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


.                                     
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-58]

                         DEPOT MODERNIZATION AND 
                              OPTIMIZATION

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                            OCTOBER 28, 2021


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-443                     WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 
                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                  JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JACKIE SPEIER, California            JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JASON CROW, Colorado                 AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan, Vice       JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
    Chair                            MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington

               Melanie Harris, Professional Staff Member
               Whitney Verett, Professional Staff Member
                          Naajidah Khan, Clerk
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative from Colorado, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     4

                               WITNESSES

Costello, Darlene, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 
  for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, Department of the 
  Air Force......................................................     6
Morani, Steven J., Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
  Sustainment, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense......     5
Saunders, Karen, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Acting 
  Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and 
  Technology, Department of the Army.............................    10
Stefany, Frederick J., Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 
  Research, Development, and Acquisition, Department of the Navy.     8

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Costello, Darlene............................................    47
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    35
    Morani, Steven J.............................................    38
    Saunders, Karen..............................................    65
    Stefany, Frederick J.........................................    57

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Moore....................................................    73
    Mr. Scott....................................................    73
                  
                  
                  DEPOT MODERNIZATION AND OPTIMIZATION

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                        Washington, DC, Thursday, October 28, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:03 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN GARAMENDI, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
        CALIFORNIA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Garamendi. Cameras are on. Okay. The lawyers say we 
have to do this, so here we go. First, some administrative and 
technical notes. Members are reminded they must be visible on 
screen within the software platform for the purposes of 
identification. Members must continue to use the software 
platform's video function while attending the hearing, unless 
they experience connectivity issues or other technical problems 
that render the member unable to fully participate on camera. 
If you experience technical difficulties, good luck. Please 
call. We will try to do the best we can for you.
    When you are recognized, the video will be broadcast via 
television and internet feeds. You will be recognized as normal 
for questions. But if you want to speak at any other time, you 
must seek permission, which I will decide whether you will get 
it or not. Please mute your microphone when you are not 
speaking and remember to unmute prior to speaking. That can be 
said a thousand times and still we forget to unmute.
    Please be aware that there is a slight lag between when you 
start speaking and when the camera shot switches to you. Please 
remember to keep the software platform's video function on for 
the entirety of the time you are attending this hearing. If you 
leave for a short period of time for reasons other than joining 
a different proceeding, please leave your video function on. If 
you are leaving to join a different proceeding, you are going 
to miss all of this and be very, very sorry. Or if you will be 
absent for a significant period of time, you should exit the 
software platform entirely, then rejoin if you return.
    Please be advised that I have designated committee member 
staff, next to me, to mute unrecognized members' microphones if 
necessary. And if I decide I don't like what you hear, you will 
continue to be allowed to speak or maybe we will unmute you or 
mute you.
    Please use the platform's chat feature to communicate with 
staff regarding--that was for you Doug. Please use the 
platform's chat feature to communicate with staff regarding 
technical or logistical support issues. Finally, you will see a 
5-minute countdown clock on the software platform's display, 
but if necessary, I will remind you.
    Okay. Now, can we go on? Everybody hear that? Do we need a 
test?
    Now, for those of you that missed the President at the 
Democratic Caucus this morning, you need to know that we are in 
the midst of a very, very important national debate about 
infrastructure. Well, so is this committee.
    This committee is all about infrastructure--1,100 DOD 
[Department of Defense] facilities all around the world are our 
responsibility. Among those facilities are the repair shops, 
the depots, the shipyards, the arsenals that keep the tanks 
rolling, the ships at sea, and aircraft in the air, and the 
munitions to wage war. The effectiveness and the efficiency of 
these facilities are a critical piece to the United States 
military's ability to successfully meet our national security 
requirements.
    We have heard this over and over repeatedly from the 
Defense Department, from the generals--one-star, two-, three-, 
four-stars--and chiefs and Secretaries. Really important. 
However, we have also heard that these are national treasures. 
They are the insurance policies for readiness. And, yet, a 
supposed commitment to the depots is not translated into 
action.
    The organic industrial base [OIB] infrastructure is 
chronically underfunded to the point that these facilities are 
relics of the past. The crumbling World War II era depots are 
outdated for today's missions, let alone the needs of the 
future force or the surge requirements for a major conflict. 
Indeed, some of the facilities [that] are currently being used 
are on the National Historic Registry.
    The problem is pervasive. The Government Accountability 
Office found that more than half of all DOD industrial-based 
facilities are in poor condition, including all four public 
shipyards. This has resulted in the decline in the depot 
performance since 2007, and significant delays returning weapon 
systems to the field for operations and training. Moreover, 
suboptimal facility configurations create an inefficient repair 
process forcing maintainers to perform workarounds that further 
increase the maintenance time and cost. The equipment at these 
facilities is often in use more than a decade beyond its 
intended service life, creating safety hazards and further 
maintenance delays.
    Finally, many of the depots are at a high risk of damage 
from extreme weather and other environmental effects and have 
not been upgraded to use clean and efficient energy sources. 
For example, at the Marine Corps production plant in Albany, 
Georgia, a shortage of paint booths resulted in vehicles, 
actually, victims too, remaining unpainted and stored outside. 
Oh, guess what? Now, they get rusty. And so we get to go all 
one more time through the process. So the cost goes up.
    At Corpus Christi, Texas, Army depot, engines need to be 
moved across 5 miles of facilities during the repair process 
because of the depot's highly inefficient work flow. Antiquated 
manufacturing processes have caused deadly explosions at [the] 
Army's ammunition plants. Attack submarines have recently sat 
idle for years because of inadequate shipyard capacity, and 
public shipyards are in such abysmal condition that the Navy 
has estimated it will not be able to service the Ford-class 
aircraft carriers or complete one-third of its required 
maintenance availabilities between now and 2040. Shall I repeat 
that?
    We have got a problem. The military has a problem. This 
committee perceives the problem, and we damn well intend to 
solve it. So get ready.
    In response to these conditions the Congress has required 
the services to create detailed infrastructure optimization 
plans in 2019 and layered on requirement in 2020 that the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense develop an overarching depot 
investment strategy. The service plans are mostly in their 
initial stages, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
report is, oh, my goodness, a year late. What a shock, but not 
a surprise. The execution of these plans will take up to 25 
years and cost billions of dollars.
    I have told all the witnesses today there is no such thing 
as a 25-year plan. That is a cheap way of saying you don't have 
a plan. So we are going to be talking, specifically, about what 
you are going to do in the next 5 years, and how does that fit 
into the future.
    So, let's remember that over such long-time horizons the 
needed funding represents a fraction of the services' budgets, 
even the most expensive. The Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure 
Optimization Plan, or SIOP, would cost approximately one-half 
of 1 percent of the Navy's current annual operating budget each 
year.
    The SIOP is also the most developed of the infrastructure 
optimizational plans, which does not speak well for the other 
departments. It is estimated that the Navy will need to spend 
about $25 billion over 20 years to recapitalize the public 
shipyards, $8 billion for dry-dock investment, $14 billion for 
facility reconfiguration and optimization, and $3 billion for 
tooling and equipment.
    Yet, baffling, the Navy has recently stated that it cannot 
fund most of the proposed facility optimization and capital 
equipment upgrades in 2022 or over the next 5 years with 
anticipated resources. This situation is emblematic of the very 
problem that has gotten us into this point. The services claim 
that the depots are critical, and the rehabilitation is of 
paramount importance, and yet show me the money. The 
sustainment and modernizations are consistently deprioritized, 
and the situation is made worse.
    I imagine this challenge is related to the discussion in 
Congress about providing the Department with additional top-
line infrastructure money. Yet, such a resource play and others 
like putting depot funding on the unfunded priority list sends 
the message that the facility and the equipment optimization is 
optional. In other words, not a first priority. When we keep 
hearing that it is essential, it cannot be both absolutely 
necessary and essential and then not prioritized on the funding 
programs.
    So, witnesses, you are going to be able to answer that 
question. So we need rigorous, detailed, well-resourced 
infrastructure optimization plans, and substantial leadership 
attention to their execution to guarantee success. But we also 
need more than a concerted rallying around a once-in-a-
generation upgrade to the depots. I cannot imagine any private 
sector industry accepting a 20-year timeline to catch up to its 
competitors. But, that is what the military is saying.
    Now, let's get on with it. So how do we avoid this? Well, 
this committee is going to pay attention. And we would expect 
each of the departments and the Office of the Secretary to pay 
attention. I am not one to be quiet. There are times when I am 
not one to be nice. And I am kind of feeling to be in an ugly 
mood today. But I am sure Doug is going to somehow calm me down 
and tell me that this is all going to pass and not to worry, 20 
years from now we will all be here. Doug, it is your turn.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 35.]

STATEMENT OF HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COLORADO, 
           RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I share very many 
of your concerns. I want to thank our witnesses for being here 
today for their testimony and their service. Our organic 
industrial base is a vital and important part of our force 
readiness and, ultimately, our national security.
    Over the past several years, this committee has emphasized 
the importance of modernizing our depots. Today marks the third 
hearing we have held this year that will touch on the lack of 
sufficient investments being made to the infrastructure, 
equipment, and processes of the organic industrial base.
    In 2019, the GAO [Government Accountability Office] 
assessed that most facilities at the military depots are in 
poor condition, and that the average age of equipment exceeded 
its useful life at more than 70 percent of the depots. There is 
a clear need, and yet the Department and the services have 
failed in the past to prioritize developments. So here we are 
again asking how you intend to modernize and what resources it 
will require.
    In 2019, Congress directed the service secretaries to 
develop optimization and investment plans for the depots. Then 
in section 359 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act], Congress directed the Secretary of Defense 
to issue a comprehensive strategy for improving depot 
infrastructure. This strategy was due in October 2020, but has 
been delayed until October 2021. And as of today, it is the 26 
of October, we don't have it.
    Mr. Morani, in response to GAO's 2019 recommendation that 
your office develop an approach for managing service depot 
investments, you stated, it had could not--your office could 
not develop such an approach until the plans were finalized. I 
am interested to hear what you think your office's role is in 
this process if it is not to help shape these plans.
    The status of our organic infrastructure also impacts our 
ability to attract and retain the quality workforce that we 
need. If folks know they will be working in facilities that 
haven't been updated in 50 years, that will make it hard to 
compete against private industry.
    Admittedly, Congress isn't blameless here either. Every 
time we pass a continuing resolution, as we are in right now, 
it makes it easier for you all to ask us to reprogram money 
away from these accounts. Unfortunately, there aren't many easy 
answers here, but I know the chairman and I and the entire 
subcommittee are committed to working with you to ensure that 
our organic industrial base has what it needs to continue to 
support the mission and our men and women in uniform. With 
that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Lamborn, thank you.
    I would like now to welcome and thank our witnesses. Steve 
Morani, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment 
at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense.
    Ms. Karen Saunders, Senior Official Performing the Duties 
of Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, 
Logistics, and Technology--and I understand you have another 
job also.
    Frederick Stefany, Acting Assistant Secretary of the Navy 
for Research, Development, and Acquisition.
    And Ms. Darlene Costello, Acting Assistant Secretary of the 
Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
    So your formal testimony will be in the record. Well, why 
don't we hear from each of you, if you would like to make an 
opening statement, please do. We will let the Secretary's 
office begin the process. Mr. Morani.

 STATEMENT OF STEVEN J. MORANI, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
 DEFENSE FOR SUSTAINMENT, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
                            DEFENSE

    Mr. Morani. Thank you, sir. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking 
Member Lamborn, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the steps the 
Department of Defense is taking to rejuvenate, modernize, and 
optimize the organic industrial base. Your continued support 
for this national resource safeguards the Department's ability 
to deliver ready and mission-capable weapon systems at the 
speed of war. The OIB is our network of maintenance depots----
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Morani, that little black thing near 
your side, it is a microphone. Yeah. Pull it up close and 
personal. Thank you.
    Mr. Morani. Yes, sir. Our OIB network of maintenance 
depots, shipyards, fleet readiness centers, air logistics 
complexes, manufacturing arsenals, and software engineering 
activities that perform depot-level maintenance. These 
government-owned and government-operated industrial activities 
provide core logistics capability to ensure military readiness 
and serve as a shock absorber when the warfighter's operational 
surge requirements demand an immediate and flexible response. 
It is one of our most important strategic assets and has been 
described as our Nation's readiness and war-sustaining 
insurance policy. Simply put, the OIB must be ready always.
    At present, the OIB continues to fully support warfighter 
requirements, but also faces a number of challenges, including 
the ongoing efforts of COVID-19, aging infrastructure and 
equipment, workforce development and retention, supply chain 
instability, and the need to balance sustainment requirements 
of new and legacy systems.
    The Department is taking action to address these 
challenges, including ensuring measures are in place to protect 
our workforce while also meeting production schedules that meet 
warfighter material readiness requirements, investing $241 
million in maintenance technologies through the Commercial 
Technology for Maintenance Activities program, conducting 
supply chain risk assessments, and issuing DOD-wide policies 
for integrating novel capabilities, like Condition-Based 
Maintenance Plus, additive manufacturing, robotics, and 
intermittent fault detection.
    We are also working to ensure a resilient and responsive 
organic industrial base and posture it for long-term viability 
and efficiency. To that end, we have developed a strategy 
aligned to the requirements cited in the section 359 of NDAA 
fiscal year 2020. This strategy, which is complemented by the 
military's services' individual investment in infrastructure 
optimization plans, has four main strategic areas: Revitalizing 
the OIB infrastructure, improving equipment modernization of 
the OIB, developing and supporting the OIB workforce, and 
continuous assessment and reporting.
    Focusing on these areas and continuously improving will 
provide a future OIB that is safe and properly sized with 
modernized facilities and equipment and supported by a highly 
competent and innovative workforce. Each area also has metrics-
based goals that are specific, realistic, and measurable to 
determine the success of and compliance with the strategy.
    The Department will continue to ensure that industrial 
facilities and infrastructure remain viable capabilities and 
that workforce recruitment, development, and retention is a 
robust and enduring process. These efforts will require 
predictable and stable funding to succeed as well as support of 
the military services' force structure plans. And I look 
forward to working with the subcommittee on these key 
priorities.
    Thank you for your support and the opportunity to provide 
you an update on the steps the Department is taking to 
revitalize the OIB as well as your continued support of this 
vital national strategic asset. I appreciate the critical role 
and the role this committee plays to ensure the Department is 
ready to face every challenge. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Morani can be found in the 
Appendix on page 38.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Ms. Costello.

 STATEMENT OF DARLENE COSTELLO, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF 
   THE AIR FORCE FOR ACQUISITION, TECHNOLOGY, AND LOGISTICS, 
                  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    Ms. Costello. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
having us here today so that I and my peers can provide 
testimony. I on the U.S. Air Force depot infrastructure 
optimization. Additionally, thank you for your support of the 
United States military and our organic industrial base.
    As the Department of the Air Force continues work to 
accelerate delivery of capabilities to the warfighter, we must 
apply the same level of urgency to investment in the organic 
industrial base and sustainment enterprise to ensure we are 
ready to deter and defeat potential adversaries.
    Our current aircraft inventory is becoming significantly 
more expensive to sustain as it ages. Weapon systems 
sustainment costs have increased 130 percent over the last 20 
years, even with a 15 percent decrease in total aircraft 
inventory. At an average age of 29 years, the Air Force fleet 
is also the oldest in the Department of Defense. Despite this, 
our exceptional workforce continues to develop innovative ways 
to sustain legacy weapon systems using emerging technologies 
and 21st century processes.
    In fiscal year 2021, the Air Force Sustainment Center air 
logistics complexes delivered 602 aircraft; 316 engines; 
141,353 parts; and 611 software bundles to the warfighter. But 
even with creative problem-solving, our sustainment challenges 
are exacerbated by the aging infrastructure, a dwindling supply 
and manufacturing base, and challenges recruiting highly 
skilled technicians and science, technology, engineering, math 
workforce to support the mission demands.
    The U.S. Air Force relies upon a strong organic industrial 
base to deliver air power in support of the National Defense 
Strategy. As we shift towards fleets that include fifth-
generation and beyond capabilities, it is imperative that our 
air logistics complexes, also known as depots, optimize 
opportunities to stay ahead of future missions.
    In 2019, the Air Force developed a 20-year strategic plan 
to revitalize the depots' infrastructure to accommodate new 
weapon systems and improve readiness at an affordable cost in 
the 21st century and beyond. We continue to refine that plan, 
better articulating projects, defining lines of effort, and 
implementation strategies. Through our capital investment 
program and new mission military construction, the Air Force 
has invested more than $2 billion during the previous 4 fiscal 
years to maintain and improve infrastructure and equipment 
across our three depots. Our plan details essential dimensions, 
including depot equipment and technology; digital depot, which 
includes infrastructure and industrial software; facilities for 
overhaul and final assembly; and repair/manufacturing nodes and 
hidden infrastructure, including utilities and the 
transportation grid. Investments in these dimensions are 
critical to the Air Force's ability to support weapon systems 
and retain industrial capabilities, and we are continuing to 
make investments in modernizing and optimizing these 
capabilities within current budget constraints, priorities, and 
realities.
    The Air Force strives for excellence through technology 
insertion to improve networking capabilities and to demonstrate 
our commitment to modernize our organic industrial base 
infrastructure. To support a successful modernization, emerging 
digital technology such as smart factories, data analytics, 
robotics, and artifical intelligence are needed to achieve 
results on par with industry standards and to eliminate waste.
    Information technology improvements outlined in the organic 
industrial base plan are based on the Air Force digital 
campaign objectives, the digital strategy, and the industry 
best practices, with the objective of building a connected and 
resilient environment to facilitate maximum effectiveness of 
people and processes. The Air Force will take maximum advantage 
of initiatives such as 5G wireless technology, cloud storage, 
movement from desktop computers to lightweight, faster devices 
in order to virtualize the work and workforce.
    People are the Air Force's most valuable resources. And we 
are making every effort to strengthen and enhance our total 
workforce. Our ability to meet warfighter needs hinges on 
attracting, developing, and retaining world-class airmen. Our 
depots rely on a large labor force of highly skilled 
technicians and mechanics, and the Air Force Sustainment Center 
works closely with local vocational training centers and 
academia which surround our depots.
    The use of direct hiring authority and expedited hiring 
authority for the depots and associated support has allowed us 
to better compete with industry to secure top talent and to 
reduce hiring timelines. We appreciate your active role in 
obtaining those critical authorities.
    The Air Force must accelerate change to prepare for the 
future and ensure we continue delivering global air power 
superiority. Stable and predictable budgets are essential to 
maintain and modernize critical logistics and sustainment 
capabilities. The dialogue we have today will help us design, 
build, operate, and sustain a force capable of fighting and 
winning now and in the future.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before this 
committee, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Costello can be found in the 
Appendix on page 47.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Costello. Mr. Stefany.

 STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. STEFANY, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY 
    OF THE NAVY FOR RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND ACQUISITION, 
                     DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Stefany. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am honored to 
appear today before you to discuss the Department of Navy's 
ongoing depot modernization and optimization efforts.
    A modernized and ready organic industrial base generates 
our fleet readiness and strengthens our national security. The 
Department appreciates the strong support of this committee, as 
shown in our infrastructure optimization efforts to date, and 
is committed to maintaining transparency throughout the 
planning and execution of the Department's infrastructure 
optimization investments.
    The Department has taken an enterprise-wide approach to 
infrastructure at our depots, our arsenals, our logistics 
complexes, and our shipyards. The Department's efforts are 
focused on three areas: modernizing our aging facilities and 
equipment, upgrading our facilities to support our future 
platforms that are coming online in the coming years, and then 
optimizing workflow and processes to support our current 
platforms. All this while we continue to do the critical work 
of maintaining the naval force.
    Planning for optimization and modernization of our Nation's 
four public shipyards is the furthest along. In 2018, the Navy 
laid out a three-phase Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization 
Program, SIOP, to modernize and optimize capital equipment, 
facilities, and dry docks. Since then, we have learned a lot 
about the complexity, the scale, the interdependencies, and the 
costs associated with these mega projects.
    In the near term, we are focused on building, expanding--
and expanding the dry docks which we need to support our new 
classes of ships, like the Ford-class aircraft carriers, the 
Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines, and the Virginia-
class attack submarines.
    The Navy has not built a new dry dock in 70 years, so we 
are working closely with industry to address construction, 
laydown, and environmental impacts at each location. Facilities 
optimization will be informed by ongoing digital twin modeling, 
followed by developing formal area development plans or master 
plans for each of the four shipyards.
    Above all, we are now treating SIOP like it is a major 
acquisition program, giving it the visibility and the impact 
that any other major program would have, and we have dedicated 
a program executive officer to exercise oversight over this 
entire effort.
    Similar planning and investment strategies are under way in 
support of the Navy--the Navy's and the Marine Corps' aviation 
fleet readiness centers, and the Marine Corps' organic 
industrial base logistics installations. These facilities were 
purpose built for maintenance, so modernization and 
optimization planning are taking a different scale than the 
SIOP efforts.
    In these areas, we are focused on modeling the workflow and 
improving processes within existing facilities and in investing 
in new capabilities, including advanced industrial equipment 
technology. Both the fleet readiness center and the Marine 
Corps logistics facilities are implementing their plan 
improvements over multiple phases to provide flexibility for 
managing facility investment priorities and to ensure these 
investment facilities and equipment are properly positioned to 
maintain our legacy platforms as well as our next-generation 
platforms.
    The Department is committed to integrating environmental 
considerations, including climate resiliency and energy 
resiliency, throughout our modernization process. From sea-
level rise mitigation in our naval shipyards to seismic 
hardening at our west coast depots, the Navy and Marine Corps 
infrastructure projects will use sustainable and resilient 
design principles while optimizing the value of our 
investments.
    Thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before 
your subcommittee today. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Stefany can be found in the 
Appendix on page 57.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Stefany. Ms. Saunders.

  STATEMENT OF KAREN SAUNDERS, SENIOR OFFICIAL PERFORMING THE 
     DUTIES OF ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR 
 ACQUISITION, LOGISTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Ms. Saunders. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Lamborn, 
and distinguished members of the House Armed Services Committee 
Subcommittee on Readiness, good morning. Thank you for the 
invitation to appear before you to discuss depot modernization 
and optimization.
    I am pleased to be here with my counterparts from the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, the United States Navy, and 
the United States Air Force. I also appreciate my written 
statement being included as part of the record for this 
hearing.
    Chairman Garamendi, the Army's vast organic industrial base 
along with its patriotic workforce provide critical material 
and sustainment support to the joint force in meeting the 
National Defense Strategy. This strategic national asset must 
be protected and modernized to meet future force needs in the 
multi-domain environment.
    The Army is currently developing an organic industrial base 
modernization strategy with investments focused on emerging 
requirements for facilities and land, energy and water 
resiliency, equipment modernization, information technology and 
security, and human capital requirements. This long-term 
investment plan will be complete in March of 2022 and be a 
holistic 15-year modernization effort to begin in fiscal year 
2024.
    The Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the 
Army's priorities are people, readiness, and modernization. We 
are laser-focused on these priorities as the Army continues to 
develop its organic industrial base modernization investment 
plan.
    The Army's number one priority is people. Our depot and 
arsenal operations are comprised of more than 32,000 dedicated 
and highly skilled people who produce, overhaul, and repair 
newly fielded systems, sustain enduring ones as well as 
prototype new ones. This resilient workforce with its sharp 
focus on health and safety, continued operations throughout the 
COVID-19 global pandemic to ensure our joint warfighters had 
the equipment when they needed it--the equipment that they need 
when they needed it.
    As part of the modernization plan, we plan to empower our 
workforce by employing process automation and other state-of-
the-art technology solutions to allow more efficient operations 
and free workers to focus on technical oversight. This effort 
will also include a human capital plan to foster partnerships 
with private corporations, universities, and technical 
colleges. The plan will not only provide advanced training for 
our current workforce, but also help us recruit and retain our 
future workforce.
    The Army's second priority is readiness. And the health and 
vitality of the organic industrial base is critical to 
supporting combatant command requirements and ensuring the 
success of our joint warfighters. To this end, the Army is 
simultaneously improving our depots and arsenals to address 
aging conditions to meet future capabilities.
    Over the last 5 years, we exceeded our annual minimum 
investment of 6 percent to 9 percent in fiscal year 2020, 2020, 
and 7.4 percent in fiscal year 2021. These investments include 
energy projects, infrastructure improvements, and equipment 
upgrades to support our key modernization efforts.
    Third, the Army is committed to seeing our signature 
material modernization efforts through to completion. To meet 
the requirements of the Army's modernization priorities, we 
have restoration, modernization, and capital improvement 
projects programmed as a bridge to the 15-year Organic 
Industrial Base Modernization Investment Plan.
    It is difficult to modernize for the future without--while 
maintaining current production continuity, but there is greater 
risk in not doing so. While we continue to prioritize projects 
that enable readiness, build surge capacity, and modernize for 
the future, we must also address the fiscal resources needed to 
reduce single points of failure, protect our industrial control 
system from cyber threats, and ensure energy resilience.
    Mr. Chairman, in closing, let me state that we must 
modernize our organic industrial base with the latest 
technological advances, manufacturing processes, and safety 
protocols to ensure our workforce and facilities to operate 
within the standards of the 21st century. We thank you for your 
support and the continued support of the distinguished members 
of this subcommittee in order to achieve the optimized depots 
and arsenals that our Army and our joint warfighters will rely 
upon now and into the future. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Saunders can be found in the 
Appendix on page 65.]
    Mr. Garamendi. I want to thank the witnesses for their 
statements, all of which are appropriate, all of which speaks 
to--all of your statements speak to the necessity, and you seem 
to have some sense of where this committee is going to go, and 
that is to require that the Department of Defense and the 
various organizations within it provide not only a plan but the 
money.
    So here is my question to you. And it is really not a 
question, it is a request that I would ask our committee to 
enforce, and that is that in the next 3 months you present to 
this committee the first 5 years of your multiyear plan, 
whether it is a 15- or 20-year plan. What are you going to do 
in the next 5 years? And we would like to have that in detail, 
beginning with what is the first step in all that you must do 
and any significant improvement in your facilities, and that is 
the preliminary engineering and environment. How those reviews. 
What is going to be necessary for each of your depots and 
arsenals and shipyards? And also what the approximate cost of 
that will be and the timelines associated with it?
    We intend to be drilling down. Some would say we are going 
to get into the weeds or the seaweed, as the case might be, and 
that is exactly what we are going to do. We are not going to 
any longer just deal with your good, appropriate statements, 
well-written, well-delivered. We want to see the result of 
those statements, in detail. So that is an ask of you. I 
recognize that each of you are acting, and that eventually the 
President and the Senate willing, you will be replaced by a 
confirmed political appointee. I would expect all of you to 
pass the message on.
    And since all of you are the senior advisors or will 
probably continue to be the senior advisors, advise them that 
they should be aware of what this committee is going to require 
of them with regard to the infrastructure, specifically here 
the depot infrastructure. I don't expect you to respond today, 
but I do expect you to be responsive to this.
    There is one other thing, and that is show us the money. I 
know that that will be in the President's budget. But I know 
that budget will be scrubbed and washed and hung out to dry and 
significantly shrunk by what is needed. And I would expect--no.
    We will find a way given the ISR [intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance] capabilities of our 
extraordinary professional staff, on both sides, to know what 
it is you have proposed, each of the departments. We will find 
out what is it that you proposed, and then we will find out 
what the Secretary has actually approved. And if those two do 
not match up to the expectations of the 5-year program that you 
will develop for us, your replacements as the permanent 
appointees, they will hear from us. This committee is not 
messing around. We are going to drive this issue.
    I also want to alert all the committee members that in the 
$23.9 billion additional money that was added to this 
committee--to the full committee's NDAA, there was several 
billion dollars of projects, base by base, across the entire, 
well, spectrum of places that we represent. We are going drill 
down on that, and we may very well be prioritizing for the 
purposes of dealing with what I think this committee believes 
to be the most important infrastructure projects or MILCON 
[military construction] projects across the array of 1,100 
facilities that we are responsible for.
    So heads up to my committee members, we are going to look 
at this. I would expect your engagement and involvement in 
that. That will be part of the ongoing negotiations with the 
Senate.
    I could ask a lot of questions. I have asked those 
questions of you in the previous, with the exception of Ms. 
Costello, in the conversations we have had. I don't want to 
take more time. I really want to turn to my colleagues and let 
them ask their questions. Mr. Lamborn.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I, too, would 
like to see that 5-year plan that you have just asked for.
    In talks with the Navy representative earlier this week, 
you said that the SIOPs are going to be treated like a major 
program with enhanced visibility. That is a step in the right 
direction because I am concerned about these programs not being 
raided in the future like they have been in the past. And I 
would like to ask the Army and the Air Force, how will you 
protect these modernization programs from being raided in 
future years?
    Ms. Saunders. Ranking Member Lamborn, as the person acting 
for the ASA(ALT) [Assistant Secretary of the Army for 
Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology], I can give this 
subcommittee my commitment to be able to represent the organic 
industrial base and the importance of it to our modernization 
efforts. As the Army is transforming, bringing in new 
capabilities, I understand the importance of the entire 
sustainment infrastructure needs to be transformed as we are 
developing our new systems. And I will represent that to the 
Secretary of the Army to that effect.
    Mr. Lamborn. Ms. Costello.
    Ms. Costello. Yes, for within the Air Force, we are 
committed to following these very closely through every step of 
our budget process. We have formed teams, actually, over this 
last year, who at every level of our budget process who are 
making sure that they emphasize and keep track of our 
infrastructure investments, our modernization, and the 
sustainment arena.
    And we are hopeful that that is going to be helpful. I know 
hope is not a strategy, but I believe having people in the 
fight every day is important. Often, we would prepare 
something, and then it would be--you would see what pops out of 
the machine at the end.
    So we are trying to stop that and have groups available all 
the time. At the same time, we will be championing for those 
funds along the way. And my office will be in the forefront of 
that championing because we do see it as very important working 
with our sustainment center and with AMFC [Air Force Materiel 
Command] and LCMC [Life Cycle Management Center].
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. I would like to now ask you 
all about the vaccine mandate, and we will start with you, Ms. 
Saunders, and just go down the table. You have all noted 
correctly that the workforce at our organic locations are vital 
to our national security and would be difficult to recreate.
    So how will the workforce be impacted by the vaccine 
mandate? Will those who resist the mandate be fired? And will 
we have early retirements by those resisting a vaccine with 
their consequent loss of institutional knowledge.
    So, Ms. Saunders, we will start with you and just go down 
the line here.
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you. First of all, let me say that that 
the Army's number one priority is people. And the health and 
safety of our people is paramount. We do believe the 
vaccination works, and we believe that an employee that has 
been vaccinated lowers the risk to him, his co-workers, his 
family, and to the general public. That is why the Secretary of 
Defense has issued out policies.
    To this date, we have not seen any, any negative reaction 
within our organic industrial base. We are closely monitoring 
it. And I can report back to you as we learn reactions to our 
workforce. We are still working through the policies.
    Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Stefany.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. We have basically seen, depending on 
which of our depots, you know, different levels of the 
workforce that is not currently vaccinated, especially 
shipyards and some of the other depots.
    You know, the workforce works very tightly together in 
combined spaces, and so having a vaccinated workforce will 
reduce the risk to each of them as well as their families when 
they go home and whatnot.
    So we are certainly encouraging at each location the 
implementation of the mandate. As far as your question as far 
as retirements and things like that, we have not seen--we have 
surveyed the workforce and we have gotten indications, but we 
have not seen any large retirements or movements yet, at least, 
in the workforce at our depots, sir.
    Ms. Costello. And the Air Force also sees the value in the 
vaccines and has issued the policy through. It is early to know 
what the ultimate outcome will be, how many will be vaccinated. 
We are encouraged, we have seen a lot more people taking their 
administrative leave while they go get their vaccine, or we 
assume that is why they are taking it. We expect that we will 
be able to work through the perturbations that happen as we did 
when COVID first hit.
    Within our organic industrial base, the people who are 
there are resilient, and they are able to find workarounds. And 
what will happen if we do end up losing some workforce is we 
will have to prioritize the work that remains in order to take 
care of those high priorities. And we are hoping that that will 
be minimal, but we are ready to take that on as quickly as we 
can once we know the actual numbers that we are dealing with.
    Mr. Lamborn. And Mr. Morani.
    Mr. Morani. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. So, 
again, I don't want to walk the same ground that my colleagues 
did; we do support the mandate. But with the enterprise that is 
within my responsibility, DLA [Defense Logistics Agency], what 
we are seeing is interesting that it is not necessarily the 
older workforce, you know, that may have a question about 
taking the vaccine, it seems to be the younger workforce.
    They are working through accounting for and attestation of 
who is vaccinated right now. They actually have built an app 
that is automated. It is allowing their employees to go in and 
self-attest to the fact that they have been vaccinated. They do 
expect around, roughly, a thousand people to probably ask for 
an exception, either medical or religious accommodation. 
Interestingly enough, again, it is probably more weighted on a 
religious accommodation versus a medical.
    But we are early in the process. We want to let the process 
work. No one is going to be fired on the 22nd. There will be 
opportunity--again, I think education is critical in this 
space, to educate people about the safety of it and the risk of 
not having it. There will be escalation in, you know, 
disciplinary actions that will go through a process.
    So, again, I am confident that, you know, we will work 
through it. Some may find that when it comes to whether they 
put their job at risk or take the vaccine, they may decide to 
take the vaccine. Friends of mine that I know who are in that 
position who are working for defense contract companies who 
have the same kind of mandatory requirement, they all say, if I 
am told to take it, I will take it. So right now----
    Mr. Lamborn. Could you repeat that please.
    Mr. Morani. They said they will get the vaccine. And, 
again, it depends what State as well. Some States there is more 
question than others.
    So right now, I will just close with saying that it is a 
little too early to tell, but I think we put in places the 
processes to educate and to understand the concerns, offer 
those accommodations where appropriate, and then work through 
any additional attrition that we have to deal with.
    Mr. Lamborn. I will just say to all four of you that I am 
concerned that if we start having firings with an organic 
industrial base that is already limping in some ways, that that 
is not going to make the situation any better. Now I understand 
the balancing act. You want to encourage and educate and urge 
those to get vaccinated who haven't yet been, but there are the 
religious and medical exceptions, Mr. Morani, that you referred 
to. And I believe there should also be a previous infection 
exception also because those people have natural immunity.
    So I am concerned, though, that our economy in general and 
our organic industrial base, in particular, is going to be hurt 
by this mandate. And I am very concerned about that, and I 
don't really agree that it is being handled in the correct way. 
With that, I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Doug, thank you. I am--I am going to put 
into the record a very short statement on this issue. We had a 
debate that was unending in Transportation [and] Infrastructure 
[Committee] yesterday about this. And I would rather not have 
to repeat it, but I want to put this into the record so that it 
is there.
    The vaccine mandate has resulted--this is from Secretary 
Austin--vaccine mandate has resulted in a vaccination rate of 
96 percent among Active Duty service members. As Secretary 
Austin has stated, vaccination is one of the surest ways to 
bolster our readiness, absenteeism, labor disruptions, 
quarantine, and paid leave costs from acute illness. Mitigation 
members and long COVID far outweigh the disruption from the 
small number of people who might walk off the job.
    With that, we recognize this as a significant issue in the 
general public of America. And to the extent that we will deal 
with it on the military side, we will.
    Doug, thank you for raising that. Let me now move on to Mr. 
Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all 
the witnesses for being here today to talk about this very 
critical issue. And, Mr. Stefany, you know, you have been here 
a number of times, and this issue of getting the SIOP up and 
running is something that, again, Navy and Congress work 
together starting in 2018 when the planning process came 
through.
    There is 5-year plan, but you know, I was thinking of the 
Yiddish saying, you know, Man plans and God laughs, when the 
USS Connecticut, unfortunately, had a serious accident out in 
the Pacific.
    And today's hearing is not about that incident. And I am 
sure, you know, we have already gotten some preliminary 
information at Seapower [Subcommittee]. And we will at a later 
date, obviously explore the circumstances of the accident.
    But right now, it is in Guam. That is public record. There 
is no dry dock in Guam. Hopefully, a sub tender can do the 
work, but, you know, that remains to be seen. But again, in 
terms of the Yiddish saying, it just shows how, you know, the 
Navy and all the forces are dynamic forces that, you know, the 
world gets a vote and things change, and unexpected incidents 
create more demand for repairs.
    And I didn't know whether you had any comment in terms of 
just, you know, the attack subs have always been the poor 
cousin in the public shipyards in terms of, you know, getting 
priority. But we know, particularly a Seawolf-class submarine 
is extremely valuable in terms of the mission out in that part 
of the world. You know, whether or not there is any sort of 
comment or statement that you can share with us this morning 
about, you know, the impact that is going to have on the queue.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir, Representative Courtney. We will 
certainly come brief you on everything surrounding the USS 
Connecticut incident, and the plan, and if we end up doing work 
in one of the public shipyards that would certainly cause, you 
know, perturbations in all the other work in the shipyards, 
right?
    Just like maybe express, one of the reasons why the SIOP 
plan is [inaudible] and to the chairman's point, you know, we 
have been talking infrastructure for a while as a Navy and a 
Marine Corps. But why it is urgent--why the urgency is picked 
up now and the commitment, I think, is there now is because we 
realize these shipyards, particularly, but the other depots are 
not needed, not optional, but they are necessary to support our 
forces in our maritime strategy going forward.
    And we need to optimize them to create that surge space, 
surge ability whether it was an accident or wartime damage, or 
whatever, that we have to have that ability to surge. We have 
some ability to surge by going to the private sector, as you 
know, sir. But, again, those yards are also building new ships. 
So we need to create this surge ability for the unexpected as 
part of this. And that is why optimization is just as important 
to me as the upgrades of the yards.
    Mr. Courtney. Well, thank you. You know, again, that 
conversation will continue. Again, Mr. Geurts, before he left, 
you know, had talked a lot about having a 30-year ship repair 
plan to sort of track the 30-year shipbuilding plan. Where do 
we stand with that? Is that still something that, you know, the 
Navy is going to follow through with?
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. We actually drafted one last year, 
but as you know, the shipbuilding plan didn't go forward. So 
the ship repair plan didn't go forward with it. But this year 
with this year's President budget, we will get a new 
shipbuilding plan. And then while not required, we will provide 
a ship repair plan as well for ships and submarines.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. I mean, I think that is a really 
important, you know, signal for us to be able to have for this 
subcommittee as well as Seapower [Subcommittee].
    And one last point on the vaccination. Mr. Garamendi 
mentioned the Secretary's statement that framed the vaccination 
program around readiness. When Admiral Merz laid it out for the 
Navy, same thing, that this was really a readiness issue for 
the force. I checked the USNI News latest reporting is that the 
Navy is at 99 percent for at least one shot, and I think 96 
percent for two shots.
    Having been to the public shipyards, I mean, anyone who 
walks in there sees that the workforce there is working elbow 
to elbow with Active Duty Navy personnel. So, I mean, if we are 
really going to be consistent, you know, everybody should sort 
of be one team, right, and just sort of working together to 
reduce the risk of infection. Because, you know, having that 
risk there detracts from the Navy's ability to be ready.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. I believe our workforce is one 
military, civilian, and contractor, all one team, one effort. 
And we should treat them all the same.
    Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Courtney. Mr. Wilson.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank each of 
you for your service to our country. It is really refreshing to 
see people as positive as you are attempting to be.
    And Ms. Costello and also Mr. Stefany, this past spring, I 
visited with Congressman Ralph Norman the McEntire Joint 
National Guard Air Base, a leading candidate for upcoming F-35 
basing selection. The F-35 is crucial for maintaining air 
superiority for peace through strength.
    For both of you, could you discuss your integration with 
the F-35 program office and how your depots are modernizing to 
support this critical weapon system? Do you have any concerns 
about being able to service it while maintaining your other 
priorities?
    Mr. Stefany. I'll take that first, sir. So at the moment, I 
actually have the secondary role to be the service acquisition 
executive for the Joint Strike Fighter program, in addition to 
representing the Navy and Marine Corps as users of the Joint 
Strike Fighter.
    I would say that from a depot point of view--and Ms. 
Costello I will leave for the Air Force bases and Air Force 
facilities that are upgraded--but the efforts that we are doing 
for sustainment and creating Joint Force Strike Fighter depots, 
we are looking at work in Cherry Point, and we are looking at 
down in Jacksonville for the engines. So we are incorporating 
that as a new capability into our Navy and Marine Corps depots.
    And those MILCON efforts are top of the list and are 
getting funded. And I am pretty enthusiastic about our ability 
to participate as part of the national effort to take care of 
these aircraft. And Ms. Costello.
    Ms. Costello. And the Air Force cares an awful lot about 
our F-35 sustainment capabilities. And at Hill, they are 
definitely taking on a lot of it. ACC [Air Combat Command], our 
owning command, has prioritized high many of their projects 
that they need for expanding and scaling the capability. And we 
are also looking at the ALIS [Autonomic Logistics Information 
System] to ODIN [Operational Data Integrated Network], the 
software enhancements, and the sustainment for that, all of 
which is going to help with the support and sustainment of that 
platform going forward.
    Mr. Wilson. I thank each of you. And, Mr. Stefany, you 
mentioned about sea-level rise. And you may not have it with 
you, but if you could get back with me, I would be interested 
on the east coast, west coast, the last 30 years, and 
increments 1991 to 2001, 2011, 2021, what has been the recorded 
sea-level rise?
    Also, what, for the next 30 years, the anticipated rise 
through 2031, 2041, 2051? I would be very interested in seeing 
what has been recorded and what is to be anticipated? And did 
you bring that with you?
    Mr. Stefany. No, sir, I didn't.
    Mr. Wilson. And so if you could get that to me, I would 
appreciate it.
    Mr. Stefany. I would be happy to take that.
    Mr. Wilson. Well a question--and good luck who might want 
to answer this one, but this is for everybody. In the 
industrial bases face recent budget challenges that impede 
capital investment is because of sequestration and threaten the 
viability of suppliers.
    A recent study indicated by the Center for Strategic and 
International Studies estimates that between 2001 and 2015, 
more than 17,000 companies have stopped being prime vendors for 
DOD.
    Which of you would like to discuss the compounding impact 
of budget sequestration continuing resolutions on depot 
modernization?
    Mr. Morani. I will take that first. So, again, I think this 
is a continuous problem when we have a continuing resolution. I 
think, again, the sequestration that we experienced did drive 
some backlog, but it is some of the similar problems that we 
face every year. We don't get the full benefit of the fiscal 
year to execute to. Right? And when we are in the continuing 
resolution, we get no new starts, so new contracts can't be 
let. So that compounds.
    And then in the remaining fiscal year, the workforce that 
is available to put on contract, to sequence that work, again, 
their compressed schedules, it compresses the work. So, again, 
it throws our planning out of synchronization. It doesn't allow 
us to fully execute in a fiscal year.
    Mr. Wilson. And I look forward to working with Chairman 
Garamendi in a bipartisan manner on how we address this. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Wilson, thank you. I'm on--current gavel 
order so that the members can be prepared. Golden, Scott, 
Luria, Moore. Okay. Mr. Golden.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you. I am going to follow up a little bit 
on the issue of vaccinations of the workforce. I am fairly 
confident that all of the services and just across, you know, 
the Pentagon--you have workers who are upset about this. It is 
undoubtedly true. I find it almost impossible to believe that 
that is not the case at every single depot that you have.
    So, look, I come out of the military. I had all kinds of 
vaccines that I had to get. I get it. I was more than 
comfortable with that. I am, you know, also encouraged by the 
high vaccination rates that we are seeing in the uniform part 
of our military.
    I am less comfortable with tying this requirement to being 
able to show up to work, but that is the current situation. So 
what I want to convey is these workers were asked from the very 
beginning of the pandemic, they weren't asked, they were told 
that they were going to show up to work when there was no 
vaccine, when we weren't even sure if they should wear 
protective gear like masks or not.
    And even if we had known that they should, they weren't 
really available. People got sick. Some of them died. And they 
are your workforce, working to provide important, you know, 
things to contribute to our national security and to meet the 
needs of our service members.
    For me, this is about respect and how you go about 
implementing this vaccine requirement, rather than just 
throwing out a deadline and telling people to meet it or take a 
hike, which is how I think many of them are perceiving the way 
this is being implemented. They deserve better than that. They 
deserve respect, and I think a collaborative approach.
    So I think my ask would be that each of the services, and 
the Pentagon in particular, lead the way, whether it be public 
depot or private Federal contractors--and I am talking 
shipbuilding in particular--that you lead the way in coming up 
with a plan that is negotiated with the workers and their 
representatives to figure out how to do this the right way that 
shows the proper amount of respect to this workforce that we 
all value so much. They are incredibly skilled. We need them. 
We can't really afford to lose any of them.
    Look at the shipyards around the country; we can't really 
afford to lose even a little bit of them. We are struggling to 
recruit like crazy. The idea that someone would take 
administrative leave to get a vaccine is totally unacceptable.
    No way. Why isn't there a plan to bring the shots to them 
at the workplace and administer them, after having gone through 
this consultative process of explaining to them why it is in 
their best interest, figuring out who actually is worthy of an 
exception, making sure that, when they get the shot, they 
understand what is going on, what the benefits are, sitting 
under observation like we all do after getting a shot to make 
sure they don't have a negative reaction, making sure they are 
cared for and that they feel cared for.
    I want to know: Will the Pentagon commit to working with 
the services to soften up these deadlines and come up with a 
way to figure out how to get this done without unnecessarily 
losing incredibly valuable, skilled workers who contribute a 
lot to this country and to our national security? And I don't 
know why that process isn't already fully in place, but the 
feedback I am hearing from public and private is that it is 
not. And where it is, it is haphazard. There is no consistency 
whatsoever, and people are very frustrated.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Golden, apparently that was an 
appropriate ask of the witnesses and, beyond that, to the 
Department. Would you like them to respond?
    Mr. Golden. If they have a response. I will certainly be 
submitting, you know, such a request in writing.
    Mr. Garamendi. Let's have from the--Mr. Morani, if you 
could, from the Secretary's office respond to Mr. Golden.
    Mr. Morani. Yes sir, I can offer you a brief response. So 
that kind of a policy question is personnel-related, really not 
in my area to comment on as far as the policy for that. I can 
tell you that last week I did get my flu shot and my booster 
shot, both provided for me at--onsite. As far as trying to 
understand and share, we are all concerned. And we don't want 
to lose anyone. We value, we tremendously value their 
patriotism and their work.
    As I mentioned earlier through my collaboration with our 
Defense Logistics Agency and understanding how they are 
implementing, they are taking every step they can to ensure 
that everyone is fully informed, everyone is treated with 
dignity and respect in this matter. But I will take your 
concern and forward that to my policy comrades.
    Mr. Stefany. I will just jump in for a minute since you 
mentioned the shipyards. First of all, both the public shipyard 
and the private shipyard workforce, they are national heroes. 
Right? Before and then last year during COVID, what they did, 
produced for us, for our warfighters is just incredible. So 
every one of them, I share with you the respect that we should 
be providing to each and every one of them as they come through 
this sometimes difficult, you know, personal decision they have 
to make.
    I will tell you I talked to the shipyard presidents, the 
seven major shipyards, just Tuesday this week. And that 
haphazard implementation that you mentioned, sir, that was 
their main point. Right? We want to do this right by our 
workforce. We want to do it together with you and the Navy. And 
so I took action with our Naval Sea Systems Command to get at 
least a single approach out and let all of our shipyards know 
this is what we expect them to do on the private side.
    So that is in process. We want, again, to do the right 
thing by our workforce but also recognize the need to protect 
everybody as well. So hopefully that is helpful, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. Very well. The issue of vaccines and 
vaccination mandates are certainly on the table. And Mr. Golden 
properly raised the question of the--that that mandate be 
carried out in a very coordinated, informational, educational, 
and efficient-effective manner.
    We would expect that we will follow up, Mr. Golden. Thank 
you for raising that.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I, too, share the concerns about the mandate. I am 
vaccinated. I have had COVID. I was actually hospitalized with 
COVID and on oxygen for 14 days. There are legitimate reasons 
not to take the vaccine. And I am very concerned about the lack 
of respect that has been shown for the workforce with regard to 
this being a personal decision where people do have legitimate 
objections to it, some of them religious, some of them health-
based. And I would just, again, like to express my same 
concerns other members have.
    I do have specific questions for Secretary Morani and 
Costello. General Hammerstedt, who is doing a great job at 
Robins Air Force Base in the use of robotics, you mentioned 
this in your testimony. Robins has spearheaded the 
implementation of the DOD's robotics, and my question is: What 
is the Department's plan to expand that technology into the 
rest of the organic industrial base? And what do you need from 
this committee as we push forward with both the NDAA and the 
appropriation measures for the DOD to do that?
    Mr. Morani. Mr. Scott, thank you for the question.
    So that is something I can talk about. So you are 
absolutely right. There is some tremendous work going on at 
Warner Robins. I was just there. That is the most recent depot 
that I was able to visit, and I can tell you I was part of Air 
Force Sustainment Center before. Two years ago I had visited 
there, and I can see a marked improvement in what is going on 
there in the implementation of robotics.
    So Warner Robins is actually leading the Department when it 
comes to implementation of robotics. They have right now over 
40 robotic machines that are, again, taking the place of the 
human. They are increasing productivity. They are increasing 
quality. They are increasing health and safety. And then the 
other benefit is the reduction in environmental impact.
    So we have worked with Warner Robins. We have worked with 
the other services. We have a very very robust working group. 
We call it JROBOT, Joint Robotics Organization for Building 
Organic Technologies. We have policy that is in draft right 
now, first time in the Department's history, policy for how we 
are going to implement and use robotic systems for 
manufacturing and sustainment. And we have been partnering with 
the ARM Institute, the Advanced Robotics [for] Manufacturing 
Institute in Pittsburgh.
    So we are working with industry and academia on the same 
plane to ensure we are taking advantage of what industry has 
and incorporating it in our depots. So very proud of what is 
going on at Robins.
    Mr. Scott. Secretary Morani, thank you for that answer. If 
you do have specific recommendations for the National Defense 
Authorization Act or for the appropriations with regard to 
robotics and how we implement that as soon as possible, that 
would be appreciated in short order as we are pushing pretty 
quick.
    Secretary Costello, I am going to move to a second question 
because I am down to 1\1/2\ minutes. And, the ``Catch Up and 
Leap Ahead'' initiative, you describe this in your testimony. 
Can you speak a little more to the Catch Up and Leap Ahead and 
the prioritization that we can expect from the Air Force on 
that?
    Ms. Costello. Yes. Thank you for that question. In addition 
to the 6 percent, our catch-up is to invest in using our 
production or procurement--I am sorry--our MILCON, our funds 
that are budgeted either with programs or for the sustainment 
centers themselves. And then the Leap Ahead is that future 
technology, the networks, the technical infrastructure in order 
to get to that digital depot that we want in the future. So 
that is really kind of what the two are.
    As far as funding it, that Leap Ahead is the harder one. 
That is because we are reliant on our future budgets in order 
to have a steady stream of funding in there to make that 
happen. But that is what we are lobbying for; that is part of 
our plan. And we do start putting things in place now and each 
year going forward. And as we can find additional resources, we 
do have a fully populated, prioritized list of which things 
would go first, second, third, fourth. And that is exactly 
where we will go as funds are made available either in the same 
year or as we go into future years. So that is how we plan to 
address both of those.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you all for being here.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott, thank you for that last question. 
I am going to comment very briefly and then Mrs. Luria.
    Early on I said we need a 5-year plan, so that we can plan, 
so that we can carry out, as you just said, Ms. Costello, the 
MILCON piece of it and also make sure that the other funding 
available, for example, the robotics, that that is also there. 
So we need these--the plan and the money associated with it so 
that we can lay out a 5-year plan.
    The problem has been created by the military not 
prioritizing this and, frankly, Congress not prioritizing. And 
so I would like us to be able to prioritize, but that requires 
this integration of these two things. And we will persist.
    Mrs. Luria.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you to our witnesses.
    I just want to take us back, you know, kind of to maybe a 
little higher level and also a little bit back in time.
    When we received the budget this year, the proposal from 
the Navy had us only building one destroyer. It had us 
decommissioning seven cruisers, four LCS [littoral combat 
ships], essentially shrinking the size of the Navy in a time 
with the rising threats from China we know we need to be 
growing the size of the Navy.
    This committee worked deliberately and in a bipartisan 
manner to reverse and add things back that were clearly missing 
from the budget that came over from the Navy.
    In that vein, the House bill, which has already passed on 
the floor, it sped us up to three Virginia-class submarines a 
year. It also preserved three cruisers and put three DDGs 
[guided-missile destroyers] in the bill. And lo and behold it 
comes to my attention this week that the Navy is letting 
contracts for decommissioning CMAVs [continuous maintenance 
availabilities] for the cruisers and is already--the three 
cruisers that we preserved, specifically the Vella Gulf--I am 
sorry--the Monterey, a CMAV to start on 1 November and also 
working with an additional contractor to strip the ship of, you 
know, equipment before the CMAV starts.
    So I was just wondering if you could comment. You know, 
this is pending law. We need to go to conference, pass it with 
the Senate. But it is clearly the intent of this House and of 
Congress to preserve those three cruisers, the San Jacinto, the 
Lake Champlain, and the Monterey. And can you give some insight 
into why the Navy is moving forward with the CMAVs in order to 
start the decommissioning process?
    Mr. Stefany. So, yes, ma'am. I recognize the cruisers you 
mentioned and the process of decommissioning in the initial 
plan. That, again, the committee, we thank the committee for 
your support in the 2021 budget. I don't know why that process 
was not stopped when we saw the, know, the committee action 
here. I will have to go back to you and find out why our team 
did not stop the process when they saw that, ma'am.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you. And I have already put this 
question out to the Navy. I am still waiting for answers, too. 
So I would greatly appreciate a prompt followup because, 
obviously, November 1 is next week.
    Mr. Stefany. It is coming up real quick, yeah.
    Mrs. Luria. We need to understand that.
    Mr. Stefany. Yeah.
    Mrs. Luria. Another thing, you know, I have concerns about 
the capacity in our public shipyards. You know, just looking 
over the last few yours, you know, even before I came into 
Congress, the Bush [USS George H.W. Bush] had started this DPIA 
[docking planned incremental availability], CVN 77, which 
lasted 27 months at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. In the Nimitz-class 
design, the first DPIA is supposed to be 10\1/2\ months. And 
somehow we got--creep from 10\1/2\ to 27.
    You know, we talk about needing ships on station to support 
our efforts in the Pacific and to counter the threat from 
China. They shouldn't be sitting in Norfolk Naval Shipyard for 
27 months. But, you know, a lot of that comes down to a 
capacity issue. We had to do the MTS [moored training ship] 
conversion. We had another refueling, and manpower and those 
types of things.
    But now the Ike [USS Dwight D. Eisenhower] is going in for 
a PIA [planned incremental availability] that is 13 months. 
That PIA essentially should have been a 6-month PIA. The OFRP 
[Optimized Fleet Response Plan], I think, pushed it out to 8 
months. But now we are adding essentially more than 50 percent 
onto the length of that availability.
    So, like, what do you need? What do we need to provide as 
far as resources to the Navy, you know, to stop seeing the 
length of these availabilities grow? And then, you know, more 
submarines, there is going to be more maintenance obviously in 
our public shipyards.
    And above and beyond that, once we get into the SIOP 
process and we actually have to take dry docks offline to 
modernize them, have you taken into account the impact that is 
going to have, the domino effect on the maintenance schedule, 
because for a period of time you will have less dry docks 
available?
    And there was legislation that we cosponsored, myself, 
several of my colleagues, that would have given essentially $4 
billion to the private sector industrial base, $2 billion of 
that for new construction, $2 billion for repair. And I was 
wondering if you could comment. Like, you know, what are you 
looking at as far as additional capacity that we need either in 
public or private nuclear-capable shipyard capacity?
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, ma'am. So maybe starting at the back and 
working forward. Yeah, we recognize that $4 billion, you know, 
item that was part of the, I guess, SHIPS [Securing the 
Homeland by Increasing our Power on the Seas] Act and that one. 
Certainly the Navy would support that.
    The larger question of why in the particular case of 
those--that aircraft carrier, Norfolk Naval Shipyard did have a 
conflict of both work and workforce, were not able to get the 
workforce in they needed. And so we are--while the SIOP 
projects are coming down to make us more effective and 
efficient in the future, we are not waiting for that. We are--
we have analyzed Stennis [USS John C. Stennis]. And we are 
looking at other--other--particularly at Norfolk Naval and 
saying what can we do better. What--we call it the P2P, or Plan 
to Perform, process. What kind of triggers can we put in and 
levers can we put in place now to better plan and better have 
workarounds if we get into trouble on future availabilities.
    So I would like to say that the Stennis was maybe an 
oddball, but we do try to work around and have actually across 
all four shipyards have levers in place to be more efficient 
and to not get into those cases particularly for aircraft 
carriers and ballistic submarines where the fleet is, you know, 
heel to tail on needing those aircraft carriers and those 
submarines.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you for that response. I would love 
to follow up, you know, really in more detail and clarity----
    Mr. Stefany. Yes.
    Mrs. Luria [continuing]. And look at the maintenance 
schedules over the next 5 years to understand, like, where 
those spots are because I have looked at the operational 
schedules. And I think that maintenance is clearly driving 
operations, and that is not acceptable. That is not acceptable 
in the environment that we have. And we want to--we are here 
today to have a hearing to understand what resources you need, 
in addition to what have you today, in order to get the ships 
out and deployed, in order to be forward.
    And, you know, I have greatest confidence in your commander 
at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, Dianna Wolfson. We served together, 
and I think she is the perfect person to be leading that 
effort. But I just want to understand with more clarity the 
plan. So would love to follow up with you.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, ma'am. And that 5-year plan that we did 
submit, will show you the availabilities that are going on at 
the same time and how that all comes together. That will be a 
key discussion with you and your staff.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mrs. Luria, thank you for a very important 
set of issues.
    I am going to read the gavel order: McClain, Moore, Fallon. 
Mr. Fallon is not on the committee. And, therefore, I ask 
unanimous consent that non-committee members be allowed to 
participate in today's hearing after all committee members have 
had an opportunity to ask questions.
    Is there an objection?
    There being no objections, that will be the order.
    So I want to put one more thing on the table here and this 
came from a discussion but has not come up thus far but I want 
to get it in the testimony.
    And this, Mr. Stefany, we were talking. Clearly the most--
all of these updates on the depots are complex. The SIOP is 
undoubtedly the most complex, and Ms. Luria just and others 
have raised the issue of the integration of the ongoing 
maintenance with the upgrade.
    In our discussion earlier you talked about a different 
management mechanism to address this complexity. Could you 
please speak to that, maybe take 47 seconds to do that? But I 
do want to get this in the record.
    Mr. Stefany. Yes, sir. So in the acquisition world for 
major acquisition programs, to elevate them, we have a 
streamlined structure where the assistant secretary to an 
executive, a flag officer, a program executive officer to 
provide that executive oversight, one person that is 
accountable to us and accountable to you, frankly, for making 
sure the whole program works. And then we have a, typically an 
O-6 program manager who does the day-to-day business. Right?
    So that structure of an executive at the Pentagon, a single 
person for execution in the Pentagon, and then an executive to 
run, make sure it is all running together and bring--all 
brought together in a strategic mode, and then a program 
manager to do the day-to-day, and that is the decision process 
for execution. There are lots of other stakeholders, but they 
don't get a vote. That is the voting process: program manager, 
PEO [program executive officer], and then a service secretary.
    On the requirements side, again, at the same time on the 
requirements and resourcing side, a single three-star in this 
case has been identified in the Navy to be responsible for the 
resourcing and the requirements. And that is what we would 
typically do with a major acquisition program as well.
    So that structure now we are putting in here. We have a 
captain identified. He is already in position. We have a two-
star admiral that is coming in. He will be on board on December 
1 to be that executive, that program executive officer to be 
the accountable executive for us and for you. And then, of 
course, myself as the Pentagon, you know, lead for the effort. 
And then, again, we have, like I said, a three-star admiral on 
the requirements side to take care of the resourcing 
requirements for us.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Stefany. I wanted the 
committee to be aware of this management change that is 
underway, and we will be watching it closely.
    McClain.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for being here today. While I agree with 
my colleagues that the rejuvenation and the modernization of 
our installations globally is one of our--one of the many 
signals that we can send to our allies and, quite frankly, our 
adversaries that the United States is committed to having a 
modern, powerful fighting force, I fear, though, that we are a 
little too focused on the long-term peacetime modernization 
plan and ignoring any potential for the need of a rapid buildup 
military, a rapid buildup of military assets. I am concerned 
with China, who is no friend of the United States, and their 
ability to leverage their domestic business in a whole-of-
nation approach to national defense.
    So my question is this. In the event of a large-scale 
combat operation against China, God forbid, is the Department 
capable of surging capabilities including leveraging private 
sectors such as the auto industry--I come from Detroit or the 
Detroit area and the auto industry--to compete against China 
and provide service men and women the assets that they are 
going to require to conduct effective operations against a 
massive modern military force? You know, meaning are we going 
to be able to adapt on a large-scale basis?
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you for that question, ma'am.
    The Army OIB has both the capacity and the capability to 
surge, and we have different methodologies to be able to do 
that.
    First of all, we have a strategic resourcing contract that 
we can leverage to surge personnel to where we can go to 24-
hour operations. We can also implement authorities such as 
direct order, direct exchange which prioritize parts. And then 
we can also work with the executive branch to implement Defense 
Production Act [DPA] which goes out to industry and ensures 
that they--that they prioritize our requirements.
    Mrs. McClain. I am glad to hear that. So, in essence, what 
I heard was, yes.
    Ms. Saunders. Yes. Yes, ma'am.
    Mrs. McClain. We are prepared that, God forbid, there was a 
large-scale attack, we could, in essence, turn relatively 
quickly and be able to--we have the resources. We have the 
ability to turn our manufacturing facilities and adapt those to 
what you all need to prepare.
    Ms. Saunders. Yes, both in human capital, as well as 
material.
    Mrs. McClain. What kind of timeframe would it take, does 
the Department need in order to get that done?
    Mr. Morani. Ma'am, if I may, so I think COVID-19 and our 
national response was a great example, case study in how we can 
leverage the capacity of our industry and move fast and use 
mechanisms, like Ms. Saunders mentions, DPA Title I and Title 
III to energize private sector that has similar capabilities. 
So I do think that that model and what we are studying and 
looking at that shows how quickly we could react.
    I was on the Joint Acquisition Task Force for 6 months, 
supporting Health and Human Services. So I learned a lot 
through that process. So I would agree that we can move pretty 
quick if we have targeted investment in those areas where we 
need that capacity. Ventilator manufacture was one, and we did 
leverage the auto industry.
    So we have--we have demonstrated that we can do that and I 
am confident that, when called upon, industry and government 
will work together to react in the timeframe necessary and 
leverage the capacity of both.
    Mrs. McClain. And I agree with you on a very--if the 
pandemic, if there was a silver lining in terms of that, it 
exposed what we were good at and exposed some of our flaws in 
that. And there were manufacturing companies in my district 
that were able to convert rather quickly to accommodate our 
needs. So, again, I hear from you--and I don't want to put 
words in your mouth, sir--is in a relatively short period of 
time we can make that conversion very rapidly.
    Mr. Morani. Relatively speaking, depending on what it is we 
are trying to surge to, we can make those target investments. I 
will use ventilators as an example.
    Mrs. McClain. And let me--I don't mean to cut you off, but 
I am almost out of time. Is there anything that we can do to 
help expedite that process?
    Mr. Morani. So I think the authorities are there. We are 
looking at DPA Title III in how we can actually leverage that 
for the organic base. So if we need additional help, we will 
come to you.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Morani. Thank you.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mrs. McClain, you are onto a set of issues 
that the full committee and several members of the committee 
are dealing with and that is to get ahead of the critical 
elements in the supply chain and the use of the Department's 
authorities. If you would like to stay with that, there are 
several other members of the full committee and on this 
committee that are working on that. Okay.
    Mr. Moore, you have gone and you are back and you have gone 
and you are back. And it is your turn.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman. I just like to keep you 
guessing.
    Mr. Garamendi. And that may have to do with that emergency 
evacuation sign behind your head.
    Mr. Moore. All is well. Thank you all.
    Mr. Garamendi. Speak into the microphone so we can hear 
you. Thank you.
    Mr. Moore. As cochair of the House Depot Caucus with the 
Ogden Air Logistics Complex, these are utmost important 
priorities to one of the key things, one of the key reasons 
that I want to serve on this committee. So it is of utmost 
priority.
    These proposed depot investments described as once-in-a-
generation projects are long overdue, and these need to be 
brought into the 21st century. So I share many of my 
colleagues' on both sides of the aisles some concerns and 
frustrations about where we are at with a lot of these plans.
    This would be a question for all the witnesses. Since 2007, 
Congress has required the DOD to invest 6 percent of depot 
workload revenue back into the depots. In a 2019 report, the 
GAO indicated that the services almost always met their 6 
percent minimum and yet facility conditions have worsened and 
modernization backlogs have increased. So, going in the wrong 
direction. We are now looking at tens of billions of dollars to 
fix the depots across the DOD.
    Is 6 percent too low an investment floor to keep the depots 
sustained?
    Ms. Costello. I will go ahead and start on that one. From 
the Air Force perspective, we believe that 6 percent minimum is 
appropriate as a minimum. We have been investing at least that, 
if not more, every year for the recent years, and we plan to 
continue to do that. So the concern with making a minimum hire 
is on--that could have some unintended consequences, depending 
on the color of funding and what you are doing. If it comes out 
of our working capital fund, it effects rates which then 
translates to readiness, other challenges. So we balance. But 
as a minimum, 6 percent is fine as the minimum. We plan to be 
investing more than that.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Stefany. I would say from the Navy and Marine Corps, 
same view. We have to catch up. We are way behind, and so we 
will be putting more than 6 percent in for our fleet readiness 
centers and the SIOP program. Once we get caught back up, I 
think, to Ms. Costello's point, a minimum of 6 percent and then 
the balance of that between equipment and actual facilities 
needs to be something we look at a little harder.
    Ms. Saunders. From an Army perspective, I agree with both 
my Air Force and Navy colleagues, 6 percent minimum. As you 
know, the 6 percent is calculated as a function of both revenue 
and workload and the way the calculation is made with deep 
depreciation. We really feel that 6 percent as a minimum is 
appropriate at this time.
    Mr. Morani. Yes, sir, I will just add----
    Mr. Moore. Oh, please.
    Mr. Morani. Finally, I agree as a threshold it is a 
satisfactory floor. The services are all investing above that. 
We do have to be careful about what that does to the rates.
    But I will add that alone we--it is not enough. We need to 
ensure that, as we bring on new weapon systems as part of the 
acquisition strategy, any new system ought to have new mission 
MILCON associated with it. That is where we can make--we can 
catch up. And we can build facilities that are agile, that will 
allow us to combined functions, that will allow us to use those 
facilities into the future for other things than maybe 
originally designed, and to ensure that they are built with 
construction methods that allow for energy efficiency and help 
us optimize in those areas environmentally as well.
    Over.
    Mr. Moore. I just reiterate the chairman's request to have 
some detail on this and would look forward to it--and my team 
is always at the ready to dig into any of these as well, given 
my--given our role and the importance of the depots to not only 
my district but many others.
    I will ask one more question briefly, Ms. Costello. We have 
a retirement problem. In the AFSC [Air Force Sustainment 
Center], Federal wage-grade employees will be eligible to 
retire; by 2080, over half will be. To replace [them] is going 
to be very difficult. Is there anything that we can be focused 
on as a committee to make sure that we are able to optimize and 
be--and sustain that workforce, that there is a--there is going 
to be a dearth of it soon?
    Ms. Costello. So I recognize that challenge as our entire 
workforce ages in this area. We are investing quite a bit in 
efforts to retain and recruit people for our organic industrial 
base and our depots specifically. We have the hiring 
authorities which help us get them on. We are looking to 
modernize our depots which we believe will attract. We are 
partnering with academia which is a great tool for recruiting 
because people see what we are doing.
    Our biggest draw, as we said earlier, is our mission. Our 
mission is really what brings people in, and that is what is 
keeping some of those people from actually retiring is that 
they believe in the mission and how important it is. And we are 
doing everything we can to make the conditions under which they 
work something that is sustainable while we are recruiting 
additional people.
    Mr. Moore. Yield back the time I don't have.
    Mr. Garamendi. That is okay. We are being a little [audio 
malfunction].
    Mr. Fallon, it is your turn.
    Mr. Fallon. Oh, great. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I couldn't hear 
you. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit my remarks for the 
record. And, first off, I want to thank you for inviting me and 
allowing me to speak and ask a few questions.
    Depot readiness and modernization is a topic that is of 
great importance to me, not only to me but to Texas and the 
country. Our district is home to Red River Army Depot which is 
the Army's center for industrial and technical excellence for 
tactical-wheeled vehicles.
    Depots improve readiness and save the Federal Government 
billions of dollars every year. Specifically, Red River has 
created a unique capability of flyaway teams to address the 
urgent matter of Humvee rollovers.
    The Army has invested considerable resources in the depot 
to have a core capability to install the ABS [antilock brake 
system] and ESC [electronic stability control] rollover kits, 
and they have special tools and equipment to do so.
    The Army projects it will maintain about 50,000 Humvees in 
service until 2050 that did not have the rollover mitigation or 
ABS capability addressed in the new production. With so many of 
these legacy vehicles being new or like new, they are used by 
our soldiers every day and located across the United States. We 
have lost too many soldiers to these rollover accidents.
    However, the rollover mitigation technology that is on 
them, once it is in place, it works just as well as like a new 
vehicle that are coming offline on 2019 and 2020. And readiness 
is clearly an issue for the base commanders in terms of how to 
address the safety issue, whether they are new or they are like 
new and used vehicles.
    So I think the solution for good policy is the flyaway 
teams. A brand new Humvee costs $400,000. A retrofitted Humvee 
costs $15,000. And if we could--I know we can't retrofit them 
all because some of them are just so old that it is just time 
to buy new ones. But we can retrofit most of them, and we can 
save literally billions of dollars. The high estimate is about 
$12.9 billion. I think we must do it. We are at a time where we 
are in some budget crunches particularly vis-a-vis defense.
    So this is--my concern is the--there wasn't a lot of money 
allocated for this in the budget. And we have teams that are in 
place that are highly skilled but if they are not doing the 
work, we are going the lose those teams.
    So what I wanted to do is, if I could have a question for 
Secretary Saunders, and it is a compound question. But how much 
of a priority is it for the Army and across the military to do 
what I just described? And if it is a major priority, as I 
believe it should be, then why wasn't it fully funded? And 
then, lastly, in your view, did the Army emphasize the 
importance of this program to the appropriators? Did they 
emphasize it appropriately?
    I really appreciate to hear your response. Thank you.
    Ms. Saunders. Thank you, Congressman Fallon. I appreciate 
your question.
    First of all, I want you to know that the Army views as our 
number one priority is people, that the life and safety of our 
soldiers is paramount. And so ensuring that they are equipped, 
that they have equipment that is safe is a priority.
    The Army does intend to equip all of our Humvees that are 
in the fleet with the increased safety capability as soon as 
fiscally possible. But as you know, the Army is also 
modernizing. And so this is a balance. And so in our light 
tactical vehicle fleet, we are looking at bringing in the JLTV 
[Joint Light Tactical Vehicle]. We are looking at bringing on 
Humvees off the production line that already have safety 
equipment, as well as retrofitting. So it is a balance across 
the entire wheeled-vehicle fleet.
    In 2022, we do have $10 million set aside for retrofit 
kits. But we are also sharing the resources with JLTV, as well 
as Humvees coming off the line already with the advanced safety 
capability. And then I do want to remind you in fiscal year 
2021 we were given an additional $4\1/2\ million to send out 
two teams to Fort Bragg and Fort Lewis to retrofit teams--to 
retrofit vehicles.
    So this is important to us. But we are looking, while 
keeping safety paramount, we are also looking at how we are 
modernizing while maintaining our enduring force.
    Mr. Fallon. Right. And, Secretary, sorry to cut you off.
    But with all due respect, we only funded about 1 percent of 
the vehicles for retrofit. And as you just mentioned, JLTV is 
going to come on line in 2050. So buying new Humvees that we 
know aren't--are going to be replaced, I think that it was not 
quite the balance that it should have been. And I would really 
like to see and will advocate for the retrofitting whenever 
possible. And the $10 million was a pittance, considering it 
should be probably closer to $200 million. But thank you so 
much for your question.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Fallon.
    Mr. Lamborn.
    We are about to wrap up here. I don't see any other 
members.
    Mr. Bergman, did you want to ask a question?
    Mr. Bergman. No, sir. I would make one comment to echo what 
you have said multiple times. If you have a 25-year plan, you 
don't have a plan. Speed it up. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Jack.
    A couple of things. Mr. Fallon raised, and as did Ms. 
Luria, one of the conundrums that all of us face. We have a 
legacy fleet across all of the departments, and we need to move 
on to tomorrow's platforms. And the conundrum is: How do we 
maintain the legacy fleet as it phases out and the new 
platforms phase in?
    That conundrum requires additional resources at the depots 
so that the transition can take place without loss of the 
legacy fleet's readiness. We have seen multiple examples of 
where this problem has led to tragedies. I am thinking of the 
AAV amphibious vessels that were not maintained but used off 
the coast, various rollovers, airplanes that--whose blades fall 
off like the C-130s, and also radars that don't work well, and 
ships run into each other in the Western Pacific.
    It is the business of this committee to work with the 
Department and--Departments and the Secretary to address this 
ongoing issue which will be with us forevermore. And so there 
are two things that seem to me to be fundamental.
    First of all that the military that is--well just yesterday 
a couple of generals said, ``If there is anything we do, we 
plan.'' Okay. I want to see the plans for this, and that is the 
5-year question versus the 20 years. We understand that this is 
going to go beyond 5 years. And so but be very, very specific 
about the first 5 years. And we will be watching that very 
carefully.
    We will also be looking at how to address the conundrum of 
phasing in and phasing out, which I suspect is a question of 
the facility itself, that if we are going build a new facility, 
it would be built in such a way that it can be flexible.
    And while I don't think there is anybody on this committee 
that is an industrial architect, I know that every person on 
this committee will think that they are when you look at your 
plans. And then we will hire somebody to look at your plans 
that is an industrial architect and planner. So be aware that 
we are going to drive this issue.
    I know that all of you are acting. We understand that. I 
also know that you're all senior executives. And as near as I 
can tell, none of you intend to retire. But the heat is going 
to be on you so that you can put the heat on the new appointees 
whenever they may arrive. And until they do, you are the direct 
recipient of both the sources of concern.
    I think we have covered most of the ground here. With that, 
Doug, I am going to adjourn the committee. Look forward to the 
future. Committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                            October 28, 2021

=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                            October 28, 2021

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                            October 28, 2021

=======================================================================

      

                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT

    Mr. Scott. My understanding is that all three variants of F-35 are 
exceeding requirements for reliability and maintenance hours per flight 
hour. Can you provide some examples of how F-35 sustainability compares 
with that of other fighters, correcting for any differences in how 
fighters are supported?
    Ms. Costello. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MOORE
    Mr. Moore. We've heard the proposed depot investments described as 
a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' project to bring the depots into the 21st 
century. I am very concerned that these modernization efforts are 
dependent on increasingly finite and competitive military construction 
funding. Is your service committed to prioritizing these projects 
during the military construction budgeting process? And should we be 
relying on ``once-in-a-lifetime'' investments rather than making the 
continuous investments necessary to sustain these facilities at modern 
standards?
    Mr. Morani. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. We've heard the proposed depot investments described as 
a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' project to bring the depots into the 21st 
century. I am very concerned that these modernization efforts are 
dependent on increasingly finite and competitive military construction 
funding. Is your service committed to prioritizing these projects 
during the military construction budgeting process? And should we be 
relying on ``once-in-a-lifetime'' investments rather than making the 
continuous investments necessary to sustain these facilities at modern 
standards?
    Ms. Costello. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. We've heard the proposed depot investments described as 
a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' project to bring the depots into the 21st 
century. I am very concerned that these modernization efforts are 
dependent on increasingly finite and competitive military construction 
funding. Is your service committed to prioritizing these projects 
during the military construction budgeting process? And should we be 
relying on ``once-in-a-lifetime'' investments rather than making the 
continuous investments necessary to sustain these facilities at modern 
standards?
    Mr. Stefany. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. We've heard the proposed depot investments described as 
a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' project to bring the depots into the 21st 
century. I am very concerned that these modernization efforts are 
dependent on increasingly finite and competitive military construction 
funding. Is your service committed to prioritizing these projects 
during the military construction budgeting process? And should we be 
relying on ``once-in-a-lifetime'' investments rather than making the 
continuous investments necessary to sustain these facilities at modern 
standards?
    Ms. Saunders. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. At Hill AFB, we have a grouping of 66 buildings that 
were constructed over 80 years ago, initially built as ammunition 
warehouse space during WWII. Over the years, these buildings have been 
modified to accommodate the mission but and are in disrepair and simply 
not fit to house the 4,000 DOD personnel found working in them. Much of 
our infrastructure not only leads to poor working conditions but have 
contributed to recruiting challenges. The Navy has SIOP and the Army 
has their 15-year optimization strategy; when will we see the Air 
Force's plan to modernize the ALCs and can you elaborate on what you 
believe should be the top 3 priorities of such plan?
    Ms. Costello. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. DOD issued a report earlier this month entitled 
Assessment of Electronics Maintenance As A Leading Driver of Weapons 
Systems Non-Availability. The Report addresses a serious readiness and 
sustainability issue relating to detecting and addressing electronic 
faults in our aircraft that prevents these platforms from performing 
their mission. The report specifically references technology and 
equipment that is available to address this issue and notes the 
improvement in readiness and the reduction in costs being delivered as 
a result. This technology and equipment are currently and successfully 
deployed at Hill AFB in my district, but not widely deployed across the 
services. Is there any interest within the department to increase 
funding for the expansion of the deployment of this technology?
    Ms. Costello. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Moore. Currently, energy usage at fixed DOD installations 
exceeds $4B per year, representing over 22% of the total Federal energy 
usage and nearly 40% of DOD greenhouse gas emissions, second only to 
transportation fuels. Continuously- active wireless sensors are 
available today, which if deployed on all energy-critical assets would 
dramatically reduce DOD's energy consumption and CO2 emissions. One 
example where this technology is used is within the Air Force, who is 
currently involved in a pilot deployment of these batteryless monitors 
on steam traps and using machine health monitors at the Ogden Air 
Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base. The project is estimating a 
net savings of $13M over 10 years, with more than a 350% return on 
investment and a 108,000 metric ton reduction in CO2 emissions 
(equivalent to reducing oil consumption by 250,000 barrels). Is there 
interest from within the Depart to deploy these batterlyess steam trap 
monitors and machine health monitors more broadly across DOD 
installations?
    Ms. Costello. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]

                                  [all]