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



              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________



                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                               ____________

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

                     BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota, Chair

  TIM RYAN, Ohio
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona

  KEN CALVERT, California
  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. DeLauro, as chair of the full 
committee, and Ms. Granger, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

        Chris Bigelow, Walter Hearne, Ariana Sarar, Jackie Ripke,
    David Bortnick, Matthew Bower, William Adkins, Jennifer Chartrand,
    Hayden Milberg, Paul Kilbride, Shannon Richter, and Kyle McFarland
                            Subcommittee Staff

                              ____________

                                  PART 2

                                                                   Page
  Department of Defense.................
                                  ------                                
                                                                      1
                                        
  National Geospatial-Intelligence 
Agency and National Reconnaissance 
Office..................................
                                  ------                                
                                                                     77
                                        
  U.S. Air Force and U.S. Space Force...
                                  ------                                
                                                                     79
                                        
  U.S. Indo-Pacific Command.............
                                  ------                                
                                                                    157
                                        
  United States Army....................
                                  ------                                
                                                                    207
                                        

                        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                        ____________



                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

48-815                           WASHINGTON : 2022





                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut, Chair


  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
  LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  TIM RYAN, Ohio
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  CHARLIE CRIST, Florida
  ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada

  KAY GRANGER, Texas
  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana

                 Robin Juliano, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)



 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2023

                              ----------                              

                                           Wednesday, May 11, 2022.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                               WITNESSES

HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
MICHAEL J. McCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/CHIEF 
    FINANCIAL OFFICER
GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. I now call this meeting of the Defense 
Subcommittee to order. This is a hybrid meeting, so I am going 
to have to do a few housekeeping matters to make sure everyone 
knows what is going to happen and how this is going to work.
    Members joining virtually, once you start speaking there is 
a slight delay before you are displayed on the main screen. 
Speak into the microphone because it will activate the camera 
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your 
remarks if you are not immediately seeing the screen switch. If 
the screen does not change after several seconds, please make 
sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being heard and displayed, we ask that you remain on mute 
unless you have sought recognition. And I will call on you, or 
if you need to seek recognition, please do so.
    Myself or a staff designee may mute the participants' 
microphone when they are not under recognition if there is 
inadvertent background noise.
    Members who are virtual, though, I want to remind you that 
you are responsible for muting and unmuting yourselves, unless 
we have a technical issue.
    If I notice when you are recognized and having a technical 
issue and you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff 
to send you a request to unmute yourself. Please accept the 
request so that you are no longer muted.
    And, finally, House rules would require me to remind you 
that we have set up an email address in which members can send 
anything they wish to submit in writing to any of our hearings. 
That email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    This morning the subcommittee will receive testimony from 
the Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, General Mark 
Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And to help 
answer any extremely technical questions, we are joined today 
by Under Secretary Mike McCord, Comptroller.
    Gentlemen, thank you for participating, and I welcome you 
to our subcommittee.
    The Biden administration released its fiscal year 2023 
budget request in March. As always, this subcommittee will have 
an aggressive schedule to review the request, to make 
adjustments, and pass the bill out of committee in June.
    Our goal will be to go to the floor with the appropriations 
bill in July and to get them to the President's desk by October 
for his signature.
    We both know that speed is of the essence because both here 
at home and around the world democracy and democratic values 
are under threat. Congress must make every effort to pass these 
appropriations bill on time.
    For fiscal year 2023, the President has proposed $762 
billion within our subcommittee's jurisdiction. This is a $33 
billion or 4.6 percent increase over what was enacted in fiscal 
year 2022.
    Make no mistake, we will ensure that the Department of 
Defense has the resources it needs to protect our country.
    But this top-line number, when you put in perspective--
let's think about it for a minute--in 2015, when we were still 
fighting in Afghanistan, the Department received $5.60 billion. 
That is an increase of spending over $200 billion in just 8 
years.
    And, yes, the world has changed, and it has changed rapidly 
in recent years. And we have learned a lot. We have learned 
from the war in Ukraine that it is not only important that we 
have strong military deterrence, but we also must have a robust 
diplomatic effort to rally the world in opposition to 
authoritarianism.
    We must ensure that we have both in order to protect our 
national security. It is our responsibility as Congress to 
strike the correct balance between defense, diplomacy, and 
development.
    The war on Ukraine has also made it clear that the 
foundational task of properly maintaining, training, and 
equipping a modern military is essential to our success in the 
21st century conflicts. The poor performance of Russia and 
their military has highlighted this very fact.
    Taking care of our personnel, their families, providing our 
servicemembers with the best training possible, ensuring 
logistics challenges can be overcome, and giving decisionmakers 
the best intelligence, these are all vital components of making 
sure that our military can win in any conflict. Procurement, 
modernization of course are important, but we will always want 
to have the edge over our enemy.
    It doesn't matter if we have 355 Navy ships with the most 
advanced weapons if we cannot perform basic maintenance to keep 
the ships in service. Investments in personnel and operation 
and maintenance and health don't always drive the defense 
budget debates, but last year they made up 63 percent, 63 
percent of our bill.
    We all know that there is no more critical investment than 
in the life and health and safety of our servicemembers. 
Members have been particularly alarmed with recent events. The 
USS George Washington, where there have been several deaths, 
including investigations into suicide. The Navy has launched 
this investigation into what led to these terrible tragedies.
    This subcommittee stands ready to work with you for any 
additional funding for mental health services and any suicide 
prevention programs that you should want more resources for.
    We look forward to hearing from our witnesses how the 
budget request prioritizes investments in our people, which are 
the backbone of our force. I want to commend the Department for 
proposing $3.1 billion in this budget for increasing resiliency 
at installation, for energy efficiency, for its research and 
development into clean energy.
    As the largest consumer of fuel in the Federal Government, 
the Department needs to do more to reduce its emissions, lower 
the cost of energy, and to fight climate change, and our 
subcommittee wants to work with you on these shared goals. And 
we all know that climate change and addressing it is part of 
our national security agenda.
    Finally, several of us have had the opportunity to travel 
to Eastern Europe in the last month to see firsthand the 
importance of working with the soldiers and sailors and 
marines, airmen and guards who are all doing whatever they can 
to help Ukraine defend itself and promote security throughout 
the region.
    We look forward to hearing how this budget request and the 
immediate threat of Russian aggression in Europe while making 
investments in future capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region. 
And, as you know, we sent over to the Senate the supplemental 
support for Ukraine last night.
    So, Secretary Austin, General Milley, Under Secretary 
McCord, I want to thank you again for your service and the 
service of your families to our country and for being here 
ready to answer any questions we might have.
    But before we hear your testimony, sir, I would like to 
recognize our distinguished ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for 
any opening comments he would have.
    Mr. Calvert.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    I want to thank Secretary Austin and General Milley for 
being here today to testify on the Department of Defense budget 
request for fiscal year 2023.
    Though I look forward to hearing about your priorities for 
the coming fiscal year, I must note my disappointment in the 
request both in the amount and substance.
    As I said last year, I believe it is critical that we fund 
the DOD at 3 to 5 percent above inflation to meet our national 
defense requirements. The 4.6 requested for fiscal year 2023 
would be sufficient historic levels, but due to this 
administration's spending, inflation is soaring at rates we 
have not seen since 1981.
    Instead of accounting for these economic realities, the DOD 
wrongfully budgeted for a 2.2 percent inflation rate in a time 
where we must increase defense spending to keep pace with peer 
adversaries. This administration is effectively proposing to 
cut the Department of Defense.
    America must continue to enforce the rules-based order that 
we led in the enduring global security that we are involved in. 
As we have seen in Ukraine, the world looks to the United 
States to stand by democratic allies around the world. This 
comes at a cost, but doing so is in our own national security 
interest.
    Republicans in the House and the Senate are united, just as 
we were in fiscal year 2022, to ensure that our warfighters 
have the tools they need to be ready, modernized, and lethal.
    It is my hope that the majority follows that fiscal year 
2022 conference framework and provide a sufficient funding to 
DOD and that we pass our bills on time this year.
    Along with my disappointment in the top-line funding level, 
I also have serious concerns about some of the proposals by the 
administration.
    First, many of the services are continuing to pursue a 
``divest to invest'' strategy. In some cases, like the Marine 
Corps, I think this is appropriate. In others, I fear some 
proposals are shortsighted and leave glaring capability gaps.
    We cannot simply hope that the programs will meet the needs 
of the warfighters. China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, nonstate 
actors are continuing to invest in capabilities that threaten 
our security as well as our allies.
    I fail to understand how decommissioning 24 Navy ships, 
divesting hundreds of aircraft, helps us maintain our strategic 
combat advantage over these threats.
    Budget prioritization must of course occur, but we must be 
ready for a variety of conflicts to break out in multiple 
warfighting domains.
    Though I expect much of the discussion today to be focused 
on the situation in Ukraine, I do not want us to lose sight on 
what happened in the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Not only did 
this decision weaken our strategic footprint in the region, it 
directly led to the deaths of 13 U.S. servicemembers.
    I look forward to hearing from you about what our enduring 
requirements in this region are, along with what capability we 
should be focused on in fiscal year 2023 appropriation bills.
    Again, thank you for being here today. I look forward to 
taking time to question you.
    And I yield back my time.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    The full committee chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro, will be joining 
us later. But now it is my pleasure to recognize the former 
chair of this subcommittee and now the full ranking member of 
the committee, Ms. Granger.

                     Opening Remarks of Ms. Granger

    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Chairman McCollum. I appreciate 
that very much. And I would like to thank the witnesses for 
appearing before us today.
    The past several months have highlighted how important it 
is that Congress prioritizes our national security and 
adequately funds our military. Russia's unprovoked, illegal, 
and appalling invasion of Ukraine must continue to be met with 
strong resistance from the United States and our allies. 
Adversaries like China, Iran, and North Korea must know that 
America will stand firm with its allies and we have the ability 
to win any fight.
    While I commend the Department's swift response to the 
ongoing conflict in Ukraine, I am disappointed by the 
Department's fiscal year 2023 budget request. Inflation 
continues to increase costs for all sections--sectors--and the 
defense industry is not immune to its effects, despite 
increased aggression from our adversaries, and once again the 
Biden administration is shortchanging defense.
    I hope we can reach a bipartisan consensus similar to the 
one that led to the final passage of the fiscal year 2022 
appropriation bills. This includes robust defense spending at a 
rate much higher than requested by the administration. Congress 
must ensure that our men and women in uniform have the tools 
and the resources to meet and defeat our enemies. Now is not 
the time to underfund the military.
    And to close, I thank each of you for your service. I look 
forward to hearing from you today.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Granger.
    Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed in 
the record. Members have lots of questions, as you can well 
imagine, so feel free to give a summarized form of your 
statements.
    Secretary Austin, the floor is yours.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Austin

    Secretary Austin. Well, good morning, Chair McCollum, 
Ranking Member Calvert, Ranking Member Granger, and all the 
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the 
chance to testify today in support of the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2023. It is great to be here with 
General Milley, who has been an outstanding partner. I am also 
pleased to be joined by our Comptroller, Under Secretary Mike 
McCord.
    Madam Chair, we are still focused on three key priorities 
at the Department of Defense--defending our Nation, taking care 
of our people, and succeeding through teamwork--and our budget 
request helps us meet each of those priorities.
    Our budget request seeks more than $56 billion for air 
power platforms and systems and more than $40 billion to 
maintain our dominance at sea, including buying nine more 
battle force ships, and almost $13 billion to support and 
modernize our combat credible land forces.
    Our budget request also funds the modernization of all 
three legs of the nuclear triad to ensure that we maintain a 
safe, secure, and effective strategic deterrent.
    And of course none of these capabilities matter much 
without our people and their families. So we are seeking your 
support for a 4.6 percent pay raise for our military and 
civilian personnel and other special pay and benefits.
    We also plan to invest in outstanding and affordable 
childcare and in the construction of on-base child development 
centers and in ensuring that all of our families can always put 
good and healthy food on the table.
    We are also deeply focused on the terrible problem of 
suicide in the U.S. military. So we are increasing access to 
mental healthcare, expanding telehealth capacities, and 
fighting the tired old stigmas against seeking help.
    And with your support, I have just ordered the 
establishment of an independent review committee to help us 
grapple with suicide, to better understand it, to prevent it, 
and treat the unseen wounds that lead to it.
    At the same time, we are still working hard to implement 
the recommendations of the Independent Review Commission on 
Sexual Assault. We know that we have a long way to go to rid 
ourselves of this scourge, and our budget request seeks nearly 
$480 million to do just that.
    This is a leadership issue, and you have my personal 
commitment to keep leading.
    You are also seeing how much our leadership matters when it 
comes to Ukraine. And last month I convened the first meeting 
of what is now the Contact Group on Ukrainian Security. It is a 
group of defense leaders from around the world committed to 
supporting Ukraine after Russia's unprovoked and unjust 
invasion. And it is an important new way for nations of good 
will to intensify their efforts to help Ukraine better defend 
itself both for today's urgent needs and for the long haul.
    Now, with the help of Congress, the United States has been 
able to deliver security assistance to Ukraine with 
unprecedented speed and resolve and that has made a huge 
difference on the ground. And President Zelenskyy made that 
clear when I met with him last month in Kyiv, along with 
Secretary of State Blinken.
    Since January 2021, the United States has committed 
approximately $4.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine, 
which includes the $150 million authorized by the President 
last Friday.
    Our most urgent goal continues to be sending the Ukrainians 
the capabilities they need most right now, as the war has 
shifted to the Donbas and to the south.
    The coming weeks will be critical for Ukraine. Next week, 
we expect to exhaust the drawdown authority that Congress 
approved in March.
    So, as you know, the President submitted a supplemental 
budget request to Congress so that we can continue to meet 
Ukraine's urgent requirements without interruption, and I 
deeply appreciate the House's vote yesterday to approve that 
request with bipartisan support. And I hope that the Senate 
quickly follows.
    The supplemental will provide funds for additional drawdown 
authority. It will also provide more resources for the Ukraine 
Security Assistance Initiative, for critical investments, and 
for covering the operational costs of bolstering NATO's eastern 
flank.
    I want to thank all of you for your strong leadership 
toward our shared goal of helping Ukraine defend itself and 
supporting NATO.
    Now, let me briefly mention a few other major efforts that 
the Department is focused on.
    As you know, the Department's pacing challenge remains 
countering aggression from China. So this budget invests some 
$6 billion in the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. And in keeping 
with our new National Defense Strategy, we are going to enhance 
our force posture, our infrastructure, our presence, and our 
readiness in the Indo-Pacific, including the missile defense of 
Guam.
    At the same time, we must be prepared for threats that pay 
no heed to borders, from pandemics to climate change. And we 
must tackle the persistent threats posed by North Korea, Iran, 
and global terrorist groups.
    So I am proud that our budget seeks more than $130 billion 
for research, development, testing, and evaluation, and it is 
the largest R&D request that this Department has ever made. 
This includes $1 billion for artificial intelligence, $250 
million for 5G, nearly $28 billion for space capabilities, and 
another $11 billion to protect our networks and develop a cyber 
mission force.
    Madam Chair, this budget maintains our edge, but it does 
not take that edge for granted. So I ask this committee to 
support the President's budget. And with the help of Congress, 
we will continue to defend this Nation, take care of our 
people, and support our allies and partners.
    Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   
    
    
    
                  Summary Statement of General Milley

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    General Milley, the floor is yours.
    General Milley. Chair McCollum and Ranking Member Calvert 
and Ranking Member Granger, I am indeed privileged to be here 
alongside the Secretary of Defense and Secretary McCord to 
represent the soldiers, the sailors, the airmen, the marines, 
the guardians of the United States Joint Force.
    Our troops or the best led, best equipped, best trained, 
most lethal, and most capable military force in the world 
largely due to your continued support. Alongside our allies and 
partners, at any given time approximately 400,000 of us are 
currently standing watch in 155 countries and conducting 
operations every day that keep Americans safe.
    Currently, we are supporting our European allies and 
guarding NATO's eastern flank in the face of the unnecessary 
war of aggression by Russia against the people of Ukraine and 
the assault on the democratic institutions and the rules-based 
international order that have prevented great power war for the 
last 78 years since the end of World War II.
    We are now facing two global powers, China and Russia, each 
with significant military capabilities, both who intend to 
fundamentally change the current rules-based order. We are 
entering a world that is becoming more unstable, and the 
potential for significant international conflict between great 
powers is increasing, not decreasing.
    The United States military comprises one of the four key 
components of national power--diplomatic, economic, 
informational, and military--in order to protect the homeland 
and sustain a stable and open international system.
    In coordination with the other elements of power, we 
constantly develop a wide range of military options for the 
President as Commander in Chief and for this Congress to 
consider.
    As the United States military, we are prepared to deter, 
and if necessary to fight and between against anyone who seeks 
to attack the United States, our allies, or our significant and 
vital national security interests.
    The Joint Force appreciates the work that our elected 
representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed 
to train, equip, and manage the force in order to be ready. We 
thank the Congress for increasing last fiscal year's level of 
military funding, and we look forward to your support for this 
year's budget.
    The Joint Force will deliver modernization and readiness 
for our Armed Forces and security to the people of the United 
States at the fiscal year budget request of $773 billion. This 
budget will enable the decisions, the modernization, and the 
transformation of the Joint Force in order to set and meet the 
conditions of the operating environment that we are likely to 
see in 2030 and beyond, the so-called change in the character 
of war that we have discussed many times in the past. We will 
work diligently to ensure the resources the American people 
entrust to us are spent prudently in the best interest of the 
Nation.
    In alignment with the National Defense Strategy and the 
forthcoming National Military Strategy, this budget delivers a 
ready, agile, and capable Joint Force that will defend the 
Nation while taking care of our people and working with our 
partners and allies.
    We are currently witness to the greatest threat to the 
peace and security of Europe and perhaps the world in my 42, 
almost 43 years of service in uniform. The Russian invasion of 
Ukraine is threatening to undermine not only European peace and 
stability, but global peace and stability, the one that my 
parents and generations of Americans fought so hard to defend.
    The islands of the Pacific and the beaches of Normandy bore 
witness to the incredible tragedy that befalls humanity when 
nations seek power through military aggression across sovereign 
borders.
    Despite this horrific assault on the institutions of 
freedom, it is heartening to see the world rally and say never 
again to the specter of war in Europe.
    Your military stands ready to do whatever is directed in 
order to maintain the peace and stability not only in the 
European continent, but a peace that ensures global stability 
and international order where all nations can prosper in peace.
    We are also prepared and need to sustain our capabilities 
anywhere else on the globe as well as our priority effort in 
the Asia-Pacific region measured against our pacing challenge 
of the People's Republic of China.
    And in defense of our Nation, we must maintain competitive 
overmatch in all the domains of war--space, cyber, land, sea, 
and air.
    The United States of America is at a very critical and 
historic geostrategic inflection point. We need to pursue a 
clear-eyed strategy of maintaining the peace through the 
unambiguous capability of strength relative to China and 
Russia.
    This requires that we simultaneously maintain current 
readiness and modernize for the future. If we do not do that, 
then we are risking the security of future generations. And I 
believe this budget is a major step in the right direction.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                     Inflation Plan for the Budget

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I have got three questions and succinct answers. I want to 
be a good steward of time for my colleagues here up at the 
podium.
    Yesterday, President Biden referred to combating inflation 
as his top domestic policy. Would you please share with the 
committee the fiscal year 2023 budget request and how it was 
built in the amount of program and cost growth, and then how 
you worked inflation into that?
    So, Secretary Austin, if you would start out with that. And 
if you want to turn it over to Mr. McCord at any point, please 
do so.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, Chair McCollum, and I 
will provide some comments. And I certainly will invite 
Secretary McCord to make some comments as well.
    We built this budget based upon our National Defense 
Strategy, which we just released, as you know, in classified 
form. We were very diligent and careful to make sure that we 
went after the capabilities that we needed to support that 
strategy and I am confident that we were successful in doing 
that.
    And this budget provides us significant capability. And, 
again, as we match those capabilities to what is needed to be 
relevant in the work that we are pursuing in the Indo-Pacific 
and also in Europe, I think that, again, this is a very healthy 
budget and provides a significant capability.
    When we built the budget, we had to snap a chalk line at 
some point in time, as you always do when you build a budget. 
And at that point in time we made some key assumptions. And I 
will let Secretary McCord speak to that.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. McCord. Thank you.
    Yes, as the Secretary said, the first line of effort of 
course was building the budget to support the strategy and 
implement the strategy. But parallel to that, I was conducting 
a review, my team was, on what inflation was doing in calendar 
year 2021, which was the period we were building the budget.
    So we came in with an assumption that the GDP inflation 
that we used would be about 2. We saw that that was increasing. 
We doubled it, basically, to 4, 3.9 percent for 2022, as built 
that price increase into 2023 and going forward. If you look at 
the last 6 months of data, which we did not have then but have 
now, that number is now 5, 5.3. So we are a little under.
    But we, as the Secretary said, we did the best we could 
with the information we had. We recognized that things have 
changed a little since then. And as I described in my rollout 
brief when the budget came out, we put about $14 billion a year 
of additional pricing increase into each year of our 5-year 
plan for goods and services, another $6 billion for higher 
compensation.
    So about $20 billion per year from last year's plan to this 
year's plan just for the pricing increase on top of the 
strategy-driven specific program choices.

                         INTELLIGENCE DIPLOMACY

    Ms. McCollum. So thank you for that.
    So inflation, as I said, the President is focused on 
combating it. And I know you will work diligently with both 
sides of the aisle as well as our staff as we move forward if 
we have any inflation issues that need to be addressed. But 
thank you for that answer.
    In the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden 
administration engaged in an unprecedented campaign to 
declassify intelligence, one I fully supported knowing what I 
was being briefed on and what I thought the American public and 
the world should know.
    Could you maybe expand for this committee how important the 
role of intelligence diplomacy has been in Ukraine and working 
with our European allies as the Russians prepared its 
unnecessary aggression against the people of Ukraine? And are 
there any areas in the defense intelligence enterprise that you 
would recommend for additional investments or for this 
committee to focus on?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you. Chair McCollum.
    You make a great point. What we did in terms of sharing 
intelligence with our allies and partners was very, very 
helpful to demonstrate that we wanted to be transparent.
    And this is a tribute or credit to the President. It was 
his decision to move forward and make sure that we shared as 
much information as possible. That created trust amongst our 
allies in a more meaningful way, and that trust allowed us to 
create greater unity.
    And so from the very beginning, you have seen the 
President, myself, Secretary Blinken work hard to make sure 
that we united the alliance as much as we could. And we have 
been united from the very start and we hope to be that way 
going forward.
    But to answer your question, the sharing of intelligence 
was a key element in getting us to where we are right now.

                               THE ARCTIC

    Ms. McCollum. And then my last question, and I know I will 
probably get a brief answer because we are going to be talking 
to your staffs as we move forward.
    But there is a lot of focus on the Indo-Pacific, and 
rightly so. But the Arctic also with what is happening with 
climate change, the natural resources that are out there, the 
shipping, the distance the United States actually is from 
Russia, the fact that Russia and China at times are working 
together, and China considering itself a near Arctic nation, 
which as a geography teacher I find a little baffling, but they 
often say things that baffle me.
    Would you maybe talk about what the Department is doing to 
coordinate activities in the Arctic, but here, again, with a 
lot of our allies, a lot of our NATO allies, and any resources 
that you would want us to be focused on that are included in 
this budget?
    Secretary Austin. We are an Arctic nation. This is a region 
that is very important to us. And you have seen us address the 
Arctic in our strategy, our National Defense Strategy that just 
came out. You have seen us most recently open up a center that 
is focused on Arctic issues. And we continue the work of making 
sure that we have that center properly manned and focused on 
the right issues.
    We have conducted a number of significant exercises in the 
Arctic region here recently. As a matter of fact, there is a 
substantial exercise ongoing up there right now, air exercise, 
and that has been--we have been doing that throughout. We will 
continue that work. We have recently had two combatant 
commanders visit the Arctic simultaneously.
    And so I think that this is a focus area for us. As you 
pointed out, this is important. And we will continue to 
resource it appropriately.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much for that. And I look 
forward to being a person from the bold North, as many of us on 
this committee are, not the gentleman next to me from Florida, 
however, to work with you on this.
    Mr. Calvert.

            NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY AND THE BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Austin, I think we are all in agreement regarding 
the threats facing our Nation. China is using all the 
instruments of national power to erode America's standing in 
the world. We received your new National Defense Strategy and 
your fiscal year 2023 budget request.
    I would like to know a few things. First, how does this 
budget align with your new strategy? And, second, how does this 
budget, specifically, deter China and Russia?
    For example, with no clear shipbuilding plan and only 8 
ships, as I read the budget, requested in the budget, coupled 
with the retirement of 24 ships, I have a very big concern that 
we are not taking the threat of China aggression in the South 
China Sea seriously, especially when China is building 22 ships 
this year and we are retiring 24 and only building 8.
    How does this budget ensure that we are balancing the 
ability to fight tonight with a much needed modernization 
across the Armed Forces?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir.
    Again, when we built this budget, we built it based upon 
our new National Defense Strategy. And there is significant 
investment in a number of issues, a number of capabilities that 
are absolutely relevant to the competition with China.
    As you know, we have to be relevant in all domains, all 
warfighting domains, air, land, sea, space, and cyber. And in 
this budget, you see us invest $27 billion in space and another 
$11 billion in cyberspace, $24 billion in missile defense and 
defeat, $7 billion in long-range fires, $4 billion of that is 
invested in hypersonics.
    And so we are investing in significant capability with this 
budget. And there is an additional $6.1 billion invested in our 
Pacific Defense Initiative.
    So we believe that, again, this is going after the right 
capabilities to ensure that we remain not only competitive, but 
we maintain that competitive edge that we spoke of earlier.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, obviously, from my perspective, and I 
think from the perspective of many of us on this side--and, 
obviously, all the things that you talked about we are 
supportive of. But at the same time, numbers do matter. And 
right now, as you know, the Chinese have, what, about 360 ships 
to our 280 ships. And they are building significantly, almost 3 
to 1 to our capability. So that is a big concern.

                           CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

    One other quick question on the issue of civilian 
personnel. I know I bring this up to you and others often.
    I have a historic trend sheet here that I would like to 
submit to the record. In the year 2000, there were 651,000 DOD 
civilians and 1,384,000 Active-Duty military. Today, there is 
100,000 more civilians, 752,000--actually, 753,000 civilian 
employees to 1,350,000 Active Duty. So we have dropped Active 
Duty by 50,000 and increased civilians by 100,000, and the 
ratio obviously is out of sync to the historic average.
    And I think I have mentioned to you, if we went to the 
Business Council recommendation to bring that back to the 
historic ratio, we would save $125 billion over 5 years, which 
we could keep in the Department and spend on procurement of 
building the ships that we need and building the new air frames 
that we need and assisting the Army and all the rest of the 
service on the capabilities that they desperately need.
    So, again, I would take a look at the reforms that are 
necessary to bring this back into some historic ratio where we 
spend the money where it needs to be spent.
    And, Madam Chair, I would like to submit this for the 
record.
    Ms. McCollum. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Calvert. Anything you would like to address on that, 
Mr. Secretary?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir.
    As I have mentioned to you before when we talked about 
this, maintaining the right balance, as you pointed out, is a 
key objective of mine. And we will stay sighted on this and 
make sure that we do, in fact, have the right balance.
    We have taken on a number of new initiatives. We are doing 
things in space and cyberspace and other areas that require 
additional staffing.
    But to your point, we have to make sure that we keep our 
staffs lean and that we have what we need and not more than we 
need. I am committed to you to continue to work this.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Ms. DeLauro. Or I should say full committee 
Chair DeLauro.

                                UKRAINE

    The Chair. Ms. DeLauro is fine. You can even call me Rosa. 
Anyway, thank you very, very much, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, when we wrote the second supplemental, one 
area that we focused on was our ability to track weapons that 
we are sending to Ukraine. The bill requires you, along with 
Secretary Blinken, to report to Congress on measures taken to 
account for the defense articles sent to Ukraine, particularly 
those that require enhanced end used monitoring. I look forward 
to your report.
    Is there anything you can share with us today about actions 
you are taking? Would having more of a diplomatic presence in 
Ukraine, even if were less than before the Russian invasion, 
help? How is the Department of Defense ensuring that equipment 
is reaching the right Ukrainian units and used for their 
intended purposes?
    The 2022 omnibus provided an additional $300 million for 
U.S. allies and partners in Europe, including $180 million for 
the Baltic Security Initiative, $30 million for Poland, $30 
million for Romania, $20 million for Bulgaria, and $40 million 
for Georgia. How will the Department use these resources to 
shore up their defenses?
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, Chair DeLauro.
    Accountability is an important issue to all of us. As you 
know, we don't have people on the ground right now, so it makes 
it a bit difficult.
    But this is an issue that when I met with President 
Zelenskyy and Minister of Defense Reznikov in Kyiv about 2 
weeks ago, I emphasized the importance of accountability--and 
his Chief of Defense was also in that meeting--and how 
important it is to make sure that they are tracking the 
disposition of our sensitive equipment that is being deployed. 
And they are assured me that they were focused on this.
    I revisited this again with the Minister of Defense a week 
ago, 2 weeks ago, when I met with him in Germany, and then as 
late as yesterday.
    And in terms of the disposition, the actual disposition of 
the equipment, whether or not it is getting to the people that 
need it, this is something that the Chairman and I check every 
time that we talk to our counterparts, and we talk to them 
weekly.
    And, again, I revisited this issue with Minister Reznikov 
yesterday and again will continue to emphasize this very, very 
important point.
    The Chair. And I am presuming that we are working with 
these other countries, in essence, to bolster their resources 
as well in terms of what they need--Bulgaria, Romania, Poland.
    Secretary Austin. We continue that work. You are right, 
Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you.
    If I can, I just have a quick question.
    Ms. McCollum. Please.

                      IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY FUNDING

    The Chair. There is great focus on the total amount of 
funding for the Department of Defense. I would like to focus on 
two other aspects: consistent and timely funding.
    From 2021 to 2022 for programs within the subcommittee's 
jurisdiction, the Department received a 4.7 percent increase. 
The budget request proposes a nearly identical increase for 
2022 to 2023.
    We have already started the process of having full 
committee counterparts meet to attempt to come to an agreement 
on overall spending which would greatly facilitate the 
enactment of the 2023 bills.
    How important are predictability, the steady increases in 
funding? How helpful would it be for the Department for 
Congress to enact spending bills before October 1? And can you 
describe the negative consequences of another CR?
    Secretary Austin. Well, first of all, Chair DeLauro, let me 
thank you for your continued focus on this issue. You have done 
a lot of work to help the Department in the past, and I 
appreciate what I anticipate that you will continue to do in 
the future. Thanks for everything.
    This is really important. And if I could ask for anything, 
it is for both sides to lean into this and get the budget 
passed as quickly as possible. And I know it is important to 
everybody.
    But, as you know, without a budget, we can't do new starts. 
And some of the things that we want to invest in, which will 
give us that capability, that helps us maintain that 
competitive edge, we are late in some cases getting started.
    So getting a budget by September would be great. And, 
again, if I could ask for everyone's help on that again. That 
is one of the most important things that you could do to help 
us aside from passing the budget itself.
    The Chair. Thank you very, very much. And thank you for 
your help the last time.
    I just might conclude by saying that through the 
supplementals both in March and the one we passed last night, 
we are talking about close to $30 billion for defense. So I 
think we are keeping our commitment in that effort as we move 
forward. And so that what we are looking at in terms of the 
increased percentage in the President's budget, et cetera, 
should be in line with where we can try to move forward.
    Thank you very, very much, all of you, for your service and 
for all of your efforts to keeping our national security 
secure. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you for working it in. I know how busy 
everything is.
    The Chair. I am going to dash next door.
    Ms. McCollum. Next for questions we will hear from the 
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee, Ms. 
Granger.

                      IMPACT OF RETIRING EQUIPMENT

    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    The military services want to retire equipment well before 
the end of their useful lives. The capabilities lost by 
retiring these assets will not be replaced until future systems 
come online. One example of this is the Navy's littoral combat 
ship.
    General Milley, please explain how the Department 
determines what amount of risk is acceptable when considering 
these types of retirements?
    General Milley. The way we evaluate risk is risk to the 
mission. Primarily, we take inputs from the combatant 
commanders for that.
    And, second, we evaluate risk to force, and for that we are 
looking at train, man, equip, which is primarily the roles of 
the service chiefs.
    Together those come in to me, and I compile that for the 
Secretary and provide him a risk assessment.
    With respect to the littoral combat ship Navy program--
Navy/Marine program--there is an ongoing study for amphibious 
warfare and in the Navy for the shipbuilding, as was mentioned 
by Ranking Member Calvert, shipbuilding, and we base a lot of 
our analysis on those inputs from the Navy and the Marine 
Corps.
    Ms. Granger. So if you don't have a replacement for it and 
you are still considering it, then why would you mothball them, 
as we call it, at this time?
    General Milley. Well, it comes down to balance in terms of 
what is affordable and what the Navy can afford and what the 
Department of Defense can afford. So there are risk 
calculations on what not to fund and what to fund. And the 
overall assessment was to go ahead and fund the eight ships 
that we are buying and not to continue to fund the LCS for this 
particular budget.

                    SUPPORT OF THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY

    Ms. Granger. I have serious concerns about the way that was 
determined.
    I have another question. Secretary Austin, the conflict in 
Ukraine has placed a high demand on our supply of Javelins, 
Stingers, and other U.S. munitions. This demand has highlighted 
a capacity issue for our defense industry.
    How can we best support a robust and flexible capacity for 
our defense industry? And how can we ensure that we have 
stockpiles sufficient to meet demand for critical items needed 
in Ukraine and for future conflicts?
    Secretary Austin. The stockpiles are something that the 
chairman and I monitor routinely. Certainly, we have input from 
each of the services.
    And in terms of working with industry to get them to open 
up lines and increase production, as you know, we met with 
industry early on. They have committed to doing that. You saw 
the President was just down at one of the places where we are 
producing javelins here just recently and got a thorough lay-
down.
    So the defense industry is leaning into this. It will take 
a little bit of time to get some of these opened up to the 
degree that we want them opened up, but that work is ongoing. 
And I have to admit that the industry is meeting us more than 
halfway on this issue.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Next, we will go to Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. 
Womack, and Mr. Aguilar, and then Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Ruppersberger, you are recognized.

                     UKRAINE CYBERSECURITY POSTURE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
    The first thing I want to acknowledge, Mr. Secretary and 
General, your competence, your leadership throughout the years 
I have been here. I have been working mostly national security. 
And I think you both are excellent leaders during very 
difficult times. And I think you had to build the right team to 
move forward in what your mission is. So thank you for your 
service.
    I am going to get into a more specific area, Ukraine 
cybersecurity posture. Over the last few weeks we have publicly 
learned more and more about how our Nation's cyberspace 
operations have both aided allies and partners like Ukraine and 
our own understanding of our adversaries' capabilities and 
techniques in cyberspace.
    Now, how important is persistent engagement with malign 
actors in cyberspace? And how do you assess U.S. Cyber 
Command's capacity to build more partnerships like we have with 
European nations in other parts of the world?
    Secretary Austin. In terms of the importance, it is 
absolutely critical. And that is why early on we partnered with 
the Ukrainians and helped them with training and helped them to 
outline issues associated with their networks. That is paying 
dividends for them as we speak.
    It also allows us to get early warning if we see something 
developing that could be a threat to our allies or us. And that 
has been very helpful to us.
    In this budget, sir, you have seen that we have invested 
over $11 billion in cyber. That helps us to modernize the 
force, but it also helps to increase the size of the force. And 
that will help in our efforts to partner with additional 
nations, not only in Europe, but most importantly in the Indo-
Pacific as well.
    To answer your question, it is critical. We are building 
more capacity to be able to do that as we speak.

                   FLEXIBITY OF CYBERSECURITY POSTURE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Another question. How much flexibility 
do you have in your posture based on the Department's fiscal 
year 2023 budget to account for possible increased risk to 
national security systems and defense critical infrastructure 
here in the United States given the White House's public 
acknowledgment of evolving intelligence that the Russians are 
exploring options for cyber attacks?
    Secretary Austin. Again, I think we have significant 
capacity, and we need more capacity, and we are investing in 
that.
    In terms of threats to the homeland, as you know, sir, DHS 
is the lead agency for that. We are doing everything within our 
power to be ready to assist DHS with anything that they need 
help with.
    And so that coordination is ongoing. We have leaned forward 
on this quite a bit. And I think it has been very helpful. So 
we will continue those efforts.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And I know NSA does a lot in this 
regard. Chris Inglis, who was Deputy Director, very qualified 
and competent, is really heading up the domestic side now. And 
I assume that you all come together as a team to share 
information to protect us.
    Secretary Austin. Absolutely. That is routine coordination. 
And you know General Nakosone, he is absolutely focused on 
being ahead of the need. And so there is a great relationship 
there.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, and that is a really good team, in 
my opinion.
    Yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Womack.

                         INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGY

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for your service to our country.
    I want to follow up on a question that my colleague, Mr. 
Calvert, had asked about the Indo-Pacific strategy.
    The budget request seems to have small increases in force 
rotations, but no new real permanent increases in combat 
capable military forces in the region. Instead seems to be 
betting on more innovation and soft power in that strategy.
    In my opinion, the need for military power has not 
decreased, but we are choosing to try to plug in some gaps with 
maybe some nonmilitary capabilities.
    Please, Mr. Secretary, help me understand where I am wrong 
on this and where this Department is trying to go in meeting 
that very complicated strategy.
    Secretary Austin. I don't think there is a right or wrong 
here, sir. I think what I would like to say is, number one, I 
think we have a very sound strategy. You have just seen us roll 
out that new National Defense Strategy. It focuses on making 
sure that we employ capability in all five of the warfighting 
domains--air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace.
    And it also focuses on making sure that we leverage the 
capability resident in our allies and partners. And I think 
that is really important. And as we continue that work, I think 
we are seeing some great opportunities.
    As we look at our strategy, making sure that we are, in 
fact, getting the capabilities of space and cyberspace 
integrated into our efforts I think is really, really key.
    We, again, with the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, we have 
invested significantly in making sure that we increase our 
rotation, our training rotations in the theater, that we are 
investing in some infrastructure, and doing some other things.
    I think it is a sound strategy. I think what we have asked 
for enables us to accomplish that strategy.
    Mr. Womack. Has the unanticipated extraordinary cost to 
deal with what is going on in Eastern Europe right now, has 
that cost impacted what we are needing or what we are trying to 
do in this budget for our biggest pacing threat, which is 
China?
    Secretary Austin. I would say no. I think that as we have 
taken on our efforts to help the Ukrainians, we certainly have 
invested quite a bit. As you heard me say earlier, sir, $4.5 
billion over the last couple of years. But we have also seen 
investment from our allies and partners.
    Our major efforts here are with NATO and with the allies 
and partners that are in the region, who are also investing in 
providing equipment and training to the Ukrainians as well. And 
it is that combination of effort that I think has been very, 
very meaningful.
    So to answer your question, we have maintained our pace, 
our efforts in the Indo-Pacific, all the while we were engaged 
in our current efforts in Ukraine.

                        RECRUITING AND RETENTION

    Mr. Womack. I have got a question for General Milley.
    The President's budget requests a cut in end strength in 
the active Army by 12,000 soldiers. I want us to be very 
careful as a country not to allow the Army to be a bill payer 
in a lot of areas. It also cut the end strength for both active 
Air Force and Navy. But I would like to specifically focus on 
the cuts to the Army, that the Army's requested reduction is 
based on the reassessment of recruitment potential and 
obtainable goals.
    Can you speak to the pipeline and the impact it is having 
on our ability to meet our objectives on the recruiting and 
retention front?
    General Milley. I can.
    The overall recruiting has actually gone well for the Navy, 
the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and Space Force. They are 
meeting their goals.
    Army is a little bit behind glide path. The high schools 
haven't graduated yet. They are coming up. So those numbers 
will even out a little bit here in the coming months.
    But we predict, we project that the Army will come up a 
point or two below what their desired recruiting goals are.
    Relative to the end strength, what Secretary Wormuth and 
Chief of Staff McConville are focused on is quality of the 
force. So they want to make sure that they are bringing in 
high-quality individuals into the military. So they determined 
in order to do that they wanted to cut end strength just a 
little bit.
    So it is a modest cut. I don't think it will have a 
significant negative impact on the overall national security of 
the United States.
    Take, for example, what you mentioned about in the Pacific. 
We have got 350,000-plus troops arrayed in the Pacific from the 
West Coast all the way forward stationed west of the MDL. We 
have got a very, very large and capable Naval force with the 
Pac Fleet. You have got a corps and a couple of divisions. And 
you have got a tremendous amount of fourth- and fifth-
generation aircraft, along with cyber and space capabilities.
    So relative to the pacing threat, the main effort, if you 
will, the strategic main effort for the United States military, 
that is clearly in the Pacific. So even though we are incurring 
additional capabilities and investments in what we are doing 
with Ukraine, it is not having a significant negative effect on 
our ability to keep pace with China. And I think the cuts for 
the Army, for example, are quite modest relative to the whole.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you, General.
    Ms. McCollum. Next, we will hear from Mr. Aguilar, then Mr. 
Aderholt, then Mr. Crist.
    Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized.

                    IMPORTANCE OF IRREGULAR WARFARE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary and General.
    Secretary Austin, recently you spoke about the need to 
track and understand and respond to malign activities in the 
gray zone, including the information space and the need to 
invest in irregular warfare capabilities.
    What is the Ukrainian crisis teaching the Nation about the 
importance of irregular warfare in a peer and near-peer fight?
    Secretary Austin. Again, I think this is a thing that we 
need to be capable of addressing going forward and that we 
account for that in our strategy. We have seen the Russians 
engage in this type of activity in a consistent fashion 
throughout. Since 2014, we have watched this continue to 
unfold.
    We will need to make sure that we have the right 
capabilities and the people with the right skills to be 
relevant in this kind of activity going forward.

                            CLIMATE STRATEGY

    Mr. Aguilar. How are we thinking about future policies, 
existing policies that will enable us to compete effectively in 
this climate moving forward?
    Secretary Austin. In our policies we need to make sure that 
they support speed of effort and that we have the authorities 
necessary to get after the things that, again, will be 
effective in this fight. And I think, as with anything, our 
policies and authorities will evolve as we continue our efforts 
in this and other places around the globe.

               DOMESTIC VIOLENT EXTREMISM IN THE MILITARY

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to shift topics and talk about 
domestic violent extremism and express my support for your 
continued commitment to address threats of domestic violent 
extremism in the military.
    You previously spoke with us and said that 99.9 percent of 
troops serve with dignity and honor, but a small number can 
have an outsized impact on a great organization. And you have 
talked about including reworking existing screening procedures 
for recruits, partnering with other Federal agencies, and 
revamping insider training programs.
    And, General Milley, you have spoken about these as well, 
these programs.
    Secretary, can you talk about how the fiscal year 2023 
budget request continues support for these efforts?
    Secretary Austin. It certainly does allow us to continue to 
support the policies and procedures that we put into place.
    And, again, I would echo what you said earlier. My firm 
belief has been and remains that 99.9 percent of our troops are 
focused on the right things and are doing the right things each 
and every day.
    We certainly, as you pointed out, need to do a good job, a 
better job of screening people as they come into the military, 
and also as they are in the military, making sure that they 
remain focused on supporting those values that they have sworn 
an oath to uphold.
    But we have, in this budget, we have asked for an ample 
amount of funds to support our efforts that you asked about.
    Mr. Aguilar. General, domestic violent extremism, you have 
spoken with this committee about this in the past and 
appreciate your comments.
    What more can we do? How should we be thinking through 
future insider threats and some of the policies that might need 
to be addressed and changed?
    General Milley. Just a couple of things.
    First of all, I think the size, scale, and scope of the 
problem is very, very small inside the military. And as the 
Secretary just said, 99.9 percent of those in uniform are 
serving their country faithfully in their faithful adherence to 
their oath to the Constitution of the United States.
    Having said that, small numbers can make a big difference 
if they choose to use violence in some manner, shape, or form. 
So it all comes down to good order and discipline of the force, 
and that is the role of the chain of command.
    So the best thing we can do is to reinforce the authorities 
of the chain of command, educate the chain of command to signs 
and indicators of radical extremism on one bent or another, and 
then to take appropriate action if they identify someone who 
displays those sorts of behaviors.
    We are into behavior, not thought. That is a very, very 
important distinction. We are not out to govern people's 
thoughts, but behavior is a different matter. And that is what 
the Uniform Code of Military Justice is all about and that is 
one of the key roles of the chain of command.
    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate the leadership that both of you 
have shown in this regard, and thank you for continuing to work 
with this committee and others to address these issues moving 
forward.
    And like you both said, an incredibly small number, but we 
want to make sure that we are doing everything we can to 
protect the workforce, protect the country, and ensure the 
proper leadership. So thank you both so much.
    Yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Aderholt, please.

                       MINERAL ISSUES AND IMPACT

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin, General Milley, Under Secretary McCord, 
thank you, all three, for being here today.
    My first question deals with some mineral issues that we 
potentially could have problems we could have in this country.
    Of course, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated 
how Europe has been affected by reliance on Russia for 
resources like oil and gas.
    But a recent U.S. Geological Survey report illustrated that 
the United States is similarly reliant on Russia and China for 
some of our most critical mineral needs. And I too have 
concerns about the defense industrial base being too reliant on 
countries that probably doesn't have our best interest at 
heart.
    And I think certainly we all should agree that the time to 
address this and look at this is now as opposed to waiting 
until a crisis occurs. I plan to work with my colleagues to try 
to address this problem.
    My question to you--let me address this to you, Secretary 
Austin--how concerned are you about the risk posed to the 
defense industrial base by continued reliance on strategic 
adversaries for our critical minerals? And what else can we do 
to try to address this issue?
    Secretary Austin. You raise a very good point, sir. This is 
an issue that is very important to us. It is also important to 
our country. It is important to our President, as you have seen 
the President adopt an initiative that causes us all to focus 
more on our supply chain vulnerability. DOD certainly has a key 
part of that.
    We are concerned about making sure that we have the right 
capabilities with respect to microelectronics, casting and 
forging, battery and energy storage, critical materials, as you 
pointed out. We want to make sure that we have the right 
amounts of stockpiles to be able to support our efforts.
    So DOD is focused on this as a part of the overall 
government's effort. But to your point, this is very, very 
important to us.
    Mr. Aderholt. So this is something that you do have some 
great concerns about at this point?
    Secretary Austin. It is.
    Mr. Aderholt. Yeah.
    Secretary Austin. It is.
    Mr. Aderholt. General Milley, do you have anything you want 
to add to that?
    General Milley. No. I concur 100 percent, the concern about 
us being overly reliant on raw materials, critical minerals, as 
you say, from any country that is an adversary to the United 
States. To the extent that is humanly possible, that stuff 
should be produced in the United States and under our control.

                          EQUIPMENT STOCKPILES

    Mr. Aderholt. Let me just also, I will mention something 
that has already been asked about, we have already talked about 
how we have done so much to send vital equipment to Ukraine. 
And of course we can always debate whether we have sent enough 
and that. But there is no doubt that the success they have had 
has been because of our helping in the process.
    But to follow on a question that Ranking Member Granger, 
much of the equipment has come out of our own defense 
stockpiles, and I am glad that Congress has already 
appropriated $3.5 billion to DOD to backfill the transferred 
equipment. And of course last night the House passed 
legislation for additional support for Ukraine.
    It is clear that DOD's equipment stocks could prove vital 
if a similar situation were to arise in the Pacific and Taiwan.
    I would like to get your thoughts on whether the Department 
of Defense level of stockpiled equipment and munitions should 
be grown to levels larger than they were prior to Russia's 
invasion.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, sir. And, again, thanks for your 
support in getting the legislation through yesterday. That is 
very helpful to us.
    As you know, we base our decisions on the size of the 
stockpile on our requirements, and as we look around at our 
global requirements to support our plans, we believe that the 
stockpiles are adequate.
    And if we believe that we need to grow them based upon 
changing situations or changes in our plans, then certainly we 
will do that, we will take that on, and make sure that we 
advise the President that that is a necessity.
    But right now, again, our requirements have put us in a 
place where we have the stockages that we have, and we think it 
is about right.
    Mr. Aderholt. So do you think if we increased our 
stockpiles it would deter aggression by China toward Taiwan?
    Secretary Austin. You know, our adversaries don't really 
know what we have in our stockpiles, nor should they, and so I 
am not sure that that would act as, in itself, as a deterrent.
    They will judge--I mean, they will base their judgment on 
our actions and our demonstrated commitment more so than what 
they believe our stockpiles to be.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Crist, then Mr. Carter, and then Mrs. Kirkpatrick.
    Mr. Crist, you are recognized.

                              HYPERSONICS

    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to express my gratitude to you, Mr. Secretary, and, 
General, to you as well. As Member Ruppersberger mentioned in 
his beginning comments, the service you have provided to our 
country has been extraordinary, and God bless you for your 
dedication to protecting America and freedom.
    So I was curious, I read about the hypersonics that were 
used against Odessa. Obviously that is very disconcerting. And 
I wondered if you had any commentary if we should expect more 
of that or what your view of it is, either one of you.
    Please.
    General Milley. A couple comments.
    One is the Russians have used several hypersonic missiles. 
Obviously the distinguishing factor of a hypersonic missile is 
the speed at which it travels. And we have analyzed each of 
these shots that they have taken. And I would like to go into a 
classified session and discuss any of the specific details.
    But other than the speed of the weapon, in terms of its 
effect on a given target, we are not seeing really significant 
or game-changing effects to date with the delivery of the small 
number of hypersonics that the Russians have used.
    But I can elaborate further in a classified session if you 
would like.
    Mr. Crist. Sure. I appreciate that.
    Mr. Secretary, do you have any comment on that?
    Secretary Austin. I absolutely agree with the Chairman. And 
they have used a number of them. The Ukrainians are still 
fighting. And I will leave it at that.
    Mr. Crist. Very well.
    Is this the first time that we know that they have decided 
to utilize hypersonics in this war?
    General Milley. To my knowledge, it is the first time of 
use of hypersonic munitions in a combat situation.
    Mr. Crist. Ever?
    General Milley. As far as I know, yeah.
    Mr. Crist. Yes, sir.
    General Milley. A hypersonic weapon.
    Mr. Crist. Yes, sir. No, I understand.
    Secretary Austin. But the Russians have used them several 
times in this conflict. And, again, not a major game-changer to 
this point.
    Mr. Crist. Great.
    I know you don't have a crystal ball and it is hard to read 
Putin's mind, I am sure, but given the fact that he is 
utilizing these weapons now, these missiles, do you think that 
exacerbates the potential for nuclear or not? Or can you tell?
    Secretary Austin. It is very difficult to predict what or 
to say what Mr. Putin is thinking. But I don't--I would not say 
that because he has used a hypersonic weapon that that is going 
to cause him to be willing to elevate to use a nuclear weapon.
    You know, again, he used hypersonic weapons weeks ago, and 
I think he is trying to create a specific effect with the use 
of that weapon. And as the Chairman has pointed out, it moves 
at a speed that makes it very difficult to interdict. But it 
hasn't been a game-changer.
    He has options. I mean, he can launch a cyber attack, he 
can employ chemical weapons, those kinds of things that we are 
all on the lookout for to see if he makes those kinds of 
decisions. But I don't think that this necessarily takes him to 
the use of a nuclear weapon.

                            UKRAINE FUNDING

    Mr. Crist. So we voted last night, the House, for $40 
billion to help Ukraine. Hopefully the Senate will do that 
soon. Are we doing enough to keep Ukraine free and protect our 
ally as much as we should be?
    Secretary Austin. We are doing a lot, and our allies are 
doing a lot, and we are going to continue to do everything that 
we can for as long as we can to help them defend their 
sovereign space.
    And so I think the Ukrainians are very grateful for what we 
are doing for them. It has made a significant difference in 
their ability to blunt the advance of a superior Russian force.
    And so, again, their needs will change as this war evolves. 
At the beginning of the fight, sir, you remember, we were 
focused a lot on providing anti-armor and anti-aircraft 
weaponry. That really put them in a good place. It helped them 
win the battle of Kyiv in the north.
    But as the fight has shifted to the south and to the east, 
we now see that they have more of a need for long-range 
artillery, tanks, and armored vehicles and those sorts of 
things.
    And working with our allies, we are talking to the 
Ukrainians routinely and we are trying to provide them exactly 
what they think they need in the fight.
    Mr. Crist. Great.
    Well, thank you both again very much for what you are doing 
in protecting this democracy and this great ally of the U.S.
    Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. You are welcome.
    Mr. Carter, then Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and then Mr. Diaz-
Balart, who will be joining us via video.

              IMPACT OF COST OF LIVING ON SERVICE MEMBERS

    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Gentlemen, welcome. Thank you for being here.
    I want to tell you about a conversation I had with a group 
of people in my district last week. We have Fort Hood in my 
district, you all know that. I am very, very proud of our men 
and women who serve in uniform, and I commend you for trying to 
give them the very best.
    But we also, as we take care of our warfighters, have to 
remember the burdens, the things in the real world--that is, 
the economy--have on the families of these warfighters.
    Right now what is going on in our part of Texas is our 
mobile population in America. Americans are migrating to Texas 
in gigantic numbers, carrying large amounts of money from real 
estate sales they made in other States that they left.
    And so not only are they driving up the cost of housing 
ridiculously high, a house worth $350,000, real worth, is 
selling for a million and so forth, therefore, even the smaller 
homes that might be available for servicemen and -women off 
post are being driven up to $700,000 to $900,000.
    And then, with the benefit of a VA loan, they can compete 
in that market. The sellers don't want VA loans because the 
other guys are offering cash. That drives all of our military 
families into the rental market.
    The rental market is growing at the same rate. So something 
that 6 months ago was $2,000 a month is now $4,500 a month, and 
something that was, like, $1,000 dollars a month is now $2,500 
a month.
    Now, I realize you have given them a raise and I am really 
happy about that. Have you considered increasing BAH levels to 
meet this type of inflationary challenge that we are seeing 
around our posts, not just in Texas, in many other parts of the 
country?
    I would like to hear your comments, Mr. Secretary and also 
General Milley.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, sir. And thanks for your 
tremendous support of our troops and families in the Fort Hood 
area. That is a pretty important part of our overall structure 
in the military here, that big installation.
    This is a very important issue to me, the health and well-
being of our family members and our troops. You saw us take 
some action last year--or this year--to increase BAH in certain 
areas that were challenged by the forces that you just 
mentioned.
    What we are asking for in this budget is help to do more of 
the same going forward. I think this is really, really 
important, that the strain caused by rising rent costs and a 
number of other things are really kind of creating some adverse 
effects for our lower ranking enlisted, and we remain sighted 
on this.
    So we are asking for that, some help with that in this 
budget. We are also asking for $2 billion to support the 
construction of family housing, military family housing, and 
the improvement of military family housing as well.
    So thanks for your support thus far. And I believe this is 
really, really important, and so we are asking for more help so 
we can do more of the same in the future.
    General Milley. And I would echo everything the Secretary 
said, Congressman. I have known you for a long time and have 
many fond memories of Fort Hood myself. And I heard Congressman 
Calvert say most of those people are coming from California, so 
I would question whether or not Texas is maybe the right choice 
there.
    But having said that--that was meant to be funny--look, 
soldiers don't ask for much. They want good housing, good 
healthcare, good education, and a safe environment for their 
family.
    I know that the Secretary of Defense has the entire 
Department focused on it. And I will personally take a hard 
look at the BAH numbers to see if it is appropriate to make 
further recommendations on any further increases in terms of 
housing allowances specific to the Fort Hood area or other 
areas that are experiencing that.
    Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield.
    You will enjoy my constituents. They are fine people.
    Mr. Carter. I hope so. I hope so.
    Ms. McCollum. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter. I have another question, but I know I have run 
out of time.
    Ms. McCollum. We will make sure it gets submitted for the 
record. Thank you.
    And as you know, there is a freeway that connects Texas and 
Minnesota. We have better fishing.
    So, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, we are going to go to you.
    And Mr. Diaz-Balart, if you wouldn't mind getting ready to 
turn on your video.
    Thank you.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    My first question has to do with climate change.
    Mr. Secretary, I am pleased to see the concerted effort in 
the budget addressing climate change. The Department of Defense 
has recognized for a while that a changing climate will have 
significant economic impacts across the globe, lead to food 
insecurity issues and potential shifts in regional balances.
    The Department of Defense is proposing to invest $3.1 
billion in this budget for increased generators storage and 
resiliency at military installations, which is a top priority 
for Fort Huachuca and Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in my 
district.
    This funding would also go toward improved energy 
efficiency and logistics and research in reducing energy 
demand, improved storage, and other energy supplies.
    Secretary Austin, what are your goals as you direct the 
Department's effort to meet the climate challenge?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you. And I think you nailed 
it right away when you mentioned that this does affect not only 
our installations, as we look at our installations in the 
coastal regions with the effects of rising water levels, the 
effects of severe weather, as we have had to deploy troops with 
a greater frequency to address the aftermath of severe storms. 
We are deploying troops to fight fires.
    But to the point that you made earlier, in the regions that 
we operate in, we are seeing climate change cause migration in 
some cases and competition--increased competition for water.
    So DOD is the largest consumer of energy in the government. 
Our goal is to make sure that we reduce our carbon footprint by 
reverting to--our installations using more electric vehicles. I 
have challenged our installation commanders to find ways to be 
more efficient in their energy usage.
    And so we have a number of ongoing projects and efforts to 
reduce the carbon footprint and be better stewards of our 
resources here.
    But, again, to a point that you have made, we are asking 
for $3.1 billion in this budget to help with our efforts in 
addressing installation resiliency and energy storage.

                        MILITARY MEDICAL REFORMS

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    My second question is for General Milley. It has to do with 
military medical reforms.
    The Military Health System is undergoing its most 
significant transformation in decades. Medical reforms have 
included a transition of military treatment facilities from 
control of the services to the Department of health agencies, 
and reducing military medical manpower in support of the 
services' lethality priorities.
    General Milley, are you concerned about the direction of 
military medical manpower? Are efforts being coordinated across 
the military services and with the Joint Staff? And what are 
the concerns with the medical manpower reductions the services 
are anticipating?
    General Milley. Thanks for the question.
    The key issue here is the readiness of the force and the 
medical readiness of the force, and do we have enough doctors, 
nurses, and medics or corpsmen in the fielded force to handle 
combat conditions, and are there enough doctors and nurses 
available to man combat support hospitals and other field 
hospitals that are necessary in combat.
    And, candidly, I do have concerns about that. It is a very 
challenging subset of our overall military personnel 
challenges, but that one in particular causes great attention 
because in time of war, as we all know, there will be 
significant casualties.
    In peacetime you are manning these treatment facilities, 
these hospitals and clinics, but in wartime they are going to 
go forward, and that is where the readiness issues will show 
up.
    Right now we are okay on a day-to-day basis, but I do have 
concerns that if we did have a significant conflict in terms of 
our medical personnel and their ability to deploy.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Madam Chair, I have another question, but 
I am just about out of time, so I will submit that for the 
record. And I yield back. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mrs. Kirkpatrick. And we are going 
to be having a military health hearing where we will get in 
more depth in that.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart is submitting questions for the record. He 
had to leave. So we are going to turn to Mr. Rogers and then 
Mrs. Bustos.
    Mr. Rogers.

                     RISK OF ESCALATION IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, Under Secretary, and General, 
welcome, and thank you for your lifetimes of service to the 
country. It is appreciated by millions of Americans.
    Let me bring up a topic that is tough to deal with, and 
that is escalation or the possibilities of escalation in 
Ukraine.
    I know it is our policy to not be directly involved, and 
you have maintained that distance. However, the Russians have 
no compunction about the morals or fair play or rules of war, 
if you will, and are demonstrating that daily.
    Suppose for a moment that the Russians decide to go after 
the missile sites in Poland or in the region of any sort. What 
do we do? What are the rules of the game that we are into here 
in this battle?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thanks, sir. And to your point, it 
is always dangerous to go down the road of hypotheticals, but 
this is an issue that is very, very important.
    If Russia decides to attack any nation that is a NATO 
member, then that is a game-changer. Then with respect to the 
Article 5 commitments, certainly NATO would most likely respond 
as a coalition in some shape, form, or fashion.
    And this is a thing that NATO has looked at, what it takes 
to defend NATO countries. It is a thing that is important to us 
as well.
    But as you look at Putin's calculus, my view--and I am sure 
the Chairman has his own view--but my view is that Russia 
doesn't want to take on the NATO alliance. He has got a number 
of troops arrayed in the region right now on the Ukrainian 
border, and he had some in Belarus and still has some there.
    But there are 1.9 million forces in NATO. NATO has the most 
advanced capabilities of any alliance in the world, in terms of 
aircraft, ships, types of weaponry that the ground forces use.
    So this is a fight that he really doesn't want to have, and 
that would very quickly escalate into another type of 
competition that no one wants to see.
    Mr. Rogers. General.
    General Milley. I would just say, Congressman Rogers, that 
we monitor this literally every day. It is one of the most 
significant things we are doing, is monitoring the potential 
risk of escalation in any domain and by geography, by type of 
weapon, et cetera.
    And it is something that the Secretary has us laser-focused 
on, the President has us laser-focused on, and the national 
security establishment is monitoring it very, very closely.
    We can give you more thorough briefings in a classified 
session. You asked the question about what we would do. Of 
course, that is speculative, but there are conditions, there 
are contingency plans, there are things that we have looked at 
and will continue to look at, and we monitor it every single 
day very, very closely.
    Mr. Rogers. Are we prepared to respond in some fashion?
    General Milley. I would say that depends on the situation--
THE type weapon, nature of escalation, where was it, was it 
Article 5, was it not. There is a laundry list of questions and 
it depends on what the answers to those questions are.
    But the short is, yes, of course, we are. Militarily, we 
are very capable of responding to any form or fashion of 
escalation if directed by the President.
    Secretary Austin. And, sir, you have heard the President 
say that we will defend every inch of NATO. And you saw that 
resolve demonstrated shortly after Putin launched his invasion 
into Ukraine. We deployed forces to reassure our allies in the 
Baltic states and on the eastern front of NATO. And the 
President has been very clear about his resolve throughout 
this. He is committed to defending every inch of NATO.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    I am going to read the next four speakers. However, I will 
recognize Mr. Cole, should he walk in, immediately after Mrs. 
Bustos. He is ranking member on an NIH hearing that is taking 
place across the hall.
    With that, it will be Mrs. Bustos, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ryan, 
and Mr. Kilmer.
    Mrs. Bustos, you are now recognized.

               SUSTAINMENT AND IMPACT ON THE ARMY BUDGET

    Mrs. Bustos. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it.
    And thanks to our distinguished panel. Appreciate your 
service to our country.
    The congressional district that I represent is in the 
entire northwest corner of the State of Illinois, includes the 
Rock Island Arsenal. And so I would like to ask a question 
around that.
    We talk a lot about ships and planes and space capabilities 
when we look at our national defense, but the majority of the 
sustainment burden for a prolonged conflict is going to rest 
with the Army, specifically the Sustainment Command. And 
obviously that is part of the arsenal, and that leads to my 
question.
    If you look at history, we know the pivotal role that the 
Army played in our victories in the Pacific during World War 
II.
    So wondering about how we prioritize and account for this 
in the Army's budget and planning, if we assume significantly 
larger investments in the Departments of Air Force and Navy.
    And maybe we will start with you, General Austin, if you 
could address that, please.
    Secretary Austin. Of course we start with the strategy, as 
we have said earlier, and then we make our investments based 
upon what it takes to support that strategy.
    And you are correct, the Army has played a critical role in 
the past, it is playing a critical role as we speak, and it 
will always play a critical role.
    If you look at what the Secretary of the Army and the Chief 
of the Army, what they are trying to do in terms of making sure 
that they can meet their requirements and also modernize the 
force going forward, they are basing their request for 
resources on that.
    And we think, as you have heard me say earlier, I mean, 
there is $13 billion or so in this budget focused on making 
sure that we can maintain a combat credible land force for both 
the Army and the Marines.
    And I really like what we see both the Army and the Marines 
doing in terms of their investment in modernization and their 
focus on making sure that they are relevant in any competition, 
especially any anticipated competition in the Indo-Pacific.
    Mrs. Bustos. General Milley, anything to add to that?
    General Milley. The Army, relative to the Pacific and 
relative to some sort of scenario against the People's Republic 
of China, it is our estimation that the weight of effort would 
likely be air and sea, maritime and air forces.
    But having said that, the Marines and the Army will play a 
very, very critical role in any of those scenarios, as they 
did, as you mentioned, in World War II.
    Even though that was a maritime theater, there was a 
tremendous amount of landings and seizures and so on and so 
forth.
    So it is not a singular service. It is always a joint force 
executing combined arms operations in all the domains of war to 
achieve integrated deterrence before a war or to achieve 
victory in the conduct of war. The Army plays a very critical 
role there.
    So some of the things the Army is doing in this budget and 
in their modernization programs, Long Range Precision Fires, 
for example, is really critical to any type of conflict in the 
Pacific.
    Another one is the transformation of a bunch of their 
formations into multidomain task forces as another example. 
They are making some fundamental changes in the development of 
rotor wing aircraft and Future Vertical Lift.
    There is a whole series of modernization initiatives as we 
move into the future, into the change in the character of war, 
into the future operating environment, the Army is doing to 
transform itself so that they can achieve an effect not only in 
the Pacific, but anywhere else in the world.

                         ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING

    Mrs. Bustos. The modernization efforts are really exciting. 
I co-chair the Army Depot and Arsenal Caucus, I co-chair that, 
and we were briefed recently on the modernization efforts, and 
I am going to get into that a little bit as well.
    So also at the Rock Island Arsenal we are designated as the 
Army's Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence. We are very 
proud of that, and obviously supporting the Army's overall goal 
of modernization.
    So I would like to get your thoughts on the importance of 
advanced and additive manufacturing to the Defense Department. 
That is what is being centralized through the arsenal.
    General.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks. And thanks for your support 
throughout.
    This is a very important capability. If you look at 
additive manufacturing, it enables us to produce some exquisite 
types of components. And we can do that forward and save time 
and stress on our logistical chains.
    And so I think this is a great capability. And as this 
continues to develop, I am pretty excited about the 
possibilities. But we know that a lot of that is playing out in 
your home State, and we appreciate the support that you have 
provided them.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thirteen seconds left.
    General Milley, anything to add to that?
    General Milley. It is a great capability, and we appreciate 
what is happening at Rock Island for the entire force.
    Mrs. Bustos. You guys come over and see us, okay?
    General Milley. Absolutely.
    Mrs. Bustos. You are invited. Thank you.
    I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole, unfortunately, will not be joining us. So it will 
be Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Kilmer, and then Mr. Calvert, and 
I will wrap up the hearing.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                         Remarks of Ms. Kaptur

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you for your 
exemplary lifetime of service to the people of our country. 
What a great example each of you are to the young people 
aspiring in our country.
    I am going to make just a couple little, short statements, 
and then I will focus on naval readiness.
    But I come from the fourth seacoast, and as the Department 
of Defense considers deploying various assets, and I just ask 
you to please don't forget the defense industrial base of the 
country, which Congresswoman Bustos referenced right now, both 
in terms of manufacturing capacity as well as energy.
    We are often overlooked as the fourth seacoast, as we look 
at just the Washington, D.C., area, for example, and so I just 
wanted to point you to that fourth seacoast.
    Secondly, in terms of issues, I am very concerned about our 
military and the nutritional value of food served to our 
military personnel, having just come back from Grafenwoehr and 
Rzeszow in Poland, and I would like you to find someone in the 
Department that could come to my office and we could discuss 
this. I would be very grateful for that.
    And then, secondly, the question of Russian vulnerabilities 
in terms of Ukraine right now. I don't want to talk about it 
here, but I hope someone somewhere in the defense establishment 
would be able to brief us on that, as well as the global energy 
supply issue and how that relates to what is happening on that 
continent far from here.
    Thirdly, I just wanted to mention the issue of behavioral 
health. And I was down at SOUTHCOM with some of our Members 
years ago, and shortly thereafter, though the topic of the 
meeting was behavioral health, an extremely high ranking 
individual took his life in Bahrain, someone that I had met 
down there.
    And so I can put this on the record as a member of the 
Mental Health Caucus here in Congress. We are 100,000 
neuropsychiatrists short as a country, we are 400,000 
behavioral nurses short.
    So how do we attempt to help the people of our country, 
whether they are principals in schools or commanders of units 
in the military, when we don't have the personnel to do it?
    I would urge you to consider Uniformed Services University 
of Health Services as a portal where we could create a program 
that would draw people in. They are not going into this field 
because they earn more operating on people's knees than they do 
taking care of their neuropsychiatric conditions.
    But maybe we could have a combined military-civilian 
program that would draw people into this so we could help the 
people of our country. I just want to put that down.
    Finally, in terms of naval readiness, I have to say I am 
terribly concerned about what happened on the George Washington 
and on the Wasp. I know that one of my other subcommittees, we 
deal with nuclear weapons, and the time it is taking both to 
retool the weapons, as well as repair ships, is creating a 
dispirited situation for some of our naval personnel, for 
example, who thought the ship would be maybe repaired by, if it 
is sitting in Newport News, a year ago or a year and a half 
ago. For hundreds of those sailors they have no access to 
housing or a car and they are stuck on the ship.
    This is really demoralizing. And I am troubled by the 
defense submission on the Navy because I see it getting worse. 
And so I just wanted to point a flashlight at this part of the 
budget and say we got to do something.
    And I am not sure what it is, but we can't keep trying to 
do everything and not doing it well and not taking care of 
those who are in service to our country right now and the 
equipment that we are using, and to try to get a faster pace to 
repair. The George Washington is going to be up there in dry 
dock for another year. It was supposed to be finished in 2022.
    So I am really worried about this issue, and I am hoping at 
another briefing or somehow we can get greater clarity on where 
we are headed on this.
    So if you have any comments about naval readiness and the 
backlog of repair, its impact on morale, and where we head. 
Your budget makes me even more nervous.

                            NAVAL READINESS

    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, I will yield Ms. Kaptur an 
additional minute so that you can start answering that 
question, and the rest we will take for the record.
    Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Austin. Okay. Well, certainly I share your 
concern on the issue of mental health and our access to 
resources. And that is why we are asking you for, in this 
budget, additional resources to help us provide greater access 
to our troops, which includes telehealthcare opportunities as 
well.
    But this is a really, really important issue. I certainly 
will take on your recommendation to take a look at our 
uniformed services piece here and what can be done there. And 
so we will have somebody come talk to you on the other issues 
that you raised as well.
    And if you want to talk on global energy supplies, we will 
liaise with DOE as well to make sure that they know you have an 
interest here.
    The repair of a nuclear carrier is very, very 
sophisticated, especially that level of repair, that it is 
ongoing.
    Now, the pressure that COVID has put on all of our 
enterprise is significant, but that work has continued, 
certainly not at the pace that we would like to see it 
continue.
    You know that there are two investigations ongoing by the 
Navy on the George Washington issue, and I look forward to 
seeing the results of those investigations. And I think the 
Secretary of the Navy is headed down to visit with the George 
Washington chain of command here on the 17th and should have 
greater insights to provide from that visit as well.
    There are choices that have been made or will be made in 
the future in terms of how you billet sailors when that repair 
is ongoing. Whether or not we made the right choices is left to 
be seen.
    Certainly there is a problem there. We have got to 
understand what that problem was a bit more. And then we have 
to figure out what to do to ensure that we don't have these 
kinds of problems in the future.
    Again, I don't think it was anticipated--certainly it was 
not anticipated that the ship would be in a repair cycle this 
long. But, nonetheless, I expect the leadership to make the 
right decisions, and I look forward to seeing what the 
investigations are going to show us here.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Ryan, then Mr. Kilmer.

                          Remarks of Mr. Ryan

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Let me extend my thanks as well. I can't imagine how many 
sleepless nights you have had over the past few months, and we 
appreciate it. You are the defenders of freedom in this 
country, and we are here to try to help and support the best we 
can.
    I am going to kind of go through a few things, comments, 
before I have my question.
    First, let me just say my own personal opinion. We know 
this ultimately is going to be the decision of Ukraine and 
their leadership. But I don't think that the Russians should be 
allowed to have an inch of territory in that country. I just 
don't think we can reward this kind of behavior.
    And I know it is clearly more complicated than that, but I 
think it is important that you know where we stand.
    To get to some of the issues Ms. Kaptur brought up around 
the mental health, having worked on these issues for a long 
time--and, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned the suicide issue, 
which is pervasive across our society now--one of the 
recommendations I would give is--and we have been trying to 
work on this--how do you evaluate people who are coming into 
the military.
    One of the more recent analyses of this issue is around 
adverse childhood experiences where people coming into the 
military are bringing trauma from their childhood. Could be 
multiple adverse childhood experiences. But in each one of 
these experiences it increases your rates of depression, 
increases your rates of mental health issues, increases your 
rates of suicide.
    So I think if you are going to go at this thing, really 
trying to get some knowledge about the person before they even 
step foot in the military, and that will help, I think, begin 
to try to address some of those issues.
    I also want to mention having more of a whole of government 
approach. You look at the problems that we have now in Eastern 
Europe. A lot of this is because of the energy issue and the 
overreliance on Russia for oil and gas.
    And I think a whole of government approach--we have gas in 
eastern Ohio, western PA, Utica Shale, Marcellus Shale--how do 
we build the infrastructure to get this gas, liquid natural gas 
or whatever it is, out of eastern Ohio to Eastern Europe, and 
having obviously not necessarily a short-term solution but a 
mid-to-long-term solution to help our allies in Europe be more 
reliant on American energy than on Vladimir Putin, which could, 
I think, knock the legs out from under him.
    Lastly, and Ms. Kaptur brought this up too when she 
mentioned it around the issue of food, and it may seem like an 
ancillary issue in the military, but we have seen from recent 
studies, multiple studies showing increased rates of obesity, 
increased rates of diabetes in the military.
    Now, a few years ago I sat on the VA Committee, right, so 
we are seeing, like, what are we feeding our troops when they 
are active, and now we have obesity and diabetes when they go 
to the VA, which is driving up costs.
    And I have been working on this issue for a couple years, 
and we have had the Army make promises about a campus dining 
pilot, the Air Force Academy, which, in good faith, they got 
shut down because of the pandemic, but the superintendent there 
promised to resume the program. Air Force promised to expand 
their food 2.0 modernization to food 3.0.
    None of these services mentioned fulfilled their 
assurances. Navy and Marine Corps did not break any promises 
because they haven't made any promises.
    But to me, when you see the recently published report on 
the military food system, the GAO found that each service 
abysmally managed its food systems.
    And I just think this is something that--it is so 
complicated. My staff brought me a flow chart of how the food 
system works in the military. It is insane. I mean, there is so 
much--there is no flow.
    And I just want to be very clear. This is not a food--this 
is a food management and operations problem. This isn't a 
nutrition problem. Everybody knows what we should be eating. I 
mean, it is pretty common knowledge.
    So in 2022, Mr. Secretary, we passed legislation 
recommending the formation of a food transformation cell within 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and if you could just 
tell us what the status is of that cell and how you can assure 
us that as we move towards food transformation there are not 
going to be more broken promises.
    I think this is a very important issue for us to save money 
that we can then put into a lot of these other programs.

                          FOOD TRANSFORMATION

    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, once again, I will give you a 
few extra moments here to answer the question.
    Mr. Ryan. I thank the chair for her generosity.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. First of all, let 
me thank you for your interest in this and the work that you 
have done in the past.
    And I would like to say that I share your concerns on the 
importance of this. And I think that the food transformation 
cell will provide significant benefit in terms of assisting us 
and coordinating our efforts here.
    That cell is going to be stood up in September, and then in 
October we will submit a report to you on how we stood it up 
and the progress that has been made to date. It is a work in 
progress, but September is the date when that cell will start.
    Mr. Ryan. Okay. Well, thank you for that, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Kilmer.

              SHIPYARD INTRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you both for being with us and for your service 
to our country.
    Last year when you were in front of this subcommittee I 
asked about the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, 
the SIOP, which is a 20-year, $21 billion investment in 
modernizing and optimizing our shipyards.
    I was pleased to hear both of you say very positive things 
about that, about the importance of that in terms of the 
capacity of the Navy to meet its mission and just understanding 
how critical that was. And I want to thank you for that, not 
only for your support of SIOP but for our public shipyards too.
    Having said that, I am a bit worried that the program is 
falling behind in terms of both cost and time. Not to put too 
fine a point on it, but this really matters. We don't have a 
shipyard on the West Coast that can handle a Ford-class 
carrier, and so time is of the essence. And would gleefully 
invite you to come visit Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in our neck 
of the woods.
    The SIOP relies on area development plans to inform the 
optimization portions of the SIOP and provide accurate schedule 
and cost estimates. Those were originally scheduled to be 
completed at the end of this fiscal year. It looks like that is 
probably going to slip to the end of next fiscal year or even 
later.
    The Navy also promised to provide a SIOP strategic 
framework to coincide with the release of the President's 
budget, but Congress still hasn't received that plan.
    That guidance aligns all the SIOP activities and provides 
the overarching framework to implement SIOP as it moves from 
the planning into the execution phase.
    So I am just concerned that delays both to the area 
development plans and to the SIOP strategic framework could 
postpone implementation of some investments that really need to 
happen for the Navy to meet its mission.
    So I guess I want to hear from you sort of what the plan is 
for just making sure that this program stays on track and what 
your office is planning in that regard.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, sir. Again, thanks for your 
support and your focus on this. It is truly important in terms 
of making sure that we maintain the world-class capability that 
we have had and will continue to have with our United States 
Navy.
    We invested in this last year. We are asking you for $1.7 
billion to put towards this work going forward. That is an 
historic amount. It is twice the amount that we invested in 
last year.
    It certainly helps to get a budget passed on time so that 
we can make sure that we are implementing our plans on time. 
And clearly I believe that going forward, without the impacts 
of COVID and some other things, that we will be able to come 
closer to meeting our goals and objectives.
    But, again, we are not where we want to be. This is 
important to the Navy. And, again, we will make sure that the 
Navy is doing everything it can to maintain pace. And we are 
going to have to pick up the pace here.

                     TRACKING SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS

    Mr. Kilmer. Do you envision a future in which we have to--
or you have to set specific targets and metrics and timelines 
and milestones to just ensure that the Navy is keeping on 
track?
    Secretary Austin. Navy has those. But certainly making sure 
that they execute in accordance with the plan is important, and 
if those goals and objectives are insufficient, then we will 
revisit that.
    Mr. Kilmer. Let me ask with the time I have left, I know 
unmanned vehicles are a key part of the cutting-edge 
technologies that DOD is using now and in the future to combat 
threats from Russia and China and elsewhere.
    The Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan calls for an increase 
in unmanned assets. The plan proposes to grow the fleet of 
unmanned subsurface vehicles from zero in the current inventory 
to potentially 50 by fiscal year 2045.
    Growth in these technologies will lean on installations, 
including Keyport in my neck of the woods, which is one of the 
leaders in UUVs, unmanned underwater vehicles.
    As the Navy begins to acquire more unmanned vehicles, how 
can Congress ensure the Navy is ready to operate this 
technology alongside manned vehicles?
    Secretary Austin. Well, we are still learning a lot. I 
would point to some of the work that the Fifth Fleet commander 
is doing out in the Middle East. This is tremendous capability 
that we have just begun to scratch the surface on.
    And in terms of what it is going to take to fully develop 
this, there are a bunch of unknowns now. I believe that this is 
a capability that we need to go after faster, further.
    And so I will work with the CNO and the SecNav to ensure 
that they are identifying what their needs are going forward 
and that this capability is fully integrated into our manned 
surface and underwater capabilities as well, so.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Calvert, any closing remarks?

                     Closing Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am going to 
submit a number of questions for the record regarding 
innovation, hypersonics, Taiwan, fuel costs, a whole bunch of 
things that we didn't have time to cover today.
    But, General Milley, we had discussed this the other day, 
and after our hasty exit from Afghanistan I am concerned about 
taking our eye off that region. Obviously, it is still a 
problem. And, as you know, 3 of the 13 servicemembers killed in 
Afghanistan were either in or near my district in California--
Lance Corporal Kareem Nikoui, Corporal Hunter Lopez, and Lance 
Corporal Dylan Merola. The families of the fallen of these 
folks, these heroes, want obviously justice and accountability.
    We can discuss this more in a classified setting, but, as 
you know, what you are doing to find and prosecute these 
terrorists that conducted that suicide attack at Abbey Gate is 
extremely important, not just to the families but to the morale 
of the United States Marine Corps that obviously went there and 
did their duty.
    Also, I am concerned about the limitations presented over-
the-horizon counterterrorism capability that potentially will 
allow ISIS-K and al-Qaida to regroup. I don't think we should 
take our eye off the ball on that.
    And as much as you can say in this setting to ensure that 
Afghanistan never becomes a haven for terrorists again, I would 
like to hear that. And what kind of capability have we lost to 
conduct counterterrorism missions in the future?
    General Milley. Well, first, Congressman, let me say how 
deeply I feel personally, and I know the Secretary does as 
well, and all of the senior leaders in uniform feel about the 
loss of any of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and 
particularly those 13 that were killed at Abbey Gate. We feel 
that personally and none more personally than the families of 
the fallen.
    So we owe them not only a great deal of gratitude, but we 
owe them accountability for those that killed their loves one. 
We know that, and we have not forgotten, and we will not 
forget, not until justice is served.
    With respect to over-the-horizon capability, I would like 
to go in some detail in a classified session. But you and the 
American people should know that we remain committed as a 
military to the very first mission statement that we got in 
Afghanistan, which was to ensure that Afghanistan never again 
becomes a platform from which terrorists will strike the 
continental United States.
    They haven't done that since 9/11, and we are committed to 
making sure that never happens again.
    We do maintain surveillance, and I won't go into the 
details of how or what forms or mechanisms, and we do have the 
capabilities to conduct strike operations if we see a threat 
emanating from the land of Afghanistan.
    But I would prefer to take the rest of it into a classified 
session.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                   Closing Remarks of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I think you heard quite a bit from this committee concerns 
about the Navy and shipbuilding and the number of ships. And we 
are going to have the Secretary of the Navy in front of us, so 
I am sure he has got a preview of what will be coming their 
way.
    One point that I spoke with, with you, Secretary Austin, 
when we met over a couple of months ago in the Senate, and you, 
General Milley, is the role of any, if possible to repurpose, 
maybe even work with the Coast Guard, with any of the littoral 
combat ships in the Atlantic. China is also making inroads in 
wanting to be in the Atlantic.
    And there might be a mission that they can be refitted for 
or repurposed for, not all of them, but working together with 
you. And I know that that is going to be pencil to paper to 
figure out if that is smart and if that works in working with 
AFRICOM and with the combatant commander in Latin America.
    But there is a simple fact here: The United States does not 
have the shipbuilding industrial base to manufacture, let alone 
maintain a Navy that can completely numerically compete with 
China.
    But quantity alone is not the point. It is quality and 
capability that matter, as you gentlemen pointed out. China 
might have 500 ships, but half of those ships are small support 
vessels that have no qualitative edge over a U.S. combat ship.
    The debate, I believe, needs to be very substantiated and 
not just picking a number that we think might be for the right 
number of ships for the U.S. to have.
    That is why the concept of an integrated deterrence is so 
important, and the new National Defense Strategy talks quite a 
bit about this, the idea that it is necessary to confront China 
as a united front with our Pacific allies, that we do not do it 
alone, we have the support of the Japanese, the South Koreans, 
and the Australians.
    And only by leveraging our collective strength as 
democracies, as democratic nations, as we have done with NATO 
and as we are doing right now in the battle for Ukraine to be a 
free and sovereign nation, we need to bring all our assets 
together.
    So for the record, China, as I said, has about 500 ships, 
230 are smaller support vessels. The United States has 290 
combat vessels. Japan has smaller support vessels, but they 
have 154. South Korea has 160 ships. Some are small support 
vessels. And Australia has 43.
    So as we talk about how to rightsize the number of ships we 
have, but also repair the ships that need to come in, we are 
going to have some real in-depth discussions with the Secretary 
of the Navy about what is happening in our shipyards.
    Another item that this committee needs to work on in 
shipbuilding involves the public-private partnerships that we 
have. It also involves MILCON, and it also involves the 
authorizers. Mr. Calvert and I don't just do this alone. We are 
going to have to have robust discussions.
    Mr. Calvert. Why not?
    Ms. McCollum. Another place where robust discussions have 
to take place--because at the end of the day we are the bill 
payer--needs to be on base realignment. Once again, that is 
going to be the authorizers, it needs to be MILCON and our 
committee.
    And these are uncomfortable discussions to have, I realize 
it. But BRAC, which is under the purview of the authorizers and 
the Military Construction Subcommittee, have to start working 
with us to address these issues.
    I want to fully state my support for a new round of BRAC. 
The Department has stated in recent years that it has nearly 20 
percent excess infrastructure. And we pay for that 
infrastructure to be maintained, and it is doing nothing.
    Many of our installations were aligned and built in the 
wake of World War II. And, as we have clearly discussed today, 
the world has changed. A new round of BRAC is necessary, and I 
believe it could save taxpayers billions of dollars, and it 
could also save the Department a lot of time and energy 
expenditures maintaining something that is not useful to the 
Department anymore.
    I am not asking you to comment on these issues. We will be 
submitting questions for the record and questions for the 
Secretary.
    So I want to thank you both for coming. I want to thank you 
for answering our questions live today and taking all the 
questions that are coming your way in written form.
    And I also want to give a special thank you with--and I 
think you will agree with me--to Mr. McCord. You are on call, 
you are in my office frequently, you take questions that this 
committee staff works on as we prepare the budget, so that we 
have the best bill possible to make sure that our national 
defense needs are met.
    So thank you again. Thank you for all those who serve under 
you, with you, and your families.
    And this will conclude today's hearing, and the 
subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                            Thursday, May 12, 2022.

                NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL--INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

                     NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

                               WITNESSES

VICE ADMIRAL ROBERT SHARP, USN, DIRETOR, NATIONAL GEOSPATIAL--
    INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
CHRISTOPHER J. SCOLESE, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE
    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to classification of the material discussed.]

                                              Friday, May 13, 2022.

                  U.S. AIR FORCE AND U.S. SPACE FORCE

                               WITNESSES

HON. FRANK KENDALL, SECRETARY, U.S. AIR FORCE
GENERAL CHARLES Q. BROWN, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE
GENERAL JOHN W. RAYMOND, CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS, U.S. SPACE FORCE

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. The Defense Subcommittee will come to order.
    This is a hybrid hearing, so we need to address a few 
housekeeping matters.
    Members joining virtually, once you start speaking, there 
is a slight delay before you are displayed on the main screen. 
Speak into the microphone because it will activate the camera 
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your 
remarks if you are not immediately seeing the screen switch. If 
the screen does not change after several seconds, please make 
sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure the correct speaker 
is being heard and displayed, we ask that you remain on mute 
unless you have sought recognition. And I will call on you, or 
if you need to seek recognition, please do so. Myself or a 
staff designee may mute the participants' microphone when they 
are not under recognition if there is inadvertent background 
noise.
    Members who are virtual are responsible for muting and 
unmuting yourselves unless we have a technical issue. If I 
notice when you are recognized and having a technical issue and 
you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask the staff to send you 
a request to unmute yourself. Please accept the request so that 
you are no longer muted.
    And, finally, House rules require me to remind you that we 
have set up an email address to which members can send anything 
they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings. That 
email address has been provided in advance to your staff.
    This morning, members, we are going to adhere as best we 
can to--and that includes the ranking member and myself--to the 
5-minute speaking rule to get as many people in before votes.
    This morning, the subcommittee will receive testimony on 
the fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of the 
Air Force.
    Leading our esteemed witness table here today is Secretary 
Frank Kendall. While this is Mr. Kendall's first appearance 
before us in his capacity as the Secretary of the Air Force, he 
is certainly no stranger, having previously served for nearly 5 
years as the Department of Defense's top acquisition official 
from 2012 to 2017.
    So welcome to you, Mr. Secretary.
    We are also pleased to welcome back, in person this time, 
General Brown, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and General 
Raymond, Chief of Space Operations.
    This year's budget request for the Air Force is making 
large bets on future technology and capabilities, coupled with 
a hold plan to divest--a bold plan to divest legacy aircraft 
systems over the next 5 years. And that is a bold plan, and I 
am with you on that.
    And then there is the bow wave of nuclear modernization 
which is placing pressure on modernizing the conventional 
forces. This pressure will continue throughout the current 5-
year plan and beyond. The result is that the Air Force is 
trading near-term capacity for what hopefully will be 
successful investments in capabilities needed to meet the 
growing challenge from China.
    And, as President Biden stated this week, this 
administration is tackling inflation. As the rest of the 
services, the Department of the Air Force is not only not 
immune to inflation, but I know you gentlemen will be carefully 
scrutinizing how we can keep costs down in your budget and make 
sure any inflation is truly inflation to the requests that are 
being made.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget request for Space Force 
reflects an increase of 30 percent over the fiscal year 2022 
enacted level. Now, some of this growth is due to the 
establishment of a new military personnel account, which was 
previously included in the Air Force budget, and the planned 
transfer of the Space Development Agency into Space Force. 
However, even after adjusting for these transfers, the Space 
Force budget increase is substantial; it is about 18 percent.
    With these increases comes more responsibility to spend the 
funds effectively and efficiently to deliver operationally 
useful capabilities. We would like an update on the progress 
made in fixing space acquisition and bringing greater 
discipline to delivering systems on schedule and within the 
budget.
    I would also like to congratulate Mr. Frank Calvelli, who 
was recently confirmed by the Senate to serve as Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force who will serve as the first-ever 
Space Acquisition Executive. We really welcome his expertise. 
We wish him well.
    I would also like to take a second to thank all the men and 
women who serve under your commands in the Air Force and Space 
Force for their daily diligence and hard work in service to our 
country.
    I would also like to note for our members that we will be 
holding a classified briefing with Secretary Kendall 
immediately or as I have to announce, depending upon votes, 
after this hearing.
    I would like to turn to Ranking Member Calvert for his 
openings remarks.
    Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to thank each of our witnesses for appearing before 
us today. We are grateful for your continued service and the 
service of those under your command.
    While I look forward to working with each of you to 
properly fund and equip our airmen and guardsmen, I am deeply 
troubled by the administration's weak request for defense. As 
we look around the world, we see evolving threats, rapid 
technology changes, more capable adversaries. This requires 
more resources.
    Some aspects of the request are encouraging, such as the 
Air Force prioritization of nuclear modernization. However, I 
question many other aspects, including the divestment of legacy 
systems. Again, the Air Force is looking to reduce its force 
structure, including capable platforms like the F-22, AWACS, 
and A-10. If we are going to proceed with these requests, this 
committee needs a better understanding of how we can meet the 
threat environment with a reduced inventory.
    I am also pleased to see the Space Force continue to grow 
its capabilities. As we on this subcommittee know, nearly all 
our military operations rely on a continued dominance in space.
    General Raymond, I look forward to hearing how you are 
working to right-size and -shape the force.
    Throughout this year, we have heard testimony from our 
geographic combatant commanders. I continue to be extremely 
concerned that the services, and the Air Force in particular, 
are failing to prioritize the warfighting needs of our COCOMs.
    Like the three of you, I am an advocate for accelerating 
change and accepting risk to do so. I am encouraged by the 
advanced-manufacturing-and-software-first approach you are 
taking for the next-generation systems. However, we cannot 
overlook urgent warfighting needs to instead divert funding to 
untested and unproven systems. Hope is not a planning strategy, 
as my old man used to say, and it certainly will not enable a 
capable response to any type of conflict that may break out 
around the globe.
    Before I close, I must reiterate my concern about how 
inflation is eating into the DOD's buying power. Though 
everyone saw it coming, the levels of inflation you are dealing 
with today are the worst we have seen in decades. Even worse, 
we do not know what it will be once we pass the fiscal year 
2023 bill.
    Sharp price increases in fuel, shipping costs, and other 
consumer goods will have a disastrous effect on your ability to 
train. I am a big supporter of the use of augmented and 
virtual-reality training, but pilots need to fly real missions 
against real pilots. I saw the Air Force just canceled a large 
contract for adversarial air. I would like you to get me the 
justification for this and your training replacement plan going 
forward.
    As you know, on June 30, 2020, my constituent Lieutenant 
David Schmitz tragically lost his life during a training 
mission at Shaw Air Force Base. David's death is a painful 
reminder of what we risk with limited flight hours and 
insufficient training. It is clear that more work is necessary 
to ensure this doesn't happen again and that our servicemembers 
don't pay the price for a shrinking budget. It is critical that 
we work together to provide adequate resources to fully fund 
weapons systems, operations, and training.
    Again, thank you for taking the time to be with us.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    Ms. Granger, as ranking member of the full committee, would 
you like to make an opening statement?

                         Remarks of Ms. Granger

    Ms. Granger. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    I want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing before 
us today. I look forward to hearing from you about how the Air 
Force and Space Force are preparing for both current and future 
conflicts.
    I want to begin by restating my serious concern about the 
inadequacy of the administration's request for defense 
spending. Inflation is dramatically decreasing the Department's 
buying power, and this budget proposal fails to provide the 
funds needed to maintain and modernize our military.
    Looking at this year's request, it is clear that the Air 
Force wants to retire older systems to fund new ones. This 
needs to be done in a thoughtful manner. We must be prepared 
for future conflicts, but we should not do that at the expense 
of current needs.
    As the war in Ukraine has shown us, it is critical that the 
United States has a warfighting inventory that is flexible, 
capable, and ready, and we must protect our strategic 
advantages in the air and in space.
    As we develop this year's bill, I look forward to working 
with all of you to ensure that our airmen and guardsmen have 
the tools they need to fulfill our National Defense Strategy. 
Thank you again for taking the time to be with us today.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Gentlemen, we have your full testimony in front of us, and 
members have copies of it made available to them. I would like 
to have as much time as we can for members to ask their 
questions, so I would encourage you, please, to summarize your 
statement. I want you to be complete but as succinct as you can 
be, also, when it comes to responding to our questions.
    So I would like to now proceed with the testimony, 
beginning with Secretary Kendall.
    Mr. Kendall.

                Summary Statement for Secretary Kendall

    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, members of the 
committee, I am honored to have General Brown and General 
Raymond join me in representing the nearly 700,000 airmen and 
guardians that defend our Nation. We are thankful for your 
consistent support over the years.
    Speaking in 1940, General Douglas MacArthur said the 
following: ``The history of failure in war can almost be summed 
up in two words: too late. Too late in comprehending the deadly 
purpose of a potential enemy, too late in realizing the mortal 
danger, too late in preparedness, too late in uniting all 
possible forces for resistance, too late in standing with one's 
friends.''
    I believe MacArthur made this comment after France fell to 
Nazi Germany's aggression but before the attack on Pearl Harbor 
drew the United States into a war in Asia--a time that in some 
ways may be analogous to our own.
    What my colleagues and I are trying to do and what we need 
your help with is to ensure that America's Air and Space Forces 
are never too late in meeting our pacing challenge, which is 
China. We are also concerned about the now obvious and acute 
threat of Russian aggression.
    I would like to offer the committee a briefing that we have 
been giving on the Hill that details the threat that China 
poses more completely. I will be summarizing that in our 
classified session later today. That briefing lays out China's 
efforts to develop and field forces that can defeat the United 
States' ability to project power in the Western Pacific. China 
is also significantly increasing its nuclear weapon inventory 
and working to field long-range strike capabilities that put 
our homeland at risk.
    Today, we will say more about how the Department of the Air 
Force is responding to that threat through our fiscal year 2023 
budget and through future budgets. Our budget submission 
provides a balance between the capabilities we need today and 
investments in the transformation required to address emerging 
threats.
    With the requested budget, the Air and Space Forces will be 
able to support our combatant commanders and the continuing 
campaigns that demonstrate our resolve, support and encourage 
our allies and partners around the world. Simultaneously, our 
fiscal year 2023 budget represents a significant early step in 
the transformation of the Air and Space Forces to the 
capabilities needed to provide enduring advantage.
    An important feature of our budget request is a substantial 
increase in research and development funding. This investment 
is a downpayment on production and sustainment investments and 
hard choices that are yet to come.
    We are comfortable with the balance struck in the budget 
submission. We also want to ensure the committee understands 
that hard choices do lie ahead, at any budget level.
    In this request, we are asking for divestiture of equipment 
that is beyond its service life, too expensive to sustain, and 
not effective against the pacing challenge. These divestments 
are necessary to provide the resources required to transform 
the Department of the Air Force to support integrated 
deterrence.
    We appreciate the committee's support for the divestitures 
we requested last year, and we ask for your support for those 
we are requesting this year and those in the future. Change is 
hard, but losing is unacceptable, and we cannot afford to be 
too late.
    The work we have ongoing at the Department of the Air Force 
to define the necessary transformation is focused on seven 
operational imperatives, each of which is associated with some 
aspect of our ability to project power. As of today, there 
should be no doubt that great-power acts of aggression do occur 
and equally no doubt of how devastating they can be for the 
victims of that aggression and for the global community.
    First, if the Space Force is to fulfill its mission of 
enabling and protecting the Joint Force, we must pivot to 
transformational space architectures and systems. In fiscal 
year 2023, we are asking for funding to begin the 
transformation to resilient missile warning and tracking and to 
resilient communications networks.
    Second, we must integrate and efficiently employ Air and 
Space Forces as part of a highly lethal Joint Force through an 
Advanced Battle Management System, or ABMS. This budget 
continues funding for the early increments of ABMS and the 
ongoing work that will define additional investments that the 
Department needs to cost-effectively modernize our command and 
control, communications, and battle management network.
    Third, to defeat aggression, we must have the ability to 
hold large numbers of air and surface targets at risk in a 
time-compressed scenario. This budget funds the E-7 Wedgetail 
as an interim AWACS replacement.
    Fourth, our control of the air is being challenged, and we 
must proceed to an affordable next-generation air-dominance 
family of systems.
    Fifth, we must have resilient forward-basing for our 
tactical air forces. This budget continues funding for agile 
combat employment in both the Indo-Pacific and European 
regions.
    Sixth, we must ensure the long-term viability and cost-
effectiveness of our global strike capability. Within this 
budget, the B-21 enters production.
    Finally, the Department of the Air Force must be fully 
ready to transition to a wartime posture against a peer 
competitor.
    Members of the committee, I look forward to your support as 
we work to ensure that America's Air and Space Forces are never 
too late. One team, one fight.
    We welcome your questions.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary.
    And now, General Brown, please proceed.

                   Summary Statement of General Brown

    General Brown. Good morning, Chair McCollum, Ranking Member 
Calvert and Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members 
of this committee. It is an honor to appear before you and 
represent the 689,000 total force airmen serving today. I want 
to thank you for your continued support to our airmen and their 
families.
    I appreciate the opportunity to be here today with 
Secretary Kendall and General Raymond to testify on the fiscal 
year 2023 budget submission--a budget that continues to 
accelerate the Air Force's rate of change to address the 
security challenges articulated in the National Defense 
Strategy, a budget that continues to build on the successes of 
fiscal year 2022.
    The world looks to the United States Air Force as a leading 
example, and we make air power look easy, but it is anything 
but. A world-class Air Force requires world-class airmen that 
are organized, trained, and equipped to remain the world's most 
respected Air Force. But if we do not continue to transform, 
this may no longer be the case. We must continue to communicate 
and collaborate with this committee and key stakeholders so we 
can accelerate change.
    Last year's budget communicated the Air Force that the 
Nation needs for 2030 and beyond. Our message has not changed 
for fiscal year 2023, and it won't change in future budget 
submissions. We must modernize to counter strategic 
competitors. The PRC remains our pacing challenge, and Russia 
remains an acute threat.
    So we must balance between the demands of today and the 
requirements for tomorrow. Failure to do so puts our ability to 
execute the National Defense Strategy at risk. It puts 
soldiers, sailors, marines, guardians, and airmen, along with 
our allies and partners, at risk. And it puts our ability to 
place air power anytime anywhere at risk.
    The only way our Air Force and the Nation will be 
successful balancing risk between today and tomorrow is if we 
collaborate. In fact, ``collaboration'' is a critical word in 
``Accelerate, Change, or Lose.''
    We are beginning to see successes of our collaboration 
efforts towards transition to the future. This year's budget 
brought substantial increases to research and development. It 
is focused on placing meaning military capability into the 
hands of our airmen. Investment in systems and concepts allow 
our Air Force to penetrate and dominate in any scenario.
    Just as important as our investments, we have been 
successful in beginning to divest systems that are increasingly 
irrelevant against today's and tomorrow's threats. We did not 
do this alone; the support of Congress is much appreciated.
    Accelerating change is the impetus behind the Department of 
the Air Force's operational imperatives. This means moving with 
a sense of urgency and doing so in the right direction. This 
year's National Defense Strategy provides us the needed 
direction. And when you combine the operational imperatives and 
the National Defense Strategy, you see this year's budget is in 
alignment with what our Nation demands of our Air Force.
    The Air Force we are building is critical to integrated 
deterrence, campaigning, and building enduring advantages. 
Because nuclear deterrence is the backstop of integrated 
deterrence, this year's budget ensures our nuclear portfolios 
are fully funded.
    Current events are emblematic of how our Air Force is 
campaigning. We deployed Air Force assets within days, shared 
vital information and increased interoperability with our 
allies and partners.
    Finally, the Air Force invests in enduring advantages that 
allow us to defend the homeland, project our power globally, 
and operate as a joint, allied, and partner force.
    More than anyone, I want tomorrow's airmen to be ready to 
respond when our Nation calls. This includes investing in 
programs that allow all of our airmen and their families to 
reach their full potential. As the United States Air Force 
celebrates its 75th anniversary this year, we are committed to 
remaining the world-class Air Force America can be proud of.
    Current events demonstrate the world is growing more 
complex and uncertain, but I am certain we will need air power 
anytime anywhere. I am certain this year's budget is another 
step towards the transformation of the Air Force. I am certain 
there is still more work to be done. Therefore, we must 
continue to communicate and collaborate so we can accelerate 
change.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today, and I 
look forward to your questions.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    General Raymond, please proceed.

                  Summary Statement of General Raymond

    General Raymond. Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, 
Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members of the 
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today with 
Secretary Kendall and General Brown.
    On behalf of the almost 14,000 guardians stationed around 
the world, let me begin by thanking each of you for your 
continued leadership and your strong support of our guardians 
and their families.
    As we testify before you today, we find ourselves at a 
strategic inflection point where we are faced with an acute 
threat from Russia and a pacing challenge from China.
    The Russian invasion of Ukraine has showcased the 
importance of space to all instruments of national power. 
Information derived from space, including commercial imagery, 
has been instrumental in dominating the information 
environment, communicating with forces, and detecting missile 
threats. It is clear that the character of war has changed, and 
space is foundational to that change.
    However, Russia's recent direct-ascent anti-satellite 
missile test last November is just the latest evidence of 
efforts to deny our Nation the advantages that space provides.
    Just as concerning, our pacing challenge, China, is 
integrating space into their military operations to detect, 
track, target, and strike the Joint Force, putting our sailors, 
soldiers, airmen, marines, and guardians on the ground, in the 
air, and on the sea at high risk.
    We cannot allow potential adversaries to gain an 
unchallenged ability to conduct space-enabled attacks. Our 
joint forces will remain at risk until we can complete the 
transformation to a resilient space architecture and protect 
the Joint Force from space-enabled attacks.
    This is critical to supporting all aspects of the National 
Defense Strategy, integrated deterrence campaigning, and 
building enduring advantage.
    To remain the world's leader in space, this President's 
budget request prioritizes space and invests $24.5 billion to 
ensure our assured access to and freedom to maneuver in space.
    The largest share is research, development, testing, and 
evaluation funding, almost $16 billion, to modernize our 
forces, a portion of which will begin the pivot to a more 
resilient and mission-capable missile warning and missile 
tracking force design.
    Notably, this includes funding for the Space Development 
Agency, which is included in the Space Force budget for the 
first time this year.
    In contrast to legacy approaches, this architecture will be 
built to survive and degrade gracefully under attack, help 
manage escalation, and be rapidly reconstituted. This 
transformation will also allow us to capitalize more fully on 
two of our national advantages--our commercial industry and our 
allies and partners.
    To increase readiness, we are funding operational test and 
training infrastructure. This ensures that we can get the right 
capability on orbit and in the hands of operators trained in 
operating in a contested domain. Robust test and training 
capabilities are also critical to fielding our next-generation 
systems.
    Other key investments include increased funding for weapons 
system sustainment and a more resilient Global Positioning 
System and next-generation satellite communications.
    Finally and most importantly, we invest in our guardians 
and their families. Over the past 2 years, we have overhauled 
how we recruit, assess, train, develop, promote, employ, and 
take care of guardians. Resilient space power isn't just about 
satellites; it is also about guardians.
    This is one of the reasons why we are seeking the 
integration of Active Duty and Reserve forces into a single 
hybrid component structure. This space component is central to 
our human capital plan and will allow us to best align our 
full-time and part-time members. This is our number-one 
legislative proposal, and we look forward to working with this 
committee to implement this bold and transformational approach.
    As Secretary Kendall has mentioned, change is hard and 
losing is unacceptable. The transformation we are beginning now 
is essential to protecting the Joint Force and for the security 
of space.
    Thank you again for your leadership and support of our 
Space Force. It is an honor to appear before you, and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                 SPACE FORCE ACQUISITIONS AND PROGRAMS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you all.
    For members who have just come in, we are going to adhere 
to the 5-minute rule, as we don't know when votes are going to 
be called, for all of us asking questions today.
    Gentlemen, as you know, delivering space systems on time 
and within budget has been a challenge for quite some time. 
Examples: GPS ground control segment was more than 6 years late 
and 70 percent over budget; GPS handsets for warfighters are 
years behind schedule; and the current missile warning system 
was delivered 9 years late and $15 billion over budget.
    So, fixing acquisition is one of the primary reasons why 
Space Force was created.
    So, Secretary Kendall, you and I are going to have an 
opportunity to talk later today, so I am going to focus on 
Space Force.
    We need to make sure the overall Space Force 5-year budget 
is executable and it is affordable. The next 5-year budget 
estimate is basically flat, rising a bit in 2024 before falling 
below the 2023 proposed budget level.
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown, do you feel that the 
fiscal year 2023 request and then the out-year projections 
reflect what it will actually take to deliver successful 
acquisitions and programs?
    There are significant budget shortfalls that you are aware 
of over the next few years, and if so, what programs could 
possibly be put at risk?
    Does Space Force believe it can really carry out its 
mission with that flat budget, reprioritizing current 
activities, and if so, what would you prioritize?
    Secretary Kendall and then General Raymond.
    Secretary Kendall. Chair McCollum, that is a great 
question. I think it is a very perceptive one.
    The transformation I talked about and the difficult choices 
that lie ahead are related to what you just asked me. We are 
starting the transformation of our capabilities in space with 
the missile warning architecture and the communications 
architectures that we are investing in in 2023.
    We are also working to define our other needs, both to 
provide the services that enable the Joint Force from space and 
also to protect the Joint Force from possible attack based on 
targeting by our enemies from space. We have a lot of work 
still to do there, but we are off to, I think, a very solid 
start.
    I do not anticipate that future budgets will remain flat or 
go down for the Space Force. Quite the opposite. But we still 
have to define our requirements. We have to make sure that the 
programs we put in place, as you indicated, are structured for 
success, so that we don't have massive schedule and cost 
overruns. We all want to avoid that.
    There are opportunities through emerging technologies and 
through commercial best practices that I think will make that 
possible. But we are going to still have to be disciplined and 
we are going to have to be smart about how we invest in space.
    So I think that is the picture that we see coming, okay? At 
this point, I think the 2023 budget is a good start, gives us a 
good start towards those types of architectures, and gives us 
the resources we need to decide what next steps we need to 
take.
    General Raymond. Yes, ma'am, I agree wholeheartedly with 
Secretary Kendall. We still have work to do. We have a great 
force design; it has united the Department around this force 
design. Now we have to acquire it.
    If we acquire this force design the same way we do legacy 
systems, it would be unaffordable. We have to change the way we 
do business. Central to that is the work that we have done to 
modernize our acquisition system.
    You had mentioned previous--the current Constellation and 
the overruns it had. The current program, Next-Gen GEO, is on 
schedule. It has met every performance parameter--it has met 
all of its key performance parameters. It completed its 
critical design review. And it is currently 25 months ahead of 
the average time it takes from start to launch of a program.
    So we are keeping laser-focused on this to make sure that 
we can deliver on a cost and time that is critical to our 
Nation.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, thank you, gentlemen. I am impressed 
with your enthusiasm that you are going to be on time, on 
target, on budget. But I do have some concerns, especially in 
light of what both the ranking member and I brought up--
inflation.
    Inflation is something that wasn't fully, I am sure, baked 
into this budget. But inflation in general doesn't mean an 
across-the-board increase. And I appreciate your due diligence 
in making sure that when we have contracts or concerns about 
inflation that we are counting the right things in the right 
basket for inflation and not just taking across-the-board 
increases.
    So we will follow up with some more questions for the 
record, but for right now, I thank you.
    And, members, I am yielding back time.
    Mr. Calvert.

                              MQ-9 REAPER

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    General Brown, you are aware of my disagreement with the 
Air Force views on the future of the MQ-9 Reaper. It seems that 
when you do not want to keep an aircraft in your inventory, you 
label it ``not survivable'' without clearly describing what it 
means and requesting to divest it.
    I understand that if we are in a kinetic war with China 
that the MQ-9 will not be able to collect ISR on adversarial 
territory. But most of the world is uncontested airspace, and 
COCOMs in these areas desperately need more ISR. Every single 
combatant commander I talk to wants more ISR and specifically 
the MQ-9.
    I have four questions I would like you to answer.
    One, can you put more context and specifics into the term 
``survivability''?
    Two, are we meeting our geographic combatant commanders' 
operational needs?
    And, three, the Air Force seems to have no problem 
justifying the purchase of fourth-gen manned fighter aircraft 
at a higher cost than the more survivable fifth-gen, yet it 
refuses to see any value in a fourth-gen unmanned affordable 
ISR platform. I can see value in a mix of the fourth- and 
fifth-generation platforms, so how do you explain the Air 
Force's differing positions on these platforms?
    And, finally, if the Air Force position is to maintain the 
current fleet until 2030 and then retire the MQ-9s, when will 
its replacement be prototyped, tested, and then fielded.
    So, I will leave the rest of the time to answer that.
    General Brown. Appreciate the question, Representative 
Calvert. Let me put the--all of it into context.
    There is a mix of capabilities that we are bringing forth 
specific to the MQ-9 and to ISR and, really, more broadly 
across the Air Force. The Air Force is in high demand from our 
combatant commanders, and I speak to them quite often.
    As you look at the MQ-9s in this particular budget, there 
are 100 of them that will actually get transferred to an 
intergovernment transfer, but there will be no impact to the 
combatant commanders on MQ-9--no impact to the combatant 
commanders. We will maintain the number of combat lines. And 
the same thing with our----
    Mr. Calvert. Well, why do they--they disagree with that. 
Why is that?
    General Brown. You know, they are--I know they are 
demanding customers, but we are providing them the ISR that we 
do have. And this is why, again, the Air Force is in high 
demand. As far as their needs, there is a balance of needs 
between what the combatant commands--not only from MQ-9s but 
the other platforms.
    And to put the survivability piece in context, I can talk 
to you more in the classified session on the specifics of these 
platforms. So there will be a mix of the kinetic and survival 
persistent with the MQ-9s. And so we will continue to have MQ-
9s in our inventory.
    Versus the fourth- and fifth-gen. Just like the mix on our 
fighter fleet between fourth- and fifth-gen, we will have the 
same kind of mix with our ISR platforms. And you will have 
platforms like the MQ-9 and some of our other big-wing ISR. 
With the other classified forums, we will have more chance to 
talk about in the classified session.
    And so, there is a balance between the current fleet that 
we have today and the fleet we will have to have in the future, 
and we have to balance it against the threat. And the threat we 
have been up against for the past 30 years, particularly in the 
Middle East, has been very permissive. The threats that we face 
in the future and we are facing today are less permissive, 
which is why we have to have a mix of capability to operate 
both in that permissive environment and the less permissive 
environment that we expect to see from our growing adversaries, 
particularly the People's Republic of China.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, I would point out that, not just the 
Middle East is permissive, but Africa is permissive, South 
America is permissive. About 90 percent of the globe is.
    And, also, when we take a look at the cost differential 
between so-called survivable ISR versus what you define as not 
survivable, it is significant. So we need to look at that and 
determine whether or not that risk is really worth it, both in 
the short term and the long term.
    I look forward to working with you on that, but, as you 
know, I disagree with your basic premise on this.
    General Brown. And this is an area where, you know, we 
don't do this just blindly. Part of this is, we do levels of 
analysis to go through this and make sure we, to the best of 
our ability, get the right mix.
    But I am very happy to work with you and the rest of the 
committee and be able to talk to you in more detail about our 
approach, particularly as we get into our classified session.

                     SERVICES AND ISR CAPABILITIES

    Mr. Calvert. Just one last point. I just want to point out, 
as you know, the Marine Corps is buying more for INDOPACOM. So 
obviously they believe that they can't count on the Air Force 
to provide that service, which is really frustrating to me. 
Because, in the beginning of this thing, the Air Force was 
going to run all the ISR. Then the CIA had to do it, and the 
Army had to do it, and then now the Marine Corps is going to do 
it. And it should have been, quite frankly, all under one 
umbrella, the United States Air Force. But, obviously, that 
genie is out of the bottle.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Ruppersberger, you are recognized.

                        SPACE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

    Mr. Ruppersberger. General Raymond, in recent years, the 
Space Development Agency, SDA, has accelerated its pursuit of 
low Earth orbit constellations. Now, I believe that the 
proliferation of a LEO satellite constellation is critical to 
our Nation's future efforts in data, communication, missile 
defense, projectile navigation, and battlefield operations in 
war.
    Now, as Space Force fully absorbs SDA in fiscal year 2023, 
how does your budget ensure that we maintain the authorities 
and efficiencies we need at SDA to remain on track with our 
important programs?
    General Raymond. Thank you for the question, sir.
    I, too, believe that proliferation of a low Earth orbit 
satellite constellation is critical. The cornerstone of our 
budget is exactly that. The Space Development Agency has helped 
inform that. They have been working side-by-side with us.
    As we bring SDA in, their capabilities, their prototypes 
are included in this. The way Secretary Kendall has worked with 
R&E, the parent of SDA today, is that we have already treated 
them like they are part of our team. We are already integrating 
them. And as we are going to bring them in, we want to bring 
them in as they are to give them the flexibility to be able to 
operate as they are, and then we are going to provide support 
to make sure that they stay lean and efficient and go fast.

                          INTEGRATION OF SPACE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall, now that we are more than 2 years in, 
how do you assess the Department of the Air Force's management 
of building and integrating the Space Force? And what hard 
budget decisions did you have to make in fiscal year 2023 to 
ensure we maintain our advantage in the space domain?
    And I realize it is a broad question, but give it a shot.
    Secretary Kendall. No, I think, overall, I am very happy 
with what I inherited as I came into office about a year ago. I 
think General Raymond and his team have done a fantastic job. 
They have really laid out a path forward to acquire resilient 
capabilities, and they are also dealing with what we need to do 
to protect the Joint Force from targeting from space by our 
adversaries.
    So, we are on the right track, and we have made some good 
steps in the right direction, but there is an enormous amount 
of work still to be done. We have to define the rest of the 
architectures that we are going to need for space services. And 
we have a number of things underway we will talk about in the 
classified forum that are important as well.
    One of the key things we need to do is work closely with 
the intelligence community to ensure that the ISR, which came 
up earlier in the hearing, that we need from space is provided 
effectively from space. The intelligence community has an 
intelligence mission, but it also understands it needs to 
support operational forces. And we are working in close 
collaboration with the intelligence community to define 
requirements that meet both of our needs and then systems that 
will do that as well.
    So, that is a work in progress, and that is one of the 
things that we will be addressing in the budget in future 
submissions.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, there was a lot of debate about 
that, whether we should do it, whether we shouldn't do it. 
There were a lot of different opinions. But we have done it, 
and we need to stand behind it.
    Secretary Kendall. ``We,'' the Space Force?
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
    Secretary Kendall. Absolutely, Congressman.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And we need to stand behind it, whatever 
the thoughts were----
    Secretary Kendall. We are fully committed to making it a 
success.
    Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. And move forward. And this 
committee feels the same way. I think.
    I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. I think we all want Space Force to be a huge 
success.
    We are next going to hear from Ms. Granger and then Mr. 
Kilmer.

                         F-35 REDUCTION IMPACT

    Ms. Granger. The commander of the U.S. European Command 
testified about the incredible capabilities of the F-35 
deployed in the region. However, the budget request reduced the 
number of F-35s the Air Force wants to buy.
    Secretary Kendall, can you please explain the reduced 
number in your request and if the Air Force is still committed 
to the F-35 and to what degree?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman Granger, I will answer the 
second part first.
    Absolutely committed to the F-35. It is the cornerstone of 
our fighter fleet and will be for many years to come. And 
people ask me if we are committed to the program. We are 15 
years into production, and I expect we will be buying it for 
another 15 years.
    The reduction we took this year--and we will probably 
extend it the next year--was based on a number of factors. 
There are a number of things we need to do in the TacAir 
portfolio. One of them was to buy out the remaining number of 
inventory of F-15EXes that we need for the capabilities that 
the F-15EX would provide. We want to increase the funding for 
the next generation of air dominance, which will be the follow-
on to the F-22. We have some other programs that we need to 
move forward as well.
    We also are very interested and insistent on getting the 
Block IV capabilities for F-35. And the contractor has been 
late in delivering them so far, so we want to see evidence that 
they will be able to accomplish that before we increase the 
production. So that was a major factor as well.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Is the gentlewoman yielding back or does the 
gentlewoman have another question?
    Mr. Kilmer.

                       REALIGNMENT OF THE KC-135

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    And thanks for being with us.
    I was hoping to quickly cover two topics.
    Secretary Kendall, as you know, Air Mobility Command is the 
critical backbone of our Nation's response to global threats. 
Air refueling is a key part of Mobility Command's operations. 
We are fortunate to have both the 92nd Air Refueling Wing and 
the Air National Guard's 141st Air Refueling Wing at Fairchild 
Air Force Base on the other side of my State, in Spokane.
    Despite its critical role, the 141st Air Refueling Wing 
still operates as a classic associate unit without KC-135s.
    As the Air Force brings more KC-46s into service, is the 
Air Force exploring options to realign KC-135s to units like 
the 141st to provide added capability for the Air Force?
    Secretary Kendall. We are in the process of assessing where 
KC-46 will be based for the remainder of the fleet that we 
currently have, we project.
    We are constantly looking at the basing for cost of force 
basically. One of the things that we do pay attention to, of 
course, is that there is an enormous amount of political 
interest in retaining capability. One of the things we are 
asking people to look at is that flying capability isn't always 
the best thing for you to have. There are other capabilities, 
such as cyber and battle management capabilities, that we need 
as well.
    A lot of our older aircraft are going to be retired. KC-135 
has served us very well, but I was on one recently and that is 
a very old airplane. We will be bringing down in our request 
and going through the FYDP the total number of tankers 
modestly. That is a request we have of the committee.
    But we are going to recapitalize that fleet, and we are 
going to continue to do that. Tankers are an incredibly 
important part of our force structure. But they are not the 
only thing that is important. I mean, you have to balance an 
awful lot of competing things as we do our planning for the 
future.

                      HOUSING FOR SERVICE MEMBERS

    Mr. Kilmer. The other thing I wanted to quickly touch on 
was just housing. I know that you are dealing with issues 
related to recruitment and retention of servicemembers.
    We have seen across the country a big spike in the cost of 
single-family homes. In my neck of the woods, it has gone up 24 
percent from the last year. Rent is up about 19 percent since 
the beginning of the pandemic.
    And that affects everybody but particularly our 
servicemembers since, unlike civilians, they can't really 
choose where they live and have to deal with an increasingly 
competitive housing market.
    I applaud the DOD for increasing the Basic Allowance for 
Housing at the beginning of this year, but it is clearly not 
enough. I was hoping you could talk about what is being done to 
ensure that servicemembers can actually afford rent or purchase 
a house at their new duty station and whether you are exploring 
any ways to increase on-base housing options as well.
    Secretary Kendall. We are looking at all sorts of ways to 
address this.
    What has happened, of course, as you indicated, is that the 
cost of housing has gone up fairly dramatically and fairly 
quickly. Secretary Austin is personally very concerned about 
this, and we have had a number of conversations about it.
    We are taking steps to, in some places, increase Basic 
Allowance for Housing, you know, out of cycle, if you will.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yes.
    Secretary Kendall. And we need the support of the committee 
as we go forward, particularly as inflation continues, making 
adjustments at interim periods, not just on an annual basis. So 
it is something we are tracking very carefully.
    We are trying to make sure that we maintain the quality of 
our on-base housing as well. That is an important thing for us 
too.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Thank you, members, for being so considerate of everyone.
    Mr. Cole and then Mrs. Kirkpatrick.

                   EARLY WARNING AND CONTROL SYSTEMS

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
    Gentlemen, great to have you.
    I want to begin by just associating myself with the remarks 
of the ranking member of both the full committee and the 
subcommittee about these concerns about divestiture and about 
the overall size of the budget. It is just frankly, with all 
due respect, too low in the kind of world that we are living in 
today. And I suspect that will be something the full committee 
and certainly the subcommittee will struggle with going 
forward.
    An example of this, or one of my concerns, is--number one, 
I want to begin with a compliment. Thank you for beginning to 
replace our airborne early warning and control systems. They 
are way out of date, they are old, they are aging. But I am a 
little worried about the speed with which you are retiring E-
3s.
    And, again, we had this fight during the Obama years, and I 
remember talking to the chief then. He said, ``Look, I am 
having to cannibalize planes I don't want to give up to keep 
planes flying that I need.'' I understand that dilemma. We 
should never put you in that dilemma. But I think you are in it 
again right now. These are, again, high-demand assets from 
combatant commanders' standpoint.
    So give me an idea of how you are balancing this off, 
retiring some. Because I am very worried, at the end, we will 
retire capabilities that we need right now, not have them when 
we need them right now, and then, frankly, probably not have as 
much on the other side of this as we would like to have.
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Congressman.
    We have a gap today in airborne early warning capability. 
The current AWACSes are not where they need to be to deal with 
the threats that we are currently facing, and it is very 
difficult to maintain them. Their availability rate is less 
than 50 percent.
    So what we hope to do by retiring 15 this year is to be 
able to increase the availability of the balance. A couple of 
ways we can do that: We transfer people over to those aircraft 
to do maintenance on them, and then we also have parts 
available from the aircraft that we are retiring.
    What we need to do is to accelerate the capability that we 
really need, which in the interim is the E-7, and get that as 
quickly as possible. There are limited possibilities to do 
that. It takes about 2 years to get the new airplanes that we 
are going to be modifying and then another 2 years, roughly, to 
modify them.
    We are looking at creative ways to try to accelerate that 
process and to reduce the risk in it. And we are all very aware 
this is an important priority for the Air Force. We are trying 
to do everything we can to move as quickly----
    Mr. Cole. Well, I appreciate that, but this is not like the 
KC-135, where there are hundreds of them--15 out of 32. And 
then say we are going to have capability 4 years out is really 
high-risk. I mean, you are going to have a period of time there 
where you just simply don't have the aircraft that you need for 
early warning and control.
    Secretary Kendall. The problem is, we don't have the 
aircraft we need today. The AWACSes that we have today are not 
adequate for the threats that we----
    Mr. Cole. I totally agree. I have been making this argument 
for years. So, again, I praise you for that. I think you are 
right to be bringing on new capability.
    What I worry about is losing over the next 4 years--and 4 
years is a long time. And I have watched us--again, I would 
rather replace capability; as it comes on, retire aircraft. But 
this idea of retiring this many now and hoping that we will 
have what we need in 4 years is a big risk, to me, and one that 
I think is not wise to take.
    And, again, we are putting you in that spot, in my view, by 
not giving you the budget that you need to add capabilities, 
you know, or replace capabilities in a timely fashion.
    But, anyway, that is--and, you know, just to be honest with 
you, I see that throughout the budget. And, again, I put the 
blame for that on us, not on you. We have stretched some of 
these platforms way too long, you are exactly right, on things 
like the KC-135 or things like the E-3s. We just should have 
done this a long time ago.
    But retiring them too quickly now, I think, is a risk. And 
I would rather us give us more resources and have you bring on 
capabilities and, sort of, retire as you bring on, as opposed 
to have a period where we drop from 32 planes down to 17 or so. 
I mean, that is just--I don't see how you could meet the needs 
that you have from your combatant commanders if we made that 
kind of decision.
    And I suspect we see that again in area after area. I think 
that is really where the ranking member was at with her 
concerns on the F-35. Same thing.
    I don't have a lot of time, and I want to follow the good 
example set by others, Madam Chair, so I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick, then followed by Mr. Womack.

                             A-10 AIRCRAFT

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to all of the witnesses.
    Secretary Kendall and General Brown, as you are well aware, 
my district is home to the largest concentration of A-10 
aircraft in the world, with 89 based at Davis-Monthan Air Force 
Base. These uniquely capable aircraft have been called upon 
time and time again to deliver incredibly effective close air 
support in a way that no other platform has been able to do, 
saving countless allied lives in the process.
    The budget request proposes a divestment of the fleet to 
260 airframes, but the budget documents make clear that the Air 
Force only intends on procuring wing replacement kits for a 
fleet size of no more than 218 aircraft.
    You both have indicated that you do not believe there will 
be many viable mission sets for the A-10 in the near future. 
This is something we have heard from the Air Force for more 
than a decade, and yet the A-10 continues to be called upon.
    The security situation in Ukraine--which is largely a 
mission the A-10 was designed for, by the way--demonstrates 
that the world is an incredibly dangerous and unpredictable 
place. I was glad to read this week that A-10s are deploying to 
Eastern Europe to support the Army's Swift Response exercise, 
underscoring the jet's utility there.
    I was also glad to read this week that the Air Force has 
determined that the A-10, and in particular its unique gun 
system, is capable of destroying even the most modern armor in 
contested environments, with the Air Force's own press release 
stating, quote, ``The A-10 is well-suited for agile combat 
employment roles, and this test proves the A-10 can continue to 
deliver massive rapid fire power with devastating effects on 
enemy vehicles in a contested environment,'' end quote.
    Clearly, there remains a mission for the A-10 beyond 
counterinsurgency. So my question for Secretary Kendall and 
General Brown: Do you agree that new wing sets must be procured 
in order to keep these aircraft flying into the 2030s?
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, I am going to give you an 
additional 30 seconds beyond what you have to answer that, and 
then we will go to the next question.
    Secretary Kendall. Our plan with the A-10 this year is to 
remove 21 aircraft and replace them with F-16s in Indiana. So 
we have a relatively modest request this year. Over time, 
though, we do intend to divest the A-10s. We don't want to re-
wing airplanes that we intend to divest in the not-too-distant 
future.
    I am an Army officer, former Army officer, and I am a big 
proponent of close air support, and I have been a fan of the A-
10 for almost my entire career. The problem is that it is an 
old aircraft that was designed for an environment that is not 
the one that we are most concerned about now. It was designed 
to be very survivable against ground fire in particular. It is 
not survivable against modern threats.
    And when we look at our pacing challenges, we really have 
to get on to our next generations of capability. And, 
unfortunately, the A-10 just is not a cost-effective platform 
in that environment.
    Let me ask General Brown to say a little bit more about 
that.
    General Brown. The key part for the A-10 is to be able to 
operate in an area that has air superiority. And that is an 
area that, when we think about the A-10, we have to actually be 
able to take down the threat before it becomes air.
    And I can just tell you from practical experience when I 
was the air component commander at United States Central 
Command, when the Russians came into Syria, we had to move the 
operations for the A-10 because they could not protect 
themselves from the fighter aircraft above.
    And so, there are aspects really concerning the threat that 
drives the reason why we are making a move away from the A-10 
and to a portfolio of fighter capabilities. It is multirole. 
And as I work with our combatant commanders and talk to them--I 
know they are exercising in EUCOM right now, but the aspect of 
what they want on a recurring basis is this multirole 
capability, particularly even at CENTCOM today, as I have 
talked to the new CENTCOM commander.
    So, it is a transition to a future portfolio capability 
that is designed for the threats that we expect to see--we see 
today and threats we expect to see in the future.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you very much. Thank you to the 
witnesses.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back. My time has expired.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Womack and then Ms. Kaptur.

                         BRIDGE TANKER PROGRAM

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Generals, thank you for your service to our great country 
and the work that you are doing presently.
    To the distinguished Secretary, I want you to know that you 
are not alone that first week in November, even though you are 
situated between two Air Force generals, that when you try to 
channel that inner Black Knight loyalty, that I will be with 
you. I will have your back.
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Womack. Football aside, I would like to just ask a 
question about the bridge tanker program. I know it is a 
program you are tracking closely, one you have been asked about 
in your other hearings on the Hill.
    I know the Air Force has not determined the requirements 
yet for this bridge tanker. Can you share with us when you 
expect the requirements to be finalized and what AMC is looking 
at in developing these requirements? A critical piece of our 
National Defense Strategy.
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Congressman.
    We are looking at what our operational needs will be going 
forward and what the cost-effectiveness would be of various 
options.
    Key to that is what we need operationally first, right? And 
Air Mobility Command is looking at that. They are evaluating 
what class of tanker, in terms of capacity and range and so on, 
will be the best in the mix as we go forward.
    At one time, it looked as if we would be moving towards a 
platform that was significantly different than the KC-46. That 
is not at all clear at this point. So I have been trying to be 
very clear with people about the fact that the likelihood of a 
competition has diminished as we have gotten to understand the 
requirements better.
    But we are not through with that process yet. We should be 
making a decision later this calendar year on exactly what the 
path forward will be. But I want to be as transparent as 
possible about where the situation is. There is no decision at 
this point in time, though.

                           AIRCRAFT READINESS

    Mr. Womack. I share some of the same concerns that my 
colleague from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole, rose, particularly where it 
concerns the E-3 AWACS program.
    But, generally speaking, I have concerns about aircraft 
readiness. And when you look across the spectrum of our aerial 
platforms, mission-capable rates are a big concern of mine, and 
I know they are a big concern to the force as a whole.
    And, ironically enough, I might be wrong, but I think the 
A-10 probably has a mission-capable rate that is higher than a 
lot of the other platforms. But I do support the divestiture 
targets that you are looking at for terms of efficiency and 
need and to be able to free up resources to address some of our 
other needs.
    How does that fiscal year 2023 budget process address this 
issue? And what are your overall goals and expectations for 
some of these numbers moving forward?
    Secretary Kendall. We are working to increase and improve 
the availability of our aircraft. You know, I talked about 
balance in my opening statement. We are trying to balance 
current capabilities, which is a function of what resources we 
put into that, versus resources we put into other things that 
are important to us.
    And I think we have struck a reasonable balance. We are 
trying to meet the needs of our combatant commanders around the 
world. We are trying to focus, in particular, on the pacing 
challenge in the Indo-Pacific region. But, also, with 
developments in Europe, we are having to basically make sure 
that we are as capable there as we can be, as well as support 
ongoing requirements in other places.
    So, when we look at all that, we try to make sure that we 
can maintain that forward presence and capability as well as a 
surge capability if it might be needed. At the same time, we 
are, of course, investing in the future.
    So we think we have the balance about in the right place at 
this point in time, but we are always looking for ways to 
improve it.
    Let me ask General Brown to add a few words to that.
    General Brown. Very much so. And that is the analysis we 
do. And we do a number of--and what I really focus on is the 
analysis to look at what we project the threat to be but also 
how we balance doing what the combatant commanders need.
    And as I talk to combatant commanders and talk in the 
building, I talk about balancing risk over time. It is the risk 
that we take today with the combatant commanders, as you look 
to the future, the risk that we take in the future. And so how 
do you balance that so that we don't buy down all our risk here 
today and then, actually, when we get to a future, we have a 
lot more risk? And so that is part of the conversation we are 
having as we move forward.
    Mr. Womack. Well, I share the same concerns that Mr. Cole 
broached. Look, this problem is on you, and it is really from 
us, and I do believe that we need to increase the spending so 
that we can buy down some of that risk. And so that will be an 
effort, I think, that a lot of us will continue to fight going 
forward.
    But I do appreciate the service to your great country, and 
thank you so much.
    And I will yield back my time.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur and then Mr. Carter.

        AIR FORCE ASSISTANCE TO HUMANITARIAN GROUPS FOR UKRAINE

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
    Gentlemen, thank you for your great service to our country.
    Secretary Kendall, I wanted to just ask you a question. In 
terms of the current conflict in Europe with Russia's war on 
Ukraine, has the Air Force, both in terms of regular as well as 
Guard, been integrated in a manner that allows excess space 
that may exist on cargo flights that are going over to Europe 
anyway be made available to humanitarian groups in our country 
that are attempting to get goods there?
    For example, rotary. There are many humanitarian groups, 
church groups, hospitals, and so forth. It is so expensive by 
air.
    Have you been asked to identify flights that are going over 
anyway that might take goods into some of our allies that then 
assure that it gets into Ukraine?
    Secretary Kendall. Representative Kaptur, I am not aware of 
that. I can--we can check and take that for the record, General 
Brown.
    Our activities have largely been about supporting the 
conflict and providing things that--as you are aware, the 
President has provided a lot of aid to Ukraine.
    Ms. McCollum. Yes.
    Secretary Kendall. The Defense Department has been very 
active in providing that and in moving it over to Europe. So we 
have had a lot of flights that are going for that purpose.
    I am not aware to the extent to which there may be, you 
know, additional capacities that wasn't used. It could be used 
for the purpose you described, but it sounds like a reasonable 
thing for us to be doing. I would have to take it for the 
record to see what has been done or what could be done there.
    General Brown.

                         SPACE FORCE LOCATIONS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Yes.
    General Brown. Very much, Secretary.
    I am not aware of any requests so far, but we are willing 
to take a hard look at that and see where we can assist.
    Ms. Kaptur. There are certain assets sitting on the ground 
all over this country, and I appreciate your interest in 
looking at that. If someone could get back to me at some point, 
I would be very grateful for that. Thank you very much.
    I wanted to ask, General Raymond, you have to stand up 
something brand new. That is really hard. And I wanted to ask 
you, as you look at where the Space Force is currently arrayed 
across the country, both in terms of physical space as well as 
human infrastructure, is it largely centered on one of the 
coasts? Is it like East Coast? Is it arrayed across the 
country? Is there anything in the Great Lakes? Could you give 
us a sense of what that looks like across our country, not 
specific locations but just in general?
    General Raymond. Thank you. And I am privileged to stand up 
the Space Force, and I have a great team and I am proud of that 
team.
    Largely, with space being a global domain, you have to have 
capabilities around the globe to be able to operate. In CONUS, 
we operate in about six big hubs from California to the East 
Coast. We have got California, Colorado, a couple of different 
places in Colorado. Florida, New Mexico are some of the big 
hubs. And then we have smaller sites stationed in northern 
California, Cape Cod, North Dakota; Thule, Greenland; Clear, 
Alaska. So, we are a global--in Europe.
    So, we are a global enterprise, again, in very small 
numbers, 8,400 Active Duty folks by the end of this year. But 
it is a global presence.
    Ms. Kaptur. Well, I would just like to say, in terms of 
Ohio, the home of John Glenn and Neil Armstrong, the Great 
Lakes always seems to get left out. And I am just making a 
plea. I can't make anything happen in this city; I have tried 
for a long time. But just pay attention to the Great Lakes. 
Look at the number of enlistments that come from our region, 
for each of you. And I know about Wright-Patt, you know. But I 
am just saying, as we move forward, don't forget us. You don't 
have to respond.
    General Raymond. I won't forget you, and we do rely heavily 
on the folks at Wright-Patt. We have Guardians stationed at 
Wright-Patt as well.
    One of the big benefits that we received, quantifiable 
benefits that we have received in standing up the Space Force 
is our ability to attract talent. We have more people knocking 
on our door from around the world, around the country than we 
can take. So we will make sure we keep a close eye in getting 
the right talent to the Force.

                           180TH FIGHTER WING

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very, very much.
    And I have two other items very briefly. I am wondering, in 
terms of the reduction in requests for F-35s, I am privileged 
to represent the 180th Fighter Wing, which is a National Guard 
unit that is always war-ready in Toledo, Ohio. And I am just 
wondering whether or not that unit is still on the list for 
consideration for F-35s--it was in the past--in view of the 
fact that you are suggesting that the procurement be reduced.
    Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur, do you want to do your other 
question so they can take it for the record?

               HYPERSONICS AT PLUM BROOK RESEARCH STATION

    Ms. Kaptur. Yes. And also, is Plum Brook Research Station 
in Ohio on your list of potential sites for hypersonic missile 
activities?
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    Secretary Kendall. We will take those for the record.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Carter and then Mr. Crist.

                      AIR DOMINANCE AND THE FUTURE

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Secretary Kendall, since World War II, midway through it, 
we have dominated airspace in our wars throughout the history 
of the United States. We political leaders and ordinary 
citizens are very fully aware of the progress going on in 
China. In your opinion, the fight tonight and in the future as 
we go through these process changes, are we going to be able to 
dominate airspace so that we can win, fight and win, in the 
fight tonight?
    Secretary Kendall. No potential adversary of the United 
States should doubt for a moment the capability or the resolve 
of the United States or the capacity of the United States Air 
Force to do what it would be asked to do. We are the most 
formidable fighting machine on the planet, but we are being 
challenged and we are being challenged very effectively.
    The threat briefing that I talked about earlier lays out 
the ways in which we are being challenged. So we have to move 
to a next-generation capabilities as quickly as we can. There 
is no doubt about that.
    The Chinese have been watching the American way of 
projecting power since the first Gulf war 30 years ago, and 
they spent the last 20 or 30 years investing in things designed 
to defeat the United States. So we have to respond to that. And 
as Secretary Brown has said, you know, we have to accelerate 
change or we will lose, and that is an exactly accurate 
statement. And that is what we are trying to do with the budget 
in 2023 is to effect some of that change.
    CQ, do you want to add anything?
    General Brown. The one other thing I would also add that is 
the quality of our airmen. It is not only the equipment we put 
in their hands, but it is the hard work that they do day in and 
day out to ensure we are able to do what the Nation has asked 
us to do. And I am very confident that we can do that. By the 
same token, though, I do not want to put ourselves in a 
position where we have any doubt. And this is why we want to 
make that transition to the future.
    Mr. Carter. As we look at what is going on in the world, 
and we are seeing a lot of people are commenting based on what 
happens in Ukraine is going to have an influence on whether 
China decides to invade Taiwan, which will put that fight over 
in the Pacific. And being in charge of helping out the heavy 
Army, that is my job. We have got to dominate the airspace for 
our armor to be effective, and we have got armored fighters 
here and they know that.
    And, therefore, I am worried about the drawdown. That is 
what I am thinking. I think that is the first question that Mr. 
Calvert asked. As we draw down--and I read through that next 
question that you all submitted. And it looked like you were 
just taking down an awful lot of platforms in the hopes that we 
get to the future quickly. But our history is we don't.
    I would say: Would you take a look at the F-35, how long it 
took to get it there? And we saw that many, many other 
platforms. Historically, we are bureaucratically bogged down in 
our forces by some of the ways we procure and go forward. And 
if we are going to draw down in anticipation of being able to 
dominate in the future, it brings great concern to me. So I am 
depending on you to--that question is going to stand for the 
next 5 or 6 years.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Crist and then Mr. Rogers.

                   CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT ON READINESS

    Mr. Crist. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
    Mr. Secretary, as we see powerful storms and more frequent 
flooding impacting our military installations, I am concerned 
about the effects of climate change on our security and at our 
readiness. We have already seen catastrophic flooding and wind 
damage at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska and Tyndall Air 
Force Base in my State of Florida. Many other facilities, like 
MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa Bay near my district, face 
similar risk.
    I wonder if you could talk about the threats posed by 
extreme weather events and what we are doing to respond to 
them.
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, you give two great examples 
of the effect. Offutt, Tyndall Air Force Base also, there are 
others, right, where we have seen the implications of more 
extreme weather. We are trying to take that into account in our 
plans to ensure that we are as resilient as possible.
    There are also other effects of climate change around the 
world which will change geopolitical behaviors and patterns 
around the world that change our threat environment that we 
have to operate in. So there are a wide number of effects. The 
Department is very aware of this and is trying to plan for it 
as best as we possibly can.
    Mr. Crist. Thank you very much.
    I will yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Next is Mr. Rogers, then Mr. Aguilar, and then we will end 
with Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Rogers.

                            NUCLEAR POSTURE

    Mr. Rogers. Secretary Kendall, General Brown, General 
Raymond, thank you for your service to the country and for 
being here today with us.
    Since Putin put his finger on the nuclear button, has that 
changed our nuclear posture in any way?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, the short answer to your 
question is no. We have maintained a posture which we think is 
adequate, given the threat situation. But we are bringing a 
great deal of attention to President Putin and the potential 
for something to happen there. It is a concern that we are 
watching.
    CQ, you want to add to that?
    General Brown. Our posture has not changed. And, you know, 
I am very proud of our airmen in the work that they do day in 
and day out to ensure we maintain our nuclear posture. And then 
we also work that very closely with the United States Strategic 
Command, as well as our Air Force Global Strike Command, which 
are the operational commanders that have that responsibility as 
we ensure that our airmen are organized, trained, and equipped 
to support our nuclear portfolio to make sure it is safe, 
secure, and reliable.
    Mr. Rogers. At what level of threat are we under now?
    General Brown. I mean, the way I would characterize this is 
we really have increased it just based on the rhetoric that 
comes from President Putin and based on the current events. And 
I would also offer that we do pay attention to ensure that we 
maintain our range, our nuclear port--not only our nuclear 
portfolio but really across all of our portfolios. So increased 
awareness, and we are paying closer attention particularly 
based on current events and how things are playing out for Mr. 
Putin in Ukraine.

                          JADC2 MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Rogers. Let me bring up the issue of JADC2 
modernization. As we see China and Russia both increase their 
missile stockpiles and advance hypersonic capabilities, I 
believe it is of the utmost importance that we are able to 
detect incoming threats before it is too late.
    Secretary Kendall, in your opening statement, you mentioned 
that the fiscal 2023 budget provides for an interim airborne 
warning and control replacement. I am glad to see that we are 
modernizing, but I worry about the word ``interim.'' What steps 
are being taken to ensure that this interim solution remains an 
interim solution?
    Secretary Kendall. Well, there are two or three things in 
that question, Congressman.
    The E-7 is an interim solution because we envision that at 
some point we are going to need something that is even more 
survivable than that. What the threat is doing for airborne 
surveillance is, and for any aircraft which performs that type 
of a mission, is trying to reach further out with lethal 
mechanisms that can defeat those.
    Traditionally, they survive to a large extent by standing 
off, being further away from the threat. China understands that 
and is trying to build systems that reach out further, and they 
are pretty far down that path.
    With regard to hypersonics, the critical issue there is 
missile attack warning. And we have capability now that can 
detect launches very well, and it does a very good job of 
tracking ballistic missiles. Hypersonic missiles are much more 
uncertain in their trajectories and are more difficult to 
track. So the new architecture that General Raymond has talked 
about is designed to do that mission from space.
    In general, we would like to move towards space-based 
capabilities for surveillance against a variety of threats. It 
is the most efficient place for us to do it. It gives us global 
coverage. So if we can do it technically, as well as have 
resilient architecture, that is an ideal solution for us. And 
that is one of the reasons I use the word ``interim'' when I 
talked about the E-7.
    General Raymond may want to take--say a little bit more 
about the hypersonics problem and what the new architecture 
will do for that.
    General Raymond. I think you hit it right on the head, Mr. 
Secretary.
    The architecture that we are--that you will see in this 
President's budget request does two things. One, it allows us 
to detect and track maneuverable hypersonics, which are more 
challenging today. And the second thing it does is it 
diversifies our architecture. Just like you diversify your 
financial portfolio, it builds resilience to a threat on orbit.
    Mr. Rogers. Are we able to keep up with the recent Chinese 
advances?
    General Raymond. That is why we are here. I am very 
comfortable that we are the world's best today. And I am very 
comfortable that we have the team and, with your support, the 
resources to be able to stay ahead of that threat. But there is 
work to be done, and we have to stay focused on that and move 
fast.

               CAPABILITIES OF OBSERVATION OF HYPERSONICS

    Mr. Rogers. The Russians deployed hypersonics in Ukraine in 
the last few days. Did our current systems prove useful in that 
observation?
    General Raymond. We have world coverage on being able to 
detect missiles. I can go into more details with you in the 
classified setting.
    Mr. Rogers. All right. Thank you.
    Thanks, gentlemen, for your service.
    Ms. McCollum. Remember we have about five votes pending 
shortly.
    Mr. Aguilar, then Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Ryan has not joined 
us.

                   AIR-LAUNCHED RAPID RESPONSE WEAPON

    Mr. Aguilar. Mr. Secretary--thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, you previously stated--I wanted to follow up 
on the hypersonic discussion. You previously stated that China 
has an asymmetric advantage over the U.S. in relation to 
hypersonics. And like you, I believe that we are crucial to 
invest in systems that we can compete with our peer and near-
peer adversaries and--however, the Air-Launched Rapid Response 
Weapon, the Air Force's hypersonic glide missile, has faced 
numerous challenges, including three launch test failures in 
2021. And in the fiscal year 2023 budget, the Air Force is only 
requesting RDT&E funding for this program.
    You stated that you aren't satisfied with the pace. What is 
the long-term strategy for the ARRW? And if we provide this 
funding this fiscal year, do you anticipate it being able to 
move into production in 2024?
    Secretary Kendall. The ARRW is one of our hypersonic 
programs. It is one of multiple programs we have in the 
Department of Defense. The program has not been successful in 
research and development so far. It has had, as you indicated, 
three flight test failures. So we want to see proof of success 
before we make a decision about commitment to production. So we 
are going to wait and see.
    The overall situation we have got with hypersonics, I think 
people are a little--it is more complex than people, I think, 
often understand. We don't want to mirror image the Chinese 
necessarily. They have invested heavily in hypersonics, and 
they have done some tests, including the one that was an 
orbital capability, basically, last fall.
    The U.S. has a different operational problem than China 
does. They are trying to keep our forces out of the region, and 
there is a target set that we present because of that to them. 
They present a different target set to us, and what we want to 
look at is, what is the most cost-effective mix of weapons? 
There is certainly a role for hypersonics in that, and we need 
to invest in that and procure them in some quantities. But 
there is still an open question in my mind about what is the 
most cost-effective mix.
    Hypersonics have some attractive features, but they are 
also very expensive.
    People have asked me where we are relative to the Chinese. 
Basically, I think it is comparable from the point of view of 
technology. They have been very aggressive about boost-glide 
vehicles and trying to move forward with those. We have been 
less aggressive, but I think in terms of our technological 
capabilities, comparable. We have had more success with air-
breathing hypersonic weapons and the development of those, but 
it is still fairly early stages of development for those.
    So it is a fairly complicated picture, and we do need to 
get into some classified information to discuss it fully.
    Mr. Aguilar. Yes. I am not interested in mimicking the 
Chinese. I am just trying to understand the budgetary 
implications and the requests that you put before us, which 
include $115 million to continue testing in this respect.
    You are also requesting $634 million in hypersonic attack 
cruise missiles, which is a large increase over the $190 
million provided in fiscal year 2022. The Air Force has spent a 
few hundred million on hypersonic prototyping program, HCSW or 
HCSW, only to end that effort.
    So could you continue to expand? You have mentioned 
multiple layers. You have also mentioned we can go into other 
venues and talk about this. But from a budgetary perspective, 
can you give us your thoughts on what the priorities are for 
hypersonic, and how do we continue to put money for research 
and to advance our interests without putting dollars into 
things that can't get to production?
    Secretary Kendall. Overall, what we need to get to with 
hypersonics is the ability to engage moving targets, and 
current systems are limited in that capability. They generally 
are designed for fixed targets. And there are some fixed 
targets that we might want hypersonics to attack cost 
effectively, but for the future, we want to get to another 
class of targets. And I can't really say very much more without 
getting into a classified session with you, Congressman.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. I will yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    And reminding members we have five votes currently on the 
floor, and we will be going into a classified briefing with the 
Secretary immediately after votes. So, please, after the last--
the five votes, go directly up if you are able to join us for 
that classified briefing.
    Mr. Aderholt and then Mr. Ryan.
    And, Mr. Ryan, I will stay to make sure you can ask your 
question.
    Mr. Aderholt.

                  SPACE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS LOCATION

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
    In reviewing last year's Space Command basing decision to 
relocate Space Command headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama, the 
inspector general ultimately found the basing decision, quote, 
complied with Federal law and DOD policy and that the process 
was reasonable.
    Representing northern Alabama, I can personally tell you 
that Huntsville does have a perfect combination for defense--of 
defense experts, businesses, skilled workers, educational 
opportunities, and quality of life that will help Space Command 
accelerate our Nation's capabilities into the next generation. 
I look forward to seeing the GAO report when it is released, as 
I understand it will be any day now.
    Mr. Secretary, let me address this question to you. 
Assuming for this question that the GAO report does not 
recommend overturning the original basing decision, can you 
briefly explain the process for reaffirming the basing decision 
and the timeline to stand up Space Command in Huntsville?
    Secretary Kendall. We are all hoping to move forward with 
the final decision as quickly as we can. We do need to see the 
final reports and assess those. And then the normal process at 
this point would be, we have picked a preferred location and 
some acceptable alternatives, basically; a total of, I think, 
six. And so we need to do under the NEPA process an evaluation 
of environmental impacts and so on, as well as look at some 
other considerations before we finalize the decision.
    Normally, that process would take on the order of 4 months 
total. There would be about 3 months of which we would be doing 
the assessments, at the end of the month a public comment. So I 
am very hopeful that one way or the other we get a final 
decision within the next several months.
    Mr. Aderholt. So what would be the actual timeline to stand 
up? What would be the actual timeline to stand up the 
Huntsville, assuming that it is----
    Secretary Kendall. Oh, to stand up after the decision?
    Mr. Aderholt. Yes.
    Secretary Kendall. I would have to get you that for the 
record. I understand it requires a new building to be built for 
the headquarters, and there is a lot of lead time associated 
with that.

                           AIR NATIONAL GUARD

    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. I see that the fiscal year 2023 request 
seeks to cut more than 100 aircraft in order to focus on the 
Air Force modernization priorities, and I understand that and 
support your attempts to modernize U.S. Air Force to tomorrow's 
challenges but concerned about the price in terms of aircraft 
and force structure that the budget proposes to pay to 
modernize.
    Furthermore, even while we modernize, we must stay laser-
focused on defending the homeland. That is a given. The 
National Guard and the Reserve have long been low-cost 
solutions for national defense. And, in fact, the Air National 
Guard performs 93 percent of the homeland defense alert 
missions.
    My question: Has the Department made any attempts to seek 
cost savings by transferring force structure to the Air 
National Guard rather than eliminating from the total force?
    Secretary Kendall. Well, I will let General Brown offer his 
views on that too.
    We look at force posture all the time. And we try to have a 
balance between the Active, the Guard, and the Reserve, which 
is sustainable over time and which provides us the mix of 
immediately available capabilities and capabilities that are 
available on a certainly longer timeframe to meet all our 
needs. The role of the Guard, in particular in homeland 
defense, is really appreciated. That is a very cost-effective 
mission for the Guard.
    CQ.
    General Brown. Congressman, we do a couple of things as we 
do our reviews. We look at the Active Guard and Reserve mix, 
but we also look at our overseas and stateside mix to ensure we 
maintain a healthy force, because there is the dynamic to make 
sure we have the health of the force for both--for all three 
components: Active, Guard, and Reserve.
    And as we do that, I look at it from a total force 
perspective. And so our laydown is not just, you know, not just 
the Guard or not just the Active Duty or not just the Reserve. 
It is how we lay that across to make sure we have the 
capability to do all the missions the Nation has asked us to 
do. And homeland defense is a high priority for us. And you are 
right, the Guard does an outstanding job working homeland 
defense, and so they do play in our decision very highly as we 
lay out the--in this case, the fighter force structure across 
the United States Air Force.
    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. And I certainly think that is 
something that should be taken into consideration.
    Has the Department considered accelerating modernization of 
the Air National Guard alert units out of the F-16 and F-15D 
airframes into the FEX and the F-35 aircraft?
    Ms. McCollum. Gentlemen, if that is going to take more time 
than you have, please submit that for the record. But I will 
extend it for another minute.
    Secretary Kendall. I think we need to take it for the 
record anyway.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. I want to make sure you get a satisfactory 
answer.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Ryan.

                           AIR FORCE RESERVE

    Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. I will 
try to be brief here, knowing that the votes are going.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you, first, for speaking 
with me recently about the eight C-130Js that this committee 
appropriated specifically for the Air Force Reserve. And I have 
spoken with General Scobee, the chief of the Air Force Reserve, 
many times over the years about these planes, which I fought 
very hard for and which I am very grateful for Chair McCollum 
and her staff, for their diligence as well, and understanding 
of the need for helping our units upgrade from the H models to 
the J models.
    But I did want to note a couple of things as your team and 
the Air Force Reserve seek to finish the basing study that will 
ultimately determine where these planes go.
    Firstly, the subcommittee has twice passed report language 
to the Air Force Reserve that was written with the C-130Js in 
mind. And both the fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 HAC-D 
report state in nearly identical language, quote: The Air Force 
Reserve includes units that have a designated specialized 
mission as well as a traditional tactical mission. And the 
committee encourages the chief of the Air Force Reserve to 
review the requirements to ensure that specialized units are 
allocated equipment upgrades necessary to address safety 
concerns associated with these missions, end quote.
    So General Scobee, in testimony in 2019 before this 
subcommittee, said the following: Our fundamental basis is 
going to be that we put those aircraft in our special missions, 
which include the firefighters and the aerial spray unit in 
Youngstown.
    So point number two is that, under the prior 
administration, this basing study was already delayed once. It 
was put on ice after site visits, which you may know, after 
these site visits had already been completed at the aerial 
spray unit at Youngstown and the firefighting unit in Peterson, 
Colorado.
    So I want to urge you to use the work that has already been 
completed and complete this basing study in the most 
expeditious manner possible. And just want your assurances, Mr. 
Secretary, that the Air Force and the Air Force Reserve will 
complete a basing study whose criteria is in line with the 
criteria laid out by this subcommittee and that is consistent 
with the past statements of the chief of the Air Force Reserve 
and that is complete--completed as expeditiously as possible so 
that our pilots are not forced to fly older, less safe aircraft 
any longer than they already have to.
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman Ryan, we want to move 
forward and make those decisions as soon as we can. So I can 
certainly commit to you that. We are still in the early stages 
of that process, but we fully appreciate the importance of the 
special mission, such as spraying and firefighting and even the 
Arctic mission we have. So the C-130s provide a variety of 
functions that are important to both to the Department and to 
the country. So we are going to take that into account as we 
move forward through the basing process.

                          FOOD TRANSFORMATION

    Mr. Ryan. Great. Yeah. I mean, we--you know, the base is 
not far from my house. And I talked to the pilots over there. 
And, you know, it is time for us to get moving on this. And I 
know the pandemic has contributed to a certain extent, but we 
seem to have the information we need. So I really appreciate 
it, and if you could just stay in touch with me on that.
    I have another question, Madam Chair, I am going to submit 
for the record for General Brown on food transformation.
    General, I have been working on this for a long time. And 
as I stated to, you know, the panel that we had with the 
Secretary of Defense a few days ago, you know, we also, the 
Appropriations Committee also funds VA health. And the high 
rates of diabetes, the higher rates of obesity is driving up 
healthcare costs both for Active Duty and for our veterans. And 
it is something that I think can tie direct--ties directly back 
to the issues around food.
    So I want to submit a question on food transformation and 
engage on, you know, some of the changes that we have been 
pushing for. But I appreciate that.
    And, Madam Chair, I will yield back the balance of my time.

                            CLOSING REMARKS

    Ms. McCollum. I appreciate that, Mr. Ryan.
    Mr. Calvert, as we wind up, I have some questions for the 
record that I will be submitting, besides some technical 
questions staff have on the Arctic. Hypersonics, we will talk 
about that a little more classified, the block upgrade that you 
were talking about with the F-35s, other things related to the 
F-35s and nuclear modernization.
    Mr. Calvert, anything before I adjourn?
    Mr. Calvert. Just that I also will have some questions for 
the record. And when we move into the classified session, I 
want to obviously get into the hypersonic issue in more detail. 
So look forward to doing that. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. And, members, the few remaining, I will just 
remind again, immediately after the fifth vote, we will go up 
into classified session within the Capitol.
    Once again, I want to thank Secretary Kendall, General 
Brown, and General Raymond for being here today. Please, once 
again, thank all those who serve alongside of you, those who 
wear uniforms and those who come to work wearing civilian 
clothes. They all play an important role in our national 
security.
    And, with that, that concludes today's hearing. This 
subcommittee now stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions for the record follow:]
    
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                                             Tuesday, May 17, 2022.

                       U.S. INDO-PACIFIC COMMAND

                               WITNESSES

ADMIRAL JOHN C. AQUILINO, U.S. NAVY, COMMANDER, U.S. INDO-PACIFIC 
    COMMAND
GENERAL PAUL J. LACAMERA, COMMANDER, UNITED NATIONS COMMAND: COMMANDER, 
    UNITED STATES-REPUBLIC OF KOREA COMBINED FORCED COMMAND; AND 
    COMANDER, UNITED STATES FORCES OF KOREA
    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to classification of the material discussed.]



[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    [Clerk's note.--The complete hearing transcript could not 
be printed due to classification of the material discussed.]


[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                             Tuesday, May 17, 2022.

                           UNITED STATES ARMY

                               WITNESSES

HON. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
GENERAL JAMES C. McCONVILLE, CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. ARMY

                  Opening Statement of Chair McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. I now call the hearing on the Department of 
the Army's fiscal year 2023 budget request.
    This is a hybrid meeting, so I am going to go over a few 
housekeeping matters.
    Members joining us virtually, once you start speaking, 
there is a slight display before you are displayed on the main 
screen. Speaking into the microphone activates the camera, 
displaying the speaker on the main screen. Do not stop your 
remarks if you do not immediately see the screen switch. The 
screen does not change until after several seconds, so please 
make sure you are not muted.
    To minimize background noise and ensure that the correct 
speaker is being displayed, we ask that you remain on mute 
unless you have sought recognition. Myself or a staff designee 
may mute participants' microphones when they are not under 
recognition to eliminate inadvertent background noise.
    Members who are virtually part of this hearing, you are 
responsible for muting and unmuting yourself. However, if I 
notice that you are recognized and you have not unmuted 
yourself, I will ask the staff to send you a request to unmute 
yourself, and you will probably hear me ask you if you are 
unmuted. Please accept that request, though, from the staff so 
that you are no longer muted.
    Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have 
set up an email address to which members can send anything they 
wish to submit in writing at any of our hearings, and that 
email address has been provided to your staff ahead of this 
meeting.
    So we are going to adhere to a strict 5-minute rule today, 
because we have to adjourn at a set time in order to 
accommodate major activity on the House floor.
    This morning, the subcommittee will receive testimony on 
the fiscal year 2023 budget request for the Department of the 
Army. Our two witnesses are The Honorable Christine Wormuth, 
Secretary of the Army; and General James McConville, 
Secretary--excuse me--Chief of Staff of the Army. I should slow 
down. I am trying to get this all in in 5 minutes.
    Both of you have had long, distinguished careers, and we 
thank you for appearing here with us today.
    This is an extraordinary time for the United States Army. 
Over 175,000 soldiers are deployed around the world, including 
those in Eastern Europe supporting Ukraine. And Mr. Womack and 
I had a chance to see some of them, along with Mr. Carter.
    Soldiers are the Army's most critical resource, and we care 
deeply about their welfare and quality of life. So today we 
will talk about the training, equipment, and resources needed 
to give our soldiers the skills and tools that they need to 
accomplish their mission.
    We know that your public message is ``People First.'' And I 
commend you for adding $70 million to your request for 
childcare, but we must do more to reduce the waitlist and 
expand eligibility. We want to find out how your policies and 
budget reflect the people as your top priority.
    We are also keeping a close eye on equipment modernization. 
The request invests heavily in your signature modernization 
programs, and we are excited to see many of these capabilities 
in the hands of soldiers soon.
    This committee has overwhelmingly supported your 
modernization strategy by providing the necessary resources to 
advance these acquisition programs. However, I don't want to 
lose sight of existing capabilities and the support our 
soldiers need to keep them safe right now.
    One example is vehicle rollovers. Congress made a 
significant investment in fiscal year 2022 to help prevent 
future vehicle accidents. I am interested in knowing what the 
Army is doing to address this issue, both from the vehicle 
standpoint and also making sure everyone buckles up.
    Finally, turning to Ukraine, I am interested in knowing how 
the U.S. equipment supporting Ukraine land forces has improved 
their success on the battlefield and how it is impacting the 
U.S. stock of equipment here at home, what lessons you are 
learning, and what will help guide you for operational strategy 
in the future.
    Now, before I yield to the distinguished ranking member, 
let me say once again, we have a joint session at 11 o'clock on 
the floor, and House rules will prohibit us from meeting during 
the joint session.
    So, with that, I turn to you, Mr. Calvert.

                     Opening Remarks of Mr. Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Chair McCollum.
    And thank you, Secretary Wormuth and General McConville, 
for your time today as we discuss the Army's fiscal year 2023 
budget.
    In addition to my disappointment with the overall request 
for defense spending, I am concerned that the Army continues to 
be the bill payer for the needs of the other services. On top 
of an inadequate top-line number, the Army's unfunded 
priorities list comes at a whopping $5.1 billion. This 
indicates to me that the Department of Defense is not properly 
budgeting for the needs of the U.S. Army.
    As we have seen in Ukraine, a potential war with China is 
not the only type of conflict that the U.S. military needs to 
be ready for. We need to maintain, modernize, and equip our 
Army.
    Further, it is critical that we remain laser-focused on the 
Army's top modernization priorities. I don't know how you are 
going to do that by returning to traditional acquisition 
bureaucracy.
    I am increasingly frustrated by the DOD budgeting for items 
unrelated to warfighting. For example, in fiscal year 2023, the 
Army is going to spend nearly $726 million on climate-change 
initiatives. With that amount of money, the Army could fund all 
the research personnel needs of its unfunded priority list and 
still have $145 million left.
    I am also concerned about end strength. This budget request 
shrinks the force from the fiscal year 2022 enacted level of 
485,000 to 473,000. The Army's explanation is that it is 
difficult to recruit in the current job market. So the 
question, obviously, will be, how is the Army planning to 
overcome this issue?
    The Nation needs a capable and ready Army, prepared to 
deploy anywhere in the world on a moment's notice. I don't 
believe this request is sufficient or addresses the impact 
inflation is going to have on your purchasing power. I look 
forward to hearing how Congress and the Army can work together 
this fiscal year to meet these challenges.
    And, with that, thank you for taking the time to be with 
us, and I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, would you please proceed?

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Wormuth

    Secretary Wormuth. Good morning, Chair McCollum, Ranking 
Member Calvert, distinguished members of the committee. Thank 
you all for your ongoing support of the Army as we 
significantly transform to meet future threats.
    We have accomplished a lot this year, but we have a lot 
more work to do. We remain very focused on our top three key 
priorities: people, readiness, and modernization.
    The fiscal year 2023 budget enables us to support the 
National Defense Strategy, take care of our people, and meet 
operational demands here at home and abroad. We are investing 
$35 billion in modernization, almost $2 billion in military 
housing and infrastructure, and we are funding 22 Combat 
Training Center rotations in fiscal year 2023.
    We are modestly reducing our end strength, and we are doing 
this because we want to preserve a high-quality force. We did 
not want to have to lower our recruiting standards as we face a 
challenging recruiting environment.
    We are looking at--Ranking Member, to your point, we are 
looking at what we can do immediately this summer to help 
ourselves and the kinds of changes to our recruiting enterprise 
that we may need to make to help ourselves over the next couple 
of years.
    We are committed to maintaining momentum on our six major 
modernization portfolios. In fiscal year 2023 alone, we will 
field four Long-Range Precision Fire systems, the Long-Range 
Hypersonic Weapon, our ship-sinking midrange capability, the 
Precision Strike Missile, and the Extended-Range Cannon 
Artillery.
    We are also modernizing our air and missile defense 
systems, and we are funding development of both FARA and FLRAA, 
which we intend to field in fiscal year 2030.
    As important as it is to maintain momentum on 
modernization, people are the strength of our Army and our 
greatest asset. This budget increases soldier and Department of 
Army civilian pay and funds a number of quality-of-life 
improvements, including barracks, family housing, and various 
childcare initiatives.
    To reduce harmful behaviors, we are building out a 
prevention workforce that will help us with our efforts to 
build cohesive teams that are trained, disciplined, and fit. 
Our SHARP Fusion Directorate Center pilot brings together in 
one place all of the resources for victims of sexual harassment 
and sexual assault. And those pilots are up and running in 
installations around the country.
    We are also striving to prevent suicide in our ranks. We 
have started conducting 100-percent mental health wellness 
checks in some of our units. And we are surging behavioral 
health resources where they are most needed, even as we 
confront a nationwide shortage of providers.
    As we focus taking care of soldiers and their families and 
transforming to meet future threats, the Army is also playing a 
key role in the here and now. Today, we have over 47,000 
soldiers in Europe to help reassure our allies, deter 
aggression against NATO territory, and to help Ukraine defend 
itself. As you all know, the Army has provided a wide range of 
lethal assistance to Ukraine.
    And while we are focused on Europe, we have not taken our 
eye off the pacing challenge of China in the Indo-Pacific. 
Through Operation Pathways, we have deployed thousands of Army 
forces and equipment sets to the region for exercises that 
strengthen joint force integration, demonstrate combat 
capability, and promote interoperability. In just the last 2 
years, for example, the Fifth Security Force Assistance Brigade 
has sent 40 advisory teams to over 14 countries in the region.
    To continue our transformation efforts, we are pursuing 
cutting-edge experimentation and innovation. Much of our 
experimentation activity will culminate this fall in Project 
Convergence 2022, where our sister services will join us with 
operational units and new technologies to work together to 
solve important operational challenges.
    America's Army is fit, trained, and ready when called upon 
to fight and win the Nation's wars. We are transforming for the 
future--something we absolutely have to do in the dangerous 
environment we face. I am very proud of all our soldiers are 
doing do protect our country and look forward to your questions 
this morning.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much.
    Sir, please, your testimony.

                Summary Statement of General McConville

    General McConville. Well, good morning, Chair McCollum, 
Ranking Member Calvert, distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today 
and for your continued support to the Army and its people--our 
soldiers from all three components; our families; our 
civilians; and our soldiers for life, our retirees and 
veterans.
    The men and women of the United States Army stand ready 
today to fight and win our Nation's wars as a member of the 
joint force, and I could not be more proud of each and every 
one of them.
    The Army is well-aligned with the National Defense Strategy 
through our existing priorities of people, readiness, and 
modernization. We win through our people. They are our greatest 
strength, and they are our most important weapon system. That 
is why people remain the Army's number-one priority.
    We are in a war for talent. That means recruiting our 
Nation's best and modernizing our talent management systems. 
That means retaining our best. We recruit soldiers, but we 
retain families. So we are ensuring access to quality housing, 
healthcare, childcare, spouse employment, and PCS moves.
    When our soldiers get the call that it is time to deploy, 
we want them to be laser-focused on their mission, knowing that 
their families are well taken care of at home. Above all, 
putting our people first means building cohesive teams that are 
highly trained, disciplined, and fit and ready to fight and 
win.
    Being ready today is not good enough, though. We must also 
make sure we are ready tomorrow. And that is what modernization 
is all about: future readiness. The Army continues to undergo 
its greatest transformation in over 40 years, and we remain 
committed to our six modernization priorities. We have 24 
signature modernization systems--we will have--in the hands of 
soldiers by fiscal year 2023 either for testing or fielding. 
Also in fiscal year 2023, we will stand up the third of our 
five multidomain task forces.
    The U.S. Army never fights alone, so we continue to invest 
in strengthening our relationships with allies and partners 
across the globe. We can see the return on those investments in 
our response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Never before have 
we asked so many to move so quickly, and we could not do it 
without the access and presence our allies and partners 
provide.
    In less than a week, the First Army Brigade and Third 
Infantry Division was able to deploy from Fort Stewart, 
Georgia, and be on the ground in Germany starting live-fire 
exercises with tanks drawn from our Army prepositioned stocks 
in Europe. That is a testament to our tactical and strategic 
readiness, to the quality of our incredible logisticians, and 
to the investments Congress has made over the past several 
years in setting the European theater.
    When it is time to go, we go with the Army we have. And the 
Army we have is the world's greatest fighting force. We must 
ensure it stays that way, and with your continued support, we 
will.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                 ACQUISITION ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much for your testimony.
    The sum of what you both said is, we need to be prepared 
for today and ready for tomorrow and putting our people first.
    I just wanted to point out that I am very pleased with what 
the President is doing in focusing on climate change in this 
budget. The DOD--and I quote from it: ``Climate change is 
reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical 
environment, with significant implications for the United 
States' national security.''
    The request prioritizes the departmental investments that 
enhance operational capability, mission resilience, and 
readiness. And the DOD being the largest consumer of energy, 
anything that we can do to make sure that you have the energy 
you need in a timely fashion that is also green, that reduces 
greenhouse gasses, is a win-win for the United States 
taxpayers, the Army, and our climate at large.
    And we are witnessing now conflicts already starting to 
take place because of climate change. So, just for the record, 
I want you to know you have the chair's support on that.
    I would like to talk about the Army's acquisition roles and 
responsibilities.
    On May 3, the Army issued a new directive which clarifies 
ArmyFutures Command roles and responsibilities. The commanding 
general of Army Futures Command will now coordinate with the 
Assistant Secretary of the Army for acquisitions, logistics, 
and technology and then on research, development, and 
acquisition efforts.
    This responsibility for all-over supervision of acquisition 
and oversight of the services' research and development 
activities, including science and technology, effectively puts 
that person in charge of acquisition issues after several years 
of ambiguity which have existed.
    So I have a couple of questions for you. Why was this 
change necessary? And this recent directive, you know, seems to 
have shifted some of the influence away from ArmyFutures 
Command, something I really delved into as my State was one of 
the States in competition for this. So I actually kind of know 
the details on how this was presented to Congress pretty well.
    And if you keep this change and you move forward with it, 
do you intend to keep the ACF as a four-star command? And what 
does that mean for the cross-functional teams? I am very 
concerned about this change in determining acquisition 
requirements in the Army.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Chair, for the opportunity to 
clarify what we are trying to do around our modernization 
enterprise with this directive.
    First of all, we are not downgrading Army Futures Command. 
Army Futures Command will remain a four-star command. I am a 
big supporter of Army Futures Command. I think they are doing a 
great job. And I think they have been very, you know, 
instrumental, frankly, in a lot of the progress that the Army 
has made in the last few years.
    There have been some ambiguities in the previous directive 
that talked about the relationships between Army Futures 
Command and the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, and this 
directive was just trying to clean up some of that ambiguity. 
The approach the Army takes to modernization is a team 
approach. We have multiple organizations inside the Army that 
are playing roles, and we just wanted to clarify that.
    This directive does not change the role of the cross-
functional teams. It does not downgrade the role of Army 
Futures Command. It really just tries to clarify some ambiguity 
to make sure that all parts of the Army enterprise for 
modernization are clear on what they are doing.
    And, really, at the end of the day, you know, the proof is 
in the pudding. We do not want to slow down the progress that 
we have been making. And if I see any indication that that is 
happening, we will deal with it immediately.

                    MEDICAL CARE OF SERVICE MEMBERS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I will be having a conversation 
with the authorizers to make sure we are all on the same page 
as to what you have intentions of doing.
    I have a couple of questions I am going to be putting in 
for the record. I only have a minute remaining. I just want to 
highlight, though, this one for the record that I am putting in 
about what is happening with medical billets.
    I am very concerned that the Army still to this day has not 
shown me that they have really thought ahead, what it is going 
to do to the communities placing all these Army families and 
some of the other medical care that our soldiers are going to 
need out in the community.
    Even before COVID, we were short of doctors, nurses, and 
facilities in some areas. And we owe it to their families and 
we owe it to those who wear the uniform that they have the 
healthcare that they need.
    The other thing I am very concerned about is, the 
Department of Defense right now is doing amazing work in 
picking up and doing what it can by channeling within career 
opportunities and also getting people from outside the Army to 
come in to work on medical research as well as deliver care. 
Army hospitals, clinics provide the backbone for training a lot 
of our physicians, physician's assistants, nurse practitioners, 
and the rest. So expect some more conversation on that.
    Ms. McCollum. With that, I yield to Mr. Calvert.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                      ARMY PROGRAMS CURRENT STATUS

    Secretary, I am glad to hear that you are bolstering Army 
Futures Command, in the sense that you are going to make sure, 
from your testimony, that the acquisition enterprise that is 
taking place there continues to develop the agility and the 
speed that warfighters need. And so we will be keeping an eye 
on that to make sure that that occurs.
    You know, I am a critic of the procurement process in 
general out of DOD, as are a number of our colleagues. And 
certainly the Army is no exception, and we need to fix that.
    Future Vertical Lift, Secretary. Please update us on the 
Future Vertical Lift program. Do both the Future Long-Range 
Assault Aircraft and the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft 
programs remain on track?
    Also, I asked this last year as well: What is the Army 
doing to keep doing to keep nontraditional firms, such as those 
that participated in the competition for FARA, engaged to 
ensure a robust industrial base for innovation?
    And, lastly, for both platforms, what is the Army doing to 
ensure that the digital engineering practices that made NGAD so 
successful are being maximized? We should be doing that across 
the services, by the way.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    I would say, both FARA and FLRAA programs are on track. 
This budget continues to fund those efforts.
    You know, we are in the process right now of sort of the 
final stage of down-selecting for FLRAA, so I won't say more 
about that. But we are very pleased with the progress that that 
particular program is making right now.
    And we are also on track with FARA. We will be choosing a 
vendor for FARA in fiscal year 2024. There have been some 
challenges with the ITEP engine, looking at FARA, so that has 
created a little bit of a delay in terms of integrating that 
engine into the prototypes. But I think we are confident that 
we are going to be able to make that work. And that engine is 
very important in terms of the energy efficiency that it is 
going to bring.
    I think, you know, we have been working very, very closely 
with industry in both of these programs.
    And, certainly, to your question about smaller companies, I 
think it is very important that we focus on making sure that we 
have a healthy defense industrial base. And certainly the 
experience with providing lethal assistance to Ukraine, I 
think, underscores that. So we are always looking to find 
opportunities to make sure that we can include smaller 
companies where we can, to try to make sure that we have more 
choices there in terms of competition.
    I don't know; given that General McConville is an aviator, 
he may want to add.
    General McConville. Well, thank you, Secretary.
    And both these platforms are what I would call 
transformational. They will bring much greater capability when 
it comes to speed, when it comes to range. And, also, Ranking 
Member, as you talked about, with open architecture, it will be 
able to operate with convergence with the other systems that we 
are developing.
    Also, the capability. There are a lot of systems we are 
adding onto this aircraft, Air Launch Effects, that are going 
to provide some very unique capabilities, with much 
longerrange, you get much more capability. And also the ability 
to operate with manned/unmanned teaming both these aircraft 
will provide.
    And one final thing that I am pleased with is, we are 
flying before we are buying. So we are getting the chance to 
see from industry what they can actually do with the aircraft. 
We are putting soldiers and pilots on it, getting a chance to 
take a look at it, and then we are coming back with a final set 
of requirements.
    Mr. Calvert. Is this critical?
    General McConville. Well, I think that is absolutely 
critical. I probably didn't do a good job explaining, but the 
intent with the open architecture system, the intent with 
Project Convergence, which is the ability to use digital and 
move data and a data fabric between systems, we think is 
absolutely critical to getting the lethality we need in our 
future systems.
    Mr. Calvert. I am going to submit a question on end 
strength and readiness.

                          MUNITION STOCKPILES

    Mr. Calvert. But, real quickly, on munitions, obviously we 
are providing Ukraine with needed Stinger and Javelin missiles, 
and I suspect we have significantly depleted our own stockpiles 
in doing so. How quickly can we replenish those stockpiles?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we have begun, you know, 
using--I think we started--a billion dollars from the 
supplemental that you all have given us to start replenishing 
Javelins right now.
    I think, you know, it is going to take some time. As you 
know, we have not had an open production line for Stinger. We 
do have an open production line with Javelin. But I think it 
will probably take in the 18-months area to be able to fully 
replenish our stocks. But we are working with both Raytheon and 
Lockheed to see what they can do to speed up their production.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    We are going to go next to Mr. Rogers and then--Mr. 
Ruppersberger, then Mr. Rogers, and then Mrs. Bustos.

                             CYBERSECURITY

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville, in Congress we 
are witnessing a massive overhaul of modernization efforts and 
promises from each branch of military service.
    Can you hear me now? You got it. Okay.
    Secretary Wormuth--I will start over--General McConville, 
in Congress we are witnessing a massive overhaul of 
modernization efforts and promises from each branch of military 
service.
    I agree that people are our greatest asset, and I applaud 
the efforts of investing in the Army's workforce and 
modernization talent management. And when it comes to managing 
the talent the Army has in cybersecurity, what initiatives do 
you currently have and how are you looking to expand any of 
them in fiscal year 2023 in order to maintain our people?
    Additionally, I have asked Secretary Austin last week, but 
I am interested in the Army's perspective on the importance of 
cybersecurity partnerships and any cyber or information 
operations lessons learned from the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine.
    And I have a followup too.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, we certainly are very much 
committed to growing our cyber force in the Army. And I think 
the Army, frankly, has really led the way in a lot of its focus 
on building up its cyber teams. You know, we have put a lot of 
focus on Army Cyber.
    One initiative that we have that I want to see us explore 
this year is the authorities that Congress has given us for 
excepted service for cyber so that we may be able to--you know, 
one of our challenges is, frankly, competing with the private 
sector. You know, everyone is looking for cyber experts, and in 
the private sector they are obviously well-compensated. So that 
is something I want to see us explore.
    You know, we are working very hard at Fort Gordon with the 
Army Center of Excellence to train our cyber warriors. We have 
the software factory down at Army Futures Command that is 
finding, frankly, cyber and coding expertise all over the Army 
in places that you wouldn't expect and training those people 
and giving us the capability to really have Army soldiers kind 
of at the tactical edge who can code and develop applications 
for us.
    So I think we are doing a lot to try to build out our cyber 
workforce.
    And, certainly, to your question on lessons learned from 
Ukraine, you know, I think what we see there, obviously, are 
two things: One, the information domain is incredibly 
important, and, you know, the force that can dominate in the 
information space, I think, will have the advantage in future 
conflicts. So there is a lot of a cyber dimension there.
    And then, obviously, while we haven't seen, sort of, 
certainly here in the United States, major attacks, major cyber 
attacks on infrastructure, I think that is something that we 
can expect in the future. So we are looking a lot at how can we 
shore up vulnerabilities, whether it is, you know, with our 
suppliers or in our own networks, to make sure that we are not 
vulnerable to cyber attacks.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
    General McConville. What I would add, Congressman, is, a 
couple things that we are doing is--first of all, we are very 
blessed that we have a lot of young men and women that want to 
go into cyber. So, if you go up to West Point, you go to ROTC, 
that is one of the most competitive branches that they are 
competing for. We are giving direct commissions, so we are 
going out to qualified young men and women that want to serve 
in cyber.
    And the other program we are working on is really 
identifying talent. You know, the Secretary met a--we have a 
young specialist. He is a medic down at our software factory. 
He codes at the Ph.D. Level. And, you know, what we want to be 
able to do is be able to credential that capability--no formal 
training, but because of his skill set. So how do we keep that 
person in the Army, how do we credential that person, and then 
incentivize him to stay? And we are working on those type of 
programs.

                        JOINT SYSTEM INTEGRATION

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
    I know the Army leads the joint force experiment called 
Project Convergence. And it is imperative for the military to 
talk and share data.
    Now, I will be touring the Joint System Integration 
Laboratory at Aberdeen this Friday, in my district.
    What type of experimentation do you have planned for this 
year? And, additionally, as the Army invests significant 
resources in network modernization, how are you coordinating 
with other services to ensure joint interoperability?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, the 
ability of the services to be able to share data is going to be 
one of the most important things that we have to figure out if 
we are going to be effective in the future conflicts. And that 
is exactly what we are trying to do at the Joint Service 
Integration Lab.
    We are really working there, with other services and 
ultimately in Project Convergence this fall, to figure out how 
can we share data not just among Army platforms, from sensors 
to our platforms, but also with the other services.
    So, for example, we have a program called Rainmaker that is 
actually an artificial intelligence kind of program that helps 
us knit together data from different platforms and different 
services. Because if we can't share that, we are not going to 
be able to connect, you know, the sensor to the best shooter 
and then to the target that it needs to find.
    So that is exactly what we are working on. You know, I 
think what we are doing at Project Convergence is, frankly, 
some of the most innovative stuff, looking at JADC2. And 
delighted to hear that you are going up to JSIL later this 
week.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And my time is up. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Yes.
    If we are quick and other members, you know, come in and 
out, we might get a second round in.
    So Mr. Rogers, then Mrs. Bustos, Mr. Womack.
    Mr. Rogers.

                     EUROPEAN DETERRENCE INITIATIVE

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Welcome to the subcommittee. We are glad you are here, and 
we thank you for your service to the country.
    Let me ask you about the European Deterrence Initiative. We 
all know that the countries of Europe are shivering, frightened 
by what is going on in Ukraine. And I want to ask you, what 
happened? The European Deterrence Initiative was designed to 
prevent the kind of thing we are seeing in Europe writ large 
today.
    We have poured billions of dollars since 2014 into the 
Defense Deterrence Initiative. How does that fit in with NATO, 
other European-based defense groups, and the like?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I would say, you know, I 
think, frankly, we are seeing today the value of the 
investments that Congress has supported in the European 
Deterrence Initiative over the last few years.
    You know, as one example, for example, I would point to the 
investments that the Army has been able to make into its 
prepositioned equipment in Europe. So, because of the fact that 
we have invested in having modernized stocks in Europe ready to 
go, you know, stuff that were in warehouses, where the 
batteries worked, and, you know, when our troops fell in on it, 
they were able to take it right out of the warehouses and go 
into live-fire training in less than a week. And that, I think, 
was, you know, very much because of the benefit of the European 
Deterrence Initiative.
    So, you know, I think that has been very valuable. I think 
you have seen that Putin understands, I think, and does see the 
Article 5 commitments and NATO territory as a red line.
    I think, given how focused he seems to be, despite the fact 
that his invasion into Ukraine was clearly a strategic major 
miscalculation, even as his forces continue to suffer setbacks, 
I think whether he could have been deterred from going into 
Ukraine is tough to say. I think he was just intent on doing 
that, even though, frankly, it is clearly backfiring on him.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, we all know that he has indicated over 
the years the inclination to annex to the Soviet Union, the 
old--the new Soviet Union, Sweden and others.
    How does the EDI play in that kind of warfare?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think what EDI has enabled us to do is 
to invest in our infrastructure in NATO countries, invest in 
exercises so that we are able to demonstrate the combat 
capability of our forces. And all of that, I think, contributes 
to showing Putin that the NATO alliance is not something that 
he wants to tangle with.
    And I think, you know, should Finland and Sweden join NATO, 
I think, you know, that will strengthen the alliance only 
further.

                       LEGACY CAMOUFLAGE SYSTEMS

    Mr. Rogers. Switching topics, let me bring up quickly a 
matter, an issue often thought about at your level, but it is 
my understanding that the Army plans on divesting from the 
legacy camouflage systems by 2023, with the intention of 
modernizing to ultra-lightweight camouflage net systems, or 
ULCANS.
    This technology is phenomenal. When a soldier dons it, I am 
told, they virtually become invisible to even the most advanced 
enemy sensors. In fact, we have seen this technology pay off in 
spades in Ukraine. Simply put, this technology will undoubtedly 
save lives.
    Currently, the onus of procurement lies upon each 
individual unit, in which they must use their limited funds to 
acquire this life-saving technology. This is where my concern 
arises. Despite the upcoming divestment deadline, the Army has 
yet to wrap up procurement of ULCANS, leaving the industrial 
base at risk of shutting down and denying us this equipment for 
many years to come.
    Can you please provide some more detail as to how the Army 
plans on replacing the legacy camouflage systems by 2023?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, certainly we want to make 
sure that our soldiers are well-camouflaged, and, you know, in 
the future battlefield, being able to be camouflaged, you know, 
in an environment where, frankly, our adversaries are going to 
be able to see quite a bit, is very important.
    I am not familiar with the specific camouflage equipment 
that you are referring to. I will look into that. You know, 
again, I think we want to make sure that our soldiers are well-
camouflaged. So that is something I would be happy to look into 
and talk with you further.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    Mrs. Bustos.

                        JOINT MUNITIONS COMMAND

    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville, thank you very 
much for your leadership.
    Briefly, the district that I represent is the entire 
northwest corner of the State of Illinois. And, as my 
colleagues on this subcommittee know, we are home to the Rock 
Island Arsenal. I typically have a question about the Rock 
Island Arsenal, and I want to do that today.
    It is literally located on an island between the States of 
Iowa and Illinois. The Rock Island Arsenal, though, is probably 
best known for its factory there, and I am going to get to that 
in a second question. But it also houses several other critical 
organizations, including the Joint Munitions Command that we 
all know as ``JMC.'' And it is responsible for the management 
of ammunition, production of storage, distribution and 
demilitarization for all U.S. military services.
    And so, as you can imagine, the men and women at JMC, 
including several now who are deployed from the Rock Island 
Arsenal, have been working very, very hard to make sure that 
our needs and our allies' needs are met in Eastern Europe and 
Ukraine since Putin's invasion.
    I am hoping that if either one of you could speak to the 
work that JMC is doing to oversee the logistics involved in 
this conflict, if we can talk about that and just a couple 
other followup questions all interrelated there.
    But are there ways that I should be aware of or this 
subcommittee should be aware of that we can make that work 
easier or support that, where we can make sure that they are 
getting the job done? And really, in short, how is it going, 
and how can we be of help?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    You know, I think, frankly, one of the things we are seeing 
that has proved very problematic for the Russians are their 
challenges with logistics. And I think that is one of the 
things that sets our Army apart. And part of why we have been 
able to do the amazing things that we have done in support of 
Ukraine is because of our logistics system.
    And AMC and JMC have done a fantastic job. It has been 
remarkable, frankly, to see how quickly they have been able to 
move ammunition.
    And I think, you know, obviously, we are going to have work 
to do in terms of replenishing our stock. So, you know, we will 
continue to support our workforce that works on ammunition 
because we are seeing just how important it is. And that is 
something that the Army has invested more in, frankly, in the 
last couple of budget cycles.
    I don't know, Chief, if you want to add anything.
    General McConville. I just think they are doing fabulous 
work. We like to say that professionals study logistics and 
amateurs, tactics. And we are seeing that play out.
    And when we take a look at all the weapons and ammunition 
that they have supported the Ukrainians with, it is making a 
huge difference. And we certainly have to replenish those 
weapons systems and that ammunition, and they are working that 
right now as we speak.

                     ADVANCED MANUFACTURING CENTER

    Mrs. Bustos. All right. Thanks to you both.
    So let's look at that factory that I mentioned at the start 
of my questions. So the Rock Island Arsenal is designated as 
the Army's Advanced Manufacturing Center of Excellence, and 
that supports the Army's broad goals for this capability. And 
the type of work that they are doing really could change how we 
address supply-chain issues and allow us to completely rethink 
how we develop certain weapons systems, really with, also, a 
goal of having significant savings.
    So, you know, one quick example. They are currently 
developing a jointless hull or chassis for the Next Generation 
Combat Vehicle, which we see it as it could streamline 
manufacturing and make the vehicle safer.
    So I would like to get both of your perspectives, if I 
could, on the importance of advanced and additive manufacturing 
to the Army and how the Army plans to move forward for 
maximizing the use of this type of technology.
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, as you said, Congresswoman, I 
think additive manufacturing, you know, offers a lot of 
opportunity for us.
    Among other things, it would give us, you know, and does 
give us in many cases, the capability to produce parts that are 
much farther away, if you will, from the defense industrial 
base. So, you know, we are able to resupply and maintain our 
equipment much farther away than we have been able to do in the 
past.
    So I think there is a lot of opportunity here. We are 
certainly proponents of additive manufacturing and using it to 
its maximum effect.
    I think one of the issues that we do have some work to do 
on is looking at standards for parts and making sure that we 
have a common set of standards in terms of the safety of parts, 
and that is something that we are working on. But I think there 
is a lot of opportunity here.
    Mrs. Bustos. Very good.
    General, anything to add in the remaining 18 second?
    General McConville. Oh, I just think there is a lot of 
efficiency and effectiveness by being able to manufacture 
parts. Historically, we have used the Iron Mountain, where we 
take a whole bunch of parts and have to bring them around with 
us. And then, by having this capability, it is an insurance 
policy we can quickly make the parts we need.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, General.
    Thank you, Madam Secretary.
    And, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Your timing was perfect. You were better than 
the rest of us so far.
    Mr. Womack, then Mrs. Kirkpatrick, and then Mr. Carter.

                              END STRENGTH

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary and General McConville, thank you again for 
being with us this morning and for your continued service to 
this country.
    You know, just as kind of an opening, some of our 
colleagues went over to Europe and spent a little time with the 
Third I.D. Over at Graf, spent some time with the 82nd in 
Poland. And I have to tell you, the ability for us to be able 
to move those forces into those postures with the speed and 
professionalism that we did, I think, speaks well of the Army's 
ability to surge. And I congratulate you for that.
    I have a question about end strength. I was reminded by one 
of my district's soon-to-be-newest West Point graduates that 
she chose the Army over other service academies because she 
wanted to lead people. And while I understand this budget 
request will not eliminate her chance to be a platoon leader or 
company commander, the proposed end-strength cuts equate to 
that of almost three entire brigade combat teams in numbers.
    Chief, the Army has been our response force to the ongoing 
war in Europe, and their ability to cultivate and sustain 
personal and longstanding mil-to-mil relationships is an 
absolute requirement. It is invaluable to assets that leaders 
like Admiral Aquilino and General Flynn have discussed with me 
as crucial to building capacity in the Indo-Pacific region.
    So I am concerned that we are increasing our demand for 
Army formations but shrinking our overall number of soldiers. 
Can you explain to the committee the challenges the Army is 
facing in terms of recruitment and operational capacity?
    General McConville. Well, thank you, Congressman. And we 
appreciate you visiting our troops. I had a chance to see them 
over there. And the investments you all have made, that is why 
the 82nd could draw vehicles over there, that is why the First 
and the Third Infantry could draw vehicles.
    But, you know, as far as young men and women, what we have 
found is, 23 percent of Americans are qualified to come in the 
military right now, and 83 percent of the young men and women 
that are coming into the Army are coming from military 
families. So what we think is we have to get more exposure.
    An interesting factoid is, 44 percent of the young men and 
women that come into the military are coming from schools with 
JROTC--not necessarily in JROTC, but the fact they have had 
some exposure to the military is really important.
    So we need help from everybody to explain the advantages of 
going into the military. I signed all three of my kids up, and 
I have a son-in-law. And I think it is a great place for young 
men and women to get an education and to develop their skill 
sets, and I think we ought to offer that to everybody.

                          INDO-PACIFIC REGION

    Mr. Womack. Well, I congratulate you on your talent 
management strategies, because I think it is paying off.
    I want to pivot to the Indo-Pacific region. It has been 
made obvious to this committee the Army is being pivoted to the 
region measurably slower than, say, the Navy and the Air Force. 
While some of that is obviously inherent, based on capabilities 
and planning for a future A2/AD environment, I know that your 
formations continue to train and plan for their role in that 
region.
    Can you briefly describe for the committee how certain 
training and mission exercises--say, Pacific Pathways--enables 
the Army to uniquely prepare for a future fight in the Indo-
Pacific and how important the Army will be in that case?
    General McConville. Well, I think our peace in the region 
comes through strength, and that strength comes from allies and 
partners. You all have been over to see Europe. And, you know, 
what I took away from that is, having American soldiers on the 
ground makes a huge difference.
    And in a lot of things we did, even with Ukraine, there was 
a lot of training, a lot of exercising that was done before 
that actually began. And we have a very strong relationship 
with Pacific Pathways, working with those countries, helping 
them build their capabilities and capacity and, quite frankly, 
their will to defend their country.
    And I think it is very, very important we continue those 
exercises and that we have a robust capability in the region 
with U.S. Army troops.

                        TROOP DEPLOYMENT POSTURE

    Mr. Womack. Madam Secretary, last week, the administration 
advised Congress that in the coming months DOD is looking at 
one-for-one unit replacements for about 10,500 personnel that 
have been deployed in response to the Ukrainian situation. Of 
note, I believe, is General McConville's former division 
headquarters will be some of those tagging in.
    My question centers around these new deployments and the 
likelihood of them becoming cyclical in nature, or perhaps even 
part of a permanently established footprint in some places, and 
the effect these courses of action could have on the Army's new 
regionally aligned readiness and modernization model.
    I understand that the decisions about this are still kind 
of out there a few weeks, maybe, from now, but can you comment 
briefly on it?
    Secretary Wormuth. Certainly, Congressman. And that is a 
great question. I appreciate you shining the spotlight on that.
    You are right; there is--you know, the discussion about 
what, ultimately, posture in Europe is going to look like, you 
know, after the conflict ends is still ongoing and, I think, 
you know, will come to a head probably at the Madrid summit 
later this summer. But I think it is possible that we would 
see, you know, potentially some rotational deployments over and 
above what we have seen a year ago.
    And we are going to have to factor that into ReARMM. And 
we, frankly, have been keeping a very close eye on that, 
because, you know, the units that are scheduled to go into the 
modernization windows, that has been very carefully crafted. It 
has been very carefully crafted to make sure that the right 
people are in those units.
    So we may have to make some adjustments, but I think we are 
going to be able to do that. And the planning to do that has 
already started.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you very much.
    I look forward to seeing both of you at West Point this 
weekend for graduation. Go Army. Beat Navy.
    Sorry, Dutch.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. That is okay.
    Mr. Womack. I yield back.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. We will see you next year.
    Ms. McCollum. I have no favorites.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick and then Mr. Carter.

                       CURRENT STOCK OF EQUIPMENT

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    My first question is for the Secretary.
    Congress has previously appropriated $3.5 billion to 
backfill U.S. military equipment transferred to Ukraine. The 
second Ukraine supplemental request includes an additional $1.3 
billion in procurement funding, plus additional draw-down 
authority for critical munitions.
    To date, the U.S. has transferred more than 5,500 Javelin 
missiles, more than 1,400 Stinger missiles--which, by the way, 
are made in my district--and more than 50 million rounds of 
ammunition, in addition to tactical vehicles, UAVs, and other 
small arms.
    Our ability to backfill existing stock is critical to our 
national security. So, Secretary, given that the United States 
has provided a significant amount of munitions to the 
Ukrainians, are you concerned about the current stock of 
equipment, such as Stinger and Javelin systems?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congresswoman, as you noted, we have 
provided quite a number of Javelins and Stingers to the 
Ukrainians, as well as any number of other types of military 
equipment, ranging from helicopters to body armor. And we have 
been keeping a close eye on what our minimum requirements are 
as we do that.
    And we have also, as I noted earlier, been working closely 
with industry to try to ramp up their production capability, 
particularly with Javelins.
    With Stingers, you know, we are looking at designing a 
replacement eventually for Stinger. You know, obviously, we 
have that on our M-SHORAD system, so that is something we are 
going to--you know, we certainly have a vested interest in 
that.
    But I think the funding that Congress had provided in the 
supplemental will help us, working with industry, to replenish 
our stocks of munitions.

                       LONG-RANGE PRECISION FIRES

    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. My second question is for the General.
    Thank you for testifying today and for everything you do in 
support of our soldiers.
    I understand that the Army is seeking to improve its 
ability to deliver what it refers to as Long-Range Precision 
Fires by upgrading current artillery and missile systems, 
developing new longer-range cannons and hypersonic weapons, and 
modifying existing air- and sea-launched missiles and cruise 
missiles for ground launch by Army units.
    General, please describe the Army's unique role in 
advancing our long-range fire capabilities and how your 
investment here is not duplicative of other services.
    General McConville. Yes, Congresswoman. Our number-one 
priority is our Long-Range Precision Fires, and it begins with 
hypersonic missiles. We believe that we need to have a land-
based capability that is available 24/7, that is rapidly 
deployable. And we are developing that capability, and we will 
have that capability next year.
    We have also been asked by the combatant commanders to 
develop a capability to sink ships. And we are developing that 
midrange capability, and that will be delivered next year.
    We also are developing a precision-strike missile 
capability in excess of 500 kilometers. We could see how that 
could be very, very effective in some of the combat we are 
seeing right now, the ability to out-range our adversaries and 
get after their logistics and get after their command and 
control.
    We are also developing extended-range cannon, which, again, 
allows us to reach out and touch our adversaries further than 
they have.
    And all of this is being brought together as part of the 
joint force and part of the sensor-to-shooter linkage that we 
are working on with Project Convergence.
    Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Next we have Mr. Carter, Ms. Kaptur, and Mr. Kilmer.

                            MILITARY HOUSING

    Mr. Carter. First, I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, 
for emphasizing the Futures Command. That is one my big 
concerns, and I thank you for that.
    I have had a great visit with you folks this morning.
    One of the things we have going on in Texas--and, quite 
frankly, if you read closely, around the country--is that the 
price of housing and the price of rentals is going up 
exponentially. And about 70 percent of the people that work for 
the military live off-post, sometimes as high as more. But the 
rentals are putting them out of ability to be out there. And 
they are, quite honestly, having real issues with trying to 
buy, because the bidding process is taking the values way out 
of proportion to what they should be.
    And then, finally, I am told by people that do this for a 
living that the VA loans, people just won't take them. They 
would rather have cash. So these cash operations that are out 
there are just literally making us be unable to use VA loans.
    Are you aware of this situation? Have you got any ideas 
about doing something better? Maybe increasing the BAH?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. And I appreciate 
you highlighting this challenge because I think it is an issue, 
you know, that we all see with housing costs going up in a 
number of places around the country. And that is something, you 
know, we certainly want to make sure, that our soldiers and 
their families are able to live in good housing and to afford 
housing off-post.
    That was one of the reasons that the Department increased 
BAH in, I think, about 50 different locations around the 
country this year. I think, you know, we are open to looking at 
something like that, you know, again.
    But I think one of the challenges we have to work our way 
through, as we think about that, is the fact that, you know, if 
we raise our BAH rates, landlords can sort of see that coming, 
and then they raise their rents, and you get into a little bit 
of an unhelpful upward cycle.
    But I think we do want to look at housing, and, you know, 
we will have to work with OSD, as you know, since they are the 
ones who ultimately set the BAH rates.
    Mr. Carter. And that is an issue. I have discussed it when 
I was over in Korea with the commanding general over there 
many, many years ago. The Koreans watched--instantly raise 
their rents.
    Finally, I talked to you today about the fact that--and it 
is kind of interesting--in the Department of Defense, 94 
percent of the borrowers in the Department of Defense were 
denied loan forgiveness, because they didn't want do a 10-year 
commitment of 120 payments for the loan forgiveness to come 
together.
    The rest of the government doesn't have that burden. Now, 
why is that? And what can we do to change that?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think this is, again, an 
area that we want to look into. As we were talking with you 
earlier this morning, we are in a war for talent, and we are 
competing against the private sector in a very, very tight job 
market. So I think we need to be looking at our benefits, our 
pay, to make sure that we are competitive, and we need to be 
thinking creatively about what more we can do to make ourselves 
attractive. And I think this issue of loan forgiveness is 
something we can look into.
    We are looking at, as I alluded to in my opening statement, 
our whole recruiting enterprise and, you know, what kinds of 
changes we may need to make to make ourselves more attractive 
in the future over the longer term. And I think this is 
something that we could include in that.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Ms. Kaptur.
    And then we will go to you, Mr. Kilmer.

                      NUTRITIONAL CONTENT OF MEALS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Secretary Wormuth and General McConville, thank you so much 
for your service, your exemplary service, to our country. I 
think each of us feels we would like to do more to help you. 
But let me try to ask a couple questions.
    First, I will ask what I asked Secretary Austin and General 
Milley. We were recently in Germany and Poland, and the 
accomplishments of moving that many soldiers, the logistics of 
that, you just--you were outstanding. But I will tell you one 
thing that really bothered me, and that was the food that the 
soldiers ate.
    And so my question to you is, who is the highest-ranking 
person at Army that could work with us to look at the 
nutritional content of what those soldiers eat?
    I was struck by the fact that the MRAs sat there in the 
bags. And after I talked to the soldiers, ``Why didn't you take 
that?'', they said, ``That is the worst.''
    And I noticed the bread that we had been served was white 
bread. And I am going, ``Hmm. Okay, I need to get into this.'' 
Because nothing's more important to a soldier than food, 
especially when they have some of the tank commands and some of 
the units that we were with, the 82nd Airborne. We need to feed 
the best to our soldiers.
    So I need a briefing on that to better follow up and be 
useful up here as a Member on the food front. You don't have to 
answer, but I think we need to do some repair work there. That 
is number one.

                         GREAT LAKES LOGISTICS

    Number 2, I come from the Great Lakes part of the United 
States where General Eisenhower built the St. Lawrence Seaway, 
the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway. I am asking myself the 
question, in terms of logistical support to Central Europe, how 
better can we utilize that corridor, which is the shortest 
distance between the United States and the ports of Northern 
Europe and the Baltics, to move humanitarian goods, the, 
really, billions of dollars that we voted for to try to help?
    I represent places like Parma, Ohio, where we have the 
third-largest Ukrainian-American population in the country. We 
have over 140,000 Polish-Americans that live in northern Ohio. 
I can guarantee you, goods are backed up that could be used in 
that part of the world, starting with medical, starting with 
tourniquets, starting with Kevlar vests, you name it.
    And I just think the Army's ability to deal with logistics 
could help, working with some of these organizations in our 
region. And that fourth seacoast, this is the moment for which 
it exists. And so I just ask you to think about that.
    If there is anybody you could send up here to meet with 
some of us--I co-chair the Ukraine Caucus. We have 90 Members.
    From this particular corridor, we are underperforming. A 
lot of our folks are enlisted, but I am telling you, with back 
hauls, with available space on vessels that are moving through 
that seaway right now, if we have to move grain this year, 
guess where we grow it.
    And so, just wanted to mention that. And if you have 
someone you could send up, believe me, we can gather more 
Members than you would want to shake a stick at, in terms of 
the unmet potential in this corridor.

                  NONCOMBAT TACTICAL VEHICLE INCIDENTS

    Number 3, mechanics. I am very interested in this. And from 
statistics we were given, in terms of the number of 
servicemembers who have died due to noncombat tactical vehicle 
mishaps over the past decade and those who have been injured, I 
am wondering--the Army is such a great place for training of 
mechanics; our country is 1 million mechanics short right now--
if there would be more opportunity for the Army to work with 
local schools--General, you mentioned this--where there are 
bases that exist, where we could look at the local school 
program and do a partnership in terms of mechanics and training 
and some kind of educational effort.
    I don't know if you think like that. It may be more in the 
Guard and Reserve that we have to work. But the country has a 
real problem. If we are going to do this conversion, we are not 
ready. We don't have the mechanics that are out there.
    And so, I think this specialty is one that I would very 
much like to work with Army on, because I think that you really 
do have the capacity to help the Republic more in this sector.
    So, whether it is on Ukraine or on mechanics or on food, if 
you want to comment before my time is up, I would appreciate 
it.
    Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur, they have about 28 seconds, so 
they might want to take it for the record.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
    Secretary Wormuth. We will take it for the record and 
definitely make sure you get briefings on those topics.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And we will have a second round of 
questions, if you would like that then.
    Mr. Kilmer, and then I will explain how the second round of 
questions are going to work.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                         ARMY CLIMATE STRATEGY

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    And thank you both for being with us.
    Madam Secretary, I want to start by just applauding you on 
the February 2022 Army Climate Strategy. I think it does an 
excellent job encapsulating the problem we face today that the 
Army both contributes to and is threatened by, the extreme 
weather events caused by climate change.
    I also want to commend you for committing the Army to track 
implementation of their strategy and to hold itself accountable 
moving forward. And I guess that is where I wanted to just dig 
in a little bit.
    I specifically wanted to discuss the Army's efforts to 
procure construction materials with lower embodied carbon 
emissions, including mass timber, which could help the Army in 
achieving its objectives. Studies have shown that mass-timber 
buildings, compared to concrete buildings, would save 36 
percent on energy costs and reduce carbon emissions by 43 
percent.
    I give the Army credit for adopting this new building 
material and constructing five hotels out of cross-laminated 
timber at installations across the U.S., including at Joint 
Base Lewis-McChord in my neck of the words. Those hotels went 
up at least 37 percent faster than comparable construction 
projects and with 40 percent less labor. And so the benefit of 
that I think could be really helpful in terms of addressing the 
construction backlog and just recognizing that there is 
heightened competition for construction labor right now with 
private industry.
    So, I guess, to turn this into a question, can you update 
the committee on the Army's plans to achieve this procurement 
objective? To what extent is the Army looking to utilize mass 
timber's benefits? And has the Army shared any lessons learned 
from the construction of its mass-timber hotels with the other 
services to ensure that the DOD can realize some similar 
environmental benefits?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    You know, I think there are definitely some advantages to 
the cross-laminated timber that you have talked about, you 
know, certainly in terms of its strength relative to steel and 
concrete, for example. You know, also, as I understand it, it 
is fairly expensive as a building material, as well, as a 
result of that. So I think, you know, we want to take a case-
by-case approach to it and look at where it makes sense to use 
it.
    As you pointed out, some of our IHD hotels have used it, 
and I think that is, you know, a great demonstration of the 
value of it in terms of a construction material. And I think, 
you know, we would be happy to talk to--if we are not already, 
we would be happy to talk to other services about the 
experience we have had using that material up in the Northwest.

                               CHILDCARE

    Mr. Kilmer. Super.
    I guess, in the time I have left, the other issue I wanted 
to address was childcare. Access to childcare is an issue for 
military families. We consistently hear from folks in my region 
about their struggles accessing military childcare. I noted and 
was pleased that you mentioned that in your written remarks.
    As you know, the DOD currently spends more than a billion 
dollars annually to provide childcare to military families. I 
know the Department and the Army are working hard to ensure 
that our servicemembers receive the support that they deserve.
    Despite the relative affordability of military childcare, 
particularly compared to civilian providers, the DOD still has 
over 15,000 servicemembers on childcare waiting lists.
    So how can Congress work with the Army to reduce those 
waiting lists and make sure our servicemembers don't have to 
worry about finding someone to look after their kids? And how 
does childcare impact the Army's readiness and our soldiers' 
ability to serve our country?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thanks, Congressman, for this question. 
My children are grown now, but for a long time I was a working 
mom, so I am very familiar with the challenges--both the 
importance of quality childcare and the challenges of finding 
it and paying for it.
    And I would say there are really two big issues for us as 
we look at waitlists. One, obviously, is capacity. You know, 
the more capacity we can have, the shorter we can have 
waitlists. So that is why we have, you know, included money, 
for example, in this budget for a CDC at Fort Polk. And we 
built a handful of CDCs in last year's budget, as well, with 
your support.
    The other thing that helps us with our waitlist is 
obviously staffing at our childcare centers. And that is an 
area where we are facing challenges now, because, again, the 
labor market is very tight, and we are competing with the 
civilian sector for staff. And we have authorized, for example, 
our commanders to be able to hire at 110 percent to try to make 
sure that we have the staff so that we can fully man our CDCs.
    But those are definitely--you know, just continuing to 
support in our budget funding for MILCON for CDCs, for our fee 
assistance program, for the incentive program that we have for 
our in-home childcare, where folks, you know, who are PCSing, 
if they are participating in our in-home childcare program and 
then do it at the location they move to, that is very helpful. 
So you all continuing to support that is very helpful to us.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks very much.
    And thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. And childcare is something that 
Members are coming up to me on the floor talking about already, 
especially some of the waivers that you had available.
    Members, we have time for a couple more questions. We are 
going to go through. It is going to be 2 minutes. And at about 
5 to the hour, I will make my last question then and close it 
up.
    But Mr. Calvert would like to do his last question now.
    Mr. Calvert?

                     Mr. Calvert's Closing Remarks

    Mr. Calvert. Yes, and a couple comments.
    First, as Mr. Womack is very well aware of, the State 
Partnership Program is a program with the Guard that works very 
well. And, obviously, the California Guard, we are very proud 
of what they did in Ukraine to train up the Ukrainian military, 
obviously with great success.
    On the Stinger missile program, the Brits--I think you 
probably are aware of this--have a missile called Starstreak 
that would maybe be a comparable replacement for us. I know it 
would be a foreign acquisition, but it is, I understand, a more 
capable missile--it goes to 16,000 feet, goes up to Mach 4--
and, I think, a similar price point.
    The other issue is small-arms ammo. I know we talk about 
hypersonics and other long-range fires, and it is all 
important, but also we need ammunition. And, last year, we had 
an insufficient amount of money that was requested. We added 
$80 million to that, which obviously was needed.
    But I worry about the small-arms industrial base. If we can 
continue to make sure that we ramp up small-arms production to 
make sure we have sufficient stores in case of a conflict like 
we are having right now.
    So I would hope you would agree with that. And if you have 
any quick comments, I would be happy to hear them.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think it is important, 
obviously, that we make sure that we have sufficient ammunition 
stocks, you know, small arms and otherwise.
    And I think one of the things, I believe, in the last 
supplemental request that came over was a new authority, I 
think, to try to help us stay ahead, if you will, on critical 
munitions and make sure that we are able to stockpile in 
advance. So I think that is something that might be helpful as 
well.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruppersberger.

                           ARMY RESEARCH LAB

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes.
    Secretary Wormuth, based on the details in your budget 
documents for fiscal year 2023, your basic research, applied 
research, and advanced technological development accounts are 
trending down, and you are now aligning 82 percent of your 
science and technology funding to the Army modernization 
priorities--Long-Range Precision Fires, next-generation combat 
vehicles, future vertical lift, network, air and missile 
defense, and soldier lethality.
    How are you ensuring that legacy S&T organizations like 
Army Research Lab, headquartered in Maryland, in Aberdeen, and 
your basic accounts are appropriately sustained throughout your 
modernization sprint?
    And I am going to be there this Friday, so----
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, certainly the work of Army 
Research Lab remains important, and I think, you know, we have 
seen them make some very important contributions.
    So, what we are trying to do in our budget now is to 
balance, obviously, you know, the finite resources we have. We 
are trying to make sure that we continue to maintain our 
momentum across all six of those modernization portfolios that 
you mentioned. We are trying to also make sure that we continue 
to invest prudently in enduring systems that are important, 
like tanks and Bradleys and Strykers, for example. And we are 
trying to make sure that we continue our S&T work.
    So, you know, those accounts may go up and down a little 
bit from year to year, but the work of the Army Research Lab 
remains very important.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers, do you have a----
    Mr. Rogers. No further questions.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Womack.

                             NATIONAL GUARD

    Mr. Womack. Yes, just quickly about the National Guard. Ken 
talked a minute ago about the fact that his California folks, 
who have done a great job--and I credit the work of the Guard 
in Ukraine with helping prepare the junior officers over there 
for quite a remarkable resistance to this invasion.
    And not lost on me is the fact that in the Guard you can 
serve your country, if you are predisposed to serving your 
country, and still work in a civilian environment, where, as we 
all know, it is a very competitive job climate out there. So I 
know what the Army is trying to do and attract more and more 
people to come in. You are competing with the civilian 
workforce and the increased wages there and this sort of thing.
    What can you tell us--either one of you--what can you tell 
us about the role of the Guard in the future Army and whether 
it is going to continue to be part of our operational strategy 
or whether it will one day be relegated to, more or less, a 
strategic-type reserve, as we once knew it?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, you know, I think the 
National Guard, the Army Guard is incredibly important. And I 
spent a lot of time working Guard issues as the debate about 
moving from a strategic reserve to an operational reserve was 
underway.
    You know, I think we have gained enormous lessons learned 
from--and the components, I think, have come together in an 
amazing way in the last 20 years because they have served 
overseas in the field together. And I think we are very much 
going to continue that operational reserve approach. You know, 
the Army Guard has been incredibly busy the last couple of 
years, both overseas and here at home, and I think will 
continue an operational reserve.
    My son-in-law is in the Pennsylvania National Guard, the 
Army Guard, and he deployed in support of COVID last year and, 
you know, I think has had an amazing experience just, as you 
said, being able to be a member of the Guard but then also have 
a civilian job.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. Ms. Kaptur.

                      NATIONAL GUARD PARTNERSHIPS

    Ms. Kaptur. Yes. I just wanted to state for the record, in 
terms of Central Europe and Ukraine, bringing you back to the 
part of the country I represent, Cleveland, Ohio's sister city 
is Gdansk, Poland. Parma, Ohio's sister city is Lviv, Ukraine.
    If we look at the State partnerships under the Guard, if we 
look at Illinois, their sister country is Poland. Michigan I 
think is partnered with Lithuania; I am not sure. Ohio is 
partnered with Hungary and Serbia.
    I am just saying that there are traditional relationships 
on the ground that you might not think of because you think of 
major bases. Our part of the country has Guard and Reserve, but 
we also have these traditional relationships that are really 
important. And so I look forward to speaking with someone from 
Army about just the logistical potential--the unmet logistical 
potential of our region.
    Secondly, I will say this also for the record. Madam 
Secretary, I appreciate very much the work of the Department in 
helping to review the case of a soldier who fought in Vietnam. 
What was missing from the letter from the Department of Army 
was the historical context in which they fought. There was no 
more costly battle than Ia Drang Valley in that war.
    And when a determination comes back that there were no 
corroborating statements pertaining to a given soldier's 
duties--they were all dead, but for one. And I could find 
nothing in the manual that deals with last soldier standing. In 
this case, he wasn't standing; he was dying on the ground.
    And so I am going to write you a reply and hope that it 
can--I don't know if this can be appealed in any way, but I 
would like to find a way do that and have the historical 
context of Seventh Cav in the battle of Ia Drang Valley at 
Landing Zone X-Ray as part of the review.
    Thank you very much.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Ms. Kaptur.
    And just so my constituents back home don't think that I 
don't care about Minnesota: It has not been mentioned yet at 
this hearing, we are aligned with Croatia.
    Mr. Carter.

                             SMALL BUSINESS

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Army Futures Command stated they would place an emphasis on 
working with small business. GAO reported last year that the FC 
could do a better job in working with small business, 
especially in the area of research and development.
    Please share with us the steps that you are talking to 
ensure that small business is an equal partner.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    And General McConville may want to add to this, but my 
understanding is, certainly when I've gone down to see Army 
Futures Command, they have been working very closely with small 
business and work regularly and have quarterly, if not monthly, 
sort of meetings with the small-business community not just in 
Austin but in other places as well.
    I think, you know, we view the small-business community as 
an important source of innovation and new ideas, new 
technologies. And part of why the Army decided to place Futures 
Command in Austin, which, as you know well, is an incredible 
hub for tech, was precisely that, to give us some connective 
tissue with the small-business community.
    So I will look into if there needs to be more work there, 
but that is front and center in AFC's work.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    General.
    General McConville. Well, Congressman, one of the things I 
have seen with the approach that Futures Command has taken, 
rather than--historically, the old, slow process was come out 
with a huge requirements document, probably piled to the 
ceiling. Only a very large industry could take that on. Now 
what they do is they put out a problem, they bring in all the 
industry partners and small businesses, and they say, ``Hey, we 
would like to solve this problem. Give us some ideas.''
    They come back with white papers. They get a little money 
if they make the cut. And so they might come up with an 
innovative way that helps us define the characteristics for the 
next round; then come back with the design. And that allows 
them to get their ideas in and get under contract and then, 
eventually, actually compete at a much higher level.
    So we are trying that. We probably have more work to do on 
it. But we do want in that innovation in Army Futures Command.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I am glad to hear that. I think that is 
very important, and I appreciate what you are doing.
    About 2006, a guy came into my office with a plastic 
windshield. He said, ``This will take 15 30-caliber rounds 
without shattering.'' And I showed it to folks out at Fort 
Hood, and they went, ``Boy, do we need that.'' I don't know----
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you----
    Mr. Carter. He never could get through.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. We have to look for these people with those 
ideas.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                              MEDICAL CARE

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair.
    Madam Secretary, I understand the need for the Army to 
increase readiness to combat global threats, and the shifting 
medical billets is part of that balancing act. I know the chair 
referenced this in her opening remarks.
    I do just want to raise the concern that these reductions 
and the inability to backfill them could seriously impact 
access to care for servicemembers and their families. I have 
heard from both military and civilian providers in my neck of 
the woods that they are already struggling to hire medical 
professionals. I am afraid these billet reductions will 
exacerbate that problem.
    I understand that the Defense Health Agency is responsible 
for backfilling civilians or contractor replacement, but what 
happens if they are unable to rehire those positions? And what 
impact will that have on the Army's readiness?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    You know, as you noted, this is, I think--you know, we are 
working with the Defense Health Agency, as are the other 
services, as we sort of, you know, complete this transition. 
But I, too, have heard the concerns about the reduction in 
billets, and I have heard concerns as I have gone around to 
installations and communities about what that is going to mean 
in terms of access to care.
    So I think, you know, we are trying to work closely with 
the Defense Health Agency and talk to them about what we are 
seeing and make sure that they understand with urgency the need 
to bring on new hires.
    I think some of this has been exacerbated by the fact that 
a number of our medical professionals were drawn in to 
supporting the COVID response in communities all around the 
country. You know, a lot of those folks have now returned to 
the Department of the Army and are going back into our 
hospitals. But we do, I think, have to keep a close eye on 
this, because we don't want our readiness to be affected.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Madam Chair. I yield back.

                     Chair McCollum Closing Remarks

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    So, just to add onto what Mr. Kilmer said, one of the 
discussions I had at one of the installations out in 
California--and it was several years ago--I don't think it was 
an Army installation--when this was first being discussed. We 
have more women than ever serving in the military. That is a 
good thing. But then when you start saying we are going to 
limit obstetrics, gynecology, and even pediatricians with 
childcare, getting your child in and out for wellness checkups, 
it is going to affect, you know, readiness, morale, and, I 
think, retention into the future.
    I know you are well aware of it, as you shared, you know, 
your personal experiences. I have had them as a mom too. I 
think our voices need to be heard at the table, sitting along 
with our brothers and other fathers, who are sitting at the 
table with us.
    Which leads me to a question that I am just baffled by. 
General, I am beyond concerned that your unfunded requirement 
list includes female body armor for the second year in a row. 
Unfunded? This should be a priority.
    And I quote from a budget justification document: ``If not 
funded, this will create personal safety issues due to lack of 
proper fit of small-statured body armor.''
    I have been in theater when I have been handed, you know, 
body armor that would fit you a lot better than it would me.It 
is not just the fit, the protection, but it is also the ability 
for that soldier, for her to be able to fill her job, to have 
herself not only protected but be able to have the back of the 
soldier next to her.
    Can you explain to me why this is on your unfunded priority 
request?
    General McConville. Well, Chair, we have a program and we 
are aggressively getting after that capability. We have been 
fielding it along. And what we have done is to accelerate--many 
of these programs we have are 4- or 5-year programs. And, in 
order to complete the program faster, we put it on the unfunded 
priority list and try to get it fielded faster.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, sir, I have never done this before in a 
hearing. That is just not a satisfactory answer.
    General McConville. Okay.
    Ms. McCollum. Women are not a second-class priority in the 
United States military, and their protection. I know you 
personally don't feel that way, so I don't mean it directed at 
you. I am directing it to Big Army. This needs to get fixed and 
fixed now.
    My question for the record is going to be on the--besides 
the staff's budgetary questions--is on the Arctic strategy. 
And, as we know, as with climate change, as the Arctic thaws 
out, Russia is a major player in that area, being an Arctic 
nation right across the water from us. China considers itself a 
near-Arctic nation, which is, you know, baffling to geography 
teachers, but they do nonetheless.
    This is going to be very contested space. And this is why 
climate change, as part of our national security, we have to 
address it, but we also have to be prepared and build 
resiliency in. So I am going to have some questions about 
weather modernization and all-terrain vehicles and other 
things.
    Ms. McCollum. I want to thank you for being here today. I 
want to thank you for your understanding that we cannot be in 
session much longer here because of the joint session on the 
floor.
    I want to thank you again, Madam Secretary. I want to thank 
you, General. But please share our gratitude to the men and 
women who serve both in uniform and in civilian clothes 
alongside with you who are working to keep our country safe, 
strong, and secure.
    With that, this concludes today's hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
    
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Aquilino, Admiral John C., U.S. Navy, Commander, U.S. Indo-
  Pacific Command................................................   158

Austin, Hon. Lloyd J., III, Secretary, Department of Defense.....     5

Brown, General Charles Q., Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force........    84

Kendall, Hon. Frank, Secretary, U.S. Air Force...................    82

LaCamera, General Paul J., U.S. Army, Commander, United Nations 
  Command; Commander, United States, Republic of Korea Combined 
  Force; and Commander, U.S. Forces of Korea.....................   191

McConville, General James C., Chief of Staff, U.S. Army..........   210

Milley, General Mark A., U.S. Army, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 
  Staff..........................................................    20

Raymond, General John W., Chief of Space Operations, U.S. Space 
  Force..........................................................    86

Wormuth, Hon. Christine, Secretary, U.S. Army, accompanied by 
  General James C. McConville, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army.........   209