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


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-48]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                   ON

                          THE FISCAL YEAR 2022

                     NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

                        BUDGET REQUEST FROM THE

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             JUNE 23, 2021

                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]




                         ______

              U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
48-626                  WASHINGTON : 2022 
 
 


                                     
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                    ADAM SMITH, Washington, Chairman

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island      MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
RICK LARSEN, Washington              JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee                MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut            DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOHN GARAMENDI, California           ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia
JACKIE SPEIER, California            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey          AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona               MO BROOKS, Alabama
SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts          SAM GRAVES, Missouri
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland,          SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
RO KHANNA, California                TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts    MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  MATT GAETZ, Florida
ANDY KIM, New Jersey                 DON BACON, Nebraska
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania       JIM BANKS, Indiana
JASON CROW, Colorado                 LIZ CHENEY, Wyoming
ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan             JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine               MARK E. GREEN, Tennessee
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Vice      STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
    Chair                            C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York          LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan
SARA JACOBS, California              RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KAIALI'I KAHELE, Hawaii              JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington       BLAKE D. MOORE, Utah
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                PAT FALLON, Texas
JIMMY PANETTA, California
STEPHANIE N. MURPHY, Florida
STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

                     Paul Arcangeli, Staff Director
                 Katy Quinn, Professional Staff Member
               Geoff Gosselin, Professional Staff Member
                      Natalie de Benedetti, Clerk
                      
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Ranking Member, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     4
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Chairman, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     1

                               WITNESSES

Austin, Hon. Lloyd J., III, Secretary of Defense, U.S. Department 
  of Defense; accompanied by Michael J. McCord, Under Secretary 
  of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer, U.S. 
  Department of Defense..........................................     6
Milley, GEN Mark A., USA, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff..     9

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Austin, Hon. Lloyd J., III...................................    81
    Milley, GEN Mark A...........................................    95

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    General Hyten Letter to Mr. Turner...........................   109
    ``USSPACECOM Remaining at Peterson AFB is Best for American 
      Taxpayers''................................................   110
    Superintendent of West Point Letter to Mr. Waltz.............   115

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Bacon....................................................   120
    Mr. Golden...................................................   120
    Dr. Green....................................................   121
    Mr. Kelly....................................................   120
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   121
    Mr. Larsen...................................................   119
    Mrs. Luria...................................................   121
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   120
    Mr. Wilson...................................................   119

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Bergman..................................................   135
    Mr. Brooks...................................................   128
    Mr. Brown....................................................   130
    Ms. Escobar..................................................   136
    Mr. Fallon...................................................   142
    Mr. Gallagher................................................   131
    Mr. Horsford.................................................   143
    Ms. Houlahan.................................................   132
    Mr. Kahele...................................................   139
    Mr. Kelly....................................................   131
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   125
    Mrs. Luria...................................................   138
    Mr. Moore....................................................   141
    Mr. Morelle..................................................   138
    Ms. Speier...................................................   127
    Ms. Strickland...............................................   139
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   136
    Mr. Wittman..................................................   125
    
    
                 THE FISCAL YEAR 2022 NATIONAL DEFENSE

                   AUTHORIZATION BUDGET REQUEST FROM

                       THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                          Washington, DC, Wednesday, June 23, 2021.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:59 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Adam Smith 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
       WASHINGTON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Chairman. I call the meeting to order. Good morning.
    We have our full committee hearing this morning on the 
fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization budget request 
from the Department of Defense.
    We are honored to be joined by the Secretary of Defense 
Lloyd Austin, the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff General 
Mark Milley, and by Mike McCord, the Under Secretary of 
Defense, the Comptroller/Chief Financial Officer for DOD 
[Department of Defense], and we look forward your testimony.
    We are back in the committee hearing room, which is great. 
We do still allow a hybrid option for members who wish to 
participate remotely and because of that, we have this set of 
rules that I must read before we begin. So I will do that 
before making my opening statement.
    Members who are joining remotely must be visible on screen 
for the purposes of identity verification, establishing and 
maintaining a quorum, participating in the proceeding and 
voting.
    Those members must continue to use the software platform's 
video function while in attendance unless they experience 
connectivity issues or other technical problems that render 
them unable to participate on camera.
    If a member experiences technical difficulties, they should 
contact the committee staff for assistance. Video members' 
participation will be broadcast in the room and via the 
television internet feeds. Members participating remotely must 
seek recognition verbally and they are asked to mute their 
microphones when they are not speaking.
    Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep 
the software platform's video function on the entire time they 
attend the proceeding. Members may leave and rejoin the 
proceeding.
    If members depart for a short while for reasons other than 
joining a different proceeding, they should leave the video 
function on. If members will be absent for a significant period 
or depart to join a different proceeding, they should exit the 
software platform entirely and then rejoin it if they return.
    Members may use the software platform's chat feature to 
communicate with staff regarding technical or logistical 
support issues only.
    And finally, I've designated a committee staff member to, 
if necessary, mute unrecognized members' microphones to cancel 
any inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the 
proceeding.
    With that, the only other procedural thing is the Secretary 
has a hard stop at 2 o'clock. We will stop at 2 o'clock. I know 
we have a lot of members to ask questions.
    We'll get through as many of them as fast as we possibly 
can. We will also be taking a break at 11:30 for the witnesses, 
a brief break, 5-ish minutes, and then get back going.
    So I hope members will make note of that. Hard stop, 2 
o'clock; break at 11:30. So plan accordingly.
    With that, I want to thank our witnesses for being here and 
thank them also for their service to our country and their 
leadership at the Pentagon.
    These are extraordinarily difficult times in a variety of 
different ways. Certainly, we have a very complex threat 
environment across the globe.
    Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, transnational terrorist 
groups, all of those things are things that we need to worry 
about in order to maintain the security of this country. We are 
actively building on our partnerships across the globe to try 
and confront those threats, recognizing the need for a 
cooperative effort with our allies and partners. Appreciate 
that effort as well.
    Much of the focus of this committee for the last couple of 
weeks has been on the top line for the defense budget, which is 
an area of some controversy. I, personally, you know, don't 
think it should be. I think the budget the President has 
submitted is more than adequate. It is a $12 billion increase 
over last year's budget, and the budget before that was only a 
$3 billion increase over the--over the previous budget.
    Seven hundred and fifty three billion dollars is a lot of 
money. Even in the United States of America it's a lot of 
money, and we ought to be able to adequately defend our country 
for $753 billion.
    My concern, as many of you have heard before, goes more 
towards how we are spending that money. Number one, making sure 
that we are getting value out of it, that the programs that 
we're spending the money on are meeting their budget 
requirements and are meeting their requirement requirements, 
basically producing what we asked them for, and we have really 
struggled with that in the last couple of decades.
    The members of this committee know better than anyone the 
list of programs that have either been cancelled or have wound 
up way over budget and under the performance expectations.
    Now, I will say that in the last couple of years, I think 
that's gotten better. I think a succession of Secretaries of 
Defense and other members at the Pentagon have really buckled 
down and looked at that.
    The most optimistic thing that has happened to me in this--
in this regard, it was several weeks ago when I was briefed on 
the B-21 program, which is on time, under budget, and 
performing as expected.
    We learned a lot of lessons from the disappointments of the
F-35 and others, and I know there are other programs that are 
similarly progressing in a positive way. There are still some 
that aren't.
    But number one, if we--I mean, think about all the money in 
the last 20 years that went to things that didn't produce. If 
we just had that money back, we wouldn't be having a 
conversation about what the top line budget is.
    So going forward, let's make sure that we're efficient and 
effective in how we spend that money.
    And then the second piece of it is something that has been 
a big focus of this committee for the last couple of years and 
that is understanding the changing nature of warfare, 
understanding how important information systems and 
survivability have become.
    Simply massing a huge amount of firepower in one place 
isn't enough if you can't protect those systems and you can't 
get adequate information and if those systems are not 
survivable.
    We have had two task forces in this committee. Last year, 
we had the Future of Defense Task Force that really focused on 
this issue. You know, what are the programs that we need going 
forward. I reject the whole legacy versus the future argument 
because maybe a legacy system actually fits what we need right 
now. It's not a matter of old or new. It's a matter of what is 
going to work for the environment that we face, and I think 
that task force produced some incredibly important information 
about how we do that.
    We now have a task force focused on the supply chain, which 
is directly tied to that as well. How are we--how can we make 
sure that we get the crucial equipment and have the crucial 
manufacturing capabilities that we need to perform.
    Lastly, we formed a new subcommittee focused specifically 
on emerging technologies, artificial intelligence being at the 
top of that list, but not the only one.
    That's what's really going to be the key to our ability to 
defend ourselves. I know we have heard a lot about some of the 
war games that have been done specifically focused on what 
would happen if we got into a conflict with China, and for the 
better part of, I don't know, 7, 8 years while they were doing 
those war games it did not go particularly well.
    But they did a new one, the Air Force did, just a few 
months back that introduced some new capabilities, and it 
totally flipped how that went. And it wasn't about the sheer 
volume of stuff that we had. It was about having a different 
set of capabilities, capabilities that could survive, 
capabilities that could get information to our warfighters 
reliably in crucial circumstances. That drives home that point. 
It isn't how much money we're spending. It's what we're 
spending it on and how it reflects the threats that we face 
today.
    The last point that I'm anxious to hear from our witnesses 
about is we have had a fair amount of difficulty in terms of 
protecting our service members. Focus has been on sexual 
assault in the military. We have not adequately dealt with 
that, and I think there is wide bipartisan support for the idea 
that we need to make some big changes to try to address that.
    Now, this committee has passed a number of provisions to 
attempt to address this issue. We are not there yet. There is 
going to be a big change in that.
    It is, however, not just sexual assault. I know that both 
of you gentlemen have looked closely at the report that came 
out at Fort Hood and some of the command structure problems 
that were down there that led to many problems with the force.
    We need to figure out how do we recruit, train, and protect 
our service members and their families, because as you all 
know, that's what makes defense go. The systems are great, but 
it's the people that make it happen.
    We are an all-volunteer military. We need to make sure that 
people still want to serve in the military, want to keep 
serving in the military, and feel, most importantly, that they 
and their families are safe when doing so, and I think we have 
got a lot of work to do in that area.
    I thank you both for being here. I look forward to your 
testimony.
    And with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Rogers for his 
opening statement.

 STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ALABAMA, 
          RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate 
the witnesses being here. I know you all are busy, but this is 
very important to us and the Nation to be able to hear from 
you. So thank you for your preparation and your presence and 
your service to our country.
    Last month, Admiral Davidson testified that, quote, ``There 
is no guarantee the United States would win a future conflict 
with China,'' closed quote.
    In fact, in almost every war game conducted by the Pentagon 
over the last decade, the United States lost to China. The 
Chinese Communist Party [CCP] now controls the largest navy in 
the world and the largest army in the world.
    It has more troops, more ships, and more ground-based 
missiles than United States, and while we're still developing 
hypersonic missiles, the CCP is fielding them.
    The facts couldn't be more clear. China is a very real 
threat to our national security.
    Both Secretary Austin and General Milley have acknowledged 
that point. At his confirmation hearing, Secretary Austin said, 
quote, ``China presents the most significant threat, going 
forward,'' closed quote.
    General Milley testified before the Senate [that] ``from a 
strictly military standpoint,'' China represented our greatest 
threat.
    Here's the problem. The President apparently doesn't see 
things the same way. If he did, I don't understand why he'd 
send us a wholly inadequate defense budget.
    This budget request doesn't keep pace with China. It 
doesn't even keep pace with inflation. The fact--in fact, it 
constitutes over a $4 billion cut in real spending dollars.
    This budget cuts the size of the Navy and starves the 
shipbuilding industry. It cuts procurement budgets across the 
board, delaying critical modernization efforts. Air Force 
procurements were slashed by 12 percent, missile defense by 
more than 15 percent.
    There's a $25 billion unfunded priorities list, much of 
which are critical capabilities our warfighters need to counter 
China. The budget accelerates divestment in important 
capabilities, including over 200 fighter and reconnaissance 
aircraft. It doesn't seem to matter that these are still needed 
on the battlefield.
    And as the services struggle to meet recruiting goals, the 
budget cuts end strength. Ask the administration why they 
propose such an anemic budget and they struggle for excuses. 
They tell us that the savings they produce today are being 
reinvested in future capabilities, except that's not the case.
    Slashing procurements and accelerating divestments produces 
nearly $13 billion in so-called savings. But the research and 
development of new capabilities increases by only $5 billion. 
Then they tell us the fact that defense spending is hemmed in 
is because of fiscal realities. That might make sense if the 
President wasn't proposing spending unprecedented amounts of 
money on a progressive wish list but not so on national 
security or defense.
    The budget proposes massive increases in funding for the 
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] and the Department of 
Education, HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services], 
and Commerce. In all, defense nondiscretionary--in all, 
nondefense discretionary spending grows by an astonishing 16 
percent, 10 times more than defense, and while it--and that 
doesn't count the $1.9 trillion wasted on so-called COVID 
[coronavirus] stimulus. More than $1.7 billion of that bill was 
spent on progressive priorities like stimulus checks to 
prisoners, illegal immigrants, and bailouts of union pension 
funds, but not a dime for defense.
    Nor does it include the infrastructure bill they're talking 
about, which spends money on everything under the sun except 
defense. The cost of that fiasco could range anywhere from $1 
trillion to $6 trillion of new mandatory spending.
    The only reason the President is not spending more on 
defense is because the radical left is pushing him to cut it. 
They want to slash defense spending by 10 percent or more. To 
his credit, the President has not gone that far. But what he's 
proposing is far from what we need for a credible deterrent. 
The National Defense Strategy Commission recommends an annual 
increase of 3-5 percent above inflation to stay ahead of China.
    Each one of the service chiefs and combatant commanders 
that I've talked with publicly has endorsed that level of 
spending. Deputy Secretary Hicks supported it when she was a 
commissioner on that very commission.
    I suspect that the level of funding Secretary Austin and 
General Milley would like to see is that same amount as well.
    Given the colossal amounts of money the President and the 
majority are throwing around these days, I outright reject the 
notion that we can't somehow find 3-5 percent for our national 
security.
    If this budget was being driven by risk instead of 
politics, 3-5 percent is the level of growth we would see.
    Unfortunately, that's not the case.
    Mr. Secretary, I know you're doing the best you can with 
what you've been given, but it's wrong to put you in this 
position. This budget robs our warfighters of vital 
capabilities they need to carry out their mission and it fails 
to adequately support our defense industrial base.
    Most regrettably, it gives China more than--more time to 
enhance their military advantage and undermine deterrence. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this budget and work in a 
bipartisan manner with our colleagues to address the urgent 
needs on national defense.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, you are recognized.

 STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN, III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL J. McCORD, 
   UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/CHIEF FINANCIAL 
              OFFICER, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Secretary Austin. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, 
and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today about the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2022.
    I'm pleased to appear alongside General Milley, whose 
counsel has been crucial to us as we developed our budget and 
as we continue to defend this Nation, which remains our top 
priority.
    I'm also grateful to have our comptroller, Mike McCord, 
with us today, and let me say at the outset that I believe our 
budget requests will help us match our resources to strategy, 
and strategy to policy, and policy to the will of the American 
people.
    This budget is informed by the President's interim national 
security guidance and by my own message to the force. We 
believe that it funds the right mix of capabilities that we 
need most to defend this Nation now and in the future.
    It invests in hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, 
microelectronics, 5G technology, in space-based systems, 
shipbuilding, and nuclear modernization, to name a few.
    In fact, this budget asks you to approve nearly $28 billion 
to modernize our nuclear triad, and $112 billion for research, 
development, testing, and evaluation, which is the largest R&D 
[research and development] request ever put forth by this 
Department.
    Our request also gives us the flexibility to divest 
ourselves of systems and platforms that no longer meet our 
needs, including older ships, aircraft, ISR [intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance] platforms that demand more 
maintenance, upkeep, and risk than we can afford.
    The Department must be ready to keep pace with our 
competitors and, if necessary, to fight and win the next war 
and not the last one. And that's why we have commissioned the 
Global Posture Review and a new National Defense Strategy which 
will further inform and guide our resource decisions.
    This budget reflects our focus on the pacing challenge that 
we clearly see from the People's Republic of China [PRC], and 
to include more than $5 billion for the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative.
    Earlier this month, our--after our China Task Force 
completed its work, I issued an internal directive kicking off 
department-wide efforts that will, among other things, help 
bolster our deterrence against the PRC and revitalize our 
network of regional allies and partners, and accelerate the 
development of cutting-edge capabilities and new operational 
concepts.
    However, China is not our only challenge. Our budget also 
invests $617 million to counter the damaging effects of climate 
change and additional funds to prepare for future challenges 
like another pandemic.
    It helps us to counter belligerence from Russia, especially 
in the cyber realm, and you'll see more than $10 billion 
devoted to cybersecurity, cyberspace operations, and cyber 
research and development.
    With this emphasis on space and missile defense and more 
sophisticated sensors, our budget will also help us counter the 
increasing ballistic missile capabilities of nations like North 
Korea and Iran.
    It funds a troop presence and counterterrorism capabilities 
in the Middle East and South Asia to meet the threats posed not 
only by Iran but also by terrorist networks like ISIS [Islamic 
State of Iraq and Syria] and al-Qaida, and in Africa like those 
posed by al-Shabaab.
    And it helps us maintain the integrated deterrent 
capability and global posture necessary to back up the hard 
work of our diplomats, allies, and partners.
    Now, I know that Afghanistan remains at the top of all of 
our minds, and I can report that our withdrawal remains on 
pace. Last week in Brussels, we updated our NATO [North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization] allies and I was encouraged by 
their continued support for the new direction that we're 
taking.
    We have accomplished the mission for which our troops were 
sent--were sent to Afghanistan some 20 years ago, and I'm very 
proud of the brave men and women who made it possible and those 
who gave their lives for that mission.
    And I'm also deeply grateful to the families of our service 
members who have endured so much as they sent their sons, 
daughters, husbands, and wives into battle.
    We will now transition into a new bilateral relationship 
with our Afghan partners, one that helps them meet their 
responsibilities to their citizens but one that will not 
require a U.S. footprint larger than what's necessary to 
protect our diplomats.
    And that's one reason why we're asking to move overseas 
contingency operations funding inside the budget. This will add 
greater transparency, accountability, and predictability to the 
budgeting process, and, frankly, it's overdue.
    Now, this budget also takes care of our people. It 
increases funding to support in-home care and support, which 
has become increasingly important during this pandemic.
    We also seek to improve military base pay and retention 
bonuses and other incentives that will help us attract and 
retain the best talent. And we will be working hard to combat 
challenges that make service in the ranks more difficult for 
all the men and women of the Department, from getting a better 
handle on the extent to which we experience extremist behavior 
to combating sexual assault and harassment.
    As you know, my first directive as Secretary of Defense 
issued on my first full day in the office was to service 
leadership about sexual assault. Yesterday, I received the 
final recommendations and complete report of the Independent 
Review Commission [IRC], and I want to thank Lynn Rosenthal for 
her exceptional leadership on this commission as well as the 
talented experts who worked so hard and so diligently to 
support her.
    The result is a comprehensive assessment across four lines 
of effort: accountability, prevention, climate and culture, and 
victim care and support; and that assessment recommends 
creative and evidence-based options.
    In the coming days, I'll present to President Biden my 
specific recommendations about the commission's finding, but I 
know enough at this point to say that I fully support removing 
the prosecution of sexual assaults and related crimes from the 
military chain of command.
    We are prepared to work with Congress to amend the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice in this regard. The IRC also 
recommended the inclusion of other special victims crimes 
inside this independent prosecution system to include domestic 
violence, and I support this as well, given a strong 
correlation between these sorts of crimes and the prevalence of 
sexual assault.
    As we move forward, I believe that it's important to make 
changes that are both scoped to the problem that we're trying 
to solve and properly resource. The Department will likely need 
new authorities to implement many of the IRC's recommendations 
and we will most assuredly require additional resources both in 
personnel and in funding.
    And we look forward to having those discussions with this 
committee and we must treat this as the leadership issue that 
it is.
    And Chairman Smith and members of the committee, we field 
the greatest military in human history made up of the finest 
men and women who have ever donned the cloth of this Nation. We 
also enjoy a civilian workforce deeply committed to every 
mission that we take on.
    No adversary can match the quality of our people, and I am 
immensely proud and humbled to serve with them again and I can 
assure you that the President's budget request for fiscal year 
2022 fulfills our obligations to them and to their families.
    And I thank you for your steadfast support of the 
Department of Defense and for all that you do to ensure that we 
remain ready to defend this Nation, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Austin can be found in 
the Appendix on page 81.]
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    General Milley.

STATEMENT OF GEN MARK A. MILLEY, USA, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF 
                             STAFF

    General Milley. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify before you today. It remains my distinct 
honor and privilege to represent the United States joint force, 
the most capable military in the world.
    Our troops remain the best led, best equipped, and best 
trained force anywhere and that is largely due to the efforts 
of this Congress, and I want to personally thank Secretary 
Austin and his steady leadership and wise guidance.
    Your joint force is standing watch, protecting American 
interests in all domains--air, sea, land, cyber, and space--
around the globe 24/7. We're also fully engaged here at home in 
both defense support to civil authorities through COVID-19 
medical support, as well as homeland defense to keep Americans 
safe.
    We are conducting major exercises in Europe. We are 
monitoring the DMZ [demilitarized zone] in Korea. We are 
conducting freedom of navigation operations in the strategic 
waterways of the global commons. We are sustaining operations 
in space and cyberspace. We are supporting our allies and 
partners in Africa and Latin America. We are patrolling the 
skies of the Middle East.
    And our joint force is currently conducting a safe, 
responsible, and deliberate strategic retrograde from 
Afghanistan in good order while ensuring the continued support 
of the Afghan National Security Force.
    The purpose of the United States military is simple. It is 
to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of 
America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and with 
that comes two key tasks.
    Task one is to prepare for war in order to deter our 
enemies, and key task two is to fight and win America's wars if 
deterrence fails. The United States military is a critical 
component of our overall national power; the combination of our 
diplomatic efforts, economic strength, and the overriding hope 
of the American message, and our military capability, will 
deter adversaries and preserve great power peace in this era of 
great power competition.
    The current geostrategic landscape is witnessing rapid 
change, and the potential for threats to peace and stability in 
various regions, and indeed the world, is increasing, not 
decreasing.
    States and nonstate actors are rapidly transforming 
technologically and we are bearing witness to a fundamental 
change in the character of war, as Chairman Smith pointed out.
    In particular, China is increasing its military capability 
at a very serious and sustained rate, and we must ensure that 
we retain our competitive and technological edge against this 
pacing threat.
    Readiness, modernization, and combat power are key to deter 
war and maintain the peace, and equally important are the 
combat multipliers of teamwork, cohesion, and well-led units. 
We must resolve the issue of sexual assault and I and all the 
chiefs are in alignment with what the Secretary of Defense just 
said.
    And we must confront the issue of extremism. Both are 
corrosive and the very essence of what it means to be in the 
military is negatively impacted if we allow them to continue.
    Additionally, we must continue to invest in leader 
development and talent management required for a future 
operating environment and, finally, we must continue to nurture 
and sustain a key strategic source of our strength, which is 
our network of many close allies and partners around the world.
    The joint force appreciates the work that our elected 
representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed 
to be ready. The days of the Budget Control Act are over, and 
repeated continuing resolutions, hopefully, are behind us for 
good.
    The joint force will deliver modernization of our Armed 
Forces and security to the people of the United States at the 
fiscal year 2022 President's proposed budget request of $715 
billion. The American people have entrusted to us a significant 
commitment of treasure and we will work diligently to ensure it 
is spent prudently in the best interest of the Nation.
    In alignment with the Interim National Security Strategic 
Guidance, this budget makes hard choices. But it delivers a 
ready, agile, and capable joint force that will compete 
successfully. It will deter and it will win across all domains 
and which is postured for continued overmatch in the future.
    This budget's focus is on the future and prioritizes 
nuclear modernization, long-range fires, hypersonic technology, 
artificial intelligence, shipbuilding, microelectronics, space, 
cyber, and 5G. These investments, in concert with our recently 
developed joint warfighting concept, will pave the way for the 
joint force of the future.
    The President's budget for fiscal year 2022, this request 
increases the readiness and ensures our people are our number 
one priority. Consistent predictable budgets informed by the 
will of the people are critical to our Nation's defense, and 
the passage of this budget in a timely way is important.
    The fiscal year 2022 Presidential budget strikes an 
appropriate balance between preserving present readiness and 
future modernization. It's a down payment on the investment of 
the future with a bias toward the future operating environment 
and the change in the character of war.
    It is now that we must set ourselves on a path to modernize 
the joint force and this budget contributes to doing just that.
    Many enemies, historically, have grossly underestimated the 
United States and our people. We are ready now and we will 
remain so in the future, and any adversary of the United States 
of America should not underestimate our military capability, 
our skill, and our combat power.
    Our job as your joint force, our contract with the American 
people, is that we, the United States military, will be able to 
fight and win when called upon and we will support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States always and forever.
    And I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Milley can be found in 
the Appendix on page 95.]
    The Chairman. Thank you both.
    The unfunded requirements is something that has always sort 
of struck me as odd. Every budget I've ever seen--I think there 
may be a couple of years where we didn't do them--no matter how 
large the budget, there's always this list of unfunded 
requirements, and it strikes me as simply a way to try to--a 
forcing mechanism to no matter what force more money into the 
system, when as I said in my opening remarks what we really 
need to do is to force more effectiveness out of the money that 
we get.
    But we have this $25 billion list of unfunded requirements. 
Do you agree with that? Do you think that there are things in 
that $25 billion list that we haven't done that are somehow 
going to make it impossible for you to do your job? And if not, 
please explain why not.
    Secretary Austin. Chairman, as I said in my opening 
remarks, I think that this budget provides us the flexibility 
to go after the capabilities that we need to support the 
operational concepts that will allow us to be not only 
competitive against any near peer, but actually dominant in 
that battlespace. And so I'm comfortable that this budget 
provides us what we need.
    You've heard me say also that our pacing challenge is 
China. If you look at the types of things that we're investing 
in, 20--almost $20.5 billion for missile defeat and defense, 
$6.6 billion for long-range fires, $52.4 billion for a lethal 
Air Force, $34.6 billion for combat-effective naval forces, and 
$12.3 billion for effective ground forces, not to mention the 
almost $28 billion that we're invested in--investing in 
modernizing the nuclear triad.
    So I believe that it gives us, you know, the right 
flexibility to go after the capabilities that we need to be 
successful, going forward.
    The Chairman. I don't know, General Milley, if you want to 
dive in here. So how would you explain this, and I've argued 
that we should have gotten rid of the unfunded requirements 
list a long time ago.
    But how do you explain the service chiefs submitting this 
list? You know, I agree with Secretary Austin. I think he's 
absolutely right about where the budget is at. But what are we 
doing with this list of things that to members up here makes us 
think that we're not meeting our needs?
    General Milley. As a former service chief, [inaudible] 
Chief of Staff of the Army, the unfunded requirements list, and 
everyone probably looks at it slightly differently, but 
generally speaking, I would say that requirements always--I 
can't think of a budget where requirements do not exceed 
resources, and the whole purpose of a budget is to prioritize 
that which is most important down to that which is least 
important.
    And the unfunded requirements list, given an amount of 
money to a given service, anything that goes beyond what the 
budget is that they're given goes onto an unfunded requirements 
list and these things are pages long, as you said, and billions 
of dollars.
    The key question, though, is relative to your opponent. 
Everything's relative to someone. In this case, relative to the 
pacing threat of China, relative to Russia, terrorists, et 
cetera.
    Are those unfunded requirements critical path capabilities 
that are required to succeed? And the answer is no, in my 
opinion--in my professional opinion. Others may have different 
opinions.
    If they were critical, then they need to be higher on the 
priority list and in the base budget, and the chiefs--service 
chiefs and service secretaries all go through that drill. It's 
a hard drill. I had to do it with several service secretaries, 
we had night courts and so on.
    But the unfunded requirement lists are less important than 
that which is in the base budget. The reason they're submitted 
is to provide the committee and Congress, the representatives 
of the people, to determine if those unfunded requirement lists 
meet the needs, and you have to make some assessments and 
determine to take such and such out of the base budget and add 
something from the requirements.
    So this is a flexibility option for the committee and it 
gets submitted every year. Try to minimize them to the amount 
possible because we really want the base budget is what needs 
to be passed.
    The Chairman. Thank you. I think that's a good explanation. 
And again, I'll stand by the statement that, you know, over the 
last 15 years in particular, the amount of money that has gone 
to programs that haven't performed, I mean, I'd rather have the 
service chiefs go through and tell us how they're going to make 
sure that their programs are actually going to perform as 
intended and on budget and the mistakes that we've made with 
the money that has been wasted so we don't do that again.
    And I have no doubt whatsoever if we did that we'd have 
more than enough money to meet the requirements as we do, and 
as I mentioned, again, I want to compliment this Department in 
the last couple of years, a series of Secretaries of Defense 
who have done the hard work to do that scrub, to go back in 
there and learn the lessons for what went wrong and try and fix 
it. And I think that is the most important thing we can do to 
meet our defense needs, going forward.
    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Milley, as I noted in my opening statement, China 
already has a larger navy, more troops, more missiles, and more 
hypersonics than we do. Where are you most concerned that China 
has gained or may soon gain an advantage against us?
    General Milley. I would--there's several areas. Yeah, if 
you roll the clock back to 1975 and the reforms of Deng 
Xiaoping, the Chinese economy has risen at a rate of about 10 
percent down to 6 or 7 percent recently, and it's projected to 
reduce a little bit more.
    But with that massive economy, with that massive amount of 
money, China has developed an extraordinarily capable military. 
They are not--to be clear, they are not currently superior to 
the United States military. But their aim, their object, is to 
be at least co-equal to if not superior, and that is possible.
    If we stood still, that will be possible in a certain 
amount of years. And I think that the area of cyber and space, 
those are two critical areas, and subsurface, submarines, are a 
third area, all of which we need to watch. But there's also 
emerging technologies that are very concerning, things like 
hypersonics, a man-machine interface, changing the relationship 
of men or human beings to the machine, linking that to 
various--very high-powered computer systems. There's a wide 
variety of information technologies that they're working on. 
These are all concerning.
    And then I would throw in robotics and most importantly is 
artificial intelligence. These are emerging technologies that 
are going to hit in time and space in the next 10 to 15 to 20 
years max and, we, the United States, need to be out in front 
in all of them. Otherwise, we're going to be setting up future 
generations for a very difficult situation relative to China.
    Mr. Rogers. That's a great answer, and I agree that the 
real threat is down the road. But that's the point. We can't 
put off--we can't keep deferring taking action on keeping pace 
with China, because it's going to get us in a bad situation.
    So while this budget is, basically, level funding, just a 
little bit of a dip, it's irresponsible in the long term, and 
I'm not just going off on this President. The last President 
came to us with a budget that was inadequate, and we got him to 
a better place and I'm hoping we get this President to a better 
place.
    And I frankly hate it for y'all because y'all are 
outstanding military leaders, and you know what we need and 
you're just doing your job trying to spin this thing up or 
shine it up. But it's not what we need for our long-term 
military growth.
    General Milley, as the chairman just alluded to, we got a 
$25 billion unfunded priority list that came to us, and 
included in that are priorities such as $1.7 billion for a new 
destroyer, $1.4 billion for F-15Xs, and $300 million for the 
defense of Hawaii and Guam. You don't think those should be in 
this year's funding priorities?
    General Milley. A couple of points. Hawaii and Guam--no 
one, China, Russia, or anyone else should think Hawaii and Guam 
are not defended. Because they're unfunded requirements doesn't 
mean Hawaii and Guam aren't defended.
    We have a tiered capability in the Pacific arrayed 
explicitly to defend U.S. territory. The United States of 
America mainland and Hawaii, Guam, and our allies and partners 
are very well defended.
    So I don't want anyone to misinterpret that. There are 
capabilities that we'd like to improve on. But they didn't meet 
the threshold of the base budget. Therefore, they're in an 
unfunded requirement list. For the destroyer, we're adding 
another destroyer next year. So it's going to be in the 2023 
budget vice 2022.
    Again, hard choices, prioritization. That's what budgets 
are all about. And that's what the services did, that's what 
the Secretary of Defense did, and I fully support it. And I 
think this budget, $715 [billion], provides for the adequate 
defense of the United States of America for fiscal year 2022.
    Mr. Rogers. Again, I understand--I know this is the 
President's budget and you got to do your best, but the 
commander of INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] says we need 
an Aegis destroyer on Guam and we need a new radar system on 
Hawaii. Granted, they're defended, not defended as well as they 
need to be, and we need to be taking action to protect them.
    General Milley, you testified before the Senate and said 
that China and Russia combined are spending more money on 
defense than the United States. How much risk are we inviting 
by failing to keep pace with China when it comes to this kind 
of spending?
    General Milley. I think--I think we are keeping pace and I 
think we're ahead of China, individually, as a country. When 
you combine China and Russia-- and we would have to go into a 
classified session to show how we do this mathematically--but 
the combined budgets, when everything is taken into account and 
you normalize for the cost of personnel, et cetera, then you 
will find that the combined budgets of China and Russia do 
exceed that of the U.S. Department of Defense budget.
    In certain areas I'm concerned, like research, development, 
and some of the advanced modernization technologies. Those are 
areas which I'd rather go into a classified session. But in an 
open hearing and factually correct, we are keeping pace. In 
fact, we're exceeding China or Russia in the specific niche 
capabilities.
    And I don't want anyone to walk away from any hearing--and 
we're talking to more people than just in this room right now--
I don't want China or Russia to ever think that the United 
States military is not better than their military. We are; in 
all domains, every day, 24/7. And that's not just bragging. 
That's fact.
    Mr. Rogers. And I completely agree. Everything you just 
said is accurate, today. But you and I both know, as you 
alluded to earlier, if we don't step it up they are going to 
meet us or possibly surpass us in capability if we don't get on 
pace to make sure we never lose standing with them.
    Now, listen, I know what y'all got to say to this, but I 
got to ask it. Every combatant commander and service chief that 
has been before this committee I've asked did they support the 
National Defense Strategy Commission's recommendation that we 
increase defense spending in the foreseeable future 3-5 percent 
over inflation.
    Both of you have publicly stated before the President's 
budget came out that that is the way you felt as well. How do 
you feel today? Do you still believe that that should be what 
we are doing when it comes to defense spending?
    Secretary Austin, you first.
    Secretary Austin. I support the President's budget and I--
as I stated earlier, sir, I think that this budget gives us the 
ability to go after the things that we need to be very 
competitive going forward, and I absolutely agree with you that 
we are not only sighted on what we're doing today, but we must 
be sighted on what the requirements are and the capabilities 
will be in the future.
    And so we're working hard to build those capabilities, to 
meet those requirements, and I think--I think this budget does 
that.
    Mr. Rogers. General Milley.
    General Milley. I agree. I fully support this budget. I 
wouldn't have said it was adequate if I didn't. As far as the 
3-5 percent, of course, 3-5 percent or 1 percent or 2 percent, 
we could spend it appropriately with the UFR [unfunded 
requirements] list, et cetera.
    But the President is looking at a wider angle view for our 
Nation's strength, not just a military strength, and it's a 
combined strength of the Nation. It's critically important that 
we have an incredibly healthy economy. Otherwise, you'll never 
have a military. You have to have an educated workforce. You 
have to have all of these things in order to have a good 
military.
    So if this President's budget requires other parts of the 
government to have increases for various reasons, fine. This 
budget is adequate to defend the United States of America, and 
if given more money, we would certainly spend it appropriately 
in a disciplined way in accordance with the priorities on the 
UFR list. But I fully support this budget. Absolutely.
    Mr. Rogers. Okay. Last question. Both the chairman and I 
have been very frustrated that we got this budget so late and I 
fear it's going to make it difficult for us to get an approps 
[appropriations] bill, defense approps, and NDAA [National 
Defense Authorization Act] passed in a reasonable amount of 
time. That may force a CR [continuing resolution]. Secretary 
Austin, could you tell me what the implications of another CR 
would be?
    Secretary Austin. So if we have a CR, Ranking Member 
Rogers, it will adversely affect readiness. It will slow down 
our ability to modernize. It will adversely--also adversely 
affect the industry, and so I think that's really important.
    I think we need to do everything we can to prevent having a 
detrimental effect on our ability to man, train, and equip the 
force. And what--obviously, what the CR does is it prevents you 
from initiating new starts and that's a--that's a problem.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Langevin is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our 
witnesses for your testimony today and for your service to our 
Nation.
    I want to pick up where we left just a few minutes ago, 
talking about preparing and investing for not only today, but 
for tomorrow, and because that revolves around research and 
development.
    Mr. Secretary, the fiscal year 2022 budget is the largest 
request for research, development, testing, and evaluation 
[RDT&E] to date, and which I applaud. Yet, overall basic and 
applied research funding is down from fiscal year 2021. I think 
this is a mistake.
    And given, just by way of example, that a COVID-19 vaccine 
was a result of basic defense research 5 to 10 years ago, which 
resulted in the mRNA vaccine being developed that was directly 
from a DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] 
project, that early and applied research, thank God that that 
research actually bore fruit and that it happened in the first 
place.
    So I appreciate that in our conversation on Monday you said 
that you would look into it. My question is, will you commit to 
getting me a firm assessment of why we cut these vital budget 
lines by mid-July so that we can consider it during the NDAA?
    Secretary Austin. Let me just say, again, that this is the 
largest investment in RDT&E that this Department has ever made, 
which speaks to our commitment to ensure that we're investing 
in the right things to make sure that we're relevant in the 
future, and I absolutely agree with you on the importance of 
resourcing science and technology and other things.
    And I would also say that the areas that you're concerned 
about, while if you look at our investment this year, for this 
budget for 2022, it's actually above what the forecasted 
investment was in 2021. Not what they were resourced for but 
actually what they asked for in the budget. You know, we've 
asked for more.
    So, again, we'll work hard to make sure that we have, you 
know, the right monies in the right place to ensure that we 
maintain a robust capability in this realm. But----
    Mr. Langevin. Okay. If you could just give me, you know, a 
yes or no answer. If you'd look into that assessment. You said 
you'd give--if we can get it before the timeframe so that we 
consider it in the NDAA I would appreciate that.
    Secretary Austin. Okay.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you. Next, I'm really concerned with 
how the Department has addressed electromagnetic spectrum 
operations. Our adversaries are, clearly, investing in 
technologies to dominate the domain while we continue to 
consider it an afterthought, in some ways, from my perspective.
    What--when can we expect the electromagnetic spectrum 
superiority strategy implementation plan, and what do you think 
is the first step to regaining our advantage?
    Secretary Austin. Well, the first step to making sure that 
we maintain an advantage is to make sure that we have a 
coordinated effort across the board to identify what the 
threats are and make sure that we have the right capabilities 
to be dominant in that space.
    Our vice chairman is currently leading this effort on--you 
know, for our forces and, you know, I'm confident that as he 
works his way through this, along with our deputy secretary, 
he'll come back with some good recommendations and we'll 
implement those that are appropriate.
    Mr. Langevin. Secretary, the next--the Department of 
Defense officially recognizes five domains of warfare. I think 
we all agree that cybersecurity is the national security 
challenge of the 21st century.
    The four--four of those domains--the senior civilian is a 
service secretary. Cyber has a deputy assistant secretary, 
which is four rungs lower than the other warfighting domains. 
Why does this make sense, especially when U.S. service members 
are in contact with engaging our adversaries in cyberspace 
daily?
    Secretary Austin. Well, cyber is, obviously, incredibly 
important to us. I think we're very effective in this domain 
and I think, currently, we have the right oversight for our 
cyber efforts.
    Matter of fact, I was just out with General Nakasone here a 
couple of weeks ago reviewing what he's doing and looking at 
his programs, talking to his troops, and I'm very impressed by 
the capability that he continues to develop.
    And we are investing in cyber. You know, $10.4 billion in 
this budget focused on cyber, and so it's important to us and 
it will remain important to us.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Wilson is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank 
our witnesses for your service. As a 31-year Army veteran 
myself, as the grateful dad of four sons who have served in 
Iraq, Egypt, and Afghanistan, I particularly appreciate your 
dedication and what you mean for our troops and military 
families.
    And for each of you, the issue of pit production. I'm 
grateful that in the fiscal year 2022 Presidential budget 
request it fully funds the modernization of our nuclear triad. 
A credible nuclear deterrent is key to maintaining peace during 
great power competition. This requires modernized and robust 
nuclear weapons infrastructure, including the capability to 
produce plutonium pits.
    Dr. Charlie Verdon, the Acting Administrator of the 
National Nuclear Security Administration [NNSA], Secretary of 
Energy Jennifer Granholm, NNSA nominee Jill Hruby, and Admiral 
Charles Richard are all on record supporting a two-site 
solution for pit production.
    In addition, just yesterday, General John Hyten reinforced 
the importance of a two-site solution in a letter to Ranking 
Member Mike Turner.
    I request unanimous consent to enter the letter into the 
record.
    Mr. Langevin [presiding]. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The letter referred to can be found in the Appendix on 
page 109.]
    Mr. Wilson. Secretary Austin and Chairman Milley, do you 
agree that limiting pit production to one site leaves us too 
little redundancy? What are the benefits of a two-site solution 
to the resiliency of our nuclear weapons infrastructure to 
establish peace through strength?
    Secretary Austin.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, first of all, thank you 
for your incredible service. Very, very impressive, and we're 
grateful.
    On the issue of pit production, as you know, the Department 
of Energy is the lead element for that and oversees the efforts 
of NNSA. We work with the Department of Energy to ensure that 
we have, you know, the right approach. We want to make sure 
that we have, you know, adequate resources in terms of pits and 
other elements that go into supporting our triad there.
    So we continue to do a review of our overall capabilities, 
and as we review those capabilities, we'll determine, you know, 
what the--what the appropriate amount of--appropriate number of 
sites ought to be.
    Mr. Wilson. And in--hey, and in accordance with the 
President's budget, do you support two sites?
    Secretary Austin. I support the President's budget, yes.
    Mr. Wilson. And with two sites. Thank you. Excuse me.
    General Milley.
    General Milley. Yes, I'm aligned with General Hyten's 
recommendation. Yes, we talked about it. The broader issue, of 
course, is the number one priority actually in the budget is 
the recapitalization of the nuclear enterprise and the 
Secretary has directed a Nuclear Posture Review that's ongoing.
    We'll see what the results are. But, in general, as a 
general comment here, the entire nuclear enterprise needs to be 
recapitalized and that includes the pit production at two 
sites.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, for each of you.
    And Secretary Austin, Guam is a critical Western Pacific 
theater of operations, a logistical hub for our Navy and a 
priority target, sadly, for the Chinese Communist Party.
    The patriotic American territory of Guam is appreciated for 
having the highest percentage of military service of any State 
or territory. The Missile Defense Agency's [MDA's] fiscal year 
2022 request includes $118.3 million to develop an architecture 
for the defense of Guam. Still, the MDA does not have a 
detailed plan exactly what it would be.
    Given China's increasingly hostile posture and peacetime 
military buildup, the largest peacetime military buildup in the 
history of the world, what can we expect the status of a 
detailed overview of the system and its deployment timeline?
    Secretary Austin. Well, as the chairman mentioned earlier, 
Guam is part of the United States of America, and the United 
States of America--we will make sure that we have appropriate 
adequate defense mechanisms to protect our territory here.
    And, you know, the $118 million that we've allocated for 
missile defense is a start as we develop integrated 
capabilities. In terms of a specific timeline of when that--
when our assessment and our work will be completed, I'll take 
that for the record, Congressman Wilson.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 119.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you. And, finally, Israel has been 
subject to 4,500 Iranian rockets from Gaza by Hamas. But the 
Iron Dome has been successful. Mr. Secretary, will we be 
working more closely to promote Iron Dome?
    Secretary Austin. You've heard us say a number of times 
that, you know, we are committed to the defense of Israel and 
I, you know, met with----
    The Chairman. And I do apologize. The gentleman's time has 
expired. So we will move on to Mr. Larsen. And if you want to 
take that one for the record, we can do that.
    Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 119.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Austin, for the last several months, media has 
reported on a number of damning substantial issues within the 
special operations forces [SOF] ranks. I want to know what DOD 
is doing to transparently identify, track, and respond to 
reports of misconduct in SOF.
    Secretary Austin. In terms of what the Department is doing 
to focus on that, we have not taken any additional actions. As 
you know, we have a--we have additional oversight over Special 
Operations Command now and that person reports directly to me. 
He's got a dual track reporting responsibility, one directly to 
me, one to our Policy so that we can make sure that special 
operations are integrated in Policy.
    I've spoken with the commander of Special Operations 
Command. He is focused on these issues and he is--he's really 
digging in to make sure that he understands the nature of the 
issues and taking preventative measures to ensure that those 
types of things don't occur in the future.
    Mr. Larsen. It's a real serious issue, and I appreciate you 
taking it seriously.
    And on that last point you've made, we have talked a lot 
about domains. But I want to--I want you to change your brain a 
little bit here, literally, because I want to talk about the 
cognitive domain that SOCOM [U.S. Special Operations Command] 
and SOF says they want to focus on in terms of improving the 
cognitive domain of our--of our warfighters in SOF.
    There's a $10.2 million request, very small request, in the 
budget, but--for investment in cognitive domain, improving the 
impact of SOF training and improving the outcomes so that maybe 
we are getting a little more preventive.
    Can you talk a little bit about what your plan is to spend 
this $10.2 million? I know it's a tiny bit of the budget. It's 
not as big as some parts of the budget. But it's an important 
part we're tracking.
    Secretary Austin. SOCOM has led our forces in terms of 
developing ways to make our warriors more efficient and more 
effective on the battlefield, and this is one of those things 
that they've been looking at for some time.
    In terms of specific plans to invest those monies into 
various pieces and parts, I'll take that for the record, 
because I don't have those facts at my fingertips.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 119.]
    Mr. Larsen. That's fine. I think it's more about resilience 
of the warfighter before they--before we put them into a 
situation so when they come out they're more resilient as well.
    Just can you briefly then describe a little bit how are you 
working to implement Directive 5111.10? That's the ASD(SO/LIC) 
[Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-
Intensity Conflict] directive that DEPSEC [Deputy Secretary] 
Hicks put out. How are you working to implement that directive?
    Secretary Austin. Well, as you know, our nominee to occupy 
that position has yet to be confirmed but--that is Chris Maier, 
and once he is confirmed, I have every confidence that he will 
do a great job in making sure that he keeps me informed of his 
needs in terms of service type needs and also what they're 
doing operationally.
    He will sit in on regular meetings with me or report 
directly to me on all service issues--service type issues, and 
he will also integrate his activities in with our Policy branch 
who, of course, will make sure that, you know, those activities 
are synchronized with the rest of the force.
    But to answer your question, we are moving out on this to 
realize Congress' intent here.
    Mr. Larsen. Thank you.
    General Milley, I don't want to let you go here without a 
question and this one's about the--about the Arctic. There's a 
broader--you know, a broader coordination that needs to take 
place throughout the U.S. Government on Arctic policy, 
generally, but the Defense Department has a piece of this.
    Can you articulate how the Department sees the Arctic from 
a national security--through a national security lens, and then 
what are you doing to coordinate among the services the 
disparate ideas they have for presence in that region? You've 
got 27 seconds.
    General Milley. I'll give you a fulsome answer in writing. 
I'll take that for the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 119.]
    General Milley. But, briefly, we recognize the importance 
and the increasingly growing importance of the Arctic. As 
climate change causes the Arctic ice to melt and resources 
become available, it's going to become an area of great power 
competition between the United States, China, and Russia, and 
perhaps other powers as well.
    So I'll give you a more full written answer on disposition 
of force and what we have planned ahead.
    One comment, though, if I could, real quick, and I know the 
chairman's going to cut me off.
    The Chairman. Real quick.
    General Milley. On the special operations forces, we have 
the most disciplined, vetted special operations forces out 
there. I'm aware of the reports. I've talked to Rich Clarke as 
well as the Secretary. We're getting after that very, very 
closely. But we have exceptionally disciplined and well-vetted 
special operations forces.
    The Chairman. Thank you. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Turner is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, we're undertaking our budgetary 
hearings, and as part of that testifying before us was Acting 
Navy Secretary Thomas Harker.
    He and I had an exchange about a June 4th, 2021, memorandum 
that he wrote directing the Navy to defund the sea-launched 
cruise missile nuclear capable for budgetary year 2023. The 
budget that you have before us and that you're testifying 
before is 2022 and it fully funds this program.
    Yesterday, I sent you a letter concerning my exchange with 
the acting secretary, and I'm not going to ask you for a 
decision today, but I do want to engage you about his testimony 
and the importance of what I have asked of you.
    The acting secretary acknowledged that he requested that 
this be defunded. He testified that he did not consult with 
anyone in the Pentagon and, in fact, both of you, Secretary 
Austin and General Milley, have testified that you were not 
consulted.
    Also, Admiral Richard, STRATCOM [U.S. Strategic Command], 
was not consulted and Admiral Richard testifies that this 
missile is a much-needed nonstrategic regional presence to 
provide assured response capability, that it provides 
additional diversity in platforms and survivability, that it 
provides limited U.S. response options, it is a more credible 
deterrent, and it allows us to not rely on the threat of large-
scale nuclear responses.
    Now, the acting secretary went on to tell us that he 
acknowledged that we're currently under analysis of 
alternatives with respect to this missile and, of course, the 
Nuclear Posture Review is ongoing.
    And he indicated that he was not qualified to have an 
opinion in either of those with respect to this missile, and 
yet he felt that he was qualified to cancel it.
    Now, it's always concerning when we have testimony, as we 
have from the both of you, concerning China's and Russia's 
modernization and when we have what is, basically, a 
bureaucratic intervention in what the important processes are 
in determining what our capabilities are going to be in the 
future as we respond to our adversaries' capabilities.
    Now, the acting secretary also affirmatively acknowledged 
that he understood that his memorandum was untimely and that 
the President [of the] United States was about ready to sit 
down with Vladimir Putin and that it undermined the President 
of the United States because as he's trying to engage Vladimir 
Putin in treaty negotiations for arms control, certainly 
Vladimir Putin doesn't care about arms control if we're going 
to unilaterally be giving up platforms. And the acting 
secretary on his own, as he says, without consulting anyone, 
signaled to Russia and our adversaries and our allies that what 
Admiral Richard says is an important component of our overall 
capabilities is not going to be pursued in 2023.
    Now, I've sent you a letter asking you to rescind this 
because we have the testimony directly from the acting 
secretary saying he's not qualified to make this decision, that 
he understands it affects the United States standing and our 
arms control negotiations posture, that he understands that 
Admiral Richard says that it's an important capability that we 
have, going forward, in the future.
    Now, I'm not going to ask you today to commit to rescinding 
this. But I do want to ask you, are you concerned about this 
process that an acting secretary could issue a memorandum 
canceling a very important nuclear weapons program without 
consulting anyone in the Pentagon?
    He testified here that he had not consulted anyone. You 
both testified you were not consulted. Admiral Richard, who 
says it's essential for the future capabilities and references 
what China and Russia is doing for modernization, says he was 
not consulted.
    And the acting secretary himself acknowledges that it 
undermines the President of the United States. Does that 
concern you?
    Secretary Austin. I'll make two points, very quickly. The 
first point is the nuclear triad is very important to us. I'm 
fully committed to this modernization.
    The second point I would make is that we have--we have said 
a number of times that we're going to conduct a Nuclear Posture 
Review and in that review we're going to ensure that we have 
the right balance and mix of forces and capabilities.
    I think that any announcements or decisions prior--about 
fiscal year 2023 prior to the termination of that review or 
completion of that review is premature.
    Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I really do 
appreciate it.
    General Milley, I want to thank you for your service. I did 
on the phone yesterday. I think your credibility is incredibly 
important to both--for our allies and our adversaries. Do you 
believe Ukraine deserves lethal weapons support from the United 
States?
    General Milley. I do, and we have provided lethal weapons 
in the past. But they're lethal weapons for defensive purposes 
only.
    Mr. Turner. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Courtney is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 
to both witnesses.
    And Secretary Austin, you know, I just wanted to follow up 
one point, which is--and I'm not going to ask you to comment on 
it, but the budget did come over later than normal.
    But I think it's important to remember that the transition 
team had an unprecedented level of lack of cooperation in terms 
of getting into the building and sitting down and really using 
November and December and early January as an opportunity to 
get a head start on the budget process.
    And to me, you know, just common sense tells us that that's 
one of the reasons why we're sort of a little late this year. 
But, again, this committee is going to work hard to make sure 
that our mark proceeds and we're going to do everything we can 
to get regular order.
    Both of you have talked and the service chiefs in the last 
couple of weeks have stressed the importance of deterring 
pacing threats to our Nation, particularly China and Russia.
    The fiscal year 2022 budget includes a very noticeable 
strong boost and investment in the Navy's undersea force, which 
General Milley alluded to briefly earlier here: attack subs, 
the Columbia ballistic sub program, and R&D for the follow-on 
to the Virginia program.
    Can you, Mr. Secretary and General, just sort of talk about 
how that undersea priority aligns with the goal to match the 
pacing threat in the Indo-Pacific region as well as increased 
Russian submarine activity in the North Atlantic and the 
Arctic?
    Secretary Austin. Yeah, first of all, we have the most 
dominant naval force on the face of the planet, and a key piece 
of that is, you know, what our--a key piece of that capability 
is what our submarine force brings to the--to the table. It is 
absolutely relevant to the future fight. It is necessary. And 
so I think our investments here are well placed.
    And I'll leave it at that.
    General Milley. Congressman, I would say that relevant to a 
future fight a couple of things to consider. Survivability; 
small, small is better. Dispersal. And submarines by their 
nature are extraordinarily survivable. They are very lethal and 
they are one of the significant asymmetric advantages the 
United States has.
    We have an incredible submarine force and it is probably 
the most lethal weapon on the battlefield in some future 
operating environment. So continued investment in subs is well 
worth it.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Well, thank you. And again, I've been 
on Seapower [Subcommittee] for 15 years. This year's budget 
there's--it's unmatched in terms of the proposed spending 
levels and I think it's worthy to, again, share that point.
    The number one acquisition authority, which both Admiral 
Gilday and I think even General Milley and others over the 
years has said is the Columbia program, which is recapitalizing 
the sea-based leg of our triad. I was actually at EB [Electric 
Boat] on Monday and caught up with the program there. They are 
now at 85 percent design completion as construction begins.
    That is an unprecedented level of design completion in a 
shipbuilding program, which is a way of debugging the program 
to get the design done and make sure then you just follow the 
requirements and stay within budget that's there.
    In 2015, this committee enacted the National Sea-Based 
Deterrence Fund, which was recognizing the bow wave of spending 
that Columbia was going to bring with it, and it set up, again, 
sort of special authorities for multiyear production for 
materials, for different components of the program.
    It has saved millions of dollars and CBO [Congressional 
Budget Office] has validated that. However, I would just note, 
and I think Mr. Wittman would agree on this, is that it really 
has been underutilized by the Pentagon, and we, in this year's 
mark, are going to continue to pursue other opportunities to 
get savings and efficiencies through the National Sea-Based 
Defense Fund.
    I've talked to Under Secretary Hicks and Mr. Stefany about, 
you know, these opportunities that are there. But, again, 
there's no time to waste in terms of getting this program 
complete.
    I know, General Milley, you took a rain check to come up 
and visit the South Yard where the production is. It's eye-
watering when you come up and, hopefully, you'll join us soon 
to sort of see this very important program for our country.
    General Milley. I will do that, Congressman.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. And with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Lamborn is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Chairman Smith, I received a study by a retired 
commander of Air Force Space Command and NORAD [North American 
Aerospace Defense Command]/NORTHCOM [U.S. Northern Command] and 
another lieutenant general saying that the Air Force never 
fully considered keeping Space Command in its current location, 
and doing so would save over a billion dollars and save 7 
years.
    And I'd ask unanimous consent to place this into the 
record.
    The Chairman. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 110.]
    Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin, this Monday, the Taliban seized control 
of a key district of Kunduz province in the north of 
Afghanistan, and it's the latest in a series of recent 
battlefield victories after peace talks have stalled.
    Dozens of districts have been taken over by the Taliban 
since May 1st when NATO began withdrawing, and you've said that 
you, quote, ``Were looking at the situation every day with a 
fresh set of eyes to see if, you know, the pace we are setting 
is the appropriate pace,'' unquote.
    So given the accelerating pace of Taliban victories and 
control of key districts since we have been withdrawing since 
May 1st, how are things going?
    I mean, is that an--is our withdrawal at an appropriate 
pace when they're picking up all these districts around the 
country?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you.
    We are focused on and the task that we have been--that we 
have at hand is to conduct our retrograde in a safe, orderly, 
and responsible fashion. We have developed a very detailed plan 
to do that and we have accomplished the task according to plan 
thus far and really provided for the safety of not only our 
forces but our allies as well, and we'll remain focused on 
that.
    Mr. Lamborn. And as--well, as a follow-up on that. None of 
us want to see a bloodbath after we withdraw unless--you said 
there'll be a small presence guarding diplomatic personnel. But 
none of us want to see a bloodbath against women and children, 
in particular, or against former U.S. supporters like 
translators.
    So how are we going to prevent that? I mean, how will the 
over-the-horizon process work, which I'm kind of skeptical 
about?
    Secretary Austin. So I would just point out to you on the 
over-the-horizon piece, we're doing over-the-horizon now. We 
don't have very much ISR on the ground in Afghanistan. It's 
coming from the Gulf countries, and our fighter support is also 
coming from either our platforms at sea or from the Gulf 
countries as well.
    So we can do that. We have been doing it, and we're doing 
it very effectively. What we'd like to do, going forward, is 
shorten the legs that we're required to utilize by getting an 
agreement with one of the neighboring countries to base some of 
our ISR in one of those countries.
    But, you know, we're doing that effectively now. So it is, 
it is not only possible, it is what we're doing.
    In terms of taking care of women and girls in Afghanistan, 
let me also at the very top say I really appreciate the 
bipartisan support that we have seen for this, and I would also 
point to you that--and you've mentioned this--that our plan is 
to maintain an embassy there and through the embassy we'll 
continue to work programs that are focused on women and girls.
    And I would defer to Secretary Blinken to really outline 
that. I don't want to speak for him.
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay, thank you. And we all do bipartisanly 
share that--those concerns. Is it at all possible to keep 
Bagram Air Force Base?
    General Milley. Could I make a comment, Secretary.
    So a couple quick comments here on Bagram. Bagram is not 
necessary tactically or operationally for what we're going to 
try to do here with Afghanistan. Consolidate on Kabul with--in 
support of their government.
    To back up a little bit on the momentum of the Taliban, so 
to speak, there is 81 district centers that have--that are 
currently, we think, are underneath Taliban control. That's out 
of 419 district centers. There's no provincial capital that is 
underneath Taliban control and there's 34 of those.
    It is true that the Taliban are sniping at and picking off 
outposts, et cetera, and they have seized some district 
centers. Sixty percent of the 81 were seized last year and the 
others since--in the last 2 months or so.
    So yes, we're concerned. We're watching it. But there's a 
300,000-plus-or-minus military force, Afghanistan army and 
police force, and it is their job to defend their country. 
We're going to continue to--we have a new relationship----
    The Chairman. Again, I do apologize. The gentleman's time 
has expired.
    General Milley. I will--I owe you a better answer. I'll get 
you one in writing, if that's okay.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 121.]
    Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Austin, General, thank you very much for your 
service, for your testimony today. A couple of things I'd like 
to get into.
    I think the U.S. is spending $770 billion, more or less; 
China about $250 billion; India $73 billion; Russia $61 
billion. Just proportions here to keep in mind.
    The question really is how are we spending it and are we 
spending it the most effective way possible.
    General, you said the things--in answer to Mr. Rogers' 
question you said the things that concern you most are cyber, 
subs, new weapons such as hypersonic, space, and AI, artificial 
intelligence.
    However, all of you want to maintain the triad, which will 
be a trillion-plus over the next 15 years or so, 20 years 
maybe. One element of that is the GBSD [Ground Based Strategic 
Deterrent], the replacement of the Minuteman III. The reality 
is the Minuteman III can be life-extended.
    If we were to pause the GBSD for 12 to 15 years, during 
which time the Minuteman III could serve the same purpose and 
serve it well, can save somewhere north of $37 billion in the 
next 10 years.
    If you had $37 billion, which one of those unfunded 
priorities would you spend it on? Cyber? Subs? New weapons? 
Hypersonic? Long-range fires? Space security? Artificial 
intelligence? What would you do with $37 billion, which is 
available if we made a decision to pause the GBSD?
    Secretary Austin.
    Secretary Austin. Yeah. So the evaluation of the GBSD is 
something that we will do as a part of or in the context of the 
Nuclear Posture Review, and we'll take a deliberate and earnest 
look at where we are and where we need to go in the future.
    I think no matter what funds you have available, and I 
appreciate the question, it's always a question of kind of rank 
ordering the capabilities that we need in light of the threat 
that we're facing, and that would be deliberate work with the 
services to make sure that, you know, we are meeting the most 
pressing need.
    General Milley. Congressman, thanks for the question.
    I would not recommend taking that money away and putting it 
elsewhere. The recapitalization of the entire triad to include 
the GBSD is critical to our Nation's security, and delay of 12 
to 15 years, you'll have a gap. You'll have a gap in the land-
based leg, according to the reports and the studies I've seen.
    I'll get with you offline and go through it from a 
technical standpoint and get the experts in, but what I've been 
briefed is in order to make sure there is no gap, we need to 
continue the investment in the GBSD without delay.
    Mr. Garamendi. I'll take advantage of that offline/online, 
formal/informal, whichever way you want to do it. But I think 
the facts are not clear.
    General Milley. Okay. Okay.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think the facts are quite clear that we 
could pause the GBSD and be secure with the Minuteman III as it 
is life extended over that period of time, and there's $37 
billion available there.
    Could you describe the Pacific initiative? War games we 
have mentioned many times here. The question I want to raise is 
can we sustain the fight in the Pacific? Do we have the 
necessary transport?
    General Milley. So from a military standpoint can we 
sustain the fight in the Pacific against China, and I think 
what we're talking about is a war against China. I think a war 
against China would be an enormously expensive undertaking in 
terms of all measures, and I would be concerned about the 
ability to sustain a long-term conflict. The idea, though, is 
to deter conflict and to keep great power competition at 
competition and not get it into conflict.
    But if we had a war with China, sustaining a fight would be 
a significant challenge. There's no question about it.
    Secretary Austin. I would just add on there, sir, that we 
would look to prosecute that fight in a much different fashion, 
and I know that you worked your way through all of this, 
distributed, resilient capabilities, five domains. And so it's 
a different look.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mrs. Hartzler is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
gentlemen.
    Secretary Austin, our aircraft carriers are in high demand 
and I understand that you're having to make difficult decisions 
about where to send them. Already this year, two carriers have 
undertaken double-pump deployments. That means the service 
lives on our tactical aviation aircraft are being drawn down 
even more rapidly than previously planned.
    The Navy currently has a strike fighter shortfall of 49 
aircraft. Despite this, the budget request has proposed to 
shift procurement dollars from building the new Block III Super 
Hornets into development of the next-generation replacement 
aircraft, which is not slated to have initial operating 
capability until the 2030s.
    So taking into consideration the operations tempo of our 
carrier fleet demanded by our security environment, the strike 
fighter shortfall, possible attrition of aircraft, F-35C costs, 
and the likelihood of the next-generation air dominance 
schedule could continue to slip to the right, are you concerned 
about having sufficient tactical aviation fleet to deter and 
respond to China in the near term?
    Secretary Austin. The short answer is I believe that we'll 
have, if we stay on pace and invest in the things that we want 
to invest in, we'll have the right capabilities to match our 
strategy, going forward, and our--and support our operating 
concepts.
    Again, I think that you have to make decisions to invest in 
future capabilities, as we discussed this morning, and we have 
worked with the services very closely and carefully to identify 
what those requirements are.
    Mrs. Hartzler. I think it provides too much operational 
risk in the near term and we need to reexamine that, and I'm 
going to be working to try to get some more F-18s in this 
year's budget because I believe there's too much a shortfall 
that we have right there.
    But I want to change topics and just say how much I 
appreciate our men and women in uniform, and I believe that 
they are absolute heroes. They should be respected and 
encouraged in every way, and I'm very concerned about the 
recent order that you have conducted regarding looking at so-
called extremism.
    And I have sent you two letters, Mr. Secretary, asking for 
the definition of what the Department of Defense views as 
extremism and have not heard back from you yet.
    And so could you just share with me, does the Department of 
Defense have a clear definition of extremism?
    Secretary Austin. A couple of comments on this--on this 
issue.
    First of all, I think you've heard me say that--on a number 
of occasions that I believe that 99.9 percent of our troops are 
focused on the right things, embracing the right values each 
and every day.
    Small numbers of people can in this--in this area can have 
outsized impact on our organization. And so we want to make 
sure that we're providing the right climate, the right 
environment for our troops to work and live in.
    We are not--we are focused on extremist behavior, not what 
people think or political ideas or religious ideas, but 
extremist behavior.
    Mrs. Hartzler. So do you have a definition of what 
extremism is and what that behavior is?
    Secretary Austin. Again, we're focused on behavior.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Well, you had a stand-down, and you had a 
pause over the entire military for an entire day to do training 
to talk about this, and you don't have a definition yet of what 
the purpose was and what extremism is?
    Secretary Austin. The purpose was to help--to have a 
discussion with our troops and our leaders on the issue of 
extremism.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. And that was very productive. And, again, 
we were focused on those behaviors that don't--that are not in 
congruence with our values in the military.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Okay. And you have ordered that there be 
this commission and have a review, and I guess I just want a 
little more information. We're going to--you're setting up and 
proposing a new screening capability, ongoing continuous 
vetting of our men and women in uniform, and you're going to 
develop a policy to expand user activity.
    So what specifically would you be screening for? So as--if 
you set up this screening of our military members, what would 
be--what are you screening for?
    Secretary Austin. Our screening is focused on screening 
those applicants that are coming into the military. We want to 
make sure that we're bringing in the right--the right type of 
people, quality of people.
    Mrs. Hartzler. So if someone says that they're for 
President Trump, would that be viewed as extremism?
    Secretary Austin. As I said earlier, this is not about 
politics. I want our troops to participate in our political 
system.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Well, I'm just saying----
    Secretary Austin. That's what they're fighting to defend 
and but I will also say that we will continue to be a diverse--
a diverse and inclusive organization. That's what the United 
States military is all about.
    Mrs. Hartzler. So I would just encourage us not to infringe 
on our liberties.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired and--sorry, 
time has expired.
    Ms. Speier is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    To both of you, thank you so much for your outreach. I want 
to say to you, Secretary Austin, you--we talked some months 
ago. You're a man of your word. And, excuse me, I am deeply 
grateful for the statement you put out yesterday. You are 
creating a profound transformation in the military, as we 
address sexual assault and sexual harassment. So thank you.
    I want to ask you, I am deeply concerned about the suicide 
rate in the military right now. There have been 10 suicides in 
Alaska already this year. There was a 30 percent increase in 
suicides last year over the year before, and I would like to 
recommend to you, much like you did with sexual assault and 
sexual harassment, is to stand up a commission to look at what 
we should be doing to address this, I think, frightening 
situation. But that won't be my question.
    I want to ask you about the climate surveys. We spend a lot 
of time, a lot of money, on climate surveys, and what we found 
out in the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee was that they 
were not even looked at.
    So what steps are you taking, moving forward, to make sure 
not only are the commanders on the ground there looking at 
these climate surveys each year, but that those above them, the 
senior leadership, is looking at them as well?
    Secretary Austin. First of all, let me thank you personally 
and thank the committee as well for all that you have done to 
remain focused on the issue of sexual assault, sexual 
harassment, and the resources that you continue to provide to 
make sure that we don't lose focus. We truly appreciate your 
support. The survivors appreciate your commitment and the 
troops and our ranks appreciate that as well.
    And we will get this in the right place and it will require 
a lot of hard work, a lot of commitment and dedication, and it 
will require resources.
    And so I would ask that you continue to support us as we 
take this on.
    The--could you repeat the last part of the question there? 
I kind of lost----
    Ms. Speier. Climate surveys.
    Secretary Austin. Climate surveys. Yeah.
    So one of the things that the Independent Review Commission 
recommended to us is that we take a harder look at what we're 
doing with climate surveys, that they be current, that they--
that the leadership pay attention to what's going on with them, 
and that we refine the surveys to make sure that we're asking 
the right questions in surveys.
    And so we will remain sighted on this, and I would agree 
with you, they only work if you use the information that's in 
them.
    General Milley. If I could make a comment, Congresswoman.
    The climate surveys need to be reviewed by the commanders 
at least two levels up. Previously, years gone by, Fort Hood is 
an example, they weren't. There were reasons for that because 
we thought it was best to be used only by the commander. Give 
free help and feedback to the commander, and then they would 
take appropriate action. That didn't work. So now what we need 
to do is shift gears and make sure those climate surveys are 
personally reviewed by commanders at least two levels up on all 
their subordinates.
    Ms. Speier. And you're going to do that at all 
installations?
    General Milley. Everywhere. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, 
Space Force, at all echelons.
    Ms. Speier. So General, let me ask you about OPTEMPO 
[operating tempo].
    We had a conversation just earlier this week about it. It 
appears that the OPTEMPO has really had a profound effect on 
our service members. I think it's starting to impact retention, 
and as I mentioned to you at the time, one of the spouses at 
one of our installations had said to me that she was concerned 
every night when she came home because she was afraid she was 
going to see her husband hanging in the shower.
    What steps are we taking to make sure that the training we 
do is necessary and appropriate?
    General Milley.
    General Milley. The training of units is a commander's 
responsibility and, again, two levels up, commanders routinely 
develop their training plans, back-brief them, and get them 
approved, and they are tied directly to war plans to ensure 
that the training is focused on the readiness and the 
capability of the force to execute those tasks for which 
they're required in accordance with the various war plans.
    So it's a very focused level of effort. Has been for years 
and they still are. The broader question is OPTEMPO, and 
OPTEMPO is directly related to the size of the force.
    As the OPTEMPO came down from the peak of the wars in 
Afghanistan and Iraq, so did the size of the force. So the 
relative OPTEMPO in any given unit, especially special 
operations forces which was mentioned earlier, still remains 
high. It's a big concern. It impacts all kinds of things to 
include suicides. So that's the key metric is the OPTEMPO----
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired. We will 
get one more in, and then we're going to take our break. So Mr. 
Scott is recognized, and when he is done we'll take a brief 
break.
    Mr. Scott is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, I want you to know I support--coming out of 
Afghanistan one of the things that is on I think every member 
of this committee's mind is what's going to happen with special 
access visas for interpreters.
    And while I don't expect you to necessarily speak in this 
setting about that, I do hope that there's progress in the 
right direction with regard to the special access visas, and I 
do hope that--that just needs--it's just got to be done.
    And one other thing that I would mention is with regard to 
our troops, I do think that we should look at making internet 
service similar to water on bases for our troops, just make 
internet service a basic utility. It does not sound like that 
big of a deal.
    But if we're able to save our troops $50 or $60 or $70 a 
month, whatever they're having to pay for that internet access, 
it makes a big difference to--especially to our younger 
enlisted corps.
    One other comment would be after spending time with some of 
your ODA [Operational Detachment Alpha] teams in Africa, this 
is not a DOD mission, but I do think it is a--would be a State 
Department mission or perhaps another State Department's 
mission, the French State Department, potentially. But when we 
bring these troops in and we have them for 24 months, and they 
come in with an eighth grade education, I do not think they 
should leave with an eighth grade education.
    I think that while we're training them to fight and when we 
have got them 7 days a week, 24 hours a day, we need to have 
somebody trying to educate those troops, that we haven't simply 
trained them to fight and release them back on the street and 
potentially turn them into the foes of the future, if you will.
    Those are just a couple of things I wanted to mention 
before I hit on a specific weapon system.
    And Secretary Austin, General Brown and I have met at 
Robins Air Force Base. I know that you have called for the 
draw--the President has asked for the drawdown of four of the 
J-STAR [Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar] aircraft from 
the 116th.
    I support this retirement, given the commitment at Robins 
Air Force Base in the ABMS [Advanced Battle Management System] 
mission. I do have concerns about the ground moving target 
indicator-indication [GMTI] capability.
    And are you convinced that the Air Force can provide the 
GMTI capabilities with the existing fleet?
    Secretary Austin. I am convinced that the Air Force is--
continues to upgrade and modernize its fleet of sensors to 
ensure that we have the capability that we'll need going 
forward. And I'm also, sir, very encouraged that--to know that 
General Brown has worked with you in terms of what the future 
is for that base and other capabilities in the fleet there.
    Mr. Scott. Well, I would like to invite both of you to 
Robins Air Force Base to review the ABMS mission and the good 
work that's going on down there. A lot of good things--a lot of 
good things are happening.
    General Milley, I mean, we have all talked about China a 
little bit. This spring, the SOUTHCOM [U.S. Southern Command] 
commander, Admiral Faller, told our committee that our 
interagency partners and the United States pointed out that 
Chinese money laundering is the number one underwriting source 
for transnational criminal organizations. This is in, 
obviously, Central and South America.
    Our AFRICOM [U.S. Africa Command] commander, General 
Townsend, testified that illegal, unreported, and unregulated 
fishing by the Chinese Communist Party is the primary 
contributor to a growing food crisis that will further drive 
instability in West Africa.
    So my question is, how do we counter this ongoing malign 
activity from China around the world, and what are our partners 
that share our interests and our values doing to help us combat 
that malign activity?
    General Milley. The issue of China, obviously, is not just 
a Western Pacific issue. It's a global issue. China is a 
massive economy. They're developing a first-rate military and 
they are expanding their ambitions and aspirations globally, 
not just regionally.
    That includes South America, as Admiral Faller said, and 
Africa and elsewhere. And we are working closely with our 
allies and partners in all of those regions to counter any sort 
of great power competition that they have in mind in each of 
those regions.
    So we're doing that, as we speak, with all of the countries 
that are our allies and partners.
    That network of allies and partners around the world is one 
of the single most important things we can do as a nation is to 
maintain it, keep it robust, and that will help in this 
competition with respect to China.
    Mr. Scott. Gentlemen, thank you for your time and your 
service. I'm extremely concerned that China is becoming much 
more aggressive, not just with regard to the military buildup, 
the treatment of the other people----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    And with that, we will take a brief recess. My goal is to 
reconvene at 11:45, and when we do, Mr. Norcross is up.
    So we'll take a brief recess and we'll be back shortly.
    [Recess.]
    The Chairman. We will reconvene as soon as everyone can get 
back to their places here, which will take just a few seconds 
and we'll start back up again.
    I will remind members at 2 o'clock the Secretary has a hard 
stop. We'll do our best to get as many people in between now 
and then. But we will stop at 2 o'clock.
    All right. We will convene. And with that, I will get 
someone to shut that door. Then we will call on Mr. Norcross.
    Mr. Norcross, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman, and to Secretary Austin, 
General Milley, thank you for your service. Very much 
appreciate you coming by today.
    A number of issues that have been illuminated over the past 
year, particularly with the pandemic, is our industrial base.
    Certainly, to all of those who continue to work during the 
pandemic, incredibly helpful for us and our country to continue 
to move.
    But one thing it has done is really illuminate some of the 
problems we're having with our industrial base and the supply 
chain. As the chairman mentioned, we have a task force on 
critical supply chain that had pointed out a number of issues, 
whether it's semiconductors, rare earth, propellants, 
explosives.
    But one of the things that was somewhat of a surprise to 
the committee was the workforce, and that goes hand in glove 
with the industrial base. What is the Department doing or plan 
on doing for these supply chains to get more visibility so we 
don't get caught shorthanded on some of the surprises that were 
put upon us during the pandemic.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. Let me say up front 
that I absolutely agree with you that, you know, making sure 
that we have sound and protected supply chains is critical.
    Supply chain vulnerability winds up being a national 
security vulnerability. I certainly appreciate the President's 
leadership in this, as he has emphasized this over and over 
again.
    In this budget, you'll see that we are investing $341 
million to partner with U.S. companies to make sure that we're 
doing our part to boost defense industrial base activity and 
onshore some of the--some of the supply chain activities that 
have been offshored in the past.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you for that, because, obviously, we 
have trusted partners that we care very much about. But I think 
we can move from 55 percent where we are, incrementally and 
predictably, so that supply chains become more secure.
    And that brings me to my second question, in particular, 
about the Navy's long-term aircraft inventory plan. We have no, 
in this year's President's budget, the F/A-18E and F jets that 
have previously been focused on.
    The loss of a critical supply chain in these F-18s is very 
much in question not only from what we need in terms of our 
tactical force but the minimum sustaining rates. Can you talk 
about the issue with the F-18, why we are dropping back on that 
and the problems it might cause?
    Secretary Austin. What I can say, sir, is that we continue 
to invest in those capabilities and technologies that we think 
will be relevant in the future and make sure that we have 
sufficient lifespan in those capabilities going forward.
    So--and it calls for us to make tradeoffs. And so as we 
invest in one type of aircraft or capability, we'll have to 
either divest of some current capability or not reinvest in 
that capability.
    Mr. Norcross. No, incredibly important. But it's also 
keeping that industrial base alive, which we all agree with 
that.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Dr. DesJarlais is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 
General Milley and Secretary Austin, for your service.
    I'd like to start with General Milley. We know from Admiral 
Richard's testimony before the committee that the United 
Kingdom has reached out and expressed concerns about the United 
States adopting a no first use or sole purpose policy.
    I personally heard the same from the Polish ambassador; the 
French, Japanese, South Koreans have also expressed similar 
concerns about the U.S. possibility of changing the declaratory 
policy to no first use [NFU] or sole purpose. Have you heard 
similar concerns from the allies that adopting a NFU or sole 
purpose policy would be destabilizing?
    General Milley. I have frequently engaged with allies and 
partners of both Asia, Europe, all over the place, and that 
particular issue has not risen of a particular concern with 
respect to my counterparts that I've dealt with.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. In April, Admiral Richard further 
testified that U.S. adoption of a no first use policy would 
remove a level of ambiguity that has deterrence value and that 
such a move would have a negative effect on the extended 
deterrence and assurance to our allies. Would you agree with 
his assessment?
    General Milley. Yeah, absolutely. I think the President of 
the United States should always have as many options as 
possible, and that's my position.
    Dr. DesJarlais. He further told us that available evidence 
indicates that Russia and China will not view such a shift in 
U.S. policy as credible. Do you agree with Admiral Richard on 
that as well?
    General Milley. I have not talked to Admiral Richard on 
that specific point. I would have to get with the intel 
community to determine if their assessment was what the view of 
Russia and China would be on a declaration. But, again, maximum 
options always available to the President is my position.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. So not to beat a dead horse. But in 
short, the U.S. declaring a sole purpose or NFU policy would be 
destabilizing, alienate allies, undermine our extended 
deterrence guarantees, and would have no impact on Russia or 
China's calculus.
    So, General Milley, given all this, what's your best 
military advice as to whether the U.S. should adopt an NFU or 
sole purpose nuclear declaratory policy?
    General Milley. My view--you're asking for my personal best 
military advice--is to maintain all options available to the 
President of the United States at all times. So I would not 
recommend making a declaration of no first use. It is a topic 
for which I think would take away an option for the President. 
Always maintain options for the President.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Thank you, General Milley.
    Secretary Austin, same question to you. Given the corrosive 
impact that such a change in policy would have on our alliances 
and extended deterrence guarantees as well as the minimal 
impact on Russia and China's nuclear calculus, what is your 
best military advice on changing nuclear declaration policy 
or--to no first use or sole purpose?
    Secretary Austin. You know, I absolutely agree with the 
Chairman that our goal is to provide as many credible options 
to the President as possible. And I would also say, though, 
that this is a policy issue and one that, you know, the 
administration will sort through, sort out, going forward as it 
does its strategic reviews in the future.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Okay. And Secretary Austin, shifting 
topics, I would like you to provide--you can have the rest of 
my time to describe why it is so critical that Congress work to 
quickly reimburse the National Guard for the over $500 million 
spent on its mission here at the Capitol earlier this year and 
what impact on readiness could result if these funds are not 
returned in a timely manner.
    Secretary Austin. So I'll just make a brief comment. The 
Chairman might want to comment on this as well. I think you've 
heard me say before that if we don't resource the Guard in--
what will happen is it'll begin to erode readiness. It will 
disallow them to conduct their training in accordance with the 
schedules that they should be on.
    And so this is very, very important to us and I would 
encourage you and ask for your help in providing those 
resources.
    General Milley. And I would add to that, Congressman, I 
would ditto what the Secretary just said; $500 million in the 
grand scheme of a $715 billion budget may not seem like a lot, 
but to the National Guard that is a lot. So reimbursing them 
for their efforts, their great efforts. And this is also a year 
in which the Guard has been doing COVID, they're overseas.
    There's a very high OPTEMPO in the Guard. So that $500 
million is very important. We'd like to see it reimbursed for 
the National Guard in order to maintain their training and 
their standards.
    Dr. DesJarlais. Duly noted. Thanks to you both
    Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Gallego [presiding]. Thank you, Representative.
    Secretary Austin, earlier this year, we discussed our 
shared interests for strong consistent civilian oversight of 
the Armed Forces. As chairman of the Intelligence and Special 
Operations Subcommittee, I appreciate your commitment to ensure 
civilian leadership of our special operation forces with the 
restructuring of the ASD(SO/LIC) to include resourcing and 
staffing the office consistent with its oversight 
responsibilities.
    Can you please highlight the steps you, alongside Deputy 
Secretary Hicks, are taking to increase civilian oversight of 
the SOF community to ensure an agile and lethal force ready for 
strategic competition, particularly with regards to acquisition 
and diversity?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you. You may have heard me say 
earlier that there's a direct reporting chain now linked to me 
and, you know, that secretary will sit in on all of--all of my 
key leader meetings, report to me routinely on the--on the 
ongoing efforts in the Department, and we'll discuss what we 
cited on those service-like requirements and needs for the 
special operations community.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary. More than 18 months ago, 
nine combatant commanders articulated an immediate need for the 
intelligence community to help combat the provocative actions 
of China and Russia in the public domain.
    The Director of National Intelligence establishing a malign 
foreign influence response center that will lead to 
coordination and integration of intelligence related to foreign 
malign influence.
    What changes are you directing within the Department to 
help address this urgent requirement?
    Secretary Austin. We have had--the Chairman and I have 
had--first of all, I do believe that it is an important issue. 
All of the combatant commanders have identified a need for 
resourcing to address this issue.
    You know, as we have talked to the combatant commanders, we 
want to make sure that we're synchronizing our efforts and that 
we're putting the resources in the right place. So this is the 
thing that we're getting our arms around a little bit better.
    But I would say up front that we will resource the 
combatant commanders based upon their requests. But we want to 
make sure that we're using those dollars to get best value, and 
I'm confident that we'll be able to.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary.
    For over 20 years, the SOF community has been focused on 
anti-terrorism operations in permissive environments. But the 
growing threat posed by China and Russia underscore the need to 
pivot our focus to the great power competition.
    Can you expand on how this budget proposal addresses the 
need to refocus special operations to combat near-peer 
adversaries?
    Secretary Austin. Well, I think, you know, you've seen the 
special operations forces begin--first of all, they have 
incredible capability across a spectrum of activity. Whereas we 
have been focused on transnational terrorism to a greater 
extent in the past, they, you know, over the last several years 
have began to lean into great power competition, develop 
capabilities and resources that will be a bit more relevant to 
that near-peer competition.
    As you look at what we have invested in, you know, 
throughout the budget here in terms of the major items, you 
know, research, development, and technology, you know, long-
range fires, lethal Air Force, that sort of stuff, all of that 
really kind of contributes to the overall effort there, and the 
special operations forces is a part of that, obviously.
    But we're setting the stage to make sure that not only 
special ops but every other element on the battlefield can be--
can be effective. And again, we're emphasizing that this is--
this is competition across all domains, and not just--not just 
land, air, and sea.
    General Milley. Can I just add something, Congressman 
Gallego, if I could?
    Mr. Gallego. Go ahead, General.
    General Milley. Training is the key here. SOCOM is 
reorienting the training of the special operations community 
for higher end fighting against China and all of the core 
fundamental tasks of unconventional wars, strategic 
reconnaissance, and the entire list of core tasks, and it's 
really got to do with training and getting them aligned with 
the various war plans against the pacing threat of China.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you.
    Gentlemen, in the remaining time that we have, last year 
Congress appropriated $169 million to the Baltic Security 
Initiative to increase military aid and cooperation with the 
Baltics.
    Do you have an update on how the Department is spending 
this money? Chairman Milley or Secretary Austin.
    General Milley. Yeah. With respect to the Baltics, we are 
doing exercises. We are doing, back to special operations 
forces, there's a lot of special operations things going on in 
there. There's train, advise, assist with them. And we are--as 
part of the European Defense Initiative, part of that is 
exercising in the Baltics.
    So under the purview of EUCOM [U.S. European Command], all 
of that is happening. So that's where that money is going.
    Secretary Austin. The President just recently met with the 
three key senior leaders of the Baltics area in Brussels at 
the--in the margins of the summit, the NATO summit there. So--
--
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Secretary. Thank you, General.
    And I now recognize the ranking member to the ISO 
[Intelligence and Special Operations] Subcommittee, 
Representative Kelly.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Chairman.
    First of all, I want to kind of double tap what I think Mr. 
DesJarlais said--Dr. DesJarlais.
    It's important that we get those dollars back to the Guard 
and Reserve so that they don't miss drills.
    You know, we have our 155 BCT [Brigade Combat Team] out of 
Mississippi that has done COVID response. We put shots in arms. 
We have done--we have been the logistical backbone for our 
entire State. They're at NTC [National Training Center] in a 
rotation right now.
    And then those guys and girls are going to come back and 
we're going to tell them in August or September, we can't pay 
you for drills so stay home, and we're going to lose that 
readiness that we have been building.
    So please help us get those dollars back to the Guard and 
Reserve.
    Secretary Austin. You have my commitment that we will 
advocate when and wherever possible. And just to dovetail on 
what you just said there, I am absolutely proud of what our 
Guard has done over the last year especially, and they have 
been a significant factor in our ability to begin to bend the 
curve with respect to COVID. And now we're entering the 
firefighting season and the hurricane season as well. They will 
continue to be----
    Mr. Kelly. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And now I want to talk a little bit about TRICARE and 
having been through this process myself, we have our Guard and 
Reserve which don't have TRICARE except when they're deployed 
or there's a cost associated with it, which is greater.
    You have certain members, Federal technicians, which are 
not allowed to get TRICARE. It is very difficult going on and 
off of deployments, especially as much as we're being used, and 
not having continuity of health care.
    You agree that the primary readiness issue for Guard and 
Reserve is having health issues, whether it's teeth issues, 
dental, or other. What are we doing at DOD to make sure that we 
have continuity of health care for our Guard and Reserve, 
whether traditional or full time?
    Secretary Austin. The healthy--the health, welfare, and 
safety of our force is of utmost important to me, and I thank 
you for the question. And I would welcome any initiative that 
enables us to provide better health care, more efficient health 
care, to all the components of our service.
    The issue always is resources and so, you know, as you 
know, currently, we are only resourced to do a certain amount 
and I agree, the members of our--all the members of our Armed 
Forces are important.
    And if we make a decision that we are going to expand 
services, certainly, we'll need to be resourced to do so----
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you. I want to get on to the next one.
    ISO, the intel, our special operations, the budget in 
fiscal year 2021 was cut $495 million. The proposed cut this 
year--or, it was $600 million cut from fiscal year 2020 and 
2021, $495 million this year.
    They're having to do more with less. As we shift to China 
and Russia and our near-peer adversaries, we still have to do 
the work that our special operators so often do, and many times 
they're the only people who can do that.
    What are we doing to make sure that we have them ready to 
be in places like Africa, the Middle East, and those things 
with these budget cuts? We're resourcing them less, but in 
reality, we're asking them to do more with less.
    Do you agree, Secretary Austin?
    Secretary Austin. Well, I think when we look at the entire 
picture, you know, we are--we are retrograding from 
Afghanistan, as we speak. And that will create some 
opportunities for us to shift some resources around.
    But to your point, special operations forces, there is 
always high demand and there's a very low density of these 
elements, and we will need to make sure that they have the 
resources they need to be successful. So we'll continue to work 
that.
    Mr. Kelly. And Secretary--I'm sorry, Chairman Milley, I'm 
sorry. I've been--I traveled recently to the Middle East and 
Africa, and in the Middle East specifically, and what--as we're 
coming out of Afghanistan, we still have CENTCOM [U.S. Central 
Command]. So I understand we will have less resources.
    Many of our allies and partners in the region like our 
presence there. So can you tell me what are we doing to build 
the confidence in our allies and partners in the Middle East 
and Europe and Africa that we're still going to be there as a 
great partner, even though we're coming out of Afghanistan? 
Because we have got some work, I think, with our allies and 
partners to do there.
    So Chairman Milley, if you can address that, please.
    General Milley. Let me give you, in the interest of time, 
Congressman, let me give you an answer for the record with some 
details of what we're doing.
    But, in general, for the CENTCOM AOR [area of 
responsibility], the Middle East is important to the United 
States. It's going to be important to us in the future. We are 
looking at, under the direction of Secretary Austin, an entire 
Global Posture Review. We have a lot of work left to do that, 
to back-brief the Secretary on that.
    But exercises, forward presence, bases, all of those things 
and working closely with our allies and partners in all of the 
regions you just mentioned. And I owe you an answer in writing.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 120.]
    Mr. Kelly. Absolutely. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. Mr. Moulton is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. Secretary Austin and Chairman Milley, thank 
you for your lifetimes of service and leadership to our 
country.
    As we withdraw from Afghanistan, we have not seen an 
operational plan to save our brave Afghan partners and allies. 
Now, I recognize that the Trump administration left you with no 
plans and an even earlier withdrawal date, not to mention that 
Trump's policy of banning Muslim immigrants would probably have 
led him to abandon our allies in Afghanistan the same way he 
abandoned our allies in Syria.
    Nonetheless, all of this now falls on this administration. 
We have 80 days until our formal withdrawal date. It takes 800 
days or more to process a Special Immigrant Visa. So it's too 
late for the Special Immigrant Visa process.
    Secretary Austin, why have you not started an evacuation 
yet?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thanks for the question. And let me 
say up front that I know this is a topic that's near and dear 
to a number of people in this room who have served alongside 
some of the interpreters and people who have helped us in the 
past, and so this is--this is important to all of us.
    We are working with the Department of State who has the 
lead on this along with DHS [Department of Homeland Security] 
to--as one part of a whole-of-government effort to address this 
issue.
    We are encouraging to move as quickly as we can, and we 
stand ready to provide resources to accelerate this, if at all 
possible--if it's possible, and it is possible.
    And in some cases, they've shortened the timeline for--from 
application to completion there. There's a number of people in 
the pipeline. I am confident that at some--we'll begin to 
evacuate some of those people soon.
    But, again, I would defer to Secretary [of State] Blinken 
to really outline what the----
    Mr. Moulton. Mr. Secretary, I don't need to tell you this. 
But these brave Afghan partners, these Afghan and American 
heroes, people who we asked to risk their lives not just for 
Afghanistan but for America because we had their backs, their 
future is in your hands.
    And this much is certain. The Taliban will kill them if 
they can, and they will rape and murder their wives and kids 
first, if they can.
    Chairman Milley, if the service chiefs were ordered to 
evacuate our Afghan allies today, is there a plan in place to 
get that started immediately?
    General Milley. We have the military capability to do 
whatever is directed by the President of the United States with 
respect to our allies and those that have worked with us. And I 
consider it a moral imperative to take care of those that have 
served along our side. We are prepared to execute whatever we 
are directed.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Changing subjects. Secretary Austin, last week, General 
Brown highlighted the importance of suicide prevention in his 
opening statement and then committed to supporting the Brandon 
Act later in the hearing, a bill that I introduced last week to 
provide service members a mechanism to seek mental health 
support if they are contemplating suicide.
    However, we have received pushback from other elements 
within DOD on the Brandon Act but no alternative suggestion for 
how we can tackle this epidemic.
    Are you personally comfortable with how DOD is managing 
suicide prevention, given that we have lost more service 
members to suicide last year than we did in combat? And are you 
prepared to support efforts like the Brandon Act or present a 
better alternative to address this?
    Secretary Austin. I think this is a very important issue 
and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to improve in this 
area. This is a--this is something that I have personally been 
swinging at for a long time as a part of a--one of the senior 
leaders of the military.
    And try as we may, we have not made the progress that we 
need to make. There's a stigma associated with seeking help, 
seeking mental health care, and we got to do more to remove 
that stigma and we got to do more to provide adequate health 
care to our troops.
    So the answer to your question is you have my commitment 
that I will continue to work this and I will tell you right now 
that our service chiefs are absolutely focused on this and will 
work with, you know, the greater community writ large to get 
best practices and lessons learned so that we can get better at 
this.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Grateful for your leadership, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
    Chairman Milley, last week in front of this committee, both 
the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations] and the Commandant, General 
Berger, concurred with Admiral Davidson's assessment that we 
have a growing risk of a PLA [People's Liberation Army] 
invasion of Taiwan within the next 6 years, which is an 
alarming timeline.
    My understanding is that you sort of publicly disagreed 
with that timeline. I'd be curious to get your alternative 
assessment and the justification for it. But, I mean, would you 
agree with just the basic idea that the PLA's capability is 
growing, that the unification of Taiwan with the mainland is a 
legacy issue for General Secretary Xi and that this creates 
problems for our deterrent posture in INDOPACOM?
    General Milley. Yeah. So what Davidson and Aquilino and 
others have said is that Chinese capability to invade and seize 
the island of Taiwan is being accelerated to 2027, 6 years from 
now. I don't dismiss that at all.
    What I said was near term--in my definition, that's 1 to 2 
years--I don't see China, they have--they could--they could 
make decisions whatever they want to do. But I don't see it 
happening right out of the blue. There's no reason for it, and 
the cost to China far exceeds the benefit.
    And President Xi and his military would do the calculation, 
and they know that an invasion in order to seize an island that 
big with that many people and the defensive capability the 
Taiwanese have would be extraordinarily complicated and costly.
    And at this point in time, near term, next 12, 24 months, I 
don't--I'm not seeing indicators and warnings yet. Could it 
happen 6 years from now, 8 years from now, 10 years, 20? Sure. 
A lot of things can happen.
    The Chinese are clearly building capability. There's no 
question about that. They've been doing it for quite a while 
and we're monitoring it very closely. And that gets back to 
this budget. We need to continue to get this budget through, 
get it done on time in order for us to keep pace with the 
Chinese to stay ahead of them.
    We want overmatch in order to deter a great power war and 
stay at great power competition.
    Mr. Gallagher. Recognizing our limitations to the format 
we're in right now, just given your position and the time you 
spent interacting with your counterparts in the region, is your 
sense and understanding that there are--that to some extent, 
the intentions of Xi himself and the party in general are 
unknowable and a lot of things could change in the environment?
    What is your basic sense of the priority that the CCP and 
the PLA put on Taiwan and to what extent, as I said before, 
it's bound up in Xi's personal legacy?
    General Milley. I think both are true. I think the issue of 
Taiwan and the unification of Taiwan with Mainland China, I 
think that is a core--I said it before in previous testimony--
C-O-R-E, a core national security interest of China. And it's 
also a core national security interest of the United States to 
ensure that whatever happens with respect to Taiwan happens 
peacefully, and we don't have a general conflict in the region 
or globally.
    So we support, you know, the--with the Taiwan Relations 
Act, et cetera, for a peaceful resolution of the issue between 
Taiwan and China.
    Mr. Gallagher. And I completely agree with the sentiment 
you just expressed about, and I think it's a shared goal on 
this committee, of deterring such a conflict as one of our core 
priorities because it would be messy, indeed, which is why 
earlier this year INDOPACOM submitted to Congress a detailed 
request for exercise funds, training ranges, military 
construction, munitions, defensive Guam systems. But the 
Pacific Deterrence Initiative [PDI], as requested by the 
Department in this budget consisted of non-INDOPACOM-specific 
list of procurement items including a destroyer, some jet 
fighters, a logistics ship.
    What caused the difference between the two versions of PDI? 
Why were so many of the top needs identified in the Section 
1251 report, that's INDOPACOM's report, mostly or completely 
unfunded in the budget request?
    Secretary.
    Secretary Austin. Yes, our intent is to realize the intent 
of Congress and resource PDI in accordance with, you know, 
what's been laid out. I think there is some miscommunications 
in terms of how things were [inaudible]. We're working with the 
committees to try to--try to clarify that now and we'll 
continue to do so.
    But the intent is to make sure that we follow along with 
Congress' intent with the PDI.
    Mr. Gallagher. And that--I mean, in my remaining 25 seconds 
I'm tempted to ask Mr. McCord a question only because he's 
gotten off easy, I think.
    But--and I don't have enough time for my Army end strength 
question for the Chairman. So instead, I will--I will yield 
back my 12 seconds and hope that somebody gets Mr. McCord on 
the record.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Carbajal is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. McCord--I'm kidding. I want to thank you all for being 
here today. Let me start with Secretary Austin.
    I want to start by asking you about the Department of 
Defense audit and financial accountability. Congress robustly 
funds the DOD in order to defend the Nation and detour 
conflict.
    We also have a responsibility to our constituents to 
conduct oversight and ensure that the funds are obligated 
effectively and responsibly.
    How important is the ongoing audit to your work as 
Secretary and how is the Department using the results of the 
audit to impact the budget process?
    Secretary Austin. It is not only important, it's critical 
and, you know, we're--we have made progress, a lot of progress 
since I was last affiliated with the Department. There's still 
work to be done, and we will move out on this as expeditiously 
as possible and deliberately as possible to ensure that we get 
a clean audit at some point, going forward, as quickly as we 
can.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin, in the previous administration one of my 
key concerns with the Department was the lack of transparency 
to Congress in decision-making processes.
    For example, many here in this committee were left with 
more questions than answers when the Department announced its 
decision to select Redstone Arsenal in Alabama as the permanent 
headquarters for USSPACECOM [U.S. Space Command].
    Looking forward, I hope you will commit to this committee 
that the Department will be transparent in its decision making 
so Congress and the public have full confidence that decisions 
are made objectively and in the best interest of our national 
security.
    With that, I'm closely following the upcoming basing 
decision process for the Space Force's STARCOM [Space Training 
and Readiness Command] headquarters, as I believe Vandenberg 
Space Force Base will be an ideal location to be the future 
home for the Training and Readiness Command.
    I know this process will be led by the Department of the 
Air Force, but I believe leadership starts at the top. And I 
urge you to work with the Air Force to ensure a transparent and 
fair process.
    That was more so a statement than a question, but I'd love 
the reaction to that.
    Secretary Austin. So in the first instance, you know that 
that issue is under investigation by the IG [inspector general] 
and there's also a GAO [Government Accountability Office] look 
ongoing as well. So I won't have any comment on that for you.
    I will say that my commitment to you is that we will remain 
as transparent as possible on this and other issues, going 
forward, and I will require that the services do the same.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And just to conclude on that 
point, it was pretty much a bipartisan sentiment about the 
transparency and the need for more information about that. So 
I'm glad the investigation is ensuing.
    Lastly, Secretary Austin and General Milley, this committee 
has been focused on addressing extremism in the ranks. I 
appreciate the tone and the direction that I have seen and 
heard from the service chiefs and civilian leaders.
    But, clearly, more needs to be done to take that message at 
the top and ensure it is received throughout the ranks. How 
does this budget make necessary investments in initiatives that 
seek to address extremism and also promote diversity?
    Secretary Austin. There are provisions in the budget that 
resource us to continue our efforts there to make sure that we 
have the right staffing and that sort of business to provide 
oversight. But this is accounted for in our budget.
    Mr. Carbajal. General Milley.
    General Milley. I agree it's accounted for in the budget. 
Let me make a broader comment on extremism. The United States 
military is committed to the idea that's America, and it's 
embedded within our Constitution. And we are sworn at the risk 
of our life, our limb, separation from our family, to defend 
that Constitution no matter what. And there is no room in 
uniform for anyone who doesn't subscribe to the values of the 
United States of America.
    And I know we're going through work groups, defining 
extremism, checking out our Department of Defense instructions, 
et cetera. But from private to general, there's no room for 
extremist behavior in the United States military.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, General. With that, I'll yield 
back.
    Mr. McCord escaped again.
    The Chairman. Mr. Gaetz is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, why was Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Lohmeyer 
relieved of his command?
    Secretary Austin. It was a decision made by his--by his 
chain of command and, typically, those decisions are made based 
upon either having confidence or a lack of confidence.
    This issue is under investigation by the IG and so I won't 
comment any further on that.
    Mr. Gaetz. In my previous discussions with service members 
and particularly officers, I would hear about complaints over 
parts not arriving on time, long deployments, and in my more 
recent discussions with those officers, the number one issue 
that they raised to me, with concern, often unable to speak 
publicly for fear of the type of retribution that Lieutenant 
Colonel Lohmeyer faced, they say that your stand-down regarding 
extremism did not help our military and hurt the military.
    And I want to share with you that perspective that it 
caused service members to other-ize one another. It impaired 
group cohesion, and interesting to me is that I've heard those 
sentiments most frequently from units that are majority 
minority that this was not particularly helpful.
    So I wanted to give you the opportunity to maybe share with 
us more specificity regarding the definitions that seem to be a 
challenge when Mrs. Hartzler was asking questions.
    How should the Department of Defense think about critical 
race theory?
    General Milley. Could I make a comment, Secretary?
    Mr. Gaetz. I'm very limited on my time, General Milley.
    General Milley. Well, I just want to make a comment that 
the----
    Mr. Gaetz. I know, but I've asked the question to Secretary 
Austin.
    Secretary Austin. I don't know what the issue of critical 
race theory is and what the relevance here and with the 
Department. We do not teach critical race theory. We don't--we 
don't embrace critical race theory, and I think--I think that's 
a spurious conversation. And so we are focused on extremist 
behaviors and not ideology, not people's thoughts, not people's 
political orientation. Behaviors is what we're focused on.
    But one final point, and thanks for your anecdotal input, 
but I would say that I have gotten 10 times that amount of 
input, 50 times that amount of input, on the other side that 
have said, hey, we're glad to have had the ability to have a 
conversation with ourselves and with our leadership. And that's 
what we need to make sure----
    Mr. Gaetz. Again, reclaiming my time, Mr. Secretary.
    It may be that you're receiving that input in the ratios 
you describe, because it was your directive. It may be that 
people are concerned about criticizing your decision because 
Lieutenant Colonel Lohmeyer was not relieved of his command for 
his actions. He was not relieved of his command because of poor 
performance regarding his duties. He was relieved of his 
command precisely because of his thoughts and because of his 
critique of critical race theory.
    It is particularly helpful that you have said that the 
Department of Defense does not embrace critical race theory and 
that you think the discussion is not appropriate. I would 
suggest that it is the ideology that is not appropriate, and it 
is particularly concerning to me that you have hired a critical 
race theorist to give you advice on personnel matters, and that 
person is Bishop Garrison.
    And I would particularly observe that on July 27th, 2019, 
Bishop Garrison tweeted regarding former President Trump, 
``He's dragging a lot of bad actors out into the sunlight, 
normalizing their actions.'' And here's the relevant part. ``If 
you support the President, you support that there is no room 
for nuance in this. There is no more. But I'm not like that 
talk.'' And then he replies to his own tweet with what seems to 
be a very ethnonationalist hashtag, #Black44.
    Could you enlighten us as to what advice Mr. Garrison has 
given you and are you concerned that while you testify publicly 
to our committee that the Department doesn't embrace critical 
race theory, you have hired someone who is precisely a critical 
race theorist?
    Secretary Austin. This is the first I've ever heard Mr. 
Garrison be described as a critical race theorist. So this is 
new, and I'm sure that he would----
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you--did you review his tweets before you 
hired him, personally?
    Secretary Austin. Pardon me?
    Mr. Gaetz. Did you review his tweets before you hired him?
    Secretary Austin. I did not personally review his tweets.
    Mr. Gaetz. I would just ask that maybe that would be 
helpful. Is there anything you can share in just these final 
seconds regarding any advice he's given you?
    Secretary Austin. Let me--let me just share one other thing 
that you brought up, Congressman, about the input that comes to 
me.
    You know, I trust my leadership, from top to bottom, that 
they will give me fair and balanced and unvarnished input, and 
for you to say that people are telling me what they want to--
what I want to hear, I get it, but I'm smart enough----
    Mr. Gaetz. That does happen.
    Secretary Austin. Yeah. You know, maybe they're telling you 
what you want to hear.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I don't know that they even know what I 
want to hear.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Brown is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have only 5 minutes 
and two questions. So at the midway mark, I may interrupt the 
response to the first question.
    Mr. Secretary, 2 years after President Truman desegregated 
the Armed Forces, a commission--it was the Fahy Commission--
found, and I quote, that a ``policy of equality of treatment 
and opportunity will make for a better Army, Navy, and Air 
Force. It is right and just. It will strengthen the Nation,'' 
end of quote.
    Today, while 19 percent of Active Duty service members are 
Black, only two four-star generals and admirals are Black, and 
there's a significant underrepresentation by race and gender, I 
should add, in those career fields that experience higher 
promotion rates to senior ranks.
    To address this problem, last year bipartisan, this 
Congress, required the Secretary, and today that's you, to 
establish a mentor and career counseling program. I recently 
requested information from the Under Secretary for Personnel 
and Readiness on the program status. I found the response 
wanting.
    So the question is how are you implementing the provisions 
of that program, and why are diversity and inclusion 
initiatives such as those important to the Department?
    Secretary Austin. Just one comment up front on the 
importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
    I would point out to you, Congressman, something that you 
already know and that the United States military is the most 
diverse organization in this country.
    It represents citizens from all walks of life, all 
ethnicities, and it is truly a diverse organization. I would 
absolutely agree with you that the senior leadership should 
look like those people that are--those troops that are in the 
ranks, and a troop ought to be able to look up and say, I can 
be a senior person. I can be that man or that woman at the top 
of the totem pole or top of the pecking order at some point in 
time.
    It has provided the, you know, some of the best 
opportunities for our young citizens of any organization in 
America. In terms of mentorship, your specific question, I 
absolutely believe in the power of mentorship and embrace that, 
and we need to do better, and you have my commitment that we 
will do better.
    And so we stand ready to work with you and answer any 
additional questions that you have.
    Mr. Brown. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, so we'll 
follow up. But I do want to get to the second question. The 
Fahy Commission talked about treatment, not just opportunities. 
So I'm very concerned about the disparate racial treatment that 
minority service members experience under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice.
    A May 2019 GAO study that this Congress directed found that 
Black service members across all services more than one and a 
half times likely to be tried by court martial for the same 
conduct as white service members. It's clear there is a general 
failure on the part of commanders in exercising their broad 
discretion to refer cases to court martial.
    My questions are why are the commanders woefully failing 
our Black service members who enlist at higher rates than any 
other demographic group in our country, and how do we fix the 
system so that there is truly equal justice under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, which does not exist today? That's my 
question. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin. Congressman, thanks for flagging a 
question there. This is an important issue and I think one that 
requires more and detailed study. I would just say that the 
point that I made earlier in terms of making sure that we have 
the right representation in senior ranks is very, very 
important and contributes to making this issue better or 
improving this issue.
    Mr. Brown. And I'm going to follow up and sort of make a 
comment and pick up on that point. There is a correlation, I 
believe, between the lack of diversity in senior leadership and 
command positions and the disproportionately high rate of court 
martial of Black and brown service members.
    Racial bias exists not only in the criminal justice system, 
as we have experienced and seen for decades and brought to 
greater public attention after the murder of George Floyd, but 
that same racial bias exists in the military justice system.
    So these are two related questions. We need to focus on 
diversity, but we need to immediately get after the disparate 
treatment under the UCMJ [Uniform Code of Military Justice]. 
That we can fix now. That we can fix now.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Bacon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate our 
Chairman and our Secretary. I appreciate your leadership and I 
appreciate the journey that you've taken to get here. Also, Mr. 
McCord, thanks for being here.
    I do got a couple of comments for the record, just 
criticisms of the administration and I want to talk about the 
Air Force budget. But first, all this talk about China being a 
pacing threat, a rising superpower, a navy matching ours and, 
you know, an imminent timeframe.
    Then you look at the actual budget. After inflation, it's a 
reduction. Our words do not match our actions here, and I think 
China sees it. I think the world sees it. I would have at least 
expected a budget that was even with inflation and but yet 
we're seeing a reduction.
    Secondly, I personally oppose taking the prosecution 
authority away from the commander. I was a five-time commander 
myself in the Air Force. I think the change will now create two 
chains of command at the unit level, undermines the principle 
that we cherish, which is unity of command, and I just--I think 
this is going to open up frictions and tensions within the unit 
and who's actually in charge.
    A third point of criticism, as we have had several months 
now where the administration should have come up with an 
evacuation plan for interpreters. We have 18,000, roughly, and 
there is no concrete plan that I know of. It's unconscionable. 
We have had time to work through this. Talking about it is not 
a plan.
    And so I know this is a--falls on the Secretary of State or 
the State Department. But so it's criticism for the 
administration versus you two, but our country owes better to 
these 18,000, and they will be targeted.
    So my first question, though, gets to the Air Force budget. 
You know, I think it's important that our defense budgets are 
accurate and transparent. But that's not really the case of the 
Air Force budget.
    The Air Force budget submitted by the administration is 
$212 billion. But $39 billion of it, or 18 percent, doesn't 
actually go to the Air Force. It gets, you know, passed through 
to other organizations. When you factor it in, the Air Force 
budget is really only $173 billion and the other services have 
about 1 percent pass-through, by the way, versus 18 percent for 
the Air Force.
    I just think it's misleading. Most people in Congress and 
most people are citizens, think it's about a third/third/third 
for the services. So last NDAA, we tasked the Department to 
come up with a better way.
    Could you give us an update on your thinking on this and 
what we can do? Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Austin. Yeah, I'll take this for the record 
because I--we do owe you an answer in terms of, you know, the 
progress that we have made or, you know, how we approach this.
    But I just want to say that I would absolutely agree with 
you that while we can't be fully transparent on some--on some 
of these issues, we need to make sure that the Air Force budget 
is represented in the appropriate way.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 120.]
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you. I appreciate your sentiments there.
    My second question is with the electronic magnetic spectrum 
operations. In the 2019 NDAA, we directed the Department to 
update its strategy here and provide a detailed implementation 
plan. So in 2020 the Department did come out with a strategy, 
but we have not yet seen an implementation plan.
    Could you give us an update on where we're at with that?
    Secretary Austin. You may have heard me say before, 
Congressman, that our vice chairman is leading the effort, 
along with the deputy secretary, to make sure that we lay out 
an implementation plan and that we supervise the implementation 
of the plan.
    This is very important. It becomes increasingly important 
as we enter--as we look towards a competition with a great 
power. We can expect much more contested airspace and much--you 
know, a greater pressure on the electromagnetic spectrum.
    We saw, and you know this because you've been there, we 
experienced some significant issues early on in Iraq and 
Afghanistan trying to manage that spectrum and make sure that 
each service had the capabilities they need. It will be 
increasingly difficult, going forward. But the vice chairman is 
essential in this.
    Mr. Bacon. And I think the vice chair is doing a great job 
and I applaud the effort. I do hope, though, in the end, we 
have somebody at the one-star or two-star level that owns this 
in the future because, as you know, at the four-star level 
they're doing a hundred different things. So I just put that in 
for your consideration.
    Finally, to the Chairman--I only have about 30 seconds 
left--what are some tangible things we can do to strengthen 
deterrence for Taiwan? Like, what kind of weapons can they--can 
we sell them or provide them? Thank you.
    General Milley. Again, I'll take that one for the record. 
But, briefly, you're talking about air power, counter air 
power, so that they can have some dominance or air superiority 
over their own airspace. Ballistic missile defense would be 
key. And then their ability to defend on the ground and conduct 
combined arms maneuver against an invading force. Those would 
be things that would be in Taiwan's interest. I'll give you a 
more complete answer on that.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 120.]
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Keating is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    As someone who was a district attorney for over a decade 
before I came to Congress, I realize the challenges and 
complexities of sexual assault cases firsthand. And, in fact, I 
had separate units in the civil side, separate units within my 
office specializing in prosecution of sexual assaults and with 
special units for sexual assault on victims' witness advocacy.
    So I was really pleased to hear the news that you shared 
this morning with us regarding what's coming forth from the 
commission in terms of removing these cases from the military 
chain of command.
    Recommendations are one thing, but hearing from both the 
Secretary of Defense and the Chair of the Joint Chiefs that you 
support that effort too is so important.
    So a couple of quick questions in that regard. Number one, 
what is--what do you mean by removing it from the military 
chain of command? Number two, General Milley mentioned two 
changes in the domestic violence areas, the way they're going 
to be reviewed. I had a separate unit for that, too. So could 
you tell us what's in store for us on those very important 
things that were a priority of myself and this committee?
    Secretary Austin. So for those--first of all, I would--I 
would point to the issue this will require resources and it 
will require making sure that we outline a path to get to where 
we need to be so that we're doing this the right way. We are 
focused on sexual assault, sexual harassment, and related 
crimes. And you mentioned domestic violence and a couple of 
other things that are directly related to that.
    But we would set up a special victims prosecutor--excuse 
me, a special prosecutor to assess and refer these cases 
forward. And so the cases would be--would be referred and 
prosecuted outside of the chain of command.
    Mr. Keating. Mr. Secretary, would they be investigated 
outside as well with the civil investigator working with that 
prosecutor?
    Secretary Austin. They would be investigated by competent 
authorities and the investigator would work with a prosecutor, 
yes.
    Mr. Keating. Yeah, I would hope those authorities included 
someone on the civil side, too, and someone that would work as 
a domestic violence advocate or a sexual assault witness victim 
advocate.
    Now, in terms of domestic violence, it is discreet many, 
many times from sexual assault. So is there anything to share 
with us this morning on that issue as well?
    General Milley. Yeah. So what we're saying--we're 
recommending--well, we have already made our recommendation to 
the Secretary--is to stay narrowly focused on the issue of 
sexual assault and directly related crimes such as domestic 
violence.
    Mr. Keating. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not.
    General Milley. Well, sometimes they are and sometimes not. 
But the data shows that there's a strong correlation. So you 
bend some of these other crimes in it.
    As far as all other felonies go, we're recommending not to 
do that, but to stay focused on the sexual assault and 
immediate related crimes. Take that out of the commander's 
hands for referral and preferral of charges, investigation as 
well, and put that in the hand--and why are we doing that?
    Because the data shows that we haven't moved the needle to 
solve that problem. It's a very significant problem for 
cohesion of the force, and we have lost the trust and 
confidence of the lower ranking troops in it.
    So but it's very limited, though, to that set of crimes 
because the UCMJ is fundamental to the good order and 
discipline of the force, and the commander must have that 
authority because this entire system is built in order to fight 
in combat. And that's important to remember as----
    Mr. Keating. I would like to suggest, too, that you look 
more specifically at domestic violence as well.
    General Milley. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Keating. And I'm here and I'm joined by many members of 
this committee to provide the resources and assist you along 
those lines. I thank you for the news, but we want to see if we 
can be helpful, moving forward.
    Secondly, we all share the belief and, certainly, you two 
share it more than any Americans, to protect families that are 
giving you their most precious resources, their children, their 
parents or spouses, to defend our country.
    And a BU [Boston University] study just recently out showed 
that 30,177 either Active Duty or veterans post-9/11 committed 
suicide, lost their lives. That's over four times the number of 
similarly situated people lost in war operations, lost their 
lives in war operations.
    And this committee, through the NDAA----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Keating [continuing]. Through the GAO study, which I 
will follow up with a question. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thanks. And I would like to let members know, 
if I could take a moment of personal privilege here, on the 
sexual assault issue there is wide bipartisan support and 
support at DOD and within the administration for the idea that 
we need to take the prosecution of sexual assault crimes out of 
the chain of command.
    Now, that is a recent development. We have been talking 
about this for 10 years in a variety of different forums. It 
has been resisted in a variety of different quarters up to this 
point.
    But at this point, there is wide--there is still some who 
oppose, but there are a lot of co-sponsors. But the details are 
different, and I think that is being lost in this debate. There 
are some bills that take all nonmilitary felonies out. Then 
there is the proposal that has come from the commission. There 
was also a bill, and I know Representative Speier has 
introduced a new bill this week.
    But a month or so ago there was a bill that she had 
introduced that was focused just on sex crimes. Another way to 
slice this is felonies and misdemeanors. If you go the all-
felony route, which was a bill that was introduced this morning 
in the House and one that was introduced in the Senate, you do 
miss some sex crimes that are misdemeanors, and you certainly 
miss a lot of domestic violence that is also misdemeanors.
    And then there is the subject that Mr. Keating brought up 
and that is, well, what about the people investigating it in 
the first place? Are they still under the chain of command?
    We need to make this change. I think it is really important 
that we take a moment to do it right, that we have a 
conversation with a bunch of different people. I'm not 
presuming who's right and who's wrong. But this is no longer a 
question for the overwhelming majority of Members in the House 
and the Senate whether or not this needs to be taken out of the 
chain of command. It is now a question of how to do that, and 
that is a debate and discussion that I think this committee 
needs to take a leadership role in doing.
    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. I'd like to completely associate myself with 
the chairman's remarks.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Waltz is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to 
introduce into the record a letter to myself from the 
Superintendent of West Point, Lieutenant General Williams, that 
was sent to me in response to my letter regarding the teaching 
of critical race theory at West Point.
    The Chairman. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
    [The letter referred to can be found in the Appendix on 
page 115.]
    Mr. Waltz. Mr. Secretary, I found it very interesting your 
exchange with Mr. Gaetz on no teachings of critical race theory 
in the United States military. I want to quote to you a letter 
I received from the Superintendent at West Point.
    Says ``With regards to critical race theory, there is one 
course that has this theory as part of the syllabus. There are 
two lessons on critical race theory. There is a book on 
critical race theory titled ``Critical Race Theory: An 
Introduction.''
    On and on and on about the teaching of critical race theory 
in West Point. I just want to emphasize something. This isn't 
something that we're raising. This is--this came to me from 
cadets, from families, from soldiers with their alarm and their 
concern at how divisive this type of teaching is that is rooted 
in Marxism, that classifies people along class lines, an entire 
race of people as oppressor and oppressed.
    I cannot think of anything more divisive and more 
destructive to unit morale. I want to be very clear. The 
military needs to be open to all Americans, absolutely. That is 
the strength of the United States military.
    But once we're in, we bleed green and our skin color is 
camouflage. We're worried about that American flag on our 
shoulder. That's the only thing our enemies are worried about. 
I think we can agree there.
    But the other thing that they raise to me was a seminar 
that over a hundred cadets attended titled ``Understanding 
Whiteness and White Rage'' taught by a woman who described the 
Republican Party platform as a platform of white supremacy.
    This is going on at West Point, as we speak, to our future 
military leaders. And, sir, I would encourage you--I would 
demand that you get to the bottom of what is going on in the 
force and, further, for what it means for civilian oversight of 
the military when our future military leaders are being taught 
that the Constitution and the fundamental civilian institutions 
of this country are endemically racist, misogynist, and 
colonialist and, therefore, it is their duty to resist them.
    What does that mean for a future cadet who one day will be 
sitting where you are? And so do you agree that--will you work 
with us to--do you agree that critical race theory should or 
should not be taught in our military academies?
    Secretary Austin. As I said earlier--thanks, Congressman, 
for the question and thanks for your continued support. Thanks 
for your service.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin. This is not something that the United 
States military is embracing and pushing and causing people to 
subscribe to, and whether or not this was some sort of critical 
examination of different theories, I don't know. But----
    Mr. Waltz. We need to understand our past. I want to be 
very clear. But can you agree at least that understanding 
whiteness and white rage presented in Ike Hall to over a 
hundred cadets probably is something that we shouldn't be 
teaching our future leaders of the United States Army?
    Secretary Austin. As you have described it, it certainly 
sounds like that's something that should not occur. Again, I 
would like to know the specifics of the----
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Just switching topics to shipyards and our infrastructure, 
our shipyards are old. They're small. They can't handle the 
fleet of today, much less the fleet of tomorrow.
    We currently have 4 public and less than 20 commercial. The 
Chinese are approaching 1,000 shipyards. One dry dock that can 
handle the Ford class, not enough for the Virginia class. The 
Navy has its $21 billion dollar investment plan, but it's over 
20 years over the next two decades.
    Would you welcome additional funding as part of--as part of 
our shipyard modernization? I think it's absolutely critical.
    Secretary Austin. I agree that it's critical and, you know, 
we not only have to have the right mix of capabilities, we have 
to be able to sustain and maintain as well. And in this budget, 
you'll see that we have invested some $830 million in 
recapitalizing----
    Mr. Waltz. I think that is woefully, woefully--Chinese are 
at 1,000. We're at less than 20. And what I'm so disturbed by 
is we're debating a $1.9 trillion infrastructure plan. Navy has 
its shipyard infrastructure improvement plan, so they clearly 
define shipyards and infrastructure. No mention. Not one. Were 
you consulted by the interagency group that submitted the 
infrastructure plan to be--whether it is grids, ports, and 
especially shipyards, was the Defense Department consulted for 
its priorities as part of the administration's plan?
    Secretary Austin. Well, certainly, I support the 
administration's plan and----
    The Chairman. That will have to be taken for the record. 
The gentleman's time has expired.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 120.]
    The Chairman. Ms. Houlahan is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, 
gentlemen, for joining us today. I know my time is very 
precious. But I would like to yield some of my time to General 
Milley because I know that he had some comments that he wanted 
to make when Representative Gaetz was talking as well as Mr. 
Waltz about a similar subject of the stand-down and race 
theory.
    Would you like a minute or so to comment on that? Do you 
remember what we were--or your line of questioning or your 
thought was there?
    General Milley. Sure. First of all, on the issue of 
critical race theory, et cetera, a lot of us have to get much 
smarter on whatever the theory is. But I do think it's 
important, actually, for those of us in uniform to be open-
minded and be widely read, and the United States Military 
Academy is a university. And it is important that we train and 
we understand, and I want to understand white rage, and I'm 
white and I want to understand it.
    So what is it that caused thousands of people to assault 
this building and try to overturn the Constitution of the 
United States of America? What caused that? I want to find that 
out.
    I want to maintain an open mind here and I do want to 
analyze it. It's important that we understand that because our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and guardians, they come 
from the American people. So it's important that the leaders 
now and in the future do understand it.
    I've read Mao Zedong. I've read Karl Marx. I've read Lenin. 
That doesn't make me a communist. So what is wrong with 
understanding, having some situational understanding about the 
country for which we are here to defend?
    And I personally find it offensive that we are accusing the 
United States military, our general officers, our commissioned 
and noncommissioned officers, of being, quote, ``woke'' or 
something else because we're studying some theories that are 
out there. That was started at Harvard Law School years ago and 
it proposed that there were laws in the United States, 
antebellum laws prior to the Civil War, that led to a power 
differential with African Americans that were three-quarters of 
a human being when this country was formed. And then we had a 
civil war and an Emancipation Proclamation to change it and we 
brought it up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It took another 
100 years to change that.
    So look, I do want to know and I respect your service, and 
you and I are both Green Berets. But I want to know, and it 
matters to our military and the discipline and cohesion of this 
military.
    And I thank you for the opportunity to make a comment on 
that.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, General.
    Changing the subject right now to our people, which I think 
is really important, you mentioned that people are our number 
one priority.
    In May of this year, I introduced the Military Moms Matter 
Act, which, among other initiatives, would propose extending 
paid family leave to 12 weeks for service members, which would 
be in line with the NDAA 2020 proposal for all Federal 
employees, and that became law last year.
    One of the big topics of debate in this bill is for primary 
versus secondary caregivers. As the policy is currently 
written, a secondary caregiver is able to use very little 
leave.
    We want to make sure that we understand that, and General 
and Secretary, would you mind expounding on your thoughts on 
secondary leave for service members? Should that be eliminated 
or that designation be altered so that everybody could have 
equal access to paternity and maternity leave?
    Secretary Austin. Well, it's a thing that needs--deserves 
further discussion and examination. But you asked for my 
personal opinion and I absolutely support primary and 
secondary, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you, sir. In what's left of my time, 
I'd like to talk about childcare, what happens after you have 
the leave. I'm grateful to see that a $168 million increase was 
included in the budget for family issues, including childcare, 
including in-home childcare.
    But I was really devastated to hear a story of a young 
woman at Fort Hood, who explained to me--a single mother--that 
she had to drop her child off at 5:30 in the morning, off-base 
childcare, had to drive at 80 miles an hour to try to get on 
line fast enough to get to PT [physical training] at 6:00 in 
the morning.
    And this is not okay. So my question is how can we make 
sure that we provide better support mechanisms in the childcare 
area for those people like her?
    Secretary Austin. Well, I think, first of all, that the 
pandemic has kind of amplified some of the existing concerns 
with childcare and other issues. We have provisions in this 
budget to address home care support and I think we need to 
continue to look at this hard.
    And I would say in addition to that, there are some $8.6 
billion that are focused on military family support programs. 
And so this is very important to us. We'll continue to work it. 
But I could not agree more with you on the importance of this 
issue.
    Ms. Houlahan. Thank you. And with that, I yield back. Thank 
you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, gentlemen.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Johnson is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you for being here 
today. Many of my colleagues have expressed concern with the 
top line amount for this year's budget request and I just want 
to echo those concerns.
    And we recognize, of course, that you're operating under 
certain constraints. But it's alarming to many of us that the 
President is spending with reckless abandon in virtually every 
area except our national defense, and our current era of 
strategic competition makes it all the more important that the 
U.S. recommit the longstanding principle of peace through 
strength, especially as our key adversaries continue to take 
meaningful steps to close the gap between us and them.
    Secretary Austin, brings me to a question for you. In your 
confirmation hearing when asked to commit to the current 
schedule for nuclear modernization efforts, you told Senator 
Fischer you'd like to look under the hood first and get a 
better feel for what we're dealing with our nuclear forces.
    I know this has been covered a bit today. Some of us are in 
and out for other hearings. But just to be sure, you've been on 
the job now 6 months. Can you commit now to nuclear 
modernization being a top priority for DOD?
    Secretary Austin. I think you may have heard me say a 
number of times, sir, that modernization of our triad is 
absolutely important to us. What I meant by looking under the 
hood, though, is making sure that we go through a new posture 
review to ensure that we have the right balance and mix of 
forces.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, staying on that subject, our next 
generation ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile], the 
Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, was a system approved by 
President Obama in 2015. It was fully funded by President 
Trump. It was funded in President Biden's fiscal year 2022 
budget request at $2.6 billion.
    And since you were confirmed as Secretary of Defense, we 
have learned that the GBSD will be almost $38 billion cheaper 
than any Minuteman III life extension. It will also be a much 
more capable system, able to better penetrate Russian and 
Chinese defense systems.
    Do you fully support President Biden's fiscal year 2020--
fiscal year 2022 budget request for the GBSD and agree it is 
the future of the land leg of the triad?
    Secretary Austin. I fully support the President's budget. I 
would further say that, you know, GBSD is one of those things 
that we'll continue to evaluate along with the posture reviews 
that we have ongoing--a new posture review. So----
    Mr. Johnson. And am I correct in stating that the GBSD is 
on track, on schedule, on budget for the first flight test in 
2023?
    Secretary Austin. You are.
    Mr. Johnson. Another item we were pleased to see in the 
budget is the request to construct a weapons generation 
facility [WGF] at Barksdale Air Force Base and that facility 
allows--or that construction will allow our B-52s that are 
stationed there to carry out their nuclear mission without 
having to fly first from Louisiana to North Dakota in order to 
be loaded with nuclear ordnance.
    So, Secretary Austin or General Milley, can you comment on 
the strategic flexibility the Barksdale WGF will provide in 
making sure the air leg of the triad is capable of fully 
executing its mission?
    General Milley. Yeah, I think, again, the triad and 
recapitalization of the triad is critically important. It's 
been in effect, really, for, I guess, going on seven decades 
since the end of World War II, and it is--you can never prove a 
negative but it is, clearly, one of the fundamental reasons why 
World War III didn't break out was because of the nuclear 
capabilities of the United States. It is time now to 
recapitalize the entire thing, all three parts of it plus the 
command and control piece.
    That is really critical to defend this Nation for the next 
seven decades and the time is now to invest in it. It'll be a 
one-time thing for a period of years until we can get the 
system replaced. But it's really, really important in all legs 
to include that at Barksdale with the B-52s and soon to be the 
B-21s, et cetera. Really critically important to do that.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, and those efficiencies, I think, 
will help in those overall goals.
    The last thing I'll touch on is the noticeable reduction in 
Army accounts in the budget request. I understand that's a 
reflection of the Afghanistan drawdown, but as we transition 
our focus to other parts of the world, I do think it's 
important that we not allow Army readiness to decline. I know 
you all agree with that.
    We still need to execute rotations through our training 
centers and to that end I appreciate the budget requesting a 
new joint operation center at Fort Polk. The current JOC is 
decades overdue for an upgrade and a new facility will make 
sure our soldiers are equipped with the best possible training 
and experience so they're at the ready if and when they're 
called upon.
    But just in the 40 seconds I have remaining, would one of 
you comment on the importance of that, Army readiness, where we 
stand on that?
    General Milley. We're both deeply indebted to the Army for 
where we are in life. But I would say as a former Chief Staff 
of the Army, the readiness of the Army is critical. It takes a 
full joint force, a synergy of our air, land, sea, space, and 
cyber to prevail in combat, and wars are often started from 
afar, from long-range weapon systems, but they're always ended 
somewhere on the ground, and the last bullet of a war is 
usually fired by a Marine or Army infantryman. So it's really 
critical to maintain the readiness of the United States Army.
    Mr. Johnson. Hopefully, we can host you at Fort Polk 
sometime soon. I'd love to see you there.
    Secretary Austin. We have been also there quite a bit, both 
of us----
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, indeed.
    Secretary Austin [continuing]. There, Mr. Johnson, and I--
or Congressman Johnson, and I would say that it's a pretty 
valuable capability.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Crow is recognized.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 
associate myself with the concerns by some of my colleagues on 
the other side of the dais about back pay for National Guard, 
and also point out that the H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security 
Supplemental, which passed the House by one vote, actually 
created a back pay of $500 million to help shore up the pay for 
the National Guard.
    So I would encourage my colleagues to support that and to 
continue to push the Senate to support that as well because if 
we actually passed that bill, we would resolve that issue and 
make sure that our men and women in uniform do get paid.
    I do want to change to Afghanistan for a minute and just 
start by saying I understand that it's not your decision to 
make to conduct an evacuation of civic society leaders, SIV 
[Special Immigration Visa] applicants, or anybody. That's not 
for you to decide. That's not for Secretary Blinken to decide.
    That's a decision that only resides at the White House. I 
get that, and I appreciate the fact that you all have conducted 
contingency planning to be prepared to do that, and, General 
Milley, your comment earlier about the military capability that 
exists and that you will conduct whatever is necessary.
    My concern is about time, because where we sit right now, 
that capability and the dangers and risks of doing it are not 
going to be static. That risk is not lessening. Is it true, 
Secretary Austin, that the Taliban continue to make territorial 
gains, that provincial capitals continue to fall, and that 
freedom of navigation in the Outer Ring Road continues to 
deteriorate?
    Secretary Austin. The Taliban have made gains--incremental 
gains throughout and those gains have increased most recently. 
In terms of provincial capitals, I think you heard General 
Milley's assessment early on that actually none of the 
provincial capitals have fallen. They have made some gains 
where they surrounded some of the provincial capitals.
    Mr. Crow. And part of that, General Milley, is it true that 
we don't yet have an agreement with Turkey or any other ally, 
NATO ally, with regard to the security of the Kabul airport?
    General Milley. Written agreement, no. We're having a 
meeting this week. I think we're pretty much at the final 
piece. I don't want to speak for Turkey and I don't want to 
preempt the outcome of a final agreement. But I feel very 
comfortable that security at the Kabul airport will be 
maintained and that the Turks should be a part of that.
    Mr. Crow. And is it--is it true that we're turning over 
control of Bagram to the Afghans?
    General Milley. That is the plan. That's correct.
    Mr. Crow. Okay. So understanding that situation, the 
deteriorating security situation, the assessments about the 
lack of navigation and the fact that these SIV applicants would 
actually need to make it to Kabul or a population center to be 
evacuated and they also need to do in-person vetting in Kabul 
to qualify--is it fair to say that as time continues to 
progress, that it becomes harder and more risky to conduct an 
evacuation?
    Secretary Austin. I think that's a fair statement, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Crow. Okay. Relatedly, I'm concerned about the ability 
of the Afghan air force to conduct air operations and to 
maintain an air CAP [combat air patrol] with our withdrawal. 
The A-29 fleet continues to degrade; we know that. We have 
submitted a request for three additional A-29s.
    But maintenance--with the removal of all the maintenance 
personnel, do we yet have any fidelity on where that 
maintenance will occur once our contractors withdraw who are 
currently conducting that maintenance?
    Secretary Austin. Some of the maintenance is taking place 
in the--in one of the Gulf countries, one of our partners, and 
so we would fly--for the higher level of maintenance, we would 
fly that--and have flown some of that gear out to that location 
to be--to be serviced. And you got different levels of 
maintenance, as you well know.
    But the organizational maintenance, you know, the operator 
level maintenance we can do and are doing some of that by 
virtual mentorship as--on a day-to-day basis, and we may be 
able to contract other types of capabilities, going forward.
    That's still a work in progress. Ideally, we'd like to see 
if I could have the ability to conduct maintenance in one of 
the neighboring countries for some of the higher level 
maintenance. But again, a work in progress. Not yet solidified.
    Mr. Crow. Okay. I appreciate that. And with my remaining 10 
seconds, I just wanted to express my appreciation, Chairman 
Milley, for your leadership and your courage in how you 
continue to speak out on behalf of what is a diverse--an 
increasingly diverse force of men and women in uniform----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Crow. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. Green is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Rogers, for holding the hearing, and I want to thank our 
witnesses for being here today.
    I deeply respect and appreciate your combined service to 
this country. As the war on terror has continued, the United 
States military has taken risks to maintain readiness during 
budget decreases of the last last years of the Obama 
administration, including installation management, research and 
development for future systems. The last administration set us 
on the right path helping to rebuild peace through strength.
    Those 4 years of increased budgets helped but they could 
not make up for nearly 20 years of war and 7 years of cuts. 
Today's force is still challenged with decreasing overmatch due 
to those previous cuts and the risk decisions that were made to 
maintain readiness.
    When we send America's sons and daughters, and I believe 
each of you would agree with me on this, it should never be a 
fair fight when they go to war. It looks like the real dollar 
cuts in spending of $4 billion in this budget proposal we're 
once again potentially sacrificing the future fight for 
readiness today.
    In the case of the Navy's budget, it looks like they're 
pinning their risk in a 3- to 5-year range in hopes that beyond 
that they can find new technologies that will create overmatch.
    The question, of course, is how do we maintain overmatch 
with pacing threats such as China when they're increasing their 
budget 6.8 percent and we're effectively decreasing ours.
    My first question gets very granular and it goes on what 
Mr. Johnson was talking about, the CTCs [combat training 
centers]. I noticed recently--if I'm understanding the budget 
for the Army correctly, we're cutting CTC rotations by a third 
in this budget. If that's correct, can you tell me why?
    General Milley. I don't--yeah, I don't think that's 
correct. I'll go back to the Chief of Staff of the Army. 
There's 10 rotations a year to each of the CTCs. If they're 
cutting them by a third, I'd be very surprised. I'll find out.
    Dr. Green. Would you do me a favor and get back----
    General Milley. I'll get back to you.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 121.]
    Dr. Green. Thank you, Chairman, I really appreciate that. I 
noticed on aviation we were looking at a cut of around 15.6 
percent and this is across all the services for aviation. Can 
you guys kind of give me a description on what we're doing to 
make up for those cuts?
    Is there some technology we don't know about? Is there some 
future system that's going to--going to address the decrease in 
readiness or capability in the future with a 15.6 percent cut 
in aviation?
    Secretary Austin. Well, we want to make sure we--we want to 
make sure we're investing in the right capabilities and we want 
to be able to network those capabilities in new and effective 
ways that we have not been able to do in the past. And that 
requires investing in the right kinds of technology to be able 
to do that. If you take ISR, for example, and you say--and you 
look at the fact that the Air Force is taking down a couple of 
lines of ISR, what they're really doing is not decreasing the 
number of tails.
    They're taking down some lines so that they can have the 
ability to upgrade some capability and network their birds 
together in ways that we haven't done before. And that applies 
to each of the services. We have to invest in those things that 
are going to allow us to have resilient forces operate in a 
distributed manner and be absolutely lethal in the next fight.
    Dr. Green. I understand. I just want to make sure that 
capability isn't decreasing 15.6 percent. I guess that's really 
my big question. We're going to have the same capability or 
better capability, even though we're cutting aviation 15 
percent.
    Secretary Austin. Our goal is to have better capability, 
and with those investments that we make in the future we want 
to make sure that the platforms that we invest in are able to 
accomplish some of the things that I just described.
    Dr. Green. One of the--one of the open source journals, the 
Computing Research Association, reported concerning, quote, 
``the Army, Navy and Air Force's University Research 
Initiative. Sub accounts are cut 31.1 percent, 18.9 percent, 
and 17.5 percent, respectively.'' Considering cybers--these 
recent cyberattacks, is that really a wise decision?
    I'm not an engineer. I'm not a computer scientist. I'm a 
physician. But it seems that cuts in those particular areas, 
those areas that research our ability to fight cyber, seems 
misplaced, considering the recent attacks. Could you comment on 
that or perhaps I can get something in writing back?
    Secretary Austin. We can do both, sir.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 121.]
    Dr. Green. Okay. Thanks, Secretary.
    Secretary Austin. First, I'll remind you that for RDT&E 
overall, we're investing $112 billion, and specifically for 
cyber it is a 10 point--almost $10.5 billion investment in 
cyber and that includes cyberspace operations and a number of 
other things. So we think cyber is pretty important. We are 
part of a whole-of-government effort to defend our networks 
here in the country. Our focus is, you know, further out 
towards the source of malign activity and we----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
apologize.
    Ms. Slotkin is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I know 
it's a long hearing. I just--you know, I want to address this 
constant conversation we have been having about the top line 
because it feels like very 2005 to me. All the hearings that we 
have had in front of--in the last 2 years that I've been here 
have talked about not just the amount of dollars we're spending 
but how we're spending them, and I think we need to be 
intellectually honest as Members of Congress that we are a part 
of the problem.
    We make you budget on 1-year cycles instead of the whole 
FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. Every year you come to us 
with about $2 billion worth of legacy programs you'd like to 
cut, and we up here don't let you cut them. And then let's be 
frank. If we're talking about budgets, the nearly $10 billion 
that was taken out of DOD and put towards the border wall 
should be factored in, for anyone who's concerned about the top 
line.
    So that's what we have responsibility for. But I am worried 
because there is bipartisan agreement that China is gaining on 
us. I'm also worried that our big lumbering bureaucratic system 
is an inhibitor to us being competitive with China, 
particularly on acquisition and getting the best American 
technology into the Pentagon.
    Mr.--Secretary Austin, can you talk about what we're going 
to do to acquire faster and better technology?
    Secretary Austin. Well, that's a focus for us. You know, we 
are far from being as agile as we need to be in order to 
capture or take advantage of the emerging technologies. And so 
you've given us some authorities in the past that we have not 
fully used or employed, and we need to push to, number one, 
take advantage of what you've already given us.
    But number two, encourage our force to be--to be more 
agile. And we need to take advantage of emerging technologies 
that may be available in smaller companies that have capability 
that they can't get across the ``valley of death'' to, you 
know, to provide capability at scale.
    So the deputy secretary and I are absolutely focused on 
this and she's launched some initiatives to be able to address 
this.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you. Your personal attention to that, I 
think, is going to be really important for the future fight.
    Switching gears to the authorization of military force, 
last week in a bipartisan way we called for the repeal here in 
the House of the 2002 AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military 
Force]. It's now being discussed and debated over in the 
Senate.
    But there seem to be some confusion here in the House and 
maybe in the Senate as well on whether the Pentagon is 
currently relying on the 2002 AUMF for any operations. Can you 
confirm where you stand on the 2002 AUMF?
    General Milley. Well, just right now on 2002 AUMF, that is 
under review and it looks like it's going to go away. The 2001 
one is the one that gives us all the authorities. That's the 
one we need to hang on to is that first one that gives us the 
authority to conduct operations.
    Ms. Slotkin. So if we repeal the 2002, will that affect 
current operations in any way?
    General Milley. No. My assessment--my military assessment 
is no, it won't. It won't have any negative effect on current 
operations. It's the 2001 AUMF that's the critical one for us 
to continue operations.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thanks. Thanks for clarifying that.
    And, you know, one of the things that myself and 
Representative Gallagher are doing, we run a bipartisan task 
force on supply chains, and the deputy secretary was really 
gracious with her time and came last week.
    I have become possessed with this issue because of COVID 
and having to negotiate with Chinese middlemen in the middle of 
the night for a 78-cent mask, and I stood yesterday in front of 
my second GM [General Motors] plant in my area that has to go 
to a temporary shutdown because we can't get a 14-cent 
microchip. Can you tell me just your commitment that you will 
take this issue seriously?
    It was stunning for some of us the amount of 
vulnerabilities that we have even at the Pentagon for things 
like ammunition propellant and for pharmaceuticals on other 
countries, particularly sole source from other countries. Can 
you just commit that you'll help with some transparency on our 
supply chains?
    Secretary Austin. You have our commitment. You heard me 
mention earlier the $341 million investment to help boost our 
support of American industry and some of that includes 
microelectronics and that sort of business.
    So but we are absolutely focused on this. We think that 
supply chain vulnerability is a national security issue, and 
that was kind of laid bare for us, to your point, over the last 
year.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mrs. Bice is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers. 
Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you for joining us 
today.
    I first want to maybe echo my colleague, Representative 
Slotkin, on supply chain task force. I was honored to be put on 
that as well and it has illuminated a lot of the challenges 
that we see because of COVID or even just supply chain in 
general. So I appreciate your commitment to making sure that we 
continue to look at how we can shore up those supply chain 
challenges.
    I'd like to start by focusing on an issue that has been of 
concern in my State of Oklahoma and on military bases across 
the Nation: improving the quality of privatized base housing on 
military installations.
    Since being sworn into office, I've engaged military 
housing stakeholders in my district and across the State of 
Oklahoma, including at Tinker Air Force Base and Fort Sill. 
While I'm cautiously optimistic that things are moving in the 
right direction, there is still work to do. Ensuring safe and 
high-quality housing for our Nation's service members is one of 
my priorities. Despite the recent reforms, evidence from 
earlier this year suggests military families are being charged 
thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses by private 
military housing contractors for reasonable and needed ADA 
[Americans with Disabilities Act] upgrades to their on-base 
housing units.
    In response, I've introduced legislation with 
Representative Sara Jacobs to clarify the military families 
cannot be charged amounts in addition to rent for needed ADA 
upgrades.
    Secretary Austin, can you tell me what actions DOD is 
taking to ensure that service members do not face financial 
hardships in obtaining on-base accommodations for a disabled 
member of their family?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you for your--the work that you're 
doing in this area. It is absolutely critical. There's nothing 
more important than, you know, the welfare of our military 
families. And as we have seen in the past, this has not--this 
has not gone the way that it should have gone in terms of 
contracted housing or privatized housing.
    You've seen us increase the supervision in this area and 
we're working with the services to really ensure that we have 
the requisite oversight and emphasis to hold contractors 
accountable for, you know, providing quality service to our--to 
our family members. And this will remain a priority for us, 
going forward. It directly affects the morale of not only our 
family members but the services altogether. So you have my 
commitment that we will remain sighted on this.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Secretary. Appreciate that.
    It's clear to me that in my short time here in Congress 
that one of the biggest threats is the current space race 
threat. China has become incredibly competitive, landing a 
rover on Mars, putting up geosynchronous satellites.
    Do you believe this budget provides the dedicated resources 
in research, technology, exploration, that we need to ensure 
that we are not outpaced?
    Secretary Austin. Right. Again, $112 billion for RDT&E. 
That's a--that's a pretty hefty investment. But I would go one 
step further and say that we have invested or we plan to invest 
$20.6 billion or so for--to resource our efforts in space.
    Mrs. Bice. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Brief announcement before I call on Ms. 
Sherrill. So votes are supposed to be called at 1:30. It is my 
intent to keep going through them. If--well, it's a little bit 
complicated. Votes are, like, 25 minutes to a half hour.
    But if there are members who wish to ask questions, if you 
could go and vote, like, right at 1:30 and then come back so we 
can sort of cycle through that way. I don't want to waste any 
time and take advantage of all the time that we have. You can 
sort of process that. So if you're--if you're coming up and you 
want to go vote and come back, that'll give you an opportunity 
to ask a question. Mr. Rogers and I will figure out our own 
deal one way or the other.
    Ms. Sherrill is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    General Milley, I want to talk about the long-range 
precision fires. As you know, Picatinny Arsenal in my district 
is a key center of innovation for this modernization priority.
    I know that General McConville is committed to the value 
that long-range precision fires bring to force employment for 
the joint force. So can you speak to the value of the multiple 
dilemmas that ground-based precision fires can provide for 
deterrence and force employment?
    General Milley. Sure. The--first of all, all of the 
services have capabilities and are developing capabilities for 
long-range precision fires, and it's important when you're 
facing any adversary to present them with multiple dilemmas 
simultaneously so that it's very difficult for them to solve.
    Land-based long-range precision fires will give us a 
significant advantage relative to the pacing threat of China so 
that they can be operated off of, basically, unsinkable 
aircraft carriers.
    So our allies and partners--if we work out through the 
diplomatic arrangements to have units stationed there with 
long-range precision fire capabilities, we can do significant 
damage--damage against the People's Liberation Army Navy.
    So we're experimenting that with the Army forces and Marine 
forces in the Pacific right now, in the South China Seas, for 
example, through exercises and other things. In addition to 
that, we're doing some long-range precision fire developmental 
testing that is being done at the various ranges and these are 
quite extended ranges that will cover the South China Sea.
    So the conceptual idea would be that we could handle the 
Chinese surface fleet with land-based long-range precision 
fires in combination with air and naval fires.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, General. I appreciate that. Moving 
on and sort of talking again about the supply chain, we have 
all become critically concerned. You know, as we talk about 
single source materials, as we talk about rare earth materials, 
I encourage you, General Austin, to continue to look into how 
that impacts some of our smaller defense manufacturers from 
entering into competition when they have to trace the supply 
chain.
    That is something they have a lot of trouble doing and 
haven't done well at. I also encourage a discussion about rare 
earth materials and if there are alternatives. You know, the 
research and development we might make into alternatives.
    That's something that's been brought up, but I don't think 
we have a good understanding of how--what we could do with 
respect to alternatives to rare earth materials, especially 
single source rare earth materials from our adversaries.
    I'd also just like to bring up that in conversations with 
former senior defense officials, currently serving service 
members, and leaders in defense innovation, I've heard time and 
again that the military just isn't innovating the way we need 
to.
    So to make better use of private sector innovation by a 
more nimble acquisition system and to improve access to talent 
through better STEM [science, technology, engineering, and 
math] recruiting, and to ensure that the research and 
development within the DOD is better supported in risk-taking 
to, as many of our military members say, fail fast and then 
learn--what is the best way forward to make these changes and 
how can Congress best support those changes?
    Secretary Austin. Well, I think you have to establish 
programs that are--and mechanisms that encourage innovation, 
and while you want to reward success and support small 
companies in their efforts to get their products--innovative 
products, you know, on board, you also want to condition the 
force to be able to accept a--an element or a measure of risk 
and we're not really good at that. And I think, in order to be 
agile, we got to become better.
    And so you'll see the deputy secretary begin to employ a 
couple of initiatives that encourage that innovation, and 
that--and that would help us begin to pull some things forward 
and support some things, going forward, that we haven't been 
able to do in the past. And, again, we'll keep pushing on this 
and pulling on this until we become more agile.
    I do think we need to do better in taking advantage of what 
you've already given us to help us with that agility.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, and I echo Ms. Slotkin in our 
gratitude in having you involved in this process. I think it is 
very important.
    And then, finally, before my time is up, I simply want to 
say to you, General Milley, that I deeply and sincerely 
appreciate your comments to Ms. Houlahan.
    Thank you. Yield back.
    Mr. Keating [presiding]. The chair recognizes 
Representative Jackson for 5 minutes.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Rogers, for holding the hearing today. I also want to thank 
Secretary Austin and General Milley for being here today. Thank 
you both.
    Mr. Secretary, the first time we met and the first event 
I've ever attended in the House Armed Services Committee here 
was a discussion we held when you came before the committee in 
January.
    As you know, I voted in favor of the waiver required for 
your appointment and I did so because I thought we should take 
advantage of the opportunity to have somebody in there that 
really understood the impact that policymakers have on the 
troops. So thank you, and it's good to see you here again 
today, sir.
    General Milley, I've really appreciated your leadership and 
the continuity that you're able to bring to the Department 
during the most recent transition in administrations.
    I know both of you very clearly understand the urgent 
threats that we face. I imagine you both must share my 
frustration with the budget cut that President--or with the 
budget cut that President Biden has sent over.
    I agree that we need to be more efficient with how we spend 
our money, if possible. But now is not the time to cut our 
defense spending like President Biden has proposed.
    My first question, the National Defense Strategy [NDS] 
clearly calls for 3-5 percent real growth in defense spending 
each year. President Biden has somewhat ignored the NDS and has 
put you both in a very tough spot, in my mind, by proposing 
that we cut defense spending this year with a request that does 
not keep pace with inflation.
    I've heard alternate proposals circulated around Congress 
that might come before this committee of a top line 10 percent 
cut for defense spending. If the 3-5 percent number is based on 
the NDS, I'm not really sure where the proposed 10 percent 
number comes from.
    For both of you, if the 10 percent cut is just a random 
number, should we really be comparing that as an alternative 
policy recommendation to what is called for in the NDS, and 
would either of you consider a 10 percent cut to be a serious 
policy recommendation? This might be a short answer.
    Secretary Austin. When it comes to structuring the budget, 
Congressman--and by the way, thank you for your service--I 
think randomness is never a good idea. And so we endeavor, as 
you well know, to link our resources to our strategy, strategy 
to policy, policy to the--to the will of the American people.
    This particular budget was based upon the interim strategic 
guidance given to us by the President early on and my guidance 
to the force. And so those were the things that provided us, 
you know, the--really, the structure to be able to--to build 
the budget on. But to answer your question, I do not think 
randomness is a good idea when it comes to budget.
    General Milley. And I would echo those comments. And I'm 
not aware of a proposal of a 10 percent cut per se. That's not 
what this budget does. This budget, essentially, is flat. I 
mean, depending on how you do the calculations, some will tell 
you it's $11 billion more than the 2021 enacted. Others will 
tell you a few billion less if you measure it against constant 
dollars. And then, of course, you've got the factor of 
inflation.
    The bottom line is it's all relative to a threat and I 
think this budget at $715 billion it's a lot of taxpayer 
dollars and I think it adequately defends the United States for 
fiscal year 2022. And I would urge a rapid passing of it and 
rapid enactment of it.
    Dr. Jackson. Yes, sir. Thank you. I brought up the 10 
percent because I think that's being circulated around here and 
I assume that's going to come later on in the form of an 
amendment or something. Thank you for that.
    I'm concerned that this is only the beginning of the 
defense budget cuts over the next few years for the reason I've 
just described. Given that President Biden relies on your 
expertise, I would urge you both to advise him on how 
disastrous that would be, the 10 percent cut, for our national 
security if that comes up.
    Last week, we discussed how we can implement the goals of 
the National Defense Strategy despite a budget cut. Something 
that General Berger said before this committee stuck out to me.
    He said, ``We have a perfect record of guessing where the 
next conflict is going to happen and we got it wrong every 
time.'' We know there will be another threat. That's just a 
fact.
    So I don't see why President Biden is forcing us into a 
budget cut when we are actually losing to China right now and 
have other rising threats around the globe--around the globe.
    Secretary Austin, assuming we are able to keep up with the 
counter and the threat from China, where do you see the next 
threat coming from? Also, how harmful are the proposed budget 
cuts as you prepare the military for whatever future conflict 
we might have?
    Secretary Austin. Yeah. Thank you, Congressman. Again, 
China is the most challenging competitor that we will face and 
so we have to prepare for the most challenging competitor. As 
we do that, it also prepares us well for other things. We'll 
see threats from Russia, Iran, North Korea, and we'll continue 
to see a threat from transnational terrorism.
    And I agree with General Berger that there's always 
something that we weren't really sighted on necessarily but we 
were prepared to address because we prepared for the most 
challenging threat.
    Dr. Jackson. Thank you both. My time is up. I yield back.
    Mr. Keating. The chair recognizes Representative Golden for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin, in recent testimony you provided before 
the Senate both Senator Collins and Senator King asked if you'd 
work with them in Congress to restore the proposed cut to the 
DDG 51 [guided-missile destroyer] Flight III program, and in 
both cases you said the plan was to resource that ship in 2023.
    General Milley, I believe you testified something similar 
earlier today. I'd like to understand that more clearly. The 
most recent figures the Navy has provided Congress was in 
December and it anticipated the procurement of two Flight III 
ships in fiscal year 2022 and two in fiscal year 2023 for a 
total of four ships.
    In light of this, Mr. Secretary, am I to understand that 
you're committing to procure three DDG Flight III ships in 
fiscal year 2023?
    Secretary Austin. We'll certainly work out the balance of 
our investments in the next budget, and I don't want to predict 
where that's going to land. But we're going to go after that 
DDG that we didn't resource in this budget in the next fiscal 
year.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you. You know, if you just look at all of 
last year, the Navy was saying that they needed the Flight III 
from capabilities perspective but also they were projecting two 
ships, whether that was last winter in February, again, putting 
out some figures in the fall, and then in December. It was 
always two ships each time and then suddenly we received this 
budget request to go down to one.
    But, you know, if it's not a commitment to actually go back 
up to three, then I think, you know, it's not resourcing the 
ship that the two Senators and I are asking about and it would, 
in fact, represent a broken contract. You did talk to Senator 
Collins about wanting to have the right mix of capabilities in 
place, and I agree with what Senator Collins said about 
quantity having a quality of its own.
    But I'd like to focus on the capabilities piece. The Navy 
says that the Flight III is key to sea denial and sea control 
missions. It's also expressed urgency to the committee about 
getting the AMDR [Air and Missile Defense Radar] SPY-6 radar 
and those capabilities that will be brought to the Navy into 
the fleet.
    The Navy is looking to decommission cruisers as well. 
Therefore, the Flight III is slated to house and perform the 
role of air defense for our carrier strike groups.
    But this was going to take several years to fully field 
that new capability. Last week, the committee received 
testimony that the benefits of an AMDR are undeniable and it 
was stressed that the Navy has to have that radar.
    I'm curious, in light of the kind of change from two ships, 
two ships, two ships all through 2020 to just one now and given 
this testimony that we have received from the Navy about the 
importance of the capability, what's the driving force behind 
the reduction?
    Secretary Austin. You have to make tough choices in any 
budget and, again, in this budget we're investing in a DDG, two 
submarines, and a frigate, which I think is a pretty 
substantial investment. And again, you know, we have said 
before that, you know, the 355-ship Navy is a good goal to 
shoot at. You have to look at the progress over time. You also 
have to consider, you know, the numbers of hulls that we're 
putting in the water between now and the end of fiscal year 
2022, and when you do that, you'll get a better picture of the 
full capabilities.
    But we--I agree that it is important to make sure that, you 
know, we invest in that DDG, going forward. But, again, in any 
budget, you have to make some tough choices.
    And we also need to make sure we have the capacity to build 
the ship that we invest in.
    General Milley. Could I just add that it's important--in 
terms of capability, the destroyers are the workhorse of the 
Navy for sure and the surface fleet, but the most important 
investment in naval capabilities are the submarines and so the 
priority went to the submarines.
    Mr. Golden. Yeah, certainly. I mean, it sounds like you're 
talking about tradeoffs--hard tradeoffs.
    General Milley. Sure. Absolutely.
    Mr. Golden. So this is--this is a top line budget challenge 
discussion rather than, you know, delivering what the combatant 
commanders are saying that they need out in the fleet in the 
next 5 years.
    I know that they're excited to get that Flight III out 
there. But someone could argue that the--you know, the eight 
ships requested maybe, you know, three of them might not be as 
critical as the destroyer. But we don't have to talk about that 
right now.
    I would just say it is also concerning that in some ways, 
breaking a multiyear procurement like this is unprecedented and 
it does undermine trust, you know, that the Navy is going to be 
able to follow through on future commitments or contracts. 
Concerning to the industrial base and that capability, in my 
opinion. But I do see that the Navy is expressing interest in a 
future multiyear procurement for fiscal years 2023 through 2027 
for the Flight III, and look forward to working with you on 
that.
    I know we're out of time. So if you have any comment, we'll 
take it for the record. Thank you, gentlemen.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 120.]
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you. Before recognizing Mr. 
Carl, votes have been called, and again, votes are going, 
roughly, a half hour. So if someone wants to go over and vote 
now and come back, we're going to go till 2:00 here and we'll 
do that.
    So Mr. Carl is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Rogers.
    Gentlemen, thank you all so much for coming and spending 
time. Secretary Austin, I want to point out something, that two 
Alabama colleagues here are wearing orange and blue in support 
of your Auburn Tigers, and that's tough coming--being a big 
Alabama fan. I'm just going to let you know.
    Real quick--real quick, the fiscal year 2022 shipbuilding 
budget has been a hot topic today, obviously, during recent 
hearings in the committees that we have been--we have held 
here. The report the Navy submitted to Congress last week on 
long-range shipbuilding highlights the importance of steady 
acquisition profiles to maintain our industrial base.
    However, just a few pages later in the report, the report 
has 398 to 512 ships in the Navy long-range plan, and the 
difference is 114 ships. Do you--do you think there might be a 
little question there on how we won or lost 114 ships? That's 
not my question there. But, Secretary Austin, the shipyard that 
I've spent the last 10 years recruiting young people to work in 
is being threatened to be shut down now because of this budget.
    So with that said, the shipyard will be facing layoffs 
workforce in the coming year because of this fiscal year 2022 
budget, its uncertainty. Why did this administration not follow 
the law and submit a true 30-year shipbuilding plan?
    Secretary Austin. Again, the shipbuilding plan, you know, 
will come with the fiscal year 2023 submission. But that's on 
the horizon there. So, we presented a 1-year budget this year, 
and the next year we'll present the budget for the FYDP or the 
outlook for the FYDP.
    Mr. Carl. Okay.
    General Milley. And as you recall, Congressman, there was a 
submission by the previous administration very late and the 
current administration just hasn't had an opportunity to fully 
review that. That's in the works. So there will be a 30-year 
shipbuilding plan here shortly.
    Mr. Carl. Shift gears here real quick, KC-46. The Air Force 
has accepted delivery of the KC-46 aircraft that is not fully 
operational, and still has--still having--quite having some 
difficulties even being used.
    First--the first operation is not--the first operational 
one is not expected until 2024, 7 years after the original 
date. Do you think any of this makes sense? The taxpayers are 
paying for aircraft that are not--that are not fully 
operational and the first is currently projected to be fully 
operational 7 years after the contracted date.
    So, Secretary Austin, along with all the issues that KC-46A 
is facing, now it cannot even correctly hold fuel. Is it time 
to recommit and look at contracting these aircraft out to other 
companies?
    Secretary Austin. We'll work with the Air Force to ensure 
that we're providing the right amount of oversight and drill 
down into choices, going forward, and an assessment suggesting 
that we--that we move to an alternative plan has not yet been 
presented to me. But this is something that we absolutely have 
to remain focused on.
    Mr. Carl. Well, we have Airbus planes that are flying in 
Europe that we're refueling behind. So we know we have got--we 
have got capabilities of other aircraft other than just what's 
being built and delivered.
    General, one quick one for you, sir. Every time they say 
that China or Russia is a better military force, I see you bow 
up a little bit, and I love it. Thank you. Thank you for your 
service----
    General Milley. Yeah.
    Mr. Carl [continuing]. Your patriotism.
    General Milley. Thank you. And just to be clear, and I'll 
reiterate it, neither China nor Russia, militarily, nor any 
other country on the face of the earth is a better military 
than the United States military.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, sir.
    General Milley. On the KC-46, I had an opportunity to go 
out and see them. There's some glitches in the software. They 
are operational. We're flying them. We're flying them and doing 
tanking operations in training exercises around the world.
    When we say they're not--we're not using them operationally 
in combat zones. That's where we're not using them. But they 
are being used in training. There are some software things yet 
to be worked out, and I have confidence in the KC-46 as a 
program.
    Mr. Carl. Thank you, sir.
    General Milley. Thank you.
    Mr. Carl. And I yield my time back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Mrs. Luria is recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Luria. Well, thank you.
    And, General Milley, over the last year I've been reviewing 
the Goldwater-Nichols Act to look at things both positive and 
negative on the current organization within our service.
    A couple questions I had. 10 U.S. Code 163 states that the 
President may direct that communications between the President 
or Secretary of Defense and the commanders of the unified and 
specified combatant commands be transmitted through the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Has the President or Secretary of Defense given direction 
to you that communications through the combatant commanders 
should go through you?
    General Milley. It's a routine--the word is routine 
communications and it's in the UCP [Unified Command Plan]. And 
yes, it is currently in effect. So routine communications, 
normal communications. The chain of command, though, is clear 
and it's unambiguous. The chain of command is the President, 
the Secretary of Defense, and the combatant commanders, and 
then the President, the Secretary of Defense and the service 
secretaries for the departments.
    I am an advisor and I advise on the advantages, 
disadvantages, and puts and takes, costs and risks and 
benefits, et cetera. But the chain of command is clear. But 
routine communication typically goes through me in order for me 
to do my job as an advisor.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, thank you. And another portion 10 
U.S. Code 16 says that subject to the authority, direction, and 
control of the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff serves as the spokesman for the commanders of 
the combatant commands, especially on operational requirements 
of their commands.
    Do you serve as the spokesman for the combatant commanders 
on the operational requirements for their commands?
    General Milley. I do, and I--and when I say I, the Joint 
Staff who helps me----
    Mrs. Luria. I was just looking--I'm sorry--for a yes, no--
--
    General Milley. Sure, and the answer is yes.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay. Well, thank you.
    And so you recently said that there's a low probability 
that China would take over Taiwan militarily in the near term, 
and this seems to be in direct conflict to the statements made 
earlier this year by Admiral Davidson, Admiral Aquilino, last 
week by the CNO and the Commandant of the Marine Corps----
    General Milley. Yeah.
    Mrs. Luria [continuing]. That they believe that China could 
act militarily against Taiwan in the next 6 years. If their 
window is 6 years but you disagree with that, what is your 
window?
    General Milley. I didn't say I disagreed with them--their 
assessment of 6 years. Their assessment is based off a speech 
by President Xi that challenged the People's Liberation Army to 
accelerate their modernization programs, to develop 
capabilities to seize Taiwan, and move it from 2035 to 2027 
hence 6 years. It's a capability. It's not an intent to attack 
or seize.
    My assessment is an operational assessment. Do they have 
the intent to attack or seize in the near term defined as the 
next year or two? My assessment and based on what I've seeing 
right now is no. That can always change. Intent is something 
that can change quickly.
    Mrs. Luria. But, you know, from the statements and how many 
Members of Congress has interpreted that over the series of 
hearings, you know, we heard Admiral Davidson and Aquilino 
clearly state that they thought there was an intent. You're 
saying there's a capability. So there's a difference.
    General Milley. No, I looked at their--I looked at their 
testimony, their words, and very explicitly, and I can go back 
and look at it again.
    If Admiral Aquilino and Admiral Davidson said that China 
had an intent, has made a decision and they intend to invade 
and seize Taiwan, then I do disagree with that. I've seen no 
evidence of that actual intent or decision making. What I'm 
talking about is capability.
    Mrs. Luria. Okay.
    General Milley. What they were talking about is capability, 
and the Chinese leadership, President Xi, challenged them to 
accelerate their capability development, which is two different 
things.
    Mrs. Luria. Thank you. I understand that you're making a 
nuance there. I'll say that Members of the House, I think, 
interpreted the admirals' earlier testimony differently.
    But just, you know, kind of taking that capability as 
capability as well. So whether they have intent right now or 
they may in the future between now and 2027 when you think they 
will have that capability, just looking at this budget, which 
really is a divest-to-invest strategy and I would say that, you 
know, with the--without the sense of urgency that that could 
happen in the next 6 years, you know, it's not really palpable 
to think that we could divest to invest.
    For instance, decommission more ships before we have the 
replacement, thus reducing the fleet size. Retiring bombers at 
a faster rate than we're replacing their inventory, and the Air 
Force has just said recently in a hearing that the bare minimum 
of maintaining 45. And last week we had several hearings that 
expressed us about the Navy's budget, its divest-to-invest 
strategy, and Mr. Gallagher, you know, referred to Admiral 
Davidson's comments as the Davidson window.
    So, you know, I just wanted to--and we have very little 
time left--get after the question of between the combatant 
commanders and yourself acting as a role as an advisor to the 
President.
    General Milley. Sure.
    Mrs. Luria. You know, who should we be listening to. I feel 
like the combatant commanders----
    General Milley. Okay. So----
    Mrs. Luria [continuing]. Their message is very different 
than what we're getting in a message in this budget, because 
the budget does not convey a sense of urgency when we see it as 
a shrinking fleet rather than a growing fleet to counter the 
threats that we see from China in the Pacific. And I have very 
little time left so----
    General Milley. There's one second left so I'll give you an 
answer on the record.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 121.]
    The Chairman. Take it for the record.
    Ms. Cheney is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 
you, General Milley and Secretary Austin, for being here.
    Secretary Austin, I wanted to ask you about GBSD. We have 
had consistent testimony, as I'm sure you know, in front of 
this committee this year and in prior years at the extent to 
which GBSD will save the taxpayer money. Moving forward with 
it, it is $38 billion in cost savings over life extension of 
the Minuteman and, obviously, it also has significantly 
increased capabilities over the Minuteman. I've listened to you 
today. It sounds like there may be some question about whether 
or not you agree with those assessments or whether or not a 
change will be made as you look at the posture review.
    Could you elaborate what factors might lead you down the 
path of not going with the less expensive, more effective, and 
capable GBSD system?
    Secretary Austin. If I conveyed that I'd already made some 
sort of decision, Congresswoman, that's absolutely not the 
case. I think the right thing to do if we're going to conduct a 
Nuclear Posture Review, which we are going to do that, is to 
make sure that we have the right pieces in place, the right 
balance, and to make sure that we continue to evaluate the GBSD 
in the context of that Nuclear Posture Review.
    But again, my intent was not to convey a preference or a 
decision. You know, that's not where I am.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you. I appreciate that. And, again, just 
looking at the cost that we have seen, the consistent testimony 
and the effectiveness, it would be some concern, obviously, if 
we moved towards trying to do life extension at this point.
    General Milley, I wanted to ask you about Afghanistan. You 
know, it does seem that we have now seen the Taliban taking 50 
to 60 more districts. I know the government moves its district 
centers at some point. But it does seem that we're withdrawing 
from the battlefield as our enemy advances.
    So could you talk about both what the actual specifics are? 
We haven't really heard anything in terms of over-the-horizon 
basing, and whether or not you think this is good policy to 
withdraw as our enemy is advancing.
    General Milley. Congresswoman, the--in terms of the 
district centers in the provinces--and, as mentioned earlier 
there's 419 district centers--81 of them are so are in the 
hands of the Taliban. About 50 were done previously and about 
30 or 40 in the last X amount of months.
    In addition to that, no provinces have fallen to the 
Taliban yet. There's a 300,000-plus-or-minus security force 
consisting of the army and the police forces for the Afghans. 
We have not done train, advise, assist in quite some time down 
at the tactical level. So they have been out there shouldering 
the burden of that fight for well over a year.
    And in terms of what we are doing, what we are doing is a 
deliberate responsible drawdown retrograde to bring out U.S. 
military forces, and we're going to keep a small number of 
forces there to maintain the embassy open and to keep 
capabilities there and keep the money going for the NSF 
[National Security Forces] and the government.
    Now, what happens in the future? There's a wide variety of 
possibilities. Worst case, civil war, breakdown, fracturing of 
the government, fracturing of the army. That's very possible 
and that would be a very bad outcome. There's also a 
possibility, not high in the probability list, but a negotiated 
settlement between the government and the Taliban. That's 
possible. And then the alternative is an outright takeover of 
the Taliban, which I also think that is unlikely but possible.
    So there's a variety of outcomes here that could happen. We 
are executing the orders that were given in a very professional 
way, and thus far things are relatively stable on our end.
    Ms. Cheney. Thank you, General Milley. I think it's 
obviously just a significant concern as we do watch the Taliban 
advance, and we know we have got a counterterrorism mission we 
have to conduct and we don't have any basing agreement secured 
for over the horizon.
    But I want to just end with the continuation of this topic 
that's been discussed. A couple of my colleagues suggested that 
there were service members who were being somehow persecuted 
because of their political beliefs or their ideological 
beliefs.
    And I want to, first of all, thank you for noting that the 
attack on the Capitol on January 6th was an attack on the 
Constitution. We do need to understand what happened. It was an 
attack provoked by the Commander in Chief. He could have 
immediately intervened to stop it and he didn't. I think it's 
very important for us to recognize and understand who was in 
the Capitol that day and why, and we have to protect the First 
Amendment rights of our service people, no doubt.
    But it's also critically important that we remind everybody 
that the UCMJ makes it a crime to engage in sedition or mutiny 
or to seek the violent overthrow of the United States 
Government.
    So I would urge, as you are focused on getting to the 
bottom of what happened, we need to do the same here. But we 
really need to focus on that piece of this as well.
    With that, I yield back.
    Mr. Khanna [presiding]. Thank you.
    I recognize Representative Jacobs.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you so much for joining us. I 
wanted to follow on a question from my colleague, Ms. Cheney, 
about the GBSD. I know you said a final decision will only come 
after the Nuclear Posture Review.
    But it seems from the budget that this decision has already 
been made with the claim that the price to build and operate 
the new GBSD would be less than the cost to maintain the 
current Minuteman III.
    So it seems this conclusion is based by comparing the total 
lifecycle cost of the two options through 2075 at a deployed 
level of 400 ICBMs.
    Is that true? If so, where did those numbers, 400 in 2075, 
come as the baseline requirement? Who made that decision and is 
that still going to be revisited down the road, as you said?
    Secretary Austin. Well, certainly, as I indicated a couple 
minutes ago, you know, I've not made any decisions on this. I 
think it deserves, you know, the right amount of effort and 
attention, and we'll make the best choices.
    But these choices need to be informed by the--by the 
posture review and make--to make sure we have the right balance 
here.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you. You know, I think it's 
important that we do the process necessary and not invest in a 
very expensive nuclear platform as, for instance, our President 
is in active negotiations to decrease our reliance on nuclear 
weapons.
    And my next question is, you know, I represent San Diego 
and almost all of the people in uniform I speak to, they're 
struggling to find childcare. I'm happy to see that the 
President's budget increases base pay, but it seems like 
there's just so much more we need to do. And I was a little 
surprised that in this budget request it only requests funding 
of a single construction of a new childcare development center, 
one 200-space center at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas. I 
know you said to my colleague earlier that you were working on 
investments in home care support and others. So I just wanted 
to know what more you're planning on doing to address childcare 
beyond this single one space that is being constructed.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks for the question and for your 
continued focus on what I believe is a very important issue. 
We'll continue to work with the services as they work with 
their installation commanders and they identify what their 
needs are and make sure that those needs are reflected in 
military construction plans, going forward.
    But I personally believe that--and I know all the 
secretaries and the chiefs believe--that this is a--this is an 
important issue and one we need to continue to invest in.
    So more need--more work needs to be done to the point that 
you're making.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you. Yes, I really want to emphasize that 
I think what's in the budget is not sufficient, and I can tell 
you for my constituents in San Diego, you know, of our 
subsidized childcare waiting list spots, more than half of them 
are military families. And so it's a really critical need and I 
hope that you would continue to emphasize it and I appreciate 
your comments there.
    If Ms. Escobar is here, I'm happy to give the remainder of 
my time to her.
    Mr. Khanna. [Audio malfunction.]
    Ms. Jacobs. All right. Well, then, Mr. Chair, I'll yield 
back.
    Mr. Khanna. The chair recognizes Representative McClain.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for being here in front 
of this committee today, and it's a pleasure to meet you in 
person.
    I want to speak today what--in regards to what a lot of my 
colleagues have already spoken on, which is China, and I think 
we all agree is China seems to be our most challenging 
adversary or national threat.
    We're fortunate enough to have thousands of businesses 
across our country that have contracts with your Department. My 
question is, do you believe it would be in the best interest of 
our national security to ensure that the CCP does not have 
access to our military intellectual property?
    Secretary Austin. I absolutely believe that and I think we 
need to--it's important to me to make sure that, number one, 
the DOD networks are properly protected, but we need to 
advocate or ensure that all those people--all those companies 
that are supporting us in supply chains are doing the right 
things to meet the standards to reduce vulnerabilities in a 
supply chain.
    Mrs. McClain. Extremely critical. Finally, do you fear that 
when the United States conducts a foreign military sale to a 
nation that also has accepted Belt and Road funding that our 
military equipment might fall into the hands of the CCP?
    If not, can you explain how do we ensure that this doesn't 
happen and what do we do to make this better and to protect 
America and to protect our intellectual property? What action 
steps can we take?
    Secretary Austin. Well, we--before we enter into the 
agreements there, we certainly do assessments to make sure that 
the people that we're selling the gear to do have the 
capability to protect our property, our intellectual property, 
and they agree to do what's necessary to do that.
    Mrs. McClain. So to make sure I understand--I didn't mean 
to interrupt--is when we engage in a sale, we put mechanisms in 
place to make sure that our intellectual property is protected 
and secure?
    Secretary Austin. To the best of our abilities, yes. We 
take appropriate and responsible actions and, of course, the 
State Department is involved in deciding whether or not the 
sales will be--will be consummated. I mean, they get to approve 
that.
    Mrs. McClain. What do you think we can--what measures, if 
any, can we take to make sure that we ensure this process is 
even safer to a greater--to a greater ability? I mean, you hear 
or, at least, I hear, the American public hears, on a constant 
basis China is stealing our intellectual property and it's 
coming from a lot of our business dealings.
    Secretary Austin. You know, I think we can--we need to 
continue to engage our partners and allies and emphasize the 
importance of this. We need to make sure that as we--as we 
convey equipment that we are confident that the people that 
we're conveying it to can protect the intellectual property.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
    The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you.
    We are at that magic hour. I know the Secretary has a hard 
stop at 2:00 o'clock. So Mr. Kahele--I'm sorry, I never 
pronounce that correctly. I'll learn by the end of the session, 
I promise. You are recognized for 5 minutes and that you will 
be the last questioner that we have before we close at 2:00.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Mr. Chair, and aloha, Secretary Austin 
and General Milley.
    Mr. McCord, thank you for your service, all of you for your 
testimony today.
    I want to focus my questions on the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative, the importance of those U.S. relationships with our 
allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific region, and the 
changing nature of the future conflicts.
    Secretary Austin, I applaud you for showcasing America's 
commitment to the Indo-Pacific region by making your first 
overseas visit with your trip to Japan and South Korea and 
India, and a brief stop in the Hawaiian Islands. I'm sorry I 
missed you.
    But as we are now discussing the fiscal year 2022 defense 
budget, which I appreciate the President's budget and the 
investment in the PDI, I also think as China becomes more 
aggressive in the region the United States needs to be more 
aggressive regarding our critical investments in the PDI, and 
there are things that are not in that budget, in the unfunded--
like the Guam defense system, the Homeland Radar-Hawaii, the 
TACMOR [Tactical Mobile Over the Horizon Radar] in Palau--that 
I think we need to take a look at, and so that we can fully 
fund that PDI and fully meet the objectives that we discussed 
today, which is one of those national instruments of power, 
which is our military deterrence and the strength of that 
deterrence in the Indo-Pacific region.
    So as a member of the Pacific Islands Caucus, I want to 
continue to call attention to Oceania and the Pacific Islands 
region. China regularly provides military training in the 
Pacific Islands region. They have been broadening their reach 
throughout the Pacific. They actively cultivate those 
relationships with senior defense officials.
    You know, we know what the investments that they've been 
doing in Guam for a number of--excuse me, in Western Samoa for 
a number of decades, and as those defense officials from China 
go to the different Pacific Island regions, they get full 
military honors, such as in Papua New Guinea under their 
defense force--chief of defense visit in 2016. Under President 
Xi, senior PLA officials have held bilateral meetings with 
their counterparts in Papua New Guinea and Tonga and Fiji.
    And so my first question to you, sir, is given the 
increasing military-to-military engagements in the Pacific 
Islands region, especially Papua New Guinea, Fiji, and Tonga, 
many of those small islands listed on the unfunded section 
1251, will the DOD plan similar high-level engagements to 
strengthen those relationships with our counterparts in those 
small island nations in Oceania to deter China from extending 
their reach throughout the Western Pacific and into the Eastern 
Pacific?
    Secretary Austin. As you pointed out, Congressman, the 
Indo-Pacific is important to us and my very first trip was out 
to the region. And I would just say that China is engaging a 
number of different countries and with economic----
    Mr. Kahele. Carrots.
    Secretary Austin. Yeah. But we have something that China 
doesn't have. We have allies and we have partners. And if you 
consider the Australias, the Japans, you know, the Koreas of 
the world, you know, there is tremendous capacity in our allies 
and partners.
    I think the Pacific Islands are absolutely important, and 
you'll see us continue to engage various countries in the 
region there and to make sure that where we can, we're 
increasing our capacity and accessibility and strengthening the 
relationships.
    But we far and away exceed any capability that China would 
have in terms of partner or ally capability, and we're going to 
continue to strengthen what we have.
    Mr. Kahele. What are your thoughts then on expanding those 
relationships that we currently have or previously had? For an 
example, in the Philippines we had robust bases at Clark. Of 
course, we have a presence in Subic and Singapore. We have 
Changi, you know, and we have U-Tapao in Thailand. What are 
your thoughts on expanding those relationships, specifically, 
the Philippines?
    Secretary Austin. Absolutely the right thing to do and, you 
know, I've talked with the minister of defense in the 
Philippines a couple of times. Certainly, we would look to 
expand our footprint and strengthen our relationship, as we go 
forward. I'll continue to work on that personally. I think it's 
really, really important.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will yield 
back the remainder of my time. Mahalo.
    The Chairman. Well, thank you very much. And I want to 
thank both of you--well, all three of you. Mr. McCord, alas, 
did not get a question. I'm sure you were profoundly 
disappointed.
    But I do want to thank the Secretary and the Chairman. And 
I think it is really important, as we have had these 
discussions, you know, we focused on some areas of 
disagreement. But there was overwhelming agreement on this 
committee in a bipartisan way about the priorities and needs 
within our Department of Defense and how to meet those.
    And I hope we'll stay focused on those and not get too 
obsessed with the areas where we disagree because there's a lot 
of good in what you're doing at the Pentagon. A lot of work to 
be done, obviously, and I think this committee and this 
Congress will contribute to that with useful and productive and 
helpful ideas over the course of the next several months as we 
work through the defense bill and the appropriations bill.
    But I, you know, want to congratulate Secretary Austin. 
This is his first--not the first appearance before this 
committee, the first appearance, I believe, as the Secretary 
and we very much appreciate your leadership. And I think you 
are absolutely the right person for the job at this moment. 
Glad you are there. Look forward to continuing to work with 
you.
    Mr. Rogers, do you have anything for the good of the order?
    Mr. Rogers. Just to say I envy Mr. McCord. I mean, this 
is--this is my kind of hearing for you, buddy.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Rogers. And I have the highest respect for the 
Secretary and the general, and thank you for your service and 
being here. And I concur with the chairman's observation about 
this committee's focus on what we need, and we will continue in 
a bipartisan fashion.
    So thank you very much, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. With that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 2:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                             June 23, 2021

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             June 23, 2021

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

      

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
      
=======================================================================


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             June 23, 2021

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

      
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             June 23, 2021

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

      

             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

    Secretary Austin. My staff, including the Missile Defense Agency 
and the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, is 
completing the examination of options for combat- and cost-effective, 
survivable, and technically executable Integrated Air and Missile 
Defenses for Guam. A summary of this analysis will be provided to 
Congress, to give an initial overview of the option space. These 
results will inform the Department's final decision on the Integrated 
Air and Missile Defense of Guam as part of the Fiscal Year 2023 budget 
cycle.   [See page 18.]
    Secretary Austin. The Department of Defense remains deeply 
committed to working with Israel to ensure that the Iron Dome Defense 
System is capable of protecting Israeli civilians. The Department 
strongly supports Israel's request for additional support for its Iron 
Dome Defense System and continues to consult closely with the Israeli 
Ministry of Defense on the details of the request.   [See page 18.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LARSEN
    Secretary Austin. U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) 
established a distinct line of effort, the Cognitive Performance 
Program, within the Preservation of the Force and Family (POTFF) 
program structure in FY 2020, and hopes to align the funding for this 
effort in FY 2022. The $10.2 million referenced in the POTFF budget was 
not a request for a budget increase, but rather reflected a realignment 
of resources from two other POTFF Domains (Behavioral Health Domain 
($6.1 million) and Human Performance Domain (physical) ($4.1 million)).
    Although USSOCOM has had numerous cognitive performance initiatives 
underway for several years, the decision to create a distinct line of 
effort to address the cognitive domain within the POTFF program also 
resulted in the need to realign resources in order to place greater 
emphasis on brain health and cognitive performance. The goal of this 
dedicated line of effort, focused on cognitive performance, is to 
maximize cognitive functioning of SOF personnel by monitoring the 
impacts of exposure to explosive blasts, by assessing brain functioning 
and cognitive performance, and by training. USSOCOM has started several 
initiatives under the POTFF Cognitive Performance Program, including 
computer-based cognitive training programs, enhanced assessments, 
career-long preventative monitoring efforts, multiple research projects 
to better understand the impacts of blast exposures, and assessments of 
technologies intended to improve cognitive functioning and to monitor 
exposures to blasts. USSOCOM POTFF's cognitive enhancement efforts 
provide individual and collective training to proactively build 
cognitive resilience and ability.   [See page 19.]
    General Milley. DOD seeks a secure and stable region where U.S. 
national interests are safeguarded, the U.S. homeland is defended, and 
nations work cooperatively to address challenges. We currently assess 
the risk of conflict in the Arctic as minimal. However, the Arctic is a 
rapidly evolving security environment in which the Joint Force must 
present a credible deterrent to conflict, maintaining its flexibility 
to respond promptly and effectively to contingencies in the region. DOD 
recognizes that Russia and China are actively challenging the Arctic 
rules-based order. Russia views itself as a great polar power and 
regulates maritime operations in the Northern Sea Route in a manner 
contrary to international law. Although Russia has generally followed 
international law and procedure in establishing the limits of its 
extended continental shelf, DOD recognizes that Russia could choose to 
unilaterally establish those limits if the procedures prove unfavorable 
and, in doing so, could utilize its military capabilities in an effort 
to deny access to disputed Arctic waters or resources.
    Meanwhile, while China is not an Arctic nation, it is attempting to 
gain a role in the Arctic in ways that may undermine international 
rules and norms, and there is a risk that its predatory economic 
behavior globally may be repeated in the Arctic. Moreover, China is 
increasing its presence through economic outreach, investments in 
Arctic states' strategic sectors, and scientific activities.
    The 2019 DOD Arctic Strategy guides the Department's approach to 
the Arctic. The Strategy recognizes the existence of multiple competing 
global priorities and emphasizes that Arctic resourcing needs to 
account for other global priorities. The Strategy generally takes the 
approach of focusing resources on Russia and China in other areas of 
the world in order to limit strategic spillover in the Arctic, 
particularly vis-a-vis the surface maritime domain. DOD strategy 
advocates for improved early warning systems, other domain awareness 
systems, and improved communications in the Arctic.   [See page 19.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
    General Milley. The Joint Force is leveraging various, established 
bilateral and multilateral fora designed to maintain the confidence of 
our Allies and Partners in the Middle East, Europe, and Africa.
    DOD leads the CT effort throughout the middle east effort. In 
Africa, DOD remains committed to Countering Violent Extremist 
Organizations (CVEO). We continue close collaboration with our Allies 
and Partners, sharing our future global force posture objectives and 
intentions. In West Africa, we continue to support French-led efforts, 
and consult regularly.
    Finally, the Joint Force continues to build confidence among our 
Allies and Partners by leveraging numerous routine bilateral and 
multilateral fora to achieve mutual military objectives and desired 
strategic effects.   [See page 37.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BACON
    Secretary Austin. There are classified reasons why the budget 
presentation exists in its current form. The Comptroller takes care to 
avoid inadvertently exposing classified information to the public and 
continues to provide the annual classified budget extract report along 
with the President's Budget submission to the committees in order to 
present a complete, classified picture to Congress. The Department was 
unable to provide the display requested by the Congress for the FY22 
Budget Request without adversely affecting counterintelligence, but is 
considering several options to do so in the future.   [See page 46.]
    General Milley. Congressional support of current arms sales 
particular to air defense capabilities can strengthen deterrence for 
Taiwan. Current arms sales that support the air defense mission are the 
Stinger man-pad, sustaining their PATRIOT batteries, and the Harpoon 
Coastal Defense System. Improving Taiwan Armed Forces with small, 
highly maneuverable, cost-effective and highly lethal anti-aircraft and 
ship weapons is also beneficial. Building Taiwan's indigenous air 
defenses and asymmetric capabilities through co-development 
opportunities will further strengthen Taiwan's deterrence.   [See page 
47.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    Secretary Austin. The interagency working group did not consult 
with the Navy regarding shipyard infrastructure, however, the 
Department of the Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program 
(SIOP) aligns with the American Jobs Plan in building world-class 
infrastructure; revitalizing manufacturing and small businesses; and 
training Americans for the jobs of the future. SIOP meets the 
President's infrastructure priorities; projects are scoped and ``shovel 
ready'' to provide a clear return on investment to the tax payer 
through immediate job creation and opportunities for economic dividends 
for the next generation of skilled trades maintaining the Nation's 
fleet.   [See page 51.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDEN
    Secretary Austin. The Navy has been using multi-year procurement 
(MYP) authority with the support of Congress to procure DDG 51 
destroyers in quantities that support stable production and a healthy 
industrial base. MYP contracts generate substantial savings compared to 
the annual procurement cost estimates, provide a long-term commitment 
to the shipbuilding industrial base that stabilizes shipyard employment 
levels, and incentivize industry to make capital investment that 
improve productivity. The Navy plans to request authority for MYP of 
DDG 51 Flight III ships for FY 2023-2027.   [See page 66.]
    General Milley. PB22 procures warships and submarines with credible 
combat power to deter China, invests in the industrial base to support 
continued modernization, and on-time delivery of Columbia. The decision 
to procure only 1 DDG in FY22 was a hard choice. These hard choices are 
driven by budget constraints and reflect the Navy's assessment of where 
to take investment risk balanced across industrial base performance.
    Reducing to one DDG in FY22 (final year of multi-year contract) is 
least impactful. While the department will face $33M penalty, reducing 
to one DDG in FY22 will allow the industrial base to recover from 
production backlog and more reliably produce 2 Flight III DDGs per year 
in FY23 and beyond.   [See page 66.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
    General Milley. The FY 2022 President's Budget includes retirement 
of platforms and systems that cannot be affordably modernized to enable 
them to have credible combat power.
    Prior to any programmed divestiture, the Department considers the 
system's efficacy against projected threats, sunset timeline of the 
system(s), whether there are alternative ways to execute the same 
missions, and the risks associated with divestment. DOD has conducted 
such an assessment of those systems slated for divestment in the 
President's Budget for Fiscal Year 2022.
    The savings from these divestments have been re-invested in the 
development and procurement of key new technologies (e.g., hypersonics) 
to deter and, if necessary, defeat any adversary now and in the future. 
  [See page 69.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN
    General Milley. We are developing a counterterrorism over-the-
horizon (OTH) capability in the region that will allow us to keep our 
eyes firmly on any direct threats to the United States and act quickly 
and decisively if needed. To that end, we have added more capability in 
the region, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
(ISR) assets and combat aircraft in the Gulf. President Biden has 
directed the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by September 10 
and noted the withdrawal will be complete by the end of August. The 
withdrawal included the transfer of Bagram Airfield to Afghan National 
Defense and Security Forces. Only HKIA is needed to support the U.S. 
and allies diplomatic presence. U.S. and coalition forces do not have 
the number of personnel or capability in country to necessitate 
maintaining Bagram.   [See page 24.]
                                 ______
                                 
             RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. GREEN
    Secretary Austin. The Department of Defense prioritizes science and 
technology (S&T) investments that enable the Joint Force's success 
today and tomorrow. The Department's FY2022 budget request includes its 
largest ever Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation request at 
$112.0 billion and $14.7 billion in S&T investments. These University 
Research Initiative efforts represent a portion of the Department's 
total research and workforce development portfolio, which includes a 
number of initiatives specific to cybersecurity research and workforce 
development for which the budget request maintains full funding. While 
the services' subaccounts for the University Research Initiative were 
cut, these savings were invested in programs deemed to be of higher 
priority and better alignment to the National Defense Strategy. The 
Fiscal Year 2022 Cyberspace Activities budget includes around $500 
million for advanced cyber-related research and development activities, 
which includes programs to substantially enhance expertise and skills 
within the cyber operations, cybersecurity, and cyber S&T workforces.   
[See page 58.]
    General Milley. The Army is not cutting CTC rotations for Fiscal 
Year 2022 (FY22). There is an increase of two programmed rotations from 
FY21; 20 programmed in FY22 and 18 programmed in FY21. CTCs are aligned 
with the Army's training strategy to meet readiness requirements which 
allows tailored CTC rotations to meet unit training requirements. This 
training strategy provides levers to allow for customizing the size and 
scope of a CTC rotation commensurate with readiness requirements. The 
Army Training Model relies on simultaneous Multi-Echelon training 
events at Company and below, allowing for additional repetitions for 
those formations to provide the time required for mastery of 
fundamentals.
    The FY22 rotation breakdown is:
    --National Training Center--8 rotations
    --Joint Multi-National Training Center--4 rotations
    --Joint Readiness Training Center--8 rotations
    There are 20 CTC rotations planned for FY23 and 21 for FY24.   [See 
page 57.]

?

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             June 23, 2021

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

    Mr. Lamborn. Secretary Austin, Ebrahim Raisi is Iran's next 
president, he has firmly stated that ballistic missiles--the delivery 
system for a nuclear weapon--are off the negotiating table. Raisi says 
support to proxies attacking our soldiers and our allies will continue. 
Iran's proxies have accelerated attacks in Iraq and against Saudi 
Arabia and Israel--how does the Pentagon justify redeploying air 
defense assets that were put in place to protect our troops and our 
allies against Iranian proxy attacks?
    Secretary Austin. The Department of Defense redeployed certain 
forces, primarily air defense assets, from the Middle East this summer. 
The overextension of these assets threatened to undermine the overall 
readiness of our forces globally. We continue to maintain significant 
air defense assets deployed in the Middle East, with a focus on 
defending against the most likely regional rocket and UAV threats. We 
have also improved our array of passive defense measures. Our partners, 
from Israel to the Gulf region, also have significant air defense 
assets and have proven themselves increasingly adept at effectively 
operating these systems. We are constantly reassessing our posture in 
response to evolving global threats.
    Mr. Lamborn. General Milley, Admiral Davidson has expressed his 
support for a ``360-degree, persistent, air and missile defense 
capability on Guam (Guam Defense System (GDS))'' and testified about 
the groundwork which has been laid so far.
    I agree with him on the need for the GDS, both because Guamanians 
are American citizens and worthy of protection from the growing Chinese 
and North Korean missile threat, but also because of the extremely 
important role Guam plays in our Pacific strategy.
    Can you please elaborate for us as best you can in an open setting 
how a so-called ``bloody-nose'' or ``decapitation'' strike on Guam 
would impact our ability to conduct operations in the western Pacific?
    General Milley. Any attack would cause great concern for the Joint 
Force and the civilian population of United States. INDOPACOM has 
numerous contingency plans in place to respond to such an attack and 
would be able to respond accordingly. We are constantly assessing the 
threat and reviewing our plans and options. Studies are underway to 
develop an effective approach for the missile defense of Guam in order 
to expand and modernize our regional missile defense posture against 
ballistic and hypersonic missile threats in the INDOPACOM theater.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN
    Mr. Wittman. On December 3rd, 2020--just a few months ago--General 
Milley said: ``We're going to have to have a much larger fleet than we 
have today, if we're serious about great power competition and 
deterring great power war, and if we're serious about dominant 
capability over something like China or some other power that has 
significant capability.''
    Secretary Austin, yes or no, do you agree with General Milley's 
statement?
    That same day Gen Milley also said: ``I would advocate, and bias 
going forward, heavy investment'' regarding sea, air and space-centric 
platforms.'' He then went on to say: ``We are, and the defense of the 
United States depends on air power and sea power primarily. People can 
say what they want and argue what they want, but that's a reality.''
    ``. . . I love the Army . . . but the fundamental defense of the 
United States, and the ability to project power forward [are] going to 
be naval and air and space power.''
    Yes or no, do you agree with General Milley's statement?
    Secretary Austin. I agree that naval, air, and space power are 
increasingly critical in maintaining the U.S. military edge and in 
deterring conflict. The size of the future Navy fleet is an important 
aspect of naval and air power. However, we need to focus on fleet 
capability, not just numbers of ships, and how the Navy operates 
jointly with other capabilities, including those of the Army, in the 
future threat environment. That is how the Department is approaching 
future war fighting challenges--from a Joint Force-wide and fleet-wide 
perspective, enabled by new operating concepts and investments in other 
advanced capabilities and modernized forces.
    Mr. Wittman. Secretary Austin, On May 27th, I quote you as saying, 
``let me assure you, from my perspective our effort is not to make the 
Army be the bill payer for the Air Force or Navy.''
    This was made abundantly clear by the shortsighted annual 
shipbuilding report delivered to Congress. The plan calls for smaller 
ships to support DDGs and CGs, fails to meet the redline on Amphibs for 
the Marines, and then proceeds to inactivate 7 CGs and only fund 1 DDG.
    Gen. Milley has stated on record that all the systems in the Army's 
big six priorities are being well funded. A second DDG was a priority 
for the Navy. The Marine Corps is on the verge of cutting end strength 
to be a billpayer for Force Design 2030.
    Secretary Austin, would you say that our investment is properly 
biased? Has something happened since December that has changed reality 
and we are no longer dependent on sea power as Gen Milley has said?
    Secretary Austin. I agree with General Milley that the PRC is our 
pacing challenge in strategic competition and we need to develop 
advanced capabilities to remain dominant. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget 
prioritizes and invests in capabilities focused on the Indo-Pacific, 
and buys us the flexibility needed to go after the right capabilities 
that will ensure we remain relevant in any competition. We invest $52 
billion in buying a lethal Air Force, $34 billion in buying combat 
effective naval forces, and $12.3 billion for combat effective ground 
forces. And when you combine that with our investment in missile defeat 
and defense, $6.5 billion in long range fires, and $10.5 billion in 
cyber, it really does create a tremendous capability for us.
    Mr. Wittman. I have strong concerns about the overuse of Requests 
for Forces (RFFs) by certain Combatant Commanders.
    I worry that our ability to modernize the services for a future 
Great Powers competition and conflict will be undermined by the 
combatant command's failure, unwillingness, or inability to make do 
with their approved GFMAP allocations. As I understand it, RFFs are 
mainly only to be submitted and approved if there is a significant 
change in the operational environment.
    Last week, in this room, CNO Gilday said: ``I think the process 
needs more rigor.''
    In an unclassified format: What is your threshold for approving 
RFFs? What would qualify as a change in the operating environment that 
is significant enough to warrant a departure from the carefully planned 
GFMAP?
    RFFs against the GFMAP is not a recent phenomenon. What steps are 
you taking to reset the balance between near-term crises driving RFFs 
and long-term readiness?
    Are you communicating the expectation that the combatant commands 
will only request forces for tasks that are truly mission-critical?
    And finally, does the GFMAP process itself need to be restructured?
    Secretary Austin. The threshold for approving RFFs cannot be 
specifically defined since the decision is dependent on multiple 
factors including intelligence assessments, priorities, emerging 
opportunities, the operational environment and the actions of our 
adversaries. Changes in the operational environment are driven by many 
unpredictable factors, e.g., the COVID pandemic, which trigger requests 
to the Secretary to reallocate forces around the world to support 
dynamic operations and emerging opportunities. New intelligence will 
also highlight changes in the operational environment that may 
necessitate a change in force allocation. Risks to mission and forces 
are always taken into consideration when considering allocation or 
reallocation of forces. Understanding we cannot avoid all risk, we 
mitigate risk where we can, relying on strength of deterrence and non-
military means to pursue U.S. objectives in other areas.
    The GFM allocation process begins with the development and approval 
of the Base Global Force Management Allocation Plan (GFMAP), a process 
that starts more than 18 months prior to force deployments in a given 
Fiscal Year. Although there are numerous touchpoints with various 
intelligence providers and civilian leaders throughout development of 
the Base GFMAP, DOD cannot predict with certainty what the future 
operational environment will look like and require in terms of force 
allocation. To account for changes in the environment, along with 
routine administrative refinements, Combatant Commanders submit 
Requests for Forces (RFFs) for modifications to the GFMAP. The Joint 
Staff receives these RFFs, reviews them for feasibility and 
supportability, and makes recommendations to the Secretary to modify 
the GFMAP. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the DOD 
components review the Joint Staff's recommendations and provide their 
positions and opinions. My approval of modifications to the GFMAP does 
not imply that the GFMAP was wrong, but rather that conditions, 
guidance, or risk have changed. Without the flexibility of RFFs, the 
Department would rely on a plan for force distribution that may not 
reflect the realities of the environment.
    Commanders understand the impacts of every RFF and in general 
already submit only mission-critical demands. Each Combatant Commander 
has a wide variety of assigned responsibilities, tasks, and missions. 
These tasks often change with the global environment, and each of these 
changes warrants consideration of changing our Base GFMAP. As some of 
these situations may be unforeseen, we must remain flexible to adjust 
our plan and ensure we are meeting the Nation's security needs, both 
domestically and abroad.
    We have taken steps to better balance GFMAP force demands with 
long-term readiness or crisis with peer competitors by providing 
guidance to Services to maintain a more expansive set of ready forces 
via the Directed Readiness Tables. These efforts ensure we have 
available forces to respond to crisis or to execute our most demanding 
operational plans.
    While there is always room for improvement, I do not believe our 
allocation process needs a wholesale restructure. The process functions 
as designed, ensuring decisions involving risk to force versus risk to 
mission are presented to inform my decisions, with the appropriate 
Service Chief's or Combatant Commander's impact statements for my 
review. The ongoing Global Posture Review, directed by the President in 
February, is in the process of identifying opportunities to adjust DOD 
posture, including overseas deployments, to achieve better alignment 
with the President's Interim National Security Strategic Guidance. In 
addition, the National Defense Strategy process will examine how to 
align the Administration's priorities with resourcing, including 
tradeoffs across modernization, readiness, and force structure. The GFM 
process is flexible enough to receive this guidance and adjust both 
assignment and allocation of forces appropriately.
    Mr. Wittman. In an unclassified format, which Global Combatant 
Command submits the most Requests for Forces outside of their GFMAP 
allocation?
    Secretary Austin. Historically, CENTCOM submits the most Requests 
for Forces. Factors that contribute to this status are a dynamic and 
rapidly changing security situation, limited assigned forces, and 
strategic guidance that initially limited base order commitments to the 
CENTCOM AOR, necessitating Requests for Forces when the security 
situation changed.
    Over the last two years, we have received more than 200 Request For 
Forces per year, with CENTCOM accounting for over 30% of those 
requests. Historically, 80% of the originally approved annual GFMAP 
BASE ORDER allocation remains in place through that respective fiscal 
year.
    Mr. Wittman. In Great Powers Competition, strategy and budgeting go 
hand-in-hand. Would you support briefing the congressional defense 
committees on the annual Global Force Management Allocation Plan 
(GFMAP)? If not, why not? Shouldn't the defense committees of congress 
have a greater understanding of how the O&M funds--that are being 
authorized and appropriated--are being used through an annual briefing 
on the GFMAP?
    Secretary Austin. Yes, I would support a briefing by the Department 
to the congressional defense committees on the overall prioritization 
of forces in the annual GFMAP. The GFMAP authorizes force allocations 
and deployment of forces in support of a Combatant Commander's force 
requirements. It provides details on how forces are applied in context 
to National strategies and demonstrates the efficient employment of 
forces based on those priorities.
    Mr. Wittman. In an unclassified format, which Global Combatant 
Command submits the most Requests for Forces outside of their GFMAP 
allocation?
    General Milley. Based on data for FY20 and FY21, U.S. Central 
Command submitted the most Request for Forces, accounting for 40-50% of 
emergent forces demand each FY. U.S. Northern Command was the next 
largest contributor in each FY, accounting for 30-40% of emergent 
forces demand, largely driven by Southwest Border and COVID response 
requirements
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
    Ms. Speier. Secretary Austin, while I understand that it is 
impossible to perfectly predict future force allocation needs, I am 
concerned that the Global Force Management process is not adequately 
balancing OPTEMPO and providing a measure of predictability to our 
service members. Please describe what actions you are taking within the 
current process to ease the strain on overburdened forces?
    Secretary Austin. The annual GFMAP development cycle is a more than 
18 months long process driven by the tasks within the strategic 
guidance documents, including the President's Interim Strategic 
Security Guidance and the Department's National Defense Strategy, 
National Military Strategy, and Defense Planning Guidance. During the 
annual GFMAP process each Combatant Command and military Service has 
multiple opportunities to explain their current and future challenges. 
Each concern is captured and assessed for risk and impact. Where there 
is disagreement, the Department's senior leadership is gathered and a 
decision is made and captured in the annual GFMAP, to include Service 
Chief concerns on impacts to the health of the force. I take those 
concerns very seriously and only approve exceptions for priority 
requirements that justify the deployment of the Department's most 
valuable commodity--our service members.
    Additionally, each Request for Forces is validated for legitimacy 
to ensure the request is necessary to accomplish the tasks within the 
guiding strategic documents and warrants the employment of forces and 
service members. This validation process reduces unnecessary Requests 
for Forces by applying specific criteria to question the authority, 
policy, legality, funding, and suitability of each request. Deployment 
to Dwell and Mobilization to Dwell remain indicators I use to measure 
the stress on the force and remain a factor in all decisions to employ 
the force.
    Ms. Speier. Secretary Austin and General Milley, are there any 
studies currently underway to analyze and recommend modifications to 
the Global Force Management System?
    Secretary Austin. The Global Posture Review, directed by the 
President in February, is a process for identifying opportunities to 
adjust DOD posture--including overseas deployments--to achieve better 
alignment with the President's Interim National Security Strategic 
Guidance and DOD's focus on the PRC as the pacing threat. In addition, 
this year's National Defense Strategy review will examine how to align 
the Administration's priorities with resourcing, including tradeoffs 
across modernization, readiness, and force structure.
    Additionally, since February 2021 the Joint Staff has been 
assessing the Global Force Management Annual Allocation process for 
possible improvements. The results of that study are currently being 
analyzed and will be briefed to the Services and Combatant Commands. 
The outcomes may result in modifications to the Global Force Management 
system in the coming months and years.
    Ms. Speier. General Milley, you mentioned that while overall 
OPTEMPO is not trending higher, relative OPTEMPO has been increasing. 
Why are end-strength requests not shifting to balance out the relative 
increase?
    General Milley. PB22 fund an overall Active Component military end 
strength of 1.346M personnel. This is a decrease of 4.6K (-0.3%) below 
the FY21 currently projected levels and is largely due to divestments 
across multiple platforms/structures to finance the future fight.
    The Joint Force will be smaller and leaner, but more agile, 
flexible, ready to deploy, innovative and technologically advanced. 
With the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Army and Marine 
Corps will no longer need to be sized to support the large scale, long-
term stability operations required over the past two decades. Force 
allocations will be structured and paced to allow forces to surge, 
regenerate, and mobilize capabilities needed for any contingency.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROOKS
    Mr. Brooks. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget request includes 
significant funding for offensive hypersonic weapon systems being 
developed by the services, including the Conventional Prompt Strike 
program, the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon, and the Air-launched Rapid 
Response Weapon, all of which are planned to be fielded in the near 
term. What value will these systems--which will have the capability to 
hit high value targets via unpredictable flight paths--have to the 
combatant commanders, especially compared to other conventional missile 
capabilities currently deployed?
    Secretary Austin. Hypersonic weapon systems provide a combination 
of speed, maneuverability and altitude that enables highly survivable, 
long range, rapid defeat of time-critical, heavily-defended and high 
value targets.
    Our potential adversaries have rapidly developed highly capable 
systems to challenge our domain dominance on the tactical battlefield. 
These systems include anti-ship ballistic missiles, high-end integrated 
air and missile defense systems, anti-satellite capabilities, and land-
attack cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles. These systems 
collectively create a tactical battlefield environment that is highly 
contested, presenting a significant challenge to our traditional weapon 
capabilities. Moreover, the adversary has increasingly focused on 
systems that dramatically compress the timelines on the tactical 
battlefield. These systems include ballistic missiles, ballistic 
missiles with maneuvering reentry vehicles and, increasingly, 
hypersonic strike missiles. These systems provide the adversary an 
ability to hold our forces at risk hundreds, and even thousands, of 
miles out with flight times measured in minutes.
    Our current portfolio of traditional tactical strike weapons 
consists of sea-launched subsonic cruise missiles and air-launched 
subsonic cruise missiles on subsonic or low supersonic aircraft 
delivery platforms. These systems will take on the order of 10 times 
longer to fly a long range strike mission when compared to the 
adversary high speed systems. This presents unfavorable battlefield 
asymmetry.
    The Department's Hypersonics Modernization Strategy accelerates the 
development and delivery of transformational warfighting capabilities 
based on hypersonic systems. This strategy includes air, land, and sea 
launched conventionally armed hypersonic strike weapons for highly-
survivable, long-range, time-critical defeat of maritime, coastal and 
inland targets of critical importance on the tactical battlefield. The 
Fiscal Year 2022 budget includes funding to accelerate the development 
and transition of hypersonic weapons to enable fielding of operational 
prototypes in quantity from land, sea and air by the mid-2020s.
    Mr. Brooks. The Department has made great progress towards fielding 
offensive hypersonic capabilities, but we haven't done enough with 
respect to hypersonic defensive capabilities. Hypersonic threats are 
here today, and we need to be able to defend against them. While this 
budget request did not include projected spending levels for the next 
five years at the program level, do you believe that there is 
opportunity to accelerate development and ultimately fielding of 
hypersonic defensive capabilities?
    Secretary Austin. Our potential adversaries have aggressively 
pursued, and are now fielding, a variety of hypersonic systems that 
challenge our air and missile defenses with a combination of range, 
speed, altitude and maneuverability. Defense against these systems will 
require a comprehensive layered defeat approach that includes a layered 
kinetic and non-kinetic defense in the terminal and glide phases of 
flight, as well as, left of launch kinetic and non-kinetic defeat of 
missile launch complexes and kill chain elements. Our current strategy 
for kinetic defense includes a layered capability with terminal defense 
by the mid-2020's and demonstration of a glide phase defense later in 
the decade. Offensive hypersonic capabilities provide left of launch 
kinetic strike capability in the mid-2020s. Concept development for the 
glide phase defense capability is under way and initial studies 
indicate that there is opportunity to accelerate development of glide 
phase defense capability. MDA is currently evaluating concepts proposed 
by industry to achieve that acceleration.
    Mr. Brooks. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget request includes 
significant funding for offensive hypersonic weapon systems being 
developed by the services, including the Conventional Prompt Strike 
program, the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon, and the Air-launched Rapid 
Response Weapon, all of which are planned to be fielded in the near 
term. What value will these systems--which will have the capability to 
hit high value targets via unpredictable flight paths--have to the 
combatant commanders, especially compared to other conventional missile 
capabilities currently deployed?
    General Milley. The Department's investment strategy develops and 
procures multi-Service, multi-domain offensive weapons focused on the 
high-end fight that enable the Joint Force to hold adversary forces at 
risk at operationally relevant ranges. By enabling power projection 
from standoff ranges, the risk to critical U.S. assets decreases while 
the defensive burden imposed upon the enemy increases.
    PB22 funding is essential to mitigate offensive fires capacity 
shortcomings, enhance operational flexibility in multiple domains, and 
accelerate the transition of hypersonic weapons from development to 
procurement and fielding.
    Offensive hypersonic weapons play an important role in deterrence. 
We are investing heavily in offensive hypersonic weapon systems now 
because the Joint Force requires these capabilities to hold adversary 
targets at risk at operationally relevant ranges.
    Mr. Brooks. The Department has made great progress towards fielding 
offensive hypersonic capabilities, but we haven't done enough with 
respect to hypersonic defensive capabilities. Hypersonic threats are 
here today, and we need to be able to defend against them. While this 
budget request did not include projected spending levels for the next 
five years at the program level, do you believe that there is 
opportunity to accelerate development and ultimately fielding of 
hypersonic defensive capabilities?
    General Milley. The DOD continually assesses technology advancement 
to ascertain opportunities for accelerated development or fielding of 
systems that enhance warfighter capability based on the evolving threat 
environment.
    The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) Hypersonic Defense effort is 
funded at $247.9M in PB22. This funding advances several technology 
enablers such as hypersonic threat sensor technology, architecture 
analysis, threat modeling, Command and Control, Battle Management and 
Communications (C2BMC) upgrades, and a Glide Phase Defeat Weapon 
System. The Hypersonic Defense effort also leverages investments in 
targets and the Hypersonic Ballistic Tracking Space Systems (HBTSS), 
which is funded at $256.2M in PB22.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BROWN
    Mr. Brown. Can you provide an accounting on how the Department is 
implementing the FY2021 NDAA provisions relating to L-band spectrum, 
when they will be complete, and any recommended changes to the law?
    Secretary Austin. The Department of Defense (DOD) is implementing 
Sections 1661 through 1664 of the FY2021 NDAA. DOD's progress to 
complete these requirements varies with the level of analysis and 
interagency coordination required for each provision. The mechanism to 
oversee and implement these provisions is the Council on Oversight of 
the DOD Positioning, Navigation, and Timing Enterprise. If there are 
legislative changes to be recommended from the Council's work as these 
provisions are implemented, the Department will seek to share them with 
the Congress through the appropriate channels as the recommendations 
are identified. Below is a short status update on each provision.
    Section 1661--Prohibition on availability of funds for certain 
purposes relating to the Global Positioning System.
      The Council on Oversight of the DOD Positioning, 
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise is assessing and managing this effort 
to ensure compliance.
      Current DOD efforts to migrate to M-Code with the next 
generation of GPS user equipment are driven by adversary threats.
    Section 1662--Limitation on awarding contracts to entities 
operating commercial terrestrial communication networks that cause 
harmful interference with the Global Positioning System.
      The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and 
Sustainment will assess current and future contracts for compliance and 
is serving as the DOD lead in this area.
      The Council on Oversight of the DOD Positioning, 
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise will provide oversight on behalf of 
the Secretary.
    Section 1663--Independent technical review of Federal 
Communications Commission Order 20-48
      A DOD Contract is in place with the National Academies of 
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM); NASEM has chosen a study 
chair and is in the process of recruiting and vetting candidates to 
support the study.
      The Council on Oversight of the DOD Positioning, 
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise will provide oversight on behalf of 
the Secretary.
    Section 1664--Estimate of damages from Federal Communications 
Commission Order 20-48.
      DOD is assessing potential expected costs associated with 
20-48. Conclusions will depend on the NASEM Study referenced above.
      The Council on Oversight of the DOD Positioning, 
Navigation, and Timing Enterprise will provide oversight on behalf of 
the Secretary.
    Mr. Brown. Secretary Austin, In your responses to the Advanced 
Policy questions for your confirmation hearing, you stated, ``Space is 
already an arena of great power competition'' and ``the strategic 
environment continues to evolve rapidly, especially as it applies to 
space.'' Recognizing this, Congress created the U.S. Space Force 
(USSF), reestablished U.S. Space Command as a unified combatant 
command, and created the Space Development Agency. What additional 
space-based capabilities and capacities do you need to meet the demands 
of great power competition in space? And as the need for space launch 
services continues to grow, how will you ensure diversity within the 
industry?
    Secretary Austin. The Department seeks to develop capabilities that 
enhance Joint Force operations across all domains, such as space 
situational awareness and command and control systems. These 
capabilities are critical components of a modern, resilient 
architecture essential to maintaining our advantages in space and 
giving the United States the technological edge over our adversaries. 
With regard to launch capabilities, the Department has invested more 
than $2 billion in the U.S. space launch industrial base to ensure 
competition and end reliance on foreign rocket engines. This strategy 
culminated successfully in August 2020 with the National Security Space 
Launch Phase 2 procurement contract award. The NSSL program has 
established a research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) 
strategy to invest continuously in the industrial base, expand 
opportunities for industry, and provide further opportunities for 
commercial space launch. Finally, the NSSL Phase 3 procurement 
competition in fiscal years 2024-2025 will provide further 
opportunities to diversify the industry.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KELLY
    Mr. Kelly. How does the Department determine what is of greatest 
importance to service members, their families, and their broader 
support network? What means do you have to capture those insights at a 
national, state and local level? What level of confidence do you have 
in the information the Department is using to understand those concerns 
and does the Department have the means to directly engage those 
individual cohorts in a responsive way?
    The Military Wellness Initiative (MWi) is the only resource 
available I am aware of that provides these insights and solutions. It 
continues to expand and be developed in support of the readiness of our 
troops and the mental and physical wellness of our veterans and their 
communities.
    Secretary Austin. The Department recognizes the importance of 
family support and the crucial role families play in supporting Service 
members deployed all over the world. The Department uses multiple 
methods to collect reliable and generalizable data to ensure that 
military leaders have the best information possible when making 
decisions regarding military families.
    The Department conducts an extensive joint-Service survey program 
to assess issues of importance to Service members and their families 
through the Status of Forces (Active and Reserve) Surveys administered 
annually and the Active and Reserve Spouse Surveys (administered every 
2 years). Data from these representative surveys provide baseline data 
and trends over time to assess issues and concerns related to quality 
of life, retention, satisfaction, family life, financial readiness, and 
importance of and satisfaction with DOD programs and policies including 
those that provide support to the member and family. The surveys 
capture these responses for overall DOD and the Services as well as at 
a national and regional level. The surveys use scientific sampling and 
weighting and so provide accurate estimates of these target 
populations.
    In addition to survey data, the Department incorporates a robust 
research program to assess service member and family program uptake and 
understand where gaps in program coverage exist. For example, DOD 
conducts large-scale program evaluations to understand user experiences 
and outcomes. Administrative data from DOD and other government 
agencies (e.g., Census, Social Security Administration) are also 
utilized to better understand the impact military service has on 
families. Finally, the Department tracks program metrics across the 
portfolio of programs supporting service members and their families. 
Ongoing measures of program quality, utilization, and customer 
satisfaction provide the ability to adapt programs to address concerns 
with access, quality and/or content. Program metrics also help the 
Department identify opportunities to direct resources where they are 
most needed to support military families.
    Mr. Kelly. There are a precious few Army modernization programs 
that are critical to military operations worldwide and domestic 
missions such as natural disaster response. Notably, the M917A3 Heavy 
Dump Truck does all of this and more for the Active Army, the Army 
National Guard, and the Army Reserve. I'm pleased to see the Army 
request some funding for the Heavy Dump Truck program in the FY 2022 
request. What is the Army's plan to continue procurement of the M917A3 
Heavy Dump Truck?
    Secretary Austin. The M917A3 Heavy Dump Truck is being executed 
under a five year contract, which was awarded in 2018. Low rate initial 
production was completed in the third quarter of FY20 with a full rate 
production decision in the first quarter of FY22. Full rate production 
and procurement is planned to begin in FY22 with completion projected 
for FY23.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLAGHER
    Mr. Gallagher. Secretary Austin, in your prepared remarks, you call 
for accelerating ``investments in cutting-edge capabilities that will 
define the future fight,'' including long-range fires. What would be 
some of the tangible consequences if Congress fails to fully fund 
programs like the Marine Corps' Long Range Fires and Ground-Based Anti-
Ship Missiles, and the Army's Mobile Medium Range Missile in FY22?
    Secretary Austin. The DOD invests $6.6B in Long Range Fires systems 
in PB22, an increase of $1.4B over FY21. The Department's PB22 Long 
Range Fires (LRF) investment strategy develops and procures multi-
Service, multi-domain offensive weapons focused on the high-end fight 
that enable the Joint Force to hold adversary forces at risk at 
operationally relevant ranges. By enabling power projection from 
standoff ranges, the risk to critical U.S. assets decreases while the 
defensive burden imposed upon the enemy increases.
    PB22 funding is essential to mitigate offensive fires capacity 
shortcomings, enhance operational flexibility in multiple domains, and 
accelerate the transition of hypersonic weapons from development to 
procurement and fielding. The impact of not funding these LRF efforts 
is a delay in capability delivery to the warfighter, reducing the 
Combatant Commander's options to respond to threats from multiple 
domains.
    Mr. Gallagher. Secretary Austin, I know we share a commitment to 
ensuring the Constellation-class frigate is a success. In light of both 
the proven nature of the design and the lessons of the LCS, can you 
commit to minimizing any changes to the existing hull and machinery to 
help ensure the program delivers on time and on budget?
    Secretary Austin. Recognizing that the Constellation-Class Frigate 
has requirements and some suppliers that differ from the parent design, 
the Navy is committed to deliberately completing a detail design that 
meets requirements with minimal change.
    Mr. Gallagher. Chairman Milley, in the FY15 NDAA, Congress stood up 
the National Commission on the Future of the Army, which recommended an 
active duty end strength of 450,000 even after the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine. Can you talk a bit about what in the threat environment has 
changed so that the Army end strength in the FY22 budget is now at 
485,000?
    General Milley. The end strength recommendation by the 2016 
National Commission on the Future of the Army represented a force 
deemed ``minimally sufficient'' to accomplish the statutory and 
regulatory requirements placed on the Army. Recent budget increases 
have helped implement the commission's recommendations to fund the Army 
at or above their recommended end strength.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. HOULAHAN
    Ms. Houlahan. In May of this year I introduced the Military Moms 
Matter Act which, among other initiatives, proposes extending paid 
family leave to 12 weeks for service members, in line with our NDAA 
2020 proposal for federal employees, which became law last year. One of 
the big topics of debate in this bill is the leave for ``primary'' and 
``secondary'' caregivers. As the policy is currently written, the 
secondary caregiver is able to use very little leave following the 
birth or adoption of their child. We understand the need to maintain 
force readiness, but ensuring we take care of our troops and retain our 
forces is also vitally important to retention and morale, and as a 
matter of fairness to ensure no service member has to choose between 
being the best parent and serving their country. Secretary Austin and 
General Milley--I'd like to hear your thoughts on expanding secondary 
leave for service members or eliminating that designation entirely and 
offering equal leave to all members. With a record number of women 
entering our military, though still a fraction of our U.S. population, 
can you tell me what the Department is doing to ensure proper support 
mechanisms are in place, such as childcare, which will allow our 
Military Women to have an equitable service experience?
    Secretary Austin. As you have indicated, the Department must ensure 
we take care of our Service members and their families. Ensuring they 
have the time required to recover from the arduous nature of their 
duties and tend to the needs of their families should be part of 
service life. The birth or placement of a child is a circumstance where 
providing more leave than the 30 days every Service member accrues each 
year is certainly appropriate. That being said, the Department must 
establish policies that strike the right balance between providing 
additional leave to parents and maintaining operational readiness.
    The Department recognizes the importance of providing military 
families with access to quality, affordable child development programs, 
and is committed to meeting the increased demand for child care. The 
Department operates the country's largest employer-sponsored child care 
program. It provides high standards of care in government-operated 
facilities and also offers a robust placement and fee assistance 
program to help military families obtain child care in the local 
civilian community. Recently, the Department launched a new initiative 
to help military families obtain childcare and facilitate additional 
spouse employment opportunities by offering fee assistance to Service 
members who obtain care from in-home child care providers.
    The Department is also working hard to ensure our talent management 
processes permit the opportunity for women to advance in their military 
careers without impediments caused by unnecessary policies or 
inflexible career paths. We are closely examining outdated or overly 
restrictive policies that detract from individual career progression, 
data concerning Service member quality of life, unit readiness, and the 
overall retention of highly trained professionals.
    Ms. Houlahan. I understand that the DOD would like to explore a 
mid-career program that allows individuals to more easily move between 
government and industry and I am very happy to not just hear about this 
idea, but about the Department's support of it. I've been supportive of 
expanding the Career Intermission Program both for active duty members 
and incorporating one for DOD civilians.
    Can you tell me a bit more about how you envision this program 
working in a way to support the defense critical supply chain? Would it 
be for certain career fields? I know we are still having a difficult 
time recruiting and retaining STEM talent, so how would this program 
effectively improve the current manning issues?
    Secretary Austin. The Career Intermission Program (CIP) for active 
duty military members is a helpful tool that allows the Department to 
retain its investment in highly skilled members of the military who 
would otherwise be prevented from completing an active duty career. A 
similar authority that permits a flexible career path for civilian 
employees could be useful in recruiting and retaining specialized 
talent in the civilian workforce. I would like to note that existing 
authorities under 10 U.S.C. 1599j facilitate mid-career mobility and 
learning opportunities between DOD civilian personnel and industry. The 
DOD will continue to ramp up its current Talent Exchange Program 
enabled through this authority by increasing the pool of participants. 
The program is still being refined--it is in its fourth year of 
existence--but meets many of the ends for civilian personnel that the 
Career intermission Program meets for active duty service members.
    Ms. Houlahan. During my time in Congress, I have advocated 
vigorously for investment in STEM education and programming for 
children and young adults in my community to meet the needs of the 
future's workforce in all sectors of employment. Secretary Austin: As 
the needs of the Department of Defense adapt to demand new technical 
skills for recruits, soldiers, seamen, airmen, and guardians--how does 
the budget reflect meeting the needs for STEM recruitment from our high 
schools and colleges?
    Have you looked at increasing the pool of ROTC applicants from 
Minority Serving Institutions to address a lack of diversity within the 
STEM fields?
    Secretary Austin. The budget request incorporates new and 
continuous efforts to select a talented and diverse cohort, 
contributing to improved graduation rates, low attrition, greater 
lethality, and improved retention. The general DOD model is to recruit 
and access a qualified field of applicants, place them on best fit 
occupational career trajectories, and provide the necessary technical 
training required to meet operational objectives. This process provides 
a stable pipeline of highly qualified individuals to educate and train 
in emerging fields. Both the Military Service Academies and our ROTC 
Programs are attracting the STEM talent needed to meet the emerging 
needs of the Military. However, it should also be noted we are 
collaborating with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and 
Minority Serving Institutions to attract diverse talent for STEM and 
other critical career fields.
    Ms. Houlahan. Much of my ``Armed Forces Digital Advantage Act'' was 
included in the FY2020 NDAA which established a policy to recruit, 
retain and promote tech talent and digital expertise in the DOD 
workforce.
    Secretary Austin, can you share what steps the DOD has taken to 
develop a policy on tech talent management, allowing us to recruit the 
right people and ensuring our talented work force stays within the 
Department?
    Secretary Austin. Developing a highly capable digital workforce is 
critical to achieve the broader digital transformation outlined in the 
DOD Digital Modernization Strategy to integrate digital technology into 
the full range of DOD operations, from personnel management to 
strategic planning to operations and battlefield management. In June, 
the Department delivered a Digital Talent Management implementation 
plan to Congress, as required by Section 230 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020). This plan addresses 
the recruitment, hiring practices, development, and retention of a 
civilian and military workforce with digital and software development 
expertise.
    Implementation of this plan, led by the Offices of the Under 
Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary for 
Research and Engineering, will be executed within a Digital Talent 
Management forum that is cross-functional with representation from the 
Military Departments, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the Chief Information Officer of 
the DOD, and the Defense Digital Service. Additionally, the Department 
has provided plans and reports in accordance with FY2020 NDAA Section 
255 (Department-wide software science and technology strategy), Section 
256 (Artificial Intelligence Education Strategy), and Section 862 
(Software Development and Software Acquisition Training and Management 
Plans).
    Ms. Houlahan. Secretary Austin, you have been vocal about the need 
to improve the diversity of our forces. Can you please provide an 
update on your recent efforts to recruit and retain a diverse force?
    Secretary Austin. As I stated in my Message to the Force, we will 
lead with our values, building diversity, equity, and inclusion into 
all aspects of our work and in everything we do.
    To that end, we have established a DOD Equity Team (DET) to 
facilitate, inform, and advance our progress on all issues relating to 
diversity, equity, and inclusion. The DET is actively reviewing our 
policies, programs, and processes related to talent management. 
Additionally, we are evaluating recruiting strategies to reach a wider 
audience, including obtaining more interest from underrepresented 
communities. Developing and expanding key partnerships remains critical 
to generating interest in, and informing youth of, the benefits and 
importance of military service. Furthermore, we are presenting diverse 
recruiting imagery and targeted messaging to showcase that the military 
is a diverse, representative force and to garner increased interest 
among youth from all communities across our nation.
    Regarding retention efforts, I want to assure you that we are 
working to retain the best and the brightest Service members and 
provide all Service members an opportunity to excel, regardless of 
race, gender or ethnicity. As such, one of my efforts focuses on 
building transparency in our selection processes. Greater transparency 
will help ensure that selection processes for promotion, nominative 
assignments, command, and schooling are fair, equal, and based on 
merit. In addition, the Department has removed all photographs from 
promotion selection processes.
    These issues require sustained leadership attention. Both Deputy 
Secretary Hicks and I will continue to champion diversity, from top to 
bottom, across the entire Defense enterprise.
    Ms. Houlahan. Secretary Austin, back in April, I sent a letter to 
you with several of my colleagues asking you to implement mandatory 
training on digital literacy and cyber citizenship within the DOD. The 
proposed defense budget would set aside $30.8 million to help the 
Pentagon improve tools to identify and address extremism among troops, 
and enhance training at all levels. It also includes $9.1 million to 
take initial steps to fight extremism and insider threats.
    Can you share in a bit more detail what these tools and trainings 
will look like?
    Secretary Austin. The Department's Countering Extremist Activity 
Working Group is exploring multiple actions to enhance Insider Threat 
(InT) awareness training. This Working Group is examining Common 
Military Training and looking at ways to include InT awareness training 
and requirements for the services in an efficient and effective manner. 
The Cyber Awareness Challenge and InT trainings provided by the Defense 
Counterintelligence and Security Agency's (DCSA) Center for Development 
of Security Excellence are being reviewed for recommended updates to 
address extremist activities/behaviors of concern. Further, the Working 
Group has facilitated collaboration among Department stakeholders to 
produce additional training tools to assist with identifying and 
addressing extremist activities and other behaviors of concern.
    The $30.8 million is within DCSA's FY 2022 President's Budget 
request, and includes $9.5M for User Activity Monitoring (UAM). UAM 
provides a technical capability to monitor activity on select Non-
Secure Internet Protocol Router (NIPR) devices accessing U.S. 
Government information in order to detect insider threats. The NIPR UAM 
capability provides the Department with the ability to detect early 
indicators of concern on the unclassified IT system.
    Additionally, the Budget request includes $12.5M for DCSA's Vetting 
Risk Operations Center to build a capability to incorporate Publicly 
Available Electronic Information (PAEI), including social media, into 
background investigations in accordance with Security Executive Agent 
Directive 5 (SEAD-5) and aligned to the Trusted Workforce 2.0 personnel 
vetting reform initiative. This will fund screening, analysis, and 
reporting of PAEI, including social media, in support of national 
security eligibility determinations. The PAEI investment will deliver a 
capability to support DOD requirements for enhanced personnel security 
as directed in P.L. 114-113 and will aid in the execution of continuous 
vetting in accordance with direction from the Security and Suitability 
Executive Agents.
    Ms. Houlahan. In May of this year I introduced the Military Moms 
Matter Act which, among other initiatives, proposes extending paid 
family leave to 12 weeks for service members, in line with our NDAA 
2020 proposal for federal employees, which became law last year. One of 
the big topics of debate in this bill is the leave for ``primary'' and 
``secondary'' caregivers. As the policy is currently written, the 
secondary caregiver is able to use very little leave following the 
birth or adoption of their child. We understand the need to maintain 
force readiness, but ensuring we take care of our troops and retain our 
forces is also vitally important to retention and morale, and as a 
matter of fairness to ensure no service member has to choose between 
being the best parent and serving their country.
    Secretary Austin and General Milley, I'd like to hear your thoughts 
on expanding secondary leave for service members or eliminating that 
designation entirely and offering equal leave to all members. With a 
record number of women entering our military, though still a fraction 
of our U.S. population, can you tell me what the Department is doing to 
ensure proper support mechanisms are in place, such as childcare, which 
will allow our Military Women to have an equitable service experience?
    General Milley. Taking care of troops and their families is a key 
readiness issue. We continue to expand programs that increase 
availability and improve affordability of childcare. Last Fall, the 
Department initiated a comprehensive review to update policies to 
enable pregnant Service members to safely continue their duties, attend 
training, and perform critical assignments, including appropriate 
assignments in deployed environments. This continues to be an ongoing 
effort to improve our policies.
    Ms. Houlahan. I understand that the DOD would like to explore a 
mid-career program that allows individuals to more easily move between 
government and industry and I am very happy to not just hear about this 
idea, but about the Department's support of it. I've been supportive of 
expanding the Career Intermission Program both for active duty members 
and incorporating one for DOD civilians.
    Can you tell me a bit more about how you envision this program 
working in a way to support the defense critical supply chain? Would it 
be for certain career fields? I know we are still having a difficult 
time recruiting and retaining STEM talent, so how would this program 
effectively improve the current manning issues?
    General Milley. I am encouraged that the Career Intermission 
Program permits service members to pursue personal goals or 
professional growth while providing a mechanism for a seamless return 
to Active Duty. The VA extended education benefits for veteran students 
seeking science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) degrees 
through The Edith Nourse Rogers STEM Scholarship GI Bill STEM Extension 
in 2019. The DOD SkillBridge program is a means that allows 
Servicemembers to transition from government to industry. Through the 
SkillBridge program industry partners benefit from gaining early access 
to the extensive experience, skills, and unmatched work ethos Service 
members bring to the workforce. Employers craft SkillBridge programs to 
meet their specific workforce needs, matching those needs to the skills 
and abilities of highly motivated Service members. The U.S. Department 
of Defense pays Service member salary and benefits while the Service 
member participates in SkillBridge. This opportunity may last up to the 
final 180-days of service. Military installation Commanders can make 
on-base facilities available to industry partners for use in their 
SkillBridge programs, or members may be authorized to train at the 
industry partner's location off installation at minimal to no cost.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BERGMAN
    Mr. Bergman. Earlier this week, Secretary of the Army Christine 
Wormuth stated that the Army National Guard may not be able to fund 
training for the remainder of the fiscal year if supplemental funding 
is not provided to offset the cost of the Capitol security response. 
The Air National Guard is also in a similar position. Secretary Austin 
and General Milley, what would be the impact on readiness for Army and 
Air National Guard units around the country if supplemental funding 
isn't provided?
    Secretary Austin. Supplemental funding has since been appropriated 
by Congress.
    Mr. Bergman. Earlier this week, Secretary of the Army Christine 
Wormuth stated that the Army National Guard may not be able to fund 
training for the remainder of the fiscal year if supplemental funding 
is not provided to offset the cost of the Capitol security response. 
The Air National Guard is also in a similar position. Secretary Austin 
and General Milley, what would be the impact on readiness for Army and 
Air National Guard units around the country if supplemental funding 
isn't provided?
    General Milley. Since supplemental funding has not been provided in 
July, the Army National Guard will begin notifying the 54 States and 
territories to cancel some August and September training events due to 
budget constraints. We can realistically expect cancelled training 
events will adversely impact affected ARNG and ANG units' readiness due 
to cancelled training, exercises, maintenance, and logistics.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
    Mr. Waltz. The Chinese are at 1,000 shipyards, and we're at less 
than 20. The Navy has its shipyard infrastructure improvement plans, so 
they clearly defined shipyard infrastructure as a priority. There is no 
mention, not one, in the President's $1.9 trillion infrastructure plan. 
Were you consulted by the interagency group that submitted the 
infrastructure plan? Whether it is grids, ports, and especially 
shipyards, was the Defense Department consulted for it's priorities a 
part of the administration's plan?
    Secretary Austin. The interagency working group did not consult 
with the Navy regarding shipyard infrastructure, however, the 
Department of the Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program 
(SIOP) aligns with the American Jobs Plan in building world-class 
infrastructure; revitalizing manufacturing and small businesses; and 
training Americans for the jobs of the future. SIOP meets the 
President's infrastructure priorities; projects are scoped and ``shovel 
ready'' to provide a clear return on investment to the tax payer 
through immediate job creation and opportunities for economic dividends 
for the next generation of skilled trades maintaining the Nation's 
fleet.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. ESCOBAR
    Ms. Escobar. Secretary Austin, in your testimony, you also 
mentioned how protecting the United States requires teamwork at every 
level: state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal. This necessary 
collaboration often happens when resources are equability shared 
throughout communities. One program in particular that echoes the 
spirit of this is the Defense Community Infrastructure Program or DCIP, 
which makes grants to assist State and local governments to address 
deficiencies in community infrastructure supportive of military 
installations.
    Currently, assets that are on lands leased from the Department of 
Defense are ineligible for funds, even if these assets support military 
value. As you may be aware, there are numerous local government 
entities, public utilities, and public cooperatives that support the 
missions of military installations with infrastructure and facilities 
on lands leased from DOD.
    Can you speak on DOD's position as it pertains to the expansion of 
eligibility to the program and removing this obstacle to ensure these 
assets are eligible under DCIP?
    Secretary Austin. The Department would support considering 
expanding eligibility for projects located on property that may be 
leased from a military department or anothercomponent of the Department 
of Defense. I want to note that standard real estate improvement leases 
are for a period of not less than 30 years.
    Ms. Escobar. In the FY20 National Defense Authorization Act, this 
committee requested the U.S. Army to review the military service record 
of our World War I hero, Private Marcelina Serna, a migrant from Mexico 
who volunteered for duty even though his immigrant status granted him 
an exemption and the most decorated WWI soldier from Texas, for an 
eligibility to be awarded the Medal of Honor. Not much progress has 
been made to recognize the honorable and heroic service of Pvt. Serna. 
In honor of Memorial Day, I introduced a bill to correct the bigotry 
that denied a Mexican American World War I hero the nation's highest 
military honor, and authorize the President to posthumously award Pvt. 
Serna the Congressional Medal of Honor.
    Minority heroes and women and men of color like Pvt. Serna who have 
served on behalf of the military have long faced a history of 
discrimination that has kept them from being honored for their 
extraordinary heroism. How is the Department of Defense working with 
our military services on ensuring we don't leave these heroes behind?
    Secretary Austin. The Military Departments' respective World War I 
(WWI) valor medal reviews directed by Section 584 of Public Law 116-92 
(FY20 NDAA) are ongoing. The reviews are examining the valorous actions 
of African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Jewish 
American, and Native American war Veterans who were nominated for the 
Medal of Honor, or awarded a Service Cross and/or a French Croix de 
Guerre with Palm (at the Army level or above) for actions during WWI to 
determine if the respective Veteran's actions warrant upgrade to the 
Medal of Honor. The Military Departments anticipate completing their 
reviews by December 20, 2025 as required by Section 561 of Public Law 
116-283 (FY21 NDAA). The Army confirmed that its respective WWI valor 
medal review includes the Distinguished Service Cross awarded to 
Private Marcelina Serna for this valorous actions during WWI.
    Additionally, I am reviewing the Department's current and past 
valor medal reviews that focused on specific minority war Veterans 
(i.e., African Americans; Asian Americans; Hispanic Americans; Jewish 
Americans; Native Americans; Native American Pacific Islanders) during 
specific wars/conflicts to ensure each such group is provided the same 
opportunity for review as their respective counterparts.
    Ms. Escobar. The climate crisis is an imminent threat and as a 
member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on 
the Climate Crisis, I have been raising the alarm for what it will mean 
for our national security and installation readiness. That is also why 
I introduced the DOD Climate Resiliency and Readiness Act along with 
Senator Warren, which I look forward to reintroducing soon. I am a firm 
believer that if DOD can begin to plan for climate mitigation and be 
proactive on climate that there is no excuse for civilians to do the 
same. That is why I am so encouraged by the Department's request of 
$617 million to combat the climate crisis. The four categories you have 
laid out provide a clear guide for where this funding would go. In 
particular, I'd like to focus in on the $263 million put into 
Strengthening Installation Mission Resilience investments. I think this 
represents a great opportunity for our installations to move towards 
net-zero emissions. For example, Fort Bliss is located in a region that 
experiences almost 365 days of sunshine a year, which presents a great 
opportunity to invest in solar panels as an alternative, and soon main, 
power source for the base.
    However, I am concerned that this funding may not reach 
installations like Fort Bliss within the first year. Could please you 
describe how DOD would be making decisions for this funding and how 
installations can put themselves in the best position possible to 
receive it?
    Secretary Austin. Strengthening installation resilience to hazards 
associated with the effects of climate change ensures that the DOD can 
successfully execute critical missions. A key component of installation 
resilience is energy resilience. Energy resilience is essential to 
ensuring installations remain effective power projection and 
sustainment platforms in the face of escalating cyber, climate, and 
kinetic risks. The Department uses all existing authorities, to include 
appropriated funds and third party financing, necessary to ensure 
energy resilience and improve mission readiness. An example is DOD's 
Energy Resilience and Conservation Program (ERCIP), a defense-wide 
military construction program used to make investments necessary to 
close the Department's critical energy gaps through projects submitted 
by each military service. A competitive process is used to select 
projects to ensure ERCIP funding is directed to the Department's high-
priority, high-value resilience projects. ERCIP projects may include 
on-site renewable energy, microgrids, and energy efficiency 
technologies that ensure access to reliable, resilient and cyber-secure 
energy critical to DOD mission execution.
    Ms. Escobar. Secretary Austin, I want to thank you and the 
Department for putting together a plan for canceling and reprogramming 
DOD funds that were allocated by the previous administration for a 
border wall. However, as a member representing both the southern border 
and a military installation in need of funds for critical 
infrastructure on base, it was alarming to see just how easy it was for 
the Department to take funds allocated by Congress for certain programs 
and redirect them towards something as ineffective as a border wall.
    My main concern is that a future administration may use the same 
playbook laid out by the previous one and pillage critical programs 
within DOD for wall funding. What can Congress do to ensure funding we 
have appropriated actually makes it to their designated accounts? This 
is something I'd like to continue the conversation on and look forward 
to working with you and your staff to find a solution suitable for both 
DOD and Congress.
    Secretary Austin. I am committed to transparency regarding 
resourcing decisions of the Department and look forward to continued 
congressional support. The Department relies on existing authorities to 
provide the flexibility required to manage the Department's resources 
in the most efficient and effective manner possible, and we will do so 
within the legal boundaries Congress provides.
    Ms. Escobar. General Milley, this morning my colleagues in the 
House, joined by Rep. Speier of this committee, and I, introduced the 
Vanessa Guillen Military Justice Improvement and Increasing Prevention 
Act to modernize the military justice system by transferring 
responsibility for making prosecutorial determinations for the most 
serious crimes to military attorneys with significant trial experience 
and training than the existing chain of command. As you may be aware, 
this the companion bill of Sen. Gillibrand's military justice bill, 
which you have voiced opposition to. Sadly, your recent opposition in 
communication with the Senate Armed Service Committee has caused Senate 
leaders to block efforts to secure a vote on the bill. This bill is now 
a bicameral, bipartisan bill with wide support, even from Members 
who've served and speak to the dire issues in our military justice 
system. Though more limited in comparison to our bill, the recent 
recommendations of the task force that Sec. Austin set up to conduct a 
90-day review of sexual harassment and assault in the military, 
included a recommendation to hand decisions to prosecute sex crimes to 
military lawyers.
    General, do you support the recommendation of the task force to 
remove the chain of command from sexual harassment and assault crimes?
    General Milley. I support fundamental change in the area of sexual 
assault and sexual harassment, including removal of Commanders from 
preferral and referral decisions. However, we need to stay narrowly 
focused on the issue of sexual assault and directly related crimes in 
order to drive meaningful change. Any additional change requires 
deliberate, empirically-based study and analysis to ensure proposed 
changes will yield the desired results.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. LURIA
    Mrs. Luria. General, at last week's budget hearing for the Air 
Force, I asked General Brown--twice--if he thought we might actually 
conduct a large scale land invasion in any conflict with China. He 
mentioned the joint warfighting concept and said it's ``hard to predict 
what would happen'' and to have ``options in the future.'' General, 
China has a population of 1.4 billion people. The People's Liberation 
Army has about 2.2 million active duty soldiers and about half a 
million reserve soldiers. Do you envision the U.S. and its allies 
mounting a large scale land invasion of the PRC? If not would it be 
more advantageous to redirect some funding for the Army to the Navy and 
Air Force to deter and counter, if necessary, China?
    General Milley. Both the National Security Strategy and National 
Defense Strategy recognize the PRC as a strategic competitor vying for 
economic, diplomatic, and military advantages globally. The United 
States has responded to the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) direct 
challenge by acknowledging that the U.S. and PRC are in a strategic 
competition. The United States and its allies will protect our 
interests appropriately, but competition does not mean conflict. Even 
as the United States competes with the PRC, we welcome cooperation 
where our interests align.
    Addressing your second question, the Department is currently 
conducting a Global Posture Review to assess whether our current force 
is allocated and positioned to meet our pacing threat and competitors. 
This review includes participation from the services. Following 
completion of the Global Posture Review and the National Defense 
Strategy, we will be better positioned to make recommendations 
regarding force posture and funding allocation to deter and defend our 
interests, as well as compete with China.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MORELLE
    Mr. Morelle. The nature of conflict has increasingly become a 
global engagement verses regional engagements. Does department have the 
domain awareness needed to be successful in global engagements? Does 
the FY22 budget support those needs?
    Secretary Austin. The Department has identified and is investing in 
a range of key capability needs, including: improved domain awareness 
systems; more robust communications capabilities; increased 
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; and improved 
environmental modelling. For example, the Department is continuing to 
advance the development of the Joint All Domain Command and Control 
capability, a construct and modernization framework for command and 
control of the Joint Force, allies, and partners that will provide the 
ability to connect distributed sensors, information, data, and effects 
from all domains in a resilient manner.
    Mr. Morelle. Secretary Austin, DOD intelligence assessments have 
consistently chronicled the increasing proliferation and sophistication 
of hypersonic vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and sea-skimming 
missiles, of all types and ranges, being developed by potential 
adversaries. These threats will be difficult to defend against with 
conventional weapons, including our current interceptor-based defenses, 
leading to an unacceptable vulnerability to ``swarm'' attacks. In 
addition, the relative cost of one interceptor to one hypersonic 
vehicle is comparable, or greater, creating a situation where the 
defense costs as much as or more than the offense. Short-pulse laser 
(SPL) directed energy weapons (DEW) systems can produce extremely high-
peak-power on target, offering near instantaneous destruction of 
targets, advantageous magazine-depth, low-cost per shot, and 
significant advantages in size, weight and power (SWaP). Despite the 
advantages of this game-changing technology, recent DOD budget requests 
have disinvested in DEW development. For example, the request for the 
Missile Defense Agency did not include funding for directed energy 
research for the second straight year. Can you comment on this funding 
imbalance for DEW systems and what is needed to accelerate the research 
and development of SPL based systems to ensure we are able to counter 
and deter the likely threats of the next several decades?
    Secretary Austin. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) recently funded 
a research effort to investigate the efficacy of ultrashort pulsed 
lasers against hypersonic missiles. While the basic physics were 
successfully demonstrated, the military utility was not successfully 
demonstrated. The Department recognizes the potential of pulse lasers 
as one of several possible counters to hypersonic weapons, but realizes 
that more research and development is needed in the area. The Fiscal 
Year 2022 budget includes funding for a number of directed energy 
programs throughout the Department and reflects the Department's top 
priorities in directed energy.
    Mr. Morelle. The nature of conflict has increasingly become a 
global engagement verses regional engagements. Does department have the 
domain awareness needed to be successful in global engagements? Does 
the FY22 budget support those needs?
    General Milley. Through the delivery of Joint All Domain Command & 
Control (JADC2), as demonstrated in globally integrated exercises, 
wargames, and experiments, the Department of Defense is continuously 
improving the domain awareness needed to be successful in global 
engagements. JADC2 is the warfighting capability to sense, make sense, 
and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with 
partners, to deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance. 
The JADC2 Cross Functional Team (CFT), aligned under the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council (JROC), is responsible for accelerating 
the development and delivery of JADC2 capabilities. The CFT is also 
responsible for implementation of the JADC2 Strategy and making fiscal 
recommendations to the JROC and DMAG concerning resourcing for JADC2 
moving forward.
    FY22 invests in warfighting capability to deliver information 
advantage & domain awareness at the speed of relevance. Investments 
into JADC2 will help build a more lethal force, strengthen allies and 
attract new partners as an all-domain construct and modernization 
framework for command and control of the joint force and mission 
partners. PB22 invests $204M for JADC2 efforts to continue development, 
integration, and test of digital infrastructure, cloud maturation, and 
tactical edge networks.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. KAHELE
    Mr. Kahele. Secretary Austin, a recent study commissioned by the 
U.S. Space Force, the Defense Innovation Unit, and the Air Force 
Research Laboratory found that, ``The United States must also develop 
new market-enhancing tools to increase U.S. commercial space 
activities, grow viable U.S. space companies, and finance their 
growth.'' What market-enhancing tools would you like to see developed 
in the area of space launch to grow the amount of viable options for 
future warfighter capabilities in the space domain?
    Secretary Austin. DOD procures all launch service requirements from 
the U.S. commercial space sector. In addition to the National Security 
Space Launch (NSSL) program, DOD has already developed a variety of 
contracts to identify and on-ramp new launch providers to pair DOD 
research and development satellites with innovative U.S. space launch 
providers. The U.S. space launch industrial base has been strengthened 
with recent launch development and procurement contracts. DOD continues 
to work with industry to grow new viable options.
                                 ______
                                 
                 QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STRICKLAND
    Ms. Strickland. One of the issues I have heard extensively about in 
my district is the cost of housing. I've had many military spouses 
reach out and saying how hard it is for them to find a home. The South 
Sound is one of the fastest growing markets in the United States for 
civilians and service members alike. Between 2010 and 2019 over 180,000 
households moved into my district compared to almost 54,000 households 
the decade prior. Housing affordability and increasing housing stock is 
a major focus of mine in both of the committees that I serve on. The 
Department assumes nationally, that E5s will spend between $84-$95 out 
of pocket for housing off post. I have heard very clearly that this is 
not the case. Additionally, DOD's own guidance regarding calculating 
BAH says that a military member should not be put into a situation in 
which a spouse is required to work. However, many spouses are required 
to work not just to cover housing costs but to put food on the table. 
It is clear to me that BAH is not sufficient to cover the sharp rise of 
housing costs--especially in areas like JBLM. On post, there are 
currently 776 households on the waiting list at JBLM and, while Lincoln 
Military Housing and JBLM are working on an extensive renovation 
project, there is more work that needs to be done. We need to seek 
creative solutions both in addressing housing stock on post to provide 
families options and off post to ensure that service members can afford 
to live in our communities. Will you work with me to find creative 
solutions to resolve the housing affordability crisis that is currently 
affecting our service members?
    Secretary Austin. Yes. Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) is an 
essential component of a Service member's compensation package. The 
Department strives to provide equitable housing allowances to help 
members procure suitable, adequate, and available housing near their 
duty stations. BAH rates are calculated based on median rental housing 
costs in each of approximately 300 military housing areas. Because 
members receive BAH as a nontaxable cash allowance, they have the 
freedom, based on personal housing needs and desires, to obtain housing 
that may cost more or less than the published BAH rates. Additionally, 
BAH rates do incorporate a fixed out-of-pocket amount ($84/month for an 
E-5 without dependents; $95/month for an E-5 with dependents), which 
members are expected to absorb. The BAH program is designed to capture 
rising rental housing costs in each military housing area, and data 
collection occurs during the spring and summer months, when housing 
markets are most active. As the country experiences the COVID-19 
pandemic, one of the lingering nationwide effects is a housing 
shortage. In some areas, members find rental housing costs have 
increased to above the current BAH rates and need more time to find 
adequate and available housing. The Department is aware of these 
concerns and is considering options to alleviate some of the hardships 
members are experiencing. I look forward to working with Congress, and 
remain open and committed to discovering opportunities that create 
positive, effective solutions for our Service members and their 
families.
    Ms. Strickland. I understand that all of the services are 
performing data reviews and will have their own metrics for improving 
outcomes, but can you expand on how you are tracking data across the 
joint force? How does the Department plan to measure ``success''? Are 
you focused on improving equity in recruiting, retention, promotion, 
and discipline? Or are you looking at other factors? How are you going 
to keep members accountable for improving outcomes--from the Services 
from the Secretaries and Chiefs down to the enlisted service member 
entering basic training?
    Secretary Austin. Data, metrics, and information are critical in 
evaluating all of our efforts, from warfighting to diversity, equity, 
and inclusion. In improving equity, especially in retaining and 
promoting a diverse military, the DOD Equity Team (DET) is actively 
reviewing our existing data collection capabilities to better determine 
how we can improve our metrics and evaluation tools so that we can 
appropriately measure against our strategic DEI goals. Our data is 
critical to our evaluations tools, creating necessary changes, ensuring 
appropriate accountability, and supporting inclusive environments that 
foster healthy and respectful command climates.
    All these issues and factors are intertwined. Retaining a diverse 
force, promoting an inclusive culture, eliminating barriers, ensuring 
appropriate military justice dispositions--these all help ensure our 
Service members are resilient and focused on mission readiness and 
accomplishment. We cannot forget that our most valuable asset is our 
people. Understanding their perspective and experiences is vital to our 
shared success.
    Ms. Strickland. It is all well and good to do a one-time report to 
get a snapshot of the problem in recruiting, retention, promotion, and 
discipline regarding service members from underrepresented groups. 
However, addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion will require 
regular assessment. Can you tell me how the Department will continue to 
collect data? Will questions be added to the annual command climate 
survey? Are the specific metrics that the Department is tracking 
regarding recruiting, retention, promotion, and discipline regarding 
service members from underrepresented groups?
    Secretary Austin. The Department maintains a robust collection of 
administrative and survey data that can be leveraged on an ongoing 
basis to assess and track progress in DEI over time. As recommended by 
the DOD Board on Diversity & Inclusion in 2020, the Department has 
established a new centralized data enclave to facilitate the 
aggregation and reporting of DEI data at the DOD level. This new 
enclave will house all the key metrics and enable automated reporting 
and tracking using standardized data elements.
    Additionally, the centralization of data into this enclave allows 
us to more easily identify gaps in DEI metrics and develop plans to 
ingest and/or collect additional data, including from survey data 
sources, to continuously evaluate and improve DEI efforts. We will also 
continue to leverage survey data sources to provide qualitative context 
to what we see in the administrative data findings related to 
recruiting, retention, promotion, and discipline issues. The command 
climate survey (Defense Organizational Climate Survey [DEOCS]) will 
continue to play a role in understanding DEI. It was recently 
redesigned to elicit information on 19 risk and protective factors that 
are associated with a variety of outcomes we are tracking, such as 
readiness, retention, sexual harassment, sexual assault, suicide, and 
racial/ethnic harassment.
    As new information needs and priorities are identified, survey 
questions will be updated using best practices in measurement of key 
constructs of interest. A list of the DEI metrics that will be tracked 
annually is in the new Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 
1020.05, ``DOD Diversity and Inclusion Management Program,'' September 
9, 2020. We also track a variety of other metrics in statutorily 
required surveys, including sexual harassment, sexual assault, and 
racial/ethnic harassment. Finally, with regard to recruiting metrics, 
the Department continuously fields surveys with recruitment-aged youth 
to stay abreast of motivators and barriers to military service by 
underrepresented groups.
    Ms. Strickland. The military is a pipeline program, and unlike in 
the private sector, it is very rare for someone to come from the 
outside and join at a relatively senior position. Can you tell me how 
the Department is examining recruitment from underrepresented 
communities?
    Secretary Austin. The Military Services consistently evaluate their 
recruiting strategies to recruit a force representative of the nation 
it serves. The Military Services are working closely with their 
professional marketing agencies to establish and analyze performance 
metrics on the effectiveness of their marketing plans to reach 
potential Service members across all communities. We have broadened our 
reach by ensuring recruiting imagery reflects a diverse, representative 
force and shifting to technology-focused recruiting including both 
virtual recruiting and digital marketing, which has resulted in greater 
interest in the military by potential Service members across the 
nation. Collectively, through these ongoing efforts, the Department, 
and the Military Services, are better informed and able to apply more 
effective recruiting approaches and tools to reach underrepresented 
communities.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MOORE
    Mr. Moore. I was pleased to see the MILCON budget increase 1.7% 
over FY21. However, the significant backlog of MILCON requirements 
means that many projects may never receive funding due to competing 
needs. I have seen first-hand the impact of deferred funding in 
facility and infrastructure investments at Hill Air Force Base.
    Hill currently has a grouping of 66 buildings, known as the 1200 
series buildings, that aren't fit to house the 4,000 DOD personnel 
found working in them. They were constructed over 80 years ago, 
initially built as ammunition warehouse space during WWII. Over the 
years, these buildings have been modified to house administrative 
functions and are in disrepair. The nature of these buildings not only 
leads to poor working conditions but has contributed to recruiting 
challenges for programs at Hill, like GBSD. The DOD urgently needs to 
find a way to replace these facilities. A recent economic analysis 
indicated a potential savings of $400M over 20 years if these 
facilities were demolished and replaced. The replacement of these 
facilities through MILCON would cost nearly $750M but realistically 
cannot compete with limited MILCON funding.
    I am proposing a provision in this year's NDAA that would expand 
the definition of installation support services in Title 10, Section 
2679 that allows a local government to construct, manage, and operate a 
facility on or near a military installation for a period of up to 10 
years. Unfortunately, we have run into scoring implications that have 
stymied this simple solution.
    Mr. Secretary, can you commit to examining innovative financing 
options and working with OMB to facilitate local communities' desire to 
assist bases with their infrastructure and military construction needs? 
Additionally, aside from CBO scoring challenges, can you foresee why 
the DOD might be opposed to surrounding communities assisting with DOD 
projects at a cheaper cost, on an accelerated timeline?
    Secretary Austin. The DOD works with local communities on many 
initiatives and is willing to consider innovative financing options to 
facilitate local communities' desire to assist bases with 
infrastructure. However, as your proposal demonstrates, there are 
challenges that limit these options, including scoring rules for 
budgetary treatment of lease-purchases and capital leases (shared by 
OMB, CBO, and the House and Senate Budget Committees, as explained in 
OMB Circular No. A-11 Appendix B) and a legal limitation on the 
Department's commitment of payments to leaseback facilities from 
enhanced-use-lease developers (see 10 U.S.C. 2667 (b)(7), $500K limit).
    Mr. Moore. Can you please provide an update on congressionally 
directed depot optimization plans expected from the Department?
    Secretary Austin. The congressionally-directed optimization plans 
are part of the overall report required by Section 359(a) of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 
116-92), which requires the Department to submit a comprehensive 
strategy for improving the depot infrastructure of the Military 
Departments. The objective of this strategy is to ensure that all 
covered depots have the capacity and capability to support the 
readiness and material availability goals of current and future weapon 
systems of the Department of Defense. This strategy is currently in 
development with each of the Military Departments, and we anticipate 
that depot optimizations plans and the corresponding strategy will be 
completed by the end of October 2021.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    Mr. Fallon. Secretary Austin and General Milley, thank you for your 
service to our great country and for testifying today.
    1. Secretary Austin, given the fact that any realistic future 
conflict will be fought not off the coast of California but nearly a 
half a world away in the South China Sea, our adversary's backyard, 
wouldn't you agree that it would stand to reason that we would need to 
maintain a significant advantage in manpower, material and combat 
readiness and projection?
    2. Are you at all concerned with China's dramatic increase in their 
spending while our own is reduced? That is this policy were to continue 
that we would be helping the Chinese Communist achieve their goal of 
military parity or even eventual military superiority?
    3. General Milley, you stated that if the great power competition 
between the U.S. and the Communist Chinese were to devolve into 
conflict that it would be incredibly costly and have an uncertain 
outcome. And that's now with us spending significantly more. As our 
military budget shrinks and China's grows, at what point does it become 
impossible to project military power and in so doing, won't this 
inevitably lead to the end of any realistic deterrent capability on our 
behalf?
    4. Secretary Austin our office asked each branch of the service to 
provide us with the number of personnel who were separated in the last 
year data was available for extremist activity. Two branches still, 
months later, have yet to respond. Two provided data.
    5. Mr. Secretary, do you have any idea what those numbers were?
    Secretary Austin. #1 Response: I agree that in order to strengthen 
deterrence against aggressive action, the U.S. Joint Force must 
maintain a military edge over the PRC in key capability areas. In line 
with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, the President's 
fiscal year 2022 budget submission reflects an increased emphasis on 
modernization, force readiness, and the development of new operational 
concepts. Concurrently, the Department must seek to shift resources 
away from platforms and weapons that are ill-suited to advanced 
threats, and toward investments in cutting-edge technologies and 
capabilities that will determine our military advantage in the future.
    #2 Response: The Department recognizes that the PRC's ambitious 
military modernization, sustained by consistent and sizable growth in 
its defense budget, presents an increasingly concerning challenge to 
the United States' military advantage in the Indo-Pacific region. I 
view the PRC as our pacing challenge, and the speed of its military 
advancements highlight the importance of the investments that the 
Department is making to maintain a favorable balance of power, 
including: more lethal and survivable capabilities, a more resilient 
and distributed force posture, and strengthened allied and partner 
capabilities.
    # 4 and 5 Response: Determining the exact number of actions related 
to extremist activity is challenging as there is no UCMJ article or 
specific separation program designator (SPD) reason code in place. 
Commanders have the authority to employ the full range of 
administrative and disciplinary actions, including administrative 
separation or appropriate criminal action, against military personnel 
who engage in prohibited extremist activity. This is an issue the 
Department's Extremist Activity Working Group is examining.
    Mr. Fallon. Secretary Austin and General Milley, thank you for your 
service to our great country and for testifying today.
    1. Secretary Austin, given the fact that any realistic future 
conflict will be fought not off the coast of California but nearly a 
half a world away in the South China Sea, our adversary's backyard, 
wouldn't you agree that it would stand to reason that we would need to 
maintain a significant advantage in manpower, material and combat 
readiness and projection?
    2. Are you at all concerned with China's dramatic increase in their 
spending while our own is reduced? That is this policy were to continue 
that we would be helping the Chinese Communist achieve their goal of 
military parity or even eventual military superiority?
    3. General Milley, you stated that if the great power competition 
between the U.S. and the Communist Chinese were to devolve into 
conflict that it would be incredibly costly and have an uncertain 
outcome. And that's now with us spending significantly more. As our 
military budget shrinks and China's grows, at what point does it become 
impossible to project military power and in so doing, won't this 
inevitably lead to the end of any realistic deterrent capability on our 
behalf?
    4. Secretary Austin our office asked each branch of the service to 
provide us with the number of personnel who were separated in the last 
year data was available for extremist activity. Two branches still, 
months later, have yet to respond. Two provided data.
    5. Mr. Secretary, do you have any idea what those numbers were?
    General Milley. I am satisfied that the current budget meets our 
requirements to bolster our deterrent capabilities now to prevent a 
conflict from occurring. My previous comments reflected the significant 
national commitment that would be required should a conflict occur, 
which is a conflict we aim to deter. To clarify, deterring China from 
precipitating a crisis now, while costly, is less expensive than 
failing to deter China and engaging in conflict. We should recognize 
that China is a very different potential adversary than we have had in 
the past; they have enormous national resources at their disposal. 
However, we have many advantages at our disposal, particularly in terms 
of deterrence, that our budget requests aim to sustain.
                                 ______
                                 
                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. HORSFORD
    Mr. Horsford. First, Secretary Austin, I want to congratulate you 
on your historic confirmation as our nation's first African American 
Secretary of Defense. I respect your life's work and need to get you 
out to my district soon. Last week I asked General Brown about the Air 
Force's plans to end procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper. As I'm sure you 
know, the MQ-9 plays a critical role in my district. Creech Air Force 
Base is the hub for global ISR and unmanned hunter-killer operations in 
support of combatant commanders. The airmen of Creech Air Force Base 
will play an increasingly important role in protecting the homeland as 
we shift to exclusively over-the-horizon operations in Afghanistan. I 
expressed my concerned last week that ending procurement of the MQ-9 
would leave our deployed forces to make do with already insufficient 
ISR resources. The day after the Air Force budget hearing, Central 
Command released their unfunded priority list. For a second year in a 
row, General McKenzie's number one request was for an additional $53 
million in funding for the MQ-9. He said that the planned Air Force MQ-
9 reductions, quote, ``greatly increases risk to deployed and 
redeploying forces.'' He went on to say that combined with our much 
smaller ground force presence in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, MQ-9 
reductions would ``substantially reduce'' CENTCOM's ability to combat 
ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. I am concerned by this 
clear disconnect between the clearly articulated needs of the combatant 
commander and the Air Force's planned reductions.
    Do you support General McKenzie's request for additional MQ-9 
funding, and do you believe that continued MQ-9 procurement is 
necessary to meet CENTCOM's near to mid-term over-the-horizon 
requirements?
    Secretary Austin. The Department of the Air Force is committed to 
providing MQ-9 intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and strike 
capability to Combatant Commands. The Air Force will continue to offer 
MQ-9 capability to CENTCOM for the foreseeable future, to include 
Gorgon Stare Wide Area Motion Imagery and strike capability.
    In FY22 the Air Force is requesting a reduction in combat lines. 
This reduction is less than 10% of the current force presentation (4 of 
60) and does not equate to reduction in aircraft inventory; while lines 
(24/7 coverage) are being reduced, the Air Force is not choosing to 
divest of any platforms at this time. By keeping 60 combat lines, and 
not modifying the way the MQ-9 fleet is utilized, the platform will 
become more vulnerable and irrelevant, even in low-end conflicts.
    While the MQ-9 provides utility today, it was not designed for 
operation in a future highly-contested environment. Modifying the MQ-9 
force presentation is about balancing near and long-term risk. 
Continued modernization efforts seek to provide future warfighters the 
ability to access data and information at a moment's notice. Our 
systems must be able to penetrate contested areas and survive.
    Mr. Horsford. I'd like to move on now to the issue of sexual 
assault and specifically how the Department plans to hold commanders 
and senior leaders accountable for their performance in reducing sexual 
harassment and sexual assault. Following the Fort Hood Independent 
Review, the Fort Hood senior commander was reassigned and lost his 
command of 1st Armored Division and Fort Bliss. I'm curious how the 
Department plans to hold senior leaders and general officers 
accountable in a more deliberate and systematic way. While I fully 
support efforts to move sexual assault prosecutions outside of the 
chain of command; there is a clear and urgent need to improve 
accountability amongst senior leaders for their effectiveness in 
combatting sexual harassment and assault within their formations. How 
does the Department intend to collect metrics that track the 
performance of senior leaders at implementing effective SHARP programs 
and then hold them accountable for their performance during promotion 
and command selection decisions?
    Secretary Austin. A key finding of the Fort Hood Independent Review 
Committee was that some Army leaders were not fully executing Army and 
Department of Defense policy on sexual assault prevention and response. 
As a result, the Department has focused its oversight authority on 
ensuring the Military Departments and Services execute DOD policy and 
programs effectively.
    On my first full day as Secretary of Defense, I committed that we 
must do more as a Department to counter the scourge of sexual assault 
and sexual harassment in the military. As I stated then, this is a 
leadership issue--and we will lead.
    Since that day, we have undertaken a set of immediate actions and 
the 90-day Independent Review Commission (IRC) on Sexual Assault and 
Sexual Harassment has completed its work on four lines of effort, 
including accountability.
    We also have a redesigned command climate survey, with specific 
metrics to gauge risk and predictive factors aligned with healthy and 
unhealthy climates. In turn, results can at times be used as a `flag' 
to identify where leaders need to focus greater attention and ask 
critical questions to assess the source of issues, and how or whether 
our commanders are taking appropriate actions to address command 
climate issues. And we anticipate that at times this data can help us 
identify what works as well as where we need to bolster resources. This 
data will be used to inform quarterly command climate updates to 
leadership and biennial On-Site Installation Evaluations (OSIEs) at 
select installations.
    It's also important to note that concerning results from a survey 
are only a `flag' that merit additional investigation. There are times 
when we ask a good commander to fix difficult issues. While data has 
the potential to help us identify some issues that could reflect a 
commander performance issue, at the very same time it is also 
plausible, for example, that a good commander might be newly installed 
at a unit and working in a genuinely positive manner to make much 
needed improvements.
    Mr. Horsford. Last week I asked General Brown about the Air Force's 
plans to end procurement of the MQ-9 Reaper. As I'm sure you know, the 
MQ-9 plays a critical role in my district. Creech Air Force Base is the 
hub for global ISR and unmanned hunter-killer operations in support of 
combatant commanders. The airmen of Creech Air Force Base will play an 
increasingly important role in protecting the homeland as we shift to 
exclusively over-the-horizon operations in Afghanistan. I expressed my 
concerned last week that ending procurement of the MQ-9 would leave our 
deployed forces to make do with already insufficient ISR resources. The 
day after the Air Force budget hearing, Central Command released their 
unfunded priority list. For a second year in a row, General McKenzie's 
number one request was for an additional $53 million in funding for the 
MQ-9. He said that the planned Air Force MQ-9 reductions, quote, 
``greatly increases risk to deployed and redeploying forces.'' He went 
on to say that combined with our much smaller ground force presence in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, MQ-9 reductions would ``substantially 
reduce'' CENTCOM's ability to combat ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other 
terrorist groups. I am concerned by this clear disconnect between the 
clearly articulated needs of the combatant commander and the Air 
Force's planned reductions.
    Do you support General McKenzie's request for additional MQ-9 
funding, and do you believe that continued MQ-9 procurement is 
necessary to meet CENTCOM's near to mid-term over-the-horizon 
requirements?
    General Milley. The PB22 budget request adequately funds ISR 
priorities. The DOD prioritized programs in the budget that are 
survivable and resilient against a near peer threat and had to take 
risks in other areas. With regard to China, we are looking to shift 
from traditional manned ISR platforms to a space-based and networked 
approach that is more survivable. ISR is a commodity that is in high 
demand from Combatant Commanders all the time, and the requirement 
often exceeds the capabilities provided. Every commander wants perfect 
knowledge, and ISR provides those commanders with knowledge to make 
decisions. Therefore, the DOD is continually balancing the ability to 
fill current ISR demands while modernizing to address the demands of 
the future. We must focus on the right mix of capabilities for the 
future. The demand signal of today for ISR is not the demand signal of 
tomorrow, so we need to balance today's challenges with tomorrow's.