want 
here. The original Trump budget called for a generous increase, 
if I recall correctly, about $54 billion. We didn't think it 
was enough given what had happened under sequestration and we 
approved that to $80 billion, in other words, $26 billion 
higher than the administration asked for in the first Trump 
budget. I think that served the country well. I think it helped 
us recover quickly. It is not just that 26 billion. That is a 
baseline and that is move forward and [inaudible] That has 
given us capability to address some long-term problems that we 
all know needed to be addressed.
    So, the Presidents propose, Congress disposes. And, you 
know, I think when we look at the overall budget as proposed, 
the President has, you know, 16, 17 percent increase in 
domestic spending programs, essentially flat in congested minor 
cut for the military. I don't think that is acceptable. I think 
we are going to have to come to a deal that puts additional 
resources on the military side and probably detracts a little 
bit from what the administration would want to do domestically. 
That is just normal policymaking in my view. And that deal, in 
my view, would be much, much better than a CR, which I don't 
think any of us on either side of the aisle want to do.

                          ARTILLERY PRODUCTION

    My specific question really dovetails quite nicely with my 
friend from Ohio's question about Abram tank. Recently, I 
quickly represent Fort Sill, so field artillery, air artillery, 
those things are extraordinarily important to me and the Pen 
program that Calvin Integrated Management program recently was 
awarded finally full rate of production to ensure that our 
soldiers are outfitted with the most--it is the most modern 
capabilities.
    The Army has actually invested pretty heavily in this 
program over the past decade. I understand that production is 
on schedule to meet targeted needs as outlined in the program 
baseline and that is about 60 sets or 120 vehicles per year. 
That is a good thing. It has taken us awhile to get there, and 
I applaud everybody that has worked with us and the Army's good 
efforts to do that.
    I am curious if that is sort of the hope or plan going 
forward because, again, as my friend Mr. Ryan mentioned, if you 
can't meet those targets, each individual unit starts becoming 
more expensive and you lose production capability. And so, the 
problem he is concerned about with tanks, very similar to the 
problem that I am concerned about with artillery.
    If you could give us some view as to where we are headed 
going forward.
    General McConville. I can take that, Congressman, and thank 
you for your support at Fort Sill. You know, long-range 
precision fires--really fires generally is something that we 
are really going after, you know, as we have taken a look at 
how the shift and the type of fighting we have been doing. You 
know, it has been irregular warfare, counterinsurgency, 
counterterrorism as we move to large scale--the capability to 
do large scale ground combat operations.
    Our fires are extremely important and we are very pleased 
to see that capability coming into our units and, you know, the 
intent is, again, I don't want to get in front of the budget, 
but the intent is that those fires are extremely important. And 
working with the manufacturer and making sure that they can 
deliver those systems as we have worked our way through that at 
the appropriate level, we think is extremely important.
    But that will be, you know, again, we don't know what the 
final resources are and that will help impact--inform that 
decision.
    Mr. Cole. Well, again, I certainly understand that, 
General, and appreciate the answer because I think the desire 
to get there is important and we will wrestle with the 
capabilities. I would, again, urge you and I know you will do 
this to make sure that that unmet needs document really gives 
us clarity so that if we get into that kind of discussion and 
we add additional money, which, frankly, I think we will--that 
is just my personal opinion--that we do it in ways that are 
consistent with the professional judgments of the military as 
to what they would need if more resources were available.
    I think that is going to be an extraordinarily important 
document for us, but, again, thank you, both, for your service. 
Very much appreciate it.
    Madam Chair, thank you for your indulgence.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cole, you are always welcome.
    Mr. Cuellar and then Ms. Kaptur.

                               FORT HOOD

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having this 
meeting. And I want to thank our witnesses also, the Acting 
Secretary and, of course, General McConville. Thank you so 
much.
    Just a couple quick statements and then I have a couple 
questions. Number one, I want to thank Steve Womack and, of 
course, the ranking member for that trip that we did to West 
Point. It is pretty amazing what you all are doing over there 
with the academies doing. So I just have to say that, you know, 
it doesn't matter which of the kids that we spoke to or young 
men and women, they were all outstanding. So I want to say 
thank you for what you all do there.
    Second of all, I also, just as a quick note, I also worry 
about what is going to happen in Afghanistan. After so many 
lives that we have lost, after so much money that we spent 
there, I hope that we don't--and I know that I heard the 
testimony what you all are doing to get ready for, you know, 
optional plans, what happens, but I do worry about the worst-
case scenario. I really worry that the Afghanistan Army just 
won't be able to withstand what is going to happen, and I worry 
about what could happen afterwards.
    So I just want to--for the record, I do show concerns about 
that. I know the decision has been made, but I do worry about 
what is going to happen there.
    My question quickly, and I think, General, this has been--
we have spoken about this, but let me talk about what we 
learned from the Fort Hood independent review. And I want to 
thank you. I know we spent some time talking about this in the 
past and spending time with LULAC also and this. I want to 
thank you for what you have done.
    I think you all have implemented, at least as the time that 
this question was put together, was 20 recommendations out of 
the 70 recommendations. And I just want to ask you, where are 
you on the rest of the recommendations and give us some sort of 
timeline and whether you all intend to do that because Fort 
Hood was the number one base that had the problems, but there 
are other bases. So tell us where you are on the rest of the 
recommendations.
    Secretary Whitley. I will just answer very quickly with the 
numbers, Congressman. There were 70 recommendations. My 
predecessor, Secretary McCarthy, committed to acting on all 70 
and that commitment remains in place. We have implemented about 
20--I will just give you approximate numbers, and we can ship 
over to you the precise numbers. We have executed about 20. We 
have about 10 scheduled for next month that will be 
implemented.
    Then there is probably another 15 to 20 that will be 
implemented by the end of this calendar year. And then that 
leaves about 20 to 25, which will spill over into next year 
because they are larger issues that will require a multiyear 
effort to implement.
    General McConville. And if I could add just on the Fort 
Hood, this is something we are taking in. I had a chance to 
speak to Mrs. Guillen, and we are going to implement across the 
entire Army, and using this as sense of urgency and we set up a 
people first task force that is going around and getting after 
these things.
    But it is really--not only those capabilities, but it is 
really about prevention, it is really about getting into the 
unit with the culture and the climate and it is about having 
assessments in place for our commanders and future commanders 
and what type of climate and culture they set in the Sergeant 
Major of the Army has been really working closely with our 
noncommissioned officer corps to make sure they understand the 
importance of this. And, again, we take this very, very 
seriously.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. And I want to thank you, of course, 
for the action. And can you all just keep the committee and my 
office informed as to where you are with the different 
implementations just as to what you are covering? Thank you for 
doing this across the Army and not only Fort Hood.

                     HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION

    The other thing is, one of the things that I am very 
interested is on human performance optimization. I know that 
you all have been working on it. Steve, you remember they 
covered that, Ken, at West Point, but can you all put together 
what the Army is doing different places, different areas?
    I am looking at an article that I have and it was done on 
human performance metrics consensus findings, gaps 
recommendations for future research and it is different areas 
of the military, including the Army that is doing this.
    Can you all put together what everybody is doing and send 
it to the committee because I am a big believer, as the members 
are, on human performance optimization. And if you all can just 
put that together, I got a research article, but it is not in 
plain English. I am an attorney, I am a Ph.D., but I still like 
to see things in plain English.
    Can you all put it all together and send it to the 
committee and my office? I would appreciate it.
    General McConville. We can, Congressman. We are going 
aggressively after holistic health and fitness. You know, it is 
from things that people haven't even thought about like from 
nutrition, from what we are doing even as far as sleep and 
how--we are putting people in the units with physical 
therapists, dieticians, strength coaches. And, really, as young 
men and women come in the Army is really maximizing their 
potential and, quite frankly, some of the young men and women 
coming in to the Army don't have the fitness of some of those 
capabilities that we have seen in the past. We have to develop 
that when they come in.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you. My time is up. Send us the 
info and thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.
    I yield back.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. McCollum. You are welcome. And we look forward to 
seeing that report on Fort Hood and what else the Army is 
doing.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                            RECRUIT TRAINING

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Secretary Whitley and 
General McConville for your service to our great country. I am 
very interested in following on Congressman Cuellar's questions 
and your replies about the individuals coming into the Armed 
Services now may not be as fit--maybe I am misinterpreting what 
you said--as in prior generations, but we know that survey 
shows that the average young person spends 7 hours in front of 
a blue screen daily rather than the way people grew up in prior 
decades.
    One of my questions is, do you have trouble with your 
recruits in terms of situational awareness in theater? Do you 
have to train in a different way because they lack that in 
their own lives? And I am interested in the changes that you 
have to make in training because of the individuals that are 
being recruited to serve, how has that changed inside?

                          TRANSPORT EFFICIENCY

    The other thing I wanted to ask you to provide me with and 
I don't--you won't answer this now for me, but I am very 
interested in transport and highly efficient transport.
    A new research going on at DOD and other places to develop 
new engines, hybrid engines, hydrogen-powered vehicles. I would 
like you to send me somewhere in America where I can better 
understand what is going on in those labs and those places. But 
I am not sure that really has that responsibility.

                           MISUSE OF FIREARMS

    I am very interested in Army, ground transport, energy. 
This is a very strong interest of mine, and maybe you could 
direct me where to look more closely at DOD. But finally, 
another question I have related to the younger generation. We 
see across our country wanton behaviors that cause great 
violence in the misuse of weapons and I have asked myself why. 
Coming less and less secure in the environments in which they 
live. It is very destabilizing these behaviors. People can't 
even go to the store now and not feel that they are threatened.
    Is there anything Army can do in its public relations 
activities to display proper behavior, respect for a weapon, 
and to cast some of these individuals as outliers? I am not 
quite sure how to do that. It is a psychological issue, but I 
think that you have something to offer there in community by 
community.
    You have had to spend much more time domestically because 
of the disruption that we are seeing across our society related 
to the improper use of weapons. Some of it is related to the 
drug trade, but also it is other crime. Individuals come up to 
me and tell me that their 11 and 12 year old were looking at 
young people killing one another with weapons as a game on 
social media.
    I don't know what station does that. I don't know what 
website does that. This is horrendous. I don't know whose 
feeding that, but it ought to be illegal to do that in this 
country and to get young people involved in that kind of thing.
    So, I am just wondering about what is coming in your doors 
in terms of recruitment, the kinds of training you have to do, 
and then anything Army can do to help our society self-correct 
as citizens feel less secure where they live.
    Secretary Whitley. Let me just read off, Congresswoman. On 
the energy question, we will definitely get you that material 
and we will get you that promptly.

                            RECRUIT TRAINING

    Secretary Whitley. On the kids, I am going to ask the chief 
to answer that. I will just say, I have two children who spend 
all their time on phones. I can personally attest to the 
challenges of giving them situational awareness and trying to 
instill in them some degree of discipline.
    General McConville. I would like to talk about the young 
men and women that are coming into the military or we are 
trying to recruit. Right now, only 29 percent of Americans are 
qualified, actually, even to come into the Army. And that 
includes, you know, those that go to college. So, we are in 
competition for talent.
    So only 29 percent are qualified to enlist into the Army. 
And then there is only three qualities that I would highlight 
that we are trying to go after. One is resilience. We find a 
lot of young men and women are just not very resilient anymore. 
I don't know how we bring them up, but, you know, we see that 
how young men/women react to stress or they react to failure. 
That is not very good.
    The second quality that we look for is fitness, physical 
and mental fitness. As you say, you can be very smart, but you 
don't develop a lot of muscles except in your fingers when you 
are texting, and you are using your phone. And the other thing 
we find, which, again, I find interesting is, most of us grew 
up playing sports. You went outside and you played sports. And 
what we find right now is very few young men and women tend to 
play sports and so they are not as physically or mentally fit 
as they need to be.
    And the third attribute is character. You know, a lot of 
people may come in and some of these young men and women may be 
very resilient. You know, they grew up tough or whatever, but 
they have some character challenges. And what we are trying to 
do in recruiting is get after these, not that one size fits 
all, but, you know, we kind of have it figured out if someone 
is not fit.
    We have an occupational physical assessment test, so we can 
kind of get a sense if they are coming in to recruiting if they 
are not fit. We will have them work with a recruiter and get 
them fitness. But these other attributes show up later, you 
know. We are very concerned about behavior health and, quite 
frankly, suicides in the Army and that tends to be resilience.
    We are very concerned about misconduct with, you know, 
because everyone that puts on this uniform if they go out and 
do something that doesn't make us proud, they taint everyone 
else in service.
    The other thing I would just add is, you know, we support 
is a junior ROTC program. And that is not a program to bring 
people--it is a citizenship program, but we find a lot of 
schools and people are very supportive of that program, and 
what we find is--we have that in 10 percent of high schools, 
but 49 percent of the young men and women that come into the 
military, at least in the Army, come not necessarily from the 
program, but come from a school that had a JROTC. So, there is 
some value in being exposed to the military and we think that 
is very, very important.
    The one thing I will add too. I know somebody had a chance 
to go up to West Point and the academy nominations--you know, I 
am looking at myself. At 16 years old, I was working for the 
Quincy Sewage Department. And I had a Senator named Kennedy 
from Massachusetts who gave me an opportunity to go to West 
Point. And that is all out there from the Army to military, 
ROTC scholarships, West Point academy scholarships coming to 
the Army is just a great place to get ahead.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And Madam Chair, I know my 
time is expired, but I will also ask you to, for the record, 
further elaborate on your phrase, ``Russia increases its 
disruptive behavior.'' I am very interested in how Army views 
that.
    Ms. McCollum. Okay.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. We will make sure that that is written up the 
way you want and submit it as a question at the end Ms. Kaptur. 
Very good.
    We do have time to do another round. We are going to limit 
the round, and I was briefing my first question. So, I want to 
go to--I will build on what Mr. Kilmer talked about with 
climate change.

                   CLIMATE CHANGE AND ARCTIC STRATEGY

    Army installations over the past several years have really 
been threatened and sometimes their mission readiness has been 
impaired by some of the super storms that we have witnessed. 
You have a new directive September 2020 to address threats 
caused by climate change and extreme weather requiring planners 
to build resilience measures and to protect against impacts to 
readiness.
    So, I would like you to maybe touch a little bit on the 
Army completed its roll-out in the integration of the climate 
assessments tool and I am assuming that that is being used into 
what we will see in the upcoming budget.
    The next thing I want to touch on that is a result of 
climate change is what we have to do is developing a new 
strategy in the arctic and it is important that we keep the 
shipping channels open, we protect our access to our own 
natural resources and that we don't have countries coming in 
claiming natural resources and staking down flags.
    China likes to refer to itself as a Near-Arctic nation as 
you are aware of. And then you have the challenges at Alaska 
Fort Wainwright and Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson.
    Could you just maybe touch on your plan on being resilient 
for climate change for facilities and also what is the arctic 
doing as far as its modernization to be ready for cold weather 
and all-terrain vehicles and things like that? So modernization 
and resilience with climate change. Gentlemen?
    Secretary Whitley. I will just lead off very briefly with 
some of the installation stuff and then turn it over to the 
chief to talk about that and, in particular, the arctic 
strategy and our investments in the arctic, but on the 
installation front, as you pointed out, ma'am, every 
installation is required to now have an energy and water plan. 
We think we will have all of those done by 2022.
    We spent significant time and energy in investment of 
resources in reducing both the intensity of resource usage at 
our posts and then the resiliency of that. Because we see that 
as a fundamental risk, particularly, for force projection.
    In the event of a significant war and we were mobilizing 
our forces, the vulnerability of our posts to either an 
electronic or kinetic attack that would somehow disrupt the 
resources available in that post.
    So, we have over the last 15 or so years, we have actually 
reduced energy intensity at about 15 percent at our posts and 
we have reduced water usage or water intensity usage by almost 
30 percent in our posts over that period of time.
    And we are using a climate assessment tool as you 
mentioned. So, it is a challenge that we have taken very 
seriously from both an efficiency perspective and from the 
perspective of resiliency and forced projection and readiness.
    General McConville. We just came out with our arctic 
strategy as all the services have and aligned that. As we take 
a look at what we are moving towards, first of all, we have an 
administrative headquarters up there. We are looking to make 
that more an operational headquarters so they can participate 
as part of the joint force in any type of antiaccess/area 
denial capability to make sure that we can protect our 
interests. The brigade we have up there right now is the 
Stryker Brigade designed more as a deployment platform from 
there rather than operating in that environment.
    We are developing the capabilities that we will need in 
going back to the training that they are actually an arctic 
brigade and they can operate in that cold weather and that is a 
whole different set of skill sets and it is also different set 
of vehicles that we need to do that.
    We have mentioned that we are looking at some type of 
multi-domain task force up there that would have that 
capability. Once we work out the concept for an antiaccess or 
even an antiship capability to work very closely with the other 
services to provide that capability.
    So those are the type things that are developing right now 
that are going to fundamentally take a look at how we work in 
the arctic much differently.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. I know you trained for 
extreme weather and we have had a lot of people learn how to 
survive in extreme heat based on where our Army and services 
have been recently, but extreme heat does not prepare you for 
extreme cold. I look forward to working with you on that.
    Mr. Calvert.

                      ARMY AND THE PACIFIC THEATER

    Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
    General McConville, the Army is in the midst of a 
significant restructuring as you mentioned in your opening 
testimony as it shifts to the new multi-domain operations 
construct.
    Now some of us are old enough to remember the development 
and implementation of the air, land, ballot construct back in 
the 1980s, which focused on the Army in Europe. This was a good 
fit, obviously, because Europe actually lends itself to 
traditional Army corps competencies given the existence of 
NATO, forward basing and infrastructure and terrain. The new 
multi-domain operations construct, however, seeks to focus the 
Army on both Europe and the Asian Pacific.
    By region, I also mean beyond Korea. Given the tyranny of 
distance in the Pacific and the lack of some enablers in 
Europe, obviously, Germany, I was surprised to see their new 
budget numbers. I wasn't really surprised; I was saddened by 
it.
    Will this stretch the Army too thin and what will the Army 
need to implement this strategy in the Pacific? For example, 
will it need to permanently station more troops in the region, 
require the other services to increase their lift capability, 
or invest in more preposition stocks?
    Thank you.
    General McConville. That is a wonderful question as far as 
from starters as we take a look at--I fell into air/land battle 
when I came in the Army. And if you think about it, it was 
really two domains. We were going to fight in Europe basically 
on the land and the air.
    And what we recognized is, when we get into multi-domain 
operations, we believe and we really haven't been contested 
like this, we will be contested in every domain and by a 
potential and very lethal adversary. So, we will certainly be 
contesting the land.
    We will be contested on the sea, which means we are going 
to be challenged moving equipment maybe back and forth and 
maybe having sea battles going back to World War II. We are 
going to see integrated air and missile defense that is going 
to challenge our air capabilities that we really have not seen. 
We certainly didn't see that in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in 
irregular warfare.
    We are also going to be contested in space and we are going 
to be contested in cyber. And as we move to more technological 
force, that is going to be very concerning. We are going to 
have to deal with that. And so, we think that is extremely 
important.
    Now, how do we get after that? First of all, we always get 
wrong where we think we are going to fight next. People always 
try to predict, but we never get it right. So we have to 
develop a general force and that general force we are 
developing is being built to have the attributes of speed, 
range, and then convergence and convergence is tying census and 
shooters together of the Joint Force to give us a decision 
dominance capability and that is what we are doing in Project 
Convergence where we are taking census and shooters and using 
artificial intelligence in an integrated battle command system 
to tie that together so we get lethal effects in tens of 
seconds by tens of minutes.
    And that is how we believe we get the overmatch within the 
Joint Force working with our joint partners that we are going 
to need to deter whether that is in the Pacific or whether that 
is in Europe. And if you take a look at the systems that we are 
developing--that is why it is long-range precision fires 
because, quite frankly, we got long ranges we are going to have 
to deal with.
    That is why future vertical lift has a speed and range 
component to it that we haven't had before. That is why air and 
missile defense is tied into an integrated brigade system. That 
is why our soldiers are going to be extremely lethal and we got 
to give them the best technology because we could be 
outnumbered.
    So that is where all this comes together in the 
organizations that we are building, the tactics or doctrine 
that we are developing, and the weapon systems that we are 
fielding.

                       ALLIES DEFENSE COMMITMENT

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    And Secretary, I just kind of touched on what you probably 
saw the numbers that Germany came up with on their defense 
commitment. How do you feel about that? What is the 
administration's position on it?
    Secretary Whitley. I will let the administration speak 
first hand, sir. What I would say is, you know, we are 
committed to meeting the requirements that we have against our 
own plans, against the plans we have in the Europe, against the 
plans we have in the Pacific. From the Army's perspective 
looking very parochially at the Army, our concern is, can we 
meet those requirements, and do we have the consistent stable 
funding we need to meet those requirements?
    Mr. Calvert. The only reason I make that point, it is 
disappointing in the sense that we are counting on our allies, 
especially in Europe, to pick up the slack with a potential 
adversary who we all know who it is, Russia, and for us to, 
obviously, move into Asia and with limited resources.
    I hope the pressures continues on these countries in Europe 
to meet their obligations to NATO.
    With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Ms. Kaptur and then Mr. Carter.

                      RUSSIAN DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair. I didn't realize we 
would have a second round. I will go back to my interest in 
Russia and particularly, General, your statement, ``Russia 
increases its disruptive behavior.'' Could you talk a little 
more in detail about disruptive behavior and what evidence you 
have seen of that, as well as your colleagues that you speak 
with at the department?
    General McConville. Well, when I take a look at the 
potential competitors out there and I call them competitors; 
they are not necessarily adversaries, but they are certainly 
competitors, you know, the pacing threat right now is China, 
but we are also concerned about Russia because Russia has a 
very significant amount of nuclear weapons, you know, and we 
just watching right now activities in and around Ukrainian and 
they do have a capable military, but they are also involved in 
a lot of other areas around the world. They have a cyber 
capability. They have----
    Ms. Kaptur. General, can I interrupt you there and just ask 
in terms of their cyber capability, what evidence do you see 
them using that in various ways inside our country?
    General McConville. I think I will defer to probably best 
to have General Nakasone, actually, go into a classified 
briefing and lay that out, or at least they have described that 
type of capability. I am more in the general. I know they have 
a cyber capability, but I am not really prepared to go into 
that level of detail.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. What about their broadcasts on 
Sputnik and so forth TV and every cab in New York and hotel 
rooms and all? Is that something that Army follows?
    General McConville. Well, we don't necessarily follow it, 
but what we are very concerned about, we talk about all domain 
operations and the one domain--we talk about air, land, sea, 
cyber, and space, but there is certainly another spear, if you 
will, or it is not necessarily a domain, but an area that we 
are concerned about and that is information.
    The power of social media, the power to put information out 
there that may not be correct to me is extremely concerning. In 
some ways it can be very dangerous because you can put 
information out there that is misinformation, which is very 
different than the rules we operate under.
    And countries like that can put disinformation out there 
and in some ways, you know, impact the people that are watching 
what is going on.
    Ms. Kaptur. Is Vladimir Putin a pretty good inventor of 
programming where falsehoods are common?
    General McConville. I don't think--I am not going to 
comment on what he does or doesn't do. I don't think it would 
be appropriate for me.
    Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur, you brought up a really good 
point and we are having a classified briefing. We will make 
sure that your staff gets that on your calendar for in 2 weeks 
on the cyber. You raise an extraordinarily important discussion 
that we need to have.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Do you still want to submit more things on 
Russia for the record?
    Ms. Kaptur. I will.
    Ms. McCollum. Okay. Perfect.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. We will look forward to that.
    Mr. Carter and then Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Mr. Carter, I can hear you, but I can't see you.
    Mr. Carter. Now you can see me. Can you hear me?
    Ms. McCollum. There you go. You popped up. You moved. I can 
see you. You are right next to me.
    Your questions, please.

                             FORCE POSTURE

    Mr. Carter. I try to keep moving all the time.
    General McConville, we got to go to the fight, wherever we 
go in the world, especially in this near-peer fighting that 
could be coming our way, the Chinese know we have to travel 
long distances to put our Army in play.
    And from what I have been able to understand in the limited 
reading that I have been able to do, they are working on 
systems to prevent us to quickly get to the fight because they 
know that is one of our real assets is to try to interfere with 
our battlefield communication capability.
    You know, what is the--as you look at the Army plans, right 
now on the ground in Korea is if it gets hot, it is going to 
get hot in China and we got to go to the fight.
    Were you all looking at that and what they are doing to 
counter getting our soldiers there?
    General McConville. Yes, Congressman. You know, we have a 
concept that we call ``calibrated force posture'' and it is 
really a term of exactly what you are discussing is, we have 
forces that are forward. In some cases, we need to get more 
there. We have forces that are rotating into various countries 
in the region. We use a concept called dynamic force employment 
to quickly move forces into that area. And we are working very 
closely with allies and partners.
    So, we are tied into them. We are interoperability with 
them. We have worked with them with our security forces system 
brigades to increase their capacities and capabilities of those 
partners that we have shared interests, but we are certainly 
concerned about those potential threats. And we are working 
together as a joint team to overcome them.
    Mr. Carter. On the issue of our strong near partners, that 
would be basically Japan and probably Australia. I know Japan's 
got a very solid Navy. What kind of ground force capability do 
they offer and what about the Australians?
    General McConville. Well, we have very good partners. You 
mentioned Japan, you mentioned the Australians, and other 
partners we train with very closely, but to me it becomes a 
whole of military effort. And I think what is very, very 
valuable is when most of the countries in the region share the 
same values.
    They want a free and open Indo-Pacific and they come 
together, and we have seen some countries actually speaking out 
on this, which is very bold that they are coming out and saying 
this is the type of situation that we want and what we are 
doing is working very closely with them from the Army and the 
rest of the services to make sure that we are aligned and we 
can help them achieve their objectives.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart and then Mr. Cole if he is still available.

                               EXTREMISM

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. We 
talked about and obviously it makes sense to me that we have to 
always be very, very aware of extremism whether it is racism, 
White nationalism, but in another hearing, the ranking member 
asked a question as to what is the definition of extremism. And 
so, for example, I would argue that, you know, fascism is 
extremism. I would argue that Marxism or Communism or socialism 
is extremism.
    What is the definition of extremism? And when you look at 
extremism and rooting out extremism and making sure that 
doesn't take root in the Army, is it just, you know, one of 
those issues or do you look at trained Marxists?
    Do you look at Fascists? Do you look at socialists? What is 
the definition of extremism? And I don't expect, gentlemen, an 
answer right now, but I think it would be helpful for us to 
understand what the definition of extremism is and does it 
include things like Marxism or socialism or Communism or 
fascism or other type of extremist policies. You know, what is 
that definition? So, if I could just put that out there.
    Secretary Whitley. I would be happy to give some thoughts 
if helpful now, sir. Your call.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. Sure.
    Secretary Whitley. I have tried to emphasize 
significantly--the chief and I have done a lot of work and had 
a lot of conversations with the force on this, and I tried to 
emphasize that, number one, it is not about a soldier's 
political, social, or religious views. I have really focused on 
two things in my conversation with soldiers. Number one is 
advocating violence or participating in violence.
    So, you can have a range of views. That is okay, but when 
you begin to advocate violence to advance those views, you have 
crossed a line and you are no longer consistent with the Army's 
values, you are no longer a law-abiding citizen; you are now 
undermined the rule of law.
    The second thing that I focused on is activities or actions 
that a soldier could take in a unit setting that might disrupt 
the cohesion of that unit. And that would be something like 
discriminatory or racist behavior in a unit. If we ask our 
soldiers to go to war, we owe them that they know that the 
soldier to the left and to the right of them has their back.
    And so, if you have a soldier that is engaged in any type 
of racist or discriminatory conduct with a fellow soldier, that 
calls into question that soldier knows somebody else doesn't 
have their back.
    I focused on those two things. Anything that disrupts unit 
cohesion, that disrupts readiness. And the second is anything 
that crosses the line and says, I am going to advocate violence 
or participate in violence to advance a view which otherwise 
might be protected by the First Amendment.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. That makes sense. But, I guess, 
theoretically then, you could be a White extremist or a Marxist 
or whatever and not advocate violence and that would still be 
fine, I guess?
    Secretary Whitley. There is a definition that is being 
worked out, that is being refined, and we can get that over to 
you, Congressman. Those are the two things----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. That is the issue. In other words, I get 
the issue of violence. That makes sense to me, but if we are 
going to be then rooting out extremism as far as ideology, for 
example, if you are a White nationalist or a fascist, Nazi, 
Neo-Nazi, or a Communist or a socialist, that is when it gets a 
little bit more interesting.
    And so those are the definitions that I think I would like 
to get a clarification as to how do you deal with those if they 
are not advocating for violence.
    Is it all right to be a White nationalist or a Neo-Nazi or 
a Communist or a Marxist or a socialist if you are not 
advocating for violence? So those are issues that I know are 
more difficult and that is why I think it would be interesting 
to get a definition of how you all are going to be doing that 
in the future. And so I would greatly appreciate that.
    Now as far as modernization and, again----
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Diaz-Balart, I will give you another----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. No, no. Madam Chairwoman----
    Ms. McCollum. No. I am going to give you another 30 
seconds.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, Madam Chairwoman, again, you are 
very kind. I do not want to abuse your kindness. Never abuse 
the Chairwoman's kindness. So, thank you so very much.
    But I yield back. I didn't not realize that my time had 
ended. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Diaz-Balart has brought this definition 
issue up on several of our hearings. It is something the 
committee's very interested in. It needs to be across all the 
services. It needs to be across the government, including other 
Federal agencies and that is important.
    And as we--and the Scandinavian countries come to mind, I 
think we need to be mindful of some of our allies who are 
democracies, but also practice democracy a little different 
than we do in some regards.
    I have a couple things I want to follow up with you, 
gentlemen. The committee is going to be asking you a couple of 
questions on Army modernization that weren't touched on. For 
example, one of the questions will be something similar to, in 
the next 3 to 5 years, when a large portion of these programs 
move from R&D to procurement, do you have the resources to do 
these production contrasts?
    So, I mean, as we move forward, you know, that has to be 
planned into the budget, but still keep the modernization 
moving forward. So we want to understand your thoughts on how 
you are going to balance that.
    And then something that has come up that Mr. Calvert has 
brought up before and I have, too, in other hearings is, you 
know, what kind of reaction are you receiving from industry? 
And is your strategy really a strategy that embraces and 
supports small business industrial partners into the future?
    I am going to have some questions. We are going to have a 
hearing on healthcare, and this will just maybe help prep you 
for that. Having to do with the health defense agencies, OSD, 
health affairs, and the interpretation of the NDAA, the 
National Defense Authorization Act, and how some of those are 
being interpreted very broadly.
    We also have concerns about the Defense Health Agency's 
implementation of some of the medical reforms and how they fit 
into reauthorization. We don't want to be funding things that 
conflict with what is authorized.
    And then, you know, as Congress moves forward with the 
congressionally directed medical research programs, they fund 
high risk, high level reward research, and it impacts our 
warfighters, DOD beneficiaries, but also have great impact on 
the population for healthcare here in the United States.
    We are going to have some questions on that. And a question 
we have been submitting to everyone has been focusing on 
coronavirus, but that has changed a little bit how we talk 
about COVID now that we are going more to shots in arms. We 
still need to do testing. What are you going to need to have 
shots in arms to be able to conduct and to move forward safely? 
And how if there are things we can do to help you with 
implementation of that.
    This has been a very fruitful discussion. I want to thank 
all the committee members.
    Mr. Calvert and I are so proud of the engagement that 
everybody has in here. We both want to thank you, as well as 
the community for your service, for those who serve, you know, 
alongside of you, for your families who serve with you know 
that this committee wishes the servicemen and women good health 
during this time of COVID, safe missions in which people return 
safely to their homes. Your service is very, very much 
appreciated.
    And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         [all]