[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]