    [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 3

                                                                       Page
      United States Air Force and Space
    Force...................................                              1
                                      ------

      National Security Agency and Cyber
    Command.................................                             93
                                      ------

      Central Intelligence Agency...........                             95
                                      ------

      Worldwide Threat and Fiscal Year 2022
    National Intelligence Program/Military
    Intelligence Program....................                             97
                                      ------

      Defense Health and Medical Readiness..                             99
                                      ------

      Defense Environmental Restoration.....                            225
                                      ------

      Fiscal Year 2022 Department of Defense
    Budget..................................                            325
                                      ------

      Workforce Development and the
    Department of Defense...................                            409
                                      ------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                ________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    46-586                     WASHINGTON : 2022

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

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

      MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio                          KAY GRANGER, Texas
      DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina              HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
      LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California           ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
      SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia             MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
      BARBARA LEE, California                     JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
      BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota                   KEN CALVERT, California
      TIM RYAN, Ohio                              TOM COLE, Oklahoma
      C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland         MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
      DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida           STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
      HENRY CUELLAR, Texas                        JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
      CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine                      CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
      MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois                      JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
      DEREK KILMER, Washington                    DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
      MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania               ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
      GRACE MENG, New York                        MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
      MARK POCAN, Wisconsin                       CHRIS STEWART, Utah
      KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts           STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
      PETE AGUILAR, California                    DAVID G. VALADAO, California
      LOIS FRANKEL, Florida                       DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
      CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois                      JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
      BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey           JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
      BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan                BEN CLINE, Virginia
      NORMA J. TORRES, California                 GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
      CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                      MIKE GARCIA, California
      ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona                    ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
      ED CASE, Hawaii                             TONY GONZALES, Texas
      ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
      JOSH HARDER, California
      JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
      DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
      LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
      SUSIE LEE, Nevada

                     Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                     (ii)

                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2022

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

                                                   Friday, May 7, 2021.

        FISCAL YEAR 2022 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE BUDGET

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. JOHN P. ROTH, ACTING SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
    GENERAL CHARLES Q. BROWN, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE AIR FORCE
    GENERAL JOHN W. RAYMOND, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, U.S. SPACE FORCE

                      Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. The hearing will come to order.
        This hearing is fully virtual, and we are going to go over
    a few housekeeping matters.
        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, you are responsible for muting and unmuting
    yourselves. 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 that you would like the staff to help by nodding, that
    would be good and then the staff will unmute your microphone.
        I would also like to remind all members and witnesses that
    we have a 5-minute clock and it applies. If there is a
    technology issue, and we have had a few, we will go to the next
    member until the issue is resolved, and members will retain the
    balance of their time.
        You will notice a clock on your screen, and that will show
    how much time is remaining. And it is easiest to see the clock
    if you are in grid mode.
        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
    forth by House rules. And that will begin with the chair and
    the ranking member; members present at the time the hearing is
    called, in order of seniority; and, finally, members not
    present, they will be included as they join into the meeting.
        Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have
    set up an email address to which members can send anything they
    wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or markups.
    And that email address has been provided to your staff.
        So, as I said, the subcommittee is in order. And, this
    afternoon, the committee will receive testimony on the posture
    of United States Air Force and Space Force.
        Our three witnesses are the Honorable John Roth, Acting
    Secretary of the Air Force; General Charles Brown, Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force; and General John Raymond, Chief of the
    Air Space Operations.
        All three of our witnesses have long and very distinguished
    careers serving our country, and we thank you for your service.
    However, this is the first time each of you has testified
    before the committee, and we welcome you.
        While the hearing today will cover multiple topics, I will
    quickly highlight a few items that I want to make sure get
    discussed.
        The Air Force today stands at a pivotal point in its
    history. General Brown has characterized the Air Force
    situation, and I quote, ``Accelerate, change, or lose.'' In
    other words, the Air Force must modernize, do so quickly, and
    this will require hard decisions.
        This committee will need to give serious consideration to
    the divestment of so-called legacy systems in order to free up
    limited funding for more relevant capabilities. At the same
    time, characterizing a program or an effort as
    ``modernization'' does not grant it a free pass. We will
    continue to scrutinize all programs for cost and for
    performance.
        In addition, I want to hear from the Air Force on how they
    are tackling climate change and from both services on how they
    are combating sexual assault and extremism in the ranks.
        As to space, in the 16 months since Space Force was
    established, significant progress has been made in standing up
    its operations unit, Space Force Command. However, while
    progress has been made on the operations side, progress in
    addressing longstanding acquisition issues has been
    disappointing so far.
        Too often over the past two decades, the space acquisition
    programs have been delivered late, over budget, and sometimes
    billions of dollars over budget. Just one example is the
    current missile-warning satellite program, which, according to
    GAO, was delivered nine years late. That is nine and $15
    billion over its original estimate.
        The intent of establishing Space Force was to fix these
    issues. Yet, to date, space acquisition appears to be simply
    the sum of its previous parts, with minor tweaks around the
    edges. The Department of Air Force has yet to resolve
    fundamental issues on roles, responsibilities, and authorities
    between its various space acquisition units. Now, we
    understand, I want to be clear, I mentioned 16 months and a new
    administration, but we need to see movement.
        Nowhere is the lack of progress more evident than the
    absence of senior civilian acquisition leadership solely
    focused on space within the Department of the Air Force. More
    than 80 percent of the Air Force's funding goes towards
    acquisition. Overseeing and leading an organization attempting
    to deliver such technical, complex systems is not a part-time
    job, which it is how it has been handled in the past.
        Congress established an Assistant Secretary of the Air
    Force position to serve in a Space Force acquisition executive
    position, and that has yet to be filled. So, we want to hear
    when that is going to be filled. And I believe this person
    should have responsibility for aligning programs, plans,
    budgets, and integrating those plans across the Department.
        I strongly urge the administration to quickly fill this
    position at the earliest opportunity and to seek a space
    acquisition professional to carry out this important
    responsibility.
        The committee's support for Space Force hinges on how well
    it manages the funding that the taxpayers provide to deliver
    capability to the combatant commands.
        We would also like to hear about the Departmentof the Air
    Force's plan to address space acquisition and bring greater
    discipline to delivering space capabilities on schedule and
    within budget. I am encouraged that President Biden has named
    Frank Kendall, a seasoned acquisitions expert, to lead the
    Department of the Air Force and aerospace programs.
        I acknowledge that we are holding this hearing before the
    release of the full budget request, and we understand that this
    may limit your ability to answer certain questions. However,
    given the tight timeframe we have to write the bill, I ask that
    you be prepared to respond to members on any specific budget
    question they ask today immediately, and also to the full
    committee at the same time, after the request is submitted.
        And, with that, I thank you again for appearing in front of
    the committee today to discuss these important issues.
        I will ask you to present a summarized statement in a
    moment, but, first, I would like to recognize our ranking
    member, Mr. Calvert, the gentleman from California, for his
    opening comments.
        Mr. Calvert.

                         Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
        I want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing before
    us today.
        The 2018 National Defense Strategy states that, to address
    the scope and pace of our competitors' ambitions and
    capabilities, we must invest in the modernization of key
    capabilities through sustained, predictable budgets. To
    accomplish this, it is what Congress and the subcommittees, in
    particular----
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Calvert, you have gone silent and we have
    lost your feed.
        Let's just pause for a minute and see if he can get back
    on. Hopefully staff is with him and monitoring.
        Members, I don't want to proceed because Mr. Calvert needs
    to hear the testimony as well. So we will wait a few more
    minutes. I thank you so much for your indulgence. I appreciate
    it. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Can you hear me now?
        Ms. McCollum. I can hear you. I do not see you.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. We have a little technical issue here.
    We are working through it.
        All right. I am back.
        Ms. McCollum. There you are. Welcome back.
        Mr. Calvert. Sorry about that.
        Ms. McCollum. Why don't you start almost from the
    beginning?
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. I will say thank you again, Chair
    McCollum, and I will just get into what we need to accomplish,
    this subcommittee. And listening to our witnesses today, I am
    anxious to do that.
        Obviously, in this era of great-power competition, our Air
    Force/Space Force must be modernized, ready, and lethal in
    order to address threats from adversaries like China. I would
    like to hear from each of you on how the airmen and guardians
    are keeping pace with rapidly evolving threats in aerospace,
    cyberspace, and other domains.
        Furthermore, in order to adapt to the changes in the
    strategic environment, I agree with General Brown's
    ``accelerate, change, or lose'' vision. American air dominance
    is not a birthright. We must evolve into a new warfighting era
    to maintain our edge.
        I would hope that the new leadership builds on successes of
    the last administration, specifically the efforts of Dr. Will
    Roper. He recognized the Air Force needed to do better at
    bringing disruption into the system, including small business.
    He was able to take a sixth-generation fighter from concept to
    prototype in 1 year. That is the type of disruptive change that
    the Air Force and the entire Department desperately needs.
        There has also been a lot of discussion about how the Air
    Force, in particular, is looking to shed legacy systems to
    invest in new technology. While I support these efforts, I am
    interested to hear more about how we are adequately balancing
    resources between future high-end warfare and the realities of
    our current operations.
        Finally, I must address an issue that is close to my heart
    that speaks to the realities of risk not only in high-end
    warfare but also in training. An F-16 mishap at Shaw Air Force
    Base in June of 2020 took the life of First Lieutenant David
    Schmitz.
        The report highlighted multiple failures on the part of the
    Air Force, ranging from training standards to risk mitigation
    and emergency procedures. Following this hearing, I want to get
    a status update on all the faults highlighted in the incident
    report.
        As this young man's Member of Congress, I am committed to
    working with the Air Force and holding it accountable to ensure
    that corrective action is being taken to honor Lieutenant David
    Schmitz's sacrifice and to ensure this never happens again.
        I understand that, under current and future fiscal
    constraints, you will have to make difficult decisions about
    where budget priorities will fall. I hope they will not come at
    the cost of increased risk in training and readiness.
        I look forward to reviewing these choices once the fiscal
    2022 budget is submitted and continuing our dialogue so that we
    can make the right choices for airmen, guardians, and the
    Nation as a whole.
        And thank you again for taking the time, and I am sorry for
    our little technical glitch.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. I am so glad you were able to resolve that.
    And thank you for your words, your strong words, about making
    sure that all our servicemembers, but for today, in particular,
    the people who serve in the Air Force, have the training and
    the right equipment so that they can fulfill missions,
    including their training mission, and come home safe. Thank you
    for your strong words. It is very important to remember that.
        I would like to first turn to Secretary Roth.
        Mr. Secretary.

                      Summary Statement of Secretary Roth

        Secretary Roth. Thank you very much, Chair McCollum.
        Good afternoon, everybody. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member
    Calvert, members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be here
    today.
        I am also honored to have General Brown and General Raymond
    join me here in representing the nearly 700,000 airmen and
    guardians that defend our Nation. We thank you for your
    consistent and persistent support over the years, which has
    enabled us to build the world's greatest air and space forces.
        As an integrated force, our airmen and guardians stand
    ready, willing, and able to meet responsibilities to our Nation
    and continue defending the high ground. From 300 feet to 300
    miles off the ground, we protect the homeland, we project
    power, and we defend our democracy.
        The long-term strategic competition with China and Russia
    demands that we focus on capabilities we need today to win
    tomorrow. Our Nation's competitive strategic advantage relies
    on air and space superiority, which is underpinned by rapid
    technological advancement and the extension of space as a
    warfighting domain.
        In line with Secretary Austin's priorities to defend the
    Nation, take care of our people, and succeed through teamwork,
    our fiscal year 2022 budget is the beginning of a journey to
    the Air and Space Forces of 2030. It builds capabilities that
    allow the Department to modernize while continuing to meet
    national security objectives and defend the high ground.
        Specifically, we are committed to investing in, one,
    empowering airmen and guardians; two, capability-focused
    modernization; three, connecting the Joint Force; and, four,
    expanding partnerships.
        First, our airmen and guardians remain the heart of our
    ability to deter and, if necessary, defeat our competitors. We
    are transforming our talent management systems to ensure that
    we develop and train leaders with the competence, character,
    and skills required to win high-end fights. And we remain
    devoted to recruiting and retaining a diverse corps of multi-
    capable, innovative talent to outmaneuver our adversaries today
    and in the future.
        We owe it to our force to provide them with an environment
    where all can thrive. That is why we are directing critical
    resources to rid our ranks of any corrosive elements and
    injustices that degrade our ability to provide a lethal, ready
    force.
        Second, to remain the world's greatest Air and Space Force,
    we must look to the future through a lens of capability-focused
    modernization. Evidenced by nuclear modernization, next-
    generation air dominance platforms, our digital acquisition
    approach revolutionizes how we design and field capabilities to
    the warfighters.
        This budget expands on these digital revolutions while also
    investing in next-generation space systems that are resilient
    and defensive. Space is no longer a benign domain. Our U.S.
    Space Force is purpose-built to deter and protect free access
    to space.
        Third, combatant commanders require an agile military that
    operates seamlessly across all domains at both speed and scale.
    That is why we continue to invest in capabilities like the
    Advanced Battle Management System to connect the Joint Force,
    every sensor to every shooter, across all domains.
        Likewise, access to and freedom of action in space is
    central to the success of a connected Joint Force. In its
    second year, U.S. Space Force is focused on integration.
    Investments in space capabilities increase the effectiveness of
    operations across all domains. The result is a military that is
    better-connected, better-informed, faster, and more precise.
        Finally, the U.S. Air and Space Force do not fight alone.
    We benefit from the expertise and capabilities of our sister
    services and coalition forces, as well as from commercial
    industry, interagency, and academia. We will continue to invest
    in enduring relationships while expanding new partnerships to
    transform how we fight future wars.
        Members of the committee, thank you for inviting us to
    testify. I look forward to your support of our fiscal year 2022
    budget and am confident that, with your help, the Air and Space
    Forces will be armed with the capabilities necessary to protect
    our Nation and defend the high ground.
        We welcome your questions. And I ask that this opening
    statement be entered into the record.
        Ms. McCollum. The formal remarks from all three of you
    gentlemen will be entered into the record.
        Thank you for being so succinct.
        General Brown.

                       Summary Statement of General Brown

        General Brown. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert,
    distinguished members of this committee, good morning and good
    afternoon. I am humbled to appear before you as our Nation's
    22nd Air Force Chief of Staff. I represent the 689,000 total
    force airmen serving today. Your support to our airmen and
    their families is greatly appreciated.
        It is an honor to be present for my first posture hearing
    with Acting Secretary Roth and my fellow service chief and
    friend of many years, General Jay Raymond.
        As a general officer, I have spent the last decade-plus in
    joint positions focused overseas and/or supporting operations
    in the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and most recently in the
    Indo-Pacific. With this context, I have been able to look at
    the Air Force from a different perspective, and I have
    personally seen the reemergence of great-power competition and
    how the character of war has changed.
        The strategic environment has rapidly evolved, and we
    haven't changed fast enough to keep pace. The People's Republic
    of China has recognized modern warfare as a contest amongst
    systems, not individual units or platforms. Accordingly,
    Secretary Austin has prioritized China as our pacing threat.
    Meanwhile, Russia continues to modernize its armed forces,
    increasing the capability of its missiles, strike aircraft,
    warships, artillery systems, and nuclear weapons. And current
    competition and future warfare will be conducted across all
    domains simultaneously, will be a trans-regional and global
    undertaking, with complex actions and actors intertwined.
        To account for these changes, our Air Force must change
    faster than we have been. If we continue on a path of
    incremental change, our advantage erodes, and losing becomes a
    distinct possibility.
        The Air Force recently updated our mission statement to
    ``Fly, fight, and win. Airpower anytime, anywhere.'' To
    continue executing this mission, we must transform our force
    and our operational concepts, and we have to do it much faster.
    That is why I wrote ``accelerate, change, or lose,'' to call
    attention to the changes in the strategic environment. Because
    the capabilities that our Air Force has now that were good
    enough for yesterday or good enough for today will fail
    tomorrow.
        Our future Air Force must be agile, resilient, and
    connected, with the ability to generate near-instantaneous
    effects anytime, anywhere--not just sometimes, in some places,
    but anytime, anywhere.
        Our Air Force is the only service that provides our joint
    teammates, allies, and partners the assurance of air
    superiority, the advantage of global strike, and the agility of
    rapid global mobility through a range of capabilities most
    requested by today's combatant commanders.
        Additionally, the Air Force's current ISR and command and
    control capabilities provide the ability to sense, make sense,
    and act. While our past and current capabilities have sufficed
    for the last three decades, they will not effectively perform
    in tomorrow's high-end fight.
        Finally, we have foundational responsibility to our airmen
    and their families. I remain focus to ensuring that they are
    ready, have the tools and infrastructure and talent management
    systems needed to provide the environment where all can reach
    their full potential.
        The future Air Force design advances our core missions and
    new approaches to warfighting that realistically support every
    combatant commander and benefit every service chief. Investing
    in your Air Force is an investment in the Joint Force.
        Ladies and gentlemen, the bottom line is simple: We must
    modernize for the future and focus on capabilities that
    maintain our advantage both today and tomorrow. For decades, we
    collaborated with Congress and our industry partners to
    modernize for the future. We have done it before, and now I am
    confident, together, we can do it again. We must be willing to
    change and make tough choices to fulfill our responsibility of
    ensuring our national security.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, General Brown.
        And, finally, General Raymond.

                      Summary Statement of General Raymond

        General Raymond. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert,
    and members of the committee, it is an honor to appear before
    you today with Mr. Roth, the Acting Secretary of the Air Force,
    and General C.Q. Brown, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a
    longtime friend and teammate.
        On behalf of the guardians and civilians assigned to the
    Space Force, let me begin by thanking you for your continued
    leadership and your strong support you provided our new
    service.
        The United States is a space-faring Nation. We have long
    understood our Nation is strongest economically,
    diplomatically, and militarily when we have access to and
    freedom to maneuver in space.
        For the past three decades, we have been able to take that
    access and that freedom to maneuver for granted. Unfortunately,
    as the National Defense Strategy and the newer Interim National
    Security Strategy highlight, this is no longer the case. Both
    China, our pacing threat, and Russia continue to develop space
    capabilities for their own use.
        And they are both building weapons specifically designed to
    deny us the benefits we currently enjoy. These threats include
    robust jamming of GPS and communication satellites; directed
    energy systems that can blind, disrupt, or damage our
    satellites; anti-satellite weapons in space or from the ground
    that are designed to destroy U.S. satellites; and cyber
    capabilities that can deny our access to the domain.
        Thankfully, with the strong support of Congress, the United
    States seized on the opportunity to make needed change to stay
    ahead of this growing threat and established the United States
    Space Force. This leadership is resonating globally, and it is
    already delivering advantage for our Nation. I am pleased to
    report, with the establishment of the Space Force, we are
    better postured today to meet the challenges we face than we
    were just under 17 months ago.
        We have purpose-built this force for this domain. We have
    slashed bureaucracy at every level in order to empower our
    guardians to move at speed and to increase accountability.
        We have put together a forward-leaning Human Capital
    Strategy, allowing us to build a more highly trained, educated,
    and developed force while taking care of guardians and their
    families throughout their entire career.
        We wrote our first doctrine to more clearly articulate the
    independent value of space power to the joint and coalition
    forces. And this importance is fully captured in the
    Department's new joint warfighting construct.
        Our international partnerships are stronger, with many of
    our partner nations following our lead by elevating space.
        We have created a new capability development process, from
    force design and requirements to acquisition and testing,
    enabled by a digital thread, while driving unity of effort
    across the Department.
        Now that we have built this service, we are moving at speed
    to capitalize on its creation. We have set conditions to
    outpace emerging and dynamic threats and create new military
    options. Working with the Joint Force, interagency, industry,
    and our partners and allies, these partnerships will allow us
    to move at speed and at an affordable cost.
        You will soon see our first independent top-line budget,
    which reflects the importance of space to our national
    security. Space is a force multiplier for the entire Joint
    Force. Our top priority is to provide assured access to
    capabilities for our Nation, to our joint and coalition
    partnerships, and to modernize to be more survivable in an
    increasingly contested domain.
        Building on the investments made over the previous fiscal
    years, we will balance the need to protect capabilities that we
    have on orbit now while shifting to a more defendable
    architecture in the future. These demanding tasks could not
    have been possible without sustained support from Congress,
    including this committee. So, for that, I thank you. We cannot
    afford to lose space.
        I am honored to serve as the first Chief of Space
    Operations and to have the opportunity to serve side-by-side
    with our incredible Space Force team. It is because of them
    that our Nation enjoys the benefits of space today, and it is
    because of them, America's sons and daughters, that we will
    compete, deter, and win in the future.
        I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I
    look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            SPACE ACQUISITION ISSUES

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        For questions this round, I will go first, and then Mr.
    Calvert will go second. And I thank you for your testimony.
        I want to be very clear in my questioning that the Air
    Force, better than just about any other branch of service,
    should understand what is involved with setting up a new
    service line. My father served in the Army Air Corps, so the
    Air Force was birthed out of that. So, the Air Force
    understands what needs to happen and how it needs to happen
    quickly.
        So, as I said in my opening statement, I am very concerned
    about the lack of progress with fixing these longstanding
    problems of space acquisition that are now in the Space Force.
    For years, GAO and others have written reports about the
    challenges within space acquisition. Our committee staff--I
    have seen them--have bookshelves of such reports.
        Recently, the GAO identified budget shortfalls, cost
    growth, or delays in the GPS space, ground, and user equipment
    segments of the program, and budget shortfalls for missile-
    warning satellite launch vehicle integration, as well as
    concerns about other ongoing programs.
        To the Secretary and General Raymond: Cost growth and
    delayed schedules, they are serious problems. You are aware of
    that. I believe that they are a symptom of a larger fundamental
    problem. What have you identified as the core fundamental
    issues that cause cost growth and schedule delays on space
    programs? And what are the steps you are taking to address
    these issues?
        And, on that, I pointed out in my testimony that Congress
    established an Assistant Secretary position to focus on space
    acquisition, to serve as the space acquisition executive. Now,
    that post has yet to be filled. It wasn't filled by the
    previous administration, and we are only a few months into the
    new administration. But this is very important. That position
    is to oversee and direct space acquisition units of the
    Department, such as the Space Rapid Capabilities Office and the
    Space and Missile Systems Center.
        Now, this individual is going to be responsible for making
    acquisition decisions, and they will have a responsibility to
    make decisions on the budget and to align the resources with
    those acquisitions.
        When can we expect to see this position filled?
        Gentlemen?
        Secretary Roth. Yes. Okay. I will start with talking about
    the position, and then I will hand off to General Raymond to
    talk a little bit about space acquisition.
        I share your concern, Chair. The position ought to be
    filled. Probably should have been filled, you know, last year
    as well, but for reasons beyond our control, they were not
    filled at the time. So that position needs to be filled as soon
    as possible. And so, I assume, anytime, shortly, that further
    nominations will be coming in to fill the remainder of the
    political positions we have here in the Air Force. That is a
    key position. I agree with your assessment completely.
        Now, we haven't sat on our hands. We have taken a look at
    that office and we have organized it in a way that whoever
    comes in can hopefully, you know, for lack of a better word,
    hit the ground running and start out. But that person will
    obviously need to influence where we go forward.
        I will note that that position will not become the space
    acquisition executive until 1 October 2022. And that is part of
    the problem and perhaps one of the reasons why it wasn't filled
    last year as well.
        We would actually suggest that perhaps we ought to propose
    some legislation to amend that a little bit to say that it
    won't be filled until no later than 1 October 2022 so that the
    person, once they are up to speed, can perhaps start taking on
    some of the SAE kinds of responsibilities. But, again, right
    now, as the Authorization Act directed, that position will not
    become the space acquisition executive until 1 October of 2022.
        In terms of general management, cost, schedule, and
    performance are the keys to any acquisition program. And it is
    just--it is a management imperative. We have had issues on both
    the Air and Space side, as you allude to, in terms of staying
    on schedule and performing. And so, it just takes attention.
        And so we, across the enterprise, across the Department of
    the Air Force enterprise, are taking a new approach, a new
    modern, more aggressive, more accelerated approach, to try to
    eliminate bureaucracy and try to focus people on goals, coming
    up with meaningful metrics, and making sure we manage risk in a
    way that makes some sense. Because, too often, we overpromise
    and underperform, and we need to fix that. We are committed to
    doing so.
        As you say, Mr. Kendall is an acquisition executive, has an
    enormous amount of experience in this area, so I would expect
    him to bring that to this position.
        Let me stop and pause and hand off to General Raymond as
    well.
        General Raymond. Yes.
        Chair, thank you very much for the question.
        We have got to go faster in modernizing our space
    capabilities and delivering capabilities and putting them in
    the hands of the warfighter.
        From a chief's perspective of a service, I have pieces of
    this, and it is the whole capability development process that
    we have built.
        It starts with force design. We have established an
    organization called the Space Warfighting Analysis Center that
    is doing that force design, and is doing that force design with
    other acquisition authorities across the Department to drive
    unity of effort.
        It also, then, moves into requirements. And as the service
    chief, I am responsible for requirements. By elevating space to
    an independent service, I have a direct link to the JROC and
    participation in the JROC, which strengthens that position in
    requirements, and we have streamlined that process.
        Acquisition-wise, we have reorganized the acquisition
    organization, called Space and Missile Systems Center. And,
    upon confirmation of a commander, hopefully this summer--
    nomination and confirmation of a commander, hopefully this
    summer, we will establish Space Systems Command, which is a
    very flat organization with more delegated authorities pushed
    down to them, with partnerships with other acquisition
    agencies, in order to go fast, drive unity of effort, and
    reduce cost.
        And, finally, for the first time ever, we have developed a
    space testing program, which we haven't had before, to
    accelerate and have an integrated testing program, from
    contractor testing to developmental testing, to operational
    testing, all with one organization. And that will be
    established later this year as well.
        And so, all the pieces are in place. I could not agree more
    that we need to have an Assistant Secretary for Space
    Acquisition and Integration, and I look forward to getting them
    on board soonest.
        Ms. McCollum. So, if I am hearing you correctly, with what
    you have put in place with the testing, you have looked at, you
    have had staff look at the GAO reports, and you are
    implementing some of those suggestions? Could you get back to
    the staff with what you are implementing----
        General Raymond. Certainly.
        Ms. McCollum [continuing]. And the timeframe and what it is
    going to be doing, and, with that, your expectations?
        General Raymond. I absolutely will.
        Ms. McCollum. We have expectations for the airmen and for
    the guardians. We need to have expectations for those who, you
    know, let out the contracts and oversee the contracts, that
    they meet their prescribed deadlines.
        General Raymond. I absolutely will, ma'am. I look forward
    to it.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert.

                            SPACE FORCE MISSION PLAN

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I share your concern on these acquisition issues. I have
    been, as you know, concerned about that for a long time, and
    especially now that the commercial enterprises, quite frankly,
    are much further ahead than our military. And we need to
    understand how to integrate commercial enterprise with our own
    programs.
        And I have always talked about this so-called valley of
    death. I recommend a book to everyone called ``Kill Chain''
    that goes through the problems which industry has with doing
    business with the Department of Defense. Quite frankly, they
    just don't trust them, especially in protecting their
    intellectual property.
        The whole reason that we have the Space Force is to be
    disruptive, to create change as rapidly as possible. The
    Chinese, as you know, have a turnaround of about 2 to 3 years
    on their satellite program, and some of our satellites are
    taking up to 20 years, especially some of our legacy
    satellites--which are very important, I get it, but we can no
    longer rest on that relatively old technology.
        I would like to hear how the Space Force is going to do
    things differently. And, as you know, status quo is not
    acceptable. How can we align our resources and our acquisition
    strategies to work with industry to capture their enthusiasm
    and motivation?
        And I use Elon Musk as an example, and SpaceX, you know,
    often because he was a disrupter. You know, obviously, Boeing
    and Lockheed didn't like that too much, but he did what he had
    to do, and it has worked out to the benefit of the United
    States.
        So, General Raymond, where are we going with this?
        General Raymond. So, first of all, sir, thanks for the
    question.
        We have a great opportunity. And the opportunity that we
    see in the Space Force are twofold: partnerships with our
    allies and partners, and partnerships with commercial
    industries, as you just highlighted.
        Commercial industry is doing in months what it is taking
    the government to do in years. It all begins with force design
    and designing the architecture of space with a new business
    model in mind and with protection in mind.
        And so, we are building a force design that will allow us
    to capitalize on that commercial capability. Once that force
    design is done later this summer, we are going to have an
    industry day, lay that force design out to the industry and
    have them understand it and then compete to participate in the
    building of that force design.
        We have got to capitalize on commercial industry and
    leverage them to greater advantage than what we have done to
    date.
        Mr. Calvert. And I would agree.
        Another thing is people, of course, General. You know, I
    get, you know, we are in a political world and we have to make
    changes, but, you know, I don't think, for instance, Will Roper
    had a political bone in his body, quite frankly. And he was a
    very valuable resource to the United States Government.
        I was somewhat distressed that he was sent away, because
    that is the type of individuals that you need to attract people
    who are going to be smart, obviously, and disruptive and force
    change, both in the traditional Air Force and the new Space
    Force. Because, obviously, we are going to have to contend with
    China in this one. I don't think Russia has the resources or
    the capability of doing what China is already doing.
        I hope you can continue to share with us how we are going
    to invest in these systems and how we are going to maintain our
    edge in space, because we are quickly losing our edge. And so,
    we don't have the time. I would hope that you could put
    together this as quickly as possible.

                       SPACE FORCE OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY

        And let me ask this question. What is the Space Force doing
    to ensure that this is similarly supported and developed in the
    operational capability? In other words, what are you doing
    right now to bring confidence to the warfighter that you are
    able to deliver today, if necessary?
        General Raymond. Well, first of all, we are the best in the
    world at space. We remain the best in the world at space. But
    that superiority gap is shrinking. And so that is why we
    established the Space Force; that is why we established U.S.
    Space Command on the operational side. And we are all about
    going fast and moving at speed.
        We exercise with our warfighting partners. We train, we
    war-game with those partners. We develop our infrastructure
    with them in mind and have them help us build that in a way
    that gives them information. Our main goal is to provide the
    capabilities to our joint and coalition forces at the time and
    tempo that they need to do so. That is what we are committed to
    doing.
        The challenge today, though, is that is not good enough,
    because there is an active threat in the domain. And you can't
    just launch capabilities without also understanding how you
    have to protect and defend it.
        And so, there is this balance. There are really four things
    that we are balancing: getting capability onto orbit fast;
    being able to protect and defend that capability; shifting and
    modernizing to a more defendable architecture, because the
    capabilities that we have in space today are not that
    defendable; and then, fourth, what other new missions should
    transfer to space because space provides an opportunity to do
    it better.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, you have a big challenge ahead of you,
    and I hope we have the budget to support that challenge. And,
    you know, I think the squeeze we have in the budget is
    unfortunate, because we need to make sure you have the
    resources to make sure that you maintain your lead in space.
        With that, I will yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert. We need to make sure
    that every penny is spent wisely with this budget, don't we?
        Mr. Cuellar and Mr. Rogers.

                                 PILOT SHORTAGE

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member.
        Again, thank you all for your service.
        What I want to do is, by the way, I associate myself, also,
    to the remarks of the Chairwoman and the Ranking Member. We
    have to be a little bit more agile. I know we have an
    advantage, but that advantage, in our opinion, I think, is
    shrinking.
        What I want to talk about is about the shortage of pilots.
    As you know, the airline industry takes a lot of the Air Force
    pilots. We have known that for many years. I think before the
    COVID-19 reached the U.S., the Air Force had a deficit of more
    than 2,000 pilots. The pandemic temporarily paused the airline
    hiring, reducing the pilot losses to the Air Force. But, still,
    COVID-19 hampered our pilot training, which--pretty much, the
    overall shortage didn't really change much.
        My question is, and I know you are working on it, but we
    have to have something to address that issue of the pilot
    shortage that we have. We have been talking about it for a long
    time, and we have to see some sort of change on that.

                       RUSSIA AND CHINA IN LATIN AMERICA

        The second thing I want to ask you is, tell me what your
    knowledge is of what the Chinese and the Russians are doing in
    Latin America. I think we have asked this of the other
    departments. I am a little concerned about what the Russians
    but especially the Chinese are doing.
        For example, there is a listening post, or I think they
    call it a tracking station, that they have in Argentina and I
    think one other place, somewhere out there in Africa. But I am
    a little concerned that in our own backyard we are seeing the
    Chinese and the Russians, especially the Chinese, in Latin
    America.
        Those are my two questions, and I appreciate your
    responses.

                                PILOT SHORTAGES

        General Brown. Representative Cuellar, thank you for the
    question.
        And when we look at the pilot shortage, you are right, we
    have made some progress over the course of the past year, where
    we shortened the gap by about 200 over the course of the past
    year. Part of that was due, as you described, to the pandemic.
    But, also, what I would also tell you is, our goal was to get
    to 1,500 a year, and even throughout the pandemic, instead of--
    we didn't drop down. We actually were able to maintain the same
    level we had the year prior.
        A real testament to our airmen and our operators and our
    maintainers, to maintain the capacity and not slide back due to
    COVID. It is a combination of production and retention, and we
    are working both sides of that.
        We have several initiatives that we are working, from
    increasing our introductory flight training, to our pilot
    training next, to how we work with our civilian sim instructors
    to free up more of our uniformed members to increase our
    production.
        At the same time, we are looking at some commercial
    options. We just sent out the request for information that we
    are analyzing now on commercial options to help that as well.

                       RUSSIA AND CHINA IN LATIN AMERICA

        To your second question, you know, one of the things that
    we talk about with the combatant commanders is that China is
    not just an Indo-Pacific problem; it is a global problem. And
    maybe less so from a military aspect, but more so from an
    economic aspect and the influence they have done with their One
    Belt, One Road and how they come into various countries with
    quite a bit of money and influence in areas.
        And so they can have, what I would call, slight inroads
    into different parts of the world, including South America,
    Latin America, that we need to be paying attention to, as a
    Nation, to make sure that we have a good understanding of what
    is going on and the impact, so it doesn't happen just
    insidiously and we are in a position where we are at a
    disadvantage.
        Mr. Cuellar. Well, I have a little bit of time, so I will
    yield back, but I, you know, want you to make sure you all
    really pay attention to--I know they are a problem all over the
    world. I understand that. But I just don't want to wake up one
    of these days and realize that they really have a strong
    presence in Latin America, in our own backyard. So just
    remember what happened in the 1980s when we woke up and we saw
    the Sandinistas and the Russians in Nicaragua. I don't want
    that to happen.
        Otherwise, thank you so much for all three of you all on
    your service. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr. Rogers and then Mr. Kilmer.

                    SPACE AGENCIES MISSIONS AND COOPERATION

        Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        There are several big-time players in this topic that we
    are discussing this morning. Let me set the stage to perhaps
    deconflict the various agencies that are involved from each
    other.
        We have the regular Air Force, we have NASA, we have now
    the new Space Force, as well as the commercial or private
    enterprises, all of them dealing with a piece of space. Help us
    deconflict those agencies and how they relate to each other and
    to the main mission.
        General Raymond. Yes, sir.
        There are three segments of space across our Nation. One is
    civil space. That is NASA. They do science exploration,
    planetary exploration. And that is the civil part of space.
        There is a national security space. That is now the Space
    Force. That has transitioned out of the Air Force into the
    Space Force, and that is what we do. We are about organized
    training and equipping and operating capabilities for the
    defense of our country.
        And then there is commercial space. And commercial space is
    just like in any other domain where you have commercial
    industry that is conducting operations. We have a commercial
    space industry. It is alive and well. It is flourishing. It is
    a great national strength for us.
        Historically, what has been commercially viable were
    commercial launches and large communication satellites. Today,
    because the cost of launch has gone down, largely because of
    commercial launch, and because satellites that are smaller are
    more operationally relevant, we see a full expansion across all
    mission sets that are now commercially viable.
        There are three separate segments: civil, military, and
    commercial.
        Mr. Rogers. Why do we need a Space Force? Why is not the
    regular Air Force program just as effective or more so?
        General Raymond. Well, as we mentioned just a little bit
    ago, the capability gap is shrinking between us and our closest
    competitors. They are catching up on us. And the Nation decided
    to take an opportunity, before it was too late, to stand up a
    service that was purpose-built for this domain.
        And we have already seen the benefits of that elevation. We
    are attracting greater talent. We have a stronger voice in
    requirements. We have a stronger voice with our allies and
    partners. In fact, after we established the Space Force,
    France, U.K., Australia, and Japan have all elevated space in
    their departments as well. We have a stronger link with
    commercial industry to be able to better capitalize on that
    commercial industry.

                            PILOT SHORTAGE SOLUTIONS

        So, across the board, we have seen a critical elevation of
    capability since we have established the Space Force.
        Mr. Rogers. Mr. Cuellar touched on this briefly, about the
    shortage of pilots. Now, with the shortage becoming very acute,
    what do you suppose we should be doing to be sure we have
    enough pilots to man our mission?
        Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Roth. Well, again, I think, as General Brown
    responded here before, we actually are making some progress. I
    mean, we are not hitting the 1,500, but last year we did
    about--I think it was 1,263, which was better than we have done
    in the past.
        We have a number of initiatives that we are trying to
    improve our so-called organic capabilities. We have something
    called Undergraduate Pilot 2.5, which is trying to take more
    modern kinds of approaches to how we approach pilot training.
    We are also trying to take a look at leveraging things like
    simulators and better use of simulators. And also trying to
    look at, are there some ways that we can leapfrog the system,
    in terms of bringing in pilots from the civilian world and not
    making them go through every step and perhaps getting them into
    a cockpit sooner, and those kinds of things.
        Let me hand off again to General Brown. But we are actually
    taking it seriously. He mentioned the fact that we are looking
    at some commercial opportunities to see if there is some
    synergy there as well.
        General Brown. And just to build on what the Secretary
    said, so we do have some initiatives for increased introductory
    flight training, which decreases the number of students that
    wash out.
        We are looking at how we do our helicopter training.
    Instead of going to fixed-wing and then to helicopters, we are
    going straight to helicopters, which frees up a number of
    different slots that can produce fixed-wing pilots.
        As he also described, we are collaborating with those that
    already have civilian training, to bring them in a bit faster;
    at the same time, working with universities that have aviation
    programs to accelerate and shorten the time that they are going
    through our Air Force pilot training to help increase our
    production as well.
        Mr. Rogers. Well, it is going to get a lot more
    complicated, because, as the economy recovers and grows, there
    will be a larger demand, even, on pilots from the commercial
    world that you will be competing against. It is best we put our
    best efforts forward quickly and assuredly on the problem.
        Madam Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. A good question. And this is a
    problem that all our agencies are facing, pilot shortage. So it
    is not just in the military; all of our agencies are facing
    this. It is something we need to look at.
        Mr. Kilmer and then Mr. Cole.

                   THE NATIONAL SECURITY SPACE LAUNCH PROGRAM

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thanks to our witnesses for being with us today and for
    your service.
        General Raymond, it was great speaking with you earlier
    this week. I would like to revisit a topic that we discussed.
    The National Security Space Launch program is the program that
    enables the acquisition of launch services, with the goal of
    ensuring continued access to space for critical national
    security missions.
        And I know the program is managed by the Space and Missile
    Systems Center and that the Space Force is the service branch
    responsible for awarding the domestic launch service contracts
    for the program. And, last summer, the Space Force awarded the
    launch service contracts for phase two of the NSSL and selected
    two providers. I understand that phase two covers launch
    service orders through 2024, with phase three likely to begin
    in 2025. And, during our recent conversation, you mentioned
    that the Space Force is currently doing research to inform
    phase-three specifics.
        I have three questions here.
        One, is the team evaluating the benefits of selecting more
    than two providers for phase three?
        And, two, as the NSSL missions become more frequent and
    diverse, do two providers afford you enough launch options?
        And then, finally, I know the Air and Space Forces have
    used a streamlined acquisition strategy to reduce NSSL launch
    costs. Do you think adding another provider for phase three
    could reduce costs further?
        General Raymond. First of all, it was great talking with
    you on the phone. I appreciated that opportunity, and
    appreciate the opportunity to discuss this again with you.
        We have three priorities in launch. First is assured access
    to space. It is nationally critical. It is a national
    imperative. The second is to increase competition. And what we
    have seen over the course of the last 8 or so years is, that
    increased competition has saved about $7 billion out the
    National Security Space Launch budgets. And then the third is
    to get off the RD-180 engine, which is a Russian engine.
        That strategy has gone very well. We have assured access.
    We have increased competition; the costs have gone down. And we
    will be off the RD-180 engine and won't even have to buy
    anywhere near as many as we were allowed to buy. So that is
    going well.
        Now, we have started investing some dollars in some
    technology maturation, if you will, for a phase three. We are
    just in the very early stages of those phase two launches, and
    as we progress towards the timeline when we would have to make
    that decision, we will look at what the launch industry looks
    like, we will look at the manifest, the projected manifest, if
    you will, for the numbers of launches that will have to be
    launched, and then we will make that decision at that time.
        I am all for competition, and if the manifest shows that we
    need additional providers, we will do that.

                              LOW-EARTH ORBIT RISK

        Mr. Kilmer. General, I also wanted to touch on, during our
    conversation earlier this week, you mentioned that advances in
    technology have also allowed greater access to space and a
    dramatic increase of satellites in orbit. You know, obviously,
    this increase in objects in orbit poses some risk to space
    activities in the national security and defense and commercial
    and civil sectors. The main concern now is congestion in low-
    Earth orbit, but in the near future we may be faced with
    increased congestion in lunar orbit too.
        The Space Force, it seems, can be a leader in resolving
    some of these issues associated with space congestion. You
    mentioned to me that you are in communication with other
    countries who are interested in partnering with the U.S. as we,
    sort of, forge some of these policies collectively.
        Are there currently internationally-agreed-to, kind of,
    rules of the road for space activities in low-Earth orbit? And
    are those rules governing the de-orbiting of satellites and the
    removal of spent rockets to declutter low-Earth orbit? And,
    finally, what measures is the Space Force pursuing in that
    arena?
        General Raymond. Thanks.
        It is clear that space is contested, congested, and
    competitive. And on the congested side, we track about 30-
    something-thousand objects, 30,000 objects roughly, every
    single day. We take about 400,000 observations of all those
    objects in space each and every day.
        We do all the analysis--our U.S. Space Command does all the
    analysis to make sure that two objects don't collide in space
    and create more debris. And so we act as the space traffic
    control for the world. If any two objects are going to collide,
    even if it is a China object about to collide with a piece of
    debris that they created, we will warn them, because we want to
    keep the domain safe.
        That job is a full-time job, and it is becoming even more
    demanding.
        So what do you do? First of all, you quit creating debris
    in the first place. You develop standards that satellites don't
    break apart when they are towards the end of their life. You
    develop standards so, when launch vehicles launch, you don't
    litter the domain with debris. You act in a safe and
    professional manner--which those rules haven't been defined.
    And you partner with your allies to develop those.
        So I will tell you that low-Earth orbit and space in
    general is the wild, wild West. Basically, two rules: You can't
    put weapons of mass destruction in space, and you can't build a
    base on a planet. Other than that, it is largely the wild, wild
    West. We have got to put some norms of behavior in place, and
    we have got to make sure that we can keep this domain safe for
    everybody to use into the decades ahead of us.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks so much, General.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. That is a timely question. USA Today reports
    the Chinese rocket is reportedly falling uncontrollably to
    Earth, mostly burnt up, the Chinese Government reassured the
    world on Friday. It is taller than the Statue of Liberty.
        Mr. Cole.

                               FUNDING PRIORITIES

        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        And, Mr. Secretary and General Brown, General Raymond,
    thank all of you for being here. Thank you for your service.
        Two quick questions. One, my observation, we have only seen
    obviously the skinny budget so far, but I think your budget is
    going to need to go higher. We have obviously departed from
    what Secretary Mattis and Secretary Esper laid down as what
    they thought the appropriate growth rate of 3 to 5 percent was.
    So, in the event you got more money, Mr. Secretary, where would
    the focus be? What would be the top priorities?

                                 MANUFACTURING

        The second question, I will just get it in now. Obviously,
    we talk a lot about acquisition, but if you represent a
    district that has Tinker Air Force Base, you worry a lot about
    maintenance of the capabilities that we have. We have a lot of
    these legacy systems hosted here, and some of them are so old
    it is extraordinarily difficult for us to get parts and to have
    those parts manufactured. I mean, we are talking about KC-135s
    built in the 1950s and 1960s that are still being maintained
    here.
        I am curious as to what the plans are to beef up depot
    ability to, you know, manufacture parts, things like additive
    manufacturing and 3D printing manufacturing, those type of
    things. What are we thinking of in terms of increasing the
    capabilities? Because we are going to have a legacy force for a
    while. That is why we call it that. And, again, we are sort of
    reaching the point in some areas where we literally have
    outlived our supply chain.

                               FUNDING PRIORITIES

        Secretary Roth. Thank you, Mr. Cole, for the question. In
    terms of the top line, the way I would approach the answer to
    that is that the top line we have, we have said all along--and
    in some of the opening statements you all alluded to that--you
    know, as we go forward, we are going to have to probably make
    some hard choices and some difficult decisions concerning
    trying to invest in the future versus continuing to support
    some of our legacy systems. And so, we have actually been
    talking about that for 2 or 3 years, in terms of focusing on
    the future and taking some additional risks with some of the
    current systems and some of our legacy capabilities.
        My sense is the budget you will see is a balanced budget
    that can support the National Security Strategy with some
    reasonable risk, and there is always risk involved as well. And
    so you will see, you know, the service chiefs, by law, will
    provide you with an unfunded priorities list, and that will
    give you a sense of where that next dollar might go in terms of
    their priorities.
        But I want to continue to emphasize the fact that we need
    to focus on investing in technology for the future. And
    regardless of where the top line is, we are going to have to
    make sure that we make some focused decisions about continuing
    to respond to today's demands and try to manage that in the
    best way we can.
        As both generals have indicated, we are falling behind, and
    so we need to go fast, we need to catch up, we need to invest
    in the future. And so that is really the focus of our budget,
    regardless of where the top line actually is.

                                 MANUFACTURING

        In terms of Tinker and all, we actually have a number of
    initiatives to try to improve the supply chain and try to
    improve our capabilities, everything from adaptive
    manufacturing to other kinds of things. We have what we call a
    Strategic Alternate Sourcing Program, where we assist vendors
    to come in and do business with us and try to provide
    additional capabilities we don't have today.
        And taking a note from the acquisition world, we actually
    now have a Rapid Sustainment Office as well, in addition to a
    Rapid Capabilities Office. And their focus is on the supply
    chain, and their focus is on logistics and supplies and the
    like. And so we are looking and making sure that we are taking
    advantage and taking a look at diminishing manufacturing
    sources and other kinds of things to make sure that we are well
    postured with the supply chain. We are as worried as you are to
    make sure that our supply chain stays as healthy as can be.
        I hope that answers your question.

                          IMPORTANCE OF OLD PLATFORMS

        Mr. Cole. Thank you very much. Yes, it is. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, and I know we will have a continued dialogue about
    this.
        Just one more point in the few seconds that we have left.
    And I know you will do this, but I just want to state it. I
    remember a number of years ago during the Obama administration,
    the decision was made to eliminate the reserve AWACS wing,
    which actually is at Tinker. 28 of the 32 AWACS fly out of
    there. It was a big mistake, not because we don't need new
    systems; we do. Those are old platforms, 707 bodies. But if we
    had not had that capability, you know, it would have really
    eaten into our ability to wage air warfare.
        It was a big fight, and we won the fight. The planes are
    still there. Love it that we developed an alternative or a new
    platform. But as you are doing this, again, I am supportive, I
    know you have sometimes got to make changes to reinvest, but
    please don't give up capabilities that you might need in the
    immediate future. It is a very dangerous world, as you know
    better than me, and sometimes you are going to need those
    legacy systems.
        So, anyway, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. That is a good question.
        And would you please provide for the committee a list of
    what you are calling legacy systems. You have only provided the
    committee a definition.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Cole.
        Mr. Aguilar, and then Mr. Womack.

                         CONSOLIDATION OF ACQUISITIONS

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the
    witnesses for being here and for their continued service.
        General Raymond, good to chat with you again. I appreciated
    our conversation earlier this week.
        As we talked about earlier this year, the Space Force
    announced that the Space Systems Command, one of the Space
    Force's three major commands focused on acquisition, will be
    headquartered at Los Angeles Air Force Base. You previously
    stated that this is crucial, that the Space Force act quickly
    to both acquire and launch space systems.
        How will the consolidation of acquisitions within SSC
    ensure that Space Force can effectively and efficiently field
    new technology to keep base with our near-peer adversaries? And
    the second part of that is, what future investments can we
    expect at Los Angeles Air Force Base if Space Force supports
    this goal?
        General Raymond. So, yes, thanks for the opportunity to
    talk earlier in the week, and I appreciate the opportunity here
    today.
        As I mentioned before, we have got to go faster in space.
    One of the things that Congress highlighted in the years
    leading up to the establishment of the Space Force was 65
    different organizations that had a hand in space acquisition.
    And so now that we have established a Space Force, we are
    bringing unity of effort across the Department towards that
    end, from force design, to requirements, to acquisition. We
    have to reduce duplication of effort. We have to all roll in
    the same direction, if you will, and we have to reduce costs,
    and we have to do it at speed.
        And so when we established--or planned and designed the
    Space Systems Command, it was to do that, to be a very flat
    organization. Back just a few years ago, there was one PEO for
    space. Today, we have distributed that much more broadly so
    there is not a bottle jam. We have delegated authorities down
    to the lower level so program managers can manage their
    programs, not managing the Pentagon bureaucracy. We have
    established something called the Program Integration Council
    here at the Pentagon to streamline the processes once it gets
    into the Pentagon. So there has been a lot of advances over the
    course of this year.
        We are delivering our capabilities on schedule. The next-
    gen OPIR has met every milestone, has been on budget as it has
    been planned. And so what the organization of SSC allows us to
    do out in Los Angeles will also allow us to align that major
    acquisition organization with some disruptive innovators. The
    Space RCO focused on our nationally critical protect and defend
    mission. The Space Development Agency focused on harnessing
    commercial space in greater details, and have competition
    between those three arms.
        The critical part of being in Los Angeles is that
    commercial industry is all right there. And so by having that
    relationship right there next to the commercial industry, it
    really will continue to pay advances for us.
        Thank you.

                           DIVERSITY IN THE WORKFORCE

        Mr. Aguilar. Appreciate the answer. And I know that if I
    wouldn't have asked the question, Mr. Calvert would have in a
    future round.
        I appreciate your written testimony on the emphasis for
    building digitally fluent cadre to support the Space Force.
    This cadre will include civilian workforces, as we discussed
    too. What types of outreach do you plan to do to develop a
    diverse civilian workforce, including individuals from
    underrepresented and minority communities?
        General Raymond. It is a great question, and it is a
    priority for us. We have an opportunity to start with a clean
    sheet of paper, to build this service from scratch the way we
    need to have it to have the people and the capabilities that we
    need to accomplish our mission.
        If you look at the career field that came into the Space
    Force, it is operation to acquisition, engineering,
    intelligence, and cyber. That is it. Now, all of the support
    career fields remain in the Air Force do not increase our
    bureaucracy. We are just solely focused on space superiority.
    Unfortunately, those career fields are the least diverse of the
    career fields that were in the service, and so we are
    developing university partnership programs with colleges and
    historically Black colleges, for example, and universities,
    like North Carolina A&T, and we are working to attract that
    talent.
        Space has always been a leader in that. NASA has been a
    leader in that for decades, and we want to capitalize on that.
    There is a lot of excitement across our country about space. We
    have more people knocking on our door wanting to get into our
    force than we have positions for by a long shot, and we have a
    great opportunity to handpick those people that we need to
    accomplish this mission which is so critical for our country.

                            THE ROLE OF SPACE FORCE

        Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, General.
        Just in the remaining seconds that I have, you know, we
    talked just briefly about the Long March Chinese rocket
    reentering our atmosphere. You know, how do we coordinate this?
    What is the role of Space Force, you know, moving forward as
    this potentially becomes more likely in the future? And what
    can the public expect to hear from you in the next 36 hours as
    this develops?
        General Raymond. Our role in this, sir, is we operate
    centers around the globe to track all this. Our operators are
    on console globally with radars and optical telescopes, if you
    will, tracking every bit of every object that is in space that
    is big enough to track.
        U.S. Space Command is the one that does the domain
    awareness of warning, if you will. My role is to provide the
    capabilities, to have the operators that can track all that. We
    feed the information to the U.S. Space Command. They are
    tracking that very closely and will provide warning once they
    get a little bit more fidelity on where it will reenter.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Womack, and then Mrs. Bustos.
        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, gentlemen, for
    your testimony today.

                      BUDGET DEFICIT AND NATIONAL SECURITY

        Mr. Secretary, in response to Mr. Cole's question a few
    minutes ago, you referenced the budget, and I believe you used
    the word ``balanced'' with it. I would suggest that maybe you
    use the word ``okay'' or ``sufficient'' to meet the National
    Defense Strategy, because we all know that the budget is
    anything but balanced. And as a former chairman of the House
    Budget Committee, I would be remiss if I didn't point that out,
    because I still consider the deficit and the debt on this
    country, more so now than ever before, to be an existential
    threat to national security, primarily because of the fact that
    this Congress has not had any appetite at all to get control of
    mandatory spending, which continues to put the discretionary
    budget under intense pressure, and I regret that. And it is,
    obviously, forcing a lot of hard decisions and increasing some
    risk.

                          MINUTEMAN-III ROCKET SYSTEM

        General Brown, good to be with you today. I had a question
    about the NCAA tournament and the Razorbacks and Texas Tech,
    but I am not going to get into much there on that, but games
    up, General, and thank you for your service.
        I want to ask my question about the Minuteman-III Rocket
    System. Its already extended service life is coming up in the
    near future. There are some out there that feel we can just do
    another service life extension program rather than buying new.
    We know that any SLEP would be extremely costly and only keep
    the current capabilities. And then yesterday, the 576 Flight
    Test Squadron At Vandenberg was forced to ground abort an
    unarmed Minuteman-III that was about to be test-fired.
        Can you describe for the committee how another SLEP, even
    if it was cost effective, would endanger the credibility of a
    very important ground based deterrent that we have been proud
    of all these years?
        General Brown. Well, thank you, Representative Womack, and
    appreciate you recognizing the Red Raiders there.
        What I look at, particularly for a nuclear portfolio, it
    has got to be safe, secure, reliable, and deter. And one of the
    key aspects I look at also with that is a threat and deterrence
    at value of our nuclear portfolio as I look at Russia is
    modernized and China continues to build its capability.
        When I think about the Minuteman-III, as you described, it
    is already probably 40 years past its initial service life, and
    the life extended, you would only be able to extend it for a
    short period of time. The challenge we have now is that you
    have, not just a missile which you would have to go back and do
    the propellant, you don't have vendors to redo the parts, and
    you basically have to, you know, reverse engineer the parts,
    and so very few ways to maintain it. On top of that, the
    infrastructure that it is in was built back in the 1960s.
        And so, with the GBSD, the ground based strategic
    deterrent, what you will get then is something that is more
    safe, more secure, more reliable, and then also, paces the
    threat we are up against to arrive at that deterrence value.
    The reason why we actually have the ICBM in the first place is
    to provide that nuclear and strategic deterrence.
        And so, it is important that we do modernize that aspect of
    our nuclear portfolio with the other parts of the portfolio,
    but that is the reason why, because it is going to deter, for
    one, but it is going to be more safe, secure, and reliable,
    number two.

                      SPACE FORCE RESERVES AND SPACE GUARD

        Mr. Womack. General Raymond, we heard from General
    Hokanson, Chief of the Guard Bureau, on Tuesday, and he
    mentioned that you would be meeting to discuss formation of
    Space Force Reserves and the Space Guard. Can you tell how
    those discussions are going and when you expect to meet with
    Secretary Austin regarding the way ahead for these components
    of the service and how vital they would be?
        General Raymond. Yes, sir. For 25 years, the Air National
    Guard and the Air Force Reserve have provided critical space
    capabilities to our Nation. They operate in seven different
    States and one territory. They conduct space electronic warfare
    missions, command and control missions, intelligence missions,
    missile warning missions.
        And so, when the law was passed that established the United
    States Space Force, Congress gave us a homework assignment and
    said, hey, why don't you go out and study how best to integrate
    these capabilities into a service that is purpose built for
    space that needs to go fast. And so, we have completed that
    study. We have done that in partnership with the National Guard
    and the Air Force Reserve. We have put together our proposal.
    The Secretary of the Air Force has signed that proposal. We are
    waiting to get on the calendar with Secretary Austin. I imagine
    that will happen in a matter of days. And then once that report
    is blessed, it will be submitted through OMB to Congress.
        We are excited where we landed. Air National Guard and Air
    Force Reserve are critical to us in the past and they are going
    to remain critical to us in the future.
        Mr. Womack. Thank you, General.
        Thank you, gentlemen.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Womack. Interesting question.
        Mrs. Bustos, and then Mr. Aderholt.

                           AIR NATIONAL GUARD C-130S

        Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Chairwoman McCollum. And
    I also want to thank Ranking Member Calvert for this important
    hearing that you are holding today.
        General Brown, General Raymond, Acting Secretary Roth,
    thank you for your service. Thank you for your leadership.
        We, of course, have not seen the President's budget
    request, but I know that you all have your work cut out for you
    in balancing the readiness for today's fight and modernization
    to deter future threats.
        General Brown, I agree in what you said earlier, that we
    have to accelerate change or lose, but we can't ignore the
    threats that are immediately in front of us. I am not the only
    member on this subcommittee that really is deeply concerned
    with the Air Forces's plans to decrease our military's
    flexibility and responsiveness, to decrease the number of our
    tactical airlift workhorses in the inventory, the C-130s of our
    Air National Guard.
        I am very, very proud to be able to represent the citizen
    airmen of the 182nd Airlift Wing in Peoria. These Illinoians
    consistently provide the highest mission-capable rates in the
    entire Air National Guard C-130 community. Very proud of that.
    But they are concerned the Air Force is going to ask them to
    park their aircraft in the boneyard while the Air Force
    continues to seek divestment over modernization.
        The 2018 Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study said
    we need 300 C-130s to meet the National Defense Strategy. The
    Air Force says we need 255. Now we hear that the newest study,
    that is not yet released, has changed the recommendation to
    match the Air Force's request of 255.
        My feeling, this doesn't make any sense, considering where
    we are now as compared to 2018. We are demobilizing from
    Afghanistan. We continue to respond to massive wildfires, to
    floods, to hurricanes, tornadoes. Our Nation is reeling with
    the response to civil unrest, and we have got the National
    Guard standing watch over the Nation's Capitol. And more than
    half of the 26,000 National Guard members who responded to the
    attacks on January 6 came to Washington, D.C., on no notice, in
    the Air National Guard mobility aircraft. So to quote the Chief
    of the National Guard Bureau, the homeland is no longer a
    sanctuary.
        So, my question. My office has been briefed that no Air
    National Guard wings will lose their C-130 involuntarily.
    Acting Secretary Ross and General Brown, could you please
    confirm for this subcommittee that this is the case, that no
    Air National Guard wing will involuntary lose their C-130s?
        General Brown. First of all, I appreciate the question, and
    also the fact of what our Air National Guard contributes, not
    only here in the homeland, but all around the world with our C-
    130s and all the other mission sets that they use.
        As you described, the analysis that has gone on between the
    mobility capabilities readiness study that was done back in
    2018, as well as the one that is ongoing right now, does look
    at numbers. But I also look at the capability between both our
    C-130Js and our C-130Hs. And our intent, as we work through
    this, is to work very closely with the Air National Guard as we
    make decisions whether the C-130Js or any other platform to
    ensure we are doing, you know, a good analysis with General
    Hokanson, as well as our director of the Air National Guard,
    and with the adjutant generals of each of the States as we work
    through the process of going forward.
        Our intent, to the best of our ability, is to ensure that
    we work with the Guard so they have the capability as we look
    at the C-130 as well. But as we said earlier, we do have to
    make some tough decisions, and what I want to be able to do is
    commit that we are going to work very closely with the Guard as
    we start to make decisions going forward with our C-130s.
        Secretary Roth. The other thing that I would add to that,
    and it is not so much that we would guarantee a particular C-
    130, but we do not intend to close any units. And so if, in
    fact, C-130s were to move, we would look at other missions and
    other capabilities. And an example of that just very recently
    is down in Montgomery, Alabama, lost a C-130 mission, and we
    very quickly have identified them, given them a mission as a
    training site for our newest helicopter, the MH-139.
        So, again, we will work very hard to make sure that no
    units get closed, and we will look for other capabilities or
    other missions for those units to do.
        Mrs. Bustos. Okay. I had a follow-up question, but with 15
    seconds left, I won't have the time to ask that. But, again, I
    want to commend our airmen out of the 182nd in Peoria. They
    have just done remarkable work, and I am going to do everything
    I can to make sure that we are fighting for them. So thank you
    very much for your time.
        With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        We are very proud of our Air Guard and Reserves all over
    the country.
        Mr. Aderholt, and then Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                      INSPECTOR GENERAL REVIEW OF REDSTONE

        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank
    you all for your service and for appearing today for this
    hearing to help us prepare for the 2022 budget process.
        There are a lot of important topics and programs today that
    we haven't discussed, and I have two or three questions about
    the space operations.
        Acting Secretary Ross, let me address the first one to you.
    As you know, there is much anticipation regarding the sitting
    of the Space Command, and it has been my privilege since 1997
    to represent District 4 in north Alabama, which is adjacent to
    Redstone Arsenal located in District 5. With over 20 years of
    visits from personnel there and having more with many commands
    located there at Redstone, I am not surprised that, not once
    but twice, Alabama has done very well in terms of Air Force
    reviews conducted to select the best site for the space
    command. Building, sustaining, and expanding Space Force will
    be a long-term process. Alabama offers a very favorable budget
    profile, as you know.
        What some persons around the country may be surprised at
    regarding Redstone, but, of course, it is not a mystery to the
    review team, is the large number of military, government civil
    personnel, and private sector persons who have outstanding
    experience and knowledge regarding space operations.
        My question, Secretary Roth, is, I believe the reviews by
    the Inspector General's Office and the GAO will clarify what
    has been muddled somewhat in the press. Do you have any idea of
    when those reviews may be concluded?
        Secretary Roth. I do not have a timeframe when they will
    conclude, and let me come back to it. Let me be clear on what
    the decision is that has been made. We identified, as you
    indicated, because we went through our strategic basing
    process, we identified Huntsville as our preferred location.
    And so, what we have embarked on now is the legally required
    environmental review, which will take place over the next year
    or so and will be concluded sometime in mid to late 2022. And
    at that point, given whatever the results are of the
    environmental review, we will make, then, the final decision
    concerning Huntsville. But for the time being, as you
    indicated, Huntsville is the preferred location based on our
    strategic basing process.
        Both the General Accounting Office and the DOD IG are
    reviewing our decision-making process, and they are engaged as
    we speak. I don't have particularly a timeframe. I understand
    the DOD IG may finish by the fall of this year, and I don't
    have a good feel for when GAO. I understand that they will
    probably take a bit longer. But the DOD IG in particular I
    think is intending to wrap up their review by the fall of this
    year.

                             AIR FORCE REVIEW TEAM

        Mr. Aderholt. And, you know, my next question as a
    followup, do you still have confidence in the thoroughness and
    the methodology of the work that is done there by the Air Force
    review team?
        Secretary Roth. Yes, absolutely. My approach to this was,
    frankly, to invite outside review. Okay. I think--we have done
    the strategic basing process since 2009. It has withstood
    outside review. We think it is an analytically based process,
    and so I am happy to have them come review. We are cooperating
    with them. We will give them all of the data and documentation
    that they need to review, and then we will take it from there
    and see where they take it any further. But, yes, we are
    cooperating with them, and I am, at this stage, very confident
    in our process.
        Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And, General Raymond, thank you for
    your call this week. I enjoyed having the chance to chat with
    you on the phone.

                      WORKING GROUP ON DEVELOPMENT FUNDING

        I have got a suggestion or a request. As you know, I serve
    as ranking member of the CJS Subcommittee on Appropriations,
    and with regards to the National Security Space Launches, I
    think it would be beneficial for Space Force and NASA to have
    an ongoing working group to track the development funding being
    invested into launch-provider companies, and for NASA and the
    Air Force to ensure that they are not, in effect, each paying
    for the same capability developments.
        For one rocket in use, I see a price on the company website
    of $90 million. Going back to last summer, the Air Force has
    agreed to a contract price of one launch at over $300 million,
    and NASA has also agreed to pay over $300 million for a
    separate launch. Maybe your next launch will be lower than $300
    million, but that does not mean you will stop getting asked for
    development funds by that same company. And Air Force
    development funding together now adds up to billions. The U.S.
    Government should get the same price advertised for the private
    sector as the foreign customers, and that is how it should
    happen now and so I just wanted to call your attention to that
    since commercial launch has really started over 10 years ago.
        General Raymond. Yes, sir. We have a very close
    relationship with NASA. We have standard meetings with NASA. I
    will dig into on this specific piece, and we will report back
    to you. But I have already reached out to the new
    Administrator, Bill Nelson, to set up a meeting. That
    partnership pays us huge dividends, and I will make sure that
    we focus on the aspect that you just talked about, and I will
    report back to you.
        Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Excellent question.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and then Mr. Carter.

                         A-10 WING REPLACEMENT PROGRAM

        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your
    having this hearing today. It is very informative.
        General Brown, thank you for being here to discuss the role
    the Air Force plays in our national security. I appreciate the
    time you took in February to meet with me and some of the
    Arizona delegation at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
        As you know, Davis-Monthan is a vital asset to my district.
    The community of Tucson is very supportive of the mission on
    the base, in particular the A-10. In last year's budget, the
    Air Force requested and received funding for the A-10 wing
    replacement program. You also forecasted similar requests in
    fiscal years 2022 and 2023.
        Can you give us now a status update on the execution rate
    of the fiscal year 2021 funds and therewing program in general?
    And do you anticipate the fiscal year 2022 request reflecting
    what was forecasted last year?
        General Brown. Again, I appreciate your hospitality when we
    came to Arizona. On the rewinging program, right now with the
    $100 million for this fiscal year, we have obligated about 20
    percent. I would expect to be about 55 percent obligated by the
    end of the year. It is not just on the wing itself, but it is
    also some of the installation, the engineering changes that go
    with that, and the other government costs and effects that
    typically go as we modernize an aircraft. As we modernize and
    rewing the A-10, this will keep the A-10 as a viable platform
    for the United States Air Force here into the future.
        As we look at the budget, not having the budget quite yet,
    but our intent here is to continue on the path to rewing the A-
    10s as we submitted in the 2021 budget. And so you can expect
    that is kind of what we are--that is the theme we are on, and
    that is the path we are headed on as we rewing the A-10, but at
    the same time, make sure that we look at our entire flight
    portfolio to make sure we right size our fighter fleet going
    forward.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.

                              TACAIR STUDY UPDATE

        My next question is also for you, General. You have
    recently discussed a TacAir Study the Air Force is conducting
    to identify what blend of legacy fourth generation and fifth
    generation fighter aircraft is needed to meet a range of
    mission sets. You also discussed ensuring the Air Force doesn't
    overutilize assets meant for high-end flights and low-end
    conflicts to mitigate higher sustainment costs or the risk of
    assets not being available when we need them.
        Can you provide us with an update on the TacAir Study the
    Air Force is conducting and what you believe you will learn
    from it? And when do you anticipate the results of the study
    will be reflected in budgeting decisions?
        General Brown. Thanks again for the question. Our TacAir
    Study, it is not just with--it is something we are doing
    internally through the Air Force, but we are also working in
    cooperation with the Joint Staff and OSD. With the study, the
    intent here is to take a look at the fighter portfolio that we
    do have today with the seven different fighter fleets and what
    is the best mix of capability as we go to the future.
        And when I look at the--we need to have a range of fighters
    to do both the high end and low end. Right now, our high end--
    our highest end fighters are F-35s, and we do not have the full
    complement of F-35s yet. And so, we have got to balance the mix
    of how we use those F-35s as we continue to built that fleet.
    And I don't want to--until we actually have a broader aspect,
    and that we are building; matter of fact, right now, the F-35
    is our second largest fleet now as of this week behind the F-
    16. And so, it is a mix of capability as we start to bring on
    F-35 and how we balance the use of that capability today, also
    as we go toward the future.
        And the last part I would add is, you know, the intent here
    is to look at the study of range of options of what the right
    mix should be as we look at the threat for the future as part
    of what that study is going to provide us. So it won't
    necessarily give us an answer; it will give us a range of
    answers to take a look at a threat to make sure we have done
    the analysis to inform ourselves but also inform our key
    stakeholders, including this committee.

                         THREAT OF GROUND-BASED LASERS

        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you. I appreciate that. I
    appreciate the work that you are doing.
        My next question is for General Raymond. Both the
    Department of Defense and intelligence community have publicly
    acknowledged the threat that ground-based lasers pose to low
    Earth orbit satellites. One defense intelligence agency public
    report stated that China will likely field a ground-based laser
    weapon that could destroy low orbit space-based sensors by the
    mid to late 2020s.
        Because much of our commercial space activities and sensor
    satellites reside in the low Earth orbit, this threat is
    significant. How is the Space Force working with the government
    agencies to ensure the United States has a coordinated strategy
    encountering these types of threats?
        Ms. McCollum. If I could--excuse me. I am going to
    interrupt for a second.
        If you could give a brief taste of the answer and then a
    more robust answer submitted back to the committee, we would
    appreciate it. So if you could briefly touch on this and then
    respond back to the committee fully.
        Thank you, Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
        General Raymond. I will. Thank you.
        We work very closely with the intelligence community and
    other interagency partners. We also work very closely with
    commercial industry to share data, and we are working across
    all the organizations that do space acquisition to design our
    force structure in a way that is less susceptible to a threat.
    The threat is real today and concerning.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And anything more you would like
    to add to the committee, please do.
        Next we have Mr. Carter, and then Mr. Ryan.

                                  GPS JAMMING

        Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for
    recognizing me.
        Gentlemen, welcome. I am really glad that you are here to
    help us. It has been very informative.
        I want to give a shout-out to General Brown. I am a Red
    Raider of 1964, class of 1964, so I am very proud of you, and I
    am sure our university is proud of you.
        One thing I have worried about personally is GPS jamming.
    And I want to talk to you, General Raymond, about GPS jamming
    and how significant that would be for a warfighter. How
    important is the M-code capacity? What have been the issues
    delaying this in this capacity? What part of GPS modernization
    is Space Force responsible for, and why does it take so long to
    develop this field of future responsibility?
        General Raymond. Thanks for the question, sir. GPS is
    critical, not just to our military, but it is critical to our
    society. The timing signal of GPS underpins this information
    age that we are in, and it is absolutely critical, not just to
    us, but all Americans.
        When you look at modernizing GPS, you have to modernize
    three components. You have to modernize the satellite portion
    of that, and we have done that with GPS III. We have launched
    those satellites, several of those satellites into orbit, and
    we have enough satellites on orbit now to do GPS M-code.
        You also have to have a command and control capability
    called--and in the case of GPS, it is called GPS OCX. There had
    been delays in that program over the years. We worked on an
    interim solution to be able to use it, and that M-code
    capability and GPS OCX is on track now and will deliver the
    capability that we need.
        The third part of this is you have to have receivers with
    chips in them. And we are responsible for designing the chip
    and integrating them into one receiver, and then the services
    are responsible for integrating those into all of the
    capabilities that they have.
        It is a three-part problem. We have to modernize GPS. It is
    critical to our Nation and critical to our joint and coalition
    forces.
        Mr. Carter. And I assume there is a civilian equivalent, or
    does everybody operate under the same GPS satellite?
        General Raymond. Yeah. Sir, it is one satellite. I mean,
    there are many satellites on orbit, but it is one satellite
    that provides capability for, not just our military, but for
    every American.
        Mr. Carter. You know, I am not sure my kids can find their
    way to the bathroom without GPS, and so the real world is, I
    have been with trucking companies, they depend on GPS. Every
    targeting we do in the military depends on GPS. Everything we
    are doing in the supply chain depends on GPS. It is a critical
    thing. And the Chinese are now developing killer satellites,
    and it looks like to me that would be our number one target.
    What are we doing about something like that?
        General Raymond. Actually, the threat that we are concerned
    about with GPS is jamming. The GPS satellites are in orbit, in
    medium Earth orbit or a little bit higher. We have got--of all
    of our constellations, it is the largest constellation that we
    currently operate. And so, really, the main threat is against
    jamming. We have increased power in GPS III and M-code to
    really get after the ability to operate through jamming, but it
    is still a threat, and it is still something that we have got
    to be concerned about as a Nation, and we have got to look how
    we are going to diversify that further as we go further down
    the road.

                                THREATS IN SPACE

        Mr. Carter. Well, I have a real concern in this area. And I
    thank you very much for all that you do.
        What do you feel, is there a real threat that space might
    carry us into the next war? It might begin in space?
        General Raymond. Absolutely, sir. It is clear that both
    China and Russia are developing capabilities to deny our access
    to space. They know that they can't beat us on the ground, they
    can't beat us in the air, they can't beat us on the sea unless
    they take away our space capabilities. All of our other
    services, all the force structure of all the other services is
    built around assured access to space. That is not a given
    anymore. And if you were to lose space, you couldn't afford the
    bill of robusting all the other services. We have got to
    protect this capability for our Nation. That is why the Space
    Force is so important. That is why U.S. Space Command is so
    important. And we are going to stay ahead of this growing
    threat.
        Mr. Carter. Well, you will be in my prayers. Thank you for
    your service. I thank all of you for your service.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
        Next we have Mr. Ryan, and then Mr. Diaz-Balart. And,
    members, we will not be able to do a second round of questions,
    so great attendance today.
        Mr. Ryan.

                        AIR FORCE'S C-130J BASING STUDY

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for your service to our
    country.
        Acting Secretary Ross and General Brown, I am very
    interested in the Air Force's C-130J basing study, specifically
    as it relates to the Youngstown Air Reserve Station. The Air
    Force has consistently told me that they can't complete the
    study until the station has eight aircraft assigned.
        Can you please tell me why that is? It doesn't make a whole
    lot of sense to me.
        Secretary Roth. Yes. I will start the answer, and General
    Brown can fill in some details as well.
        I mean, the basic, to be simplistic about it, is eight
    aircraft--that with anything less than eight aircraft, you end
    up with a mixed unit, and a mixed unit is not advantageous
    either operationally or logistics. At the time--for the time
    being, we don't have eight aircraft. We have approximately five
    aircraft, and so because of that, then we stopped the study.
    And, you know, if and when there are additional aircraft that
    become available, we will restart the study and go on from
    there. But for the time being, anything less than eight
    aircraft isn't optimal from an operational perspective.
        General Brown.
        General Brown. Yes. Representative Ryan, typically, as the
    Secretary described, which it is not optimal to actually have a
    split organization. We usually typically try to convert an
    entire unit from one model of an airplane to another. It
    creates an additional challenge for us if we end up splitting
    the unit as far as between, for example, an H model and a J
    model C-130, not only for ops, but also for maintenance and
    also for logistics and supply. And so, our intent there is to
    convert each unit, you know, convert it as a unit, not as we
    get individual airplanes, and that is what drives our
    decisionmaking.

                             AIR RESERVE IMPORTANCE

        Mr. Ryan. Well, I have heard from a number of you,
    including General Scobee when we talked, and he was telling me
    exactly how critical the Air Reserve--the facilities that we
    have, the aerial spray unit that we have, really how critical
    the station is for both the Air Force Reserve and the Air
    Force, not to mention the fact that we had two airplanes, the
    funding for them diverted a couple of years ago for the wall.
        Do we know when this is going to get done? Do we have any
    idea?
        Secretary Roth. At this stage, I do not have a timeframe
    because there aren't aircraft that are obviously available
    right now.
        Mr. Ryan. Well, we would like to get the money back that
    went to the wall that is not being used. We would like to get
    that back for two more of those C-130Js, and then we can work
    with the committee, you know, to try to get what else is
    needed. We will be reaching out to you on those issues.

                     HEALTHY FOOD AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

        Let me move on here as the clock ticks.
        Secretary Roth, I just want to get this on your radar
    screen, and I will ask some questions for the record. We had a
    conversation a couple of weeks ago regarding the healthy eating
    in the military installations. We pay a good deal of money out
    in outlays on healthcare. We see higher rates of diabetes,
    higher rates of obesity, and we have got a lot of work to do,
    and it starts with the kind of food that we are feeding and
    having accessible to the men and women of the Air Force.
        I do want to congratulate you because I think the Air Force
    is really ahead of the curve on this, but I don't think we are
    doing enough. A couple of programs I want to mention just
    quickly and then submit a question for the record. The name
    brand food effort is something I support. I want to get this
    ramped up even quicker. And then the whole idea, I wrote a
    letter to the Secretary of Defense requesting the establishment
    of a food transformation cell to focus on modernizing the food
    system. You will be getting questions on that.

                     MANUFACTURING STRATEGY AND SPACE FORCE

        And then, lastly, to General Raymond, I know the DOD is
    releasing the Additive Manufacturing Strategy. We house America
    Makes in Youngstown, Ohio, which is really helping on the
    cutting edge of the additive manufacturing, helping bring
    businesses with the public sector.
        Can you tell me how the Space Force is planning to utilize
    these tools, in the next 29 seconds?
        General Raymond. Sir, we are using them----
        Mr. Ryan. The chairwoman has been very generous, so she may
    give you another 15 seconds. So be anxious to hear.
        General Raymond. We are using them today. As we talked
    about throughout this hearing, we are going to have to leverage
    commercial industry. Commercial industry and our government
    contractors are using this. It helps reduce the cost to launch.
    It helps reduce manufacturing variability. It helps improve our
    reliability. We are using them today, and I would expect that
    we will continue to use those into the future in even greater
    ways.
        Mr. Ryan. Fantastic.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, gentlemen.
        Ms. McCollum. Members, we are going to be sending out a
    memo from Mr. Bigelow about the money that is being returned
    from the wall. The Department of Defense is not going to be
    getting any money returned to it. You will get a memo that
    explains why. So there is not money that we will be seeing that
    can be respent.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, and then we will end with the gentlewoman
    from Ohio, Ms. Kaptur.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart is trying to log back in. We will go to Ms.
    Kaptur.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, if your staff is listening, we will take
    care of you if you get on before we adjourn, and we won't
    adjourn until 2:00.
        Ms. Kaptur.

                             REDUCTION OF FUEL USE

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Ross and Generals Brown and Raymond, thank you so
    very much for joining us today.
        I come from a place in America that first flew a bio-fueled
    aircraft out of the 180th Fighter Wing of our Air National
    Guard unit. We are very proud of that here in western Ohio, and
    my questions initially relate to energy.
        Can you tell me what efforts and at which locations the Air
    Force is making improvements in its engines or developing other
    technologies to reduce fuel usage or to replace it since it
    represents 70 percent of your energy utilized, not counting
    your bases? You spend about 70 percent of your fuels budget
    on--and energy budget on operations and about 30 percent on
    buildings. And I am just curious as to how you are thinking
    about energy as we move forward.
        Secretary Roth. Well, I will start, and then I will look
    for help from my chiefs as well.
        Ms. Kaptur. Secretary, let me interrupt you just one
    second. May I just note? And who do you task with this
    responsibility in your office?
        Secretary Roth. Well, we actually--we have an organization.
    We have actually an organization that is Installations and
    Energy that manages that in general, and we have had--over
    time, you know, we are sensitive to that as well, because we
    are by far the largest user of fuel in the Defense Department.
    We are two-thirds of the fossil fuel bill in the Department.
    So, clearly, as we go forward and as we look to have a more
    agile combat capability, particularly in the Western Pacific,
    reducing our logistics footprint would be advantageous to us
    from a readiness perspective, and one of the larger pieces of
    our logistics footprint is fuel. And so if we could reduce that
    footprint, that would be advantageous.
        So the Air Force Research Lab has some initiatives looking
    for alternative technologies that might work in terms of
    aircraft power, power plants, and those kinds of things. As we
    reengine aircraft, for example in the B-52 program, it is going
    through a reengining process, we will look to have the new
    engine be anywhere from 20 to 30 percent more fuel efficient.
    As we go to next-generation aircraft, we would look perhaps to
    see if we could also invest in technologies there to make the
    new generation of aircraft engines more fuel efficient as well.
        So we have a stake in that. We have a motivation in that,
    and we would like to pursue that as best as possible.
        In terms of our bases, the resilience of our bases is
    important to us as well. We fight from our bases. So we are
    looking for also--about 7 percent of our energy use at our
    bases is already renewable energy, and so, clearly, there is
    room to grow there, and we would look to grow in that area as
    well.
        So managing our energy footprint is a high priority for us
    going forward, in terms of managing our logistics--our
    logistics posture and our logistics requirements. And as we go
    forward with new generations of airplanes, I would think that
    one of the criteria would be that they be more fuel efficient.
        Ms. Kaptur. Well, I thank you, Mr. Secretary. This is
    really important, and I need to know who are your leaders
    around the country, which bases, which companies. I would like
    to know where the engine was actually retooled in terms of
    energy use and what advances that you have made in the service
    in hybrid engines, such as hydrogen fuel cells, where is that
    housed? Is that at AFRL, or do you provide the companies to do
    it?
        Secretary Roth. There is an effort at AFRL into hydrogen
    power plants. We will get back to you. We owe you an answer on
    that, and we will give you a more fulsome answer than I have
    right now.

                             NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION

        Ms. Kaptur. All right. I would appreciate that very much.
        And then, General Brown, I wanted to ask you, your fiscal
    year 2022 request for nuclear modernization, can you elaborate
    for the committee how you are thinking about nuclear
    modernization in the context of the Air Force's budget?
        General Brown. Sure. And as I mentioned earlier in one of
    the questions, you know, the key part to that--there is three
    real key parts to our nuclear modernization. One is our ground
    based strategic deterrent and keeping the design of that on
    track so that helps provide options and modernize that leg of
    the triad.
        The second is the B-21, and that program is also doing
    what--both our GBSD and B-21 programs are both--are priorities.
        And then the last associated with this is nuclear command
    and control and communications, our NC3, because the Air Force
    has about 75 percent of that portfolio.
        So those are the areas in our budget as we look to the
    future of where the United States Air Force is focused on our
    nuclear modernization.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. My time has expired. Thank
    you all very much.

                       Closing Remarks of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Diaz-Balart, are you able to join us? We
    understand you are kind of half logged in.
        I am going to go to the summary questions that I normally
    have, Mr. Calvert, and we will see if there is a little bit of
    time left for Mr. Diaz-Balart to join us.
        We have some standard questions--somebody has left their
    microphone on.
        We have some standard questions that we have been asking
    all the services on COVID, extremism, and sexual assault, so
    the committee staff will be forwarding that. We also will be
    asking a question on your missile warning satellites, and then
    we have some questions on F-35s we will be submitting, as well
    as I would like to hear from the Air Force and Space Force what
    they are doing and particularly with climate change with
    resilience in the bases. We know that you had severe damage
    with Michael's devastation to Tyndall Air Force Base in
    Florida, what all that cost, what your plans are in resilience
    for the air bases.
        I had an opportunity to read the Air Force's strategic
    report on the Arctic, and so we are going to be following up
    with questions on training, equipment, and infrastructure gaps
    with Arctic operations. And then a question, especially for the
    Air Force and for the Space Force, is weather surveillance,
    weather satellites, and monitoring climate change in the
    region. But also, flying and launching space, accurate weather
    information becomes very important, and, you know, I don't want
    to hear about the European model anymore. I want to know how
    you are working with other agencies to make sure we are hearing
    about the best, the best, weather information from the U.S.
    Weather Service.
        We will look forward to those questions and getting back to
    the committee.
        Not having seen Mr. Diaz-Balart come on, Mr. Calvert, at
    this time, I would think I would look to thanking our
    testifiers--he is back on?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, can you get your video up? If you can't
    get your video up, we know it is really you, and if you want to
    ask a question, we would love to hear it.
        Mr. Calvert, I had my fingers crossed, and it doesn't seem
    to be working. Should we proceed with adjourning the meeting?
        Mr. Diaz-Balart popped back up again.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart.
        Mr. Calvert. I would suggest that Mario get his questions
    maybe in writing if he doesn't come up here in the next minute
    or so.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. So he just signed off.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay.
        Ms. McCollum. How frustrating for him to have this happen
    to him again.
        Gentlemen, thank you for your service. It has been
    challenging doing it under the circumstances we have had with
    COVID and then with COVID standing up the Space Force. We
    appreciate all of the work that you do and those who serve with
    you, as well as your families. And we wish every mission to be
    successful and carried out safely so that you can come home.
        So thank you again, gentlemen, for your service and for
    your attention in responding back to the staff in the upcoming
    days and all the questions you are going to get on the budget
    shortly.
        With that, this meeting stands adjourned.
        [The information follows:]
        [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                 Tuesday, May 18, 2021.

      NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY AND CYBER COMMAND FISCAL YEAR 2022 POSTURE

                                    WITNESS

    GENERAL PAUL NAKASONE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, COMMANDER,
        U.S. CYBER COMMAND
        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                               Wednesday, May 19, 2021.

                  CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY FISCAL YEAR 2022

                                    WITNESS

    WILLIAM J. BURNS, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                                Thursday, May 20, 2021.

      WORLDWIDE THREAT AND FISCAL YEAR 2022 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM/
      MILITARY INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM POSTURE WITH THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
       INTELLIGENCE AND UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR INTELLIGENCE AND
                                    SECURITY

                                   WITNESSES

    THE HONORABLE AVRIL HAINES, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    THE HONORABLE DAVID M. TAYLOR, PERFORMING UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
        FOR INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not
    be printed due to the classification of the material
    discussed.]

                                                 Tuesday, May 25, 2021.

             FISCAL YEAR 2022 DEFENSE HEALTH AND MEDICAL READINESS

                                   WITNESSES

    TERRY ADIRIM, M.D., ACTING SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR HEALTH AFFAIRS
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL R. SCOTT DINGLE, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE UNITED
        STATES ARMY
    REAR ADMIRAL UPPER HALF BRUCE L. GILLINGHAM, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE
        UNITED STATES NAVY
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL DOROTHY A. HOGG, SURGEON GENERAL OF THE UNITED
        STATES AIR FORCE
    LIEUTENANT GENERAL RONALD PLACE, DIRECTOR, DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY

                      Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order. This hearing
    is fully virtual, and we must address a few housekeeping
    matters. For today's meeting, the chair, or the staff
    designated by the chair, my mute participants' microphones when
    they are not under recognition for the purpose of eliminating
    background noise.
        Members, you are responsible for muting and unmuting
    yourself. If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask
    you if you would like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate
    approval by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
        I remind all members and witnesses that they have a 5-
    minute clock that should be on display and that is going to
    apply. If there is a technology issue, however--and we do have
    two of them going on right now--we will move to the next member
    until your issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance
    of your time.
        You will notice a clock on your screen, and if you are in
    the grid layout, the clock should pop up, and it will show how
    much time that you have remaining. At 1 minute, it will turn
    yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to
    remind members that their time is almost expired. When your
    time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to
    recognize the other member.
        In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set
    forth in the rules of the House, beginning with the chair and
    the ranking member. When members are present at the time the
    hearing is called to order, they will be recognized in order of
    seniority.
        And Mr. Womack and Mr. Diaz-Balart have been trying to
    check in, and so their seniority, if we can get things working,
    will remain. I see Mr. Womack here in, as having been present
    when the gavel went down.
        Finally, members not present at the time the hearing is
    called to order will be recognized.
        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, and that email address has been provided to your
    staff.
        Let's get going. The Subcommittee on Defense is in order.
    This morning, the committee will receive testimony on defense
    health programs and medical readiness. And we welcome five
    witnesses: Dr. Terry Adirim, Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Health Affairs; Lieutenant General Ronald Place, Director of
    Defense Health Agency; Lieutenant General--excuse me--
    Lieutenant General R. Scott Dingle, Surgeon General of the U.S.
    Army; Bruce L. Gillingham, Surgeon General of the U.S. Navy;
    and, last but not least, Lieutenant General Dorothy A. Hogg,
    Surgeon General of the U.S. Air Force.
        Our witnesses have extensive experience in military
    medicine, and distinguished careers in serving our country. On
    March 5th, 2020, the subcommittee held its last in-person
    hearing just prior to the shutdown due to the pandemic, and
    many of our witnesses were present for that hearing on health
    defense.
        Doctor, this is your first time before the subcommittee,
    and we welcome you.
        Much has changed since March 2020 due to COVID-19, and
    there are still many pressing issues impacting the Military
    Health System as it undergoes its most significant changes in
    decades, reforms that began prior to the pandemic, which we now
    hope to review in light of the pandemic.
        We are holding this hearing days before the anticipated
    release of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2022,
    and it should be noted that we have serious questions, and we
    have concerns on how medical reforms have been accounted for in
    the previous budget submissions.
        We hope to see adequate justifications and details across
    the spectrum of the Military Healthcare Service, systems
    requests for medical readiness to benefit care.
        By understanding that we do not have yet the 2022 budget
    request before us, we hope our witnesses will address our
    questions and concerns to, the extent possible, on the many
    topics that will be covered today and get back to members and
    staff promptly, as soon as the budget request is before us.
        Given the tight time frame that we have to write the bill,
    I ask that you really be prepared to respond to members, as I
    said earlier, on any specific budget questions that are asked
    today immediately after the full request is submitted.
        It would be helpful to hear an update on the execution of
    the Defense Health Program during the fiscal year, given the
    protracted shortfall you are facing.
        We also look forward to hearing about the many reforms
    taking place across the military healthcare system. We will
    want to hear how the experience of COVID-19 has been taken into
    consideration, as the Department moves towards the
    implementation of those reforms.
        We also look through a broader lens of lessons learned from
    COVID-19. We want to hear your thoughts on what the
    Department's role is and should be in assisting other Federal
    agencies in dealing with future pandemic and epidemic
    outbreaks.
        We have the Services Surgeon Generals before us to discuss
    medical readiness and activities and priorities within each of
    the military branches. Part of the medical readiness requires
    that we all have a fit and able-bodied force to serve and
    deploy as necessary.
        Reports have indicated--and it has been recently in the
    media again--26 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds are qualified to
    serve in the military, and that one quarter of all youth would
    be disqualified from serving based on being overweight or
    obese.
        As the Service continues to see recruiting and retention
    challenges based on weight standards, it would be good to hear
    whether our panelists see this as a national security concern.
    And if so, what can be done about it?
        As we all know, any future conflict, the military must
    consider survivability during the war fight against peer or
    near-peer competitors, and is called the golden hour, and this
    cannot be an option. It is especially the case if air and
    ground assets are unavailable to evacuate the wounded.
        We would like to hear about how the right composition of
    medical research, medical education and training, and
    recruiting and retraining critical casualty care is being
    addressed.
        New questions have also arisen from the hearings over the
    past few weeks. For example, we have heard approximately
    600,000 Guardsmen lack health insurance. We also heard about
    the possible decrease of medical billets as the service plan to
    shed those positions in favor of operational billets in support
    of more lethal force.
        If this is the case, where medical positions are being left
    deliberately unfilled, that would be quite concerning to me and
    to the members of this subcommittee. We do understand that the
    past year has presented a number of complicated challenges
    across the military healthcare system, and I want to thank each
    of you for working in support of our servicemembers and their
    families, to ensure that they are protected and provided with
    the best care available.
        And with that, I thank you again for appearing before the
    committee today to discuss these issues. But I will ask you, as
    you present, to summarize your statements in a moment. But
    first I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking
    member, Mr. Calvert, for his opening comments. Mr. Calvert.

                         Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair. Acting Secretary
    Adirim, General Place, Surgeon Generals Dingle, Gillingham, and
    Hogg, welcome and thank you so much for taking the time to meet
    with us today.
        First, on behalf of a grateful Nation, I want to commend
    you and all the men and women serving under you for the
    unprecedented efforts you undertook during the pandemic. From
    the deployment of hospital ships to the rollout of vaccines,
    the military has been crucial in healing our Nation.
        But those efforts require resources, and while Congress can
    appropriate dollars after the fact, adequately funding base
    budgets is the only way to properly resource the Department of
    Defense for such future contingencies, which is why it is so
    disheartening that the President is proposing a woefully
    inadequate budget for defense, one that does not even keep up
    with inflation.
        Unfortunately, we still do not have the President's full
    budget request, and hopefully we will have it at the end of
    this week. So we are unable to discuss your resourcing needs
    for fiscal year 2022.
        Instead of specific resource requirements then, I will be
    interested in hearing from you on some subjects of concern,
    specifically, lessons learned from the pandemic response, the
    ways you have utilized new technology in your services, and
    overall Military Health System.
        Even before the onset of the pandemic, the military was
    struggling with transitioning certain service responsibilities
    to Defense Health Agency. I will be interested in an update on
    those efforts. I would also like to hear more about the impact
    of the pandemic on the provision of healthcare going forward.
        For example, whether the return to normalcy will create a
    spike in funding needed for private sector care, as well as any
    tactics, techniques, procedures developed during the pandemic
    that may be retained, such as telehealth appointments and the
    health protection condition scale for our deployed and afloat
    forces.
        Finally, I would be interested in hearing from you on the
    overall health and readiness of the force, and whether we are
    ready to resume normal operation once again.
        Again, thank you for joining us today, and thank you for
    your service. I look forward to your testimony, and with that,
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, and I couldn't agree with
    you more on your statement.
        To the witnesses, your full written statements will be
    placed in the record, and members have had copies made
    available to them. So I would like to have as much time as
    possible for members to ask questions.
        This is an important hearing, so I would encourage all of
    you to summarize your statement, and to be complete but
    succinct in responding to members' questions.
        First we will hear from Dr. Adirim. Thank you for being
    with us.

                        Summary Statement of Dr. Adirim

        Dr. Adirim. Yes, and thank you. Good morning, everybody.
    Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished members
    of the subcommittee, I am honored to represent the military and
    civilian medical professionals in the Military Health System,
    who are serving around the world and here at home, delivering
    healthcare in support of our 9.6 million beneficiaries, as well
    as continuing to provide COVID-19 support to millions of
    Americans throughout the United States.
        My written testimony provided the subcommittee with
    information on major activities that will inform our budget
    proposal for the coming fiscal year. The most significant issue
    looming over all of our projections is the COVID-19 pandemic.
    Secretary Austin has made clear that the greatest proximate
    challenge to our Nation's security is the threat of COVID-19.
        The Department has, and will continue to, act boldly and
    quickly to support Federal Government efforts to defeat this
    disease.
        We remain deeply appreciative of the fiscal 2020
    supplemental appropriation of $2.2 billion as part of the CARES
    Act that covered the significant costs incurred during our
    initial response.
        In fiscal year 2021, however, costs attributable to the
    pandemic response continue to accumulate. As of March 31st,
    2021, our mid-year review of the Defense Health Program
    identified likely shortfalls as part of the ongoing pandemic
    response, which we are working within the Department to
    resolve.
        In addition, the financial impacts of our military support
    to the Federal Emergency Management Agency missions, which
    remain ongoing, are still be assessed.
        The Department continues to pursue efforts focused on
    internal business process improvements and structural changes
    to find greater efficiencies, such as further integrating and
    standardizing the operation of hospitals and clinics,
    continuing the deployment of MHS GENESIS, modernizing clinical
    and business processes, and streamlining internal operations.
        Furthermore, the Department is not requesting any changes
    to beneficiary cost-sharing in the fiscal year 2022 budget.
        Finally, the Department is grateful for this committee's
    long-term advocacy and support for our military medical
    research program. Military medical research advances the state
    of medical science in those areas of most pressing need and
    relevance to today's emerging threats, which include the COVID-
    19 pandemic.
        When released, our fiscal year 2022 budget will present a
    balanced, comprehensive strategy that aligns with the
    Secretary's priorities to include the ongoing response to the
    COVID-19 pandemic.
        We look forward to working with you over the coming months
    to further refine and articulate our objectives in a manner
    that improves value to everyone--our warfighters, our combatant
    commanders, our patients, the medical force, and the American
    taxpayer.
        Thank you, again, for this opportunity to testify today,
    and I look forward to your questions and the discussion.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much.
        Lieutenant General Place, your testimony, please.

                       Summary Statement of General Place

        General Place. Thank you for the opportunity to appear with
    the Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs,
    Dr. Adirim, and the Service Surgeons General to discuss our
    budget for the coming year.
        It is a privilege to serve with the men and women of the
    Defense Health Agency, provide integrated health services
    worldwide on behalf of our Armed Forces.
        The Defense Health Agency is actually engaged in the global
    COVID-19 pandemic response in preventing, diagnosing, and
    treating COVID-19. On the prevention front, as of this morning,
    more than 60 percent of our Active Duty have received at least
    one dose, and 46 percent of the force are fully vaccinated with
    this number climbing daily.
        We have directly administered almost 3.5 million doses to
    our eligible beneficiaries and coordinated at least another
    800,000 doses of vaccine to our TRICARE providers and retail
    pharmacy networks.
        To meet urgent healthcare needs throughout the pandemic,
    the Department significantly expanded the use of virtual health
    to meet beneficiary demand while minimizing unnecessary risks
    for patient and staff.
        With our vaccination rollout now reaching our entire
    population of eligible beneficiaries, and the risk of COVID
    infection falling rapidly, we are communicating with our
    beneficiaries who may have delayed or deferred needed,
    preventive, and routine medical care due to the pandemic to
    ensure they get timely, high-quality care.
        As Dr. Adirim noted, following a brief pause to the
    pandemic response, the Military Health System has resumed
    executing the transition of military medical treatment facility
    administration and management from the Services to the DHA in
    accordance with the law.
        Similarly, the Department submitted its required report to
    the Congress in February 2020 on our plan to restructure MTFs.
    The report articulated the DOD's decision to achieve a proper
    balance between meeting readiness requirements and managing the
    total cost of health care in the direct and purchase care
    system.
        The Department is revalidating the assumptions made
    regarding its readiness requirements prior to the pandemic, as
    well as the assessment of network capacity to absorb additional
    patients where we intend to proceed with rightsizing plans.
        Local transitions will only occur when we are certain that
    the TRICARE network can provide timely and high-quality access
    to healthcare for our beneficiaries. If they cannot, we will
    revise our plans.
        Again, thanks for inviting me to speak with you about
    military medicine, our response to the global pandemic, and our
    plans to further improve our Military Health System on behalf
    of uniformed servicemembers and the families we serve.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And when I was reading your
    testimony, I did underline from the foxhole to the facility. I
    thought that that is true in all the branches of service,
    taking care of folks.
        Rear Admiral Gillingham, your statement, please.

                    Summary Statement of Admiral Gillingham

        Admiral Gillingham. Yes, thank you. Chairwoman McCollum,
    Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, it is my privilege to update you on Navy
    Medicine.
        I am grateful for your continued support as we execute our
    medical readiness mission in support of the United States Navy,
    United States Marine Corps, the world's premier naval force.
        The last year has been like no other in our lifetimes as we
    confronted the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the disease it causes,
    COVID-19. Throughout the pandemic, Navy Medicine's operational
    tempo has remained high, protecting the readiness and health of
    our sailors, marines, and their families, along with making
    direct contributions to the whole-of-nation response.
        I want to assure you that despite these unprecedented
    challenges, the One Navy Medicine Team remains relevant, ready,
    and responsive.
        We are guided by our strategic priorities--people,
    platforms, performance, and power--well-trained people working
    as cohesive teams that optimize platforms, demonstrating high
    reliability performance, that will project medical power in
    support of naval superiority.
        With the earliest identification of the virus, it was
    evident that we were battling an adversary whose behavior was
    highly unpredictable, particularly with respect to its
    asymptomatic transmission.
        Actions and interventions by experts across Navy Medicine
    during early stages directly impacted our ability to better
    understand the virus, mitigate and contain its spread,
    effectively supporting ongoing fleet operations, and preserve
    Fleet and Marine Corps readiness.
        We rapidly applied lessons learned from the early outbreaks
    on board USS Theodore Roosevelt and USS Kidd, and continually
    incorporated the latest critical information from the CDC, as
    well as our Navy Medicine, public health, and R&D experts.
        I want you to know that our sailors and marines
    demonstrated tremendous personal responsibility, resilience,
    and adaptability in responding to the pandemic. Their work, in
    concert with a strong commitment from our naval operational
    leaders, has been instrumental in allowing our ships and
    personnel to stay mission-capable, despite the pandemic.
        Our highest priority remains ensuring that all Department
    of Navy personnel have access to the vaccine in order to
    protect themselves, their shipmates, their families, and their
    community.
        As the Navy Surgeon General, I have been very clear in my
    guidance that these vaccines are for the most effective
    protection against this deadly virus. The bottom line is that
    we are getting shots in arms and providing our personnel with
    what I refer to as biological body armor.
        To date, Navy sites have administered nearly one million
    vaccines, and over 50 percent of sailors and marines are now
    fully vaccinated.
        Navy Medicine continues to answer the call to help our
    Nation. Navy and Marine Corps personnel are now currently
    deployed around the country to assist with vaccination
    administration in community vaccination centers.
        I recently had the opportunity to see firsthand the
    significant impact they are making in the lives of our fellow
    citizens affected by the virus.
        In summary, the Nation depends upon our unique
    expeditionary, medical expertise to support our naval forces.
    The Navy Medicine team, some 63,000 strong, is privileged to be
    entrusted with these responsibilities. Again, thank you, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much.
        Lieutenant General Dingle, please.

                      Summary Statement of General Dingle

        General Dingle. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for your
    support and for the honor to speak to you on behalf of over
    83,000 Active Duty Guard and Reserve Army soldier medics.
        COVID-19, an unexpected challenge, has attempted to attack
    the foundation of our Nation, but it did not disrupt the fabric
    of our Constitution and its Army's response to its call. I
    honor the soldiers that I am privileged to lead.
        As our 40th chief of staff of the Army states, people
    first, winning matters. I am proud to say that our Army is
    ready to win. Within days of our Nation's COVID call, we
    collaborated with Health and Human Services, the Department of
    Homeland Security, the Defense Health Agency, and our State
    governments, as we expanded critical testing capacity,
    inculcated 200 retiree recalls, deployed vaccine and medical
    teams in support of civilian entities, and partnered with
    medical research and development in support of the whole-of-
    government approach.
        Soldiers deployed to three countries, 19 States, and three
    territories to include Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois,
    Ohio, Texas, and Washington State, to support and to save
    American lives. You called, we were ready, we responded.
        As the 30th of September approaches and authority,
    direction, and control of our MTFs transitions to the Defense
    Health Agency mandated by law, my vision for the Army Medicine
    is clear as ever: We will be ready, reformed in accordance with
    the law, reorganized, responsive, and relevant in this era of
    unprecedented global complexity, with the support of our
    National Defense Strategy and whenever our government calls.
        When the Army deploys today and fights tonight, Army
    Medicine will be right there to return them to duty tomorrow.
    From the foxhole to the fixed facility, we will conserve the
    health and fitness of the fighting force, and reinforce our
    readiness requirements through healthcare for our
    beneficiaries.
        I will ensure that integrated medical efforts occur with
    strong fiscal stewardship and partnership between Army
    Medicine, the Joint Force, and the Defense Health Agency,
    ensuring the readiness of our soldiers.
        The vision and operational focus for Army Medicine remains
    at building readiness and properly man and proficiently train
    units and modernizing to remain ready and relevant for future
    conflicts and challenges. Medical reform directors will be
    implemented to maximize readiness in support of the Army
    mission.
        Finally, we are committed to sustaining and improving our
    partnerships, foreign and domestic, to elevate battlefield
    interoperability and to support our National Defense Strategy.
        In closing, I thank the committee for your long-standing
    support to the Army and military medicine. I look forward to
    answering your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Lieutenant General Hogg, please give us your
    statement, and then we will continue to questions.

                       Summary Statement of General Hogg

        General Hogg. Thank you, ma'am. Chairwoman McCollum,
    Ranking Member Calvert, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on
    behalf of the more than 55,900 Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, and
    civilian airmen who comprise the Air Force medical service.
        Your sustained confidence and support enables us to remain
    mission-focused, excellence-driven, and ready to fight tonight.
        Over the past year, our airmen have been involved in every
    aspect of the COVID-19 response. From the early days of
    official public health emergency response, to supporting the
    whole-of-government vaccination efforts, Air Force medics
    showed their ability to innovate.
        When COVID-19 epicenters in New York, California, Texas,
    and North Dakota were facing critical staffing shortages, we
    acted quickly, enabled critical care strike teams directly into
    civilian facilities.
        Today we have deployed over 1,000 Air Force medics to FEMA
    vaccination sites in 13 States to administer COVID-19
    vaccinations; and as of yesterday, we have given over 1.3
    million vaccines.
        A year before the first COVID-19 case hit the U.S., we
    established our newest critical sustainment C-STARS training
    program at the University of Nebraska Omaha. This center for
    the sustainment of trauma and readiness skills focused on
    disease containment.
        Our infectious disease specialists worked alongside
    civilian counterparts to treat some of the very first COVID-19
    patients, using the university's biocontainment unit.
        We took our air medical evacuation capabilities into new
    territory when we were tasked to transport COVID-19 patients.
    Early in the pandemic, the rapid rise of cases drove the need
    to move more patients at once while mitigating the spread of
    COVID-19 to aircrew members.
        We partnered with teams across the Department of Defense
    and the civilian industry to develop a new infectious disease
    transport system called the Negatively Pressurized Conex. This
    Conex can safely transport up to three times as many patients
    as the previous isolation system. And as of the 24th of May, we
    have completed 101 missions, and moved 372 COVID-positive
    patients.
        While battling the pandemic, we also remain dedicated to
    the Military Health System transformation efforts. We have
    worked side by side with the Defense Health Agency to identify
    all necessary processes needed to mature the Defense Health
    Agency's functional capabilities.
        We also implemented a new reform model to improve our
    airmen's and Guardians' readiness and deployability. We
    reorganized our military treatment facilities into two
    squadrons. The first squadron focuses on the health of airmen
    and Guardians, and the second squadron focuses on the care of
    all our other beneficiaries.
        This new model has been implemented at 66 bases, and early
    analysis has already shown the model enhances force readiness
    and lethality.
        This pandemic brought unprecedented challenges, but it also
    provided opportunities to accelerate, change, or lose, to
    become more agile, resilient, and capable to face the unknown.
    This is what we train for. We remain ready for the fight, as we
    evolve to face the next major threat.
        It has been an honor to serve as the Air and Space Force
    Surgeon General, alongside extraordinary medical professionals
    on the joint team. This is my final time to appear before this
    subcommittee as I will be retiring next week. Thank you for
    your continued support and for the opportunity to address you
    today. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                          COVID-19 AND LESSONS LEARNED

        Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. I thank you all for your
    testimony, and we wish you the best in your retirement, but we
    are going to take advantage of your expertise for as long as we
    have you, especially today.
        I am going to recognize myself for a few minutes here, but
    I am going to try to set an example of directing questions to
    specific witnesses, and maybe not hear from every witness on
    everything. Sometimes we will need to.
        And on the Webex chat, you are going to find members, so
    you know your place in line.
        Let's start with the first question that I have here, and I
    want to go to COVID-19, because in all your testimony, there
    was discussion about lessons learned. I am going to set the
    scene here for a few minutes.
        As of May 19th, there have been 193,736 accumulative,
    across-the-military, cases of COVID, 28 deaths, and right now,
    we have active cases of 5,271. So, more than 1 million military
    members have either been fully or partially vaccinated--
    congratulations on that--and forces deployed in support of
    community vaccination centers was 4,749.
        And then, we all know that Congress has provided, you know,
    a lot of dollars to the Defense Health Program.
        So, I am going to ask a question for each one of you, and I
    want you to be very brief in it. And I am going to use the
    example of measures being taken to reduce the risk of COVID.
        Admiral Gillingham, you talked about how you worked on
    confined face spaces, ships, and submarines, and worked to
    reduce the spread of COVID. Could each of you briefly tell me
    your one big takeaway lesson learned on COVID--and if you could
    just do that in, like, 30 seconds--your big takeaway. I know
    you have a lot, but just your big takeaway. And we will start
    with the Admiral, and each of you please then just follow in
    order.
        Admiral Gillingham. Thank you, Chairwoman McCollum. I think
    the biggest takeaway for me is the value of our public health,
    infectious disease, and preventive medicine experts. They labor
    often in the shadows while we think about and focus on trauma
    and casualty care. But they have been the heroes, and so they,
    along with our researchers and our public health experts, you
    know, maintaining them, maintaining a strong research program,
    I think, is going to be critical going forward, as well as
    maintaining our network of overseas laboratories and
    environmental preventive medicine units that are out there on
    the forefront on the vanguard of detecting emerging disease.
    Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Somebody else? If you share the
    same thing, give us your next lesson learned. Maybe we will
    start with Mr. Place. Excuse me.
        General Place. Yes, ma'am. For me, it is leveraging
    telehealth. We have used it some before the pandemic, but at
    peak, spring/summer, almost 50 percent of our primary care
    appointments were utilizing telehealth. So enabling to continue
    the conversations with our patients to maintain, or even new
    challenges or new disease processes, but to be able to work
    with them using technology. Over.
        Ms. McCollum. Dr. Adirim.
        Dr. Adirim. Thanks. I wasn't here during most of the
    pandemic, so looking back historically, I think one of the
    things that impressed me was how quickly the Department pivoted
    to a force health protection posture. There were evidence-based
    policies and procedures that were implemented that I think
    really reduced the number of cases, deaths, and
    hospitalizations.
        The numbers that you cited are for all of DOD, so it is not
    just for the uniformed force. If you look at just the uniform
    force, I think we are well below the civilian sector, and I
    give credit to the force health protection procedures and the
    execution by the Services, as well as I just have to add in a
    second one, the pivot to prioritizing testing and really using
    it in a strategic manner to augment our force health
    protection.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you.
        Lieutenant General Dingle.
        General Dingle. Ma'am, I would say mission command
    flexibility, and what I mean by that is, it was a tremendous
    lesson and honor to watch the Services respond to the Nation,
    the ability to cross-level the uniformed forces when soldiers,
    sailors, and airmen deployed out of the MTFs and then they had
    to be back field, the ability to organize forces as an urban
    augmentation medical task force, whether in New York, Seattle,
    or across the country, vaccination task force teams deploying,
    you know, in support of the States.
        And then, finally, it would also be the integration of that
    mission command flexibility by the senior commanders in the
    field, where now the medical personnel were at the table,
    commanders were listening, and then they were executing to
    protect the forces at their post camps and stations.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Lieutenant General Hogg, quickly please.
        General Hogg. Yes, ma'am. Public health, one, and second,
    innovation to deliver care and to get the mission done. Our
    medics took it upon themselves to figure out how to deliver
    care, either face-to-face or virtually, that protected not only
    the patient but themselves, and also to give guidance to
    mission commanders in order to keep the mission going.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay, thank you. Then I have two follow-up
    questions, and I am going to direct them to, first, to Mr.
    Place, and then Ms. Adirim.
        So first, Mr. Place, what have you learned about staffing
    in military facilities in instances that military healthcare
    personnel have been called upon by civilian agencies for
    assistance? In other words, when we drew out to help with
    testing, when we draw out to help with vaccines and other
    things like that, or to move forward or move you around, that
    creates a hole some other place. So lessons learned from that.
        And if there is more than you can say in, you know, 60
    seconds, you know, we look forward to a fuller explanation
    provided to the staff, and I will share it with the members.
        General Place. Yes, ma'am. I think it is what General
    Dingle said, and that is mission command, prioritizing the work
    that must be done today with the most urgent requirements for
    healthcare delivery. So it is the leadership locally
    reorganizing the staff that they have.
        Sometimes that means taking inpatient--or outpatient staff
    to an inpatient mission. Sometimes it means taking
    administrative staff and putting them at vaccination sites. But
    it is all about knowing who you have, what their capabilities
    are, and utilizing your talent in the most--or the highest
    priority areas on the day that you need them. Mission command,
    ma'am, that is the way----
        Ms. McCollum. Did you feel you had limited risk at the MTFs
    for the servicemembers and their beneficiaries as you were
    doing that?
        General Place. So, with the ability to partner with the
    network, with the private sector care, I don't recall a single
    area where we had significant long-term concerns about the
    ability to provide healthcare based on mission command on the
    installation and integration with the downtown medical care.
    Over.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay, thank you.
        Dr. Adirim, one thing that I know we continue, as members,
    to be concerned about, is addressing industrial base issues,
    especially PPE items that were in short supply because they are
    manufactured elsewhere. What is the Department proposing to
    happen for that?
        Dr. Adirim. Well, I think we were in a very good position.
    We had a fairly large stockpile which, in fact, we shared with
    the rest of the Nation. I believe it was 20 million N95 masks
    that we shared with the United States.
        I think it is a matter of strengthening our supply chains,
    and I know that that is something that our USD for Acquisition
    and Sustainment is working with across the Federal interagency
    to do that.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And I thank the members. I went
    over 5 minutes doing that, but I wanted to make sure we got
    everything in on COVID, and we all had an opportunity to hear
    that.
        With that, I turn it over to the gentleman from California,
    Mr. Calvert.

                               MEDICAL READINESS

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question for
    all the Surgeons General, and that is related to medical
    readiness. Obviously, we got significantly diverted because of
    this pandemic, and rightfully so. We had a logistical issue. We
    had research issues.
        But let's go back to our primary focus, and that is our
    medical readiness if unfortunate war happens.
        I think that the military does a good job of basic
    healthcare, obviously research. We have talked about your
    interaction with the private sector. But what I worry about is
    if we have a significant interaction with a near-peer
    adversary, how prepared are we to provide immediate medical
    care for the men and women who may be caught up in that
    conflict? And that is for all the Surgeons General.
        General Hogg. Yes, sir, I will go ahead and start. We are
    prepared to provide the care anytime, anywhere. We have not
    skimped on maintaining the readiness of our airmen and medics.
    We are looking at what the near-peer fight will look like and
    tailoring our services to that. So--as a matter of fact, doing
    mobile ground surgical teams and increasing my critical care
    air transport teams and the capabilities like that. We
    definitely are ready for the next fight. Over.
        Admiral Gillingham. Sir, I would say, for the Navy, we
    recognize, and have been doing a tremendous amount of work on
    being able to operate in a distributed maritime environment, as
    well as--and to provide medical care in expeditionary advance
    basing operations to support the Marine Corps.
        We have done several exercises, tabletop exercises, and
    work to identify the capabilities required to do that, and I am
    excited to say that we are looking forward to the delivery of
    EPF flight 2, hull number 14, which will allow us to provide
    ambulance ship-like connectivity close to the weapons
    engagement zone. So we are definitely moving out in those
    concepts.
        Mr. Calvert. Admiral, you especially, what kind of
    equipment do you have? Obviously, the Pacific is a big area to
    move healthcare rapidly to an area that you may not know where
    you are going to be sending in the next, say, week, if
    something happens.
        Admiral Gillingham. Yes, sir, and that is the fundamental
    concept behind distributed maritime operations. Instead of
    large strike groups, for example, having more surface action
    groups distributed across that environment, that have small
    surgical teams that are capable of doing initial damage control
    surgery, and, as well, that role 2 capability I just described
    to board the EPF flight 2, will allow us to respond to a ship
    in distress, for example, be able to do initial damage control
    surgery aboard, and be able to evacuate those casualties using
    Osprey aircraft.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay.
        General Dingle. And then, sir, I will close with a comment.
    General McConville tells us that we cannot telework to combat,
    and so, we turned on the training machine last summer in the
    Army in the new COVID environment. So we are executing the
    emergency deployment readiness exercises.
        We have large exercises like Golden Medic, Defender 21, in
    which medical forces are fully inculcated in there, and then,
    also, we have the individual exercises that we are leveraging,
    things like the Expert Field Medical Badge, individual critical
    task lists, ensuring the readiness of the individual soldier
    for when they are called upon to deploy, fight, and win, they
    have the acuity, and they are able to do that.
        And then, finally, the partnership with the DHA, leveraging
    the health readiness platforms, our medical treatment
    facilities, to get after the acuity that they need to deploy,
    so when we do deploy them in support of vaccine teams or urban
    augmentation teams, that we are also capitalizing those
    individual skills that reinforce those that are required when
    they are deployed to fight and win.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you. Obviously, something none of
    us want to see happen, but we have to be prepared if something
    does happen, and I would like to get into that in more depth to
    make sure sometime, Chair, that we can get into that to make
    sure that we are prepared, in fact, if conflict does occur. I
    yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I agree, Mr. Calvert, and you and
    I asked some really broad questions. So, Members, what is in
    the chat room is the same order I have on the paper in front of
    me, so we are in a good spot. Thank you so much for the team
    for getting that in there. We will have Mr. Ryan, followed by
    Mr. Rogers.
        Mr. Ryan.

                              FOOD DELIVERY SYSTEM

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair, this question I have is
    for General Dingle and General Hogg. I am sure you will agree
    that the health and medical readiness of our servicemembers and
    their families is critical to the optimal performance on the
    battlefield.
        And here in Congress, we hear a lot from the Services about
    the human performance optimization, and the Services are doing
    some pretty amazing things when it comes to maximizing our
    human capability, and I think the medical and the health
    community is doing a good job in advising the Services on the
    nutritious ingredients we should be using in food that is
    prepared and served, or sold on our bases.
        And where the Services are falling woefully short is in the
    area using these standards to make high-quality, nutritious
    food available to our servicemembers and their families and
    incentivizing them to actually eat the food that is made
    available.
        And the high cost of tolerating obesity in our
    servicemembers, their families, and veterans, falls squarely on
    the backs of the taxpayer. Let me be clear, I don't believe the
    problem is a lack of understanding of good nutrition.
        The problem is an antiquated food delivery system that
    fails to make nutritious food available in adequate quantities
    and fails to make the right choice, the easy choice for the
    customer.
        And if you look at a graph of the--you know, the supply
    chain, of how to get food ordered, it is an incredibly
    cumbersome, complex series of bureaucracies that you need to
    learn how to navigate.
        And so, this committee and the American taxpayer need your
    help and support in the transformation of the entire
    installation food delivery system. While dining facilities
    generally provide nutritious offerings, many more meals are
    eaten each day at the myriad of on-base, fast-food joints,
    snack bars, and base restaurants.
        I know that you do not control the system, but you do have
    influence, and I just would like to know if you will support
    this initiative, and if so, I would very much like to hear your
    ideas on how you can help?
        General Hogg. Yes, thank you for the question. So we--I
    definitely do support the initiative, and in the Air Force, we
    use the DOD tool called MNEAT. It is the Military Nutrition
    Environmental Assessment Tool.
        At each one of our installations, we have either public
    health or a dietician who goes around the installation and does
    an evaluation of the nutritional offerings on base, and then
    gives that report to the installation commander. And then they
    are part of a committee, who then looks to see how they can
    improve it.
        They identify good food opportunities. We identify where we
    can do better as far as vending machines and putting healthier
    options in vending machines, and we talk to all the other
    installations on base. I definitely support any initiative that
    we could do to make that better.
        General Dingle. And, sir, I would add, I absolutely also
    support 100, you know, and 90 percent. We are nested tidy with
    our Army Materiel Command and Installation Management Command
    in getting after programs like the Holistic Health and Fitness,
    the Performance Triad, our Army Wellness Centers, Go Green
    Initiative, that are in our dining facilities, our Warrior
    Restaurants, our individual initial-entry training, soldier-
    fielding programs, all of which get after what you talk about.
        In addition to that, myself and my command sergeant major,
    we engage every commander on a monthly basis at our pre-
    commanders course to get it to start at the top, to educate
    them in conjunction with those things that are going to produce
    a healthy warrior.
        Mr. Ryan. Well, I would really appreciate your help. You
    know, I know you are retiring, but I, you know, would love to,
    you know, get your help on this. This has been something we
    have been working on, and we look at the amount of money we are
    spending on healthcare, the number of our troops that have
    diabetes.
        And it doesn't just affect the Department of Defense. You
    know, last Congress, I sat on the Veterans Subcommittee, and
    when we look at veterans' healthcare, a lot of these habits and
    problems started when they were Active Duty, but it is still
    costing the taxpayer money.
        I mean, we just got to be smart here in how we are running
    our operation, because I think we can--you know, obviously we
    are having very difficult decisions that we have to make across
    the budget with multiple threats around the country. We
    shouldn't be blowing money on--you know, because we can't get
    diabetes under control within our rank and file. So anyway, I
    appreciate your service. Thank you so much. Yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Ryan. I yield back nothing, Chairwoman. I have nothing
    to yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, and I know you would have had an extra
    second, you would have talked about the statistic that I gave
    was 26 population of the 17- to 24-year-olds not being in good
    health to serve in the military due to weight and obesity. So,
    we need to work on it in the school level as well.
        Mr. Rogers, I understand you got a little bit of an extra
    briefing on medical records. You have been the leader on that,
    without Mrs. Lowey here. I wanted to make sure you got as much
    information ahead of time on it, so we look forward to your
    questions now, sir.

                               MENTAL HEALTHCARE

        Mr. Rogers. Well, I thank you, Madam Chair. I will defer
    the electronic records discussion to another time when we can
    focus on it in its entirety and solely. Today, I would like to
    ask briefly about mental health care in the Services.
        Dr. Adirim, or any of you, go into detail in how you have
    seen the COVID-19 pandemic affect our servicemembers' mental
    health. Mental health.
        Dr. Adirim. Sure. And we really appreciate the question,
    because this is something that is very important to us, and is
    critical that we provide as good access to mental health
    services as we can, not only for our uniformed servicemembers,
    but also for their families.
        And the pandemic, as you are aware, has had an impact on
    many of us just in general, and, so, likely, it has had an
    impact on our beneficiaries.
        There has been a number of things that we have done in
    order to ensure access. As General Place mentioned in his
    opening remarks, we, along with the rest of the country, really
    opened up virtual health to not only protect people during the
    pandemic, but also to ensure that they had the services that
    they need.
        And the one area that has been a success and that we are
    continuing to study and plan to keep is virtual behavioral
    health. So what we have found is that there is an increasing
    need, and we are committed to meeting that need, whether it is
    direct care, purchase care, virtual health, any way that we
    can.
        Mr. Rogers. You know, we have got an epidemic going on
    inside the pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic, of course, has
    changed a lot of everything, but the epidemic that is going on
    all the while, and really little noticed, is the overdose
    deaths from opioid abuse. At least there was a 27 percent jump
    in opioid overdoses nationwide in 2019, and so what do you
    think?
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Rogers is resetting. We will give him an
    extra--okay. He still has time remaining. If he doesn't come on
    in the next 10 seconds, we will move to Mr. Cuellar. So, Mr.
    Rogers' staff is on. Please let him know that we have reserved
    2 minutes and 17 seconds for him.
        Mr. Cuellar.

                         HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and ranking member,
    and to all the witnesses. Thank you so much. I want to follow
    up on where Mr. Ryan was working on, except I want to cover
    more than just nutrition. You know, one of the things that I
    think we need to look at, and I am proposing and waiting for
    the committee to decide on this, but I also want to focus on
    developing the utilization of human performance optimization
    across and throughout the military services.
        But it is not only the nutrition. I think we need to
    optimize physical fitness, especially if you look at a recent
    2020 study across the military, that lower extremity overuse
    injuries and musculoskeletal injuries are the leading cause of
    being medically not ready for duty.
        So, it is physical fitness, nutrition, sleep, and
    psychological wellness which are--those are the elements of the
    human performance optimization.
        One of the things I will be asking, if the committee goes
    along with my request, is for the Department to employ a
    comprehensive, evidence-based program to educate servicemembers
    on all avenues to optimize human performance on, and look at
    specific measures to sustain the mission's success; and also
    ask you all to enhance any partnerships with civilian
    institutes and work with them to enhance this program.
        I know, for example, when some of us were at the West Point
    Academy, they are doing some work there also. And I know--I did
    some research on my own, and there is really so much literature
    out there that the military is doing. And so, one of the things
    that we will ask is that you all do a consolidated inventory of
    all HPO research efforts within the Department of Defense and
    any other agency, so we can put it together in a one-stop
    center.
        So, I would like to just get your thoughts on what you all
    are doing, because the research I have done is, there are so
    many efforts out there, but I don't know if it is consolidated
    on the areas of nutrition, physical fitness, sleep, and
    psychological wellness within the HPOs. I would like to get
    your thoughts on that.
        General Hogg. Yes, sir. General Hogg, I will go first. In
    the Air Force, we see ourselves as the maintainers of the human
    weapon system, and, so, human performance is incredibly
    important. And we need to go where the airmen are at, first and
    foremost, and that is to their work sites.
        We have instituted integrating operational support teams
    that go out into the units to evaluate what they are doing, how
    they are executing their mission, and what we can do to prevent
    injury.
        We all know that musculoskeletal injury is the number one
    cause for servicemembers to not be ready to do the mission.
    What can we do ahead of time to help them prevent those
    musculoskeletal injuries.
        I also embed medics into units. There are some units that
    should have embedded medics all the time. Our Special Forces,
    our very specialized units, they are physically challenged all
    the time in doing their mission. So, how do I make sure that if
    they get injured, that they have the care immediately onsite,
    to prevent any long-term outcomes.
        Embedding physical therapists, athletic trainers, mental
    health folks right into the units so members become comfortable
    seeing, talking to, and addressing their issues. That is one
    thing that we are doing in the Air Force to help that.
        Mr. Cuellar. Can I ask you this question--sorry to
    interrupt. Is there a comprehensive consolidated inventory for
    what the Air Force and the other Armed Services are doing,
    number one, and do you all work with civilian--for example, you
    have got some of the elite athletes out there, for example--
    well, without going to any particular one, but there are elite
    athletes, you know, where those organizations do a lot of work.
        Is there a consolidated inventory of what work you all do
    together, or does every branch do it separately? And I am
    sorry, I got 20 seconds, then my time is up. I apologize for
    that. Love to follow up with you all on that. If you don't
    mind, to all three witnesses, if you can follow up with the
    committee on what each of you all are doing, and if there is
    any consolidated work on this.
        Thank you so much, Madam Chair. My time is up.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. We have got a lot of universities
    working on that.
        Mr. Womack, and then Mr. Kilmer. Mr. Womack, please.

                       COVID'S IMPACT ON OTHER HEALTHCARE

        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair. Hey, by the way, any
    savings we get out of any cuts that happen, I recommend some of
    it go to Pulaski County, Kentucky, for some rural broadband, so
    we can get Hal Rogers back on here. Just a thought. Thanks to--
    --
        Ms. McCollum. It is the infrastructure plan.
        Mr. Womack. There you go. Hey, thanks to the panel today.
    Couple of real quick questions, then I have got another more
    formal question. I know we have talked a lot about COVID, and
    we have kind of danced around the subject, but one of my
    concerns about COVID, as it was in the civilian community, in
    the heat of the moment, we delayed a lot of elective surgery, a
    lot of non-urgent, care-type surgeries and this sort of thing.
        From the military perspective, where are we? And this is
    specifically more to the--maybe to the Army, I don't know, all
    the services, probably, can respond to it--but where are we in
    relation to, from a readiness perspective, anything that
    happened or was delayed as a result of COVID, the non-urgent
    sort of things that do go to readiness and medical fitness in
    the event that we had to fight tonight? So real quickly, if you
    could cover that particular subject on COVID.
        General Dingle. I will open real quick, briefly, and that
    is where the synergy of the Services and Defense Health Agency,
    as we turn the surgeries and all the readiness requirements
    back on, we are prioritizing getting our soldiers, in my case,
    the things that they need to be medically ready.
        And, so, it has been a tremendous, again, partnership in
    getting after our pivot to readiness.
        Mr. Womack. All right.
        General Hogg. Same in the Air Force. We prioritized our
    military members' healthcare in the times when it was limited,
    and we are in now back, full up round.
        Mr. Womack. I understand you are prioritizing, but my
    question is, do we have a backlog? How does it affect
    readiness?
        General Hogg. So, I don't have a backlog, because I took
    care of the care for our military members when needed.
        Mr. Womack. Okay. What about Army? General Dingle.
        General Dingle. Absolutely, same thing, sir. They were
    prioritized, and we were taking care of those issues.
        Mr. Womack. Okay. So, we don't have a backlog. What about
    the Navy, are we good there?
        Admiral Gillingham. We are on track, sir, yes.
        Mr. Womack. Real quickly about the Guard and Reserve. They
    have been a very important partner of ours since 9/11. We have
    deployed them many, many times. I have always had concerns
    about their medical fitness and medical readiness under COVID.
    Has it gotten worse? How do we assess? And this is primarily
    for the Army, and, perhaps, the Air Force.
        General Dingle. So from the Army perspective, it has not
    gotten worse. The standards of fitness we have maintained even
    in a COVID environment. We implemented four self-protection
    measures for all of us to continue or maintain a level of
    medical readiness and fitness in itself.
        Mr. Womack. Air Force?
        General Hogg. Same for the Air Force, sir. It has not
    gotten worse. And when they are on orders and available to
    provide--to receive care, we provide it for them, whatever is
    needed.

                        MEDICAL GRANT RESEARCH PROGRAMS

        Mr. Womack. Okay. Real quickly, University of Arkansas for
    Medical Sciences incredible research department has utilized
    DOD grants to study and advance things like bone regeneration
    and patients suffering catastrophic injuries. And this
    important DOD-funded research such as this takes place in
    universities and facilities all across our country.
        So, the question for Dr. Adirim is, or Director Place is,
    given the potential shortfall of a billion-eight, do you
    anticipate a reduction in the availability of this important
    medical research grant--these grant programs?
        Dr. Adirim. I will start, and then I will have General
    Place perhaps give a few more specifics, but we don't intend to
    reduce our research. It is so important to keeping us ready and
    keeping our forces ready for across the spectrum, whether it is
    prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation just like the type of
    research that you mentioned.
        I will turn it over to General Place.
        General Place. Sir, quickly, those funds are fenced, and
    any time that we would even consider moving those research and
    development dollars, we would come back to you first. No
    intention to move them. Over.
        Mr. Womack. Good. Very good. All right. I have got about a
    half a minute yet. I am going to yield back my time, and maybe
    we will have a round two, and if I am still around, we will
    come back and talk some more. Thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        Ms. McCollum. I just thought, Mr. Womack, you had a great
    question at the beginning. So, the question, if you could get
    back to the committee on, did you keep doing surgeries? The
    hospitals in most of our States stopped doing elective
    surgeries. So, is the reason why you don't have a backlog is
    that you were going ahead with--especially for readiness with
    servicemen and -women, going ahead and doing anything that you
    needed to do? If you could get back--I thought Mr. Womack had a
    great question and I would like to get that as some followup.
        Mr. Kilmer, and then Mr. Diaz-Balart, who is joining us by
    phone, so he is incognito. We will start with Mr. Kilmer.

                         MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM REFORM

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Lieutenant General Place, I would like to ask you briefly
    about concerns I have been hearing from the folks I represent
    about the military health system reform. As you know, the DOD's
    been implementing this plan for restructuring and realigning
    the medical treatment facilities, but, unfortunately, that
    realignment has already impacted access to care for our
    servicemembers, including our retirees, who have dedicated
    their lives to serving our country.
        My district is home to Naval Hospital Bremerton, and the
    realignment has really impacted the hospital, reducing about
    100 billets from their manning document over the past year. So
    when hospital staff leave either because they retire or move to
    another installation, their positions are no longer being
    filled.
        I know the realignment is not only affecting the military
    hospital in my region, but is impacting many other districts
    across the country as well. I have heard the DOD recommendation
    is to realign over 18,000 billets, reducing those billets for
    military treatment facilities and moving them to operational
    forces. Listen, I am all for readiness, but we can't sacrifice
    the health of our servicemembers and veterans.
        So, unfortunately, we have seen some of these changes come
    at the expense of improving healthcare outcomes for the folks
    that I represent, including veterans and Active Duty military
    and their families, seen them lose access to quality care. I am
    concerned about the ability of local civilian providers to
    adequately cover the gaps in care. For example, a veteran
    living in Kitsap County in my district could be forced at times
    to drive over 2 hours to receive treatment in Seattle.
        If you serve our country, the Federal Government should
    have your back, and these manning reductions mean we are
    failing to live up to that promise. Let me start with this
    question: What is the current status of the MHS reform and what
    steps do you recommend are taken prior to the realignment's
    full implementation to ensure that servicemembers and their
    families have uninterrupted access to quality providers?
        General Place. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. So,
    the way that you have asked the question is exactly consistent
    with the way that the Defense Health Agency is putting forward
    our plan. Our plan for that 703 reduction that you referenced
    that Honorable McCaffrey submitted to the Congress last year
    about February, pandemic, of course, came in in the meantime.
    We have paused all transition plans and have been in the
    process of revalidating every single location. That
    revalidation has worked, it is now working its way through
    formal coordination within the Department. My expectation is
    that report will come back to you some time this summer.
        In the meantime, my responsibility, my requirement, is to
    make sure that care can be delivered, whether that care is on
    site, on the installation, in our facilities, or in the
    network. And if we can't manage it in the network, then not
    reduce it within what is happening on the installation. Now, in
    order to accomplish that, as the services are moving their
    uniformed personnel, that is where the dialogue happens between
    each of the three service surgeons general who are still in the
    Pentagon and me to make sure that we are synchronized, that we
    are inseparable on how we are managing the manning document and
    our ability to provide care locally with either civilians hired
    in the installation or what we would send out to the network.
        So, that is the very intricate dance that we do together. I
    hope that answered your question. Over.

                                CUTS TO SERVICES

        Mr. Kilmer. It does somewhat, but maybe, can you give us
    some insight into what level of analysis is done when we see
    the reduction of these billets and the cuts to these services?
    You know, what consideration is made to the availability of
    care and the proximity of care within the community and what
    consideration is made to the impact that this will have on our
    servicemembers? Because, frankly, just in all candor, the sense
    from folks in our area is that there is not adequate
    sensitivity to those issues.
        General Place. I am sorry that folks feel that way.
    Certainly, our intention is for all those considerations to be
    taken into account. One of the challenges, though, sir, that we
    have to work through is the super subspecialization of care in
    America. And in some locations of relatively rural America, as
    you mentioned, it is--I have been stationed at Fort Lewis in
    the past. It takes some time to get from Whidbey Island or from
    Bremerton to Seattle where super specialty care is delivered,
    but there is not enough requirement for it within the greater
    Bremerton area or the greater Whidbey Island area. How do we
    balance the servicemembers and family members who are stationed
    there using our exceptional family member programs, as well as
    delivering primary and specialty care in those locations? That
    is the balance that we have to work through.
        And even today, one of the requirements are different than
    what might be the requirements a year from now or 5 years from
    now. So, that is how we have to work together. Over.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. I am out of time. I yield
    back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. If you have more questions, please
    submit them for the record. I would be interested in the
    followup.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, you are joining us as anonymous from
    phone. Welcome. And I will let you know when you are at 4
    minutes.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, we are going to give you a minute to
    figure out how to unmute yourself and join us and go to Mr.
    Aguilar.
        Mr. Aguilar.

                       USS ROOSEVELT COVID OUTBREAK STUDY

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Admiral Gillingham, early in the pandemic, COVID-19
    infected 1,200 sailors on the USS Roosevelt, which had nearly
    4,800 personnel. In your written testimony, you note that this
    outbreak was studied in a final report on the outbreak was
    published in the New England Journal of Medicine. What was the
    Navy and the scientific community at large learn about COVID-19
    from the initial outbreak?
        Admiral Gillingham. Thank you, sir, for that question. I
    think that one of the primary lessons learned--and it was one
    of the first works that demonstrated the asymptomatic
    transmission of the virus. About 50 percent of those that were
    infected aboard Roosevelt became so through asymptomatic
    transmissions. Other additional findings told us about the
    latency of the virus. That worked out to be about 10 days. Our
    scientists did viral cultures and were able to demonstrate
    that.
        And so the key, though, was, is that we were able to take
    that information in real time and generalize it across the
    fleet and the Marine Corps to prevent further outbreaks. We did
    have one additional outbreak aboard USS Kidd, one of our
    destroyers operating in the SOUTHCOM AOR, but because of what
    we learned there, the impact was much less and we are able to
    get Kidd back to sea much quicker. And, subsequently, we have
    had no--none of our ships miss operational commitments as a
    result.
        It really was a tremendous collaboration between our
    scientists, public health experts, and the CDC to do that
    initial evaluation and quickly use that information in rapid
    cycle feedback to change the way we operate.
        Mr. Aguilar. Were there other outcomes in the journal and
    in the study that led to a change in operations?
        Admiral Gillingham. Well, the other--you mentioned the
    article published in New England Journal. A companion piece was
    also published actually on Veterans Day last year from our
    study of--a prospective study of marine recruits at Parris
    Island, and that also testified to or really demonstrated how
    pernicious the virus is. Even in that tightly controlled
    environment, there were still six separate sources of virus
    entering the cohorts there at Parris Island. Also did, though,
    emphasize the, you know, the relative asymptomatic and less
    severe nature among that young adult population. And those
    lessons, I think, were valuable to share to other congregate
    settings such as universities and schools.

                    ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTHCARE DURING COVID

        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate the answer.
        This question is for the surgeons general. The pandemic has
    placed significant burdens on the stress of servicemembers and
    their families; however, throughout the pandemic, the
    conversation around mental health has shifted away from the
    taboo topic to one that is integrated in our healthcare
    conversations.
        What are you doing within your authorities to ensure ready
    access to mental health services?
        Admiral Gillingham. I will go ahead and start, sir. We have
    found tremendous value in imbedding mental health personnel
    with both the fleet and in the field with the Marine Corps.
    Thirty-five percent of our professional mental health
    specialists are outside the medical treatment facility. I think
    it also emphasized that we also know that a big part of mental
    wellness is resilience, and so we have put a lot of effort on
    trying to stay to the left of actual specific mental illness by
    fostering resiliency and life skills.
        About 40 percent of our sailors and marines that do come to
    mental health care do so because of an adjustment disorder. And
    we have piloted programs at our recruit training command where
    we now provide stress reduction--lessons in stress reduction
    such as meditation, and we are extending that to the fleet with
    our enhanced operational stress control efforts.
        General Hogg. Yes. In the Air Force, it is really about
    focusing in on connecting this, because that is really where it
    starts, I think, in how do we get the entire community around
    these individuals to help them work through the issues and the
    challenges that we are having. Ensuring leadership engagement,
    equipping and empowering families. You know, oftentimes they
    are going to be the first ones to notice a change, and so what
    kind of avenues do they have in order to get help for
    themselves or their members.
        And then also time-based prevention. So, you know, making
    sure that we are taking away some of those means that somebody
    would use to hurt themselves--guns, drugs. Because we all know
    that, you know, if somebody is going to consider ending their
    life, they will do it in the first 5 minutes. And so, taking
    away those means where they don't have that around them might
    decrease that. And so, it is really about creating a community
    and a connectedness to the whole system.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much. I didn't get to all of you,
    but my time is up.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. We are going to have time for
    another round of questions, Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart, can you join us? I thought that you had
    worked your magic to be unmuted. You are unmuted, but we are
    not hearing you. I am disappointed for you.
        Ms. Kaptur.
        Ms. Kaptur. Hello, Madam Chair. Can you hear me?
        Ms. McCollum. Yes, I can.

                     DIAGNOSING BRAIN AND MENTAL CONDITIONS

        Ms. Kaptur. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you for
    organizing this hearing. And I want to thank all of our
    distinguished guests this morning. My interests--I want to
    thank them for their service to our country during this
    difficult time. You are distinguishing yourselves. When the
    101st Airborne landed in Cleveland and were giving out
    vaccines, I thought, now I have seen the world change, and they
    have made such a huge difference.
        My interest is in human performance and brain-related
    conditions, medical conditions, that onset due to stress, to
    injury, or to preconditions of that individual due to violent
    incidents prior to enlistment in the armed services. Conditions
    like biochemical imbalances where serotonin and dopamine aren't
    be released in the proper way, mood disorders, PTS, bipolar,
    schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia, to name a
    few. Impulsive, I think they call it compulsive disorder.
        Anyway, I would like to know from DOD's vast reservoir of
    knowledge how to gather the experts from your department and
    perhaps the Department of Energy, where we have our massive
    research labs with our imaging and super computing capacity, to
    take a look at a better diagnosis, what do we know about
    diagnosing these conditions? What are we doing for better
    pharmacological innovation? And how are we working with the
    major brain banks in the country, such as exist at The Stanley
    Foundation and in Boston, to put information up on super
    computers to look at what is going on in the brain? Who are the
    people within the Department who are working in this arena?
        When the admiral of the 5th fleet took his life in Bahrain,
    it had a major impact on me because we just met him in Tampa
    about a year before that. And so this whole diagnostic area,
    research area is important.
        And then secondly, the education role that the DOD can play
    by helping meet the major shortage we have of doctors that work
    in this field. It is about 100,000 short in our country right
    now, along with four times that many advanced practice nurses.
    What can we do to, and loan forgiveness, to attract individuals
    to this field after they have graduated from medical school and
    can serve in the military, serve our personnel, but maybe even
    do some work in the civilian sector somehow related to that?
        I am very, very interested in who, this is probably not the
    moment to go into all this, but who at DOD could we gather? I
    am still looking for thousands of DNA samples that were taken
    by the Ohio National Guard in relation to these conditions, and
    I don't know where they have been stored. But part of the study
    that was done with the Ohio Guard showed that part of the
    reason for the declining human performance in those voluntarily
    giving their DNA that had these conditions onset was that their
    brains had been injured prior to enlistment, where they had
    been a part of violent incidents before going into the
    military.
        I am interested in the brain, human brain and human
    performance. I wonder if you could at least comment on that and
    see if there is a way we could have a roundtable. I am not the
    only member who is interested in brain condition and human
    performance, from what I have listened on the panel this
    morning.
        Could anyone comment, please?
        Dr. Adirim. I think I will start and then have my
    colleagues jump in. I think you bring up a very large topic,
    and brain health is a priority for the Department.
        You have brought up about research. We do have significant
    investments in PTSD, mental health disorders, brain injuries,
    and the like. In fact, we have just started a new--it is not
    that new, but it has been a few years old, warfighter brain
    health where, for example, we are proposing to do
    neuropsychological assessments on all servicemembers that
    access and then periodically do reassessments.
        That is just one example, but we do have significant
    investments in research. And as you have alluded to, we work
    with the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as academia
    and multiple places. I think some of the ones you mentioned we
    are working with.
        Second of all, with regard to education, we also have big
    input into educating our servicemembers.
        And, lastly, you mentioned recruitment and the tools that
    we have to recruit those people who are behavioral health
    specialists. We do have tools that include things like bonuses,
    accession bonuses, retention bonuses that the military
    departments can use to attract and retain those specialists
    that are priorities.
        Those are some of the top line answers to what you have
    asked. And then I will turn it over to anybody else who would
    like to contribute.
        Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur, you packed a lot into 5 minutes
    with more followup to come.
        Ms. Kaptur. Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing.
    This is great. I congratulate you.
        Ms. McCollum. So, Mr. Calvert, we are going to do a second
    round. Do you want to go first or you want to go at the end
    with me? Your choice.
        Mr. Calvert. Hold on. Can you hear me all right?
        Ms. McCollum. I can hear you now.
        Mr. Calvert. Why don't we wait till the end. We will just
    finish it up.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay.
        Mr. Ryan.

                          SPIRITUAL READINESS PROGRAMS

        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I just kind of want to follow up a little bit on what Mr.
    Aguilar was talking about and Henry Cuellar was talking about.
    If you could share with us--I have got a brief the other day,
    but I would love for the committee to hear about the spiritual
    readiness program.
        Are any of you familiar with that pilot program that the
    chaplains are taking on?
        General Dingle. Yes, sir. This is General Dingle. The
    Chaplain Integration program is a program that the Department
    of the Army chaplain and myself came together to help synergize
    our efforts versus having them stovepiped.
        In the past, we have never really synchronized the ability
    and the talent of our chaplains, who play a large role in the
    prevention of suicides with our medical professionals. We
    implemented what is called the CHIP, the Chaplain Integration
    program, in which we are synergizing, emphasizing, educating,
    and training, not just our providers to leverage each other and
    share information, but as well as getting that information/
    education out to the force in addition to our imbedded
    behavioral health assets.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Great. I think this is a program, after
    getting briefed on it, Madam Chair, I would love for the
    committee to at least get a one pager on it where the chaplains
    are really integrating some of these practices around
    mindfulness and other practices really to help connect a lot of
    the rank-and-file members to each other and do it through the
    Chaplain Corps. I think it is a great opportunity for us to
    really play some offense with some of the mental health
    promotion and really giving the soldiers the tools they need to
    be able to kind of withstand and build some resiliency given
    all of the economic and other stressors that they have. I just
    wanted to make sure we brought that up in this hearing.
        Anyway, I will yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And the Chaplain Corps is really,
    really important. I know that from Guard deployments to being
    with Active Duty in that, the work that they do is really
    important. They are sometimes the first call for help for
    resources, so I agree with you, we need to get some more
    information on that.
        Mr. Cuellar and then Mr. Aguilar, then Ms. Kaptur, and then
    Mr. Calvert and I will close.

                           CONSOLIDATION OF RESEARCH

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to follow up on what my colleague, Mr. Ryan, and I
    have been talking about is, on that HBO, I know you all are
    going to put that information together, but make sure, as the
    chairwoman said, that you all tell us what different higher
    education institutions you are working with, what the different
    parts of the departments are working on this, what the military
    academies are working on, so when you put all that together on
    all the areas that we talked about, that Mr. Ryan and myself
    had talked about, and other members, just have something very
    comprehensive, and make sure we have a consolidated inventory,
    a one-stop center for all of this. Because it looks like, you
    know, every agency does--every armed service does something a
    little different. And I know what the Air Force does. You know,
    I have an idea what the Army does, but we got to make sure we
    learn the best practices from each other and start off,
    especially with our military academies where they start off
    with.
        So, that should be it, just followup on that.
        And, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Thank you so much.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I think the staff has been taking
    notes and will figure out how to integrate, not only things in
    the President's budget as our committee priorities, but also
    how to follow through with future briefings.
        Mr. Aguilar.

                        ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

        Mr. Aguilar. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        And I will pick up where I left off, and I don't believe I
    heard from General Dingle. What are we doing within your
    authority to ensure ready access to mental health services?
        General Dingle. Yes, sir. And I was going to--yes, sir. I
    was going to add that, in addition to what was already said, we
    also just completed a behavioral health assessment deemed
    comprehensive in the Army, and there were two things that was
    previously mentioned by my colleagues that they brought up. One
    was the isolation and another was leadership. Those were two
    common themes that we found in our assessment as we looked at
    the impact of COVID on our soldiers around the world.
        As we leveraged, again, their access to behavioral health
    with our imbedded behavioral health is what we call it in the
    Army, given them greater access. But in the COVID environment,
    another thing that General Place mentioned earlier that just
    skyrocket for us was the behavioral virtual health. The
    soldiers leveraging in an isolated environment, this COVID
    environment, our behavioral health virtual went up about 120
    percent.
        And then in addition to that, as I do my battle for
    circulation, the commanders in the field, you know, they have
    also been the difference makers. Leadership. So leadership
    involvement in their ranks and organizations want to help
    remove the stigma, but also to connect the force, so that when
    they see their battle, you know--we call it this is my squad,
    knowing who is next to you, knowing to the left and right so
    that you can engage and intervene has been tremendous. Over.

                      PHYSICIAN RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it, General. I will stick with
    you just for one additional question.
        A GAO study found that the DOD had difficulty recruiting
    and retaining physicians across the specialties. And in your
    testimony, you stated that Army medicine has been pursuing a
    couple approaches to support readiness and high-quality medical
    care, one being Army graduate medical education and then the
    other being military civilian partnerships.
        Are you concerned about the difficulty that you are having
    in recruiting and retaining combat casualty care specialists?
        General Dingle. Sir, one thing, it is always my concern
    when we lose any of our medical professionals, especially our
    surgeons and providers. However, as we have been losing our
    surgeons who will get out after their first term, especially
    those who enter service from the Health Professional
    Scholarship Program, we have an entire cohort that we graduate
    through USUHS, as well as others who continue and who want to
    serve their country.
        One of the things that has just been a huge for us, in
    addition to the incentives and bonus pay that you all have
    given us, is our Civ-to-Mil partnerships. One of the big things
    that our surgeons, our providers want to do is they want to do
    surgeries. And us being able to leverage, again, the DHA and
    our health readiness platforms, but the Civ-Mil partnerships
    have been a home run for the Army in the recruitment and the
    raising of that morale.
        And so, it is my intent to expand those in conjunction with
    the DHA providing the touches that we need and reps to maintain
    their acuity.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, General. Appreciate the answers.
        Thanks, Madam Chair, for the second round.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur.

                                RESEARCH FUNDING

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. I will make
    it quick.
        What is the total amount of money that the DOD spends on
    mental health research, the behavioral research that I have
    been talking about that is brain related, in a year? We know
    that the overall budget of the VA for research is about $800
    million, and I am trying to get them to break it down for me. I
    don't know if you have those figures at the tip of your fingers
    or not.

                                LOAN FORGIVENESS

        But, then secondly, in terms of loan forgiveness as an
    attraction for people post-medical school to be attracted into
    DOD as a physician. You mentioned some of the programs that you
    have, but do you have a loan forgiveness program where, let's
    say, a medical student has a $400,000 debt, you just relieve
    the debt to attract them into service, or do you need authority
    to do that because, frankly, I want to help you out?
        And then in terms of education, how do you use your uniform
    services to help in this specific area working with the
    Intrepid Center?

                                RESEARCH FUNDING

        Dr. Adirim. So we have to break this down for each one. So
    the first one, with regard to the actual dollars that we spend
    for mental health, I can tell you, just like the VA, how much
    overall we spend in research. But for that, I will need to take
    that away unless General Place happens to know that.
        General Place. I don't, ma'am. Sorry.
        Dr. Adirim. Yeah. No. We are happy to get you the dollar
    amount that we invest in mental health, but we do spend just
    under a billion dollars in research overall.
        Ms. Kaptur. Ma'am, could I just interrupt you a second?
    When these folks come home and they come down to National Guard
    and Reserve units in districts like mine, what happens is the
    care just like it drivels away. And so the guard and the
    reserve, we have people who get sick and it is very hard to get
    care to them.
        So I am trying to figure out, in all these different
    pockets in the government, you know, how much money we actually
    spend in the brain-related areas for research and treatment and
    how we attract medical personnel into this field. Okay. I am
    trying to help you out, but I got to get the big picture.
        Dr. Adirim. Very happy to provide that dollar amount that
    we invest in mental health, brain health to you. We will take
    that back.
        The other question----

                            AUTHORITY FOR EDUCATION

        Ms. Kaptur. What about authority for education? Do you need
    more authority to pay the debt of someone who has graduated
    from medical school and could be attracted into the
    neuropsychiatric field, but it doesn't pay that much in the
    civilian sector compared to being an orthopedic doctor, right?
        We understand the foot; we don't understand the brain
    completely yet. These docs go out there, and we got shortages.
    The jails that I represent, 40 percent of the inmates have
    mental illness of one form or another, and about 10 percent of
    them are vets.
        What we have to do is figure this out as a country. You
    know, you really have enormous power to attract, to inspire.
    And so, I am interested in your current authorities to educate,
    like through the Uniform Military Service, medical service, can
    we do more there? Can we forgive loans? Can we create a new
    program? Are there authorities that have been given to you that
    aren't being fully exercised for education in this field?
        Dr. Adirim. We do have authorities. Whether or not they are
    adequate, we can have that discussion. The authorities that we
    have are with regard to, you know, bringing on students into
    the Uniformed Services University. We have training programs.
    And then we also have bonuses that we pay for a session and for
    retention that the military departments can use to keep those
    specialties, like the ones that you have said, the ones around
    mental health, in order to compete or better compete with the
    civilian sector.
        We do have some of those authorities. You know, each
    department uses them based on their priorities so----
        Ms. Kaptur. Great. We have a national crisis in this area.
        Madam Chair, my time is up, but I think a discussion with
    Chairman Takano at the VA, with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, with
    Rosa, with NIMH, the chair of the full committee, I think that
    would benefit us in this arena of health.
        Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. So we are going to have a question on
    workforce, and so the committee will be getting back to the
    panel so that we understand what you are doing with workforce
    on this issue when we have our committee on workforce, and we
    should have that captured by then.
        To the ranking member, Mr. Calvert.

                          MEDICAL RESEARCH INITIATIVES

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have a question on medical research. General Dingle,
    since the medical research currently falls under the Army and
    has for some time, I want to begin by asking you how we can
    best support our warfighters in this area. Congress routinely
    adds over a billion dollars to the Defense budget to fund
    specific areas of medical research. Last year, we added $1.8
    billion, and the year before that it was $1.6 billion. Even by
    Defense standards, that is a lot of money.
        Can you please provide for us some examples of research
    initiatives that provide the greatest benefit for the health
    and readiness of our troops? And also, do you support the
    proposed transfer of medical research to Defense Health Agency?
    Why or why not?
        General Dingle. Yes, sir, Representative Calvert. As you
    know, we execute 35 research programs and we manage about 4,500
    or so research awards, to include 500 clinical trials. All of
    those go toward the operational readiness of our soldiers, as
    well as treatment, you know, within our beneficiary population.
        The moneys that you are providing us, you know, are--you
    know, again, we take great pride in being the stewards of that;
    however, we also acknowledge that, you know, in the law you
    have written for us to transition that research, we are working
    with the Defense Health Agency and Health Affairs on the way
    ahead, you know, in how to meet the intent of the law. At the
    same time, again, we understand that, you know, we are proud
    and we love what we do in managing and being great stewards of
    those moneys. Over.

                             DEFENSE HEALTH AGENCY

        Mr. Calvert. Yeah. How about the Defense Health Agency
    issue?
        General Place. Sir, if you are asking me, Ron Place from
    Defense Health Agency, I think that the history and
    capabilities that the Army has done with medical research and
    development has been exceptional. I do think, though, that
    there are some benefits for standardizing within a Joint Force
    organization so they can support all requirements across the
    Department in a prioritized fashion.
        I am in favor of what the Congress has done in the past to
    synchronize it within the Defense Health Agency. Over.
        Mr. Calvert. You don't think that is just going to create
    another bureaucracy that is going to be cumbersome?
        General Place. No, sir. Our goal is to utilize the best
    practices that the Army has already demonstrated in MRDC. Over.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

                         Chair McCollum Closing Remarks

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I have got a couple of questions,
    and I think this one will go for the record, and it goes to
    workforce, and it is a followup from Mr. Kilmer. So, Doctor and
    General Place, $334.6 million was requested in the fiscal year
    2021 budget for buying back some of the capability loss with
    reductions of the military providers. Little information has
    been provided to justify the executability of the request and
    the funding that was not appropriated.
        Without asking about the fiscal year 2022 request, what
    factors would give confidence to DOD that you would be able to
    obligate the hundreds of millions of dollars in one fiscal
    year? We will take that for the record. And what is the average
    amount of time, going to workforce, it takes to get a civilian
    medical professional hired, and are you expecting to have
    problems recruiting experienced civilian doctors?
        And I think that came out loud and clear, but not just
    doctors, nurse practitioners, you know, the extended medical
    family that you need to do that.
        A followup from Mr. Womack, who asked a really great
    question. Once again, Dr. Adirim and General Place, looking
    forward to fiscal year 2022 budget, what impact do you think
    deferred care will have on healthcare utilization over the
    year?
        Now, you kind of left me with the impression that for
    servicemembers there probably isn't much deferred care, but
    there might be deferred care for family members and retirees
    who are using our facilities. So what impact do you think that
    deferred care will have on long-term costs and possible
    conditions detected during routine checkups or testing because
    procedures were postponed?
        And I will use the example, because I am a great proponent
    of people keeping up on colonoscopies and testing so that we
    can reduce the amount of unnecessary deaths, quite often, from
    colon cancer if detected early enough. So, if you could break
    those apart. You know, maybe the servicemembers were good on
    deferred, nothing was deferred on families there were and what
    potential costs you could see coming out of that.
        I also want to follow up on kind of where we are on the
    transition that appears to possibly be moving forward from
    removing civilian personnel families in that from receiving
    healthcare at some of the clinics. Where are you on that? That
    was a pause on COVID. Has COVID taught you anything more that
    we can learn from that? And I will put that in a more
    formalized question.
        Additionally, I am going to do a followup on COVID. We know
    that we learned a lot and you learned a lot over the last year
    and a half that life-saving PPE, it is masks, it is gloves, it
    is syringes, a lot of this is made overseas. Right now, you
    appear, from the testimony that you gave, you were confident
    that the supply chain was not too vulnerable, but that doesn't
    mean that that couldn't happen next time if there was another
    pandemic because we have a stress on the system currently.
        Hopefully, the vaccines, enough people get vaccinated, we
    don't have reinfections with new strains and everything like
    that, but there has been a strain on our system. I would like
    to know what discussions are taking place with DOD about
    working to onshore more of these basic necessities, not only
    for military readiness, but for the national security of the
    entire population as well.
        And last but not least, it would not be a hearing if I did
    not talk about the Arctic. I would like to know what is going
    on, an update on the Cold Weather Region Center of Excellence
    that we are working on establishing where we are on the pilots,
    how long the pilot is going to go on? I would like to look at
    your benchmarks or milestones.
        And as Mr. Rogers said, I will join him with the informal
    briefing more on medical records. If any other members would
    like to join us, I know Mr. Calvert is always welcome and we do
    things together as a team. If there is other members interested
    in that, please let us know. If staff--I know that you are
    listening on another channel, let us know if your member is
    interested in that. A little extra homework.
        I would like to thank all the people who testified. And I
    am going to paraphrase what the Army started out with, thank
    you for your work in a foxhole, the cockpit, and the helm, all
    the way down to the facility for the golden hour and for those
    of you who are able to do the wonderful deliveries of our new
    Americans for the first hour of life.
        Please thank everybody who works under your command. Every
    job is important from the nutritionist to the person who makes
    sure that that room is clean and healthy with what we are
    dealing with bacteria resistance entities that are out there.
    Just thank you for all that you do.
        And to General Hogg, we just wish you the best in your
    retirement. We thank you for your service. Your expertise will
    be missed. We hope that you stay in touch and find another way
    to put all your expertise to work for all of us here in the
    United States.
        As we close this hearing off, with Memorial Day especially
    coming up this weekend, we know how important your work is in
    making sure that we get the best medical attention to our
    servicemen and -women when they need it, especially when they
    are in the battlefield putting their lives on the line.
        With that, this meeting is adjourned. And I thank all of
    you and all the members today for joining us.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                               Wednesday, May 26, 2021.

                       DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

                                   WITNESSES

    AMY BORMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR ENVIRONMENT,
        SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
    MARK CORRELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE FOR
        ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE
    RICHARD KIDD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENT AND
        ENERGY RESILIENCE
    KARNIG OHANNESSIAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR
        ENVIRONMENT

                      Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
        This hearing is fully virtual, and I am going to address
    some housekeeping matters.
        For today's meeting, the chair or 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 I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you to do
    so. And if you still have problems, I will ask the staff to
    unmute you. So just indicate by nodding your head if you need
    to be unmuted.
        I remind all witnesses and the members that the 5-minute
    rule still applies. And if you can't see the timer, please
    email staff and we will make sure you can know how to get it up
    on your screen.
        If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
    member until that issue is resolved and you will retain the
    balance of your time.
        You will notice, as I said, a clock on your screen, and it
    shows you 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 is almost expired.
    When your time has expired and the clock has turned red, I will
    begin to recognize the next member.
        In terms of speaking order, we are going to follow the
    order set forward by House rules, beginning with the chair and
    the ranking member. Members present at the time the hearing is
    called to order will be recognized in order of seniority, and
    finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called
    to order.
        And finally, House rules require me to remind you that we
    have set up an email address to which members can send anything
    they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings or
    markups, and that email has been provided in advance to your
    staff.
        So with that, I will bring forward my opening statement.
        This afternoon the committee will receive testimony on the
    Defense Environmental Restoration Programs and Accounts. Our
    four witnesses are Mr. Richard Kidd, Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of Defense for Environmental and Energy Resilience; Ms. Amy
    Borman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army for
    Environment; Mr. Ohannessian--and I tried to practice that with
    you yesterday, sir, I hope I got it close, please correct us
    when you are testifying--the Deputy Secretary for the Navy and
    Environment; and Mr. Mark Correll, Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of the Air Force for Environment, Safety, and Infrastructure.
        We welcome you and we thank you for your service.
        This is the very first time that the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee has ever held a hearing specifically on
    environmental restoration or remediation issues within the
    Department of Defense. I believe it is critically important
    that this subcommittee be engaged here because environmental
    cleanup is directly relevant to every single State in our
    Nation and many of our congressional districts that we
    represent.
        The impacts of environmental contamination in our
    communities, whether it be from hazardous chemicals or military
    munitions, are not partisan issues. This is about the lives,
    the health, and safety of our servicemembers, their families,
    and our constituents who live in and around military
    installations.
        It is the duty of the Department of Defense and the
    services to ensure that they are responsible stewards of the
    land on which they operate. Where contamination has occurred,
    the Department and the services must ensure that those sites
    are cleaned up in a timely fashion to standards that meet the
    needs of the local communities.
        It is our job in Congress to be a partner with DOD by
    ensuring adequate funding and conducting proper oversight of
    these cleanup projects.
        One of my hopes for this hearing is for us to learn how we
    can better work together, in fact, work smarter, in funding
    remediation projects so we can get these sites cleaned up as
    swiftly as possible.
        For some of the topics for today's hearing, I hope we can
    hear more about how funding is prioritized in the Environmental
    Restoration Account and how the Department and the services are
    using risk-based analysis to respond to contamination in our
    communities caused by DOD actions.
        In places where the Department is the known source of
    contamination, how the Department is communicating the risks to
    servicemembers, their families, and the neighboring communities
    and ensuring that those who are affected are well aware and
    consulted.
        The cost to complete cleanup of DOD-caused contamination
    and military munitions at current and former military
    facilities and what constraints exist to speed along the
    cleanups.
        The scope of the DOD's PFOS cleanup, where the Department
    is in identifying these possible contaminations of DOD
    installations, these toxic chlorinated forever chemicals, and
    how far along in the CERCLA process are the services in
    remediating the PFOS contamination.
        The discussion of research and development, the work the
    Department is exploring to do its PFOS remediation, and what
    promising technologies exist to develop PFOS-free firefighting
    foam.
        Now, I acknowledge and we all know that we are holding this
    hearing just before the release of the full budget request, and
    we understand, to our testifiers, that this may limit your
    ability to answer certain questions.
        However, given the tight timeframe we have to write this
    bill, I ask that you be prepared to respond to members and
    committee staff on any specific budget questions that are asked
    today immediately after the full budget request has been
    submitted.
        With that, I thank you again for appearing before the
    committee today to discuss these important issues. I 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 statement.

                        Opening Statement of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum. I appreciate you
    calling this hearing today.
        There are few issues more consequential to the quality of
    life for our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians
    than worry-free access to safe and clean drinking water.
        The Defense Environmental Restoration Program is a critical
    element in providing both short and long-term remediation on
    military installations or in the surrounding communities,
    especially, as the chairman mentioned, where PFOS levels were
    detected in excess of current clean water standards.
        Given the complexities of this national challenge and the
    importance of close interagency collaboration with EPA, I look
    forward to discussion on the details of your approach to
    identify, investigate, and respond to this presence of PFOS.
    And I mention PFOS especially because it seems to be the
    overwhelming problem throughout the Nation.
        I would also appreciate an update on the Department's
    efforts to find a replacement for PFOS, as the chairman
    mentioned. This long-used firefighting foam, I know it is very
    effective in putting out fires, but, obviously, it has other
    problems.
        My understanding is that the fiscal year 2020 NDAA requires
    the Department to phase it out in all military installations by
    October 2024, but perhaps you can tell us whether this
    timetable can be accelerated if we have hopefully a suitable
    alternative.
        I know there is a high level of interest in Congress in the
    Department's efforts to address contamination from other
    hazardous substances, including unexploded ordnance, discarded
    military munitions at formerly used defense properties and BRAC
    locations throughout the United States. I hope you can
    similarly update us on these important efforts.
        Again, I thank the chair, and I thank all of you for your
    appearance today, and I look forward to your testimony.
        With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. You and I have worked on
    environmental issues for many, many years. Look forward to
    working with you on this.
        Mr. Kidd, we would like to ask you for your statement,
    please.

                         Summary Statement of Mr. Kidd

        Mr. Kidd. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, other
    members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here today and provide a summary of the Department of Defense's
    Environmental Restoration Program.
        Thanks to strong and consistent support from Congress,
    totaling over $45 billion since the inception of this effort,
    the Department has been able to establish and maintain a
    mature, effective cleanup program. We have made consistent
    progress across both Installation Restoration Program sites to
    address cleanup and Military Munitions Response Program sites
    to address unexploded ordnance.
        Congressional support for the program exceeded $1.6 billion
    in fiscal year 2020 and $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2021.
        Because of this sustained effort and support, the
    Department has now completed cleanup at over 85 percent of the
    total identified sites.
        Nonetheless, all should understand that cleanup is a long-
    term endeavor requiring sustained funding and persistent
    attention. In many cases, some of the hardest to address sites
    remain. Our estimated cost to complete cleanup exceeds $29
    billion.
        Of increasing interest to all are the challenges related to
    unregulated or emerging chemicals of concern, particularly
    including perfluorinated compounds, or PFOS. Given the
    importance being placed on this family of chemicals, I would
    like to share with you my candid assessment on our efforts
    after 5 months on the job.
        First, an overview of the Department's PFAS-related cleanup
    efforts. As of March 31 of this year, the Department had
    identified 698 installations where DOD used or potentially
    released PFAS. All of these installations have entered the
    CERCLA process.
        We have completed the preliminary assessment and site
    investigation on 129 of these installations. Of these 129, 63
    were found to require no further action, while 66 are
    proceeding to the remedial investigation and feasibility study
    per the CERCLA process.
        We expect all of the preliminary assessments and site
    investigations on all installations to be completed by the
    first quarter of 2024.
        The Department has also taken quick action to address PFOS
    chemicals in drinking water, both on and off base, and we are
    confident that no one is drinking water with PFOS or PFOA above
    EPA's lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion where
    the Department of Defense is the known source.
        Additionally, the Department has a strong internal
    governance body in the form of the PFAS Task Force and a record
    of serious engagement on this topic.
        Second, I would like to share with you my assessment of the
    challenge that is ahead of us.
        The rate of progress is defined primarily by the rules that
    govern our physical world. Physics, chemistry, and science
    establish the realm of the possible and dictate the parameters
    within which we work.
        Based on what we know today and known technologies,
    frankly, it will be years before we fully define the scope of
    the problem, and with that definition can be reflected in our
    budget requests, and after that probably decades before cleanup
    is complete.
        Despite this challenge, opportunities exist for improving
    what we are currently doing, and I would highlight these to
    you.
        The first is to invest in science, challenge the parameters
    I mentioned above, expand options, and accelerate cleanup.
        Second is to improve our internal processes. Every month
    matters. We should apply best management practice and insights
    from data to reduce DOD internal decision times.
        We must expand community outreach. Frankly, the most
    important outreach occurs at the local level, but it is
    important that senior leaders demonstrate their commitment and
    lead by example. And I will start this on July 14 when I will
    represent the Department in a public townhall.
        Finally, we must engage our partner agencies at the State
    and local level.
        Dependencies on regulators are real. Engagement is
    critical. Our Secretary met with the EPA Administrator 2 weeks
    ago, and during that meeting they discussed PFAS at length and
    made it clear to all of us that collaboration is essential and
    will be the norm between the two agencies going forward.
        The program is legally and technically complex, but its
    purpose is simple: to preserve the trust with the American
    people and protect the environmental bounty of this great land
    for current and future generations.
        I am committed to this effort, and I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Borman.

                        Summary Statement of Ms. Borman

        Ms. Borman. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, and
    members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the soldiers,
    families, and civilians of the United States Army, thank you
    for the opportunity to address your interest in and answer
    questions about the Army's Defense Environmental Restoration
    Account.
        The Department of the Army's Restoration Program is a
    mature program managed and executed by a team of soldiers and
    civilians from across the Army, and I am proud to report that
    approximately 91 percent of our restoration sites have reached
    Response Complete milestone. This occurs when sites complete
    the proposed remedial action or require no further
    investigation.
        The Army's universe of cleanup sites yet to achieve
    Response Complete is approximately 1,200 spread across our
    active and our closed installations. In order to make the most
    impact, we continually reassess the Cleanup Program with the
    intention of addressing the highest risk sites first. At the
    same time, we are committed to achieving Response Complete at
    all of our sites.
        While the Army is proud of our successes and remains
    focused on continuous improvement in our Cleanup Program, we
    know that cleanup at many of the remaining sites is more
    complex and requires additional time and/or advanced
    technology.
        The Army has been identifying and conducting cleanup at
    sites since the 1980s and has come a long way. Still, we remain
    fully aware of the magnitude of our mission and look forward to
    continued partnership with fellow Federal agencies, State
    regulators, and industry stakeholders to increase the
    efficiency in our cleanup efforts.
        In addition, the Army is focused on responding to the
    challenges of PFAS and is resolute in making substantial
    investment necessary to continue forward progress, and we thank
    you for the support you have provided to date.
        The Army is dedicated to being transparent about our
    cleanup process with both Congress and the public. To that end,
    as we complete the analysis of our PFAS investigations, we are
    taking steps to make our PFAS cleanup process and results more
    publicly transparent.
        Our priority remains the health and safety of our
    servicemembers, their families, Army civilians, and the
    communities surrounding our installations. We will continue to
    prioritize and address our sites where risk to human health is
    the highest.
        I assure you that the Army is fully committed to addressing
    our cleanup responsibilities. Thank you for the opportunity to
    present this testimony and for your continued support of the
    Army.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Summary Statement of Mr. Ohannessian

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Ohannessian--was I even close, sir?
        Mr. Ohannessian. That is closer, yes.
        Ms. McCollum. Would you please say it for everyone. Names
    are important, and I apologize.
        Mr. Ohannessian. Sure. My name is Karnig Ohannessian.
        I think that is why most of my subordinates just call me
    Mr. O, because they can't say it either.
        Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am Karnig Ohannessian, and I am
    the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Environment. I
    appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to
    discuss the Department of the Navy's Environmental Restoration
    Program.
        The Department of the Navy's Environmental Restoration
    Program is a mature program with a well-established record of
    protecting human health and the environment in short- and long-
    term response actions taken over the past three decades.
        We are proud of the substantial progress and many successes
    we have made at the Department's more than 4,000 Environmental
    Restoration Program sites. We have achieved the Response
    Complete milestone for 83 percent of our sites.
        The remaining sites are our most challenging sites and will
    require additional time to achieve final remedies, address new
    and emerging chemicals of concern, and complete long-term
    remedies that are in progress.
        Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, or PFAS, are at the
    forefront of the chemicals of emerging concern across the
    Nation. The Department is implementing a comprehensive strategy
    to manage and address the known or potential releases of PFAS
    from our activities on Navy and Marine Corps installations and
    facilities nationwide.
        We are committed to taking proactive action to identify and
    mitigate the impacts of PFAS releases to human health and the
    environment within the framework of the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
        The Department of the Navy remains committed to being good
    stewards of the environment while advancing our mission to
    defend and protect this great Nation.
        I thank the leadership and membership of the subcommittee
    for your attention, interest, and ongoing support for the
    Department of the Navy's Environmental Restoration Program, and
    I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        And I want to thank you, Mr. Correll, for meeting with me
    yesterday too and giving me some background.
        Mr. Correll.

                        Summary Statement of Mr. Correll

        Mr. Correll. Thank you very much, Chair McCollum, Ranking
    Member Calvert, distinguished members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of the
    Air Force Environmental Restoration Or Cleanup Program and its
    funding accounts.
        The Department's mature Cleanup Program focuses on airmen,
    guardians, families, and surrounding communities by reducing
    risk to human health and the environment due to our activities.
        For installation restoration our first priority is to
    protect people by quickly taking action to ensure there is no
    pathway between hazardous substances, pollutants, or
    contaminants and a human receptor.
        Once that is completed, we focus on taking a risk-based
    approach to addressing the long-term impacts to groundwater,
    soil, and surface water under the direction and authorities of
    the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
    Liability Act, or CERCLA.
        The Department of the Air Force has 8,338 sites and can
    report that 6,555 or 79 percent of those sites are in the
    Response Complete phase of CERCLA, with the remaining 1,783
    installation and munition restoration sites still in the
    cleanup or investigation phases.
        Over the last 3 years, we have received $456 million in
    added funds from Congress, and I would like to thank you for
    your support.
        Our responses in all cases are based on the overall
    relative risk at individual sites. We rank all sites as either
    high, medium, or low risk based on the toxicity of the
    contaminants, the likelihood, speed, and impacts of the
    contaminants migrating, and whether the pathways for
    contaminants to reach human and ecological receptors exist.
        We recognize the CERCLA process can confuse and concern our
    communities and, accordingly, we have a robust program of
    transparent interaction with stakeholders that range from
    formal Restoration Advisory Boards, to ad hoc community action
    meetings, to public-facing websites, to installation commander
    interactions. We are committed to providing stakeholders with
    validated and timely information on our cleanup activities.
        Although our programs covers a myriad of contaminants, we
    realize that PFAS, and particularly PFOA and PFOS, are a major
    concern across the Nation. To date, the Department has spent
    $685 million on PFOA and PFOS, is providing mitigation at 33
    installations, has completed all 203 CERCLA preliminary
    assessments, has completed 38 site inspections, and has ordered
    47 remedial investigation contracts.
        We have ceased using all firefighting foam for training,
    treat all real world use as if it were a hazardous spill, and
    have retrofitted all our fire vehicles with firefighting foam
    for training that is lower, that has no PFOS and trace PFOA. We
    have been and will continue to be as proactive as possible in
    addressing this national concern.
        The Department of the Air Force is committed to responsible
    environmental management, which includes assuring our airmen,
    guardians, families, and surrounding communities are protected.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                RESTORATION AND MILITARY MUNITION PRIORITIZATION

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        We will begin with some questions. And I know my colleagues
    are going to have some really great ones for you, so I am going
    to just kind of go back in a general overview on a few things
    with you.
        The Defense Restoration Accounts include funding for
    Installation Restoration Programs, and that is what is used for
    the cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances, and
    then the Military Munitions Response, which is used for the
    cleanup of munitions.
        And so, would you take a second? And I think maybe this
    might be most appropriate for you, Mr. Kidd. How is the
    environmental restoration funding divided and prioritized
    between the Restoration Program and the Military Munitions
    Response Program? How is that division made?
        Mr. Kidd. So, ma'am, the division is based on ground-up
    priorities developed by the services. Essentially we have
    approximately 2.5 times the amount of funds going to the
    Installation Restoration sites as we do to the Military
    Munitions Response Program sites.
        Ms. McCollum. And the reason for that is?
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, it is based on the assessed risk. We use
    two different risk categories based on the site at hand.
        For the Installation Response sites, we use the Relative
    Risk Site Evaluation process, which Mr. Correll defined rather
    well, the nature and the extent of the contaminant or the
    source, the migration pathway, and then the potential impacts
    on human or ecological receptors.
        For the Munitions Response Program site, the prioritization
    is based on protocols defined by explosive hazard, whether or
    not there could be chemical warfare material, and the risk to
    human health and the environment.
        Much of the determination is based on the proximity to
    population centers, and many of the Munitions Response sites
    are further away from population centers than some of our
    Installation Response Program sites.
        Ms. McCollum. So would you say, would it be a fair
    statement to say with emerging contaminants such as PFOS it has
    added to the prioritization in the accounts that you are
    funding with the Installation Restoration Program?
        Mr. Kidd. So, ma'am, thanks to the support of Congress we
    have been able to address the emerging challenges from PFOS
    without having to reallocate funds between any of the other
    accounts.
        Ms. McCollum. The Department has previously estimated that
    it needs $29 billion to complete pending environmental
    restoration projects. How does that long-term price tag of
    cleanup inform the budget request on an annual basis?
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, that figure is correct. We had a cost-to-
    complete figure in 2020 of a little more than $29 billion. We
    spent $1.6 billion in 2020, and the figure stayed about the
    same at $29.5 billion.
        So, cost to complete is an issue that we work to address.
    And part of the increase in the cost to complete is based upon
    what we learn as we do site assessments and investigation.
        Ms. McCollum. Does that $29 billion estimate include what
    you think might be the cost for the PFOS contamination? Is that
    included in that amount?
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, it does for now. We estimate that the cost
    to complete PFOS right now is $2.1 billion. That number will
    certainly go up over time as we understand the parameters of
    the challenge that is ahead of us.

                                   SHIPYARDS

        Ms. McCollum. There has been a lot of discussion in this
    committee about what we need to do to improve our shipyards, to
    build them for resilience and that. And I had a great
    conversation--thank you, Mr. O--about shipyards, and he has
    been thinking ahead about what will be involved because we will
    be disturbing and removing a lot of contaminants.
        Have you included or will you be looking at including if it
    is in infrastructure bills the cost of remediation that will be
    incurred when we do shipyards, not only the physical shipyard
    on land but any disruption with the soils and the water
    underneath? I am assuming that that is probably not included in
    anything because we haven't moved forward on working on any of
    those projects. Are you planning ahead?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Thank you.
        Where we know what the presence and occurrence of PFAS is,
    we have accounted for that in our cost to complete under the
    Environmental Restoration Program.
        Should the work progress for shipyard infrastructure
    optimization and then we come across additional occurrences
    that we are not aware of, then we will determine how to address
    that.
        If it is cleanup, it will probably stay in the
    Environmental Restoration Program, but it is hard for me to
    answer where they might end up if that is not where they end
    up. But I don't know the amount that it is going to be either.
        What we know is in the Environmental Restoration Program
    and what we encounter if we encounter something new, we will
    address that appropriately.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much.
        Members, I just wanted to get some of the boring stuff out
    of the way so you can ask all the great questions.
        So, Mr. Calvert.

                                PFOS TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I am going to stay on PFOS for a while. It seems that that
    is a common concern around the country.
        And as I noted in my opening statement, last year the
    committee addressed its ongoing concern about the prevalence of
    PFOS contamination on current and former military
    installations, and we continue to support groundwater
    remediation activities undertaken by the Department.
        First, I would like to get a written response to this
    because I am sure there is a lot being done on this. But what
    are the DOD and the services doing to stop the continuing
    spread of PFOS from these military bases? And if you can get
    back to me on that, I would appreciate it.
        Right now I want to get into what we do to extract PFOS
    contamination groundwater by pumping and then treating, which
    is the common methodology that has been used over the years.
    Above ground is very expensive, as you all know, and very time-
    consuming.
        As the witnesses are aware, there are commercially
    available alternatives to pumping and treating contaminated
    groundwater that are proven to safely contain PFOS within the
    aquifer and eliminate--I mean eliminate the spread.
        What innovative technologies have DOD and the services
    identified that can remediate PFOS-contaminated groundwater
    either within the aquifer or once pumped out of the aquifer?
        I guess that is for anyone that wants to take that on.
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, thank you for that question.
        As I noted in my opening remarks, investing in technology
    is perhaps one of the best ways to challenge the physical
    parameters that we work under and to accelerate cleanup.
        We have a variety of programs in the Department that are
    intended to bring emerging technologies to maturity. These are
    the SERDP and the ESTCP programs.
        We have invested over the years, in terms of just the
    treatment, we have a total of 83 projects with about $53
    million worth of investment in treatment efforts across the
    Department. These include electrocatalytic and catalytic
    approaches, in-ground bioaugmentation, and chemical oxidation,
    and other technologies as well.
        If the firms that you mention have a mature commercialized
    technology that is ready to use today, they have a couple of
    different pathways to deploy that. First is to talk to the
    remediation companies that get the contracts from the
    Department. The second is to talk to the services that are
    actually doing the cleanup.
        If it is not a mature technology, please refer them to me,
    and I will give them the opportunity to engage in either the
    SERDP or the ESTCP program.

                                  PFOS CLEANUP

        Mr. Calvert. Well, I will do that.
        I have been somewhat frustrated over the years because it
    seems that the culture is to continue to do what you have been
    doing over the years, pump and treat. And as you know, the
    molecule in PFOS is hard to get rid of even if it goes into a
    landfill or et cetera. So containing this is extremely
    important.
        And as you mentioned, $27 billion to complete pending
    environmental restoration projects, does that include the
    expected costs of cleaning up all these PFOS contamination
    sites across the country?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, our anticipated cost to complete is a little
    more than $29 billion right now. It includes the known
    estimates for PFOS cleanup. We anticipate the total cost for
    PFOS will increase over time.
        Mr. Calvert. How do you prioritize those sites on these DOD
    installations. I will just stick with PFOS for a moment. How do
    you prioritize which sites get cleaned up first and so forth?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, we work within the CERCLA process and we use
    the Relative Risk Site Evaluation process to prioritize based
    on risk. So generally the highest risk first. We determine risk
    by the nature and extent of the contamination, the likelihood
    or pathway that it will migrate, and then the potential impacts
    that it could have on human or ecological receptors.
        We can give you a more detailed briefing as to how we
    effect that prioritization.
        Mr. Calvert. Yes. And the reason I bring that up is,
    obviously, if you have PFOS in a remote rural area versus in a
    population, high population center, like, for instance, in
    southern California, and we are very dependent upon aquifers
    for our water supply, I would hope that those sites would be
    given priority, and I would imagine that throughout the
    country. Is that correct?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I don't want to get in front of our services
    and our environmental specialists on the ground who are
    actually doing the work to prioritize the sites, but I would
    generally agree with your characterization, yes.
        Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield
    back for the moment.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        I have one DOD site that is not PFOS where I have a
    municipal treatment center, and I have two municipalities that
    are having to treat their water for PFOS, and I have been
    there. So this is something that is near and dear to me to get
    this right, Mr. Calvert. So thank you for your questions.
        Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized.

                           MUNITIONS AND PFAS REMOVAL

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much for this
    important hearing. The fact that it is a first ever is a real
    credit to you as chair. Thank you very much, and thank the
    ranking member as well.
        I am going to become parochial and speak about the Great
    Lakes. Thank our very dedicated witnesses for testifying today.
        I am interested in whether the Department has a map showing
    the various impingements in the Great Lakes region. Let me take
    you right down to where I represent, the Toussaint River.
        Over two decades ago, we worked at the highest levels of
    the Department. They sent a helicopter to do mapping of the
    region because we had unexplained ordnance related to the use
    of Camp Perry during World War II and thereafter for a shooting
    range. And we have rivers that have been stopped up because of
    shells that have now been covered with sediment, 5 millimeter,
    up to 150 millimeters, some with chemicals inside.
        The last I knew the Department pretty much never came back
    after they created a database. I would sure like to see what is
    in it and get a plan for remediation. Because all of our
    fishing charter boat operations have now stopped on that river,
    the Toussaint River, because of the silting up and the
    inability of us to solve the defense cleanup problem in that
    area. And the plume of shells extends way out into Lake Erie,
    toward the Lake Erie Islands.
        So I wanted to get your commitment to help me figure out
    what to do next on this very important area.
        I also wanted to ask you how DOD prioritizes the cleanup of
    your installations where PFAS has been confirmed. For example,
    in light of the health risks posed by PFAS, shouldn't the
    Department focus on installations near population centers?
        Like, for example, we have a Toledo 180th Fighter Wing,
    that is Army Air, or Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in the
    western half of Ohio. They, in fact, are impacted, but close to
    population centers.
        Is the population density a factor in your decisions on
    what to prioritize?
        Mr. Correll. So, ma'am, Mark Correll from the Air Force.
        Since both of those places you mentioned are Air Force
    installations, what I would say is it is one of the three
    factors. So are there population centers there? Yes, that is a
    consideration. And even beyond that, are they sensitive
    receptors? By that I mean we are more concerned about schools,
    child development centers, those kinds of sensitive locations.
        But it is one of three considerations. The first is, what
    is the concentration and toxicity of the chemicals that we are
    talking about? And the second is, what is the migration and
    pathway to those receptors?
        So, while it might be true that you are in a highly
    populated area, if there is no pathway for that chemical to get
    to the receptors that we are concerned about, the human or
    ecological receptors, then standalone, because it is highly
    dense, doesn't mean it will be a high priority.
        If, however, all three of those come together and it is a
    highly toxic material and there is a pathway to receptors and
    there is a lot of receptors, then, yes, that would be a factor.
        Thanks for the question, ma'am.
        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        What is a receptor?
        Mr. Correll. A receptor would be a human, a person. And so,
    is there a way for this contaminant to get into someone in our
    community, our airmen, our guardians, our families, or the
    community nearby. It can also be other receptors, animals, et
    cetera.

                      MECHANICAL TRADES AND HEALTH ISSUES

        Ms. Kaptur. I would just mention that is not the purpose of
    this hearing, but just to let you know that of many of our
    airmen who have been involved in the mechanical trades
    repairing F-16s and A-7s and all the rest, many of them now
    have pulmonary lung disease, COPD.
        And I hope that the Department is paying close attention to
    the facilities and the ventilation systems that these
    individuals who give their lives to this country work in. I
    think it is a serious problem, and you ought to look at your
    health outcomes.
        That is not your job directly. It happens elsewhere in the
    Department. But it would be interesting to see how much we have
    to pay as a country in human lives, as well as the medical
    expenses associated with lung disease, related to repairing
    this equipment.

                              UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE

        What about Toussaint River? How do I get any response on
    what do we do with unexploded ordnance in the Great Lakes? Is
    there a map? Is there a map that defines that?
        And certainly for us in Ohio, how do we analyze the
    information that was collected nearly two decades ago where
    nothing has happened?
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, I have looked to my colleagues on the left
    and right. I think we are going to have to take that one for
    the record, and we will get back to you with a more detailed
    response.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Kaptur. Okay. Thank you. You all have very important
    jobs.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. The committee looks forward to
    that information.
        Mr. Womack.

                                CAPACITY ISSUES

        Mr. Womack. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
        Thanks to the witnesses.
        Mr. Kidd, the Defense Department has a lot on its plate,
    and this question I am going to ask is also more at the 30,000-
    foot level, and it is about capacity.
        A lot of times the things that we encounter from an
    environmental perspective rise out of neglect because we have
    to take resources, precious resources, and commit them
    elsewhere for other really important functions.
        So, help me understand what kind of routine sort of
    infrastructure evaluations do you guys conduct to help inform
    leadership as to what I would call capacity issues when we have
    got this capacity.
        Which leads to my second question. And that is, if we have
    more capacity than what we need--and this is not necessarily
    designed to broach the subject of BRAC--but if we have excess
    capacity, how much is that costing us to take care of as
    opposed to being able to use those resources to address some of
    the environmental concerns that have been raised in this
    hearing or commit to other very important DOD functions?
        Mr. Kidd. So, Congressman, yes, that is a pretty high-level
    question.
        I think all of the services over time have indicated that
    we do have excess capacity in terms of infrastructure and
    facilities.
        In terms of whether or not we wish to have a BRAC or how
    much that is, I would suggest that we either take that for the
    record or that we shift that question to those on our team that
    deal with real property and facilities.
        Mr. Womack. Okay. The numbers I get, like Army has got,
    like a third more capacity than it needs, Air Force about the
    same, maybe not as much on the Navy side, would that be an
    accurate portrayal of where we are in capacity?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I would have to take that one for the
    record. I mean, I have been in the room with conversations with
    the people who are smart on these type of issues. I do know
    that the services all have gone on record saying that they do
    have excess capacity. But I couldn't--I wouldn't want to
    characterize the degree of that at this juncture without more
    research, time, or to reach to our facilities experts.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Mr. Womack. Okay. My only other question is regarding cyber
    and how protected our infrastructure is from a cybersecurity
    standpoint. Our country has been hit with certain hacks and
    what have you, and the susceptibility of our infrastructure is
    always a concern of mine.
        So what national efforts are being made to identify the
    most at-risk installations and protect our critical
    installations from either a disruption or some degraded
    infrastructure in the surrounding area?
        Mr. Kidd. Congressman, thank you for that important
    question. Again, it is a little bit outside of the DERP, but it
    is sort of in all of our respective portfolios.
        The current National Defense Strategy is very clear: The
    homeland is no longer a sanctuary. Our adversaries have the
    capability to attack us, to spread disinformation, to take down
    many of our key and critical systems.
        We have a range of programs in the Department to address
    this, and we have a range of interagency collaborative efforts
    with the Department of Energy, FEMA, and the White House in
    regards to key critical infrastructure.
        I took the same question last week from the Senate. We
    would be happy to come back and give you a more thorough
    briefing, but it is going to have to be at a different
    classification level than where we are today.
        Thank you.

                           LIMITED RESOURCE CONCERNS

        Mr. Womack. Okay. And I also realize that we are having
    this hearing before we see the details on the budget. Are you
    concerned that there are going to--I kind of characterize it as
    a food fight over in the Pentagon, everybody competing for
    limited resources.
        Are you concerned that these resources are going to have to
    be redirected for other important operational and readiness
    sort of functions?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I mean, I think that the Department, as
    mentioned earlier by one of the other members, the Department
    has a lot on its plate and a lot of priorities. And I have
    significant trust in the senior leaders of the Department to
    make those hard decisions about where our resources are
    applied.
        Mr. Womack. Good answer.
        Thank you so much. I yield back.
        And, Madam Chair, I do have to scoot to another
    subcommittee. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. We are so glad you were able to join us for
    part of this.
        Mr. Cuellar.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member and
    to the witnesses.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cuellar, we are having a hard time
    hearing you. Mr. Cuellar, you are not coming through.
        Mr. Cuellar. I will call back again.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yeah, sorry. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Kilmer, I am going to go to you, and then
    I will go to Mr. Carter.

                SHIPYARD MODERNIZATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Ohannessian, as you know, there are four public Navy
    shipyards, and the chair mentioned this. All of them have
    legacy infrastructure dating back to the 19th and 20th
    centuries.
        So given that, the Navy released its Shipyard
    Infrastructure Optimization Program, or SIOP, which is a 20-
    year, $21 billion effort to revitalize and modernize our public
    shipyards.
        These modernization efforts are really critical to ensure
    our shipyards are resilient and ready to support our national
    security. From what we have heard from the Navy, efforts will
    include upgrading and in some cases replacing dry docks,
    optimizing industrial processes, restoring facilities.
        Given the potential environmental impacts, how is the Navy
    effectively planning to ensure that the revitalization of our
    public shipyards takes into account environmental management
    considerations?
        Like so many Americans, I worry about the quality of the
    air we breathe and the water we drink. I would like to know
    what steps the Navy is taking to ensure the air and water
    quality aren't degraded during the SIOP investments.
        Mr. Ohannessian. Thank you, Congressman. And it is good to
    see you again.
        And in addition to the specific piece that I mentioned
    before regarding environmental cleanup, you are quite correct,
    that is only a piece of what we are talking about when we think
    about the environmental planning piece writ large for the
    Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program.
        And because of the concerns that you mentioned and the
    importance of the early planning, we have, in fact, integrated
    the environmental planning piece of it into the overall
    planning piece of the program writ large.
        And that environmental planning not only has the cleanup,
    as I mentioned, and also protection of air and water, but other
    things as well: conservation, natural resources, cultural
    resources, historical resources, Tribal treaty rights.
        All of these come into play, and there are a lot of
    stakeholders that we work with, State historic preservation
    offices, Tribes, nongovernmental organizations, lots of
    stakeholders.
        And recognizing that we have, in fact, stepped forward and
    made sure that those planning processes, we get a jump on them
    and they are integrated into the overall process because the
    last thing I want to do is to have my portfolio be the rate-
    limiting factor on the important modernization effort for the
    four public shipyards.
        And we can talk more about that in a lot of detail
    separately. But overall I would say we have jumped on it and
    make sure that we stay within the planning processes
    throughout.

                          PFAS/PFOS MITIGATION EFFORTS

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Let me shift gears. Mr. Kidd, similar to a lot of towns
    across the country, the communities in my neck of the woods
    are, unfortunately, no strangers to the impacts of PFOS
    contamination.
        In 2020 groundwater in the communities surrounding Naval
    Base Kitsap tested at dangerous levels for PFAS compounds. The
    Navy tested over 290 drinking water wells, with 83 wells
    showing some levels of PFOS, two wells containing an unsafe
    level of PFOS.
        That could affect over 2,000 homes in Kitsap County,
    Washington, with the impacted number of families likely to
    grow.
        This, obviously, is not just unique to my neck of the
    woods. We are also seeing it at Joint Base Lewis-McChord where
    PFAS contaminants were detected on base, necessitating shutting
    down several drinking wells. JBLM also installed over $6
    million worth of filtration equipment to keep PFAS contaminants
    from entering their on-base drinking water.
        Given the prevalence of PFAS contamination at communities
    surrounding bases around the country, does the DOD have enough
    funding for PFAS testing and remediation and mitigation
    efforts? And how does the DOD plan to keep folks, not just in
    my community, but others, in the loop so that they know they
    have safe drinking water for their families?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, thanks for that question.
        As I heard it, you asked three questions, one about
    funding. You actually told a story about rapid response in
    regards to drinking water. And then about community engagement.
        Is that my breakdown of your----
        Mr. Kilmer. Correct.
        Mr. Kidd. If I understand that.
        Also, I would just like to tell you, as an Oregonian and a
    one-time resident of Kitsap County, I am familiar with that
    beautiful part of the country, and I have great fondness for
    that area.
        So, first of all, your story about the response provided in
    terms of drinking water.
        The Department has moved rapidly to address drinking water
    off base through the CERCLA process and on base where we have
    tested our installations.
        We have tested more than 500 installations, and we found 34
    that needed some immediate removal action. And through the
    CERCLA process, we have identified 49 off-base sites where we
    were above the EPA health advisory level of 70 parts per
    trillion.
        In all cases we reacted very quickly, sometimes measured in
    single-digit days, to provide drinking water to the affected
    communities.
        In terms of community engagement, this is very important.
    In my opening comments, I noted how important it is that we
    interact closely with the communities, both formally and
    informally.
        We support the Restoration Advisory Board process providing
    technical assistance and support to the tune of about $2.5
    million a year.
        In some cases, it is working very well; in others, not so
    well. And what we would like to do is find the best practices
    in the Department and sort of update the RAB handbook with a
    best practices guide, and I think we can do that in the coming
    months without too much trouble.
        In terms of the funding requirements for PFAS, Congress has
    been very generous and has gotten us well down the road on this
    task. And it is complex, and some of my colleagues can jump in
    here because they build the budget requests from the service
    up.
        But right now, the majority of our effort is in
    investigating the problem, defining the scope and the nature of
    the problem, and going through that prioritization effort that
    we have all spoken about. Right now we have enough funds.
        As we better define the problem, the scope of our cleanup
    responsibilities is likely to go up. So if I were to predict a
    funding pattern, it would probably be something kind of flat
    line for the next couple of years, and then as the information
    comes in, it will go up.
        And I defer to my colleagues, since they actually build the
    budget requests, if they want to jump in here.
        Ms. McCollum. We are going to have to move on, Mr. Kilmer,
    but great questions.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. And water moves. So maybe you could let the
    committee know how you are going to continue to do testing
    because water continues to move.
        We have Mr. Carter, then Mr. Cuellar if he is back on, and
    then Mr. Aguilar.
        Mr. Carter.

            MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROGRAM FUNDING AND WORKFORCE ISSUES

        Mr. Carter. Thank you.
        The Military Munitions Response Program, this program is
    executed in a manner consistent with the budget request. Can
    you tell me what amount was actually executed for MMRP for
    fiscal year 2020? Was it equal or above the level in the budget
    request? And how much fiscal year 2020 projects were new starts
    and not modifications to existing awards?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I could probably answer that question if I
    flip through all of the pages of my notebook. But if you don't
    mind, I would like to take that one for the record, and we can
    give you the exact numbers and response.
        Mr. Carter. That is fine. That is fine.
        Can you give us, the subcommittee, any idea how the fiscal
    year 2021 obligations and expenditures are looking to date?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I am tracking that. I can't give us an exact
    obligation rate for 2021 right now, but I believe we are
    generally on pathway to be pretty close to what was fully
    appropriated at $1.9 billion across the whole program.
        Again, if I understand the question, it is what is our
    current obligation rate, and we will take that one for the
    record.
        Mr. Carter. Okay. Here is something I am a little worried
    about. Munitions response requires specific expertise to
    execute cleanup of unexploded ordnances safely and efficiently.
    It is my understanding that the industrial base that the
    Department relies upon to perform the cleanup and remediation
    at Military Munitions Response Program sites has undergone
    significant contraction over several years.
        I am concerned that once the Department does decide to
    accelerate cleanup of MMRP sites, the industrial base may no
    longer have the talent and capacity to perform this vital work.
        What does the availability of workforce skilled in
    munitions response have in the Department's ability to speed up
    or to speed along cleanup?
        What are the main obstacles that exist to completing
    cleanup of military munitions?
        And are you concerned about the shrinking workforce?
        And what is your plan to remedy the situation?
        Mr. Correll. So I will start. Mark Correll from the Air
    Force.
        So our Munitions Response Program is pretty mature and, in
    fact, is much smaller than some of the other services. Where we
    stand right now is we have 181 open sites. We are about 87
    percent complete, so we have only got about 13 percent more
    acreage to return.
        Some of the risk factors, though, with MMRP are the acute
    pieces of this, so the potential for a UXO and then obviously
    the constituents. The terrain can be a challenge, the
    technologies necessary.
        And then one of the big issues with MMRP is the cost of
    getting to negative. And what I mean by that is regulators are
    unwilling, and rightly so, to accept anything other than zero
    percent risk, 100 percent cleanup.
        And so getting to that can take some time to make sure that
    we have identified and defined that throughout the process. It
    doesn't mean we are not interested. But it is pretty very far
    along, and we are now getting towards the end state of that.
        So I am not sure that there is a lot to do to speed that
    up, but we will work with the regulators where we can.
        Mr. Carter. Well, what about the workforce challenges that
    may be on the horizon?
        Mr. Correll. So at least from an Air Force perspective, our
    hope is we are 13 percent away from we don't need to use that
    workforce as much anymore because we will be complete with the
    things we know about.
        I have been to the NAOC conferences and talked to them. I
    understand what their concerns are. And so we will continue to
    work with them to make sure that workforce is as robust as it
    needs to be for the Department.
        Mr. Carter. Well, I have got a lot of fire range at Fort
    Hood, and we are worried. We are very concerned about
    unexploded ordnance. And that is why I am asking these
    questions.
        And I thank you, Madam Chairman. I will yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Madam Chair, maybe I can come in here and
    thank the judge in advance for taking over for me. I have to go
    to a pre-scheduled appointment.
        Mr. Carter. Glad to do it.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Judge. I appreciate it.
        Ms. McCollum. We are in good hands with Judge Carter.
        Mr. Carter. Bad voice, but good hands.
        Ms. McCollum. So I would like the Army not to respond now,
    but to respond back written to Mr. Carter's question, because I
    believe, it is my understanding from what I have read, you
    probably have the largest share of the unexploded ordnance out
    there.
        We heard from the Air Force, which has probably the least
    amount. And from what I am learning, the Navy's is kind of
    under water and not likely to be too terribly disturbed right
    now because they used to drop things before they came into port
    during the war.
        So we would like the Army to get back to us on that, your
    priority list and where you are on that. Because it was an Army
    munitions site that got cleaned up in my district. So I want to
    know that for Mr. Carter.
        Mr. Cuellar, welcome back.

                            LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE

        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. The hazards of traveling.
        Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank all of the
    witnesses.
        And I also want to follow up with what Judge Carter
    mentioned.
        I also want to know, I think Texas has about 383 MMRP
    sites, I just want to know if there is any in my area, in the
    San Antonio area or in south Texas. If you can all get back to
    us on that.
        And then the second one, I guess it goes to the Assistant
    Secretary of the Air Force, and this has to do the Defense
    Environmental Restoration.
        And, Mr. Correll, I don't know if you were there some years
    ago when I was working with the San Antonio Water Works, and
    they were trying to put a pipe to provide more water for the
    southern part of San Antonio and for the Lackland Air Force
    folks there.
        But we were told that it was an environmental hazard. What
    they had to do was go around Lackland instead of going through,
    because they didn't want to disturb it. So that cost, I think
    at the end it was like $100 million.
        I want to know what is the latest on Lackland Air Force
    Base? Where is it on the priority? What are the next steps? And
    then, of course, on those munitions cleanup programs sites that
    might be in my congressional district or area.
        Mr. Correll. Thank you, Congressman Cuellar, and thanks for
    your help with SAWS. So you were the catalyst that got this
    two-way solution at the former Lackland Air Force Base. So the
    challenge for the rest of the group was digging a water line
    through closed and capped environmental sites. So these were
    landfills that had long since been closed.
        With Congressman Cuellar's help, we were able to negotiate
    a deal with SAWS that took that line around the base. It did
    not end up costing them an additional $100 million. In
    exchange, the Air Force took over the infrastructure on
    Lackland Air Force Base and will ultimately take over the water
    infrastructure as well, which I assume is what you were talking
    about. So, we were able to solve that problem without creating
    an environmental problem.
        With regard to the existing, if you are referring to the
    PFOS/PFOA pieces of what is happening in Joint Base San Antonio
    in general, the data I have shows that at this point in time,
    we have no issues in San Antonio that require mitigation.
        We do have sites where we have identified that we will
    ultimately have to do remedial investigation. But as we
    discussed before, there aren't currently any pathways between
    those sites and any of the people or other receptors, as I
    called them, that are going to be impacted by PFOS.
        We will get to cleaning that up. The good news is there is
    no emergency need at this point in time.
        We will take for the record your MMRP question. Thank you,
    sir.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
        Anything on the other sites from the Army?
        Ms. Borman. Sir, we will take for the record whether or not
    we have any MMRP sites located in your district. And we will
    also look across and determine whether or not you have any FUD
    sites and where those are located. And we will get back to you
    with that list.
        Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you.

                           FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITE

        Ms. McCollum. For the record, would you explain what a FUD
    site is?
        I won't take that away from your time, Mr. Cuellar.
        Please explain. I know what a FUD site is, but----
        Ms. Borman. Yes. So a FUD site is a Formerly Used Defense
    Site, and this is a piece of property that was underneath the
    jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense, of the Defense
    Department, and was transferred out of our jurisdiction before
    October of 1986. And so they are properties that are no longer
    underneath our jurisdiction.
        Mr. Cuellar. All right. Thank you.
        Well, I want to thank all of you. I know this takes a lot
    of money to do this type of work. But I just want to say thank
    you so much. And we will follow up with the questions that I
    had. But thank you so much to all of you all.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. We look forward to that list from
    the Army.
        Mr. Aguilar, then Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Crist, and Mr.
    Ryan.
        Mr. Aguilar.

                        RESTORATION COMPLETE MILESTONES

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
    panel.
        Just a couple questions.
        Ms. Borman, in your written testimony, you noted that 91
    percent of your projects have reached the Restoration Complete
    milestone and that there were a remaining 1,200 sites that have
    yet to reach that milestone.
        I just kind of wanted to wrap my head around how you
    categorize the remaining projects. More specifically, are the
    remaining projects more complex than the 91 percent? Are these
    newly identified sites? Or do they present similar remediation
    challenges?
        Ms. Borman. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        The remaining 1,200 sites that we have, approximately 83
    percent of those are installation sites. The other 17 are
    related to military munitions.
        And these are our most complex sites. And what I mean by
    this is they could be groundwater sites where we are still in
    the process of trying to track where the groundwater is going.
    They could be complex sites from the mixture of chemicals that
    are in the groundwater that had been used and that in some
    cases we may not yet have the technology available to properly
    remediate those.
        But of the 1,200 sites that we do have, a little over 400
    of those are already in some sort of monitoring or remedial
    action--have some sort of remedial action ongoing. And we are
    in the investigation process of the remaining sites.
        Mr. Aguilar. But it is fair to say that of the remaining
    sites, that those are going to be more labor intensive, more
    costly, longer time horizons. And, as you mentioned, sometimes
    we are going to need help from the technology side that may not
    be there yet.
        Ms. Borman. That is correct.

                           DOD AND EPA PRIORITIZATION

        Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Ohannessian, the Navy's Environmental Restoration
    Program leverages DOD's relevant frameworks, either the
    Relative Risk Site Evaluation framework or the Munitions
    Response Site Prioritization Protocol to prioritize projects by
    those that present the greatest risk to human health and
    safety.
        Can you share how the Environmental Restoration Program
    coordinates with EPA to prioritize the cleanup of the remaining
    sites?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Yes, sir.
        At each of the locations where we have work going on, we do
    work with our regulatory partners. That is the EPA, but often
    also State regulatory agencies. And the public has input as
    well. So, together we figure out what is the plan going forward
    to work on for the next year, next 2 years, and so forth.
        And so, the risk piece of it comes into play not just
    amongst ourselves within the Department of the Navy, but with
    the regulators as well. And then we lay out what can we work on
    collectively as much as we can. And then that gets rolled up
    into our programming and, ultimately, our budget request in the
    President's budget.
        Mr. Aguilar. Are there cases where there is some conflict
    between the EPA and what you folks are doing? And how do you
    resolve that?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Of course, there is interagency
    coordination, and there is a back and forth. But I don't recall
    an instance where we were not on the same page as far as what
    work to work on next and where to ask for the funding.
        Mr. Aguilar. From a prioritization standpoint, you feel
    that things have been in sync with the EPA in coordination and
    partnership?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Yes.
        Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate that.
        Madam Chair, I will yield back. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                     PROTECTION OF DRINKING WATER FROM PFAS

        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much
    for having this hearing. I really appreciate it.
        My question is for Mr. Correll.
        I represent a district in southern Arizona that is home to
    Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and neighbor Morris Air National
    Guard Base at Tucson International Airport. A large portion of
    my district resides in an EPA-designated sole source aquifer
    and closed basin water system.
        In these systems the watershed does not have an active
    surface water connection to an ocean where contamination can
    move out of the community.
        PFAS contaminants have been found in production wells above
    the safe level near Davis-Monthan and threaten primary and
    backup sources of drinking water.
        The spread of contaminants has been initially mitigated,
    thanks to the rapid actions of the city's water department.
    However, this has come at a significant financial cost to the
    city, and 24 wells have been either completely shut down or
    placed in a restricted use status.
        The city is bearing the brunt of the effort to protect over
    700,000 residents.
        How does the Department of the Air Force account for
    different types of water systems when evaluating priorities for
    remediation?
        Do you account for closed water systems and sole source
    aquifers?
        How is the Air Force supporting local municipalities who
    need to protect their citizens' drinking water while they wait
    for the Department to run its often lengthy process?
        How do you balance the risk of contaminants spreading from
    nondrinking water to drinking water?
        Mr. Correll, in your testimony you stated that the Air
    Force and your partners are at capacity with how much funding
    you can execute. This is a concerning statement as PFAS only
    becomes a larger problem. What resources do you need to
    overcome this capacity issue?
        I yield back.
        Mr. Correll. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        So I have had the opportunity to meet with the mayor of
    Tucson, and so we have had this discussion personally, and so I
    am very familiar with the issues there.
        There are two parts to how we respond to any of these, but
    particularly at Tucson as you are interested in. The first is
    what we call an interim removal action.
        What we are looking for there is how do we make sure where
    we have been the cause that we make sure we are able to keep
    folks from drinking water above the EPA health advisory today.
    And that comes from support to the city, as well as to
    individual private well owners, with regard to either bottled
    water, filtration systems, and the like. And so, we are doing
    that in that area today.
        Longer term, the answer--you asked about whether or not we
    consider the fact that it is a sole source aquifer, and the
    answer is yes, that is a consideration, as we talk about what
    is the level of toxicity, what are the chances the speed and
    movement and migration potential for contaminants in your water
    supply.
        If it is such that it is not going to go anywhere, that can
    be bad, as it is where you are talking about where it is a sole
    water source. And, yes, that would be a consideration as well
    in terms of what are the pathways. If it is the sole pathway,
    then, yes, that is going to put it higher on the priority list.
        Our environmental folks at the Air Force Civil Engineer
    Center look at and create what is called a Program Requirements
    Document every year. So they are looking at what is the data at
    each one of these sites so that we can help decide which ones
    do we need to do first and which ones do we need to do next.
        What I will tell you in terms of resources is our first
    priority, as I mentioned, is to make sure nobody is drinking
    the water above the EPA health advisory level. Once we get to
    that, then we are going to take a little more measured approach
    to make that happen. We can make that measured approach go
    faster, but it doesn't mean anyone is necessarily safer.
        As we go through the full CERCLA process, we will identify
    those migration pathways. And if we do, then we will take the
    next piece, which we call an interim remedial action, which is
    where we may put in a pump-and-treat system or something else
    to keep that from moving as we identify it going forward.
        It is a very robust process. It is time-consuming, and I
    know that frustrates some folks. But we are working through
    that in Tucson and other locations.
        I thank you for the question, ma'am.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Correll. Thank you so
    much.
        And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

                     RESEARCH OF UNDERGROUND WATER SOURCES

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        I am going to use my prerogative and do a tag-on question.
        So in Minnesota, our Department of Natural Resources, we
    know how the water flows, we know where it is going. So what do
    you mean when you say you are researching how plumes of water
    are flowing underground?
        I mean, I don't know Arizona, but I am assuming you are
    working with the States on this, because the States usually
    have all of this in their inventory of water. So, you wouldn't
    have to reinvent the wheel.
        Mr. Correll. So actually, ma'am, they have some
    information. But when we go through the remedial investigation
    process, that is where we actually have to look at on a site-
    specific basis exactly what is going on. So not trying to get
    too geeky here, but we talk about stratigraphy, hydrology,
    where does the water move, paleochannels, there is ancient
    rivers underneath. When those details are not available we find
    that out.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. So sometimes you don't have everything
    you need is what you are saying, so you have to do more.
        Mr. Correll. Correct.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. Because I have, as I said, I have water
    being filtrated by--to take a lot of different chemicals out.
    So I have a municipal system that is being filtered that was
    part of FUDS. And then on the reclaimed land that returned over
    from GSA, we have filtration on a closed cycle for the life of
    the planet.
        I knew what you were talking about, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and
    you have my support to see what we can do to have things done.
        Mr. Crist, and then Mr. Ryan.

                        INSTALLATIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE

        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I have seen reports that two-thirds of critical military
    installations are threatened by climate change. Please tell me
    how challenges associated with climate change, such as sea
    level rise and increased flooding risk, are impacting the
    Defense Environmental Restoration Program. And are you all
    actively tracking climate threats on a facility-by-facility
    level?
        Thank you.
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, the Department recognizes the reality of
    climate change and the threat that it poses to our mission, and
    particularly to our installations and the services that those
    installations provide, not only to our servicemembers but to
    the surrounding communities.
        At the end of April, we published the Defense Climate
    Assessment Tool findings, which basically have taken an
    installation-level assessment of 1,400 installations at the
    United States and overseas about the effects of climate change
    across eight areas, two time scenarios--two timeframes, and two
    emission scenarios.
        That is the first order of--sort of the first level in an
    analytic process that will eventually distill down to and
    include a variety of site-specific details and models, to
    include areas where we have installation or munitions response
    sites.
        Mr. Crist. Does anyone else care to respond?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Sure. Adding to that, just going to the
    cleanup piece of it, the cleanup process does have a built-in
    feature of always monitoring and revisiting to address changing
    conditions. So, climate change would be a changing condition
    that we would see and react to as necessary. But, fortunately,
    the process has that in there already, and we are able to
    respond if we see something happen.
        Mr. Crist. Thank you.
        And then what proactive approaches should we be considering
    when forecasting future mitigation and restoration needs,
    especially as it relates to our work as appropriators?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, the climate change assessment modeling that
    the Department is doing, along with other agencies in the
    Federal Government, will allow us to model the predictive
    future effects of climate change and extreme weather on our
    installations.
        We are then going to have to make some decisions with what
    we do with that information. And it could be sort of defend,
    abandon, or adapt. And I think the Department's approach is
    adaptation across all the systems within the organization.
        This week we will send our draft climate adaptation plan to
    the White House and, depending on that review, it should be
    made public within the next 30 to 60 days. That will start to
    give you a sense and feel for some of these activities.
        But this is a multidecade challenge of both adaptation and
    mitigation, and it is too early to predict where we are going
    to end up. But we recognize the reality of the problem. We are
    investing in the decision tools, analytics, and workforce that
    will be needed to answer the very tough questions like the ones
    you just posed.

                            TECHNOLOGICAL CHALLENGES

        Mr. Crist. Thank you.
        And then, finally, what are the scientific and
    technological challenges in completing the remediation of these
    sites? And what research and development is needed to improve
    effectiveness or lower cost?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, are you speaking to all sites or to PFAS
    sites?
        Mr. Crist. All sites.
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I would just say we do have a robust
    research and development program in the Department, the ESTCP
    and SERDP activities. There is also pathways for new
    technologies to come into the cleanup process as part of
    CERCLA.
        And I will let my colleagues jump in here if they want to
    add anything.
        Mr. Correll. Thank you.
        I think, at least from my perspective, not necessarily
    Department of the Air Force's, what I would like to see is more
    of--and I think Chair McCollum mentioned this a little bit--is
    if we can get more of what we call the in situ, in the ground
    technologies, as opposed to having to bring the contaminant
    out, mitigate it, and then either dispose of it or put
    something back in, that is an area where we would love to see
    technology improve.
        Mr. Crist. Great. Thank you very much.
        And, thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        We have time to do some more questions. I know there are
    members who are still--their names are still on the screen, but
    they are not on the screen. I am going to ask Mr. Carter if he
    has another question.
        If you want to ask another question, please turn your
    camera on, other than I have some questions to close up.
        Mr. Carter.
        Mr. Carter? Oh, there, they are fixing your microphone.
    There you go.
        Mr. Carter. Are we good?
        Ms. McCollum. We are good. I can hear you.

                        FUNDING FOR FUD AND MMRP PROCESS

        Mr. Carter. Okay. I hate to keep getting back to the
    unexpended ordnances, but traditionally is funding provided for
    the--to request in Formerly Used Defense Sites and Military
    Munitions Response Program?
        Mr. Kidd, do you plan to use this approach of increases in
    the same manner? And did you understand the question?
        Mr. Kidd. Sir, I understood the question.
        The short answer is, yes, we will keep the same process.
    For FUD specific, as you know, the Army is the executing agent.
        And, Ms. Borman, do you have anything you would want to
    add?
        Mr. Carter. Kind of changing my position a little bit, but
    one of the questions that I have wondered, because I can
    remember several times we have had this question come up in
    past years about cleaning up sites.
        When you start remediating a site, does the Department and
    the services commit to seeing the project through all at once?
    Or if another site were to emerge with a higher risk, could an
    ongoing project be put on the back burner?
        And what is the process for evaluating the need to shift
    resources? And how is it done?
        Mr. Correll. Sir, I will start for the Air Force.
        And the answer to your first question is, yes, if a higher
    risk site comes up then we will put others on the back burner
    to address that higher risk.
        How is that done? It is done at the Air Force Civil
    Engineer Center. They do what is called a program review
    document.
        That program review document consists of a senior review
    team that meets 16 different times during the course of the
    year to evaluate all the regions and sites and assigns a risk
    or either four, which is high, or one, which is low, or
    somewhere in between. We then evaluate what they think those
    risks are.
        Now, for IRP or MMRP, there are slightly different risks.
    We have talked about what the relative risk is, and we have
    talked a little bit about the UXO versus the constituent piece
    that is the MMRP. But it is all part of the cleanup program. So
    they will evaluate those.
        It is not like if some things are slightly worse, we are
    all of a sudden going to stop investing. So there will be some
    consideration in there. But if a significantly worse project
    comes into play, we are going to put that ahead, and we will
    use that process to get there.
        Mr. Carter. And what kind of schedule would you have to get
    back to the projects that you pull off of?
        Mr. Correll. Sir, again, that is going to be--so on an
    annual basis we are going to look at these.
        When we pull off a site--I would not characterize it as
    pulling off. So, generally speaking, if we are going to award a
    contract, we are going to finish the contracts that were
    funded.
        The notion that we would just completely stop at a site,
    unlikely. More likely, we would de-emphasize it, we would slow
    it down, so that we could shift resources over to the higher
    priority, not likely that we would just stop it.
        Mr. Carter. Well, I can recall some of my colleagues in
    California complaining that you pulled off of some of the sites
    of the closed bases there and it has taking--a joke--an act of
    Congress to get you back on there. So I just wanted to know if
    there is a timetable that you are trying to stick to.
        Ms. McCollum. Well said, and I think well delivered, Mr.
    Carter.
        Mr. Carter. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Great. Because I am going to do a follow-up
    written question for the record on the same thing.
        Ms. Kaptur.

                                NATIONAL MAPPING

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
        And, again, thank our witnesses. I think many of us hope
    that with your testimony today and looking toward the future to
    build back better, that defense environmental cleanup might
    well be a part of future bills that we consider in addition to
    the annual appropriations bill.
        I just wanted to show you a map. I don't know if this is
    going to be very clear or not. But this is a map of the Great
    Lakes region, and actually it has colors on it that indicate
    levels of stress. I come from one of the most stressed of all
    the Great Lakes, Lake Erie, and Lake Ontario is more stressed
    than our lake.
        I am wondering, in terms of the work you do, whether you
    have similar national mapping you can make available to the
    committee indicating, from worst to best, different coasts,
    different parts of the country, in terms of the contaminants
    and environmental degradation that you deal with every day to
    make it more understandable to us, so that we can get a sense
    nationally of where the stress is greatest and the different
    types of cleanups that you face.
        Do you have that kind of very strategic mapping to give
    clarity to this issue for members of this subcommittee and
    other Members of Congress as well?
        Mr. Ohannessian. For the Navy, I would say we do not have
    it depicted on a map format, no.
        Mr. Correll. I am not aware of it for the Air Force either.
        Ms. Borman. I am not aware for the Army either.
        Ms. Kaptur. What would one have to do in order to give
    clarity to this issue, in terms of mapping, so we could
    understand the whole of it, not just little parts here and
    there? What would it take?
        Mr. Kidd. So, Congresswoman, the power of GIS information
    is very compelling, and we have seen it used to great effect.
    Basically what you are asking for is a multilayered GIS website
    where you could introduce a range of different information that
    could be graphically portrayed so that users could pull up
    where a PFOS site might be or where a munitions response site
    might be.
        I mean, it is certainly within the realm of the possible.
    It would be an extensive amount of work required to get there.
    But I understand the potential and what you are asking for.
        Ms. Kaptur. Because we would like to help you, and I think
    greater clarity helps delivering results. And we are sort of in
    a murky--I feel murky right now. And we have had this challenge
    in other areas.
        I encourage you to give me a budget estimate of what it
    would cost or who you would go to to get this done--and done
    well--for the sake of the country, and whether you would do it
    or other agencies of the government, the private sector. Give
    us a sense of the cost.
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, we will certainly take that one for the
    record. And we can build a cost estimate of a comprehensive GIS
    portrayal of the Department's Environmental Response Program.
        Ms. Kaptur. Yes. And I am going over time, but just to say,
    I would like to know if my area, are we medium bad, are we
    minimally bad, are we horrible compared to other places in the
    country based on the materiel content that is contaminated?
    That is really important for us to know.
        Ms. McCollum. I think they heard you.
        Mr. Kidd. Oh, we heard you. I was just looking at the red
    light that is on my screen, so I wasn't going to take any more
    of your time.
        But, again, I mean, certainly I understand the value of a
    picture and how a picture is worth a thousand words. And in
    another lifetime and in another career, I had cleared ordnance
    for the State Department. I ran our international overseas
    ordnance program.
        And the power of a map was very compelling because it told
    people where they could go and where they couldn't go and how
    they could safely deliver a humanitarian response. So I
    understand the power of a map.

                             CHAIR MCCOLLUM REQUEST

        Ms. McCollum. So, Mr. Carter, with your permission, I am
    going to--we have got feedback.
        Mr. Carter. Go ahead.
        Ms. McCollum. I am going to lay out questions, some
    questions for the record on here, and then I do have a few
    follow-ups I am going to ask.
        Mr. Carter. That sounds great. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay.
        For the record, I am going to be asking for some
    information on how Tribes are addressed on this issue for
    prioritizing and mitigation for activities on Tribal lands and
    how you engage with them. We know you engage with States and
    local governments, but we have nation-to-nation obligations
    with our Tribes.
        I am also going to be submitting for the record, fiscal
    year 2021 had an increase of $20 million was provided to the
    Office of the Deputy Assistant for Environment to address your
    workload, and we are going to be asking if you are going to
    need more than that based on PFOS.
        We don't have the President's budget in front of us, of
    course, and some of those answers might be in there. But we are
    going to be asking you about staffing and if you have adequate
    staffing.

                      COVID IMPACT ON RESTORATION PROJECTS

        One of the things I think that you have heard from the
    members here--and there was a lot of engagement, a lot of
    people stayed on listening, even though they didn't have
    another question--we are going to ask each one of you how COVID
    also impacted your restoration projects, if you were able to
    obligate all your funding as you expected. Or maybe you can
    answer that yes or no right now. But if you can't, you can get
    back to us.
        Do you know if you were able to obligate?
        Mr. Ohannessian. Yes.
        Ms. Borman. Yes.
        Mr. Correll. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. Yes? Okay. So that is good to know.
        I would like to--and these are more if you could answer
    now.
        After 30 years--so in 2017, after 30 years of precedent,
    the DOD General Counsel changed its position and concluded that
    the Air National Guard could no longer use Defense
    Environmental Restoration Account, DERA, to pay for
    environmental cleanup because it did not meet the legal
    definition of owner or operator for the most affected Air
    National Guard bases.
        In subsequent years, the NDAA has sought to create clarity
    on this issue on the law for the Guard to access DERA funding,
    but it is not clear. The Department feels that this issue has
    been resolved.
        Mr. Kidd, is the Guard currently able to assess Defense
    Environmental Restoration Account funding, or are they still
    restricted?
        Mr. Kidd. Ma'am, they are able to access it for PFOS
    issues.
        Ms. McCollum. For PFOS.
        Mr. Correll. So there is actually a little more to that,
    sir.
        Mr. Kidd. Okay. Thanks.
        Mr. Correll. So, what the recent legislation did was said
    for PFOS and PFOA that it would fall under the DERA program.
    However, some of our locations are former active locations.
        There is also an aspect of if contamination occurred when
    an installation was active--so, let's say, we have Ohio, for
    example, Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base used to be
    Lockbourne Air Force Base. If the contamination occurred when
    it was active, then it can still be eligible for DERA. It is
    not just for PFOS and PFOA, but it depends on the status of the
    location.
        Ms. McCollum. We are going to follow up or maybe have the
    authorizers follow up, if we need, to make sure that that
    doesn't ping-pong back and forth, that there is clarity on that
    moving forward if we need to do anything legislatively so we
    don't have another counsel change of position.

                INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION

        I am going to go back to the Installation Restoration
    Program prioritization. So the Department of Defense, under
    your Installation Restoration Program, you address contaminants
    from hazardous substance pollutants at installations. Base
    Realignment and Closures are under BRAC. So you have got all
    these different categories that you go under.
        But as a total, as of December--excuse me, September 2019,
    DOD identified over 34,000 IRP sites that may require cleanup.
        Could you tell me if the projects that are receiving the
    environmental restoration funding, are they evaluated and
    prioritized in the fiscal year? Is there a list of projects
    that shift in priority? Because I think we have heard that from
    you a little bit, that something kind of rises to the top. How
    often does that happen and reevaluated? And how do you
    resequence projects?
        You can take that for the record. But I think you have
    heard that from a lot of members what is happening here.
    Especially if you have started working with a contractor or let
    a contract and then all of a sudden you kind of put stuff on
    pause, that contractor has with that contract done a business
    plan after it, and so how do you synchronize that?
        And do you have an estimated cost for the complete cleanup
    for the Installation Restoration Program?

                   PLUS FUNDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

        Another section that I would like to touch on is Congress
    has been appropriating funding for the environmental
    restoration accounts above budget requests, and the general
    Department and services have been able to fully obligate the
    funding in the fiscal years it was appropriated.
        So could you tell us--and we will put this in writing for
    you--how the requested amount was determined for the fiscal
    year, and is the request based on work that can be completed in
    that fiscal year? Or are the services getting environmental
    restoration funding that they are requesting to the Department
    as part of a budget formulation?
        So we want to understand the breakdown of how you are
    obligating these dollars a little bit.
        Another question is--and this goes back, again, on the
    higher risk issue on it is something that keeps coming up time
    and time again in questions from members and from staff,
    because we want to do some oversight to see how we are moving
    forward on that. We would like it to be a little more
    transparent.

                              COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

        And then you mentioned your participation with communities.
    So if you have engaged the community that you are going to
    clean something up or you have informed Congress that you are
    going to clean something up and then something rises to the
    top, do you have to go back and disengage the community and
    say, ``Well, just put it on hold?''
        What do you do after you have had community processes,
    especially after you have identified a source, whether it is
    unexploded ordnance, whether it is PFOS, whether it is
    something else?
        You have engaged the community. You have told the community
    you are going to clean it up. You have let the contracts. You
    are going to finish it, right, in a timely fashion?
        Mr. Correll. As I mentioned before, contracts we have
    awarded, we are not going to cancel them and stop them. We may
    have to divert resources to a higher priority. And, again, our
    priorities are high, medium, and low.
        Ms. McCollum. Excuse me. I am having a hard time
    understanding that. You are not going to cancel them, but you
    are going to reprioritize other projects.
        Mr. Carter is agreeing with me.
        Mr. Correll. When I say--so reprioritize, it is high,
    medium, and low. So what could happen is I can have some number
    in the high category, some in the medium, some in the low. We
    are planning to work on a medium one, another one comes in that
    is high, we are going to go after that high one. It doesn't
    mean the high is going to stop. It means some of the others are
    going to slow down.
        Ms. McCollum. But you have let a contract. You have engaged
    the community. You have told the taxpayers that you are going
    to clean this up and you have kind of given them a timeframe,
    right? And you have actually gone out and solicited contracts.
    So, now businesses made their business plan based on that
    contract and you are saying that you could slow it down. So,
    when you are slowing it down, 6 months, a year, 3 years, 5
    years?
        Mr. Correll. In your question for the record, you have
    asked for us to give you the specifics of how we do that as
    part of----

                              TIMELINE OF CLEANUPS

        Ms. McCollum. Yes. We would love that. We would love that
    not just for the Air Force but for others as well too.
        So, that goes to the question, so then how long does a
    typical cleanup take? And what kind of constraints will end up
    being in the cleanup process? And as you said, something all of
    a sudden--if it is a life, health, safe emergency, I think
    everybody would understand that rising to the top for
    something, but we want to know what is going on.
        And how do you work with State and local regulators? I know
    in an area that we just worked with the Army on, Round Lake, it
    took us 10 years, working with State agencies and with local
    regulators, including the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
        What is your average timeframe on things like this? If
    somebody is saying, ``No, we want it done our way,'' and you go
    into negotiations on someone on cleanup, I think letting
    something stay open--and this is not any of you in particular--
    for 10 years is kind of--well, I am from the Federal
    Government, and I don't want to say it takes us 10 years to
    make a decision on how we are going to clean something up when
    we know it has to be cleaned up, so on that.

                                WORKFORCE ISSUES

        And then I think the workforce issue is important all
    around as you are staffing up and doing more. Are you
    anticipating having problems with being able to find
    contractors and workforce on that?

                         Chair McCollum Closing Remarks

        We will give you those for the record.
        But this was our first hearing on this, and I just want to
    thank you all for your professionalism. I want to thank you all
    for the work that you do behind the scenes.
        You are all very dedicated to doing the very best you can
    with the resources that you have. Everybody can tell your
    sincerity about wanting to get this done.
        But we also have an oversight responsibility, and we have
    to report back to the taxpayer. And as you know, PFOS is
    important, but it is not important to the point where people
    don't want the munitions looked at.
        How do we make sure that we are moving progressively
    forward and we don't put one problem so high up on the list
    that communities don't see other issues being addressed and we
    just, for lack of a better term, we just let them sit there?
        And I think Mr. Crist with climate change and everything
    like that, too, now you have a whole new portfolio that you are
    looking at with risks.
        We sincerely mean, I sincerely mean, and I think I speak on
    behalf of the committee, we really do appreciate the job that
    you do. Usually we see people wearing uniforms, and it is a
    very different kind of discussion. But you are the life,
    health, and safety for our servicemembers and for our
    communities and for future generations and protecting the
    environment, and those are very important jobs. And for that,
    we thank you for doing that.
        We look forward to seeing the budget, working with you in
    partnership to get as much of this cleaned up as fast as we can
    get it cleaned up, and hopefully even work to not have as much
    contamination in the future.
        Mr. Carter, with that, unless you have anything you want to
    add, I am going to adjourn the meeting.

                           Mr. Carter Closing Remarks

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I want to
    commend you for going into this very important subject. It is
    about time we got into this and stay on top of it, because we
    are all concerned.
        And I do thank everybody involved in a mind-bending
    challenge. But I think you can do it, and I commend you for
    trying.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                     Chair McCollum Remarks on Memorial Day

        Ms. McCollum. So as we go into Memorial Day, we remember
    those who died in service to this country, but we thank those,
    like yourself, who are working to make our environment safer.
    Thank you very much.
        And with that, this meeting is adjourned.
        [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                Thursday, May 27, 2021.

                 FISCAL YEAR 2022 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET

                                   WITNESSES

    HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
    GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

                      Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
        This hearing is fully virtual, and so I am going to address
    a few more housekeeping matters.
        For today's meeting, the chair or staff designated by the
    chair may mute microphones from the participants when they are
    not under recognition, for the purpose of eliminating
    background noise.
        Members, you are responsible for muting and unmuting
    yourself. If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask
    you if you would like to be unmuted, and if you indicate by
    nodding, the staff will unmute your microphone.
        I remind all members and witnesses we do have a 5-minute
    clock that you will see displayed. If there is a technology
    issue, we will move to the next member until the issue is
    resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time. And we
    have gotten pretty good at that, so we will make sure everybody
    keeps their time if there is a problem.
        You will notice a clock, especially if you are in grid
    mode, which is available for you to select on your screen, and
    it will show you how much time is remaining. At 1 minute, the
    clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I gently tap
    the gavel to remind members that your 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 by House rules, meaning beginning with the chair and
    the ranking member. And the full chair of the committee, who is
    with us, Ms. DeLauro, will follow that. Then, members present
    at the time that the hearing is called to order, you will be
    recognized in seniority. Then members who are not present, they
    will also be recognized as they come into the hearing.
        Finally, the rules of the House require me to remind you
    that we have set up an email address to which members can send
    anything they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings
    or markups.
        And, with that, as I said, the Subcommittee on Defense will
    come to order.
        We do have two members who will not be present with us
    today, and that is Congressman Ryan and Congresswoman Kaptur.
    They are in the great State of Ohio with the President of the
    United States.
        This afternoon, the committee will receive testimony from
    the Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, and General
    Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
        Gentlemen, I thank you for participating, and I welcome you
    to the subcommittee.
        For our members, this is our 19th and final hearing before
    we start writing the 2022 spending bill, and we appreciate your
    time and your attention to the subcommittee's business. And I
    hope, Committee, this is the last hearing we will hold on
    Webex.
        Let us begin.
        President Biden's fiscal year 2022 budget request proposes
    $715 billion, or $11 billion more than the enacted level. To
    put that amount in perspective, in his last year in office,
    President Trump only requested an $800 million increase. And, 6
    years ago, the DOD received $506 billion total, which means the
    Department's budget has increased $144 billion in the last 6
    years.
        No matter how much we provide our Armed Forces, some will
    always argue it is not enough. There will always be new and
    increasingly expensive technologies to develop. Other countries
    will always be pursuing programs that they believe are
    strategically advantageous to them.
        Unlike other committees, the job of appropriators is to see
    the full picture. As much attention to the top line as defense
    receives, we cannot consider the defense number in a vacuum.
    Investments in diplomacy, development, and our economy are
    vital to our national security interests.
        There is no military mightier, no country with stronger
    allies, no government that has done more to help people across
    the world than the United States of America. The key to
    successful competition with Russia and China is through a
    combination--economic, diplomatic, and military strength. One
    by itself is not enough.
        In many of our hearings, we have heard witnesses describe
    China's effort to modernize its military and expand its
    influence around the world. We cannot fall into the trap of
    thinking that China is 10 feet tall, to quote a person that I
    admire, but we will not allow for capability gaps in key
    weapons systems so that we can deter our adversaries and defend
    our Nation.
        I look forward to reviewing the President's budget fully
    and through the lens that I described tomorrow. We have a
    responsibility to scrutinize every line in the budget request
    and to rest assured that our committee will fulfill its
    constitutional duty and make adjustments to the President's
    proposal.
        I agree with the administration: We need to make difficult
    choices. And we will make them together. We must modernize.
    Doing so requires us not only to make investments in new
    technologies but to ramp down spending on systems that we know
    are not capable or survivable in a high-end fight. We simply
    cannot spend taxpayers' dollars on ineffective platforms.
        Additionally, we must face the realities of the world in
    which we live. Climate change significantly impacts our
    security. The displacement of millions of people can have a
    destabilizing effect in regions prone to insecurity. We have
    too many installations that are susceptible to extreme weather
    events, which leads to many days when our troops cannot train.
    For the Department of Defense, combating climate change isn't
    about engaging in social politics.
        And as the largest user of energy in the Federal
    Government, we must work with the Department to make it more
    energy-efficient, which will make them even more effective and
    prevent our adversaries from targeting our energy supplies.
        With 2.1 million uniformed personnel, the Department and
    the services face the same problems that plague our society:
    extremism and sexual assault. We know funding alone cannot
    solve our Nation's societal problems, and I look forward to
    hearing our witnesses discuss what they are doing on these
    important issues.
        I want to close by thanking the Department of Defense for
    the incredible work they have done in battling the COVID-19
    pandemic on behalf of our Nation. From our healthcare and
    medical research personnel, to those providing logistical
    support, to the National Guard soldiers delivering shots in
    their communities, I want to thank you for your service in this
    difficult year on behalf of the entire committee.
        And, finally, we are holding this hearing just days before
    the release of the full budget, so we understand that this may
    limit your ability to answer certain questions. However, given
    the tight timeframe we will have to write this bill, I ask that
    you and your staff be prepared to respond to members and our
    staff on any specific budget question asked today immediately
    after the full request is submitted.
        But now I would like to recognize our distinguished ranking
    member, Mr. Calvert, for his comments.

                         Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
        I want to thank Secretary Austin and General Milley for
    being here today.
        Over the past several months, this subcommittee has heard
    testimony from military service leadership, outside think
    tanks, intelligence agencies, and our geographic combatant
    commanders. We have heard how our military continues to carry
    out a wide range of missions, from humanitarian assistance to
    contested combat operations, and they are tasked to do so in a
    rapidly evolving threat environment.
        The 2018 National Defense Strategy clearly outlined how the
    Department of Defense needs to reform to keep pace with our
    adversaries. The National Defense Strategy Commission also
    recommended a 3- to 5-percent increase, adjusted for inflation.
        In order to ensure our military has the tools it needs, we
    must invest in advanced technologies for all warfighting
    domains, especially space and cyber. We know that, to maintain
    our warfighting edge, the Department also needs to reform and
    improve business practices, workforce, and planning processes.
        To accomplish many of these goals, it is vital that we
    provide steady and predictable funding for the DOD, along with
    regular and proper oversight. That is why I am greatly
    concerned by both the level of defense budget request for the
    fiscal year 2022 and the significant delay in delivering it to
    Congress.
        I frequently talk about how damaging continuing resolutions
    are to our military, especially in acquisition efforts. I am
    afraid that, due to the requested funding level and the delay
    in the budget submission, we may be headed toward a continuing
    resolution.
        In addition, we need to have serious discussions about the
    divestiture of many warfighting platforms, some of which are
    vaguely defined as ``legacy.'' I understand that, in the era of
    great-power competition, our military must be modernized,
    ready, and lethal to address these threats from adversaries
    like China. I have serious concerns regarding the DOD's plans
    to divest or decommission platforms that are in high demand or
    have much service life left in them.
        Two of these that come to mind are the MQ-9 Reaper and the
    littoral combat ship. Almost every combatant command has told
    this subcommittee that they need more, not less, MQ-9 access.
    However, the Air Force keeps proposing to divest.
        Even more concerning is that there isn't something that
    will immediately replace the mission. Often, DOD and the
    services propose to divest one system and replace it with a
    system that is just an unproven concept. Congress has made our
    position clear: that we do not accept hope as a viable
    replacement.
        Regarding the LCS, we spent over $2 billion on four ships--
    $2 billion on four ships--with significant service life left
    that the Navy proposed to decommission in the fiscal year 2021
    budget.
        Congress reviewed the request and was very clear that we
    opposed the decommissioning of the LCS 3 and 4 and they should
    be used in the SOUTHCOM AOR. It is my understanding that the
    Navy is ignoring congressional intent and will again propose to
    decommission these very same ships in the fiscal year 2022
    budget.
        They have done little work to communicate with Congress to
    change our position. In my opinion, this is little more than a
    budget gimmick to allow the Navy to spend more money elsewhere.
        I agree there are some systems that must be retired to make
    way for newer, more effective systems. However, DOD cannot make
    these decisions in a vacuum. There must be more transparency
    and communication with Congress. To send up the same proposal
    that Congress has previously opposed and expect a different
    outcome, I believe, is ill-advised.
        DOD and the services should be up here making their case in
    advance of these proposals. I went through the war on a
    previous platform that didn't work out too well, and we don't
    want to do that again.
        Today I would like to hear about the many issues facing the
    Department of Defense.
        First, the subcommittee has discussed in great detail the
    current efforts to withdraw forces from Afghanistan. I am very
    concerned about the decision to remove forces and the timeline
    for doing so.
        However, that decision has been made. So how do we ensure
    those individuals who risked their lives to help U.S. forces
    are being taken care of? Many colleagues of mine are concerned
    specifically about the Afghan interpreters. I share that
    concern, but I am also aware there are many other individuals
    at great risk also. I look forward to hearing the Department's
    plan to ensure their safety.
        I look forward to reviewing these and other decisions for
    the fiscal year 2022 budget request, which hopefully will be
    submitted to us tomorrow, and thank you again for taking time.
        And I yield back the balance of my time, Chair. Appreciate
    it.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Calvert.
        Well, today, I am very pleased to say we are joined by the
    full committee Appropriations chairwoman, Rosa DeLauro.
        Ms. DeLauro, please go ahead with your opening statement.

                        Opening Remarks of Chair DeLauro

        The Chair. Thank you so much, Chair McCollum, and to you,
    Ranking Member Calvert, as well, for holding this hearing.
        And I want to say a thank you to Secretary Austin and
    Chairman Milley for testifying. I also want to say thank you to
    both of you for your many years of dedicated service to our
    country.
        As a Nation, we will always be indebted to our women and
    men in uniform and to the families and communities who support
    them. And as we approach Memorial Day, we hold in our prayers
    the families of servicemembers who have made the ultimate
    sacrifice.
        And the best way for Congress to honor this service is by
    maintaining peace. Peace is a light in a world full of
    darkness. It is hard-won, hard-kept, and easily lost. And so,
    although it may seem paradoxical, investing in national
    security, even in the instruments of war, is fundamental to
    ensuring lasting peace.
        No one on this panel needs to be reminded of the many
    threats that the United States faces. China is an increasingly
    fierce competitor, while Russia continues to be an aggressive
    revisionist power. Countries like Iran and North Korea pose
    unique challenges to our forces.
        And while international terrorism remains a serious issue,
    at the same time we must manage the lingering effects of the
    COVID-19 pandemic, navigate a rapidly shifting technological
    landscape, and act on the existential threat of climate change.
        President Biden's fiscal year 2022 discretionary request of
    $715 billion represents an $11 billion increase for the
    Department of Defense. Many of the funds in the request are
    essential to protecting our national security today and
    modernizing the DOD for tomorrow. I hope you will expand on
    your vision and give us the specifics on how this top-line
    number increases efficiency and lethality in the upcoming
    fiscal year.
        Of particular importance, this includes countering China by
    investing in state-of-the-art technology to ensure there is no
    capability gap between American and Chinese weapons. Our
    servicemembers should never enter an unfair fight. This budget
    proposal has helped to support investments in cutting-edge
    weapons systems and forward-looking research that supports the
    American economy and strengthens our capabilities.
        I am also pleased that the discretionary request includes
    significant investments to address climate change. Climate
    change is a national security threat, and the investments in
    this proposal will improve the resiliency of military
    installations and make DOD operations more sustainable.
        And, finally, this request upholds the integrity of our
    Armed Forces and strengthens the military's quality of life by
    addressing sexual assault, violent extremism, and the other
    issues that have plagued our military's ranks.
        The Department of Defense is crucial to advancing our
    national security, and I look forward to hearing more about how
    you will meet the challenges facing our Nation and the
    resources you need to do so.
        And, with that, I say thank you to Chair McCollum and to
    Ranking Member Calvert, and I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed in
    the record. And members have lots of questions for you, so feel
    free to give a summary of your statement.
        And, Secretary Austin, the floor is yours.
        Ms. McCollum. Secretary Austin, we cannot hear you.
        I cannot hear you.
        Ms. McCollum. If you can hear me, gentlemen, we have
    checked our comms, and our comms is fine. So they are saying it
    is something on your system at the Pentagon.
        General Milley. Chair McCollum, can you hear me? This is
    Chairman Milley.
        Ms. McCollum. I can hear you, if you gentlemen wish to
    share microphones. However, I am sure you know how to share, so
    you will figure it out.
        Secretary Austin. Can you hear me now, Chair McCollum?
        Ms. McCollum. Yes, I can.
        Secretary Austin. Okay. So we will leave them both on.
    Sorry about that. And, again, as was stated, it did work during
    the test fire. So we apologize for that.
        Ms. McCollum. We have had our share of technical
    difficulties. Our crew appreciates what you just went through.
        The floor is yours, sir.

                     Summary Statement of Secretary Austin

        Secretary Austin. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert,
    Chair DeLauro, and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today about the President's budget
    request for fiscal year 2022.
        I am pleased to appear before you alongside General Milley,
    whose advice and counsel has been instrumental to us as we
    developed our budget and as we continue to defend this Nation,
    which is our chief responsibility and my top priority.
        Members, as you know, the President's budget has not yet
    been released, but I will do my very best to provide you as
    much information as possible about what we are asking for and,
    more importantly, why we are asking for it.
        Let me say at the outset that I believe our budget request
    will help us match our resources to strategy, strategy to
    policy, and policy to the will of the American people.
        Informed by the President's interim national security
    guidance and my own message to the force, it funds the right
    mix of capabilities that we need most to defend this Nation now
    and in the future. It invests in hypersonic weapons, artificial
    intelligence, microelectronics, 5G technology, cyber
    capabilities, shipbuilding, climate change resilience, and
    nuclear modernization, to name a few.
        And it gives us the flexibility to divest ourselves of
    systems and platforms that do not adequately meet our needs, to
    include older ships and aircraft and ISR platforms that demand
    more maintenance and upkeep and risk than we can afford.
        As you know, we have commissioned a global posture review
    and a new National Defense Strategy which will further inform
    and guide our resource decisions. The Department must be ready
    to meet and keep pace with our competitors and, if necessary,
    to win the next fights and not the last ones.
        And that is why this budget stays true to our focus on
    matching the pacing challenge we see from the People's Republic
    of China. However, we recognize that this is not our only
    challenge. The budget also invests in efforts to counter the
    damaging effects of climate change and to be prepared for
    potential future challenges like another pandemic.
        This budget helps us to counter the belligerence that we
    see from Russia, especially in the cyber realm. With its
    emphasis on missile defense and more sophisticated sensors, our
    budget will also help us counter the increasing ballistic
    missile capabilities of nations like North Korea and Iran.
        It funds our troop presence and counterterrorism
    capabilities in the Middle East and South Asia to meet the
    threats posed not only by Iran but also by terrorist networks
    like ISIS, al-Qaida, and, in Africa, like those posed by Al
    Shabaab.
        I am also confident that this budget will help us maintain
    the integrated deterrent capability and global posture
    necessary to credibly back up the hard work of our diplomats
    and demonstrate our resolve all over the world alongside our
    allies and partners.
        And speaking of our partners, I know Afghanistan is on the
    top of your minds. As you know, the President directed us to
    withdraw our forces by early September, and I can report to you
    today that the retrograde is proceeding on pace--indeed,
    slightly ahead of it.
        We accomplished the mission for which our troops were sent
    to Afghanistan, and I am very proud of that. And I am also very
    proud of the brave men and women who made it possible and those
    who gave their lives for that mission. I am also deeply
    grateful to the families of our servicemembers, who have
    endured so much as they sent their sons, daughters, husbands,
    and wives to battle.
        Our budget will help develop the over-the-horizon
    capability that we need to ensure that terrorist attacks on our
    homeland can never emanate from that country again. We will now
    transition to a new bilateral relationship with our Afghan
    partners, one that continues to help them meet their
    responsibilities to their citizens, but one that will not
    require a U.S. footprint larger than what is necessary to
    protect our diplomats.
        And that is one reason why we are asking to move overseas
    contingency operations funding inside the budget. This will
    give us and you greater transparency, accountability, and
    predictability in the budgeting process. And because all
    necessary provisions currently established in OCO funding are
    retained, we expect no impact to other operations. This is the
    right thing to do, and, frankly, it is overdue.
        Now, taking care of our people is also the right thing to
    do, and the budget request increases funding to support in-home
    care and support, which has become increasingly important
    during the pandemic. We will also be seeking funds to improve
    military base pay, retention bonuses, and other incentives that
    will help us attract and retain the best help.
        And we will be working hard to combat challenges that make
    service in the ranks more difficult for all the men and women
    of the Department, from getting a better handle on the extent
    to which we experience extremist behavior, to combating sexual
    assault and harassment.
        As you know, my first directive as Secretary of Defense,
    issued on my first full day in the office, was to service
    leadership about sexual assault. I made it clear then and I
    still maintain that we must not be afraid to try new
    approaches, to change our minds, so that we can truly and fully
    address the scourge of sexual assault in our force.
        But, clearly, what we have been doing hasn't been working,
    and the numbers of sexual assaults are still too high, and the
    confidence in our system is still too low. The Independent
    Review Commission that we established has provided me with an
    initial set of recommendations, first around the issue of
    accountability. This line of effort is focused on how these
    crimes are investigated and prosecuted.
        I have shared these recommendations with Chairman Milley
    and with the civilian and military leaders of service branches.
    I have asked them to review the recommendations and to provide
    me their views in return. There will be additional
    recommendations coming to us from the IRC on prevention,
    culture, and victim support, and I look forward to receiving
    them.
        But I will say this to you today: that these are attacks by
    our own people on our own people, and they tear at the fabric
    of who we are and what we represent to each other and to the
    American people. And so, as I review the recommendations on how
    to address this challenge, I continue to keep an open mind. You
    have my commitment to that and also my commitment to working
    with you to consider legislative proposals.
        Madam Chair, members of the committee, we field the
    greatest military in human history, made up of the finest men
    and women that have ever donned the cloth of their Nation. We
    also enjoy a civilian workforce deeply committed to every
    mission that we take on. And, for all the things that we need
    to do better, no adversary can match the quality of our people.
        I am immensely proud and actually humbled to be of service
    to them and to serve again with them and their families. I know
    the values that they espouse, the oath that they took, and I
    know what they are capable of. And I believe I have a very good
    sense of what they need to do their jobs, and I can assure you
    that the President's budget request for fiscal year 2022
    fulfills that obligation.
        And I look forward to answering your questions. And I thank
    you for your unwavering support that you continue to provide
    the Department and for all the efforts that you make every day
    to ensure that we remain ready to defend this Nation.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Summary Statement of General Milley

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        General Milley, you are now recognized.
        General Milley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And just a quick
    comms check. Can you still hear me? Over.
        Ms. McCollum. Yes.
        General Milley. Great.
        Chair McCollum and Ranking Member Calvert and Chair
    DeLauro, the distinguished members of the committee, thank you
    for the opportunity today.
        It remains my distinct honor and privilege to represent the
    soldiers, the sailors, airmen, marines, space guardians of the
    United States Joint Force, which, as Secretary Austin noted, is
    the most capable military in the world, for our troops are the
    best-led, best-equipped, best-trained force anywhere. And I
    want to personally thank Secretary Austin for his steady
    leadership and wise guidance.
        Your Joint Force is standing watch, protecting America's
    interests in all domains around the globe, as we sit here
    today. Alongside our allies and partners, American soldiers,
    sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians are currently standing
    watch in 165 countries and conducting operations that keep
    Americans safe. And we deeply appreciate all of your thoughts
    throughout this Memorial Day weekend for what they do every
    day, 24/7.
        The United States military is a critical component of
    national power, which, in concert with our diplomatic efforts,
    our economic engine, and our overriding hope, an example of the
    American message, will deter our adversaries and preserve the
    peace.
        We are prepared to fight and win if those seek to attack
    us. Our allies and partners are undeterred. But force must
    always be a last resort when other means of achieving our ends
    have been exhausted.
        The Joint Force appreciates the work that our elected
    Representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed
    to train, equip, and man the force in order to be ready. The
    days of the Budget Control Act of 2011 and repeated continuing
    resolutions which eroded readiness are hopefully behind us for
    good.
        The Joint Force will deliver modernization of our Armed
    Forces and security to the people of the United States with
    this fiscal year 2022 Presidential budget request of $715
    billion. While it is a modest increase from the enacted 2021
    budget, it is a significant commitment of the people of the
    United States, that they have entrusted to us that amount of
    treasure. And we will work diligently to ensure it is spent
    prudently in the best interests of the Nation.
        The fiscal year 2022 PB is the result of hard choices in a
    year in which the Nation has suffered economic hardship due to
    the COVID-19 pandemic. In alignment with the interim national
    security guidance, this budget delivers a ready, agile, and
    capable Joint Force that will compete, deter, and win across
    all domains and which is postured for continuous dominance into
    the future.
        Consistent, predictable budgets, informed by the will of
    the people, are critical to our Nation's defense. And the
    passage of timely budgets, instead of CRs, enable planning and
    prioritization, especially in the acquisition and procurement
    area.
        The PB 2022 budget request increases readiness of the force
    by developing the Joint Force of the future, ensuring that
    people are our number-one priority, and positioning us to
    achieve through teamwork.
        America's network of allies and partners is a strategic
    source of strength, and many enemies have grossly
    underestimated the United States and its people and our allies
    in the past. They have underestimated our national resolve.
    They have underestimated our capability. They have
    underestimated our skill and our combat power. And each has
    made a fatal choice which ended with their enrollment in the
    dustbin of history. The same will be true of any enemy that
    makes that mistake today or tomorrow. We are ready now, and we
    remain so in the future.
        And we are also facing tough strategic choices, and we are
    being increasingly challenged with very capable potential
    adversaries clearly acting in opposition to our interests. So
    this budget prioritizes nuclear modernization, long-range
    fires, hypersonic technology, artificial intelligence,
    shipbuilding, microelectronics, space, cyber, 5G, and many
    others.
        It strikes an appropriate balance between preserving
    present readiness and future modernization. But it is biased
    towards the future operating environment and the readiness it
    is going to take in the future for this fundamental change in
    the character of war that we are currently undergoing. It is
    now that we must set ourselves on the path to a modernized
    Joint Force that will ensure overmatch in all domains in order
    to maintain the peace.
        Our job as your Joint Force, our contract with the American
    people, is that we, the United States military, will never lose
    a war. We will support and defend the Constitution of the
    United States and will do so 24/7, all day long.
        And I look forward to your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        FUNDING THE DEPARTMENT'S MISSION

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you for your testimony.
        We will now turn to questions. The order of recognition
    will be placed in the Webex chat so members can know their
    order in line. And, as usual, I usually say who the next couple
    folks are, so it is going to start with me, then Mr. Calvert,
    and then it will turn to Ms. DeLauro.
        I am going to ask two questions in general and see how I am
    doing for time.
        And I think the first question, Secretary Austin, I will
    just direct towards you. And you touched on this briefly, but I
    am going to ask you again directly. Is the $715 billion
    sufficient to carry out the Department's mission?
        Secretary Austin. This budget provides us the ability to
    create the right mix of capabilities to defend this Nation and
    to deter any aggressors. And you heard me walk through many of
    the things that we are investing in. It adequately allows us to
    begin to prepare for the next fight and not the last one.
        The short answer to your question, Chair, is that it in
    fact does provide us the ability to go after the capabilities
    that we need.

                               U.S. CAPABILITIES

        Ms. McCollum. General Milley, if you were to assess China
    or Russia's capabilities in a conflict, how would you compare
    our own, including their overseas presence, ability to project
    power, and relationship with allies?
        General Milley. Thanks for the question. And I think that,
    if we look back, say, 40 years or so, China has come from a
    peasant-based infantry, a one-dimensional military, and has
    developed a very significant capability in the last 40 years.
    They are not our peer or near-peer just yet, but they are
    rapidly growing.
        And their objective is, by probably the mid-2030s, for sure
    by mid-century, to be the equal to or greater than the United
    States militarily. They are advancing rapidly in space; cyber;
    in the maritime, both surface and subsurface; and in air and
    ground.
        They are a very, very significant competitor to the United
    States, but they are not yet our equal. But their intent is to
    be our equal.

                           EFFECTS OF DIVERTING FUNDS

        Ms. McCollum. Another question for you, General. As you
    mention in your statement, it is imperative that we maintain
    our technology advantage over our competitors.
        Could you please, to the best of your ability without the
    budget being in front of us, tell us the effects of when funds
    are diverted away from advanced capabilities and towards less
    capable weapons systems? In other words, what happens when you
    can't, you know, put the purchase power where you think it
    needs to go?
        General Milley. In my view, we are experiencing a change in
    the character of war, where we have a variety of very advanced
    technologies that are all converging in time and space over the
    next 10, 15 years. Those are hypersonics, precision munitions,
    robotics, artificial intelligence, and a wide variety of other
    technologies.
        If we do not put a lot of money towards those and
    developing them to a level of capability to deploy in our Joint
    Force, then we will be at a significant disadvantage to those
    countries that do develop them. China is investing heavily in
    all of those capabilities.
        We need to definitely do that. This budget does a lot of
    that. It will have to be a sustained level of effort over many
    years, but it is critical to the defense of the United States
    that we invest in advanced technologies.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Secretary Austin. Chair, if I may----

                      CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE IMPACT TO DOD

        Ms. McCollum. And then my final question for you, Secretary
    Austin, is, how has climate change, extreme weather events, and
    lack of resiliency cost the Department? And how does it impact
    our installations, our readiness, and our operations?
        Secretary Austin. Well, as you have heard our President
    say, climate change is an essential element of our national
    security, and I absolutely agree with that.
        It impacts our plans, missions and capabilities, and our
    readiness. It creates instability in places that are important
    to us. And, as you have mentioned, it also provides challenges
    for our installations, as we have seen a number of elements
    come together, erosion of our shores being one of them.
        It will be factored into our planning and our operations
    going forward. I think there are opportunities to invest in
    technologies that help us better and more efficiently store
    water, energy, and power. And, also, you will see us investing
    in technologies that are relevant to our warfighting mission.
        And, as you know, Chair McCollum, we have one of the
    largest civilian fleets, or non-military--non-tactical fleets,
    excuse me, in the inventory. And so converting some of those
    vehicles to electric vehicles, I think, could save a lot of
    energy.
        And I will stop there.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much.
        Members, I took under 5 minutes, so I will yield back and
    turn to Mr. Calvert for his questions and then Ms. DeLauro.

                            TOP-LINE FUNDING REQUEST

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Austin, many of my Republican colleagues and I
    are very disappointed by the top-line request for fiscal year
    2022. You have heard from my allies or my compadres both in the
    House and the Senate. I am sure you will hear more.
        I have heard some say that the budget is an increase of $11
    billion, but, when you factor in inflation--and, by the way,
    inflation is going up, not down--it is actually about a 0.4-
    percent cut.
        When you consider the massive readiness and modernization
    challenges facing all our services and the pace by which China
    is developing its military capability, this request, in my
    opinion, is insufficient.
        I strongly believe that, to maintain our warfighting edge,
    we must increase the defense top line by 3 to 5 percent above
    inflation, as Secretary Mattis set forth in his National
    Defense Strategy. And I suspect we will probably have another
    Defense Strategy reflecting these new budget numbers.
        It is becoming more clear, Mr. Secretary, every day that
    the COVID-19 virus came from a lab in Wuhan, China, and China
    was aware of that from the beginning. That is who we are
    dealing with.

                                SOUTH CHINA SEA

        China's budget is going up by double digits. They have
    significantly more ships, bombers, fighters, missiles in the
    South Pacific than us, and including our allies. I would say
    you are right, China is not yet our peer in worldwide military
    capability, but do they exceed our capability in the South
    China Sea?
        Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir. My assessment is that
    they don't.
        First of all, you have heard me say before that China is
    currently and will remain our pacing challenge going forward.
    You have seen me do a number of things to try to continue to
    focus the Department on the China challenge.
        We established a China task force that is about to complete
    its work and will inform, you know, our efforts going forward
    here and help us to create synergies and eliminate duplication
    and more efficiently focus us on the China challenge.
        Again, China has no allies. We have many allies around the
    world. And we certainly have some strong allies and partners in
    the Indo-Pacific region. And that gives us greater capacity and
    greater capability.
        And you have seen us very recently begin to try to
    strengthen those alliances. You know, I made my first overseas
    trip, along with Secretary Blinken, out to the Indo-Pacific
    region, and I think it was a very well-received trip.
        We are investing in the right mix of capabilities that I
    think will continue to give us the advantage over time. We have
    to have the ability to understand faster, to make decisions
    faster, and to act faster. And I think the kinds of things that
    we are investing in will certainly allow us to do that.
        We will never seek to--numbers are important, but we will
    never seek to match our adversaries one-for-one. We will always
    seek to develop a much greater capability. And that is our
    approach, and I think we are on path to achieving that.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, but I still
    think numbers matter. I added up the capability of Japan,
    Australia, most of our allies in the Indo-Pacific area, along
    with our capability in the South China Sea, and China's
    capability is still, in numbers, significantly larger than that
    of us and our allies.
        And so I worry about Taiwan, as others do. I worry about
    continuing aggression in that region and, from that,
    potentially in other locations. And this is not just my
    concern; it is a concern of, as you know, many people around
    the world.
        So I hope that we are right, but, you know, as my old man
    used to say, hope is not a planning strategy. And I don't want
    us to be in that position as a Nation, where we are put in a
    position of weakness, which is not where we want to be.
        With that, I yield back my time, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        I will recognize Ms. DeLauro when she next is able to join
    us.
        Mr. Cuellar, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cuellar. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking
    Member. And I want to thank both the Secretary----
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cuellar, your volume is not doing good.
    The connectivity is not good.

              CHINA AND RUSSIA INFLUENCE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Can you all hear me better?
        Ms. McCollum. Speak up a little louder, please.
        Mr. Cuellar. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here with us.
        And, General Milley, it is also a pleasure seeing you
    again.
        I want to thank you all for the service. And, certainly, I
    will see some of your parents, men and women, at Randolph Air
    Force Base. I am speaking at the high school there. So I
    appreciate your men and women that serve our country.
        I have two questions, one on rare earth minerals, and the
    other one has to do with the Russian/China influence in the
    Western Hemisphere.
        A couple years ago, I added to the National Defense
    Authorization language to do a Western Hemisphere resource
    assessment to see what China and Russia and Iran, to an extent,
    are doing there. And, as you know, SOUTHCOM has done a great
    job at getting us this information.
        This report was due on December 31, but because of the
    pandemic and because it was combined with another independent
    review within Section 1262, we are waiting for this report to
    come out on July 31 of this year, in the next couple months.
        As you know, it is not only China and Russia, but we also
    have the transnational organizations and smuggling that are
    bringing in--you know, I mean, they make, it is estimated, over
    $90 million bringing people in.
        People usually think of Mexicans and Central Americans, and
    we appreciate--I was looking at your testimony--the work that
    you all are doing with the Central America military and defense
    institutions. Thank you for doing that. But I also want to say
    that we are now getting a spike of people from other places,
    from about 150 countries. In particular, we have people from
    India, from Romania, that are now coming into the southern
    border because of their perspective, how easy it is to come
    into the United States.
        So I want to see if you have any information on the Western
    Hemisphere resource assessment. Because we can't add money till
    this assessment is done. And I know Mario Diaz-Balart, who has
    this particular area, knows this very well. So I want to see
    where we are with this particular assessment, because we want
    to be helpful, but we have to get this assessment not only on
    Russia and China but the transnational organizations in the
    Western Hemisphere.
        Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. I don't have any
    specific comments on the assessment that you are referring to.
    But, once I review the assessment, certainly, I will get back
    to you and provide you my assessment.
        I would only say that, you know, the region is incredibly
    important to us. We maintain a focus on that region, as you
    know. SOUTHCOM continues to do a great job of making sure that
    we are working with our partners and allies to ensure that we
    maintain significant influence in that region.
        Just this last year, for example, Admiral Faller and his
    team have either conducted or plan to conduct nine exercises,
    which are joint exercises, which help to build partner capacity
    and begin to help our partners focus on those kinds of issues
    that you raise.
        I will certainly get back to you with my assessment on the
    assessment that you raise.
        Mr. Cuellar. All right. Well, thank you so much. I
    appreciate it.
        General Milley, I don't know if you have anything to add.
    Otherwise, I will yield back the balance of my time and then
    ask the rare earth mineral question at the next round.
        General Milley. I don't, Congressman. Thank you. And I will
    provide my assessment when I see the report. And I will be
    dutiful about that and give my advice to the Secretary of
    Defense and provide some feedback to you as well.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you so much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Ms. McCollum. Yes. And anything you can do to help us with
    as we are planning the budget, gentlemen, would be greatly
    appreciated, with the report not coming out till July, and we
    are going to have to be moving before then.
        Mr. Rogers, you are recognized now, please, sir.
        Mr. Rogers, could you please--there you go. You are unmuted
    now.

                           MODERNIZATION INITIATIVES

        Mr. Rogers. Hear me okay?
        Ms. McCollum. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Rogers. Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you
    both for being here today, and thank you for your service to
    our country.
        I want to discuss a topic that is on the forefront of many
    of us on the committee, and that is competition with China and
    Russia. Undoubtedly, we are at a crucial moment here. We are
    beginning to lose our critical competitive edge in multiple
    domains.
        How does the fiscal 2022 DOD budget address the
    modernization initiatives that need to occur?
        Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir.
        I think, when you do see the budget, you will see
    substantial investments in the modernization of our nuclear
    enterprise. You will see investments in missile defeat and
    defense. You will see a significant investment in our Naval
    forces; long-range fires, as the Chairman mentioned earlier;
    and probably the largest-ever request for RDT&E for development
    of technologies.
        So, you know, our effort, again, is to make sure that we
    have the ability to leverage quantum computing, to begin to
    leverage AI, space-based platforms, and not only just leverage
    them but begin to network these capabilities in ways that they
    have never been networked. And that will provide us significant
    capability.
        We recognize the fact that China is attempting to make
    strides in cyber and space. But we are confident that the mix
    of capabilities that we are investing in will put us in the
    right place in terms of maintaining a competitive edge and
    increasing that competitive edge going forward.

                          COOPERATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

        Mr. Rogers. The President's interim national security
    strategic guidance mentions the need to develop capabilities to
    better compete and deter gray-zone actions by our adversaries,
    including, quote, ``irregular warfare,'' unquote.
        How can the Department collaborate better with the State
    Department and the intelligence community to deter China and
    Russia where they threaten our interests through such means?
        Secretary Austin. Well, coming into the job, sir, one of my
    objectives, which we have been able to achieve and sustain and
    we will sustain going forward, is to make sure that, number
    one, we always lead with diplomacy, but, most important, to
    make sure that I have a great working relationship with the
    Secretary of State and also with the Director of National
    Intelligence, as well as the Director of the CIA.
        And we have routine meetings on a weekly basis to share
    insights and collaborate on issues. That spirit of cooperation
    is permeating all the way down to the lowest level, and not
    just on its own; it is not something that we not only encourage
    but require.
        But, to your point, I think that we have seen, in the past,
    some interesting techniques employed by the Russians and
    others. And, certainly, we want to make sure that our
    collaboration with our interagency partners provides us the
    ability to close down any gaps and seams that would put us at a
    disadvantage.
        And I will stop there.

                          WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACH

        Mr. Rogers. Well, the bottom line is, we are in a worldwide
    competition, both with Russia and China, and we have to adapt
    and adopt a whole-of-government approach to the problems. Do
    you agree with that?
        Secretary Austin. I do agree with that. And, you know, it
    is an approach that I live by. It is something that I emphasize
    each and every day.
        And, quite frankly, I think that the interagency processes
    that are facilitated by the National Security Advisor and the
    White House, I think, have been superb in terms of bringing all
    of our efforts together.
        A good example of this collaboration you have seen with
    COVID-19. DOD wasn't the lead on this effort, but, you know,
    right away we volunteered to lean into this effort, because
    anything that takes away, you know, almost 600,000 American
    lives, DOD wants to be a part of that solution. So, you know,
    led by another agency, but, certainly, we did everything that
    we could to support the effort.
        But I think this interagency approach, this whole-of-
    government approach that you mention, is absolutely the right
    approach. I think you will see that in our efforts to compete
    with China and everything else that we do.
        And I will stop there.
        Mr. Rogers. Thanks for your service.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much for the questions, Mr.
    Rogers.
        We now have Mr. Kilmer, who will be followed by Mr. Womack.
    Mr. Kilmer, please.

                      SHIPYARD IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPORTANCE

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you both for appearing before the committee today
    and for your service to our country.
        As you both know, our public shipyards are key to
    maintaining the readiness of our carriers and our subs, as well
    as supporting our national defense posture.
        As you mentioned in your written testimony, Chairman
    Milley, if our warfighting ships aren't ready, our forward-
    engaged posture is at risk.
        Despite their critical role, though, our public shipyards
    have been chronically underfunded. Oftentimes they are relying
    on infrastructure dating back to the early 20th century. That
    lack of funding has led to several potential points of failure
    at our yards. I know at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, in my neck
    of the woods, one of the six drydocks will be functionally
    obsolete by the early 2030s. The shipyard will not have a
    drydock capable of maintaining Ford-class carriers. There are
    real concerns about the infrastructure in the event of an
    earthquake. And that leaves the Navy at a disadvantage at a
    time when our adversaries are on the rise and when America's
    Naval dominance is indispensable.
        So, in order to address the crumbling facilities at our
    public shipyards, the Navy released its Shipyard Infrastructure
    Optimization Program, or SIOP, in 2018, which provides $21
    billion over 20 years.
        I very much support this, and I am worried that an absence
    of strong leadership will lead to costly delays in these
    investments. So two questions.
        One for Secretary Austin: How are you helping to prioritize
    the Navy SIOP and ensure that it is not displaced by other
    budgetary priorities?
        And, General Milley, I would love for you to chime in on
    how the SIOP fits into our defense strategy overall to counter
    our adversaries, including China.
        Secretary Austin. Well, thanks for the question. And I
    think it is a very important question.
        You know, we have the most powerful and dominant Navy in
    the world, and it will remain so on our watch. I think you will
    see when we release the budget that the fiscal year 2022 budget
    does ensure a ready, capable, and sustainable fleet. I think
    you will also see that we are going after the right mix of
    capabilities to maintain the dominance that we currently enjoy.
        And I will just say that the SIOP initiative is a great
    initiative to ensure that our public shipyards remain relevant
    and capable. And when you see the budget, you will see that we
    continue to invest in this initiative, and we will continue to
    do so throughout.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. I am glad to hear that.
        General Milley. And, Congressman, on the piece about how it
    is integrated into the strategy, the strategy is an ends-ways-
    means construct, as you know. And the industrial base and the
    shipyards are critical components of that.
        We always think of the pointy end of the spear. That is
    important as to where the ships are, the soldiers are, the
    sailors, and so on, and what is dropping bombs, et cetera. And
    oftentimes we overlook those things that are not at the pointy
    end of the spear, which are things like the industrial base.
        The SIOP is critical. It is part of the integrated
    strategy. Secretary of Defense Austin has coined a term,
    ``integrated deterrence.'' And the industrial base is critical
    to that. That infrastructure is so very important to our
    ability to develop our military and to project power. So it is
    very integrated and very, very important to our overall
    success.

                     ADDRESSING INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIENCIES

        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you for that.
        I want to stick on the infrastructure theme, mindful of the
    infrastructure surrounding our installations as well. We see,
    at times, congested roads leading into our bases, issues around
    the resiliency of those roads in light of seismic events or
    rising sea levels in my neck of the woods. There is a stretch
    of road leading into Kitsap's Naval installations which is
    vulnerable to climate-related threats such as storms and
    flooding.
        A program that gets to the root of that is the Defense
    Community Infrastructure Program, or DCIP, which was created in
    2019 to preserve and enhance military readiness by providing
    grants, facilitating cooperative agreements with local
    communities. I think Congress should keep vital programs like
    DCIP on track.
        Secretary Austin, can you just expand on the DOD's
    collaboration with local communities to identify and address
    infrastructure deficiencies and whether there is anything
    Congress ought to do to step up and help with that?
        Secretary Austin. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. We continue
    to assess, you know, our efforts and what we are doing to
    invest in our defense industrial base and invest smartly. We
    are very much focused on creating opportunities for our people
    here at home and making sure that our supply chains are in the
    right place. And all of this kind of meshes together and feeds
    into that.
        We will remain sighted on this issue, and we will do
    everything we can to make sure that, you know, we are
    protecting our ability to build things and create things here
    at home. And this is all a part of that.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Womack, followed by Mr. Aguilar.

                    SERVICE ACADEMY BOARD OF VISITORS REVIEW

        Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        To the Secretary and to the Chairman, I appreciate your
    service in uniform.
        Secretary Austin, thank you for coming to West Point.
    Really enjoyed your speech to the cadets. I thought it was
    well-written, well-delivered, and well-received. And I am sure
    the nearly 1,000 lieutenants that were commissioned under your
    supervision that day are going to serve their country in a very
    exemplary manner. But thank you again for coming to West Point.
        And on the subject of West Point, since I chair the Board
    of Visitors, I would like to get a commitment from you to
    release the service academy board of visitors review as soon as
    possible. You know, it has been 4 months since you began that
    review. And I will note, the appointment authority really is
    outside the DOD. We would really like to get our boards of
    visitors back functioning again, and I hope that very soon you
    will allow us to do so.
        Secretary Austin. We are working this issue very
    diligently, Congressman, and you have my commitment to move out
    expeditiously on this. But we want to make sure we get this and
    other pieces of this right.
        And I acknowledge that appointment to that board is not the
    responsibility of the Secretary of Defense. But that board,
    along with all the other boards that we have, are part of a
    larger review, as you know, and I think the larger review is
    the right thing to do. But I certainly recognize and appreciate
    the importance of having that board in place as soon as
    possible.
        And let me end by saying I really thank you for your
    continued support of the United States Military Academy at West
    Point, and what I saw up there was evidence of your sustained
    focus. And so thank you very much for that.
        Mr. Womack. Honored to do it.

                            DEFENSE BUDGET AND RISK

        Sign me up as one of the people a little bit concerned, in
    fact, a lot concerned, about the defense budget. Even though it
    is a point ahead of the 2021 budget, it is not keeping up with
    inflation. And that, to me, is of great concern.
        And there will be attempts, I am sure, during this hearing,
    to have you talk more about the budget and its impact, but
    where are we accepting risk from a requirements perspective
    with regard to the top-line numbers that we are looking at?
        Secretary Austin. As you know, what we have done is really
    taken a hard look at the President's interim national security
    strategy guidance that was published early on. And, also, our
    efforts were informed by my message to the force, in terms of
    what we want the force to focus on. By making sure that we are
    focused on acquiring the right kinds of capabilities that we
    need to be relevant in the future fight--and we talked about
    some of those capabilities already--I think this puts us in a
    good place.
        And what it requires us to do is to make sure that we work
    with the services and take a hard look at those capabilities
    that will not be relevant in the future fight and really begin
    to no longer invest in those kinds of capabilities, but yet
    focus on the things that we know we will need, and also those
    things that have reached a point in their lifecycle where they
    are so expensive to retain and maintain that they don't
    continue to provide an advantage for us.
        So, you know, what we are doing is optimizing our efforts
    by making sure that we are focusing on the right things and not
    continuing to invest in things that are not as relevant going
    forward.
        Mr. Womack. Yes.

                                LONG-RANGE FIRES

        Last question in this round is about long-range fires. I
    will direct it to General Milley.
        We have seen some interservice squabbles regarding long-
    range fires. I see it as a clear manifestation of how
    threatened, maybe, the services feel in a constrained budget.
    But long-range fires are crucial to any conflict and
    particularly what we are looking at now with near-peer
    adversaries.
        Mr. Chairman, how are we deconflicting the arguments about
    long-range fires and specifically the importance they are to
    the ground forces?
        General Milley. Yes, thanks, Congressman.
        As you know, we are developing the Joint Warfighting
    Concept, which is the vision of how we want the future force,
    the future Joint Force, to fight. It is a concept, not yet
    doctrine, so we are experimenting with a variety of concepts
    within that. One of those concepts is joint long-range fires.
        And, within that, each of the services play a key role
    respective to their service. So the Navy provides joint long-
    range fires, the Air Force provides joint long-range fires, the
    Marines are developing joint long-range fires, and the Army is
    developing joint long-range fires. Each of them bring a unique
    and distinct capability to integrate into the Joint Warfighting
    Concept of the future.
        This budget--you said we are taking a risk. This budget is
    biasing the future over the present slightly. When I first
    became Chief of Staff of the Army 6 years ago, when I looked at
    that budget, we were mortgaging our future to pay for the
    present. Today, it is the opposite. We are trying right now to
    put downpayments on investments that are going to pay huge
    dividends 5, 10, 15 years from now for a future force that will
    be able to compete successfully with any adversary out there,
    to include China.
        Long-range precision fires are one of many of those
    capabilities. And it is important that all of the services have
    that capability to present the enemy with multiple problems to
    solve simultaneously so that we are inside their decision loop
    and they won't be successful.
        Mr. Womack. Thanks to the gentlemen.
        Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Aguilar and then Mr. Carter.

                         DOMESTIC EXTREMISM IN THE DOD

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary and Chairman, for being with us
    today.
        Following news reports about the prevalence of White
    supremacists and White nationalists joining our military with
    the intent of bringing credibility to their own hateful causes,
    in the fiscal year 2020 NDAA I worked with my colleagues to
    secure language that required DOD to conduct a review to
    prevent domestic extremism in our Armed Forces.
        In February of this year, the report was released to
    Congress and confirmed that White supremacist organizations
    have actively worked to infiltrate the--and to gain combat and
    tactical training and identify new recruits and the use of
    Active Duty servicemembers to bring recognition to their
    organizations.
        The report recommended that DOD utilize FBI's existing
    infrastructure to identify questionable or concerning tattoos,
    create a consistent definition of domestic extremist
    ideologies, and conduct an interagency review of SF-86 and
    consider adding a designator to discharge papers related to
    domestic extremism.
        As a result, I introduced legislation, the Shielding Our
    Military from Extremists Act, which would require DOD to act
    upon the recommendations within 6 months.
        Mr. Secretary, do you agree that this is a crucial issue?
    This is something, obviously, you highlighted in your written
    testimony, but can you talk about what DOD is going to do to
    enact each of these recommendations in a quick manner?
        Secretary Austin. Well, first of all, thank you and thank
    you for your work in years past to focus on this issue.
        And, again, let me say up front--and I suspect you believe
    the same thing--that 99.9 percent of our troops who are serving
    do so with dignity and honor. They embrace the values that we
    espouse in the Department, and I feel very confident of that.
    But, you know, a small number of people can have an outsized
    impact on a great organization, and that is really the concern.
        And so, we have increased our efforts to, number one, as
    people apply to come into the military, screen people, do a
    better job of screening people and making sure that we are
    bringing in the right kinds of people that don't bring
    additional baggage with them.
        Our stand-down that you saw us conduct earlier this year,
    that effort was just to make sure that our leadership is
    focused on making sure that we are creating the right climates
    for our troops to live and operate in and make sure that people
    are aware of what some of the signs of extremist behavior or
    radicalization can be.
        So, as a part of that, you know, a follow-on to that, we
    stood up an extremism working group that remains sighted on
    this issue at my level and will continue to help define key
    terms and outline policies.
        We are doing a lot. But, again, you know, our major focus
    is warfighting and will remain warfighting, but we have a clear
    responsibility to create a proper and healthy environment for
    our troops to live and work in.
        General Milley. If----
        Mr. Aguilar. I couldn't agree more.
        I am sorry. General?
        General Milley. If I could just make a comment, this is a
    function--it is not just extremism and rooting that out for its
    own sake. It has to do with combat power and cohesion of our
    organizations and the divisiveness that can infect our
    organization and rip them apart.
        Cohesion is the fundamental--it is much more important than
    hypersonics. Cohesion in leadership and a cohesive organization
    is a much greater combat multiplier than any machine or
    mechanical thing out there. And when you have extremists in the
    ranks or sexual assault, for that matter, or any of these other
    things, they are divisive, in and of themselves, to an
    organization that prides itself on teamwork.
        And the numbers are small, we are confident of that. We
    don't actually know, because we don't have good data. But let's
    just say it is one-tenth of 1 percent. That is 2,000 people.
    What if we had 2,000 terrorists, ISIS terrorists or al-Qaida
    terrorists, or Nazis or fascists or Ku Klux Klan in our ranks?
    That could be extremely divisive.
        It is very important that we take on what the Secretary has
    asked us to do, and we intend to do it. There is no room for
    that in the United States military.
        Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Secretary, just briefly, would you agree
    with me, though, that enacting these recommendations into law,
    we would safeguard against future administrations potentially
    reversing policies unilaterally?
        Secretary Austin. I think it requires a sustained effort,
    and I think it requires the right policies and oversight.
        And so, without being able to specifically focus on each
    element of the proposed legislation, I couldn't answer that
    question specifically, but I can certainly take that question
    for the record.
        Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. We know
    policies can be changed, and so I think those of us want to
    make sure that we protect our troops and make sure that it has
    a lasting impact as well.
        I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you so much.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you for your work on this, Mr. Aguilar.
        And, gentlemen, thank you for your answers.
        We will now go to Mr. Carter and then Mrs. Bustos.

                  MODERNIZATION AND THE IMPACT TO ARMY FUNDING

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And welcome, gentlemen.
        General Austin, we first met at the 10th Mountain Command
    in Afghanistan. And welcome. We are proud to have you take on
    this tough job.
        Chairman Milley, we have been friends for quite a while,
    and thank you for the good job you are doing. We are proud of
    you.
        Modernization of legacy systems. Proof of concept of these,
    of Modernization, Displacement, and Repair Sites, was launched
    at Fort Hood in November 2020 with the intent of getting rid of
    excess equipment, increasing readiness through lateral
    transfers, and turning in unserviceable equipment for repair.
    Modernization is supported by getting rid of what is not
    needed, aligning equipment where it best supports the mission,
    and getting non-mission-capable equipment repaired and
    transferred.
        The Army appears to me to be the bill payer for the Air
    Force and Navy budgets in fiscal year 2022 while simultaneously
    focusing on its six modernization priorities. How crucial are
    the programs such as MDRS in allowing the Army to be physically
    responsible while continuing to push our modernization efforts?
        Could you understand me?
        Secretary Austin. I didn't get the very tail end of the
    question, but I think I got the gist of the question,
    Congressman. I think your concern is whether or not the Army is
    going to be the bill payer for modernization in the Navy and
    the Air Force and the Marine Corps.
        Let me start this answer by saying, let me applaud the
    tremendous work that the Army has done in terms of being
    forward-looking and really working hard to develop new or
    increased capability to do some of the things that the Chairman
    mentioned earlier, you know, do their part in providing long-
    range fires, to do their part in linking systems together to be
    more effective.
        And so, the Army has really done a lot of great work over
    the last 20 years in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. And, as
    we see Iraq begin to wind down a bit--not wind down, but close
    out--again, that will create some opportunities for them going
    forward as they no longer have to invest in certain kinds of
    things to sustain that effort.
        But let me assure you that, you know, from my perspective,
    our effort is not to make the Army be the bill payer for the
    Air Force and the Navy. The Air Force and Navy are also taking
    a hard look at themselves, and the Marine Corps as well, to see
    what they should no longer invest in so that they can create
    opportunities for themselves and invest in, you know, increased
    capability going forward.
        You have seen a great example with the Marine Corps lately
    as they have decided to divest tanks and get out of the armor
    business and develop other capabilities, and I applaud the
    Commandant for his forward thinking.
        General Milley. Chairman Milley, just real quick.
        The Army is not going to get shortchanged, in my view. I
    have looked at this budget very closely, along with General
    McConville and others. I think it is very balanced amongst all
    the services and develops their future capabilities.
        The big six that the Army is developing for their
    modernization program--the long-range precision fires, the
    Next-Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, et
    cetera--all of those systems in their big six priorities are
    all being very well-funded in this budget.

                              ARMY FUTURES COMMAND

        Mr. Carter. Thank you. Thank you very much, General Milley.
    I appreciate that, because it is a concern.
        The Futures Command is in my neighborhood, and we are very
    proud of it. How do you feel it is doing as it advances the
    modernization of our military and what we are going to do in
    the future?
        General Milley. I think what you said, Congressman, is how
    is the Army doing? Is that what you said?
        Mr. Carter. Futures Command.
        Ms. McCollum. The Army's Futures Command.
        General Milley. Oh. I was just down there a few weeks ago
    in Austin, Texas. It was a brilliant idea by--actually, as you
    well know, Senator McCain was instrumental in coming up with
    the concept and the idea. It was developed for a couple of
    years, and then we finally fielded it down there a few years
    ago.
        I went down there and looked at General Murray and all the
    team. They have come a long way, and they are really on the
    cutting edge, and they are doing some great stuff for the Army,
    but, broadly, for the Joint Force. They are really moving out
    and moving out quickly.
        And, as you know, that is a hub of innovation, really, and
    becoming a national hub of innovation in the commercial world
    as well. So we are very proud of Futures Command, and it is
    doing very, very well.
        Secretary Austin. And I would just pile on with that,
    Congressman, and echo what the Chairman has said. You know, I
    know the people involved, and I have kind of seen what they are
    doing. It has been very, very impressive. I am very encouraged
    thus far.
        Mr. Carter. Well, central Texas is very proud of Fort Hood
    and the Futures Command, and we want to make sure they are
    taken good care of.
        Thank you both. Thank you for your service.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I am sure central Texas is very
    proud of you, Mr. Carter. Thank you for struggling with your
    voice with your question.
        Mrs. Bustos and Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                MANUFACTURING AND THE FUTURE OF DEFENSE SPENDING

        Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you, Chairwoman McCollum, and
    I also want to thank Ranking Member Calvert for holding the
    hearing today.
        And, General Milley and Secretary Austin, thanks for your
    service. Thanks for your leadership.
        I appreciate what Congressman Carter just asked, because
    that was among my questions. Really grateful for you saying
    that the Army will not be left behind. With the Rock Island
    Arsenal in the congressional district that I serve, that is
    very, very important to me.
        Let me then go to, the National Defense Strategy places
    tremendous emphasis on the use of disruptive technologies in a
    way to counter threats from our near-peer competitors. Additive
    and advanced manufacturing is one of those disruptive
    technologies that has the potential to significantly change how
    we address supply-chain issues, completely rethinking how we
    can develop certain weapons systems with significant savings.
    And I know we see some of these real opportunities to have
    advanced manufacturing revolutionize how we do infrastructure
    work as well.
        I ask this because the Rock Island Arsenal, again, in the
    congressional district that I serve is designated as the Army's
    Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence and has been doing
    a lot to support the Army's broad goals for this capability. I
    would like to get your thoughts on the importance of advanced
    and additive manufacturing to the future of defense spending.
        And, Mr. Secretary, why don't we start with you, and then,
    General Milley, if you could add to what the Secretary has to
    say.
        Secretary Austin. Thank you very much for the question.
        And I think this capability is--you used the term
    ``disruptive.'' I absolutely agree that it is these kinds of
    things that will increase that competitive edge that we want to
    maintain and increase. And so being able to do things
    differently but also do them in forward-position areas, I
    think, is critical.
        The work that is ongoing, I cannot say enough about. And my
    goal will be to leverage the work that is ongoing but to also
    increase our efforts and speed things up, if at all possible.
        General Milley. And I would add to that, Congresswoman, as
    we look at the future operating environment, the change in the
    character of war, and the Joint Warfighting Concept, some of
    the attributes that jump out at you are: units are going to
    have to be smaller, more widely distributed; they are going to
    have to be able to sustain themselves, because long lines of
    communication that are quite vulnerable to enemy activity may
    or may not work in some future conflict.
        So units are going to have to be very self-sufficient, and
    additive manufacturing is a key component to that in the
    logistics chain, so the supply chain. You are going to have to
    produce your own things. Your own spare parts are going to have
    to be produced locally for you to function as a unit.
        That is going to be true on ground, probably true at sea.
    And perhaps air might be a little different, but, for sure, for
    ground forces, that will be a critical component to success.
        Mrs. Bustos. Very good.
        Secretary Austin. Yes, so we are looking forward----
        Mrs. Bustos. General Milley, I know that you have been to
    the Rock Island Arsenal, and we would love to have you back.
    And, Secretary Austin, we would love to have you there as well.
    There is really a lot to show off there, so I will extend that
    invitation. I know you probably get a lot of these.

                       NATIONAL GUARD'S C-130 DIVESTMENT

        I do have a little bit more time, so I am going to switch
    gears to the Air Force for a second.
        We have an Air National Guard base, the 182nd Airlift Wing,
    in the congressional district I serve, as well, in Peoria,
    Illinois. And really some deep concerns with Senator Duckworth,
    with Senator Durbin and I about the Air Force's plans to
    decrease the effectiveness and flexibility of the National
    Guard's C-130 divestment.
        I know the National Guard insists that the C-130 is
    valuable to the homeland, for our defense mission here at home,
    as well as to meet overseas tactical requirements. The
    flexibility and readiness of the National Guard will be
    negatively impacted by any reduction in the C-130s.
        And if the Air Force doesn't believe the current fleet of
    C-130s are needed in a high-end fight and near-peer adversary
    and the National Guard insists that the C-130s are instrumental
    to their protection of the homeland, does it make more sense to
    recapitalize the Air National Guard C-130Hs with the Active
    Component C-130J fleet?
        And if you could maybe weigh in on that. It is something
    that we are very concerned about in my neck of the woods.
        Secretary Austin. I can't comment on specific decisions on
    the C-130 that the Air Force is making.
        I would tell you that, as you pointed out, the C-130 has
    been and will continue to be, in my view, a very important
    piece of the inventory. You know the old saying amongst pilots
    is that, when the most advanced fighter goes to the boneyard,
    the pilot will get a ride back on a C-130.
        Now, in terms of, you know, the specific capabilities of an
    H model versus a J model and what the Air Force wishes to gain
    by investing in more of one or the other, you know, again, I
    would have to have the Air Force lay that out for you in
    detail.
        Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Well, we will follow up. I am out of
    time right now, and I will yield back, but we will follow up,
    Mr. Secretary.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. I know you were hoping for a big reveal, Mrs.
    Bustos.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart and then Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                           NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman.
        And, first, let me again add my thanks to both of you
    gentlemen for your years and years of service to our Nation.
        You know, include me in one of those lists of those
    skeptics, as far as when we are looking at the proposed budget,
    which I think is inadequate and clearly does not provide the
    Defense Department the funds necessary to execute all of our
    National Defense Strategy pillars. And so it is obvious that--
    it is pretty clear that, obviously, every service is going to
    have to look to making some serious changes.
        But here is my question. And so, you know, we spent a lot
    of time and got a lot of bipartisan support, the National
    Defense Strategy. And we have had, obviously, multiple hearings
    and classified briefings, which kind of, I think, added and
    continues to add to the support of that strategy. So where was
    that wrong?
        In other words, you know, the increased funding that was
    requested and we always expected that we were going to need,
    where did that go wrong? Was that assessment wrong? Or did the
    world situation change so dramatically after the Defense
    Strategy?
        Like, if you all could just make me feel better that we are
    just not dealing with, kind of, forcing our military to deal
    with an inadequate budget, but that we have a strategy that is
    different than what we thought was needed under the National
    Defense Strategy which is just as good.
        Where was the National Defense Strategy and those who
    planned it, you know, where did they go wrong, or what has
    happened in the interim, where those funds are no longer
    necessary?
        Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir.
        I think if you look at--and I know you have looked at--the
    President's interim national security strategy guidance, you
    will see that, you know, the fundamental elements in that
    guidance reflect the areas or the issues that the current
    strategy focused on, the former strategy focused on. And it was
    China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and transnational terrorists,
    terrorism. So I think that the major muscle movements, major
    pieces of the strategy are the same.
        Of course, as is the case in every change of
    administration, the new administration comes in and does its
    own assessment, and we are in the possess of doing that now.
    But, again, we feel that, based upon what we are looking at now
    and going forward, we can develop, and we will develop, the
    right mix of capabilities to support the operational concepts
    that allow us to be not only relevant but dominant in the
    future fight.
        General Milley. And, Congressman, as one of the people who
    was involved in the development of that strategy, I wouldn't
    say that it was wrong, and I wouldn't say that the current
    administration is assessing that it was wrong. But it does need
    to be updated.
        That was written 4 or 5 years ago, and I was one of the
    guys who helped write it, you know, with a team of folks here.
    And it was written under the pen of then-Secretary of Defense
    Mattis, who spent a lot of time with it. And it is written in
    history, and it is written with a lot of logic behind it.
        And the key components of it--increased lethality and
    readiness, allies and partners--all of that is still true. The
    emphasis on irregular warfare, along with conventional
    deterrence, et cetera. The rise of China is noted in it. And
    all that stuff is still there, but it needs to be modified and
    updated. And that is what I think the assessment is.
        For example, the interim national security strategy coming
    out of the administration tells us, for example, to look at
    right-sizing the force. What the Secretary of Defense has
    directed us to do is do a global posture review. That is
    entirely appropriate, in my view, long overdue. We need to do a
    rigorous, thorough global posture review to make sure that we
    have the right forces in the right places to achieve the right
    strategic effects. And that is what we are doing.
        I wouldn't--personally, I wouldn't assess that it is wrong,
    necessarily. It needs to be updated.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, Madam Chairwoman, I can't see the
    clock, so I have no idea if I have any time left.
        Ms. McCollum. Thirty seconds, sir.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. How much?
        Ms. McCollum. Thirty.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Okay. Well, then I guess I will just wait
    for if we have another round. So I yield back. Thank you, Madam
    Chairwoman.
        Ms. McCollum. Because of that, we probably will. Thank you
    very much.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick and then Mr. Aderholt, followed by, last
    but not least, Mr. Crist.

                       IMPACT OF DOD ON SOUTHWEST BORDER

        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Chairwoman McCollum. Thanks
    for having this hearing. It is really an important issue for my
    district. And I appreciate the time that our witnesses are
    taking to be here and answer questions.
        My question is for Secretary Austin.
        I represent a border district, and keeping our border
    communities safe is a top priority. It was recently reported
    that the Department of Homeland Security has requested
    Department of Defense support be extended into fiscal year
    2022.
        A recent GAO report published in February of this year
    stated that DHS anticipates needing DOD support for the next 3
    to 5 years. This same report also found that DOD's internal
    tracking of obligations excludes potentially significant costs
    of support activities, and considerations of previous requests
    for assistance did not fully evaluate the impact to military
    readiness.
        Are you seeing a negative impact to long-term military
    readiness of continued support along the southwest border? What
    budget shortfalls are you facing due to this continued support?
    Are you asking for reimbursement from DHS when able? And do you
    anticipate approving this next request for assistance? Is the
    Department working with DHS to define ways to return to a more
    traditional military posture along the border?
        Secretary Austin. I thank you for the question,
    Congresswoman.
        First of all, the defense of our border is important, and
    DOD will do what is asked of us in support of a, you know,
    whole-of-government effort to address issues along the border,
    but also some of the root-cause issues that happen, you know,
    in the countries that migrants or refugees come from. That is
    the first piece.
        The second piece, you asked if DHS is requesting additional
    support. The answer is, yes, they have requested additional
    support. And so, we are evaluating that request as we speak.
        And I should flag for you that the new Secretary of DHS and
    I had a really good conversation early on. And I emphasized,
    and he agreed, that DHS should really work to develop its
    inherent capability to address its mission requirements. And I
    think the Secretary of DHS is beginning that work, and so I
    anticipate that there will be fewer, if any, requests going
    forward.
        Again, what we have provided, as you know, is enabling
    capability to DHS, and we have not been focused on enforcement
    of border activities--or law enforcement activities.
        In terms of readiness, there are many things that we have
    done in terms of providing enabling capabilities that actually
    helped increase readiness. Some of the flying hours that we
    conducted along the border there actually increased our
    proficiency in terms of our pilots. And where we can do things
    like that and get significant training value out of it, I think
    it is value-added.
        And I will stop there.
        Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you so much for your answer. I
    really appreciate the work that you are doing at the border.
    Good people down there. So thank you for that.
        And I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Aderholt, followed by Mr. Crist.
        Mr. Aderholt. All right. Now, hopefully, you can hear me.
        Ms. McCollum. I can hear you.

                        LAND-BASED NUCLEAR TRIAD SYSTEMS

        Mr. Aderholt. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thanks
    for having this hearing, and Ranking Member Calvert.
        And to our guests before the subcommittee today, thank you
    both for being with us. I apologize for getting on this Webex
    call a little bit delayed. I am actually traveling out of the
    country. I am actually in Bosnia, as I speak to you now. So I
    am glad I got to get on this call for a few minutes and hear
    from you.
        Secretary Austin, congratulations on your new appointment
    and confirmation. And glad to see Alabama represented well in
    the Department of Defense, so glad to have you in that role.
        What I would like to ask Secretary Austin is about the
    nuclear triad. Of course, as you know, it has protected the
    United States from attack for more than five decades now.
        And the previous administration had made it a priority to
    modernize our nuclear arsenal in response to a growing threat
    worldwide. The Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent Program would
    upgrade our aging intercontinental ballistic missiles to meet
    the changing dynamics we face from Iran, of course North Korea,
    and even China.
        And I believe you, yourself, have said that the power to
    deter rests on the guaranteed and clearly understood ability to
    respond to aggression in a time and manner of our choosing.
        My question is, do you believe that the United States is
    capable, at this moment, to respond to a nuclear threat using
    the ground-based systems of the nuclear triad? And do you
    believe that the land-based deterrent methods will continue to
    be a critical component in the future to deter the growing
    capabilities of those who would try to attack us?
        Secretary Austin. Let me answer your question by saying,
    yes, I believe that we maintain the capability to deter and to
    be effective if deterrence fails.
        I would also say that the nuclear triad underpins strategic
    deterrence. It has been the bedrock of our national defense
    over the years. And I would say further that I fully support
    and am committed to modernizing the triad.
        As you, I think, are well aware, we are going to conduct a
    nuclear posture review to make sure that we have the right
    balance in terms of our capabilities. And, of course, you also
    know that where we stand on a day-to-day deterrence is not
    something that me and the Chairman and the President guess at.
    You know, Chas Richard, our commander out in Strategic Command,
    is on this 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and is absolutely on
    his game, as you would expect him to be. And so I feel very
    confident in where we are.
        But I think, you know, we are going to continue to move
    forward and support the modernization and recapitalization of
    the triad.

                          MILITARY AND POLITICIZATION

        Mr. Aderholt. Very good. Well, thank you for that. And I do
    think it is very important that the triad stays as modernized,
    and I thank you for your response on that.
        Let me just return to the state of our military personnel.
    And I have some concerns with a recent article that was
    published in Brookings that was titled ``A Case for Rethinking
    the Politicization of Our Military,'' in which the article
    tried to make the case that the military is not apolitical.
        Do you believe the military is apolitical, and, if so,
    should it remain apolitical?
        Secretary Austin. I absolutely believe that the military is
    apolitical. It is a reputation that we have enjoyed over the
    years. It is a reputation that I will fight to maintain. And
    when I talk to leaders in the Department, I emphasize
    frequently how important this is, and, you know, I will
    continue to do so.
        You know, we swear an oath to the Constitution of the
    United States. I take that seriously, and I encourage every
    member of this organization--military, civilian--to do the
    same. You have a certain expectation from the people that are
    in this Department, and we will live up to that expectation.
        I believe the Chairman probably has a desire to make a
    statement on this as well.
        General Milley. Well, I would just echo what the Secretary
    said. I mean, it all comes down to the oath. And we didn't
    swear an oath to a person, a tribe, a king, queen, tyrant,
    dictator, or anything; we swore an oath to a Constitution.
        And, by definition, we must be apolitical, meaning we are
    not going to be playing the partisan politics. We must remain
    an apolitical institution. It is important for the health of
    the Republic that the guys with the guns remain apolitical, so
    to speak.
        We have fought this hard, and we will continue to maintain
    our apolitical stance now and forever. The United States
    military is and will always be an apolitical institution of the
    U.S. Government.
        Mr. Aderholt. Well, thank you both for that answer. And I
    think you are exactly right, that, in any forum, we need to
    make sure that we are not going down a political road.
        So, with that, I see my time has ended. So thank you, Madam
    Chair, and I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Safe travels back home, Mr.
    Aderholt.
        Mr. Crist.

                                SOUTHCOM THEATER

        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ranking
    Member, for holding this hearing. I appreciate it very much.
        And to the Secretary and the General, I appreciate you
    being with us as witnesses today.
        Secretary Austin, in this same hearing with your
    predecessor about 2 years ago, I asked about the situation in
    Venezuela. Since then, the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela has
    further deteriorated, and we have increasing instability in
    other countries in SOUTHCOM. The situation has been made
    significantly worse by the coronavirus epidemic, with the
    countries in SOUTHCOM having the highest per-capita death rate
    in the world.
        Can you speak to the biggest problem areas in this part of
    the world? What investments are we making to increase stability
    and counter Russia and China in the region? And how does
    stability in the Caribbean and Latin America fit into the
    National Defense Strategy?
        Secretary Austin. Thanks for the question.
        Obviously, stability in our neighborhood is very, very
    important to us. And I would say that, while there are
    challenges, we work hard to make sure that we are pulling the
    right levers to ensure that, you know, we are, as best as we
    can, moving things back in a direction of increased security
    and stability. And so that is what Admiral Faller in the
    Southern Command is focused on each and every day.
        We work as a part of a whole-of-government effort to use
    every instrument of national power to do what I just described.
    And, in some cases, you know, economic power is far more
    relevant than military power. Of course, in this region, that
    is, you know, in most cases the case.
        You have seen our Vice President, Vice President Harris,
    begin to focus on helping the countries in the region address
    the root causes of the migration that we have seen here
    recently. And so the Department looks forward to working as a
    key part of that whole-of-government effort. And I say ``key''
    because we have some knowledge of the area, a lot of detailed
    knowledge of the area, and we can inform her efforts.
        But, again, many of the levers that we will pull to do what
    I described, you know, moving things towards greater stability
    and security, will be things other than military.
        We remain engaged. We have conducted some nine joint
    operations, joint training events, here in the recent past or
    in the near future. And so this is creating greater partner
    capacity.
        And, again, an important region. We are engaged. We are
    strengthening our partnerships and alliances, and we are
    helping to address key issues in places where there are
    problems.

                            DOD AND THE COAST GUARD

        Mr. Crist. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate that.
        My home State of Florida is home to dozens of Coast Guard
    commands, and my district has among the highest number of
    Active and Reserve Coasties in the country.
        While we all know that the Coast Guard is under Homeland
    Security, many of their missions are in support of and in
    collaboration with the Pentagon. Could you tell us how the
    Coast Guard fits into our military community?
        And, from a Joint Chiefs perspective, how closely does the
    Coast Guard leadership work with you in support of your role
    advising the President and informing the security decisions for
    America?
        Secretary Austin. I will turn it over to the Chairman in a
    second, Congressman, but I will just say that the Coast Guard
    is a part of just about everything we do in the Department of
    Defense.
        It has been a long time since I had a uniform on, but I
    would tell you that, when I wore a uniform, I went a lot of
    places; there was no place that I went where I didn't find
    Coast Guard participation and adding value to our overall
    efforts. That has been especially true in the Middle East. And
    we see it to be the case also in the Indo-Pacific, which is, as
    you know, our main effort right now.
        General Milley. So, Congressman, with respect to work on
    the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Schultz--first of all, a great
    individual, great admiral, and great leader of the Coast
    Guard--fully integrated into the Joint Chiefs, not necessarily
    by law, but attends all of our meetings, has valuable input,
    and provides tremendous advice not only to me and the other
    Joint Chiefs but also to the Secretary and the President. So he
    is fully integrated.
        And we have Coast Guard capabilities and assets in Central
    Command, SOUTHCOM. We have them in INDOPACOM, et cetera. They
    provide a wide variety of tremendously important capabilities.
    So fully integrated into the Joint Force. And thanks for the
    question.
        Mr. Crist. Well, thank you, gentlemen, very much. I
    appreciate that. And I notice my time is up, but I think a
    Coast Guard question is important to our chair. She has a lot
    of coastline on Lake Superior.
        So thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. I am always looking for a safe harbor on Lake
    Superior.
        Gentlemen, we have enough time for the committee members
    that are remaining to ask a 2-minute question.
        And, Mr. Calvert, I have a question for you. Would you like
    to go early in the order, or would you like to close with me?
        Mr. Calvert. I will close with you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you.
        Mr. Cuellar, 2 minutes.

                              RARE EARTH MINERALS

        Mr. Cuellar. Yes, ma'am. Thank you so much.
        Gentlemen, I want to ask you questions about rare earth
    minerals.
        As you know, the United States needs to do more to secure
    the supply of critical minerals. One of the things that we are
    looking at, that, even as domestic rare earth mineral has
    climbed by 40 percent in 2020, that, you know, the Department
    is still working with some foreign investments. I know and my
    Texans know also that we are doing some work here in Texas.
        And, Mr. Secretary, in support of the President's recent
    executive order on America's supply chain, you all are doing a
    100-day review of critical materials. So I just want to see,
    what are you all doing to address this issue so we stop
    depending--or stop the domination of China?
        And I know that here in Texas--Mr. Carter and Ms. Granger
    know this--that there are some mineral interests in Hudspeth
    County in Texas that will be the largest heavy rare earth
    project outside of China once it is done, I think, in 2023.
        Secretary Austin. I will just say, Congressman, that this
    is a very, very important issue to us, and it is all about
    supply chains. And we are constantly assessing our supply chain
    and the supply-chain vulnerability. We know that this is
    something that we are going to have to remain focused on.
        And this will cause us, is causing us, rightfully, to
    really push to invest in our defense industrial base here at
    home and create capabilities. Again, some of the things that
    were being produced or created offshore, we want to reshore
    those efforts. And we want to do everything we can to thwart
    foreign influence on our supply chains.
        The Deputy Secretary, you know, is absolutely focused on
    this. And she will work together with our incoming head of A&S
    and R&E to make sure that we acquire the right kinds of
    capabilities, that we invest in the right things in the country
    here.
        And I would just say that that is awfully important to us,
    and, you know, we are getting started. We have a long way to
    go, but we are going to move as fast as we can because of the
    vulnerability that this creates.
        Mr. Cuellar. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Carter.

                          HEALTHCARE AND DOD APPROACH

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        General Milley, are you concerned about the difficulties
    the Department has in recruiting and retaining combat casualty
    care specialists? What are the assumptions the Joint Staff is
    making about the ability to recruit military doctors in
    specialties that have historically been difficult to fill?
        Mental health and psychological healthcare will continue to
    be imperative, especially if our servicemembers are faced with
    mass casualties on the battlefield. Yet the Department suffers
    the same shortages the whole country suffers in this area.
        General Milley, how is the Joint Staff working with the
    services to ensure the integration of behavioral and
    nonbehavioral healthcare in our treatment facilities and in
    theater?
        And, Secretary Austin, what resources are being invested in
    this critical area?
        General Milley. Well, let me start off, Judge Carter--or
    Congressman Carter. And I think I got most of that, to be
    candid with you. And I appreciate you asking the question, and
    I know you are hurting there a little bit.
        But, first of all, the Joint Staff works hand-in-glove with
    the services. I have a great Joint Staff surgeon, Dr.
    Friedrichs, General Friedrichs, and he works hand-in-glove with
    them and the Department's health agency, the Defense Health
    Agency.
        So, collectively, what we are doing is ensuring that we
    have adequate healthcare for not only the soldiers but the--or
    not only the troops but also family members, dependents,
    veterans, civilian workforce, and so on. It is a very big
    enterprise. The military healthcare enterprise is probably--and
    I am not 100 percent sure, but I think it is the biggest single
    healthcare enterprise in the United States. It is huge.
        And with respect to recruiting to make sure that we have
    the appropriate healthcare professionals, the doctors, nurses,
    the medics, and all the specialists and technicians, that is a
    very active area of recruitment that we do. We have special
    benefits and programs to bring them in. We train them, we give
    them scholarships, and then we develop them accordingly within
    the military.
        So, it is a critical area. We recognize it is a critical
    area. And we are not just doing it for general purposes; it all
    has to do with combat power and readiness. And we recognize the
    importance of that for our operational contingency operations
    throughout the world.
        Secretary Austin. And I would just add on by saying,
    Congressman, that, you know, the health and welfare of our
    force, their family members, is extremely important to me, and
    we remain focused on this issue.
        It is something that we review constantly. We want to make
    sure that we are investing in the right things, to include
    making sure that, you know, we have the right amount of mental
    healthcare professionals in the inventory and access to those
    professionals, which will help with a number of issues.
    Foremost among those issues is suicide prevention.
        But, again, the ability to deliver effective and efficient
    healthcare to our troops and our families is absolutely
    important to us. And it is a force multiplier, as the Chairman
    has said, and so we will remain sighted on it.
        Mr. Carter. Well, thank you.
        Madam Chairman, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        We just had our hearing on defense healthcare this week, so
    it is on everybody's mind.
        Mr. Aguilar.

                           NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION PLAN

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        One of the questions, Mr. Secretary, surrounding the fiscal
    year 2022 budget request is the extent to which--and this is
    building off of Mr. Aderholt's question--you know, the extent
    to which the DOD may change nuclear modernization programs,
    such as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent or the Long-Range
    Standoff Weapon.
        The GBSD program, in particular, has become the subject of
    speculation as to whether the administration will continue it
    as planned or make changes.
        Mr. Secretary, what is the plan for fiscal year 2022? What
    do we propose for nuclear modernization, specifically the GBSD
    and the Long-Range Standoff Weapon?
        Secretary Austin. Well, as you know and as we mentioned
    earlier--thanks, Congressman, for the question--you know, we
    are going through a nuclear posture review, and we will
    continue to assess, you know, where we are with GBSD. And,
    again, we will make what we believe is the right decision going
    forward.
        But that continues to be a work in progress as I speak. You
    should know, though, that I am committed to modernizing the
    triad.
        Mr. Aguilar. What can we expect to see within the fiscal
    year 2022 budget with respect to these while the review
    continues?
        Secretary Austin. Well, without getting ahead of the
    release of the President's budget, I will just say that you can
    expect to see continued investment in the modernization of the
    triad.
        Mr. Aguilar. Okay. I appreciate it.
        Thanks for the answers, gentlemen.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                     DOD DEFINITION AND PLAN FOR EXTREMISM

        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Madam Chairwoman, I am actually very
    impressed that my technology is working.
        Gentlemen, we spoke a little bit before about, you know,
    the efforts that the Department has been making, I think
    rightfully so, to address extremism. And, General, you talked
    about, you know, if it is only a small percentage, that is
    thousands, right? And so that is something that is crucial.
        In another hearing, the ranking member asked for the
    definition of ``extremism.'' Because, you know, I think one
    could argue that, for example, supporting a group created by a
    vocal anti-Semite is extremism, or created by a White
    supremacist is extremism, or created by a trained Marxist is
    extremism, or a fascist or, you know, a Nazi or a communist.
        And so, I don't expect the answer today, General and Mr.
    Secretary, but I think it would be good to kind of get us what
    you are all looking at when you are dealing with extremism and
    extremist groups. What is the definition of that? That is
    really, again, for--if you can get that to us.
        But, specifically, also, and then how do you deal with
    someone, an individual who may hold those beliefs but
    potentially are not advocating for violence?
        We had this conversation in another hearing, and I don't
    think we got an adequate answer. So, again, I don't expect an
    answer from you all today, but if you could kind of get back to
    us, I think that would be helpful.

                               SOUTHCOM RESOURCES

        I do want to, however, emphasize another issue that was
    brought up. For example, the littoral ships, that, you know,
    Congress has expressed that, you know, we spent all this money
    on them and that we should not potentially be decommissioning
    them yet.
        Gentlemen, you all know better than me the impact of
    narcotics coming into the United States from the Western
    Hemisphere, the thousands and tens of thousands of Americans
    who died because of those narcotics, not to mention human
    trafficking. I, unfortunately, fear that those numbers of
    narcotics, because of what is happening in this hemisphere,
    might increase, not decrease. So I would just hope that you all
    continue to look at this hemisphere.
        Both of you mentioned Southern Command. I think they do a
    phenomenal job, but they could use a little bit more resources.
    And that, frankly, directly saves American lives.
        So, again, you know, less of a question to be answered now,
    gentlemen, but if--and maybe you have some thoughts in
    particular about the issue of narcotics and human trafficking
    coming from this hemisphere and what assets should and could be
    available to Southern Command to deal with that challenge.

                                   EXTREMISM

        General Milley. Well, let me--Congressman, two things.
        One is, on extremism, you are exactly right, the definition
    is going to matter. The Secretary has established a working
    group. That is one of the things that they are tackling, is
    precisely how do you define it. Because our Uniform Code of
    Military Justice, our methods and systems of maintaining good
    order and discipline within the force are dependent on clear,
    unambiguous definitions. Because we are enforcing policy,
    enforcing laws, enforcing regulations, et cetera, and for
    sergeants and captains and colonels, et cetera, to do that, we
    at the senior-leader level need to clearly define what it is we
    expect.
        But the second thing that I would say on that is, we have
    to be careful to distinguish between behavior and belief. And
    it is really behavior that we are talking about here--action,
    activity. And that is going to be critical.
        The third thing I would mention on the same topic: Always
    keep in mind that we are unique within our society. I do not
    have the same rights and privileges of every other citizen. I
    give those up. The 1 percent gives itself up for the 99 percent
    to enjoy all your liberties, because the business we are in is
    dependent strictly upon teamwork, the collective activity. It
    is strictly dependent upon cohesion of a unit, and that is
    important, as opposed to civil society, which is dependent on
    individual rights and civil rights. So that is different, to a
    point, and that always has to be kept in mind.
        But we are working through this with a working group, and
    we are doing that at the charge of the Secretary of Defense. We
    take it very, very seriously.

                               SOUTHCOM RESOURCES

        On the part about SOUTHCOM, they do great work. And you are
    right, they are always short on resources. And we think we have
    distributed the resources appropriately around the world. We
    are always dealing in limited resources. The Secretary every
    week has got to make decisions on how to manage shortages. That
    is just the way of life in the Department of Defense. We always
    do that every single day.
        And SOUTHCOM, we think, has got the appropriate amount
    right now for the threats that are presented. Could they use
    more? Yes, they could. But I think Craig Faller and the team
    down there at SOUTHCOM are doing a great job with what they
    have.
        Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you.
        I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Calvert, that leaves you and me to close.
    Mr. Calvert.

                         Closing Remarks of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair. And this has been a
    very good hearing. Thank you for putting this together.
        I have a number of questions I am going to submit for the
    record, both to Secretary Austin and General Milley.
        Mr. Calvert. One of those is going to be about small-
    business innovation. You have heard me talk about that, and I
    have talked to both General Milley and Secretary Austin about
    that, about becoming a trusted partner and getting through the
    valley of death for these small innovators so they can become a
    good partner for the U.S. military.
        ISR: How are we going to transition from what we have to
    what we need? That is a big question. As you know, the
    combatant commanders are always asking for more ISR.
        The Afghan withdrawal, how that is going to have to go and
    how we are going to deal with our friends as we move out of
    there.
        The fighter fleet--the F-15E, the F-18 fighters, F-35s, the
    future of the F-22. These are very costly, and, obviously, we
    need to look at that.
        And, finally, China. Again, as I look at the number of
    ships in the Chinese Navy, it now exceeds that of the United
    States. And I know our capability is better, but they have good
    capability in their ships, obviously, because they stole our
    R&D. And they are on track to build, as I look at these
    numbers, 18 to 20 ships per year, doubling our output.
        A concern that we should have--I remember Churchill's two
    words, that he gave the worst two words in the English
    language: ``too late.'' So we all should remember what the
    Chinese are doing at the present time.
        With that, Madam Chairman, I want to thank both of our
    guests for their service to the United States for so many
    years. We all appreciate that.
        And we want to make sure that the men and women that you
    lead have a wonderful Memorial Day and we remember those who
    came before us.
        With that, I yield back.

                        MODERNIZATION AND LEGACY SYSTEMS

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Well-said, Mr. Calvert.
        My question is--well, it has been bothering me for quite a
    while, and it is modernization and legacy systems. And you
    gentlemen have heard me talk about it before, and I mentioned
    it the other morning again.
        The skinny budget, with its release, of $715 billion in the
    fiscal year 2022 request, the Department of Defense indicated
    that it will propose to redirect resources to top-priority
    programs, platforms, and systems by divesting legacy systems
    with less utility in current and future threat environments.
        Definitions are important. And maybe it is from being a
    teacher, and that would be one of the things that we would have
    on the test, right? ``What does this mean?''
        Absent a common definition of legacy platforms, some of the
    services have produced their own response in committee
    inquiries. For example, the Navy defines ``legacy'' as, and I
    quote, ``platforms and systems that are no longer in production
    or capable of being upgraded at a reasonable cost to deliver
    and maintain a competitive advantage globally or win a conflict
    with China and Russia in the coming decades.'' The Air Force
    defines ``legacy'' as ``platforms and weapons systems that are
    not credible in peer competition in 2030 and beyond.'' The Army
    declined to answer.
        So, Secretary Austin, does the Department of Defense have a
    common definition of what constitutes a legacy platform? And,
    if not, are you working towards one?
        Could you give us an example, maybe, of legacy platforms
    that you are seeking to divest in your budget request? Probably
    not going to do that, but we need to understand so, when we
    read about something in the newspaper, when we are talking with
    a reporter, when we are talking to each other on the House
    floor, and when we are having conversations with the branches
    of service, we all know what this definition means so we can
    move forward and not have miscommunications.
        Anything you gentlemen would like to add to that?
        Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, Chair.
        You know, we have not published a common definition of
    legacy platforms. What we have said on a number of occasions,
    as you know, is that we are looking for capability that is
    relevant to the competition that we are facing, the one that is
    in front of us.
        And, while some of the platforms have some relevancy, they
    may not be as relevant as we would like to see them be. And, of
    course, you know, we have to take advantage of--we have to
    create the opportunities to go after better, more capable
    capability and technology.
        And so, as you know and I think as you said at the very
    beginning of this, you know, it requires decisions, tough
    decisions. And so, you know, what we are doing is working with
    the services to identify what those platforms are that are not
    relevant or as relevant to the next fight.
        But, to answer your question, we haven't published a DOD
    definition of ``legacy.'' Our focus has been on, you know, the
    relevancy in the next fight.
        General Milley. And I would echo all of that,
    Congresswoman. And I appreciate your feedback. I wasn't
    tracking their answers. I will actually--I have a tank
    tomorrow, and I will discuss this politely in a closed room
    with my fellow chiefs and try to get us all on the same sheet
    of music so that we can render proper advice to the Secretary
    as he works on a Department-of-Defense-wide definition.
        I think it is really important that we do have a common
    definition. And I do think it hinges not so much on the word
    ``legacy'' but on the word ``relevance.'' Is it relevant to
    some future operating environment that we envision against our
    number-one pacing threat, as the Secretary calls it, China? And
    is it useful, is it going to be successful against that threat?
    And is it survivable in that sort of environment?
        And if the answer is yes, then we should invest in it. If
    the answer is no, then we should at least question it. It may
    have utility in the present, as opposed to the future, and we
    may determine that that is a significant enough priority that
    we would still invest in it.
        But each of those needs to be a conscious, thoughtful
    investment opportunity to either invest or divest of that
    particular capability, and I think the definition will be
    critically important. So we are going to work on that, and
    thank you for that comment.

                       Closing Remarks of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. Well, I think it is with the best of
    intentions, when people were describing their reasons for
    discontinuing or, you know, not continuing something into the
    future, that this happened. But I think when Mr. Calvert and I,
    especially on the floor--we haven't seen the whole budget yet,
    and people are talking about this--I think it would be very
    helpful for the two of us and members of this committee and
    Members in general to have that.
        Well, with that, I want to thank you both for your time
    today. And I want to thank you for your years of service and
    your great attention to the subcommittee's concerns. And I
    know, as the budget comes out, your staff, our committee, and
    you know, members to members and talking to folks under your
    command, we will get our answers in as timely a fashion as
    possible as we put the budget together.
        I would like to close with remembering some words of
    President John F. Kennedy, who in speaking to our
    servicemembers about making the ultimate sacrifice said, and I
    quote, ``A Nation reveals itself not only to the people it
    produces but to those it remembers.'' On behalf of our Defense
    Subcommittee, we remember our fallen and we also remember those
    missing in action, and we thank those who serve our Nation
    today.
        And, with that, thank you again, gentlemen.
        And this concludes today's hearing. This subcommittee
    stands adjourned.
        [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                             Tuesday, October 26, 2021.

              WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                   WITNESSES

    XAVIER BEALE, VICE PRESIDENT OF TRADES, NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING,
        HUNTINGTON INGALLS INDUSTRIES
    MEREDITH A. BERGER, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNDER
        SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
    WILLIAM BONVILLIAN, LECTURER, MIT
    GENERAL HAWK CARLISLE, PRESIDENT/CEO, NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL
        ASSOCIATION
    HON. GILBERT R. CISNEROS, JR., UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL
        AND READINESS
    JOSE-MARIE GRIFFITHS, PRESIDENT, DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY, AND FORMER
        COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL SECURITY COMMISSION FOR ARTIFICIAL
        INTELLIGENCE
    HON. GINA ORTIZ JONES, UNDER SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
    CHRISTOPHER LOWMAN, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE DUTIES OF UNDER
        SECRETARY OF THE ARMY

                      Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum. This hearing will come to order.
        This hearing is virtual, and we are going to address a few
    housekeeping matters.
        For today's meeting, the chair or the staff designated by
    the chair--for me, it will be Mr. Ryan--may mute participants'
    microphones when not under recognition or for 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 staff to unmute you. If you indicate approval
    by nodding, staff will unmute your microphone.
        I remind all members and witnesses that the 5-minute clock
    still applies, and you will see the 5-minute clock in the
    screen.
        If there is a technology issue, we will move to the next
    member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the
    balance of your time.
        At 1 minute remaining, the clock will turn yellow; 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--and I will
    begin--to recognize the next member.
        In terms of the speaking order, we are going to follow the
    order set forth in House rules, beginning with the chair and
    the ranking member; then members present at the time the
    hearing is called to order will be recognized in their 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 they
    wish to submit in writing for any of our hearings or markups.
    The email address has been provided to your staff.
        With that, before I introduce the guests, we are going to
    have votes at 2:30. Our speakers are aware of that. Mr. Ryan
    and I will be exchanging virtually the gavel. When I am not
    present, Mr. Ryan will have the gavel and will recognize
    people. And Ken will have his--excuse me--the ranking member,
    Mr. Calvert, will have his designee.
        This afternoon, this committee will receive testimony on
    current and future needs for the Department of Defense
    workforce, for both military and civilian, and the defense
    industrial base.
        This will be a two-panel hearing. We will hear from Mr.
    Bonvillian, a lecturer from MIT and co-author of ``Workforce
    Education: A New Roadmap''; from Dr. Griffiths, the current
    president of North--of Dakota State--I always want to say North
    Dakota because my mother was from North Dakota, so forgive me--
    from Dakota State University and former commissioner from the
    National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence; Mr.
    Beale, vice president of trades at Newport News Shipbuilding, a
    division of Huntington Ingalls Industries; and General
    Carlisle, president and CEO of the National Defense Industrial
    Association, will provide us with the small business
    perspective.
        The second panel we will recognize government experts from
    the Department of Defense. We will hear from Under Secretary
    Cisneros, head of Personnel and Readiness in the Office of the
    Secretary of Defense; Under Secretary Ortiz Jones from the
    Department of the Air Force; Mr. Lowman, senior official
    performing the duties of Under Secretary of the Department of
    the Army; and Ms. Berger, the senior official performing the
    duties of Under Secretary of the Department of the Navy.
        I really strongly encourage members to stay on for both
    panels. And when going over to voting, coming back and forth,
    you can put your ear bud in and log on through your phone so
    you don't miss a thing.
        Here we go.
        Over the past few years, several studies and reports have
    expressed significant concern about the ability for our
    workforce to meet the current and future workforce gaps in
    skilled trades, engineering, and emerging technologies
    throughout the defense sector. This challenge has been a
    particular interest of mine as chair, and the committee report
    for fiscal 2022 includes several reporting requirements from
    the Department on this issue. This hearing serves as a follow-
    on to our report, and I hope it will be a genuine opportunity
    to start a dialogue on the issues we face in the defense
    workforce.
        This hearing will explore such questions as:
        What type of DOD civilian and military education and
    workforce development programs are in place to address the
    current and future workforce gaps?
        How does the Department coordinate academic and workforce
    development programs across the service?
        And what programs are in place to fill the demand careers
    in the Department, the services, and the industry, particularly
    to meet the challenge of emerging technology, things like
    artificial intelligence, hypersonics, and cyber.
        We are addressing current workforce gaps in the skilled
    trades right now, engineering and emerging technologies, to
    ensure that we have enough people trained for those jobs.
        What will the Department of Defense need to do not only to
    recruit individuals for these jobs, but also incentive packages
    that are required to retain them?
        How do workforce gaps impact the defense industry, both
    large and small businesses, and the supply chain in the defense
    sector?
        How do these gaps impact the industry's ability to create,
    maintain, and sustain new technologies?
        We could go on with more, but these are just a few of the
    questions I hope and I know will be addressed in part today.
        Our first panel of outside witnesses will provide us with
    their perspective on a broad scope of current and future
    defense force gaps and how the Department is acting to address
    this challenge and what they think the Department could do
    better.
        As a former teacher, I am keenly interested to hear how the
    public and private education sectors are doing, ranging from
    kindergarten through postsecondary. Are they poised to meet our
    future workforce demands?
        And I want to hear how the Department and industry can
    collaborate to support underrepresented minority, veterans,
    nonprofits, and small business communities on workforce issues.
        And then finally, our second panel of government witnesses.
    They will share their perspective on the same topics and how
    they view the challenges of the current and future defense
    force work gaps, what actions DOD is taking to address these
    needs.
        The committee is also interested in how the Department
    conveys these challenges in priorities, such as modernization
    priorities, to the services while also ensuring that those new
    priorities are incorporated into civilian and military
    education and workforce development programs, and in turn, how
    the services incorporate those modernization practices into
    their structures and effectively execute them.
        Now, I know there is a lot to cover, and this is an issue
    that is vitally important to all of us. It not only affects the
    military, but it affects many small businesses in each and
    every one of our States.
        So with that, I want to recognize my ranking member, Mr.
    Calvert, for his opening remarks, and a person who has been
    very concerned about the health of small business and the
    Department of Defense reaching out to make sure that they are
    included.
        Mr. Calvert.

                         Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
        First, I would like to thank the witnesses on both panels
    for appearing before us today. You all represent government,
    academia, and industry leaders, a partnership that we will need
    to be strengthened to ensure our workforce is ready to take on
    the challenges of both today and tomorrow.
        Since the Second World War, the ingenuity of our industrial
    partners and its highly trained, capable workforce has been the
    driving force in America's quantitative military edge.
        Today, our Nation relies heavily on a workforce, both in
    the government and in the private sector, that can execute the
    requirements set by policymakers.
        However, we are living in an era of rapid technological
    change, emerging threats in new domains, and the growth of
    near-peer adversaries, which require a complete and coordinated
    response. We cannot win the wars of the future with the
    workforce of the past.
        Furthermore, the realities of the past year and a half have
    shown both how fragile and resilient this workforce can be.
    COVID-19 has confronted both the government and industry with
    challenges previously unthinkable.
        I would like to thank all of you for your flexibility,
    persistence, and commitment to our national security during
    this difficult time in our Nation's history.
        Today I am interested in hearing from our witnesses about a
    range of topics, including how we integrate new technologies,
    like artificial intelligence, into our processes, how can we
    properly train the next generation of our workforce, what
    Congress can do better to assist the DOD's industrial partners,
    and how we can ensure bureaucracy does not needlessly hinder
    rapid development.
        I also am interested in hearing from our service civilian
    leadership about how we can manage and rightsize our growing
    civilian workforce without losing capability.
        As I have said to the subcommittee many, many times before,
    I am greatly concerned about the cost of maintaining a
    needlessly large civilian workforce, particularly as budget
    uncertainty will remain a reality in years to come.
        If we are going to truly prioritize the DOD's resources to
    focus on great power competition, proper management of the
    civilian workforce must be part of that conversation.
        Again, I thank the chair for her focus on all these
    important issues and for the witnesses appearing before us
    today.
        And, with that, I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        So let's get right to it. Our first witness for the panel
    is Mr. William Bonvillian.
        Welcome. Please proceed with your testimony for 5 minutes.

                      Summary Statement of Mr. Bonvillian

        Mr. Bonvillian. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert,
    members of the subcommittee, I want to thank you for the
    opportunity to meet with you today.
        I have been asked to address three of the list of issues
    that you all went through, kind of overall problems facing the
    American workforce education, some of the possible solutions,
    and to focus on the defense workforce education within that
    kind of overall context.
        So, broadly speaking, our economy has low productivity,
    which affects our economic growth and, therefore, our financial
    well-being. There are two inputs for improving productivity:
    technological advance and a more skilled workforce.
        Now, historically, U.S. firms and policies have favored the
    first and tended to neglect the second. So U.S. education and
    training are lagging behind the available technology, which
    hinders our ability to adopt the new technology that we need.
    So now is a time to improve that workforce input.
        This is a message that applies to DOD as well. As you all
    have pointed out, if DOD wants its modernization agenda, it
    needs a stronger industrial base, and that means workforce
    development has got to be a key input on DOD's agenda.
        What are the big challenges that we face in this workforce
    education area?
        We don't really have a system for workforce development,
    and we need one.
        We have got a disconnect between work and learning, school
    on one side, work on the other, with few pathways between the
    two.
        We have got disinvestment historically by government and
    employers.
        We have got few Federal programs that reach the higher
    technical skills and incumbent workers.
        And our workforce programs are not well-linked or
    complementary.
        We dismantled much of vocational education starting in the
    1970s. Our community colleges are underfunded, and their
    student completion rates are too low. Colleges and universities
    are disconnected from workforce education, so lifelong learning
    is missing.
        We have got underfunded advanced technical education
    programs. We have got a broken labor market information system.
    And all of this takes place within what we could call legacy
    sectors, which means change is hard to undertake.
        Against this backdrop of issues, the U.S. has got a quality
    job problem. Technological advances, especially in information
    technologies, are putting too many quality jobs out of reach
    for workers who didn't get the proper skills and training.
        Upskilling is ongoing, with jobs increasingly going to
    those who got the right skills and training, but we have got
    millions of stranded jobs that we just aren't filling.
        We need a new system, frankly. If you ask Americans what
    high school and college are, they know. But if you ask them
    what is the American workforce education system, you are going
    to get a blank stare.
        And we need to build this system. And by building it up, we
    will open new opportunities. But we can't just do more of the
    same and expect change.
        We are starting to see new changes coming about in
    workforce education that we could take advantage of: new
    education technologies, including online applications and VR,
    virtual reality and augmented reality, gaming, digital tutors.
    Those are starting to come on.
        Short courses that take weeks and months, not years, that
    better fit student schedules. Community college programs that
    reach not just community college students but also incumbent
    workers and high school students.
        We need apprenticeships. We need to raise community college
    completion rates. We need technical and comprehensive high
    school programs with workforce elements built into them. We
    need an expanded employer role, new curricula in advanced
    fields, and a new labor market information system.
        Turning to the defense workforce, how do these overall
    recommendations tie into the Defense Department and its needs?
        So DOD, as you all know well, has massive workforce
    education needs. It has to train service personnel, departing
    servicemembers and veterans, so that they have opportunities
    when they leave the military, its own industrial base workforce
    of 88,000 at depots, arsenals, shipyards, and there are tens of
    thousands of defense contracting firms where workers need
    upgraded skills.
        I want to focus on the last three, and jobs in
    manufacturing are of particular focus for these three groups.
        Advanced manufacturing, a big challenge for DOD. The U.S.
    has been ceding major parts of its manufacturing base to
    foreign competitors. It has been falling behind in new
    manufacturing technologies.
        This is a major problem for DOD, given its need for secure
    and reliable supply chains. But we won't get to these new
    manufacturing technologies unless we have got a workforce ready
    to implement them.
        DOD has got a series of assets on these workforce education
    issues. And I won't try to [inaudible] mention the more
    critical ones.
        Its advanced manufacturing institutes through ManTech, its
    Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment, IBAS, programs, the
    Service Training and Development Centers in Orlando, and the
    Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation are all key
    assets that we can deploy in these workforce issues.
        In conclusion, we have got a workforce education system
    that isn't working well as a system, and it really needs
    reform, and DOD has got a big stake in strengthening our
    industrial base and, therefore, in strengthening our workforce.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I know we have asked you to cover
    a lot in 5 minutes. Thank you so much.
        Dr. Griffiths, please go ahead with your testimony.

                       Summary Statement of Dr. Griffiths

        Ms. Griffiths. Thank you. Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking
    Member Calvert, and members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak with you today.
        As a former commissioner of the National Security
    Commission on Artificial Intelligence, I led the line of effort
    charged with examining the implications of AI and associated
    technologies for the U.S. national security and defense
    workforce and making recommendations for government action and
    reform.
        I should also note that I am here speaking in my personal
    capacity, as the Commission sunset on October 1, 2021, per our
    congressional mandate.
        The U.S. still leads the world in AI, but our lead is
    rapidly shrinking, and China is catching up. China moved in
    2016 when 250 million Chinese citizens saw the AI program
    AlphaGo defeat the best Go player in the world. This moment
    provoked policymakers in China to swiftly organize and dedicate
    enormous resources towards AI and the global technology
    competition.
        In March this year, we delivered our final report to
    Congress and the President. This gives Congress a clear
    blueprint for how to stay ahead.
        Before I speak to the NSCAI's recommendations focused on
    talent and workforce, I would like to provide you with a high-
    level overview of our main conclusions and recommendations. We
    reached a few overarching judgments.
        First, the government is not organized or resourced to win
    the technology competition against a committed competitor, nor
    is it prepared to defend against AI-enabled threats.
        And second, the Nation must be AI ready by 2025 to defend
    and compete in the coming era of AI-accelerated competition and
    conflict, both priority areas for government action.
        First, leadership. We need organizational structures that
    accelerate the government's integration of AI and its promotion
    of AI across the country. This should include a Technology
    Competitiveness Council at the White House.
        Second, talent. We have a huge talent deficit in
    government, and we need to cultivate AI talent nationwide and
    ensure that the world's best technologies come and stay in the
    United States.
        Third is hardware. We are too dependent on semiconductor
    manufacturing in East Asia, and Taiwan in particular. Most
    cutting-edge chips are produced at a single plant separated by
    just 110 miles of water from our principal strategic
    competitor. We must revitalize U.S. cutting-edge semiconductor
    fabrication capabilities and implement a national
    microelectronic strategy, and the goal should be to stay two
    generations ahead of China in state-of-the-art
    microelectronics.
        And the fourth area is innovation. AI research will be very
    expensive. We need the government to help set the conditions
    for broad-based innovation across the country. This should
    include a national AI research infrastructure, and we should
    reach $40 billion in annual research funding for the next 5
    years to cover AI R&D for defense and nondefense research.
        However, talent is the centerpiece of any winning AI
    strategy, and incremental change will just not be enough. The
    military needs expertise both in and out of uniform or it will
    be unable to build the systems or perform the tasks described
    in our report, and the DOD is unlikely to develop that
    expertise quickly enough on its own. And as a result, if the
    DOD is going to be AI ready by 2025, as we have recommended,
    congressional action will be needed.
        Allow me to briefly describe four high priority
    recommendations in the report.
        First and most critical for the AI workforce is the need
    for military and civilian career fields in software
    development, data science, and artificial intelligence.
        The inability of our military's digital subject matter
    experts to spend their careers working in digital fields is
    arguably the single most important issue impeding
    modernization. Without these career paths, DOD will continue to
    struggle to recruit new talent, identify talent, and retain its
    current talent.
        Our second priority is training junior leaders. We
    recommend the military services incorporate AI topics into
    precommissioning and entry-level training for junior officers
    and training for both junior and senior noncommissioned
    officers.
        Our third priority is to incentivize emerging technology
    literacy among senior officers. Using the Goldwater-Nichols Act
    incentivization of joint competency as a model, Congress should
    require DOD to create an emerging technology certification
    process in critical billets, and servicemembers would earn
    their certification by serving in noncritical emerging
    technology billets, fellowships with industry and academia,
    graduating certified courses, and earning commercial
    certifications.
        And, finally, we have made two significant proposals in
    addition to the reforms.
        One, build the U.S. Digital Service Academy. The U.S.
    Government should create the USDSA, an accredited, degree-
    granting university that produces technically educated
    graduates for the service obligation of civil servants.
        And, two, establish a National Reserve Digital Corps. Many
    of the most talented technologists in the U.S. are eager to
    serve their country but unlikely to become full-time government
    employees or military reservists.
        The government needs a mechanism to tap this talent
    reservoir. So the government should establish the NRDC modeled
    after the military Reserves that allows civilians to work for
    government 38 days a year as advisers, instructors, and
    developers.
        Let me close by saying that just as AI is poised to impact
    all sectors of society, it is also poised to impact all
    dimensions of national security. So I urge you and your
    colleagues in Congress to review the full range of our national
    security problems addressed in the report and adopt the
    recommendations to address them.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to appear.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Beale.

                         Summary Statement of Mr. Beale

        Mr. Beale. Good afternoon, Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking
    Member Calvert, and members of the Defense Appropriations
    Subcommittee.
        Again, my name is Xavier Beale, the vice president of
    trades at Newport News Shipbuilding, an operating division of
    Huntington Ingalls Industry, and it is my honor to represent
    the shipyard here today to discuss our approach to workforce
    development, challenges in the future, and provide some
    recommendations for committee consideration.
        In my role, I have a responsibility to provide and prepare
    a capable production and maintenance workforce to perform the
    critical work we do in support of our United States Navy.
    Equally important, I represent the interests of thousands of
    our Nation's skilled craftswomen and craftsmen.
        In 1991, I started my shipbuilding career as a pipe fitter.
    I have also worked on behalf of our fellow shipbuilders within
    our Human Resources division, with an aim to ensure all
    shipbuilders and future shipbuilders have the opportunity to
    learn, grow, and reach their full potential.
        I understand that Chairwoman McCollum and several
    subcommittee members recently visited Naval Base Kitsap and
    Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. Your experience at the public Naval
    shipyards is similar to what you would see here at Newport News
    Shipyard. Both private and public shipyards have similar needs
    and face similar challenges, and I invite you to visit us when
    you have time.
        Huntington Ingalls consists of three operating divisions:
    Newport News Shipbuilding, Ingalls Shipbuilding, and our
    Technical Solutions Division. All three divisions of our
    company face similar challenges in the attraction, development,
    and deployment of their respective workforces.
        At Newport News Shipbuilding, we are building the new Ford-
    class aircraft carriers and Virginia-class fast-attack
    submarines and performing refueling and complex overhaul on
    Nimitz-class aircraft carriers.
        At 25,000 strong, we are the largest industrial employer in
    Virginia. We partner with over 2,500 supplier businesses from
    across all 50 States. So our impact to the economy is much
    greater than just Newport News, Virginia, and the Hampton Roads
    region.
        Our Integrated Digital Shipbuilding initiative, or IDS, as
    we call it, is the future of shipbuilding. CVN-80 is the future
    USS Enterprise, which when delivered to the Navy in 2028 will
    be the first Ford-class aircraft carrier completely built in a
    digital environment.
        We believe there is a role for Federal investment in IDS
    given its potential across the nuclear shipbuilding enterprise,
    from new design and construction in the private shipyards and
    our supplier base, all the way through the ship's operation and
    maintenance life cycle overseen by the Navy and public
    shipyards.
        While the digital transformation is good news, we face
    significant challenges in terms of a highly skilled workforce.
    We understand the need to build a workforce pipeline that will
    help sustain our business for future decades, and we believe in
    starting early.
        We partner with our area schools to expose students and
    parents to our business for future decades, and we believe in
    starting early. So we have partnered with our area schools to
    expose students, parents, and teachers to our company and the
    opportunities that a shipbuilding career offers.
        We are also looking at ways to use regional training
    centers to develop our future workforce. They are most cost
    effective as they can serve multiple age groups and draw from
    the entire region. They can standardize curricula around
    employer needs and create clear pathways from high school to
    community college to employment within their specific region.
        Thanks to the support from the Department of Defense's
    Industrial Base and Sustainment, which we call our IBAS office,
    the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville,
    Virginia, has recently piloted an accelerated training and
    defense manufacturing program to help the defense industrial
    base leverage its training infrastructure. Newport News
    Shipbuilding provided curriculum development support and will
    have participants in the program's pilot cohort.
        We believe there is potential for the same synergy in
    Hampton Roads where we have several strong organizations
    seeking to address the region's workforce development.
        There is no doubt major hurdles exist to building the
    maritime workforce that our shipyard and our maritime
    industrial base would need to ensure long-term success.
        These hurdles are not insurmountable, but industry and
    individual businesses cannot do it alone. With that in mind,
    here are some ideas on how you can help us be more successful.
        Help the Navy work to develop standard prehire curricula
    and certificates that can be adopted within all Navy
    communities. The more centralized curriculum development can be
    done by the customer, the easier and more efficient it will be
    for everyone.
        Over the past few years, the Department of Defense's
    Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment office has been a
    major source of workforce development investment, and expanding
    across these funds will support the entire shipbuilding
    industrial base.
        So, in conclusion, there is a great need for increased
    investment in Federal workforce development to support the
    overall growth of shipbuilding talent. With your help and the
    partnership of other local, State, and Federal allies, the
    defense industrial base will prosper and be in a better
    position to provide the support our Navy needs and our Nation
    deserves.
        I thank the committee for their time and look forward to
    your questions.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        General Carlisle.

                     Summary Statement of General Carlisle

        General Carlisle. Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member
    Calvert, and distinguished members of the committee, I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences and
    industry perspective on the challenges facing the future of the
    defense workforce.
        Providing America's national security faces challenges,
    including a critical shortage, as has been mentioned, of
    skilled, educated, and cleared personnel to work in the defense
    ecosystem.
        Many factors are causing the widening gaps in our workforce
    with which we must contend. Without comprehensive investments
    in all of our Nation's human capital, we won't be able to fill
    these gaps, much less ramp up expeditiously in times of
    national need.
        The defense sector mirrors the workforce challenges faced
    by the greater organic industrial base: unmet demand for STEM
    talent, increasing shortages in skilled personnel who can build
    the systems we need to stay competitive, uneven access for all
    of America's talent pools, and the evolving work environment
    the COVID crisis has only accelerated.
        As a trade association, the National Defense Industrial
    Association represents the interests of defense companies of
    all sizes and sectors with the majority of our membership
    comprised of small business. Adverse impacts to small
    businesses are felt throughout the supply chain. As these
    companies seek to transition ideas to capabilities, they face a
    marketplace where demand is outstripping the supply of STEM
    talent.
        Coupled with the competition for new talent, companies
    cannot afford to lose talented, highly skilled employees, which
    is their most coveted asset, to other sectors, and in today's
    world, to retirement.
        On the vocational side, we have spent decades as a society
    selling a 4-year degree as the ultimate path to opportunities
    and career success. While true this is a great path, it is not
    the lone path.
        The push for college for all has had the unintended
    consequences of messaging that skilled careers are somehow
    second class. That could not be farther from the truth. For
    many with the talent and desire, noble skilled careers can be
    both lucrative and fulfilling.
        Unique to our sector is the often required security
    clearance. The security clearance process can be a high and
    sometimes impossible hurdle to clear for many qualified
    candidates.
        This barrier is particularly detrimental for small
    companies who find it difficult to find the right talent, and
    then can ill-afford to pay them while they are waiting,
    oftentimes months, to get them cleared to work on a classified
    contract. This prevents many small businesses from entering and
    remaining part of the defense ecosystem.
        We believe that being part of a solution to the defense
    workforce challenges is fundamental to NDIA's mission and what
    we exist for. As such, we have established a multi-year Defense
    Workforce Project, known as DWP, and we will hold our first
    initial Defense Workforce Summit this December.
        As our ``Vital Signs'' report shows, there is a need for
    diversity within the defense sector. This is not just diversity
    of race and gender, but also of diversity of thought. To
    increase the propensity to enter the defense sector, we need to
    ensure more people see themselves as part of the national
    security enterprise.
        We also need to recognize the existing talent pool of
    veterans and military spouses who have familiarity with the
    defense mission and make entrance for their career pathway a
    more streamlined process.
        Educational opportunities are crucial to supporting our
    workforce today and into the future. We must address the
    imbalance in representation in the STEM workforce and increase
    the number of academically prepared students at the K to 14
    level in STEM.
        An area too often overlooked is the Career and Technical
    Education, known as CTE, and we do not see many substantive
    national approaches to this problem. We in NDIA are identifying
    centers of training excellence and developing actionable
    recommendations on adapting and scaling programs nationally to
    meet the production goals for the next 5 to 20 years.
        Finally, experience before and since the COVID crisis began
    has shown the nature of work is shifting. We need to understand
    the current trends and to implement the changes that we need to
    develop the workforce of tomorrow.
        A partnership between government and industry is necessary
    for generational impacts to ensure the future of the workforce.
    Collaboration is underway in these very Halls of Congress with
    the establishment of the House Defense Workforce Innovation and
    Industry Caucus, and it is established with support from both
    sides of the aisle.
        Our focus is to help ensure the defense industrial base has
    a robust, ready, and cleared defense workforce for 2040 and
    beyond capable of equipping our Nation's warfighters to face
    both impending and unforeseen challenges.
        Improving the development of the defense workforce is a
    work in progress, and, frankly, we don't know yet how much or
    what the appropriations are necessary to fund these projects.
        We do know that there is funding required, and we really
    look forward to working with you, all of you in Congress, and
    we thank you for advancing and recognizing this issue and for
    your continued support.
        Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you. You all covered a lot. There
    is a lot to cover.
        Mr. Ryan, I am going to go vote. I am turning the virtual
    gavel over to you, and you can have the first question.

                           SMALL BUSINESS CHALLENGES

        Mr. Ryan [presiding]. Thank you, Chairwoman McCollum.
        Let me just first say how impressive this panel is. My
    district is in Ohio, northeast Ohio, and this has been an issue
    across the board, obviously not just in defense, not just in
    the defense industrial base, but workforce obviously.
        But you touched upon the issues with semiconductors and
    manufacturing and lack of a grand strategy in the country and
    all the rest. I really appreciate all of your contributions
    here.
        Let me ask a couple questions here, because defense
    corporations, really of all sizes, share the challenges that
    you mentioned. But underpinning each large corporation are
    these smaller businesses, and their challenges are often more
    extreme.
        And the Department houses a small business office within
    the Office of Industrial Policy that manages its outreach to
    the smaller businesses. And from their statistics, it appears
    that in 2020, 24.5 percent, or about $80 billion worth of
    business, was executed by small businesses. But for small
    businesses to continue to achieve success, they need to train
    their personnel, and training programs are difficult for them
    to execute.
        So, General Carlisle, the National Defense Industrial
    Association can provide us a comprehensive overview of these
    challenges with a particular emphasis on small businesses.
    Could you please share with us the unique challenges that small
    businesses face in attracting and retaining personnel for their
    skilled career fields?
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir, Representative Ryan. I
    appreciate the question. And you are right, it is critical.
        I think small businesses have a couple of added challenges
    that large businesses don't. One of them is the challenge of
    the speed with which the departments sometimes work. It is
    called the Valley of Death. You can call it a bunch of
    different things.
        But the time it takes sometimes to go from, ``Hey, this is
    a great idea, this is great technology, we have the technology
    and the workers to get it done,'' to then being able to put it
    on contract and start producing it, that can extend time,
    whether it is a SBIRS contract as it goes from Phase I through
    Phase III and then try to become a program of record.
        Well, larger businesses have ways that they can deal with
    that. They can move people around. They can use them in other
    places.
        Small businesses, if you have a workforce, many of our
    members will have to mortgage their house to pay the wages for
    their workers while they are waiting for their contract to come
    to fruition. That time lag is a huge challenge for small
    businesses.
        And then the other one is the cleared part of it, the one
    that I mentioned in my opening statement, and that is security
    clearances, because many of the programs are classified
    contracts. Security, it has gotten better, but it has got a
    long ways to go. It still takes months to get somebody cleared.
    And if you can start that ahead of time, it works out better.
        Internships, I think, are one way to start it. There are a
    couple of ideas on kind of starting them even in academic
    institutions or colleges if you have people that are inclined
    to work towards the defense industry, start their clearance
    process there.
        But those are two big problems that I think face small
    business. And then, of course, the competition for the
    workforce in the commercial sector is just daunting to small
    business in the defense industrial base.
        Mr. Ryan. General, what areas have the biggest gap?
        General Carlisle. I would say I think----
        Mr. Ryan. Like demand for the worker and the capability or
    the skill set of the workforce?
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir. I think software engineering is
    one that is a big player for small business in particular.
    There is a lot of that out there. But the competition for
    really high quality coders is a big challenge for them.
        Another one is the skilled trades. I mean, you know that
    the skilled--the welders, the electricians, the pipe fitters,
    there is a shortage of those, and obviously the competition for
    those is intense.
        And then I think, as mentioned by Chairwoman McCollum, is
    that the new technology, whether it is hypersonics or AI or
    machine learning, that just adds to the demand signal for small
    business.

                          SOLVING SKILLED TRADE ISSUES

        Mr. Ryan. It is interesting. How do you solve the skilled
    trade issue? I know that is an issue.
        General Carlisle. There are some folks that----
        Mr. Ryan. Is there anything we can--I know we have got
    Helmets to Hardhats, and we have got some of these other
    creative programs. Do you have any ideas on how we could maybe
    close that gap a little bit with the skilled trades?
        General Carlisle. Sir, I think there are a couple. I think
    one of them would be to take advantage of military veterans and
    spouses, family members of military veterans, because they
    often have skills in those areas that they have learned either
    in the military or moving around with the military. That is one
    place.
        There is a thing called SkillBridge. I think that generally
    goes to more white collar work. I think SkillBridge in some of
    the skilled trades is another place where you could focus. The
    Department of the Navy in the Hampton Roads area would probably
    be great for Newport News Shipbuilding. Often very skilled,
    very talented.
        My brother is from San Diego, a senior chief in the Navy
    for 26 years and went to work in a skilled trade and stayed in
    San Diego, and that transition took longer than it should have
    because he already had all the talent. So I think that is
    another place that we could do it.

                          COMMON WORKFORCE CHALLENGES

        Mr. Ryan. Got it.
        Real quick before I kick it to Ranking Member Calvert. The
    Defense Workforce Project and the initiative's current efforts
    to address these common workforce challenges facing the
    industry today, can you tell us a little bit about that?
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir. Thanks for the question.
        The Defense Workforce Project has been going on for months.
    We have four working groups with expertise from around the
    country, and they are looking at those four different areas.
    They are looking at the skilled workforce, the CTE, how do we
    get those welders and shipbuilders and pipe fitters and
    electricians and plumbers? That is one of the work groups.
        Another one is STEM. How do you get better STEM education?
    We have a lot of academic input on that. How do we get it going
    back K to 12 or K to 14. We have the tendency to go to just
    college. You actually have to start it much, much further left
    of that.
        We have another one on diversity. How do we get to all the
    talent pools in this country? Oftentimes, there are sections of
    this country that don't understand those opportunities are out
    there. So how do you get to more of them, get more capability?
    Because we do have an incredibly talented population.
        And then the final one obviously is the world is changing.
    It is a different work environment. There is automation. There
    is what COVID did. There are all those things that the work of
    the future is going to probably look a little bit different
    than it has in the past, and how do we transition to that.
        And our first summit is December 9, and we will start
    working on laying the groundwork for recommendations and ways
    to come forward and what we can do to support the challenge of
    the workforce.
        Mr. Ryan. Great. Well, I just want to be clear too. When
    you said further left, you meant earlier in high school and
    into--I want to make sure Mr. Calvert is okay. I don't want him
    to be upset about your comment.
        Ranking Member Calvert.
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir.

                            TRADE EDUCATION OUTREACH

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Congressman. I appreciate your
    recognizing me.
        I think maybe this is--it is an interesting conversation
    about the lack of vocational education in America today. We
    used to have much more of that. I think it was given a dirty
    word, unfortunately.
        There is a program, I am sure it is shared in other States,
    in California, where we take 2 years of high school and 2 years
    of community college for a trade; for instance, fixing air
    conditioners or being a mechanic or software. A number of
    trades. And we seem to be getting back to that.
        Maybe this is for the entire panel. Is that something we
    should work toward in the Department of Defense, to encourage
    that kind of outreach both at the high school and community
    college level?
        General, maybe you can start with that.
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir. I would be more than happy to.
        I think that is an incredible idea. There are different
    kinds of talent throughout our population. And I mentioned my
    brother earlier. My brother mechanically can fix, make, or
    build anything. He just has a three-dimensional mind. And there
    are kids like that.
        But when I went to high school, there was auto hobby shop
    and wood shop. Those don't exist anymore in high school. But
    those are things that I think----
        Mr. Calvert. We are the same age.
        General Carlisle. Say it again, sir?
        Mr. Calvert. We are the same age.
        General Carlisle. Yes, sir. San Diego, California too. That
    is where I am from.
        I think that the idea of identifying that talent, which you
    can identify early, and folks that have a propensity and want
    and look forward to getting into that, a lot of people just
    love working with their hands, and I think it is a great idea.
        Mr. Calvert. Sure. And by the way, you can also create, in
    many instances, in these programs with high school and
    community college, an apprentice program where they can
    actually earn some money at the same time and learn the
    process, for instance, welding, be an assistant welder, learn
    how to do that. And by the time they get their 2-year degree
    they are making 75,000 to 100,000 bucks a year, which is not
    bad.

                   RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION OF AI WORKFORCE

        Dr. Griffiths, the Senate recently appropriated a bill in
    2022 that includes $100 million to enhance the Department's
    recruitment and retention of an AI-literate acquisition
    workforce. And I think that AI needs to be rapidly developed
    and integrated into the workforce, especially if we are going
    to maintain our superiority over threats like China.
        Could you speak to how these funds could be utilized in the
    Department? And should the funding be included in the
    conference agreement?
        This is for Dr. Griffiths.
        Ms. Griffiths. There is always somebody who forgets to
    switch it on, and I apologize for that. Thank you.
        Yes. There are a tremendous number of needs for recruiting
    the AI talent in the Department of Defense. I believe that the
    funding should be spent in a number of areas. We have both the
    recruitment of new talent and the identification and education
    and training of the talent that already exists within the DOD.
        The problem with the government, the military and civilian,
    is we are not fully aware of what digital talent already
    exists. There are a number of different ways in which that
    money could be developed and fed into programs, including
    creating a Digital Corps within every branch of the service and
    within every branch of government so that you organize the
    workforce so that people can come in and be deployed, depending
    on the talent that they already have, the existing talent.
        The second would, in fact, be those career fields, because
    right now you simply cannot move forward within the Federal
    Government to pursue your career along those lines,
    particularly in the military. Like the Medical Corps, what we
    have recommended is a Digital Corps like the Medical Corps
    where you can pursue your entire career in the digital field
    that you have capabilities in.
        And then we also have recommended, as I mentioned, the
    National Digital Reserve Corps and the U.S. Digital Service
    Academy for really expanding efforts to bring talented people
    into the government. We believe that the National Digital
    Reserve Corps would be very effective in allowing people in
    business and industry and academe to provide some resources to
    the government for periods of time.
        We believe that people--we have talked to many, many
    different people in industry and in academe who are very, very
    willing to serve government, just not necessarily on a full-
    time basis. But what they are challenged by are the kinds of
    challenges that the government faces and the Nation faces as a
    whole.
        Attracting people who are attracted to that kind of
    challenge would actually expand the workforce at a time when it
    is going to be very, very hard to build the sufficient capacity
    that we need in the short period of time. After all, we are 5
    years behind China right now, and we have a deficit to make up.
    We need to move pretty quickly.
        Mr. Calvert. That I would agree with. I hope we are not 5
    years behind China, but that is what people say.
        And retention is a problem obviously in the government
    because there is such demand in the private sector for those
    who receive that education. We have to keep up with pay and
    benefits to maintain that workforce.

                                   SHIPYARDS

        And we mentioned the shipyards. I was over at a shipyard
    recently, and this weird competition for those who are in the
    government to those that are working in the shipyard. It is
    right there in the facilities themselves.
        Mr. Beale, you are aware the Navy has failed to deliver a
    long-term shipbuilding plan to Congress. What impact does it
    have on your workforce when you are unable to adequately rely
    on a stable shipbuilding plan that we don't have here in our
    budget? Are you able to answer that question, Mr. Beale?
        Mr. Beale. Yes, thanks for that question, sir.
        It has a significant impact on our ability to plan and
    really get out there and start working with the pipelines to
    develop the labor resources that we need to go execute on these
    programs.
        I will go back a second, though, because that lack of
    having that solidified plan there impedes our ability to
    address some of the things that were spoken about earlier with
    respect to moving our engagement efforts to the left.
        Right now is the time for us to be engaging with our
    shipbuilders that we need in 5 years. We should be engaging
    with them in middle school into high school with those pipeline
    programs to start introducing them to the skilled trades,
    allowing them to start to work and perfect on those skills so
    that when they actually enter the workforce, that those
    individuals are adding value from day one and we are not
    spending significant time once they come into the company to
    train them.
        Mr. Calvert. I agree. We need to move quickly to counter
    the Chinese aggression in the Pacific. We need more ships,
    quite frankly, and your comment on the workforce constraints
    that you are experiencing and what our private shipyards need
    in order to keep pace with China.
        If we are going to put a lot of people to work, we can
    start building a lot of ships. These are good jobs. We should
    be up to two ships a month, like China right now is developing
    24 to 30 capable warships per year. And so that is a very
    difficult situation.
        With that, Mr. Ryan, I will be happy to yield back to you.
        Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
        Next is Mr. Ruppersberger.
        Ms. McCollum [presiding]. And, Mr. Ryan, I am back if you
    want to go vote.
        Mr. Ryan. Okay. Thank you, Chairwoman.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I am going to go vote too.
        Ms. McCollum. It appears, looking at my screen, that Mr.
    Cuellar is not here, Mr. Ruppersberger is not here. So we will
    go to Ms. Kaptur.

                                INNOVATIVE IDEAS

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. What an
    excellent hearing.
        My fundamental question to all the witnesses, as they
    listen to one another, I would like to know which ideas float
    to the top.
        Many of you, as I read your testimony, there are so many
    different suggestions. It is not cohesive. It is not woven
    together. And so I would be interested in knowing what you drew
    from others' testimony that you think are the most important.
        I loved Mr. Beale's use of the barbell explanation. We have
    certain people in the field now, but yet there is this little
    line in the middle, which is the middle class, and then there
    is everybody else at the other end of the barbell, and we are
    not recruiting heavily in that arena. That was a very important
    point.
        We know that in the auto technical sector we lack, just
    between 2020--by 2024, 642,000 auto mechanics and technicians
    we don't have. We know in aerospace we lack right now--40
    percentage of manufacturers have shortages. We will lack in
    high skills 1.2 million very shortly, and in lower skilled
    aerospace, 3.3 million individuals. In welding we are by 2024
    to be 400,000 short in a career where you can get cancer
    because of the fumes. We know we have these massive needs.
        I also know that Mr. Carlisle talked about his relative who
    has a three-dimensional mind. We also know that children who
    are mechanically inclined and tactile and can work in more than
    one dimension, we know that sometimes when they are as young as
    2 years old.
        But our whole educational system is turned upside down.
    Those talents aren't appreciated even with young students. So
    by the time they are old enough to get in STEM programs and all
    the rest of it, it is already too late. It is already too late.
        You are all heads of major organizations. What are the most
    important steps we can take?
        I sort of like the idea, Mr. Beale, that you had that in
    communities that have a defense presence--and you know what?
    That is one of the few presences I even have in my district,
    not massive bases but at least something where we could pull
    together defense contractors, defense base personnel, and maybe
    have a day or a 3-day period where we would focus on these
    skills working with the Department of Defense.
        I am just thinking, how do we make this operational at the
    local level where people live and where educational systems
    vary in capability?
        You are up there at MIT, Mr. Bonvillian, one of my alma
    maters, and I know how sophisticated that is. I was in Building
    7. It doesn't pan out in every community in the country.
        Let me ask you, from what you have heard, what are the most
    important steps? We have talked about AI. We have talked about
    shipbuilding.

                             WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

        If you had to advise the President, what would you say in
    terms of workforce development? What are the most salient ideas
    that we, as Members, can act on?
        Mr. Bonvillian. Congresswoman, I think that is a crucial
    question, and I do think there are threads that connect all of
    our witness points here.
        A lot of us have pointed to the need for a much stronger
    technical workforce. And you pointed out we are not creating
    the numbers in that workforce that we need to get to the
    advances that we have to reach, and that is a deep problem. So
    if we continue operating at the same scale, we are just not
    going to get there.
        And then, in addition to the defense workforce and the
    manufacturing workforce in general, the manufacturing workforce
    faces a shortage just because of retirements, between 2 and 4
    million over the next decade.
        We can't just keep the existing system going. We are going
    to have to scale this thing up if it is going to work.
        New education technologies, including online and virtual
    and augmented reality, computer gaming, digital tutors, all
    offer opportunities to scale up beyond our additional system.
        Manufacturing and other industrial trades are going to
    require blended learning. They are going to require online and
    face to face where we can move a lot of material onto the
    online pieces. I think that will help in scaling.
        We are going to need short courses that take weeks and
    months, not years, to fit the kind of timetable that students
    have. And particularly we are going to need to upskill a lot of
    our existing workforce in these new technologies and new areas
    that are coming on.
        They are not going to be able to take a year off. We are
    going to need to size those and put them into modules that can
    be stacked and move towards credit and build, importantly,
    industry-recognized credentials into those programs so that
    industry can recognize transferable credits, transferable
    skills, and act on them quickly and hire quickly.
        Those are a few, I think, of the key things we need to
    undertake for our technical workforce. We have got a lot to do
    with community colleges. We have got a lot to do with lifelong
    learning. But I think those three pieces could be components in
    trying to get there.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole.

                     PROGRAMS FOR CIVILIAN DEFENSE WORKERS

        Mr. Cole. Thank you. Appreciate that.
        My first question would be directed to Dr. Griffiths and
    Mr. Bonvillian.
        Do either of the institutions that you represent have
    specific programs that are targeted towards turning out
    civilian defense workers, particularly in areas like
    engineering, cybersecurity, computer programming, those sorts
    of things, or do you just do it in general for your student
    body?
        Mr. Bonvillian. Mr. Cole, I can start on that answer.
        Yeah, we do have all those specialized skill areas and are
    paying, frankly, a lot of attention to scaling up and are
    starting a whole new College of Computing around information
    technologies.
        But, in addition, MIT is tackling a big task in developing
    online education technologies. That is the part of MIT that I
    actually work in.
        We have now created--there are 11,000 people on the campus
    at MIT, but we literally reach millions through our online
    education programs that all meet MIT quality.
        And then, in addition, MIT is cooperating with a lot of
    programs, a number of programs that help on the skilled
    technical workforce.
        So, for example, I am involved in a program that DOD is
    supporting in part called MassBridge. The aim of that--and
    Massachusetts is the eighth-largest defense contracting State,
    very strong defense companies in the State, very real needs,
    particularly in the aerospace area for a skilled workforce.
        MassBridge wants to develop a program across the community
    colleges and Massachusetts high schools and vocational schools
    that will greatly increase the number and increase the new
    advanced manufacturing skill base in the State by bringing
    programs to the community colleges and secondary schools, as
    well as State colleges, in advanced manufacturing, the precise
    kind of skill sets that this high end defense sector in the
    State really has need for.
        So, a statewide program to pursue, to really put in place a
    program to educate for advanced manufacturing is something
    Massachusetts is trying to do. Some other States are trying to
    do this, too. But I think getting to the manufacturing skill
    base, that advanced manufacturing skill base, will be key.
        Ms. Griffiths. If I could add to that. Dakota State
    University in the most recent mission set in 1984 was actually
    to prepare people to work in the computing industry. We have a
    number of programs across the sectors heavy in computer science
    and cybersecurity.
        But one of the things about South Dakota is that we don't
    have a community college system, so the public higher education
    system fills that role. And so my university offers everything
    from associate degrees all the way through Ph.D.s.
        We do have a number of dual credit programs, so high
    schoolers can accelerate. We have a program that was set in
    place of working with the local technical colleges for
    stackable credentials so that students of whatever age can
    actually take a course, gather their credentials, and stack
    those credentials over time going in and out of the workforce
    according to their timeframe. And we paired that with a program
    of apprenticeships with businesses and industry around,
    including the potential for some online apprenticeships.
        We have just established what we might call a rapid
    response noncredit educational program for workforce
    development in our region and in our State which is aimed to be
    very, very responsive to workforce needs with courses that can
    be developed very, very quickly, deployed very quickly, and
    used for reskilling, upskilling, looking at the retired
    workforce and bringing some of them back.
        There are a lot of pockets of this kind of innovation going
    on around the United States where particularly smaller
    institutions who are able to move a little bit more quickly
    than the larger institutions. There is a lot of innovation
    around.
        We are part of several consortia of schools that are
    developing these programs and collaborating with others in the
    area of computing and cybersecurity in particular, but we have
    our artificial intelligence degrees available in those areas as
    well.

                 COORDINATION BETWEEN DOD AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS

        Mr. Cole. I am curious if outside of DOD itself--I sit on
    the committee that funds Department of Labor, Department of
    Education as well. Is there any coordination between DOD and
    these other departments, who have quite a lot of money to be
    able to do specific programs, to address the defense worker
    shortage? My guess is no.
        Mr. Bonvillian. Well, Congressman, there is a new attempt
    to put together an interagency task force to really start to
    develop, you know, common programs and programs that match up
    better across these agencies.
        We don't really have that now; you are right. But I think
    there is a growing awareness that programs at the Department of
    Education that focus, frankly, on college education, at the
    Department of Labor that focus on underemployed workers, that
    those need to mesh better, they need to talk to each other. And
    then, secondly, the defense needs in areas like advanced
    manufacturing and new technology skills are going to have to
    draw on the programs that exist.
        There is an effort that has begun on an interagency basis
    to try and make those programs pull better together.
        Mr. Cole. Is there something we could do that would
    facilitate that, speed that up, and, you know, help with that
    kind of coordination?
        Mr. Bonvillian. You know, I think you all could really
    insist that the executive branch pursue it and provide, you
    know, some, you know--look at the possibility of providing
    funding support for programs that get to this complementarity
    that we really need across our programs. Because they really
    don't work together well now, and they need to.
        Mr. Cole. Yes. I think that is something we ought to look
    at.
        Let me go to----
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Cole? Mr. Cole?
        Mr. Cole. Yes.
        Ms. McCollum. I am sorry. You are over time.
        Mr. Cole. Okay. That is fine. Thank you very much, Madam
    Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. We have language in the report language that
    starts in our bill, I am going to need your help when we go to
    conference with the Senate to keep that moving forward. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Cole. You have it.
        Ms. McCollum. I do not see Mr. Ruppersberger or Mr.
    Cuellar. That makes you winner, Mr. Aguilar. I am going to let
    you go before me, because I have already voted.

                            PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Aguilar. Alrighty. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Beale, you talked a little bit about some of the
    programs and some of the efforts that you have on the
    shipbuilding side. Can you talk to me a little bit about
    Newport News Shipbuilding and the Huntington Ingalls
    relationship and, how you are providing professional
    development through your careers, specifically with the
    companies?
        The apprenticeship schools, in particular, have allowed
    some of these opportunities to pursue bachelor's degrees while
    folks are building their career. Can you can you talk about
    some of the successes of those programs? And, you know, what
    have you learned that could apply to some of your other peers,
    as well, within industry?
        Mr. Beale. Absolutely. Thank you for that question as well.
        We definitely recognize the benefit in lifelong learning,
    in career development. And Newport News Shipbuilding here, as
    part of HI, we spend approximately $100 million annually in
    training and development of our workforce.
        That includes continuing education outside of the company,
    where individuals can go and pursue associate's degrees,
    bachelor's degrees, to kind of better prepare them for the next
    position that they are actually interested in and to strengthen
    their overall knowledge in some of the positions that they are
    in.
        But I will talk about the apprentice school for a second,
    since you asked specifically about that. Our apprentice school
    has been around since 1919 and is the foundation or the
    cornerstone of our leadership factory here at the company.
        We invest vigorously in that program. We have roughly 27
    programs in our apprentice school. And so, these are
    individuals that actually compete to come into the school, with
    about 10-percent acceptance rate over at the apprentice school.
    Many people will be surprised to recognize that 10 percent of
    their entrants actually already have bachelor's degrees as they
    come into the program.
        But our program again, we have 27 programs, 26 of which,
    when individuals complete those programs, they are actually
    coming out with accredited associate's degrees. That is
    something that we recently got awarded. As well as, we have one
    of our advanced optional programs, that individuals completing
    our marine engineering program will finish the apprentice
    school with an accredited engineering degree.
        We believe in lifelong learning. We invest in it in the
    company. And we see the value of that from a retention
    standpoint with our organization, as well as growth and
    development.

                 SMALL COMPANIES' INVESTMENT INTO THE WORKFORCE

        Mr. Aguilar. What would be your advice to small companies
    who contract with DOD on efforts that they can take to continue
    to make, you know, investments in their workforce?
        Mr. Beale. I think that is key. We talked a little earlier
    with respect to retention and the war in talent. One of the
    things we are proud of here at the company, although we invest
    that amount in continuing education with our workforce, there
    are no requirements for individuals to remain with the company
    after they have completed their educational pursuits.
        And what we look at that from a--and, really, that is not
    just Newport News; that is the corporate perspective, as well,
    from HII--is we see those intangible benefits from that.
    Because those employees are staying with the company. They are
    actually some of your best advertisement when you are going
    out, looking to attract talent to the company as well.
        We see the value of that. And I would encourage other
    organizations that may not invest in their people in that
    manner that it is a wise investment. The return on it is pretty
    significant.

                            DIVERSE CYBER WORKFORCE

        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Griffiths, I wanted to ask you: One of my priorities
    has been building a diverse cyber workforce in the Federal
    Government that includes some local universities--a very
    parochial interest of mine--like Cal State San Bernardino that
    seeks to build partnerships with the Department of Defense and
    other Federal agencies.
        Can you talk to me a little bit about, you know, the lens
    of workforce specialized within AI and how we can support
    professional development within DOD to ensure that we maintain
    a diverse AI workforce that builds careers within the
    Department?
        Ms. Griffiths. Thank you for that question.
        Yes, the defense AI workforce consists of researchers,
    implementers, and deployment specialists who are needed to
    create and maintain AI solutions within the military; the
    senior leaders, junior leaders, and end users needed to shape
    the adoption and responsible use of AI solutions; and then the
    acquisition and contracting personnel needed to quickly and
    effectively purchase solutions.
        The Department of Defense needs to recruit and train its
    researchers, implementers, and deployment specialists until
    they have enough proficient technologists to envision, actually
    envision, and create solutions the Department needs. So, one is
    sort of a get through, implement what we have, and then look to
    the future.
        But it also needs to train and educate its leaders and end
    users until they can understand how AI can transform their
    organizations, manage that transformation, and then use AI
    responsibly and effectively.
        And, most importantly, it needs to incentivize AI and other
    emerging technology literacy among its senior leaders. And a
    good point today is that kind of incentivization is just
    lacking.
        Mr. Aguilar. Thank you so much.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        I don't see Mr. Womack, so that puts it to you, Mr. Carter.
    And then, after Carter, Mr. Kilmer.
        Mr. Carter.

                        COMMUNICATION GAPS AND SOLUTIONS

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam--am I on? Okay. Thank you,
    Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Bonvillian, you noted in your testimony that small
    firms are largely unable to support workforce education in new
    manufacturing technologies unless they have orders in place
    requiring these new technologies.
        I think this is a good example of the communication gap
    that exists between DOD and small business. They want to
    support the mission. Can you share with us recommendations on
    ways to close this gap?
        Mr. Bonvillian. Thank you, Congressman. You have pointed
    to, I think, a very critical problem.
        The large manufacturers, including DOD's larger
    manufacturers, are moving ahead on, you know, implementing
    higher productivity technologies, but the smaller manufacturers
    are really kind of falling behind. They are not able to adapt
    to these new advanced manufacturing technologies, in
    particular, at the pace that we need.
        And since small manufacturers produce about, I think it is
    46 percent of U.S. industrial output, you know, we have a real
    supply-chain problem unless we bring the small manufacturers
    along with the large ones. And a core problem there is on the
    workforce education side.
        Now, small manufacturers are not going to move on providing
    new kind of workforce education for new technologies unless
    they have the new technologies. DOD programs that encourage
    manufacturers, you know, and particularly small ones, to adopt
    these new technologies--digital production, robotics, additive,
    and so on, we need to encourage that technology to get
    embedded, because that is a real boost to move small
    manufacturers to get the training for their workforces that
    they need.
        Now, we have seen a number of States that have moved on
    apprenticeship programs--South Carolina, North Carolina,
    Minnesota, Colorado, a number of others. I have spent time in
    South Carolina, and South Carolina has a State-wide
    apprenticeship program that reaches all of their manufacturers,
    small and large. And it is a very impressive program.
        I spent time in Charleston, South Carolina, where they are
    developing a youth apprenticeship program that starts in the
    junior year of high school. And these kids, you know, spend the
    morning at high school--and, by the way, their employers in the
    apprenticeship programs tell them they have to take science and
    math courses. Midday, they take the technical courses at the
    nearby technical college. Then later in the afternoon, they go
    to their company, where they are earning quite good wages. So
    it takes the high school experience, which can often be
    disruptive--takes those high school students and puts them into
    much more mature environments.
        And South Carolina has been able to make this program work
    not just with large employers like, you know, Boeing or
    Mercedes in the Charleston area, or Volvo, but also with a
    whole group of smaller employers, the supplier base. And these
    employers have been the ones that have been the strongest
    initial supporters of these apprenticeship programs, because
    they have a workforce shortage problem, they have a workforce
    skills problem. The apprenticeship programs help them to get
    their workforce where they need to go.
        So, Congressman, I think these kinds of apprenticeship
    programs that the States can help encourage could be very key.
    And the Labor Department has got an apprenticeship program, of
    course, and that needs to be built and expanded. And DOD--it
    fits right into DOD's needs. And its programs, the assets that
    I describe in my written testimony, can pick up on these
    apprenticeship programs.

                               CAPITAL INVESTMENT

        Mr. Carter. Yes. And I agree with you on the apprenticeship
    solution to the labor issue, but what about the capital
    investment in robotics and machinery without having a contract
    in hand?
        Mr. Bonvillian. That capital investment is a key problem,
    particularly for smaller firms, there is no question about it.
    And we don't really have a good financing mechanism for that,
    which is an issue area we need to think about, because those
    capital investments, in turn, will help drive workforce
    investments too. I agree there is an issue and a gap here.
        Mr. Carter. Making them partner with bigger players is not
    really their contract.
        I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Yes, capital investment is also a problem for
    the technical colleges too. We have to figure out a way to
    address that.
        Mr. Kilmer, and then, if people come back, it will be in
    this order--Womack, Aderholt, Diaz-Balart--on the Republican
    side.
        Mr. Kilmer.

              APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM AT PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD

        Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. And thank you to you and
    to the ranking member for having the hearing on, I think, what
    is a really important and interesting topic.
        I want to apologize if it looks like I am on my cell phone
    from the phone booth in the Cloakroom. It is because I am. My
    office is far away in Rayburn. I might as well be in Delaware.
        I also just want to thank those who referenced the value of
    apprenticeships. The committee took a trip, and I was grateful
    to my colleagues for coming out o Puget Sound Naval Shipyard.
    Their apprenticeship program is just gangbusters. They have
    done a fantastic job partnering with Olympic College, offering,
    you know, high-skilled, specialized apprenticeship
    opportunities. Graduates get an associate's in technical arts
    and a journey-level certification through DOL. About a quarter
    of the workforce there has gone through that.
        And, Mr. Beale, I particularly appreciated your comments
    around how Huntington Ingalls is also leveraging
    apprenticeships, so thank you for that.
        And thanks, Mr. Aguilar, for bringing that up.

                     INNOVATIVE LEARNING WORKFORCE RESULTS

        I guess the other thing I wanted to just raise Mr.
    Bonvillian, I will take this question to you. I am really
    struck that the ability for, you know, our Department of
    Defense to prevail on any number of its missions depends on
    cutting-edge innovation within our technical base. And that
    requires fostering innovative learning opportunities for the
    workforce.
        You know, what we have seen, at least from what I can tell,
    is the DOD investing in STEM education opportunities in K-12,
    in higher ed. You know, beyond the educational infrastructure
    that it owns, for example, the war colleges, the Department
    partners with all levels of public and private civilian
    institutions.
        I guess my question is this: How are we doing? You know,
    will these investments in education programs meet the need? Do
    you have a sense of how Congress ought to measure return on
    investment? You know, as we look at these programs, does
    Congress need to provide the Department any authorities or
    resources it doesn't have, particularly so that it can
    anticipate future needs and target its education efforts
    accordingly?
        Mr. Bonvillian. Congressman, I have paid particular
    attention to the advanced manufacturing institutes, and there
    are nine that the Department of Defense sponsors. And DOD
    sponsors these because its manufacturers have to get to
    advanced manufacturing if they are going to stay up and if they
    are going to be able to effectively compete. And we can't, you
    know, continue this pattern, if we want to have secure supply
    chains and get to modernization, of relentless, continuing
    outsourcing. We are going to have to build our own
    capabilities. But to do that, we have to be able to compete
    effectively.
        The manufacturing institutes have taken on the role of
    nurturing these new advanced manufacturing technologies and
    moving them into the manufacturing base, including the defense
    manufacturing base. And then part of their responsibility is on
    the workforce side.
        So, in a recent National Academies study, the Academies
    recommended that the institutes--and many of them are doing
    this--need to develop, you know, a set of best practices in
    this skilled technical workforce area to develop educational
    materials that can be used by industry and by education
    institutions in these defense ecosystems, develop online
    materials to help with scale-up, develop industry-recognized
    credentials. Because, again, we don't have curriculum in these
    new advanced areas; it has to get built in large part, right?
        And to implement this, they need to form regional
    engagements, the Academies recommended--and many institutes are
    doing this--with area industry, with area educational
    institutions. And they have to map skill demand and develop
    skill roadmaps that, in turn, tie to their technical advanced
    manufacturing roadmaps as well, right?
        I think those skilled roadmaps that will plot demand and
    the way demand is being met is a great way to get to the
    metrics part of your question. We don't measure this now, but
    the institutes could start measuring in these advanced
    technology fields to the extent that we are bringing our
    workforce on and it is meeting the numbers that our
    manufacturers are going to require.
        Mr. Kilmer. Anything further you think Congress ought to do
    on this front, in the 20 seconds I have left?
        Mr. Bonvillian. You know, I mentioned four assets that DOD
    has got: you know, its IBAS program; these amazing service
    training development centers that are in Orlando that develop
    VI and AI and digital learning technologies for military
    training; the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation;
    and the manufacturing institutes at ManTech. These are all
    assets that could be deployed by DOD, given additional
    resources, that start to meet the scale of the problem that we
    really now face.
        I would look hard at--there are a number of other programs,
    of course; I have just mentioned four. But I think those
    programs are certainly worthy of a close look and potential
    scale-up to really meet this problem.
        Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you.
        I do not see Mr. Womack--I am going to go slow in case they
    pop up--or Mr. Aderholt or Mr. Diaz-Balart, Mr. Ruppersberger
    or Mr. Cuellar.
        I am going to ask kind of a summarizing question of all
    three of you. Just maybe take a minute, minute and a half.

                          WHOLE-OF-GOVERNMENT APPROACH

        What I am kind of hearing from you is there needs to be
    whole-of-government approach--local government, State
    government, Federal Government. And all of our government
    approaches also have, you know, the dotted line to working with
    the business community for economic development. They also have
    a dotted line to education, whether it is high school, whether
    it is technical school, whether it is college.
        The DOD needs a better workforce to be ready for the
    future. Our industries need a better workforce to go into the
    future. We are going to be talking to our next panel, where
    they have actually kind of put a committee and looked at it
    together.
        But if you have one idea of something that you think works
    well and we should build on it, or one thing that you think we
    are missing that this committee should be looking at--and we
    are going to have to talk to our sister organizations here in
    Appropriations, the Department of Labor, Education. We are
    going to have to speak with the authorizers, as well, too.
        Just take a minute, maybe give us your, you know, wishlist
    of something that you would like to really see us home in on.
    And we can start in the opposite order of which people gave
    their testimony, and we will start with you, sir, Mr. Carlisle.
        General Carlisle. Madam Chairwoman, thank you very much.
        You know, I think--and it was highlighted by my esteemed
    colleagues on the witness panel here. You know, it really is--
    you mentioned it. It is a whole-of-government--it is actually a
    whole-of-country approach. And I think that is what it needs to
    be.
        I almost feel like it is almost a Manhattan--I know that is
    used a lot, but the Manhattan Project-type discussion, because
    it really does take the interagency to work together.
    Obviously, it takes Congress on legislation and appropriations
    to be able to put it together. And then it takes industry input
    as well.
        You know, we reacted, in the pandemic, with things like the
    Paycheck Protection Program and things like that. If you talk
    about capital investment and the ability to do advanced
    manufacturing, if you talk about internships and
    apprenticeships, if you talk about small business having a
    problem bridging the valley of death or awaiting clearance--so
    if there is a way, with industry contributing and the
    government contributing, to kind of put together a holistic
    plan.
        You know, there are some great ideas out there that work
    individually in regional areas with respect to the CTE. There
    are some great programs in STEM education. I think we need to
    continue to work on diversity within our workforce and really
    getting to every bit of the talent pools that exist out there,
    the people that don't have the opportunity because they just
    don't know that these opportunities exist. And then, you know,
    what the work environment is going to be like in the future
    with machine learning, AI, automation, and robotics as we move
    forward.
        But it really has to be, in my opinion, a whole-of-country
    approach, because we are in a competition that we have to--we
    have to do something to that effect, because the workforce and
    the innovation that exists inside the American public is really
    our answer to this competition that we are in. So I do think it
    is that approach and how do you bring all those together in a
    consolidated, holistic approach to the challenge.
        Ms. McCollum. Mr. Beale.
        Mr. Beale. Great question, Madam Chairman, and I completely
    agree that this has to be a holistic approach.
        And to take on your question about one thing, if I had one
    thing that I would recommend, it would be looking at the
    successes that we have had in different parts of the country
    from a regional approach perspective.
        And we talked earlier about some of the things that we are
    doing with early identification, early introduction to STEM.
    And, obviously, that ``M'' is more than mathematics; it is
    manufacturing as well. But when we are looking at the here and
    now--because right now we have a significant deficit across the
    country when we are looking skilled labor.
        And one solution to that--and we have seen success in other
    parts of the country--is a regional approach with regional
    training facilities. And those training facilities can really
    alter the state-of-the-art training that we need to accelerate
    the learning and the growth that we actually have and the
    industrial base with our skilled trades.
        One such example of that is some of the pilot things that
    we are doing here in Virginia, down in Danville, with the
    accelerated training center that we have down there for skilled
    trades. When I look at a region such as we have here in Hampton
    Roads, in the hub of maritime employers that we have here,
    there is a great opportunity to establish something like that
    right here with the work going on.
        One of the things I would offer, though, as we are looking
    to develop those regional training facilities, that we think
    about equity in access as well. Because there are barriers out
    there to some of our most underserved communities. And ensuring
    that we actually have solutions that enable them to take
    advantage of these training programs is going to be paramount
    to the success of those individuals, the industrial base, and
    communities in which we all live.
        Ms. McCollum. Very true. I have a lot of first- and second-
    generation Americans whose families don't even know what an
    apprenticeship program or a trade school is, or people who,
    because of at times the lack of mobility in our society, don't
    have family members or--and so times it makes a difference for
    people to even know there are jobs out there. So well-said, and
    thank you for saying that.
        Dr. Griffiths.
        Ms. Griffiths. Thank you. Yes, I agree in the whole-of-
    America approach, in a way. I think this requires bold moves.
    Things are moving quickly, especially in other countries, and
    China is not the only country that we compete with.
        I think if I were to have one recommendation, it would be
    our recommendation on the National Defense Education Act,
    version 2. The first one came about just after World War II and
    was focused on STEM education and language education. And our
    recommendation is to focus this on STEM and AI and software
    development and those kinds of careers.
        To me, if we don't focus on the future, we will never build
    a sustainable workforce. We will just only fix it with a Band-
    Aid short-term. And to really address this issue in the long
    term, we really have to get to K-12 education. We need to
    improve the teachers and give the teachers at those levels the
    skills they need to be able to teach. We need to expose young
    people to the range of opportunities that exist and will exist.
        And, you know, just in the final statement, only 42 percent
    of Americans earn any degree of any kind, and we don't want to
    leave 58 percent behind.
        I think we do need this all-of-government approach, involve
    industry, involve academia, and focus on the next generation.
    But that will only work if the government reorganizes and
    reforms itself to be able to accept the young people who are
    going to develop skills in those areas, so it is a two-part
    recommendation.
        Ms. McCollum. Ken, you had a few members who hadn't asked
    questions yet. We were trying to find out if they were staying
    for the second vote and coming back: Mr. Womack, Mr. Aderholt,
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. We are in touch with Ruppersberger and
    Cuellar's office.
        Mr. Calvert. Yes, Dutch just got back. I just did the
    second vote, so I am good.
        Ms. McCollum. You are good. Okay.
        So have we heard from any of the other offices?
        No, we have not.
        Mr. Ruppersberger, if your office is listening and you are
    on the way back for questions?
        Mr. Calvert. He should be there. We walked up together.
        Ms. McCollum. I will give him another second, because he
    is--I just got something in the chat.
        You should have seen Members of Congress when we first did
    our virtual hearings. It was not beautiful. This one is rough
    because of votes, but the other ones are really bad.
        So Mr. Ruppersberger will be with us in just a minute.
        And here he is.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I am here now.
        Ms. McCollum. Okay. I knew you would have great questions,
    so I wanted to wait for you. So you get the last question.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. I was thinking about it, walking over
    from the vote, on the elevator. So here it goes. You ready?
        Ms. McCollum. All right.

             NATIONAL SECURITY MISSION HIRING FOR RECENT GRADUATES

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Good.
        Well, first thing, I thank the panel for being here. This
    is something very important to the future of our national
    security, and I am glad we have this topic.
        To the panelists, thank you for your time today and lending
    us your expertise as we discuss this very important topic on
    better preparing the next generation to lead our great country
    in the matters of national security.
        Mr. Bonvillian and Dr. Griffiths, from the academic point
    of view, I consistently hear from colleges and universities in
    my district that they have very little ability to engage their
    students with DOD missions and research until those students
    are employed directly on a DOD program.
        My question is, what can the Department of Defense do to
    better engage with undergraduate and graduate students jointly
    on research, with the aim to better excite these students to
    come to work for the government on a national security mission
    once they obtain their degrees?
        To the whole panel.
        Ms. Griffiths. Shall I jump in? Thank you for that
    question.
        I think one of the best ways to engage students while they
    are still in school would be to make their professors, their
    faculty members, more aware of the opportunities. So we have
    seen a program where our faculty go and work with one or
    another agency during the summer, come back and bring those
    ideas back to their students, and then their students engage in
    summer internships and get a real sense of what is going on
    with practical internships.
        What we found, then, is those students are often selected
    to get their clearances early, and many of them have their
    clearances by the end of their third year. And many of them
    also have a job offer by the end of their third year.
        I think making the faculty members more aware of the
    opportunities will bring along a bunch of students at a time,
    rather than focusing on single students at a time. That is one
    of the ways we do it.
        Mr. Bonvillian. Congressman, I just wanted to echo Ms.
    Griffiths' comments there, that that would be--I think that
    internship and personal experience kinds of program, if they
    could be more broadly offered, that is a great way to introduce
    talented students to DOD-hard, DOD-complex problems.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Good.
        Anyone else?
        General Carlisle. Yes, Representative Ruppersberger, Hawk
    Carlisle here. It is good to see you again, sir. It has been a
    while since we have traveled together.
        But I think that, you know, part of this is on DOD. I think
    DOD needs to really reach out. There is so much being done in
    academic institutions and so many opportunities. I think there
    are some programs episodic, as Ms. Griffiths said, but I think
    if there is a broader push on DOD to get out to these
    universities--and it is my--I mean, bring some of these
    educators out to see what we are doing with the equipment or
    with the technology that is being developed.
        So, you know, it is really an outreach on the part of DOD
    to really spend time and effort in showcasing what we are doing
    and what we are trying to do and have that interaction and get
    a better view of DOD inside of the academic institutions and
    certainly with the educators and the students.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I agree. That is why I asked the
    question.
        I am chair of the Naval Academy Board, and I know Steve
    Womack is chair of the West Point Board. And we have----
        Ms. McCollum. So----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah?
        Ms. McCollum. I can't hear anybody right now.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Can you hear? Hello? Betty?
        Is China involved with this?
        I think Betty--well, can everybody else hear me? Well, let
    me finish this question.
        And, Dr. Griffiths, what I was saying about the boards,
    they have a summer program where a lot of people who want to go
    come and they learn about the institutions. And I think we have
    to do the same thing a lot more aggressively with other
    colleges, and especially where we need engineers and people
    like that.
        With your background, Dr. Griffiths, though, you likely
    understand better than most about how easy of a time these
    high-skilled workers with technical degrees have finding jobs
    in the private sector with extremely high compensation, and the
    government will never be able to compete with these salaries.
        What are the drivers to attracting these workers? We always
    hear "the mission," but a lot of times they don't become aware
    of the missions until they are hired. How do we fix that?
        Ms. Griffiths. Yes, you are absolutely right,
    Representative----
        Ms. Griffiths. Shall I go ahead? Okay.
        I think you are absolutely right; it is making people
    aware. And I think if you wanted to formalize this----
        Ms. McCollum. We have a vote going on, so----
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Keep talking.
        Ms. Griffiths. Keep going?
        This was the idea behind the civilian National Digital
    Reserve service, if you wanted to formalize that kind of
    relationship between academia and the government. So, that is
    what we were hoping would happen as a result of that.
        I think the other opportunity exists for the DOD to
    recognize that some of their existing employees could, in fact,
    do a sort of top-up and get the additional qualifications
    through a relationship with academia.
        And a number of academic institutions have done a lot of
    work to understand the technical education and training that it
    is received in the military and to create the equivalencies in
    their own academic programs. So we have a number of
    articulation agreements with the National Security Agency, with
    the Community College of the Air Force, et cetera, where people
    can top up their credentials, if you like, and earn the
    remainder of their degree online while they are working in the
    government.
        There is a two-way effect there. And I think bringing the
    government workers together with academics will improve the
    situation.
        Mr. Ruppersberger [presiding]. Okay. Good. I thank you for
    your answers.
        And the committee now is going to take a brief recess.
        [Recess.]

                       Opening Remarks of Chair McCollum

        Ms. McCollum [presiding]. This hearing will resume and come
    back to order.
        I wish I could have thanked a little more eloquently the
    first panel for what they did. They were so patient. It was a
    great discussion and something to be followed up with and ask
    the authorizers also to look into this issue, as well as on the
    education and workforce authorization committee.
        We are going to start the second panel. I see you are all
    present. We are done voting, so you won't face the disruptions
    that the first panel had.
        We are pleased to welcome today four distinguished
    individuals as witnesses. And the subcommittee wants to thank
    each and every one of you for your service.
        In the last panel, we heard many different ideas that were
    presented to address our defense workforce development
    challenges. And if you had an opportunity to hear them and hear
    the questions, I know you will be taking a lot of what was
    discussed in consideration when you are delivering your
    challenges for the Department.
        Under Secretary Cisneros should be presenting testimony on
    behalf of the Department and the services. And we have other
    people also participating: Under Secretary of the Department of
    Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones; Mr. Christopher Lowman, senior
    official performing the duties of Under Secretary for the
    Department of the Army; and Ms. Meredith Berger, the senior
    official performing the duties of Under Secretary for the
    Department of the Navy.
        We want to thank you all for being here.
        And we will start off with Under Secretary Cisneros.

                 Summary Statement of Under Secretary Cisneros

        Mr. Cisneros. Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert,
    and members of this distinguished subcommittee, I appreciate
    the opportunity to appear before you today along with my
    esteemed colleagues from the military departments to discuss
    the Department of Defense's efforts to recruit, retain, and
    develop the military and civilian workforce of the future.
        In the 2 months I have served as the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Personnel and Readiness, I am awed and humbled
    every day by our servicemembers and DOD civilians for their
    incredible talent and hard work to address new national
    security challenges.
        Yet they can only continue to do this through a sustained
    emphasis on workforce development, one that focuses on
    recruiting and retention, training, and education of a
    workforce that can compete and win against our most advanced
    competition now and in the future.
        We know we are in fierce competition for talent, and we
    must address this issue with the same urgency and emphasis we
    place on development of our weapons systems or operational
    readiness.
        From the start of this administration, the Secretary of
    Defense made it clear that taking care of our people and
    developing the workforce would be at the top of his agenda. He
    has highlighted the need for innovative thinking with respect
    to managing our people, cultivating talent, and creating new
    career paths and incentives for services both uniformed and
    civilian.
        We must drive significant shifts in the way our
    institutions think about the intersection of technology and
    personnel. We must start with how we recruit. The Department
    relies on multiple levers to support recruiting efforts,
    including financial incentives and advertising campaigns.
        We also recognized that to recruit and retain the best and
    brightest we must have a diverse and inclusive force
    representative of the Nation they serve. The Department
    leverages relationships with historically Black colleges and
    universities and minority-serving institutions to expand its
    reach across demographics and to help convey the benefit of
    military service.
        We must also remain diligent to ensure the military
    compensation package is attractive to recruit and maintain the
    talent we need today and into the future.
        In personnel readiness, we will continue to review policies
    to assist the impact of recruiting efforts, and the military
    services are using targeted retention levers to mitigate
    shortages. We also rely on a variety of programs, such as
    lateral entry, to recruit highly qualified individuals directly
    from the civilian population to fill critical requirements.
        The Department's civilian workforce is a critical element
    of the total force, performing a vital function in support of
    the warfighter. The Department recognizes the need to recruit
    the right civilian talent to maintain our competitive edge and
    succeed against modern threats.
        As critical enablers of our warfighters, DOD civilians
    serve in a wide variety of roles in areas around the country
    and the world. We must recognize them as an integral partner in
    our total force and develop lifecycle programs and pipelines
    for recruiting, retaining, re-skilling, and up-skilling, like
    we do with our military personnel.
        To achieve a competitive edge, we are investing in
    broadening and outreaching and increasing our use of skills and
    competency-based assessments. In June of this year, we launched
    the DOD civilian career website to promote civilian employment
    opportunities and career paths and to debunk the perception
    that DOD service is solely a uniformed service.
        Congress has also provided streamlined direct hiring
    authorities for high-demand skills. So, on September 30, I
    provided guidance to DOD components on maximizing the use of
    hiring flexibilities, to include direct hiring, which will
    allow us to attract and recruit civilian talent with expertise
    with AI, data science, and software development.
        The Department is proactively focused on growing and
    developing its pipeline of future talent and has seen great
    success in the use of a variety of internships, scholarships,
    and fellowship programs. DOD is currently expanding its use of
    public-private talent exchanges in order to provide
    opportunities for DOD employees to expand knowledge within
    their function areas of expertise.
        We must also provide adaptive and relevant professional
    civilian education that emphasizes innovative thinking and
    ingenuity in warfighting concepts, ensures responsible
    management of national defense assets, and builds expertise
    through a concentration on data-centric digital skills and
    culture.
        We are at the nexus of innovation workforce development for
    the Department. With our partners, my staff is working to
    support the military departments' combatant commanders and
    other elements of the Department in delivering the most
    qualified, capable, and technologically proficient force
    possible.
        We recognize that a lifecycle of investment in our
    servicemembers and their DOD civilian colleagues will allow us
    to win the battles of the future. With continued improvements,
    we believe we can ensure our Nation's military remains the
    greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.
        Thank you again for this opportunity today to showcase our
    current efforts in this area. We appreciate the subcommittee's
    continued support for the men and women who serve our great
    Nation, and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                             WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT

        Ms. McCollum. Great. Well, thank you very much.
        I am going to ask a question first. I asked the last
    question for the last panel. And I know you have other folks
    there that can chime in, if you want them, on any of the
    questions that the members ask, as I did introduce the panel
    that is on the dais with you.
        In March, Deputy Secretary Hicks established a council to
    address workforce challenges, including workforce development,
    talent management, professional military education. And the
    council has also been charged with important issues, like
    sexual assault, racism, suicide, domestic violence, and other
    things, in the military.
        Under Secretary Cisneros, the Deputy's Workforce Council
    has a lot on its plate, with the wide scope of these issues, so
    I would like to ask you: How is the Department and the council
    defining ``workforce development?'' How is the council going to
    ensure that workforce development piece is adequately addressed
    and not lost among all the other issues that you have to
    address? Does this definition match the services' understanding
    of workforce development and modernization programs?
        And can you share with us some more background on the
    composition of the council and how the services are represented
    in council meetings? In other words, with all this on your
    plate, how are you going to prioritize it?
        And I would also add--and I did a little bit when I was
    talking to you earlier--that some of the issues with racism,
    suicide, and sometimes sexual harassment, those can all be
    things that keep people in a job or out of a job. You dealing
    with those issues are important to our workforce, and I want to
    acknowledge that. But that is on your plate, along with what we
    have asked you to do.
        Mr. Cisneros. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for that
    question.
        You know, the DWC, the Deputy's Workforce Council, was
    something, when Deputy Hicks, Deputy Secretary Hicks came in,
    was sworn in, she started this and really took off and went
    running with this. She chairs the DWC with the Vice Chairman of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
        And, on the DWC, they have addressed a number of P&R
    issues, from the ones that you have suggested, whether it be
    the IRC implementation, sexual harassment, sexual assault;
    diversity, equity, and inclusion; retention and recruiting;
    childcare. There are a number of issues that we have dealt with
    on the DWC, and we will continue to deal with a number of these
    issues that affect the personnel and the readiness of the
    people that serve in the Department of Defense, both in uniform
    and the civilian colleagues.
        Workforce management is also an item that, actually, just
    recently we addressed and that we discussed. And the
    administration of the Department, from the Secretary on down,
    is dedicated to really moving the Department forward on these
    issues and really developing a way that we can not only make
    sure that we collect and have the individuals that we need and
    the talent that we need here, but, also, we need a way to
    identify what we are missing.
        There are a number of key issues that we have kind of taken
    a broad approach to, and we are now kind of working to kind of
    single in on those. You know, there are different areas of
    cyber where we need AI, you know, writing data, collecting
    data. All these areas are where we need individuals, and we
    need expertise, and we need specific expertise in these
    different areas.
        And this is one of the things that we are doing and that we
    have talked about, is how we can single in on these specific
    areas of need and really how we can take advantage of that, and
    knowing who has these expertise, both in our civilian workforce
    and in our uniformed workforce, moving forward. And, also,
    working to identify the needs that we are going to need not
    only today but in the future.
        Ms. McCollum. Great.

                   SERVICES IMPLEMENTATIONS FOR THE WORKFORCE

        So let me then just really quickly ask to some of the
    services that are on: How will what we are doing and some of
    the implementations that will come forward as you are presented
    in the future--what expectations should this committee have in
    order to support our shared mission in having a strong, vibrant
    workforce?
        That is going to probably, I would think, require some
    funding programs that will have to be identified in specific
    lines to make sure that the money stays there and that we are
    laser-focused on workforce development. Is that kind of what I
    might be expecting in the next budget? Because there has been
    such a priority, such an emphasis placed on this.
        Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, we can go to the services to let them
    talk about what funding needs they may need in order to
    implement, how we can have a more vibrant civilian workforce to
    deal with a lot of these work needs. And we can start with the
    Air Force.
        Ms. McCollum. Sure.
        Ms. Jones. Well, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your
    leadership on this issue. I know you have spent a lot of time
    making sure that we are adequately ensuring everyone can serve
    to their full potential, so I thank you for your attention
    here.
        To your specific question about a need for additional
    resources, certainly that would be helpful, as we look at
    making sure our airmen and our guardians and our civil servants
    have the resources to compete in a high-end fight. And as we
    look at being sure that we are adequately recruiting the right
    kinds of folks with specialties in AI and cyber and so forth,
    as well as making sure that we retain those folks, each of
    these things will require additional resources, so we
    appreciate your support in that regard.
        Additionally, you know, additional support, for example,
    with our ROTC programs, as well as our Junior ROTC programs. I
    think in the previous panel, many of those folks pointed to the
    fact we need to get to much further left of where we are now to
    ensure our young folks are ready to serve academically and are
    exposed to unique service opportunities in the military. And,
    certainly, we would want those folks to consider the Air Force
    and the Space Force.
        And so, additional resources, for example, in the Junior
    ROTC program, which is a significant source of diversity for
    us. Over 70 percent of those folks--excuse me--60 percent of
    those folks come from underrepresented groups. Forty percent
    are women. And so, as we inspire them to a career of public
    service, we certainly would appreciate your support in that
    regard.
        We also know that the ability to invest in these programs,
    though, will require that we divest from other programs that
    are, frankly, going to be less useful in a high-end fight,
    platforms that are not going to be survivable, relevant, or
    effective. And, as you point out, there are numerous ways in
    which we can better invest those things, to include investing
    in programs that ensure that our personnel are ready for the
    high-end fight.
        Ms. McCollum. Anyone else want to add to that, from any of
    the other services, what you have been thinking about?
        We heard ROTC, which we already fund. So, if we put extra
    in it, we are going to put strings on how that ROTC funding
    goes into ROTC plus workforce development.
        But any of the other services want to add anything to that?
        Well, hearing none, I will turn to my esteemed colleague
    from California, the ranking member.

                     CIVILIAN TO UNIFORMED PERSONNEL RATIO

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to get back on a subject that you are perfectly
    aware of, and that is, the current ratio of civilian to
    uniformed personnel is at an all-time high.
        I guess I will point this first one to Secretary Cisneros.
        You may be aware of the fact that--of that statistic. In my
    view, that is unsustainable. I know that many civilian
    employees, particularly at our depots, are needed to carry out
    DOD's national security mission. And I know, I was here when we
    expanded the intelligence operations to, obviously, take on the
    enemy at hand. However, there has been significant growth
    throughout DOD's bureaucracy. And I don't see how we can afford
    to maintain the current civilian workforce into the future if
    we are forced to balance those costs with procurement and
    research efforts, which are absolutely necessary.
        How do we look at middle management, unjustified
    bureaucracy, to maximize the ability of our high-skilled
    professionals? And can DOD better apply automation, artificial
    intelligence, to career fields like healthcare management,
    obviously those who are in the intelligence business where we
    have a lot of people that are assessing one thing or another,
    financial management, supply-chain logistics, to save a lot of
    money, billions of dollars, and gradually--not having to fire
    anybody, but just gradually bringing down the workforce and
    closing obsolete systems and processes?
        First, I will ask the Secretary to address that.
        Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir, for bringing
    up that question. And I think, throughout the Department, we
    are looking to see where we can use technology everywhere,
    whether it is in healthcare or weapons systems, to see how we
    can become more efficient and more productive. And I will let
    the services talk about that a little more.
        But I do not believe we can put a ratio or a number on the
    amount of civilians that we have. The civilian workforce that
    we have at the Department of Defense is an integral part of the
    defense of our Nation. They play critical roles in the work
    that we do. They enable the warfighters so they can be out
    there defending the Nation and really be out there in an
    operational mode.
        And so, I think it is important that we remember the
    importance and how important our civilian workforce is. And it
    is just not, I think, proper for us to put a number on it, we
    have so many military personnel, so therefore we should have so
    many civilian personnel.
        Mr. Calvert. But you realize, Secretary, in the history of
    the United States Department of Defense, this is the highest
    proportion of civilian employees relative to military force in
    the history of the Pentagon. Do you think that--as a response
    to World War II or to Korea or Vietnam or any of the wartime
    issues. But don't you think that we can look at that workforce
    and gradually make that workforce more efficient and smaller?
        Mr. Cisneros. Sir, we are always looking to make our
    workforce more efficient and to see how we can do things better
    and at a more efficient cost. I know we are constantly doing
    that, and I will let the Under Secretaries talk to that here in
    a second.
        But, again, I believe the civilian workforce here at the
    Department of Defense is an integral part of the defense of our
    Nation. And they play key roles, and we need to make sure that
    we continue to support them in those key roles.
        And, with that, I will turn it over to the service
    secretaries to talk about their civilian workforce. We will
    start with the Air Force.
        Ms. Jones. Representative Calvert, thank you for the
    question.
        We are not currently incentivizing civilians to retire at
    this point. The Air Force Personnel Center, however, is
    conducting a needs assessment to determine which units may need
    voluntary early retirement authority or voluntary separation
    incentive payments.
        I think when we look at civilian force, though, when we
    think of the total force, certainly our Active Duty, our Guard
    and Reserve, we also look at the significant contributions made
    by our civil servants. Certainly they bring highly technical
    expertise in many areas, for example, at our Air Force Research
    Laboratory and some of our more highly technical career fields.
        We are also, though, I think, more broadly, looking at how
    we ensure we don't cut ourselves off from key civilian talent,
    especially as, frankly, many have reshaped their expectations
    of quality of life and work-life balance due to COVID. And so
    we are actually wanting to make sure we have the right--
    certainly the right size, but also the right capabilities
    within our civilian force. So looking at everything from
    telework to some other incentivize programs, again, to make
    sure that we have the right capabilities in our civilian force
    to make sure that the entire Department is as strong as they
    can be.
        I will pass it over to my colleague from Navy.
        Ms. Berger. Thank you, Representative Calvert.
        And I will echo my colleagues, in that we assess the
    civilian force is part of the total force, and it is an
    important contribution for capability, as the Under Secretary
    from the Air Force just mentioned. As we talk about the
    civilian force at the Department--and we write it out--we
    capitalize ``Sailors, Marines, Civilians,'' and it is because
    of their contribution.
        However, to your point, we are constantly assessing to make
    sure that we have the right people in the right job at the
    right time to be able to deliver warfighting capability. And
    that is the metric that we are using to make sure that we are
    meeting that need. And it is a need that is changing, so we are
    constantly assessing to make sure that we are against the need.
        Mr. Calvert. We can go to the Army.
        Mr. Lowman. Thank you, Ranking Member Calvert.
        In the Army, the Army has recently published an ``Army
    People Strategy'' that includes both a civilian implementation
    plan and a military implementation plan. We assess the Army
    civilians along with the total force.
        Right now, the Army civilian workforce represents about a
    four-to-one ratio, so four military to one civilian. It has
    been relatively flat for the last 5 years, and so that ratio
    hasn't changed.
        But as we work through in the civilian implementation plan
    and assess the knowledge, skills, behaviors, and attributes
    required by the future force, at the same time we are assessing
    that for our military members, we will execute the appropriate
    analysis to find out how the incorporation of new technologies,
    such as AI and machine learning, data analytics, affect the
    civilian workforce along with the military members.
        Over. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. And I would just like to make a point, Madam
    Chair.
        The Marine Corps, on their own, is bringing down the
    civilian workforce. And I congratulate the Commandant for
    taking an aggressive movement to look at efficiencies.
        But the Department of Defense is one of the largest, if not
    the largest, enterprise in the world. And as everyone is
    flattening their middle management structures across the
    country, we are no different.
        And, again, you know, I don't question the fact that the
    civilian workforce is important, but should we have it exceed
    the military, the number of uniforms that we have versus
    relative to civilians? I don't think anyone would agree to
    that, but it is growing in that direction.
        And so, it seems like there is always a reason not to look
    especially at the middle management structure within the
    Department of Defense. And I am just not talking in the
    building, in the Pentagon; I am talking throughout the
    enterprise worldwide. I just will continue to harp on that, as
    you know, and bring it up.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        And I think as we get those numbers and talk about them,
    where the numbers come from and how they are counted and how
    dual hatters are counted, would be something that the
    committee, to answer some of Mr. Calvert's questions, would be
    interested in knowing.
        If you are a dual hatter, are you counted twice? Are you
    only counted on the civilian side? Are you only counted on the
    other side?
        And that goes more to our Guard and our Reserve than it
    does. But as we see our Guard and Reserve play a more important
    role, there is also that civilian aspect that keeps them in
    their readiness phase.
        Mr. Ruppersberger.

                              SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES

        Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Cisneros, good to see you. We served together, and I am
    glad to see that you are working at the Pentagon. And you did a
    good job in Congress, and we are looking forward to your job at
    the Pentagon. And how are your sons, doing okay?
        Mr. Cisneros. Well, thank you for those comments, sir. The
    sons are good. They are wild and crazy as ever.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. That is good. Wait till you have
    grandchildren. Grandkids are the gift you get for not killing
    your own kids when you raised them. I am kidding.
        I wanted to call your attention to an issue that we have
    all been seeing play out across the country regarding supply
    chain shortages.
        One of the companies in my congressional district, Phillips
    Corporation, is a family-owned metal machinery supplier that
    supports the Department of Defense and other critical customers
    with highly specialized machine tools, servicing, and workforce
    training needed for the U.S. to compete globally.
        Phillips' team has brought to my attention the impact that
    the microelectronics supply chain shortages will have on their
    and other U.S. small businesses' ability to supply critical DOD
    programs and weapon systems.
        We cannot allow the supply chain issues we rely on with the
    commercial market to also affect the readiness of the DOD
    programs and possibly scores of highly skilled technical
    workers who manufacture and maintain these systems.
        My questions. What issues have been brought to your
    attention within the Department? To what degree are you
    coordinating with other leaders at the Pentagon and other
    Federal agencies? And how do you believe we should prioritize
    national security programs that depend on components in the
    commercial market to maintain readiness?
        We must maintain our U.S. manufacturing base and broader
    economic and national security interests. Did you get it?
        General Carlisle. I got it, sir. Thank you for that
    question.
        I believe, the Department believes everything that you just
    said is true. It is important for our workforce to have the
    materials that they need in order to support the Department of
    Defense.
        But I believe this is a question that is more well suited
    for our attainment and sustainment Department. And if you don't
    mind, I would like to take that for the record and take that to
    them.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Make sure we get back. Okay. Good.
        Mr. Cisneros. Yes, sir.
        Ms. McCollum. We are on that with you. We will have our
    staff wrap up that question and get that answer to Mr.
    Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
        Ms. McCollum. So next is Mr. Carter, and then Mrs. Bustos.
        Mr. Carter.

                    FUTURES COMMAND IMPACT ON OTHER COMMANDS

        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Under Secretary, I am a big supporter of the great work of
    the Army Futures Command. I think they do a wonderful job.
    Texas was chosen--my voice is going in and out, pardon me--
    Texas was chosen for the Futures Command because of our tech
    industry that surrounds Austin.
        One of the things they wanted to make sure they could do is
    compete with the private sector and academia for the people we
    need and sustain owning those people. And as you well know, in
    the area of tech, those people are very mobile, very, very
    mobile.
        Have we learned anything through the Futures Command that
    may be of assistance to all of the other commands and to
    recruit and sustain and retain top talent in STEM and the
    fields that we need for the future fight we are looking at?
        And, if not, what would you suggest we do to make better
    decisions about retention and recruitment of this talent as we
    compete with one of our most competitive industries?
        Mr. Cisneros. Well, thank you, Congressman, for that
    question.
        As you know, here at the Department of Defense, we are
    competing for talent not only against other Federal departments
    and Federal agencies, but also the private sector out there,
    and it is fierce competition.
        We are doing everything that we can to go and to really do
    what we can to recruit these individuals. We have scholarship
    programs, we have fellowship programs that enable us to go out
    there and get these individuals while they are in college.
        Right now, currently, we have the SMART Program, which
    allows us to go out, and we have, I think, there are currently
    400 members in this program. That allows us to pay for their
    college education. And then, in doing so, they owe the
    Department of Defense some time in service as civilians.
        But over 70 percent of those individuals that participate
    in this program have stayed throughout its history. So that is
    a program that has worked for us.
        We have a seed program which provides those that just
    recently received their Ph.D. Program a grant so that they can
    go out and do research for the Department of Defense.
        These are programs that we have. And there are other
    programs like that. There are the foreign scholarships that
    deal with languages that allow us to go out and pay for tuition
    for individuals going out to learn a language. That allows them
    to go study abroad and learn a language.
        And in doing so, they have to come back, and they owe the
    Department of Defense a year of service. But most of them as
    well end up staying longer than their commitment that they owe
    the government.
        Recruiting is something that I believe is very important
    that we need to go out there and do. My first month that I was
    here, I participated in a roundtable with college presidents
    talking about this very issue, about how we can work with them
    to let them know and to let their student body know about the
    jobs that we have here within the Department of Defense.
        And I have taken it upon myself that we need to go into
    places where traditionally we haven't gone to recruit a lot,
    like in Texas. I believe the University of Texas at El Paso is
    a great example of a university there.
        You have many of our State schools in California as well,
    where I come from, and throughout the country that are
    minority-serving institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions,
    historically Black colleges and universities. These are all
    areas where we can go and we can recruit and bring that talent
    into the Department of Defense.
        With that, I will turn it over to the Under Secretary of
    the Army here to kind of talk about the Futures Command that
    you mentioned as well.
        Mr. Lowman. Thank you, sir.
        Thank you, Congressman.
        The Army has developed really a human capital strategy that
    is focused on the acquisition, development, employment, and
    retention of talent. And so, moving that acquisition, for
    example, as far left as possible.
        We are particularly excited about the changes we have made
    to our Junior ROTC programs. We have introduced eight learning
    modules, cyber learning modules. We have introduced robotics.
    We have introduced these high school students to AI
    technologies.
        In our Senior ROTC program we have enabled summer intern
    programs. That includes a wide range of both private sector
    learning institutions, such as MIT Lincoln Laboratory. It
    includes Army organizations and joint organizations, Army Cyber
    Command and CYBERCOM.
        And then on the civilian side we have just implemented, in
    addition to our intern programs and our fellows programs, we
    have just implemented a STEM scholarship program. We will hire
    1,000 students over the next 5 years, offset their tuition
    costs, pay their book costs, require them to work 600 hours to
    gain some skills during their university career. And then on
    the back end, they owe the Department of the Army 4 years of
    service as civilians.
        And so, we believe the early acquisition focused on STEM
    and cyber is critical.
        On the recruiting side, much like Secretary Cisneros laid
    out, we have also implemented an Urban Access Initiative. We
    have identified 22 metro areas. We are targeting in particular
    the identification of ROTC candidates from Black and Hispanic
    groups for ROTC scholarships.
        And then the last one, we have done an Army-wide engagement
    strategy really to target those areas of skills where we don't
    habitually get into, and that is secondary and postsecondary
    outreach, HBCUs, and minority-serving institutions.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Mrs. Bustos.

                      WORKFORCE PREDICTABILITY AT ARSENALS

        Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thank you very much, Chair
    McCollum, and I also want to thank Ranking Member Calvert, for
    holding this hearing.
        I also want to thank our witnesses for your service and for
    your leadership.
        To start, this hearing really hits close to home for me.
    The Rock Island Arsenal, and my colleagues have heard me talk
    about this a lot, but it is an island in the middle of the
    Mississippi River between the States Of Iowa and Illinois, and
    it is in the district that I am very proud to represent.
        The arsenal hosts many, many important functions, including
    the Joint Manufacturing Technology Center and the Army's
    Advanced and Additive Manufacturing Center of Excellence. They
    are doing very, very important work to support the warfighter
    and sustain the Army.
        They are also on the leading edge of manufacturing
    capabilities that will provide the disruptive technology needed
    to deter near-peer competition and aggression.
        However, I am concerned about resiliency of the organic
    industrial base and its workforce.
        Let me get to my question.
        Arsenals are a unique component of the organic industrial
    base. Unlike depots, they don't have a sustained or predictable
    workload, and it is challenging for them to predict the medium-
    and the long-term workforce needs. You have got these boom and
    bust cycles that create high work rate costs, and it makes it
    difficult to retain skilled workers.
        And I am deeply concerned about the recent layoffs of more
    than 100 term employees at the Rock Island Arsenal in large
    part due to significant shifts in anticipated workload in the
    coming years.
        I understand that we have the make or buy guidance. But how
    can we improve planning and execution for more clear workflow
    predictability at arsenals?
        And I certainly appreciate input from any of you, but I am
    particularly interested in the Army and the DOD perspectives.
        Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, with that, I will turn it over to the
    Under Secretary of the Army, Mr. Lowman.
        Mrs. Bustos. Thank you.
        Mr. Lowman. Thank you, Congresswoman Bustos.
        So, as you know, Rock Island Arsenal is critical to the
    Army's organic industrial base. In addition to the three
    arsenals, the ammo plants, and our five maintenance depots, it
    constitutes really the leading edge of what manufacturing will
    look like in the future, things like additive manufacturing, 3D
    printing.
        The Army has just embarked upon a strategic development
    process that will be completed by the spring of next year which
    will lay out over a 15-year period what the organic industrial
    base modernization requirements will look like. That, coupled
    with the supply chain and the supply chain constraints we have
    now, linking those two things together.
        What capabilities do we need to support a multi-domain
    capable Army and joint force in the future in terms of
    manufacturing capability, what workforce skills are required to
    support that capability, and then linking our supply chain
    constraints as a means to predict future workload I think are
    the three components that will normalize workload and the
    predictability of workload in the future as we focus to utilize
    the industrial base capabilities that we have inserted into
    each one of those organizations, Rock Island in particular.
        Thank you.
        Mrs. Bustos. Thank you.
        Any other thoughts on this?
        Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, I will just let you know that we are
    working, as far as our workforce, thinking about the workforce
    of the future, we are thinking about this and really how to
    rightsize these areas so that we don't have those problems, so
    that we can stabilize the workforce at various locations
    throughout the country and around the world for our Department
    of Defense and really kind of narrowing down and how to really,
    like you said, rightsize it.
        But also to really broaden their skill sets so that if
    something does happen, we can allow them to do other things and
    move them into a different field where they will be able to
    support the Department of Defense.

                       WORKFORCE NEEDS AND THE COMMUNITY

        Mrs. Bustos. We have just got a little less than a minute
    left, but let me take part of that answer that you offered
    about workforce development and drill down a little bit.
        I am a little concerned in our region about the workforce
    needs at the arsenal and how those are conveyed to our
    surrounding community, our local colleges, and how the DOD can
    ensure that there is the best communication and understanding
    of what the workforce needs with the larger community.
        If you could address that, please.
        Mr. Cisneros. Ma'am, I think you are right on there, and I
    think that is something that, as far as the Department of
    Defense goes, we need to do better at promoting ourselves and
    promoting the jobs and the skill sets that we need at the
    various areas where we are, where we need employees. And that
    is something that I am committed to and will continue to work
    on while I am here.
        Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Very good.
        With that, I am out of time, Madam Chair. Thank you very
    much. And I yield back.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        I think that was very enlightening, what you talked about,
    the switch on and off for employees with not having dependence
    upon the workforce. We hear that from small businesses, and we
    hear that from medium-size businesses as well, the way the
    Department sometimes even orders supplies.
        It is a switch on, switch off, and it doesn't have the
    smooth sustainability that families and businesses sometimes
    need and our communities need to feel confident that there is
    going to be economic success for everyone at the end.
        Ms. Kaptur.

                    RECRUITING IDEAS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS

        Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair. A very interesting
    hearing. Sorry we were interrupted by votes. Great to see our
    colleague, Under Secretary Cisneros.
        Really glad to have you there.
        I wanted to ask a question that I sort of hinted at in the
    last round, and that is, if you live in a place with a big
    defense base, chances are that the Government of the United
    States will touch your life in some way, if you own a pizza
    shop or go to a religious institution or whatever. But if you
    don't have a big defense base, all this we are talking about is
    rather remote and very far away.
        And so one of the questions I have is, for those elements
    of the military that do exist, and in my region those are
    largely Reserve and Guard, if we are talking about inspiring a
    new generation, what can the Department of Defense do annually,
    rather than just bring the Thunderbirds, okay, where hundreds
    of thousands of people gather to see them fly over, in terms of
    inspiring----
        Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur, your sound has cut out. It is
    still out. There you go.
        Ms. Kaptur. What can the military do to provide an annual
    event, bridging across all these different programs, instead
    of, ``Here, there, there, everywhere, you have got me all
    confused now,'' that are relevant locally as an inspiration to
    the youngest generation, from age 7 up, so they start thinking
    about what they might do?
        So, for example, in my region, we have Guard mechanics and
    civilian mechanics repairing F-16 engines. I guarantee you, if
    you let some of these kids see that, they are going to start
    getting interested, maybe, if there is a little handout sheet
    you can give them as they walk out the door.
        If you have people who are on a control tower and they are
    directing airplanes, there are young people that will be
    attracted to that at a very young age.
        If you wait until high school, it is almost too late.
    Maybe--maybe--in junior high.
        But I am asking the Department of Defense to think big
    about assets you already have out there and to do convenings
    with the local boards of education and educational programs
    that are trying to help young people move into these fields
    that are so needed.
        We don't have anything like that in my region. Maybe the
    Marine Corps does it in North Carolina, or Ken Calvert, you
    have got a thousand different defense--you know, Twentynine
    Palms and everything out there. Is it Twentynine or
    Twentyseven? Whatever it is. And we don't have anything like
    that. So the opportunity to think about your future doesn't
    come from the Department of Defense.
        Can you think about putting something together that would
    be remarkable that would make it to places like northern Ohio
    where we have huge recruitment levels, okay, because of the bad
    economy, but we really don't inspire very much in terms of
    education and the ladder up, the ladder up that you are talking
    about? What might you do there?
        Mr. Cisneros. Well, Representative Kaptur, thank you for
    the question, and it is good to see you again.
        The Thunderbirds are great, and I am sure the Navy would
    say the Blue Angels and the Army would say the Golden Knights
    are just as great. And whatever we can do to get them across
    America, I know they are working hard to do that for recruiting
    purposes.
        But I think you are right, I think there is a generation
    out there. And it is getting harder, and those people that can
    actually join the military, serve in uniform right now, I
    believe only 25 percent are actually qualified to do that. I
    think less than 1 percent actually does serve in uniform
    currently right now.
        We need to kind of get out there and to really promote and
    let people know that the Department of Defense, the United
    States military, no matter what branch, one of our five
    branches that you decide to serve in is a viable way to get out
    there, and it could be a viable career.
        I always talked about how it changed my life. I joined the
    Navy when I was 18 years old and led me through my course of
    education. All the education I have today is because of the
    United States Navy and my service.
        Ms. Kaptur. If I might. Thinking about it, we have a local
    board of education that started an airplane repair program in
    one of our high schools, and it is oversubscribed. They are
    coming from other States to get into this high school program.
    And imagine if the mechanics out at the F-16 unit were to
    invite mechanics from the area and programs from the area.
        I think another area also is our disabled vets, like in AI.
    I have a guy in my district, a 20-year veteran from the Air
    Force, unfortunately injured, but a wizard on the computer.
        I think you ought to take a look at that set of people and
    see if we can't bring some of them into some of these, I would
    say, desk jobs if they can't do the physical work as in the
    past. So I just put that on the table for consideration.
        And my time has expired, thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
        Well, we don't--Mr. Calvert, I don't see any other members
    joining us. I have a few things I am going to say in closing.
    Is there anything that you would like to say in closing before
    I finish and adjourn the meeting?

                            EDUCATION AND TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Calvert. Well, I just wanted to emphasize obviously
    education, and we need to, as the prior panel, as we bring on a
    newer workforce, especially in STEM education, which has been
    brought up a number of times, because it is going to be
    technology that is going to make or is going to create
    efficiencies, as it already is in the private sector. And so,
    whether it is artificial intelligence to do substantial
    assessment work and the rest.
        And so, I am looking forward to working with the
    Secretaries to find ways to be effective, efficient, and have a
    manageable workforce.

                               BUREAUCRACY ISSUES

        I may point out, Madam Chair, I have a number of two-stars,
    they always tell me that there are papers floating around the
    Pentagon looking for signatures all the time. I get it. I was
    in business for a long time. Everybody has got to initial off
    on something or other. And sometimes a larger bureaucracy
    creates more problems than obviously solving it.
        I just, again, I don't want to harp on it, but that is all
    I have. So thank you.

                         Chair McCollum Closing Remarks

        Ms. McCollum. Well, they must have been listening to you,
    because in 2001, military to civilian, this is for the Army,
    was 4 to 7, and now it is 1 to 4. So I guess you could say
    maybe for some of the things that you have been working on, a
    few people are trending in the right direction. But we will get
    those statistics for you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Ms. McCollum. As I close this up, when I had asked earlier
    about what the services were doing, only the Air Force
    responded. So we are going to follow up asking the Army and
    Navy on that too.
        And I notice everybody talked about ROTC, and that is
    great. We have some wonderful ROTC programs in Minnesota, and
    they are reaching out to minority and disadvantaged youth to
    give kids some great experiences.
        But ROTC in and of itself isn't a program unless it is
    designed specifically to do so, to fill the gaps, to look at
    some of the things we are looking forward in our workforce.
        And it also doesn't do anything about addressing those men
    and women who come in and serve, as Mr. Cisneros pointed out he
    did when he was 18, and have those young men and women see a
    career ladder for training and opportunity and career
    development, both in the Department of Defense, in a branch of
    the service, and moving forward.
        I know that that is one of the big things that you are
    working on, sir, on how to do that. We want to be a partner in
    that.
        When I was asking you about funding--and I am not picking
    on the Air Force at all, because I thank her for her response.
    She said, well, we might have to look at cutting some other
    place to beef up ROTC.
        My question on working with the committee bipartisanly on
    this is, if we put more money into workforce development, let's
    say we put some into ROTC too, let's say that that is one of
    the pots we look at, we want to put funds in there in a way
    that is dog-eared so it is going there, so we can track its
    effectiveness along with you.
        We want to be a partner with you in this. And that is why I
    was asking, if you are going to need resources, are you going
    to dog-ear the resources to make sure that they stay where they
    are, or do we need to put lines in it? Because you served in
    Congress, you know that sometimes when we dispose of funding,
    if we don't dispose of it carefully, somebody else will have a
    better idea for it.
        You are our future for our national defense workforce to
    keep America safe, strong, and secure, and also safe, strong,
    and secure as people leave the military and go into the private
    sector workforce. And so, we want to make sure that when we put
    tools in the toolbox that they are your tools. We will follow
    up a little more on that as we get into next year's budget.
        We are also going to follow up, sir, on some more
    information on what is going on with the SMART Scholarship
    Program, what is going on with the Industrial Base Analysis and
    Sustainment, because some of that is in your wheelhouse and
    some of it isn't, but it is all interconnected. And I just
    wanted you to know we are going to be following up with some of
    the other folks too.
        And then the Manufacturing Technology Program. That came up
    with the other panel as well. They said some of these programs
    work really well. Some could be an improvement.
        Basically what we heard from the first panel is this needs
    to be a whole-of-government approach, a whole-of-community
    approach, a whole-of-nation approach. And so there is a lot of
    work for everybody to do on this.
        We are going to need everybody being creative and thinking
    about how to achieve this gap. Because in a democracy we give
    people choices. In an autocracy sometimes a child never gets a
    choice what they are going to be when they grow up. We want to
    make sure that they choose in a way that advances their
    [inaudible].
        With that, I want to thank you all for participating today.
    I want to thank all of you for your patience.
        And, with that, this meeting is adjourned.
        [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]