[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]