[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]