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


.                         [H.A.S.C. No. 117-96]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023

                                  AND

                     OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED 
                                  PROGRAMS

                                 BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS HEARING

                                   ON

                       FISCAL YEAR 2023 READINESS 
                               PROGRAM UPDATE

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                             JULY 19, 2022


                                     
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                __________
                                
                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                                
52-319                        WASHINGTON : 2023                      
                                     
  
                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

                  JOHN GARAMENDI, California, Chairman

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

               Jeanine Womble, Professional Staff Member
                 Kyle Noyes, Professional Staff Member
                          Naajidah Khan, Clerk
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Garamendi, Hon. John, a Representative from California, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Readiness......................................     1
Waltz, Hon. Michael, a Representative from Florida, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Readiness..............................     2

                               WITNESSES

Allvin, Gen David W., USAF, Vice Chief of Staff, United States 
  Air Force......................................................     8
Crites, VADM Randy B., USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, 
  Integration of Capabilities and Resources, United States Navy..     6
Martin, GEN Joseph M., USA, Vice Chief of Staff, United States 
  Army...........................................................     4
Smith, Gen Eric M., USMC, Assistant Commandant of the Marine 
  Corps, United States Marine Corps..............................     7
Thompson, Gen David D., USSF, Vice Chief of Space Operations, 
  United States Space Force......................................    10

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Allvin, Gen David W..........................................    82
    Crites, VADM Randy B.........................................    55
    Garamendi, Hon. John.........................................    43
    Martin, GEN Joseph M.........................................    46
    Smith, Gen Eric M............................................    65
    Thompson, Gen David D........................................    95
    Waltz, Hon. Michael..........................................    44

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    [There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    [There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.]

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Bergman..................................................   126
    Mr. Crow.....................................................   125
    Mr. Johnson..................................................   126
    Mr. Scott....................................................   112
    Ms. Speier...................................................   122
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   107
              
              
              FISCAL YEAR 2023 READINESS PROGRAM UPDATE

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                                 Subcommittee on Readiness,
                            Washington, DC, Tuesday, July 19, 2022.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:31 a.m., in 
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Garamendi 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

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

    Mr. Garamendi. Good morning. I call this hearing to order, 
the Subcommittee on House Service--on House Armed Services 
Readiness Subcommittee.
    As I reviewed the subcommittee's work over the last several 
years in preparation for this hearing, one central theme jumped 
out at me. The military departments have struggled in every 
area to achieve the right balance between investments in new 
platforms and construction or procurement of those new 
platforms, and sustainment of its existing inventory.
    While procurement of systems is within the jurisdiction of 
other House Armed Service subcommittees, once the aircraft, 
ships, ground vehicles, and every other thing has been 
purchased, the Readiness Subcommittee is responsible for 
overseeing the decades of maintenance and training, so that the 
service members are ready for combat.
    The accounts which sustain and maintain these systems are 
chronically underfunded, and the infrastructure that 
facilitates that sustainment--our shipyards, our depots, our 
bases--are often crumbling or woefully out of date.
    This focus on readiness has taken new importance given 
world events. Russia's immoral invasion of Ukraine has 
illustrated to the world anew that military success is built on 
a foundation of sound sustainment and logistics in a contested 
environment. This failure to balance the appetite for new with 
the requirement to sustain what the Department already has 
applies as much to barracks as it does to ships and tanks.
    We have been repeatedly told by witnesses at hearings that 
military personnel are the Department's number one asset. 
However, when they are--when there are hard choices to be made, 
the sustainment of barracks, dorms, and child development 
centers, the places where children must go when the men and 
women are called to duty, are often first on the chopping 
block.
    Unfortunately, we here in Congress, all the members of this 
committee and others, share some of the blame for this ongoing 
phenomena. To steal a quote from one of our witnesses today, 
General Martin, ``O&M [operations and maintenance] funds do not 
have a ZIP code, and, therefore, are not particularly relevant 
to what is home to all of us.''
    As a result, the O&M funds are too often an attractive 
target to offset all manner of other priorities. In addition, 
it can be difficult to understand the true impact of the cuts 
in these accounts on service members and on readiness.
    I look forward today to this hearing, hearing from our 
witnesses on a number of topics, not only about updates on the 
many topics within the subcommittee's purview, but also on the 
real-world impacts of not fully funding operation and 
maintenance accounts.
    We have a lot to cover, so I will put my further thoughts 
and remarks aside and turn to Ranking Member Waltz of Florida 
for his remarks.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Garamendi can be found in 
the Appendix on page 43.]

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL WALTZ, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM FLORIDA, 
           RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS

    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi. I, too, want to 
especially thank all of you, thank our witnesses. I appreciate 
that this hearing is a little bit out of sequence, but I do 
appreciate your patience and willingness to be here.
    And obviously and typically during this hearing, we would 
be poring over the budget to inform your work on this year's--
inform our work on this year's NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act].
    Obviously, as you know, we've completed that business last 
week, at least in the House. Nonetheless, I do believe that 
today's readiness update is important. It is vitally important. 
We need it to inform our continued oversight. And the wonderful 
thing about the NDAA is once we have completed our business we 
are already starting on the next one.
    And, you know, it does provide an opportunity for you all 
to start informing that work, and particularly I think we have 
so much experience right now in our vice chiefs, and we look 
forward to absorbing that.
    That said, I for one am frustrated, as I think you just 
heard from the chairman, since coming to this position at the 
number of cuts from O&M that we continue to see from all sides. 
At the end of the day, we are seeing these cuts to pay for 
lines and programs that do have a ZIP code. And, in my view, 
that is unacceptable.
    Even as Congress adopted a $35 billion topline increase to 
address in part record high inflation, we simultaneously tied 
your hands behind your backs. And this comes at a time when the 
threat landscape couldn't be more complex from what we are 
seeing with the CCP's [Chinese Communist Party's] rapid 
military buildup.
    I am firmly convinced--and just had a trip out to the 
INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command] region--that if we 
continue to tread water, within the next decade the CCP will 
modernize its military, bring it to parity, and in some areas 
overmatch with our own. And when I talked to the INDOPACOM 
commander, a key part of his strategy to deal with that is to 
have forces forward. That is a lot of O&M.
    And so I look forward to talking to you about that issue. 
Obviously, as we are seeing in Russia and Ukraine, it is a 
reminder that we have to sustain high levels of readiness, and 
I know we will have many conversations today and going forward 
about how to strike that balance between readiness and 
modernization.
    Back to the Indo-Pacific, I do look forward to hearing 
about the progress the Army and the Marine Corps is making on 
the littoral regiments and the multi-domain task forces in the 
region. Over the past 2 years, this committee has paid 
particularly close attention to contested logistics. Again, as 
we are seeing in Ukraine, logistics wins or loses wars.
    And I remain concerned that the Department's own plans for 
watercraft and logistics support vessels in the Pacific, as 
well as bulk fuel laydowns, are lacking. Neither appear close 
to ready to support and sustain inter- and intra-theater 
operations.
    Another focus of the subcommittee has been on the 
industrial base. We have heard it, and we will continue to 
focus on it. The depots are, frankly, ancient. The 
recapitalization plans will continue to require significant 
investment. On the Navy side, when I spoke with Admiral 
Lescher--he and I spoke several months ago--he said that 
readiness was a second priority only--for the Navy only behind 
the Columbia-class submarine.
    Yet when we looked at the Navy's UPL [unfunded priority 
list] list earlier this year, we found 5 of the top 10 unfunded 
priorities to be readiness-related. And among those key 
readiness degraders were spares, repair parts, and 
organizational and depot-level maintenance. So I know we all 
need to make those difficult tradeoffs. I know we don't have an 
unlimited budget environment. But I do believe, as long as I am 
honored to sit in this position on this committee, that it is 
time for all of us--the services and Congress--to put our money 
where our mouth is. We have to do better on these readiness 
accounts. And, again, that is across the board.
    Again, I thank the witnesses.
    I will yield, Mr. Chairman. Look forward to this hearing.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Waltz can be found in the 
Appendix on page 44.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Waltz. You are echoing or 
reading the same set of questions that are on my mind.
    Before we formally introduce our witnesses, I do want to 
recognize General Martin, who is retiring soon after 40 years 
of service to this country, extraordinary record. I do 
understand that you cut short a very important task back in 
Texas, something about moving into a new home and duties of 
family responsibilities.
    So thank you very much for being here. We recognize your 
service, and we very much appreciate your dedication to duty 
and to this committee. And I will send a formal ``I am so 
sorry'' to your wife. I understand these things very, very 
clearly.
    So with that, Mr. Waltz, would you like to add?
    Mr. Waltz. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Martin, thank you for your service all these 
decades, but more importantly thank you to your family. It is a 
team effort, and they are the ones that bear the sacrifices, 
whether it is deployments to overseas or deployments to 
Washington, DC. I am not sure which is worse.
    But, yeah, you know, I was reviewing your bio, and I, too, 
started out as an armor officer, so you made a great decision 
there to have a career as a tanker. Little disappointed you are 
not retiring in Florida. Everybody makes mistakes. But well 
earned, sir, and thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think I said earlier that all politics are 
local. Something about ZIP codes. Thank you so very much.
    Our witnesses today are extraordinary members of the Armed 
Forces who have a lifetime--well, almost 40 years for all of 
you--of service. Really appreciate all of that.
    General Martin, we have talked already about your 40 years; 
Vice Admiral Crites, also, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, 
Capabilities and Resources, of the United States Navy; General 
Smith, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps [ACMC]; General 
David Allvin, Vice Chief of Staff for the United States Air 
Force [VCSAF]; and Lieutenant General David Thompson, Vice 
Chief of Space Operations [VCSO].
    Gentlemen, thank you so very much. I was running through 
your resumes and bios earlier yesterday and again this morning. 
And all of you entered service at about--within 2 years of each 
other in the mid-1980s. We thank you for that. We thank you for 
the educational institutions that prepared you for this service 
to our nations.
    So with that, let's start with, General Martin, if you 
would like to make your statement.

 STATEMENT OF GEN JOSEPH M. MARTIN, USA, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                       UNITED STATES ARMY

    General Martin. Chairman and Ranking Member Waltz, thank 
you. And here is the good news: my wife is my number one fan, 
and I can almost guarantee you she is listening to this if it 
is streaming right now. So she--those thanks and that apology 
will be well received, and thank you very much. But it is an 
honor to be here.
    Distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for this 
opportunity to discuss the readiness posture of the United 
States Army with you today. War in Ukraine rages on. The 
resolve of the Ukrainian people is humbling. They face threats 
that permeate all domains. It reminds me of the complexity of 
today's challenges, but also that nations, not just armies, go 
to war.
    There is much to be learned from our actions in Ukraine. 
First, the Army's ability to respond rapidly with military 
options to the Russia invasion of Ukraine is a full expression 
of our high state of readiness. This is a direct reflection of 
Congress' steadfast support. The success of the European 
Defense Initiative is undeniable. It enabled us to deploy over 
12,000 additional soldiers to NATO's [North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization's] eastern flank within hours and days of Russia's 
invasion.
    We are also seeing the value of the United States Army 
building partner capacity through the State Partnership 
Program, foreign military sales, and years of training 
Ukrainian forces through the Joint Multinational Training 
Group-Ukraine. These successes are a model for what the United 
States Army can also provide for the Indo-Pacific, where land 
forces are still the center of gravity of the nations' 
militaries in that region.
    Not only is your Army ready to fight tonight to support 
allies and partners in that theater, but we are uniquely 
capable of building partner capacity there as well.
    The war in Ukraine confirms that the character of war is 
changing, but the nature of war has remained constant. Nations, 
not just armies, go to war, and we must acknowledge that 
winning is a result of ready forces, but also a ready society 
and a ready defense industry.
    Your Army recognizes the challenges on the horizon, 
particularly with the accessions, retention, and realizing our 
modernization objectives. Thanks to your support, oversight, 
and direction, we have been working tirelessly to address 
these. Our people are critical to our readiness, but recruiting 
motivated, fit, and academically proficient men and women 
continues to be a challenge.
    Only 23 percent of military-age men and women in the United 
States are qualified to serve, and that does not even reflect 
propensity. We are pursuing every approach to recruit talent, 
including modifying our marketing strategy, providing bonuses, 
and considering soldier location preferences through our 
options programs.
    We are also working to address fitness and training needs 
within the recruiting pool. For instance, we have introduced a 
new program in basic training which acclimates recruits to a 
higher level of physical activity to reduce injuries while in 
basic training and beyond in their careers.
    The Army is also taking proactive measures to improve 
soldiers' working and living environments in order to prevent 
or reduce harmful behaviors. And we are working to improve the 
quality of life on our installations in order to retain 
soldiers, family members, and civilians.
    Finally, we are continuing to modernize our organic 
industrial base in order to ensure that we have effectively 
built the force of tomorrow. We are employing innovative new 
technologies, like 3D printing, to mitigate supply chain 
issues. We are also continuing along a 15-year phased approach 
facilitated by systems like Vulcan that can help us make 
informed investment decisions as we go along.
    At the same time, we are an All-Volunteer Force and a 
reflection of the society we serve. We are grateful for 
Congress' continued efforts to improve the whole of society 
mental and physical health, attract and retain talent, and 
improve the resiliency of our American defense industrial base.
    We are a ready and trained Army, but our readiness 
imperative to our mission is also fragile. Our Army must be 
both responsive to the threats today while still modernizing to 
be ready for the threats for tomorrow. We will continue to 
collaborate with academia, external agencies, sister services, 
and Congress to fulfill our mandate to be the most lethal 
ground force in the world.
    Thank you for your continued support, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Martin can be found in 
the Appendix on page 46.]
    Mr. Garamendi. General Martin, thank you. Thank you for 
your service. Thank you for your testimony. And the written 
testimony also covers many other subjects in greater detail.
    Vice Admiral Crites, if you would come forward with your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF VADM RANDY B. CRITES, USN, DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL 
 OPERATIONS, INTEGRATION OF CAPABILITIES AND RESOURCES, UNITED 
                          STATES NAVY

    Admiral Crites. Ranking Member Garamendi--correction. 
Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Waltz, distinguished members 
of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 
on the readiness posture of your Navy.
    Today the Department is delivering an adaptable, ready, and 
lethal Navy to the joint force at the front lines of strategic 
competition. Foundational to the combat-credible power is 
strong execution and resourcing of the Navy's force generation 
process.
    Readiness remains the critical enabler to naval 
superiority. And while we have made progress in reducing 
maintenance delays, delivering high-end training, and improving 
manning in our ships and squadrons, we still have work to do.
    Personnel readiness is core to naval power, and we owe our 
sailors, our civilians, and their families a work environment 
and a community and a support structure where they are rewarded 
for their talent and treated fairly and valued for their 
sacrifices. Our budget funds construction and repair of child 
development centers. It increases childcare fee assistance. It 
adds significant funding to unaccompanied housing, sustainment 
as well as increased housing capacity overseas.
    Ensuring that our sailors have access to adequate mental 
health care is a top priority as we focus on building 
sufficient health care capacity and better foster a culture 
where it is okay to ask for help. We are comprehensively 
implementing both medical and non-medical mental health 
assistance aimed at improving mental health care, optimizing 
performance, promoting signature behaviors, as well as suicide 
prevention.
    We are increasing both virtual mental health access and the 
number of Active Duty mental health care providers assigned to 
our operational and training commands. And this is allowing 
more flexibility in connecting our sailors with providers.
    As the national demand for mental health care workers 
increases, we are pursuing innovative ways to recruit and 
retain the expertise needed to support the fleet.
    Shifting from personnel readiness to fleet readiness, we 
remain focused on ship and submarine and aviation maintenance 
improvements.
    We have reduced delays in our public and private shipyards, 
and we continue to improve using analytically driven insights. 
Additionally, we have prioritized investments in the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP] to bring our aging 
public yards back to needed standards necessary for the future 
fleet and our Navy.
    Aviation readiness remains strong. We are maintaining 80 
percent or better mission-capable rates for our tactical 
aircraft, and we are showing improving trends in our other 
type/model/series. Expansion of the Fallon Range Training 
Complex is a top legislative priority. It is a critical enabler 
to support the joint force and improve combat readiness by 
allowing us to train how we will fight.
    Future readiness remains a focus as we balance requirements 
for recapitalization and modernization across the Navy 
portfolio. This is required to deliver the most capable Navy 
now and in the future within the allotted top line. And hard 
choices are required, and we look forward to working with 
Congress to ensure that the Navy is properly resourced.
    Finally, the United States Navy--or, I am sorry, the United 
States requires a lethal, capable, and ready Navy to defend the 
homeland and provide an enduring maritime advantage.
    I look forward to working with the committee to ensure that 
the Navy is delivering the readiness required to answer the 
Nation's call.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Crites can be found in 
the Appendix on page 55.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Admiral, thank you very much.
    We now turn to the Marine Corps, General Smith.

 STATEMENT OF GEN ERIC M. SMITH, USMC, ASSISTANT COMMANDANT OF 
          THE MARINE CORPS, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

    General Smith. Well, thank you, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking 
Member Waltz, and distinguished members of this committee. It 
is a privilege to get to appear before you today, and I am 
grateful for the opportunity.
    The Marine Corps remains your Nation's crisis response 
force, the 911 force. We are ready to deter and defeat those 
adversaries that would challenge us.
    We provide a contribution to the naval and joint force that 
is very unique. Our identity as Marines centers on being ready 
to deter, fight, and win as individuals, as units, and as a 
corps. Everything we do is in support of warfighting advantage 
and being the most ready when our Nation may be least ready. 
That is our obligation to the American people and to you.
    The Marine Corps is currently executing an extensive 
modernization campaign known as Force Design 2030 to best 
prepare us for the pacing threat posed by China. Force Design 
2030 ensures that the Marines who are operating forward, 
campaigning, can respond to crises, contribute to integrated 
deterrence, and conduct the day-to-day campaigns that are 
required with our allies and partners to deter, and if 
necessary defeat, an adversary. It makes us more ready today 
and will make us even more ready tomorrow.
    Change is very difficult. It is difficult culturally, 
fiscally, but it has to happen and happen now, because the pace 
of our adversary is accelerating.
    We prioritize L-class [big-deck amphibious assault ship] 
shipping and the light amphibious warship [LAW), which are both 
vital to our ability to provide the combatant commander what is 
required to execute warfighting tasks. We prioritize our talent 
and management, our people. How do we retain? We talk about 
recruiting, but how do we retain our way out of a difficult 
recruiting environment?
    And we also prioritize our training and education 
modernization, so that those Marines have the best tools 
available to make them the most ready. And every dollar lost--
to your point, Mr. Chairman, on O&M--means that a lance 
corporal or a lieutenant shoulders a greater share of the 
burden, and we should not and cannot allow that.
    And I would simply close by saying that your support and 
oversight of our readiness efforts enhances and preserves our 
lethality as the Nation's crisis response force, and we are 
very grateful for that oversight.
    I look forward to your questions.
    And I would return the courtesy as Congresswoman Speier 
closes out also nearly 40 years, ma'am, thank you for making us 
better. We have a saying that steel sharpens steel. So thank 
you for always asking us tough questions. It does make us 
better, and we salute you for that amount of service, ma'am.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of General Smith can be found in 
the Appendix on page 65.]
    Mr. Garamendi. Having worked--thank you very much, General.
    Having worked for nearly 40 years with Congresswoman 
Speier, you are quite correct about the steel.
    We are going to go--let me get back on track here. Let's 
turn to the Air Force. General Allvin.

 STATEMENT OF GEN DAVID W. ALLVIN, USAF, VICE CHIEF OF STAFF, 
                    UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

    General Allvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a 
blessing and a curse to follow Eric Smith, because I would like 
to share the same sentiments but I can't say it any better than 
Eric did. So, ma'am, thank you so much for what you do for all 
of us and have done for lo these many years.
    Chairman Garamendi and Ranking Member Waltz, and 
distinguished committee members, on behalf of our Air Force 
Secretary and Chief of Staff, thank you for the opportunity to 
join you today to discuss the critically important topic of 
readiness. Let me begin by expressing our appreciation for this 
body's continued partnership and support in delivering the 
resources necessary for the Air Force to pursue 
transformational change.
    The pace of China's accelerating modernization, coupled 
with Russia's acts of naked aggression, are palpable reminders 
that the threats to our national security are very real and 
perhaps closer than we previously believed. Against the 
backdrop of this strategic environment, your Air Force is 
committed to delivering air power anytime anywhere. It is our 
promise to the Nation, to our joint force, our allies and 
partners.
    However, the only way to make good on that promise is to 
ensure our readiness today is adequately balanced with our 
readiness tomorrow. Readiness starts with our airmen, both in 
and out of uniform, who constitute our greatest strength and 
our competitive advantage.
    We must continue to attract and retain the best that 
America has to offer if we are to successfully take on the 
challenges ahead. To that end, the proposed budget increases 
funding by $27 million to expand our outreach to 
underrepresented groups, untapped geographic regions, and 
academic sources.
    Additionally, we are committing significant resources to 
maintaining and improving dormitories, child development 
centers, and housing. We are also making progress on our 
aircrew deficit, which remains a challenge. Continuing the 
positive trend from last year, we reduced our pilot shortage by 
250 airmen, yet we still have over 1,600 pilot vacancies.
    To resolve this issue, we are using a combination of new 
training programs to generate the same or better quality pilots 
in less time. At the same time, we are leveraging numerous 
monetary and non-monetary initiatives to retain their valued 
experience.
    We are also modernizing our operational test and training 
infrastructure, which consists of both physical and synthetic 
environments to enable quality threat-relevant training. We are 
upgrading our ranges to accommodate advanced fifth-generation 
platforms and capabilities. At the same time, we are investing 
in synthetic training tools that allow us to maintain readiness 
using robust, dependable, and cost-effective methods of 
virtually replicating high-end combat scenarios.
    To address our weapons system sustainment challenges, we 
are constantly pursuing improvements in reliability and 
maintainability through investment in emerging capabilities 
such as Condition-Based Maintenance Plus, advanced 
manufacturing, and robotics, amongst others.
    While the proposed budget increases weapon systems 
sustainment funding by $1 billion, this will likely only 
maintain our current level of resourcing of 85 percent of the 
requirement due to sustainment challenges of older aircraft as 
well as inflation.
    To ensure our Air Force is building and sustaining 
readiness against the pacing challenge, and communicating that 
to the joint force, we are implementing Air Force's Force 
Generation, or AFFORGEN, model. This model produces a 
predictable, repeatable cycle against which we can measure and 
build more comprehensive readiness, thus producing a force 
optimized to address the priorities in the National Defense 
Strategy [NDS].
    However, significant challenges remain. The increasing 
aggregate age of our platforms and systems is critically 
challenging our ability to provide adequate readiness today 
while transforming our Air Force to meet the increasingly 
complex and consequential threats ahead.
    The high cost to sustain and operate these systems, along 
with their decreased relevance, is making your Air Force less 
effective in accomplishing what the Nation expects us to do. 
Additionally, we require stable funding and appropriations to 
effectively use the taxpayer dollars throughout the year to 
best build and sustain readiness.
    We have tough choices ahead, and we will continue to 
evaluate those choices in a manner that balances the readiness 
requirements of today with the mandate to provide a capable, 
relevant, and ready future Air Force. We know that all of this 
must be done within available resources, and we look forward to 
working with Congress as we chart this way ahead.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Allvin can be found in 
the Appendix on page 82.]
    Mr. Garamendi. [Inaudible.]

 STATEMENT OF GEN DAVID D. THOMPSON, USSF, VICE CHIEF OF SPACE 
             OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE

    General Thompson. Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member Waltz, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 
Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Space Operations, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify today.
    As we examine the readiness of the Space Force to 
accomplish its missions, the driving factor is a relatively 
recent and dramatic shift from space as a comparatively benign 
military domain to one that is contested. As this committee 
well knows, the capabilities and benefits provided from space 
are vital to our way of life and critical to effective military 
operations in all other domains.
    Over the past two decades, our Nation's space sector has 
made dramatic technological advancements that have profound 
impact on all facets of human endeavor, and strategic 
competitors have taken notice.
    They have made a concerted effort to offset our civil, 
commercial, and military advantages in space. In short, the 
permissive environment that benefitted the United States for 
decades has changed forever. Russia and China continue to 
pursue increases in capability and show a willingness to 
threaten U.S., allied, and partner operations and assets in 
space. Their actions are not aimed at preserving peace and 
stability. Rather, they are rapidly developing and fielding 
space capabilities with aggressive military intention.
    The readiness of the Space Force must be measured against 
our ability to respond to these challenges, not today's 
operations.
    As it relates to the requirements of routine day-to-day 
operations, Space Force units are more than ready and able to 
accomplish their assigned missions. However, when measured 
against the ability to respond to an adversary in a contested 
domain, much work remains to be done.
    The training standards and equipment that served us well in 
the past are not sufficient to address the threats we expect to 
contend with now and in the future. To that end, the Space 
Force is actively redefining and redesigning our force 
readiness model and training standards to more effectively 
prepare space forces in support of the national defense and our 
assigned missions.
    Let me take a moment to describe some of those shifts. 
First, a key challenge for the Space Force crews that execute 
missions continuously in peacetime is finding extra time to 
conduct training that will be needed to conduct those missions 
in conflict. To address this, we have developed a new force 
generation model specifically tuned for employed-in-place 
forces executing 24/7/365-day missions.
    This new model constructs force packages and introduces a 
rotational cycle that allows Guardians not only to execute 
their day-to-day responsibilities but also preserves time to 
conduct much-needed advanced training and readiness activities.
    This model allows us to address the readiness requirements 
of each unique crew member, say a satellite operator, an 
intelligence specialist, or a cyber defender, providing them 
with dedicated time to improve their skills against the most 
challenging threats. It then brings them together as a clue 
to--or as a crew to complete their readiness training and fully 
prepare before we commit them to operations for mission 
execution day to day.
    The second change in our training regimen is in the area of 
equipment. Today Guardians train by and large on equipment 
designed for operations in that benign environment. The focus 
of this training is procedural proficiency for routine 
operations. There is much less thought given to the training of 
tactics necessary to counter hostile action.
    Our Guardians need different training objectives and tools 
for this contested domain. To meet these needs, the Space Force 
is actively pursuing a full-spectrum operational test and 
training infrastructure. This infrastructure will be a system 
of systems designed to provide live and virtual training 
opportunities. It will include high-fidelity digital models and 
simulators to allow us to validate tactics, test system 
limitations, and create a synthetic training environment 
against a thinking adversary.
    The development and fielding of this infrastructure is one 
of the highest priorities of the Space Force. Without it, 
Guardians will not be able to have defendable systems, proven 
tactics, or the ability to practice their craft against an 
opposition force.
    The operational test and training infrastructure will be a 
force multiplier, allowing Guardians to maintain and improve 
our strategic advantage in space.
    Last, but certainly not least, readiness in contested 
domain requires the Space Force to modernize our force 
structure. We must counter and defeat a thinking adversary who 
becomes more capable and dangerous every day. We must 
transition away from legacy systems to new force designs that 
complicate the adversary's decision calculus and likelihood of 
success, first and foremost to deter conflict in space, but 
ultimately to win, should an adversary choose to attack.
    The President's fiscal year 2023 budget makes investments 
in exactly those areas.
    In conclusion, the Space Force will continue to prioritize 
readiness in all of its facets to effectively deter our 
adversaries, and, if necessary, prevail in conflict.
    Thank you for your steadfast support and partnership, and I 
look forward to discussing this further in today's hearing.
    [The prepared statement of General Thompson can be found in 
the Appendix on page 95.]
    Mr. Garamendi. General Thompson, let me start with an 
apology. I was looking at my notes rather than the four stars 
on your shoulder. So we will start with that.
    General Thompson. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Just noting the Space Force being 
new, I am not sure we know how to measure the readiness in your 
operations. So we will want to watch that in the months and 
years ahead, so that as you figure out how to define readiness, 
we want to watch that along the way.
    I am going to start with my series of questions. I am going 
to hold myself to 5 minutes, and we will go from that.
    We're focusing--at least I am focusing, and I think Mr. 
Waltz also, on O&M, probably because of the recent activities 
in the putting together our version--the House version--of the 
NDAA where O&M was the place where raids occurred.
    They are targeted for other priorities. We see this in 
budgets. We see this in reprogramming. And, unfortunately, we 
see this in the Congress, mostly recently with the NDAA, when 
this account is often used to offset competing priorities.
    I believe part of the reason for this is because operation 
and maintenance accounts are opaque, and it is hard to 
understand the true impact of these cuts. Therefore, I would 
like to know what these impacts are. I would like to ask each 
one of you to quickly give us a real-world example, perhaps one 
or two, of what the impacts are when maintenance accounts and 
operation accounts are cut. What does it mean? I am going to 
start in a little different order here. I am going to start 
with the Marine Corps. General Smith, if you could give us a 
couple of examples of what happens when O&M is cut.
    General Smith. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. When you--when 
operations and maintenance budgets are cut, you get one less 
flight hour for a new pilot. That pilot will eventually achieve 
1,000 hours, but they will achieve it a day or a week or a 
month later than they otherwise would have. That pilot, while 
ready, is less ready than he or she should be or could be.
    If O&M is cut, you may not be able to take the entire 
unit--a battalion, for example--to a major operation or major 
exercise, pardon me, in the Philippines. So only half or a 
third of the unit gets the training that was offered to them at 
Balikatan or Cobra Gold. They are less ready than they 
otherwise would have been. They lack the experience that those 
O&M dollars would have brought them because spare parts didn't 
make the airplane ready or because the dollars for the fuel to 
provide that flight hour were not there.
    General Martin. Chairman, two things, two examples. Number 
one, we talk about facility restoration dollars on the 
installations. If the budget is less, the order of merit list, 
those projects we thought were the most important to attack 
that year is affected. And so the projects at the bottom will 
probably not be resolved until the next year, and so it is a 
rolling--it is a rolling cache of projects on each of our 
installations or some of our installations that are affected.
    And the second one, it answers your questions, but it is a 
nuance, and I would like to mention it in this testimony. But 
when we--when we execute an emergent requirement, something 
that is not in the Global Force Management and Allocation Plan, 
something that is not planned, when we execute that, typically 
somehow we get compensated for it eventually, but not 
immediately.
    And so what happens is that impacts our ability to execute 
our programmed readiness activities because we have got to use 
the resources we have to cash roll that until we do get 
compensated. And so that is something that is very complicated 
as we execute during the course of the year. And as you well 
know, we don't have OCO [Overseas Contingency Operations] 
anymore, and so it is pure base dollars for O&M.
    Hope that answers your question.
    Mr. Garamendi. I think there was something that occurred 
this year in Europe that wasn't planned. Good example.
    Let's go to the Navy. What does it mean when O&M is cut?
    Admiral Crites. Yes, sir. I agree with the previous 
comments, and I appreciate the question. I think when we look 
at our big readiness accounts, like ship maintenance, the 
flying hour program, ship operations, that is one of the 
reasons why we established the OPN [Other Procurement, Navy] 
pilot, frankly, in our ship maintenance accounts for private 
sector surface ships.
    When those things are cut, there are fewer availabilities 
that we will be able to afford in the year, and that has a 
cascading impact. Same thing that was previously mentioned on 
our shore side, where we fund our sustainment and restoration 
and modernization of our bases. If we don't have sufficient 
funds, that tends to bow wave and it creates a problem for us. 
So very similar to what was previously stated.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. Air Force.
    General Allvin. Mr. Chairman, I think I would like to build 
upon what my Marine Corps colleague talked about. He talked 
about with respect to aviation, that--sort of the personnel 
readiness issue. I would like to couple that with, actually, 
the platform readiness is impacted as well.
    So, for example, as the O&M budgets are smaller, that means 
perhaps we aren't able to grow our maintainers as fast or the 
ability to do the onsite maintenance and get ahead isn't there 
as well. So what that means is with these aging aircraft you 
spend more time in the depot, you have longer depot times.
    And when something kicks off, I will--think about our 
mobility platforms, C-17, C-5. When something like the 
Operation Allied Refuge with the Afghanistan issue pops up, we 
have to have those aircraft ready at all times. And so that 
backlog starts to build up, and you can't buy that time back 
with a fixed amount of depot infrastructure and an increasing 
requirement for depot maintenance because some of that deferred 
maintenance had to go into the depot.
    Your [inaudible] platform's degradation and readiness 
starts to wane similar to where, as General Smith was talking 
about, the air crew as well.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you.
    Space Force.
    General Thompson. Mr. Chairman, two quick examples. The 
first is advanced training activities for our--for our 
Guardians. Certainly, the needed proficiency training continues 
every single day, but those larger scale, more advanced 
training opportunities, we have to reduce the number, we have 
to reduce the level of sophistication, so not as much of our 
force gets that advanced training and to the sophistication we 
need them to have in order to face threats.
    And then the second is a growing backlog of maintenance 
sustainment activities, both on the ground-based command and 
control systems for our satellites, but also the sensors and 
radars and other things that we have on the ground. That 
maintenance backlog grows, and the chances that we are going to 
have increased downtime in things grows as well.
    Mr. Garamendi. A couple of thoughts--my thoughts on this. 
First of all, in all of the--all of you, when you submit your 
budgets, you submit the proposals, they do not call for 100 
percent readiness across the line. You come in at 75 percent or 
85 percent, some percentage, and so what you are submitting to 
us is insufficient in your own view to maintain readiness. And 
then it winds up with us.
    And we are sinners as much as you are on this matter. We 
will take your 85 percent, and we will whack it and dice it, 
and the result is it may be 80 percent of what you claim you 
need.
    And so I raise this issue for our own discipline as we go 
into the final drafting of the NDAA and the appropriation 
process, that the readiness accounts really are critically 
important. New platforms, equally important.
    The good news that I have next to me, I have the chairman 
of two subcommittees, and I am sure they are listening. I know 
that we have talked about it amongst ourselves, and I am sure 
Mr. Waltz has on his side with the ranking members.
    With that, I will yield to Mr. Waltz. And as we come back 
around, I will have some more comments.
    Mr. Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all of 
your calls ahead of time.
    General Martin, we talked about Guard and Reserve 
readiness, and particularly as it pertains to the looming 
decision on discharging potentially 60,000 guardsmen and 
reservists over the vaccine mandate. And I fully understand, 
you know, as a 26-year veteran myself, good order and 
discipline, and an order is an order. You order the platoon to 
charge the machine gun on the top of the hill. They have got to 
follow it.
    But I also think it is incumbent on us as leaders to 
constantly evaluate the cost and the risk of our orders. Maybe 
charging that hill is going to be too costly to that--to that 
unit.
    So I think my concern here is that the nature of--and the 
effectiveness of the vaccine has evolved. You know, it started 
with absolutely it starts--it stops the spread, and of course 
we can't have sailors getting into a submarine or airmen 
getting into a missile pod or getting in the back of a Bradley 
infecting each other. But I think it is pretty clear now that 
it doesn't stop the spread. It is more of a decision on what 
type of symptoms you want to incur or risk in your personal 
capacity, making it much more of a personal health decision.
    Here nor there, my understanding is the decision sits with 
the Secretary. We are talking about States potentially losing 
up to 20 to 30 percent of their guardsmen and women, replacing 
them in a very difficult recruiting environment, much less 
getting them trained to the capability they once were.
    I don't know how you get there. So I understand it sits 
with the Secretary, but how do you--what is your contingency 
plan to replace those capabilities on that type of scale if the 
Secretary sticks with his decision and discharges 60,000 
guardsmen and reservists? What is the backup plan?
    General Martin. Congressman, thank you. She has not made a 
decision yet, as you well know; we talked about that yesterday. 
And so she has got to take--a lot of things to take into 
consideration as we move towards that decision. But each and 
every day we are making progress in terms of more soldiers 
choosing to vaccinate or their exemptions are approved, and so 
we are making progress on those numbers.
    And I think we need to see what happens over time. What is 
going to be the impact when the new--the new Novavax, if I am 
getting the name correct, vaccination comes into play, and how 
many people are going to change their mind as a result of that 
being available as an option, which we believe that'll be.
    And so we will have to manage our force, but we are talking 
about the future, and we haven't made that decision yet. She 
has not made those decisions yet.
    Mr. Waltz. I understand, General. I am just asking you 
about you--you must have contingencies in place. If we suddenly 
discharge, you know, essentially six divisions worth of 
guardsmen and reservists, how then do we backfill that 
capability, and how long would it take you?
    General Martin. I would like to take that for the record, 
Congressman.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. And for the record, I have taken the 
vaccine. This isn't a political issue. I am just talking about 
weighing that risk of a guaranteed loss versus relatively 
healthy men and women with a fraction of a percent that are 
getting seriously ill at this point.
    I would like to just stick with you, General Martin.
    Mr. Chairman, do you think we are going to come around for 
another----
    Mr. Garamendi. Go ahead.
    Mr. Waltz [continuing]. For another round?
    Can you just take a moment and talk about the Army's role 
in the Indo-Pacific, how critical it is in terms of our 
security assistance partners, our allies, soldiers, waking up 
in a foxhole next to an American soldier, how the majority of 
the chiefs of defense and our allies across the Pacific are 
actually Army officers? I think a lot of people would assume 
that they are Navy.
    And, you know, as we--as we continue to shift in line with 
the National Defense Strategy, I think it is important to 
understand the Army's role in these exercises, and the carry-on 
there is you having the O&M dollars, you having the readiness, 
to be able to carry them out and have those forces forward.
    General Martin. Thank you, Congressman. Land power matters 
anywhere in the world, and it is--it is my assertion that in 
order to win in a complicated environment that is in the 
Pacific it is going to require complete joint force, and land 
power will be a part of that joint force.
    The Army provides a significant amount of capability in 
building partner capacity, as I talked about in Ukraine, and we 
are doing it in the Pacific with security force assistance 
brigades. But it also has capabilities such as long-range 
precision fires that will be part of our multi-domain task 
forces. We have two that are dedicated to the Pacific right 
now.
    We have a logistics network that is reliant upon United 
States Army watercraft and land forces, port opening 
capabilities, and other capabilities on the land to deliver 
capabilities, so the joint force can be supplied.
    We have supreme command and control capability for joint 
forces, and of course we have our traditional forces and air 
and missile defense capabilities that are there.
    One thing that we typically--we tend to--when we look at 
the map of the Pacific, we see a lot of blue and not a lot of 
green. But 16 of those 33 countries have CHODs [chiefs of 
defense] who are land force-raised commanders.
    Most of the militaries in those countries in that region 
are land forces. And if we build upon those partner capacities 
with the capabilities we have, we believe that we can have even 
a more credible deterrent, and, if necessary, respond to crisis 
capability in the Pacific.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, General. And just in closing, at 
least for this round, I think for both the Marine Corps and the 
Army's force design forward, those inter-theater and intra-
theater lift capabilities are, from what I have seen and been 
briefed, wholly insufficient at this point to really--to fully 
be able to execute the OPLAN [operations plan].
    So I look forward to follow-on conversations. I know that 
is something that Seapower [Subcommittee]--both the chairman 
and ranking member have taken a hard look at, and I think--I 
know we have on this committee as well. Look forward to working 
with you to fill those gaps.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Waltz, thank you very much.
    I am going to give the order for questions here--Courtney, 
Wilson, Speier, Scott, McClain. So if your name--if you are in 
there, Mr. Courtney, you are coming up, then Mr. Wilson, Ms. 
Speier, Scott, and McClain.
    Joe.
    Mr. Courtney. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you again to all the witnesses for being here 
post-markup. Of course, this process is still not over. We kind 
of do NDAA like that video Schoolhouse Rock shows, that we 
actually have a real conference committee. So your testimony is 
very valuable.
    Admiral Crites, on page 3 of your written testimony, you 
describe significant progress on the pace of surface ship 
maintenance repairs, which is terrific. However, there was no 
mention on the state of attack submarine maintenance, which, as 
you know, this subcommittee has been focused on for a decade.
    Based on the recently released quarterly submarine 
maintenance report, there are still significant numbers of 
attack submarines with over 3 months of maintenance delays, 
with some vessels still experiencing years of delays, including 
of course the USS Boise, which is kind of the poster child of 
just how serious this problem is. It has been years. Given the 
urgent priority for more subs in regions like the Indo-Pacific, 
I think we all agree this has to change.
    I want to focus, however, on an issue which I believe is 
slowing down submarine maintenance as we speak, and that is the 
Navy's refusal to provide ``unusually hazardous risk 
indemnification for work in the private yards on attack 
submarines,'' specifically on the vertical launch system [VLS].
    The Navy's refusal is a change in 40 years of contract 
policy, which myself and others have been warning is going to 
create a barrier for work to be performed by private 
contractors. This barrier is now playing out in real time with 
repairs of the USS Hartford, at Electric Boat in Groton, 
Connecticut.
    The Navy has not met its June 1 deadline to have a third 
party onsite at the yard to do the VLS work. That is not 
surprising, since the market for comprehensive UHR [unusually 
hazardous risk] insurance coverage is basically non-existent. 
And because of that reality, I want to emphasize this is not a 
USS Hartford unique one-off case. The Navy made a systemic 
change to UHR, and it is going to impact other repairs work 
contracts that had previously been fully indemnified and that 
are going to expire as time goes on.
    And I think it is blindingly obvious that the Navy is not 
going to find private contractors if they can't find insurance. 
And it is just--it is just a simple reality.
    I realize, Admiral, this is not sort of your portfolio, to 
do the contracts, but it--but it affects readiness, if we are 
going to have, you know, in my opinion self-imposed delays 
because of contract issues.
    In the NDAA that we just finished, section 815 of the bill 
modified the indemnification authority, which basically took it 
out of the Secretary of the Navy and pushed it up to the 
Secretary of Defense, which, you know, honestly there is some 
of us who are--you can't--we are all very pro Navy, and we are 
not--but it is a message that this issue really is just 
screaming out for a resolution.
    And I honestly believe there is a compromise here. We can--
we can have contractors get insurance, risk insurance, to the 
maximum that is available in the market, but that--as was the 
case for 40 years, that the Navy will be there sort of as a 
backstop, kind of like TRIA [Terrorism Risk Insurance Act], you 
know, which is, again, a way to, you know, cover risk--high-
risk activity.
    And, again, I am really just sort of bringing this up to 
flag it for the Department, which is that, you know, we are 
already seeing the delay that is happening with Hartford, and 
it is--there is no contractor that is in place to do the 
vertical launch system.
    And you have to have that, right? I mean, if you are going 
to--if you are going to do a full maintenance availability. So 
I just wonder if you could just comment.
    Admiral Crites. Yes, Congressman. Thanks very much for the 
question. And let me just say that the submarine force that we 
have today is the greatest the world has ever seen. And I am 
biased, but you can put that in the record. It is impressive, 
and we need to continue to get our submarines into maintenance, 
and we need to get them out of maintenance.
    We have made progress in the public sector, and we have 
increased our manpower by 40 percent of workers over the last 
10 years. We are making improvements. We are going after, you 
know, data-driven specific efforts to understand where the 
challenges lie. It is in areas of new and growth work, and the 
way we plan, and making sure that we have the parts and pieces 
available early.
    With regard to the private sector, we need that capacity. 
We are close partners with Electric Boat, as well as Newport 
News.
    I would just say that with regard to indemnification, you 
are right, I am not a contracting expert here. I know that the 
Secretary of the Navy has been looking at this, and what I will 
do is I will take your comments back to the Secretary of the 
Navy and we will come back to you.
    Mr. Courtney. I appreciate that. And, you know, again, the 
door is always wide open in terms of continuing this effort.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Wilson, you are up.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Garamendi. And I would like 
to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity I had to be 
with you and Patty on the delegation that we visited in 
Romania, for visiting with our Black Sea allies--Romania, 
Turkey, Bulgaria, Georgia, Ukraine--how important that was, to 
see the security of the Black Sea region.
    Additionally, I had the opportunity to be with you at the 
NATO--excuse me, at the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-
operation in Europe] Parliamentary Assembly in England, and 
then it was so meaningful to me to be with you as we went to 
Helsinki, Finland, and to Stockholm, Sweden, to welcome Finland 
and Sweden into NATO, how important that is.
    Also, Congressman Waltz, Ranking Member, I was really 
grateful to be with you in Kiev, December last year. What a 
life-changing experience it was for me, and I appreciate your 
outspoken service on behalf of our country with your 
background--Green Beret.
    And then I would like to tell General Martin thank you for 
your--you and your family's 40 years of service to our country. 
And I also share your recognition of the resolve of the people 
of Ukraine for victory, which is just so important for the 
security of the American people, that the people of Ukraine are 
victorious.
    With that in mind, I appreciate the leadership of Brigadier 
General Patrick Michaelis of the U.S. Army Training Center at 
Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Fort Jackson is the Army's 
training center of choice for basic combat training and an 
installation consistently recognized for excellence, where 
60,000 troops received initial entry training before entering 
the ready force.
    Given our increasing challenges with recruitment, what are 
the initial entry training centers doing to improve the 
physical readiness while minimizing injuries to the 
increasingly sedentary pool of recruits?
    General Martin. Congressman, thank you, and it is great 
seeing you again, and appreciate your words.
    So about a year ago, the Training and Doctrine Command 
started a program where we embedded medics and behavior health 
specialists at the battalion level in each of our training 
battalions. And the results are undeniable. In that year, we 
had 1,700 fewer trainees that were removed from basic training 
last year compared to 2020.
    So we are going to continue to resource this program and 
continue to grow it because any attrition you have in the 
training pipeline is attrition that you won't receive in the 
operational units or elsewhere in the Army. And so it is really 
important that we continue to work at this.
    And Paul Funk in Training and Doctrine Command, and Pat 
Michaelis, are leading that effort with that initiative.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much. And I do want to echo 
Ranking Member Waltz, too. I am concerned about removing our 
troops and that every effort should be made to provide for 
exemption, so that we can maintain the service members that we 
have.
    General Smith, I am really grateful that I previously 
represented Parris Island. In fact, my son is a Navy doctor 
there at Beaufort Naval Hospital, and so I have a great 
appreciation of Marine service. And with that in mind, I am 
also grateful to be the Congressional Military Youth Programs 
Caucus chairman, and part of that is the Young Marines Program.
    And I want to--want you to know that I was really grateful 
the NDAA includes funding for this and authorizes DOD 
[Department of Defense] funding, and how meaningful this can be 
for recruitment and also have opportunities for young people to 
serve.
    With that in mind, what is the status of the--of this--of 
Marine Corps recruiting? And wouldn't it be helpful to have the 
Young Marines be part of this?
    General Smith. Congressman, good to see you, sir. We 
appreciate the support for any program that offers to the 
American people the true value proposition of service. Young 
Marines is one of those examples. Rather than call it a 
recruiting tool, I view it was offering to everyone a genuine 
glimpse at what the value--the value proposition of service is.
    Our recruiting challenges this year across the board are in 
fact difficult, which is why we are so focused on retention 
rather than recruiting. But we will be on--well, we will make 
or come very close to making our recruiting mission in 2022. It 
will come, to a degree, at the expense of the pool that we have 
ready for 2023. Anytime you have less time in the delayed entry 
program, you will have a higher attrition rate of recruit 
training, which is unacceptable.
    So, again, I think the focus for us is retention, and then 
ensuring that the American people see the value proposition of 
service in the United States Marine Corps and the United States 
military writ large.
    Mr. Wilson. And thank you all for your service.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson.
    We now turn to Ms. Speier.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for your service. And I don't want to 
disappoint you, so I have a series of questions to ask. Let's 
start with you, General Martin. We just got word on the 
Military Personnel Subcommittee that you are going to have an 
end strength shortfall that is pretty dramatic, that you are 
now shifting from an end strength of 473 to somewhere between 
445,000 and 452, so a reduction of between 21,000 and 28,000. 
That is alarming. Tell us how you are going to address it.
    General Martin. Congresswoman, thank you for your question. 
First, I would like to say that it is 445 to 452, but we are 
going to mission ourselves for 455, if we can achieve it.
    And the question is is whether or not we can achieve it, 
because right now what we are experiencing, the why of what we 
think is going on right now, is we have got unprecedented 
challenges with both a post-COVID-19 environment and labor 
market, but also competition, private competition with private 
companies that have changed their incentives over time. You 
have seen that with the various incentives that companies have 
provided.
    And then what we call a decrease--as a result of that, a 
decreasing propensity and requisite qualifications to serve. 
That is why we have gone from 29 to 23 percent of the 
population that is available to serve, and that is not even 
propensed.
    And so that projection for 2023 is correct. We believe that 
we will land at 466 for this year for an end strength, if we 
make our recruiting objectives. And of course that will 
impact--if we are over or under, that will impact next year's 
end strength as well. We are taking that all into account.
    Ms. Speier. Okay. General Martin, I am going to have to 
move on.
    But I think that, Mr. Chairman, we might need to have a 
subsequent hearing on this because it is pretty serious. And if 
we need to make some changes to be able to attract more talent, 
then we need to look more carefully at that.
    Let me move on to you, Vice Admiral Crites. Two questions 
for you. The Air Force and the Army have instituted a policy 
that requires leave to be presumptively approved for women who 
are seeking a medical procedure, such as an abortion or other 
reproductive health. They are not required to tell their 
commanders the specific reason for their needed leave.
    I am not sure what the Navy's policy is. Can you enlighten 
us? Do you have presumptive leave, I guess the question is.
    Admiral Crites. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. 
That is determined between the health provider and the member. 
So the health provider will determine the amount of leave 
required as a result of miscarriage, for example.
    Ms. Speier. No. But my question is, are you presumptively 
going to provide leave and not ask any questions as the Army 
and the Air Force are doing? I mean, I would love to see some 
consistency on this policy.
    Admiral Crites. I believe that today the policy that we 
have is is that that decision is managed at the health care 
provider. So the answer I believe is no, but let me come back 
to you with the details of why and the logic, if you will, 
please.
    Ms. Speier. All right. The Army and Air Force also have 
established the policy of between 1 week and 6 weeks of 
convalescent leave following a miscarriage, depending on the 
circumstances. Would you please report back to us on what the 
Navy's policy is? If we don't have something consistent across 
the services, we are making a huge mistake. So I would ask you 
to do that.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. The GAO [Government Accountability Office] 
reported that the typical surface warfare officer gets less 
than 5 hours of sleep at night. I want to know what you are 
doing to enforce the Navy's fatigue management policy.
    Admiral Crites. Absolutely. That was a--thanks again. That 
was a 2020 GAO report that was done. There have been a number 
of efforts that are underway. We currently have a revised 
policy on watchstanding for our surface warfare officers and 
for all folks assigned to the ships are required to get 7.5 
hours of uninterrupted sleep.
    We are also working watch bill software, which will allow 
us to better understand in real time, as we work the details of 
who is on watch, how many--if people are being impacted. There 
are a number of different efforts that are underway, including 
trying to lighten up some of the mission sets that the ships 
are required to do at sea, increasing the number of training 
opportunities there are in port.
    So this is definitely a focus area and----
    Ms. Speier. So are they getting 7.5 hours of sleep?
    Admiral Crites. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Speier. And you are auditing that?
    Admiral Crites. Yes, ma'am. Including the--yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Speier. All right. I have another question on the 
suicides at USS George Washington. I will wait for the second 
round.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Speier.
    Ms. Speier. Is there going to be a second round?
    Mr. Garamendi. We are going to go for 2 hours, and I am 
sure there is going to be a second round.
    Mr. Scott.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Garamendi. Mr. Scott, let me give the order here. 
Scott, Kahele, McClain, Moore.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Martin, you talked about the reduction from 29 
percent to 23 percent in the 17- to 24-year-olds that are 
eligible to serve. The military health systems named Genesis--
might be more appropriately named Exodus--how much of this 
reduction comes from the change in review of the health status?
    General Martin. Thanks for the question, Congressman. So, 
as you know, MHS [Military Health System] Genesis is new, and 
so what I will tell you is I think that it is beneficial for 
us, because it is helping us see things that we couldn't see 
before. But what we are--what we are struggling with a bit is 
learning how to live with Genesis and understanding the 
timelines that are associated with some of these background 
checks that result from the checks in the system.
    And so we have leaned the process down almost to 50 percent 
of what it was before, but it can still take longer. But what 
we are doing is we are--we are putting some measures in place. 
We are committing some resources at different levels. We are 
asking for licenses for MHS Genesis at the battalion level 
where medical professionals can access it, so that we can see 
some of these waiver requirements in advance, so that we are 
not waiting until the soldier or the prospect arrives at the 
MEP [Military Entrance Processing] station to do that.
    So we are working with Genesis. We have got a path forward. 
I feel very good about that path forward. But it has had an 
impact on our ability to rapidly move soldiers through that 
process at the MEP station, which typically took about 14 days 
in the past, and it was about three times that when we first 
started.
    Mr. Scott. If you had an all-state athlete that had a 
sprained ankle that they were treated for, would that person be 
caught up in the Genesis system and slow down their process?
    General Martin. Congressman, I would have to have someone 
from our recruiting command or from health--the surgeon general 
office talk to you about the specifics of the different checks 
that they make. But I don't think that would fall into that 
category.
    Mr. Scott. I have heard serious complaints about the 
Genesis system and how--from other commanders and what it is 
doing to the recruitment. I would be interested to know if 
issues like a sprained ankle, an athletic injury that did not 
require surgery, or something as simple as a broken bone, was 
creating problems in the system with getting our recruits in.
    Have any of the rest of you got comments on the Genesis 
system with regard to what it has done to the recruitment? Is 
it consistent among all of the branches that it is slowing?
    General Allvin. Congressman, I will just chime in. I would 
just reiterate what General Martin said, is that I believe this 
is a transitory issue, and that as we understand the value 
proposition that this provides with the information made 
available against the processes which we have been using, which 
may not have all the exact same data and information coming in, 
so the recruiter is asked to go back and re-engage. And so that 
additional time is actually exacerbating the problem of keeping 
the recruit--potential recruit interested.
    However, I do believe--just like Paul said, I do believe 
that on the other side of this, this will allow more rapid 
access and allow us to be able to match our policies and our 
procedures with what this capability provides as far as 
insights into it.
    So I think on the other end we will be better off.
    Mr. Scott. I want to--I want to go back to what Congressman 
Waltz said at the start about the vaccines. I had COVID. I was 
hospitalized with it. I was on oxygen for 14 days. And the day 
I was eligible for vaccines, I got vaccinated, and I haven't 
had it since. And so whether it was the vaccines or the fact 
that I had such a bad case, either way, I haven't had to deal 
with COVID since then.
    I am particularly concerned about the way people who had 
exemptions to vaccines prior to COVID have been treated since 
the COVID vaccine. There is a small number in our service that 
had religious exemptions to vaccines that had always been 
honored until the COVID vaccine mandate in the military came 
out.
    The soldiers didn't change their position. It was the 
military that changed their position in that particular case 
for those soldiers. And I want to just be very clear that I 
think that if a soldier had an exemption to vaccines prior to 
COVID being--the COVID vaccine mandate, that exemption should 
be honored. And it is the DOD that is taking the political 
position, not the soldier, when they change that.
    With that, I will yield the remainder of my time.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Scott.
    A little change in the order here. Mr. Kahele, Mrs. 
McClain, Ms. Strickland, and Mr. Moore.
    So, Mr. Kahele, you are up.
    Mr. Kahele. Mahalo, Chairman Garamendi, Ranking Member 
Waltz, for holding this important hearing and for inviting the 
service chiefs to discuss the current state of military 
readiness in our Nation.
    My question--I would like to jump to Red Hill on the island 
of Oahu, and it is for Admiral Crites. Sir, I understand that 
Secretary Austin has directed a joint task force called Joint 
Task Force Red Hill that will be stood up on the island of Oahu 
and led by a senior flag officer that will report to the SECDEF 
[Secretary of Defense] through Admiral Aquilino, the INDOPACOM 
commander.
    Are you able to provide us with any update on the status of 
this joint task force and its formation?
    Admiral Crites. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I 
don't have the latest information. I will get it, and I will 
get it to you.
    It has been--I know this has been discussed. I think I will 
just leave it at that, and I will get you what we have as soon 
as I can, sir.
    Mr. Kahele. Okay. No problem. Second question. You know, 
this incident at Red Hill that led to a major, major 
catastrophe on the island of Oahu that affected over 98,000 
military service members that depend and live on the Navy's 
water system started on the 20th of November.
    It was a result of a broken AFFF [aqueous film forming 
foam] fire suppression line that we now know the Navy installed 
and contractors installed violating the Department of Defense's 
fire code when they installed PVC [polyvinyl chloride] piping 
in what should have been a steel pipe through a new fire 
suppression system in the Red Hill lower adit that was 
installed a few years ago.
    The collected wastewater and fuel as a result of a previous 
event at Red Hill which happened on May 5 of last year 
transported and held a fuel-water mixture in this line. We have 
continuously asked the question, and I wanted to ask it again, 
if you had any information to confirm that the release from the 
broken AFFF line contained only a mixture of fuel and water 
petroleum product, but did not contain any type of fire 
retardant such as PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances].
    Admiral Crites. Again, thank you for the question. I don't 
know the answer to that. Again, I will have to come back to 
you. I know--I will just tell you that, you know, the health 
and safety of our people, the families, and our community 
neighbors is, you know, extremely important to us.
    We know that we have lost trust here, and we want to be 
transparent and work with the--with the State, as well as the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense, to get this corrected. I 
don't have the information that you are asking for, but I will 
get it for you.
    Mr. Kahele. I will just add--and I really appreciate that--
you know, this has been [an] extremely difficult process, 
getting accurate information out here in Hawaii to start to 
restore that trust with the island community. For months, I had 
asked for video footage that could have existed, either from 
the tunnel system or from, you know, an individual cell phone 
that the Navy for months stated did not exist.
    And then all of a sudden about 2 weeks ago video footage 
from the actual leak itself on November 20 was released in a 
local media source here. And so, you know, having transparent 
information, especially with this PFAS question, is really 
important because the Navy is now saying that less than 5,000 
gallons of fuel actually leaked into the Red Hill well, but it 
affected so many people so quickly. It is hard to understand 
how that little amount of fuel affected so many military 
service members and their families.
    And so ensuring that PFAS, which is a very, very dangerous 
chemical, obviously known to cause cancer, was not in that pipe 
and did not enter the Red Hill well and ultimately was not 
consumed by our military service members and their families, is 
really, really important for those families to know that.
    So I would appreciate if we are able to definitively come 
to an answer that there was no PFAS in that fire suppression 
system line.
    Admiral Crites. Congressman, again, I will get you the 
information. Regarding the video, my understanding is is that 
the fact that a video existed was part of the initial report 
that was provided--or the initial investigation that was 
provided to the State as well as to this committee back in the 
March timeframe.
    It is not clear to me if our--you know, why our briefer 
misspoke or what occurred there, but I will--I will make sure 
that we get the information on PFAS to you.
    Mr. Kahele. Thank you.
    And I will yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Garamendi. I thank you, Mr. Kahele.
    Before we move to Mrs. McClain, a couple of things. The 
contamination issues are widespread. Each of the services and 
multiple bases are contaminated, water supplies, and the like. 
It is an ongoing issue. It is not the principal subject matter 
of today's hearing, but all of you gentlemen know that we are 
going to go back through this over and over and over again 
until I guess we are gone. It will be a long while after we are 
gone that the pollution will be gone, so be prepared. We are 
coming back at it.
    Mrs. McClain.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, 
gentlemen, for being here today.
    An essential responsibility of the subcommittee is to 
ensure that appropriate resources are authorized to meet 
mission readiness requirements. Yet unfortunately we 
consistently lack the level of detail in the annual budget 
request to conduct this critical oversight work.
    When procuring a weapon system, there is a single line of 
funding. There is a single line of funding to develop that 
system and a single line to buy the system. But to operate and 
sustain that same system, there are multiple funding lines, 
sometimes 14 or more, each of which is executed by a different 
entity and each of which is buried in a larger pot of money, so 
that it is difficult for Congress to have visibility into the 
amounts or the outcomes.
    I think it is our job to make sure that we are getting 
value for our money, and I really think the first question that 
we need to ask ourselves and answer is, what are the DOD 
mission readiness requirements in support of the National 
Defense Strategy? To that end, in fiscal year 2021 NDAA, we 
codified a requirement in section 118 of title 10, U.S. Code, 
for the service to submit readiness objectives and metrics for 
every major weapon system along with budget materials, starting 
with the fiscal year 2023 request.
    In our last subcommittee hearing, I asked Secretary Morani 
why DOD has yet to submit the materials required by section 118 
of title 10. He didn't have an answer. He said he would get 
back to me. I am still waiting.
    So I will ask all of you gentlemen this question. When can 
we expect your services to comply with this requirement? And 
maybe you have and I haven't seen it.
    General Martin. Do you want to go down the line, 
Congresswoman? So, for the Army, I will have to take that for 
the record. I don't have the answer to that question, but we 
will get you an answer.
    [The information referred to was not available at the time 
of printing.]
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you.
    Admiral Crites. I will just say for the Navy, again, thanks 
for the question. I think it is an important--it is important 
for us to understand what the outcomes are of the readiness 
investments that we are making. I think we have that 
information. I believe, you know, our budget justification 
material provides most of that, but I will go back, and as 
General Martin stated, I don't have the specifics and will go 
back and work with OSD [Office of the Secretary of Defense] on 
the policy as well as the Navy to get you a correct answer. 
Over.
    General Smith. Ma'am, I will also come back to you, but I 
will say I want to make sure that we are in compliance with 
section 118. I am familiar with it as far as objective initial, 
and then full operating capabilities, objective options, and 
then full capability options for requirements for a specific 
system.
    We always have a threshold and then an objective. Threshold 
is acceptable, always moving toward an objective. Cost analysis 
for each of those, and that is part of our JROC [Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council] process. You must show----
    Mrs. McClain. So do you have it?
    General Smith. We have all--what I know, ma'am, is per 
system we can tell you what that system is supposed to do, what 
it should cost. What I can't confirm for you is that it has 
been placed into one bin, one binder, in compliance with 
section 118. That I will come back to you. But the data is 
there.
    Mrs. McClain. And, again, I think it is--I apologize. I 
will continue before I make my last comment.
    General Allvin. No. I think the same as General Smith. We 
have subcomponents of parts of requirements for aircraft 
availability, mission capable rates, et cetera. But as far as 
having that rollup, ma'am, we need to make sure that we have 
that in per section 118. If there is a format template, I am 
not sure that we have complied with that as far as the 
comprehensive piece, ma'am.
    General Thompson. Congresswoman, we are in the same 
position. I need to understand exactly what you are asking for 
and make sure that we provide what it is.
    Mrs. McClain. And, again, I think our frustration--or I 
will start with mine--is we are spending a lot of taxpayer 
dollars, which I am happy to spend to secure our Nation. But 
the frustrating piece is we need to go back and we need to make 
sure that we are getting value for our dollars, and that there 
is a metric that Congress lays out, which I think is pretty 
clear.
    I think it is extremely disappointing that all five of you 
don't have the requirement. So I will ask--my second followup 
question is, when can we expect to get it? Because when I asked 
in the last subcommittee hearing it was, ``Well, I don't have 
it, but I will get it to you.'' And I am still--I am still 
waiting.
    So my followup question is, when will I have or when will 
we have the requirement by law that you are supposed to give to 
us? I am looking for a specific date.
    General Martin. Congresswoman, without understanding 
exactly where we are at in the process, I mean, it could be 
today if we have got it. But I have got--I have got----
    Mrs. McClain. So when will you have an answer for me on 
when you will get me an answer? How is that?
    General Martin. I can have someone answer you by the end of 
the day today.
    Mrs. McClain. Perfect.
    Admiral Crites. Similar, we will provide an answer by the 
end of the day.
    Mrs. McClain. Thank you, sir.
    General Smith. Ma'am, we will come back to you as soon as--
and it may not be today, but days, to tell you what the 
timeframe----
    Mrs. McClain. How about by the end of the week? Is that 
fair? We have just got to put a deadline or it will go on into 
perpetuity.
    Mr. Garamendi. Let's move this along here. Back and forth, 
not going to work.
    The information was required by law. Please provide it as 
soon as possible.
    A couple of things beyond this one requirement, the section 
118. One of the things that is very much on my mind is that 
when new weapon systems are acquired rarely [is] the long-term 
maintenance of that system considered, and it absolutely has to 
be. If we are going to have a bridge tanker, and it is 
different than the existing tanker, what is necessary to 
maintain that? All the way down the line.
    And I think this is part of what that section 118 gets to, 
not only the new systems coming in but existing systems. And to 
the extent that we can identify them, it may also be helpful, 
for example, the A-10, what does it cost to maintain it? And 
that may give us the answer we ought to get rid of it or not. 
Okay?
    Moving on to Ms. Strickland.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our 
witnesses, and I am going to ask two lines of questioning, and 
hopefully we won't run out of time. I wanted to talk about the 
backlog of housing that exists at JBLM [Joint Base Lewis-
McChord] and other bases, and then the Army role in the Indo-
Pacific.
    So I understand that Liberty Military Housing and JBLM are 
2 years into a 6-year $100 million renovation project. And 
these are long overdue. But after I sent a letter, there was an 
assertion that we only had to project a deficit of 245 homes by 
2025. And as of today, there is a 776 housing deficit.
    And I say this because I get calls in my district office 
from families moving to JBLM about the cost of housing and the 
availability, and we know that on post we never want to 
sacrifice readiness or preparedness. But there is an 
opportunity to build more housing at JBLM.
    So, General Martin, what do you think it is going to take 
for DOD to add more housing on and off base to adequately house 
our service members? Thank you.
    General Martin. Congresswoman, thank you for your question, 
and making sure that our soldiers and their families have 
affordable housing to stay in is a top priority for the United 
States Army. That being said, at most of our installations, 70 
percent of the personnel live off post. JBLM is one of those 
unique areas where the cost of living is very high, and so it 
is something that is on the mind of the senior commander there. 
It is on the mind of the partner there.
    But the numbers that you lay out for me I can't tell you in 
this venue with what--the information that I have what their 
plan is to go beyond that. But as it pertains to the Army as a 
whole in your line of questioning, we are trying to make sure 
that we have got the right balance of housing on post that is 
occupied to the appropriate level, so that the vendor can 
provide the--or the partner can provide the capability, but 
also provide affordable housing to our soldiers in a very safe 
and secure environment.
    But if you want an answer on JBLM, as to whether or not 
there is going to be any changes there, I can get that for you. 
I just don't have that information with me today.
    Ms. Strickland. All right. Thank you. And in the Puget 
Sound region where JBLM is located, there is a housing shortage 
of 250,000 units in the entire metropolitan region. So even 
though they may live off post, there is still a crisis, and it 
is still expensive. So if there is a way to adopt urban land 
use rules where we go higher and more dense on post, we can 
help alleviate that problem.
    My second question is basically around, in the Army's 
opinion, has the Russian invasion of Ukraine changed Japan's 
thinking on defense and national security, especially how it 
relates to Japan's southwest islands and how it would play in a 
possible invasion of Taiwan?
    General Martin. Congresswoman, I can't speak for what 
Japan's position is or opinion is, that they are going to--they 
are going to follow the rules of their own sovereignty in the 
decision-making that they would make. But what I can tell you 
is we have a very strong relationship with Japan. We recently 
had their chief of staff come visit us in the Pentagon, had a 
great engagements with him.
    The United States Army-Japan has a great relationship with 
the Japanese. And so we are talking to them all the time, and 
we are--in our exercises, we are starting to exercise more and 
more with them on a bilateral basis, and they are a very 
important partner in the region, particularly when you talk 
about the southwest islands and what posture potential that 
gives for them and for us.
    And so the Army's role in the Pacific, you started to talk 
about that, but then you asked your question about the 
Japanese. The Army has got a huge role in the Pacific--command 
and control, integrated air and missile defense, logistics, 
long-range precision fires, our multi-domain task forces, all 
part of a potent joint force that can provide a credible 
deterrent, and, if necessary, respond to aggression in the 
Pacific.
    Ms. Strickland. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Strickland.
    Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore, I believe you may not be asking a 
question. One, two, three. Sorry, Mr. Moore.
    We now start the second round of questions. There are so 
many things to get into here. I am going to take it in a 
slightly different way.
    Each of the readiness issues that all of you address within 
your own service are critically important. And each of those 
readiness issues are part of a larger, multi-domain program. 
And I am going to take my questions in that direction.
    Start here with, I guess where the first piece of 
information comes from, and that might be a satellite, are you 
prepared in a multi-domain--that is, with each of the other 
four services--to be ready to provide them with the information 
they need to prepare for a conflict? That is, to be ready and, 
if necessary, provide them with the information they need to be 
able to conduct their operations in a coordinated fashion.
    General Thompson.
    General Thompson. Yes, Chairman. Since the creation of 
Space Force, we have taken several actions to do specifically 
that. The first one I will talk to occurred about a year ago 
when the vice chairman, who is also the chairman of the Joint 
Requirements Oversight Council, appointed the Space Force as 
the integrator for joint space requirements.
    And so in that process I am now accountable to the service 
chiefs here and to the--to the vice chairman to first of all 
collect and validate and present to the JROC all of their 
requirements for space-related information, communications, 
positioning, navigation, and timing, data relay, and so that is 
the first thing that we have been appointed to do, and we are 
working through right now the initial phases of what is 
tactical ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance], 
what are their requirements. That is the first thing we did.
    The second thing that we did is institute a force design 
process through our Space Warfighting Analysis Center that also 
includes all of the services and combatant commands to talk 
about the specific designs that will fulfill the requirements 
and their need from space. And we have already done two of 
those force design studies, and we have three others in work. 
And then the last thing is of course ensuring those designs are 
resilient and defendable and able to stand up against attacks. 
Those are three things that we have done and continue to do 
immediately to address the challenge.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you. Let's just go down the line. 
General Allvin.
    General Allvin. And, Mr. Chairman, obviously, it is good to 
start with the Space Force because, as we know, there will be 
an increased reliance on space to do just about anything we 
need to do.
    In a similar sort of educational journey for our Air Force, 
we are recognizing that with the changing character of war that 
is going to privilege speed and tempo and agility, as well as 
lethality, that we cannot hoard information or try and make 
independent actions from the other services. It has to be joint 
from the beginning.
    We have something through the Joint Staff and the joint 
warfighting concept that is sort of a North Star, but it really 
highlights the idea that from the beginning we need to 
understand who needs to get what information and when, because 
whoever has the decision advantage and can keep the opposing 
side on the reactive rather than the proactive is going to be--
that is going to--whether it is not decisive, it is certainly 
going to be major impactful.
    And so that we see that as anything we are doing from our 
information systems, our data transport layers in the air, or 
passing on sensors to shooters, that has to not just go with 
the Air Force. It has to go to any type of shooter that might 
be the best one to prosecute the target at the time.
    Mr. Garamendi. General Smith.
    General Smith. Sir, when you are talking about multi-domain 
operation, multi-domain effects, I mean, that--all of us sit in 
the JROC and in support of the joint warfighting concept, that 
is in fact what we are doing.
    We are a little bit unique in that as the crisis response 
forward-deployed force, we need an integrated multi-domain 
element which we call expeditionary advanced base operations, 
mimics--or General Martin and I would share I think that the--
we looked at the threat in the Indo-Pacific, saw the same 
threat, and began to build expeditionary advanced base 
operations or stand-in forces, multi-domain task force--and I 
won't speak for Joe because he does it so eloquently. That 
integrates everything that you talked about from space, Marines 
who have space qualifications, all the way down to long-range 
fires, resilient communications.
    That multi-domain effect has to be achieved by those forces 
who are forward, present, and ready, who begin the process of 
disrupting an adversary, so the rest of the force can flow 
behind. So we do do that and are very concerned about that.
    To DT's comment, General Thompson's comment, about 
alternate precision navigation and timing, you have to have it 
because we will be cut off from space operations for short 
periods of time. And while they fight to reestablish, we are 
obligated to carry that mission on in a maritime domain.
    Mr. Garamendi. You just happened to tickle one of my 
favorite subjects, GPS [Global Positioning System]. Go ahead, 
Admiral.
    Admiral Crites. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a lot 
more to add, but I would say that the naval service may be the 
largest consumer of what space brings to the table. With our 
ships forward deployed, we need to be able to plug and play and 
be able to do those things.
    And it was mentioned a couple of times that this is a joint 
effort. We can't--we need to come together to make sure that 
the systems that we are putting on our ships are able to, you 
know, communicate with the satellite but also with the radios 
that he has, or whatever.
    And so that is a--that is an ongoing effort, and I am 
encouraged on the direction that we are going. Over.
    Mr. Garamendi. General Martin.
    General Martin. Chairman, I agree with everything that has 
been said, brilliantly stated to my left. But I would like to 
add something, that, you know, tomorrow, if we go to war in the 
Pacific, we are going to go to war with the joint force that we 
have. And so our thought is every day we have got to be ready, 
one. Two, and every day we have an opportunity to modernize, 
change our doctrine, change our training, is progress in the 
right direction.
    But one thing that I am very mindful of that we have got to 
continue to work on, so you have the most credible joint force, 
is we are going to go to war with the posture we have and the 
multinational partners that we have. And that is why engagement 
is so important in the Pacific right now, because we have got 
some traditional partners that we have--that we have fought 
with for years and years. We have got partners we fought 
against that we now fight with. Just time changes.
    But we need to continue to develop relationships there 
because I believe there is a lot of benefit associated with 
that. And so that is why these engagements, the security force 
assistance brigades, and what they do, and then the bilateral 
training that leads to multilateral training.
    And 5 years ago, I wouldn't tell you that Indonesia asked 
us--would ask us to help them build a combat training center, 
and also help them set up a multilateral training exercise. 
That is going on as we speak. That is the potential of building 
these relationships and increasing our opportunities for 
posture.
    Mr. Garamendi. This discussion probably would take several 
hours, which we don't have. I wanted to raise it, and, General 
Martin, thank you for bringing it beyond just the five 
services. It also is our allies and those we would like to have 
as allies.
    It is going to require--I want to come back with a series 
of briefings. Formal hearings are hard to schedule. But I want 
to alert the members of my subcommittee and other committees 
that we will be carrying on a series of briefings on a range of 
subjects.
    When we talk about readiness, we are talking about 
basically every piece of this puzzle except the acquisition of 
new equipment, which must have a readiness component before it 
is ever acquired.
    A change here. I noticed Mr. Johnson has arrived. Mr. 
Waltz, it is your turn, or pass it to Mr. Johnson, then.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. I 
apologize for being late. I was stuck on the floor. I would 
rather be here because readiness is so important.
    General Martin, thanks for your time speaking with me 
yesterday in advance of this hearing. I expressed our concern. 
I think it is not a concern just that I have, but a number of 
my colleagues, about the recruiting crisis and the challenge 
that that places to readiness, to fight and win wars.
    So the Army has only met, as we understand it, 40 percent 
of its recruiting goal for this fiscal year. And yesterday, as 
we discussed, I think just 23 percent of young Americans are 
eligible to serve without a waiver right now. So of course 
barring the over 40 percent of men between the ages of 18 and 
24 who remain unvaccinated against COVID, it makes that 
percentage even lower.
    So at least 75,000 soldiers by our count currently face 
discharge for refusing to take the COVID vaccine. The question 
is, can the Army afford to discharge these soldiers in light of 
all those recruiting difficulties? Or how are we going to 
grapple with this?
    General Martin. Congressman, first, I failed Congressman 
Waltz when I did not give him a number when he told me 64. You 
said 75. I can tell you it is less than 20,000. That is still a 
significant number, and that is why I am looking forward to 
improvements. And that number for the National Guard is a 
little over 11,000, Congressman, but----
    Mr. Waltz. Would you yield?
    Mr. Johnson. Sure. I yield.
    Mr. Waltz. General, I think it is important to be clear 
here. So what is the total--Guard is 11, and Reserve is 20?
    General Martin. No.
    Mr. Waltz. Total.
    General Martin. Total force.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay.
    General Martin. Total force.
    Mr. Waltz. Is approximately 20 at this point.
    General Martin. Yes.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, that is a different number than we have 
been told, so that might be part of the problem.
    General Martin. That is why I did--after our phone call, I 
said I have got to double-check some numbers here because that 
was a big number that you had put up.
    Mr. Johnson. Sure. Well, if the Army fails to meet its 
recruiting goal, COVID vaccine or not, will it make cuts to 
force structure? And how would those cuts affect our readiness 
overall?
    General Martin. We don't need to do that immediately. But 
if we don't arrest the decline that we are seeing right now in 
end strength, that could be a possibility in the future. But we 
don't see the need in the near term.
    In the near term, the way we are going to manage any 
shortfalls that we have is the ways we have done it in the past 
where we prioritize formations that have missions or 
preparation for missions, and those missions will be 
prioritized to be manned. But that is what we have done in the 
past. That is what we did back during the surge when we were 
building structure in the Army, and we had to continue to 
deploy it over to Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is how we will 
manage that.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I am running out of time quickly. I 
wanted to switch topics. The Ukraine conflict. It is a stark 
reminder of the importance, of course, of maintaining our 
military readiness and how quickly munitions are depleted, 
vehicles destroyed, in a large-scale conflict.
    I had a question for each of you, and maybe I will just go 
down the line until I run out of time. Admiral Crites, the 
Ukrainian armed forces have estimated that Russia has fired 
well over 2,000 precision-guided missiles into Ukraine. If we 
expended 2,000 TLAMs [Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles] over a 3-
month period, how quickly could we replace them? And what 
levers does the Navy have to expedite production?
    Admiral Crites. Thanks, Congressman, for the question. I 
think--I don't have the specific numbers off the top of my head 
what the production capacity is. I know that we are at capacity 
today, either building new TLAMs or converting older TLAMs. I 
want to say it is around 450 per year. Over.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Let me go to General Allvin. If the 
Air Force needed to make up combat losses of that magnitude--it 
seems the Russians have lost aircraft somewhere at the rate of 
25 to 35 combat aircraft, at an annual rate that is 100 a year. 
How long would it take us to manufacture 100 fighter or attack 
aircraft beyond current levels of production? And what would 
the lag time be?
    General Allvin. So that would also depend on the type of 
aircraft. But obviously as opposed to munitions, an aircraft, 
especially if it is a fifth gen, is a much longer proposition. 
So there are many things that go into that. How hot is the 
production line? Is it out to max capacity? Do you have to do a 
second production line?
    So the nature of which production line we are talking about 
would vary that, but I think your underlying question is the 
key one, the fact that what Ukraine I think has really done is 
opened up our eyes to make sure that we have to have as much of 
a flexible and robust and adaptive industrial base to be able 
to adapt to this, whether it be munitions or on the platforms.
    Mr. Johnson. I think that is right. I am almost out of 
time, but I will just say Russia has these reconstitution and 
production issues today, but of course they could be ours 
tomorrow. That is the reality. And we are just really hopeful 
the Department is taking a hard look at how we can expand the 
capacity of our defense industrial base if the need arises. It 
is a dangerous time.
    And with my 15 seconds, I just want to say we are so 
grateful to all of you for your leadership in very difficult 
times, and we want to be here to support you. So thank you for 
your time today.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Those issues are 
pertinent to this committee. When we do briefings in the days 
ahead, we will pick those up. Thank you.
    Mr. Waltz. Your turn. We are going into a second round now.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay. Great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    I just want to I think ask a broader question on aircraft 
maintenance. The GAO has reported 46 types of aircraft--and I 
know that is, you know, broad-brushing their study--found that 
3 met their annual mission-capable goals. And I think this is 
along the lines of Mrs. McClain's--it is very difficult for us 
to determine here amongst all of these platforms the 
prioritization, the maintenance, how they are measured, and, 
frankly, what to block and tackle and to defend in these O&M 
dollars.
    But so that is three annual mission-capable goals. Granted, 
the data is a bit dated; 24 did not meet their annual mission-
capable goals in any fiscal year. I think this most broadly 
affects the Air Force, where we are seeing 130 percent--by the 
data I have, a 130 percent increase in your maintenance and 
your sustainment goals.
    And I get--this gets at the heart of divest-to-invest, 
particularly as your fleets are averaging 30 years old, and you 
have been stagnating now. I think despite a number of 
initiatives and money, we have reinvestment. That divest-to-
invest isn't a new concept. You have been doing that over some 
time, yet we are stagnating at around 70 percent.
    So I will start with you, General Allvin. How do we--how do 
we break this deadlock that we seem to be stuck in in terms of 
readiness rates? And I think the chairman perhaps got at it. 
Are you basically negotiating against yourself both within the 
building and then with OMB [Office of Management and Budget] in 
terms of what you come to us in the first place?
    But I will start with you, but I would like to go to each 
of the services as it pertains--I mean, what are the--you know, 
if you could give me your top challenge or two in terms of 
aircraft maintenance and improving sustainment outcomes and 
availability for your aircraft.
    General Allvin. Thank you, Congressman. And I will sound 
like a broken record, but the age of our fleet--the programmed 
lifecycle maintenance projection, they sort of go out the 
window once the aircraft is sustained past its design life. And 
then we find that when it breaks, because of the anticipated 
maintenance issues with it, we are only anticipated for what 
would have gone over X years.
    Now when you have X plus 10, or X plus 15 years, there are 
new and different ways that it finds to break, and those 
breaks, also they require more time to be in depot maintenance. 
And because it is in depot maintenance, you can only have so 
many go through. So when you only have--you have fewer 
available to make it through, it gets clogged in the depot 
maintenance pipeline.
    So part of that has to do--and that is the major one--is 
every year we try to be able to retire those legacy systems, 
and every year that we don't, we just don't park them, we try 
again to maintain them and it costs more to maintain them. And 
so all of those things just continue a spiral.
    And so it actually just gets worse every year, even if we 
were to put the same or slightly increasing dollars into it.
    The second is some of the new systems that we have have 
contract logistic support to go with it. And so as you bring on 
the new systems, there is new money that has to go to that, 
even to the new systems as well.
    But the number one, it would be--it is that age of the 
fleet, because it just takes longer to get them through. The 
number two would probably be the new onboarding of the new 
systems. Number three is that our maintenance workforce is 
still--a bulk of it is still under 6 years, so we are trying to 
get experienced workforce onto those airplanes.
    And as we have to maintain more, we can't put our 
experienced workforce onto the new aircraft, and so they are 
just still--that experienced workforce is trying to retain--
keep them flying, even though they are less relevant. But that 
number one is--it is the age of the existing fleet.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you.
    General Smith.
    General Smith. Congressman, I will echo that. The 
maintainers, the population of maintainers is key, having them 
be experienced, multiple years of service underneath an 
apprenticeship program, so that they become the true expert in 
their field. When you maintain legacy aircraft, for us--and 
legacy is not bad. Legacy doesn't mean that--serve no value, 
gets kind of a bad rap. It means it is not part of our future 
plan going forward. Doesn't mean it didn't serve well.
    Harriers--phenomenal platform, but they have outlived their 
usefulness. Our F-18s, we have got to transition to gen 
[generation] 5 aircraft, the F-35. The longer we maintain those 
older aircraft because of operational demand signals, those 
experienced maintainers are still maintaining Harriers when 
they should be maintaining F-35s, because they have to go 
through a pretty robust, along with pilots, transition program 
from one airframe to another.
    If I pointed to a single--the single biggest challenge, I 
would say it is the maintainers and the inability to harness 
all of the experienced maintainers from legacy platforms, 
because it is a clutch and gas sundown program, and move them 
to the new platforms, you will see readiness increase as soon 
as we can divest of the legacy platforms. That is a fact, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think with that, Admiral Crimes, I am going to yield--
allow Ms. Speier some time before we have to vote.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Waltz, you are exactly right.
    Ms. Speier.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again. I am 
going to try and do three topics, so I want you to be as brief 
as you possibly can be. I want to talk suicides, accidents, and 
childcare.
    Let's start with suicide. General Martin, as you know, I 
went to Alaska and visited both Anchorage and Fairbanks. We 
were told that you were going to bring a team of behavioral 
health service members to help with the fact that they are 
waiting 2 to 3 months to get services. So did the team make it 
to Alaska? Has the wait time decreased?
    General Martin. Congresswoman, the team has arrived. At the 
end of May is when they arrived, and it is too--we don't have 
data that is mature enough to be able to say look at the 
decrease in the wait time. But in terms of physics, it is going 
to happen, and we will report out to you as we progress with 
this, so that you can maintain visibility of that.
    Ms. Speier. What is the number of suicides so far this 
year?
    General Martin. In Alaska?
    Ms. Speier. In Alaska.
    General Martin. In Alaska, you have had one.
    Ms. Speier. So far this year.
    General Martin. One.
    Ms. Speier. Vice Admiral Crites.
    Admiral Crites. Yes, Congresswoman. Thank you. I think we 
are very focused. This has definitely got the attention of the 
SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] and the CNO [Chief of Naval 
Operations]. You know, we are focused on the health and welfare 
of our people. In my opening comments, I made reference to some 
of the things that we have going on, including moving a number 
of our Active Duty medical personnel, both, you know, trained 
in the field--doctors and others--to the waterfront, embedding 
them with--on the ships.
    So I think we are focused here. There are a number of other 
things that we are looking at.
    Ms. Speier. Okay. Let me interrupt you because I am going 
to run out of time.
    Admiral Crites. I am so sorry.
    Ms. Speier. At the USS George Washington, there has been a 
failure to invest in housing, parking, and quality of life 
facilities. The ship appears to be grossly undermanned, 
especially at the supervisory senior enlisted levels.
    When it takes an hour and a half to go from the parking lot 
to get to the ship, that is kind of like unconscionable. What 
are we doing to fix that? Have we bought a hotel, a parking 
lot, something to make--because this shipyard is going to be 
there indefinitely. Are we doing anything about that?
    Admiral Crites. Yes, ma'am. We are--we have offered and 
moving the individuals or the ship's crew off the ship right 
now as we work through quality of life issues that you 
mentioned, such as parking. It is a challenge. We are working 
shuttle services. We are also working with the shipyard 
themselves on a potential to put in a parking garage.
    We are looking at other quality of life initiatives, 
including setting up a center where we can get some rest and 
relaxation. And we--the sailors are, you know, working hard to 
get these ships out of their availabilities, and we understand 
and we definitely appreciate their sacrifices. We need to do a 
better job of providing them the quality of life things that 
are required.
    Ms. Speier. So seven suicides at the USS George Washington. 
Is that correct?
    Admiral Crites. I don't have the number.
    Ms. Speier. I would like the numbers from each of you for 
how many suicides we have had so far. General Smith.
    General Smith. Ma'am, we have had 31 so far this calendar 
year.
    Ms. Speier. Thirty-one suicides so far this year.
    General Smith. Across the Active and Reserve Components, 
the total force, 31. Last year a total of 58; the year before, 
73. So those are the numbers. My biggest concern--I think you 
noted it with General Martin's comment about Alaska--is the 
delay in receiving care, and that comes from a smaller medical 
community, Active Component, drives a bigger delay.
    So our OSC units--operational stress control units--are 
simply not available to each and every unit who would need them 
as we shrink down the medical force.
    Ms. Speier. All right. Telemedicine has got to be part of 
the solution as we move forward.
    General Alvin.
    General Allvin. Ma'am, I need to get you the exact numbers. 
I know that 2021 was better than 2020; 2022 is trending better 
than 2021, but it is still--it is still too high. We are--our 
strategy is following the White House strategy with sort of 
building connections and detecting risk. We are getting--
working harder on informing family members, making sure the 
family members can see and identify the risks, as well as 
continuing the separation of the individual at risk from the 
devices by which him or her might do death by suicide. So those 
are some of the projects we are moving forward on, but I owe 
you the exact numbers.
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    General Thompson.
    General Thompson. Ma'am, same. We don't have the same 
challenges as the other services in that regard, but we know 
that that is as much a blessing. And we actually are putting in 
place resilience teams that look after health, wellness, 
emotional, physical, spiritual, as well----
    Ms. Speier. Thank you.
    General Thompson [continuing]. To combat.
    Ms. Speier. General Martin, how many in the Army in total?
    General Martin. 141. That is 25 percent less than last year 
at this time for the Army, and it is 14 percent below the 5-
year average, and it is 10 percent below the 10-year average. 
And it is just north of the 2019 rate per 100,000 for the 
civilian population of this country.
    If you believe that we are on an upward trajectory, the 
Army could potentially be below that average for the--we won't 
know because the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention] doesn't release that data until a year or two after 
they have compiled it and assessed it.
    Ms. Speier. Okay. I know my time has expired. Let me just 
say to Admiral Crites and General Smith, you are lagging behind 
the other services in providing childcare. Overall, there is 
19,000 families waiting for childcare. The worst numbers appear 
to be in the Navy and the Marines.
    I visited [Camp] Pendleton just a few weeks ago. We have 
got to do a better job. That is part of retention. It is part 
of recruitment. We have got to recognize that. If they can't 
access childcare, they are leaving. And I can't tell you the 
number of service member families I talked to when I was at 
Pendleton that had just--that said just that.
    So I will just leave you with that, and hopefully we can 
have a further discussion on that.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Ms. Speier.
    Votes are called, so we are going to terminate the hearing 
here in just a moment. I want to thank you gentlemen for your 
testimony. There are a myriad of issues. All of them come 
together to create a force that is ready. Or not. And so what 
we need to do is to be informed on the multiple readiness 
issues--childcare, retention issues--all of those.
    I am going to put forth a series of questions to you that I 
would like you to deliver answers to us, some of them in 
writing, others in briefings, which I will make available--
which all of the Armed Services Committee members will be able 
to attend.
    We have got a lot of work to do on spare parts. We didn't 
even get to that. Did I talk about depots? No, I don't think 
so. Not yet. It goes on and on.
    I thank you for your attention today. We will look forward 
to continuing on.
    With that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
     
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                             July 19, 2022
      
=======================================================================


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 19, 2022

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             July 19, 2022

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

      

                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ

    Mr. Waltz. Inflation has racked our economy, currently estimated at 
9.1 percent by the Department of Labor. Our construction industry has 
been acutely impacted by these inflationary factors and construction 
costs have escalated by 14.7 percent. When these construction factors 
are taken together with the impact of several Biden executive orders, 
the overall military construction impact approaches 20 percent cost 
escalation from last year. Can the MILCON program proposed by the 
budget request and the unobligated $20 billion prior year MILCON 
program be executed? How will you manage inflation and a shortfall of 
appropriations in the military construction account?
    General Martin. As project designs mature and approach 100%, the 
Army is beginning to see some cost growth for projects in the FY 2024 
President's Budget Request. As the Army has done for the last two 
years, the Army will ensure the proper committees are aware of project 
cost growth that cannot be addressed through value engineering or scope 
management. Following authorization and appropriation of the FY 2023 
military construction (MILCON) program, the Army will primarily seek to 
use reprogramming actions to address shortfalls. In the instances of 
when reprogramming is not possible, the Army may cancel a lower 
priority project to fund a higher priority project. This would take 
place only after all other alternatives, such as scope reduction, are 
considered.
    Mr. Waltz. In February of this year, seventeen former military 
leaders representing almost 600 years of active duty across the U.S. 
Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force wrote to Secretary Austin 
outlining the importance of creating a robust and secure domestic 
supply chain of the critical minerals needed to build energy 
infrastructure, modern aerospace, and defense systems. Given the known 
lack of domestic reserves and processing of cobalt, nickel, and 
manganese, this group urged Secretary Austin to consider the 
responsible development of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor 
in U.S. territorial and international waters off the U.S. coast in its 
strategic planning. Do you agree that seabed resource collection 
represents one of the only ways the U.S. can establish a secure 
domestic supply line of these critical minerals? Will you consider 
ensuring that seabed resources are fully considered as part of the 
strategic planning called to promote domestic processing of critical 
minerals?
    General Martin. Access to critical materials from safe and secure 
sources is important to sustain our ability to produce the systems we 
require. That access should be also cost effective and be able to meet 
our schedules to ensure timeliness and best value. To help mitigate 
risk in critical materials, the Army will need to stimulate supply 
through growing sustainable production and processing, including 
recycling, while working with our domestic partners and our trusted 
allies to reduce dependency on adversarial sources.
    Mr. Waltz. One of the President's recent invocations of the DPA 
Title III was intended as a commitment to sustainable development of 
critical minerals and to show that the United States can lead by 
example on how best to responsibly produce and process critical 
materials. Considering the world's primary sources of these critical 
materials--land-based sources in Russia, China, and Southeast Asia's 
rainforests--the desire to boost domestic production and processing in 
particular is well understood. However, U.S. land-based sources of 
nickel and cobalt are deficient (nonexistent in the case of manganese) 
to meet our clean energy and energy security goals--not to mention the 
environmental challenges presented by extractive processes. 
Potentially, the safest and most environmentally-responsible source of 
these metals is collection of polymetallic nodules found on the 
seafloor in U.S. territorial and international waters in the Clarion 
Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the western coast of the U.S. The CCZ contains 
3.4 times more cobalt, 1.8 times more nickel, and 1.2 times more 
manganese than all known terrestrial reserves combined, is home to no 
human populations, contain no toxic elements, and can be taken anywhere 
for processing. In your view, has this shortfall been effectively 
discussed or acknowledged as a threat to national security and our 
economy? o Has an evaluation of the scale, quality, and lifecycle 
impacts of polymetallic nodules in the CCZ been considered? Will you 
consider conducting such an evaluation?
    General Martin. Expanding all sources of sustainable domestic 
production and processing capacity requires a whole of government 
approach. Working with our partners in the OSD and with the interagency 
team, we can leverage various programs to reduce risk in critical 
materials by addressing the various externalities in the production 
process. For example, full use of Defense Production Act Title 3 can be 
used to address production shortfalls with industry and while 
strengthening U.S. stockpiles will send a steady demand signal to 
industry to help sustain production. This approach will allow us to 
create a viable response to addressing challenges posed by adversarial 
countries in the critical material supply chain.
    Mr. Waltz. This administration is keenly focused on combating 
``Putin's war machine'' funded by the sale of oil/gas. But beyond 
fossil fuels, various outlets have recognized Russia's stronghold in 
global commodities; for critical materials such as nickel and 
palladium, Russian companies may be unsanctionable. Russian metals 
giant, Nornickel, is the largest class 1 (battery grade) nickel 
supplier globally. Further, this year, China will supply 92 percent of 
the world's battery cathode materials which are used to power defense 
applications and clean energy technologies; while the raw materials are 
generally mined elsewhere, Chinese companies have established the 
midstream refining of raw materials, battery component and cell 
manufacturing. Without new, scalable sources of nickel, the U.S. and 
its allies are likely to remain reliant on adversaries, with American 
dollars continuing to flow to China and Russia, who have a reputation 
for human rights violations and environmental catastrophes. Do you 
agree that polymetallic nodules, for which a variety of allied nations 
are pursuing, are a supply source that can potentially remedy this 
supply chain vulnerability?
    General Martin. Working with allies and partners is a pillar of 
addressing our country's requirements for critical strategic materials. 
Expanded and enhanced cooperation with our allies and partners also 
will strengthen global supply chain transparency. Creating mutually 
beneficial relationships will ensure that the source of supply and 
associated risks are clearly understood and will allow us to mitigate 
those risks. This approach will allow us to reduce dependency on 
adversarial countries.
    Mr. Waltz. Inflation has racked our economy, currently estimated at 
9.1 percent by the Department of Labor. Our construction industry has 
been acutely impacted by these inflationary factors and construction 
costs have escalated by 14.7 percent. When these construction factors 
are taken together with the impact of several Biden executive orders, 
the overall military construction impact approaches 20 percent cost 
escalation from last year. Can the MILCON program proposed by the 
budget request and the unobligated $20 billion prior year MILCON 
program be executed? How will you manage inflation and a shortfall of 
appropriations in the military construction account?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. Applying the Navy process improvement program 
Performance to Plan has yielded positive gains in reducing days of 
maintenance delays for ships and submarines coming out of shipyards, 
but it is still not enough. 5 of 11 amphibious ships got out of the 
shipyards on schedule last fiscal year. With the preponderance of 
Marine Corps F-35s tied at the hip with LHA/LHD readiness this is 
unacceptable for maintaining a tactical and strategic edge in the Indo-
Pacific. With the Kearsarge amphibious ready group unable to deploy on 
time to respond to the Ukraine crisis this is particularly concerning. 
What needs to be done to get both shipyard and intermediate maintenance 
delays down further so we can maintain a credible conventional 
deterrent?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. In February of this year, seventeen former military 
leaders representing almost 600 years of active duty across the U.S. 
Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force wrote to Secretary Austin 
outlining the importance of creating a robust and secure domestic 
supply chain of the critical minerals needed to build energy 
infrastructure, modern aerospace, and defense systems. Given the known 
lack of domestic reserves and processing of cobalt, nickel, and 
manganese, this group urged Secretary Austin to consider the 
responsible development of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor 
in U.S. territorial and international waters off the U.S. coast in its 
strategic planning. Do you agree that seabed resource collection 
represents one of the only ways the U.S. can establish a secure 
domestic supply line of these critical minerals? Will you consider 
ensuring that seabed resources are fully considered as part of the 
strategic planning called to promote domestic processing of critical 
minerals?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. One of the President's recent invocations of the DPA 
Title III was intended as a commitment to sustainable development of 
critical minerals and to show that the United States can lead by 
example on how best to responsibly produce and process critical 
materials. Considering the world's primary sources of these critical 
materials--land-based sources in Russia, China, and Southeast Asia's 
rainforests--the desire to boost domestic production and processing in 
particular is well understood. However, U.S. land-based sources of 
nickel and cobalt are deficient (nonexistent in the case of manganese) 
to meet our clean energy and energy security goals--not to mention the 
environmental challenges presented by extractive processes. 
Potentially, the safest and most environmentally-responsible source of 
these metals is collection of polymetallic nodules found on the 
seafloor in U.S. territorial and international waters in the Clarion 
Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the western coast of the U.S. The CCZ contains 
3.4 times more cobalt, 1.8 times more nickel, and 1.2 times more 
manganese than all known terrestrial reserves combined, is home to no 
human populations, contain no toxic elements, and can be taken anywhere 
for processing. In your view, has this shortfall been effectively 
discussed or acknowledged as a threat to national security and our 
economy? Has an evaluation of the scale, quality, and lifecycle impacts 
of polymetallic nodules in the CCZ been considered? Will you consider 
conducting such an evaluation?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. This administration is keenly focused on combating 
``Putin's war machine'' funded by the sale of oil/gas. But beyond 
fossil fuels, various outlets have recognized Russia's stronghold in 
global commodities; for critical materials such as nickel and 
palladium, Russian companies may be unsanctionable. Russian metals 
giant, Nornickel, is the largest class 1 (battery grade) nickel 
supplier globally. Further, this year, China will supply 92 percent of 
the world's battery cathode materials which are used to power defense 
applications and clean energy technologies; while the raw materials are 
generally mined elsewhere, Chinese companies have established the 
midstream refining of raw materials, battery component and cell 
manufacturing. Without new, scalable sources of nickel, the U.S. and 
its allies are likely to remain reliant on adversaries, with American 
dollars continuing to flow to China and Russia, who have a reputation 
for human rights violations and environmental catastrophes. Do you 
agree that polymetallic nodules, for which a variety of allied nations 
are pursuing, are a supply source that can potentially remedy this 
supply chain vulnerability?
    Admiral Crites. Yes, the Marine Corps supports any effort to remain 
proactive in establishing means to become self-reliant for critical 
materials that further enhance resiliency across the Department. We 
support the effort to pursue the appropriate critical minerals to meet 
our strategic goals.
    Mr. Waltz. High performance aggregate (sand and gravel) is critical 
for hardening and lifecycle of MILCON projects. Shipyard Infrastructure 
Optimization Program (SIOP) MILCON requires high performance aggregate. 
The U.S. has been importing aggregate from foreign sources to meet the 
commercial demands. Foreign reliance poses supply chain risk for the 
Department of Defense and the Navy.
    Is there a domestic source capable of supplying Navy with high 
performance aggregate necessary for the life-cycle and MILCON 
requirements critical for the various assets (drydocks, piers, 
airfields, etc.) for SIOP?
    If not domestically resourced, how is the Navy addressing supply 
chain risk for high performance aggregate?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Waltz. Inflation has racked our economy, currently estimated at 
9.1 percent by the Department of Labor. Our construction industry has 
been acutely impacted by these inflationary factors and construction 
costs have escalated by 14.7 percent. When these construction factors 
are taken together with the impact of several Biden executive orders, 
the overall military construction impact approaches 20 percent cost 
escalation from last year. Can the MILCON program proposed by the 
budget request and the unobligated $20 billion prior year MILCON 
program be executed? How will you manage inflation and a shortfall of 
appropriations in the military construction account?
    General Smith. The Marine Corps is prepared to prioritize the FY23 
USMC Military Construction Program as necessary to ensure the highest 
priority projects are awardable within funding topline as impacted by 
inflation. The Marine Corps is also prepared to provide inflationary 
cost impacts for consideration of increasing funding levels to match 
inflation. As enacted, the FY23 NDAA Authorized DON MILCON program 
levels to account for inflationary impacts and the FY23 omnibus 
appropriations act included additional funds to help the USMC 
successfully execute the full FY23 MILCON program.
    Mr. Waltz. Applying the Navy process improvement program 
Performance to Plan has yielded positive gains in reducing days of 
maintenance delays for ships and submarines coming out of shipyards, 
but it is still not enough. 5 of 11 amphibious ships got out of the 
shipyards on schedule last fiscal year. With the preponderance of 
Marine Corps F-35s tied at the hip with LHA/LHD readiness this is 
unacceptable for maintaining a tactical and strategic edge in the Indo-
Pacific. With the Kearsarge amphibious ready group unable to deploy on 
time to respond to the Ukraine crisis this is particularly concerning. 
What needs to be done to get both shipyard and intermediate maintenance 
delays down further so we can maintain a credible conventional 
deterrent?
    General Smith. The Marine Corps works very closely with the Navy to 
determine the availability of Amphibious ships to support USMC 
operations. Although we understand the Navy has implemented process 
improvement measures for ships in the maintenance phase details of 
additional efforts to reduce maintenance delays for ships is better 
addressed by the Navy.
    Mr. Waltz. In February of this year, seventeen former military 
leaders representing almost 600 years of active duty across the U.S. 
Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force wrote to Secretary Austin 
outlining the importance of creating a robust and secure domestic 
supply chain of the critical minerals needed to build energy 
infrastructure, modern aerospace, and defense systems. Given the known 
lack of domestic reserves and processing of cobalt, nickel, and 
manganese, this group urged Secretary Austin to consider the 
responsible development of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor 
in U.S. territorial and international waters off the U.S. coast in its 
strategic planning. Do you agree that seabed resource collection 
represents one of the only ways the U.S. can establish a secure 
domestic supply line of these critical minerals? Will you consider 
ensuring that seabed resources are fully considered as part of the 
strategic planning called to promote domestic processing of critical 
minerals?
    General Smith. Yes, the Marine Corps supports any effort to remain 
proactive in establishing means to become self-reliant for critical 
materials that further enhance resiliency across the Department. We 
support the effort to pursue the appropriate critical minerals to meet 
our strategic goals.
    Mr. Waltz. One of the President's recent invocations of the DPA 
Title III was intended as a commitment to sustainable development of 
critical minerals and to show that the United States can lead by 
example on how best to responsibly produce and process critical 
materials. Considering the world's primary sources of these critical 
materials--land-based sources in Russia, China, and Southeast Asia's 
rainforests--the desire to boost domestic production and processing in 
particular is well understood. However, U.S. land-based sources of 
nickel and cobalt are deficient (nonexistent in the case of manganese) 
to meet our clean energy and energy security goals--not to mention the 
environmental challenges presented by extractive processes. 
Potentially, the safest and most environmentally-responsible source of 
these metals is collection of polymetallic nodules found on the 
seafloor in U.S. territorial and international waters in the Clarion 
Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the western coast of the U.S. The CCZ contains 
3.4 times more cobalt, 1.8 times more nickel, and 1.2 times more 
manganese than all known terrestrial reserves combined, is home to no 
human populations, contain no toxic elements, and can be taken anywhere 
for processing. In your view, has this shortfall been effectively 
discussed or acknowledged as a threat to national security and our 
economy? o Has an evaluation of the scale, quality, and lifecycle 
impacts of polymetallic nodules in the CCZ been considered? Will you 
consider conducting such an evaluation?
    General Smith. Though you have outlined the lack of U.S. land-based 
sources of critical minerals and their importance to clean energy 
goals, the specific linkages to national security and our economy are 
less clearly defined. I am not aware of any evaluation of the potential 
scale, quality, or lifecycle impacts on polymetallic nodules in the 
CCZ. I would be open to more information and understanding the 
potential for use and application.
    Mr. Waltz. This administration is keenly focused on combating 
``Putin's war machine'' funded by the sale of oil/gas. But beyond 
fossil fuels, various outlets have recognized Russia's stronghold in 
global commodities; for critical materials such as nickel and 
palladium, Russian companies may be unsanctionable. Russian metals 
giant, Nornickel, is the largest class 1 (battery grade) nickel 
supplier globally. Further, this year, China will supply 92 percent of 
the world's battery cathode materials which are used to power defense 
applications and clean energy technologies; while the raw materials are 
generally mined elsewhere, Chinese companies have established the 
midstream refining of raw materials, battery component and cell 
manufacturing. Without new, scalable sources of nickel, the U.S. and 
its allies are likely to remain reliant on adversaries, with American 
dollars continuing to flow to China and Russia, who have a reputation 
for human rights violations and environmental catastrophes. Do you 
agree that polymetallic nodules, for which a variety of allied nations 
are pursuing, are a supply source that can potentially remedy this 
supply chain vulnerability?
    General Smith. Yes, the Marine Corps supports any effort to remain 
proactive in establishing means to become self-reliant for critical 
materials that further enhance resiliency across the Department. We 
support the effort to pursue the appropriate critical minerals to meet 
our strategic goals.
    Mr. Waltz. Inflation has racked our economy, currently estimated at 
9.1 percent by the Department of Labor. Our construction industry has 
been acutely impacted by these inflationary factors and construction 
costs have escalated by 14.7 percent. When these construction factors 
are taken together with the impact of several Biden executive orders, 
the overall military construction impact approaches 20 percent cost 
escalation from last year. Can the MILCON program proposed by the 
budget request and the unobligated $20 billion prior year MILCON 
program be executed? How will you manage inflation and a shortfall of 
appropriations in the military construction account?
    General Allvin and General Thompson. Yes, the projects requested in 
the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Military Construction (MILCON) program and 
prior year unawarded projects can be executed. However, the Department 
of the Air Force (DAF) MILCON program currently anticipates a 
disconnect of approximately $300 Million for FY23 and prior-year 
projects.
    The DAF manages inflation, other disconnects, and shortfall of 
appropriations through a MILCON disconnect list. This list ensures the 
highest priority projects are executable. Project disconnects are 
funded with limited bid savings, cost to completes in future year 
budget requests, additional funding from Congress, or the delay/
cancellation of lower priority projects to make funding available for 
other requirements.
    Mr. Waltz. In February of this year, seventeen former military 
leaders representing almost 600 years of active duty across the U.S. 
Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Air Force wrote to Secretary Austin 
outlining the importance of creating a robust and secure domestic 
supply chain of the critical minerals needed to build energy 
infrastructure, modern aerospace, and defense systems. Given the known 
lack of domestic reserves and processing of cobalt, nickel, and 
manganese, this group urged Secretary Austin to consider the 
responsible development of polymetallic nodules found on the seafloor 
in U.S. territorial and international waters off the U.S. coast in its 
strategic planning. Do you agree that seabed resource collection 
represents one of the only ways the U.S. can establish a secure 
domestic supply line of these critical minerals? Will you consider 
ensuring that seabed resources are fully considered as part of the 
strategic planning called to promote domestic processing of critical 
minerals?
    General Allvin. Currently, the United States has a low production 
capability of cobalt, nickel, and manganese. Domestic cobalt and nickel 
mining does exist and there are imports of manganese from other 
countries like Brazil and Mexico, that aid in stockpiling. The need for 
these critical materials continues to grow, and multiple departments 
and agencies are involved in work to achieve critical mineral supply 
chain security. Seabed mineral development is less mature than 
terrestrial mineral supply chains. The United States is firmly 
committed to a precautionary approach to seabed mining and continues to 
develop policies appropriate to this emerging sector, that integrates 
the best available scientific and technical information, as 
understanding of both immediate and cumulative impacts improves over 
time. The United States is open to further conversation around marine 
science, marine spatial planning, and environmental impact assessments 
related to seabed mining.
    Mr. Waltz. One of the President's recent invocations of the DPA 
Title III was intended as a commitment to sustainable development of 
critical minerals and to show that the United States can lead by 
example on how best to responsibly produce and process critical 
materials. Considering the world's primary sources of these critical 
materials--land-based sources in Russia, China, and Southeast Asia's 
rainforests--the desire to boost domestic production and processing in 
particular is well understood. However, U.S. land-based sources of 
nickel and cobalt are deficient (nonexistent in the case of manganese) 
to meet our clean energy and energy security goals--not to mention the 
environmental challenges presented by extractive processes. 
Potentially, the safest and most environmentally-responsible source of 
these metals is collection of polymetallic nodules found on the 
seafloor in U.S. territorial and international waters in the Clarion 
Clipperton Zone (CCZ) of the western coast of the U.S. The CCZ contains 
3.4 times more cobalt, 1.8 times more nickel, and 1.2 times more 
manganese than all known terrestrial reserves combined, is home to no 
human populations, contain no toxic elements, and can be taken anywhere 
for processing. In your view, has this shortfall been effectively 
discussed or acknowledged as a threat to national security and our 
economy? Has an evaluation of the scale, quality, and lifecycle impacts 
of polymetallic nodules in the CCZ been considered? Will you consider 
conducting such an evaluation?
    General Allvin. The Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III program 
is a key investment tool to build and strengthen the defense industrial 
base and secure U.S. supply chains. Investments through the DPA Title 
III authorities are part the Office of the Secretary of Defense's 
integrated growth strategy for the Manufacturing Capability Expansion 
and Investment Prioritization (MCEIP) Directorate. On behalf of DOD, 
the Air Force has been authorized to make investments which will reduce 
U.S. dependency on foreign sources of minerals and materials by using 
DPA Title III authorities to invest in targeted, mineral-specific 
strategies to secure access to critical battery materials such as 
lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, and manganese. The DOD is addressing 
the shortfall through DPA Title III authorities. The Air Force, as 
Executive Agent, has not been authorized to pursue investments 
regarding polymetallic nodules in the Clarion Clipperton Zone.
    Mr. Waltz. This administration is keenly focused on combating 
``Putin's war machine'' funded by the sale of oil/gas. But beyond 
fossil fuels, various outlets have recognized Russia's stronghold in 
global commodities; for critical materials such as nickel and 
palladium, Russian companies may be unsanctionable. Russian metals 
giant, Nornickel, is the largest class 1 (battery grade) nickel 
supplier globally. Further, this year, China will supply 92 percent of 
the world's battery cathode materials which are used to power defense 
applications and clean energy technologies; while the raw materials are 
generally mined elsewhere, Chinese companies have established the 
midstream refining of raw materials, battery component and cell 
manufacturing. Without new, scalable sources of nickel, the U.S. and 
its allies are likely to remain reliant on adversaries, with American 
dollars continuing to flow to China and Russia, who have a reputation 
for human rights violations and environmental catastrophes. Do you 
agree that polymetallic nodules, for which a variety of allied nations 
are pursuing, are a supply source that can potentially remedy this 
supply chain vulnerability?
    General Allvin. We are aware of certain efforts indicating that 
polymetallic nodules might play a role in future critical mineral 
supply chains if an appropriate regulatory framework were in place for 
the responsible management of such activities. Seabed mineral 
development is less mature than terrestrial mineral supply chains. The 
United States is firmly committed to a precautionary approach to seabed 
mining and continues to develop policies appropriate to this emerging 
sector, that integrates the best available scientific and technical 
information, as understanding of both immediate and cumulative impacts 
improves over time. Multiple departments and agencies contribute to a 
diversified strategy that includes securing and expanding other 
sustainable capabilities such as traditional mining, processing, 
recapturing, recycling, as well as work with allies and partners to 
this end.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT
    Mr. Scott. OSD Sustainment faced the challenge of using legacy 
modeling and simulation tools that were limited in scope and usefulness 
preventing actionable insight leveraging the full power of today's 
predictive analytics. Moreover, OSD Sustainment is currently using Opus 
Suite, a COTS solution, to provide information and predictive analysis 
to maximize combat power and readiness across fleets of complex 
systems. Which programs are currently utilizing this COTS solution, how 
are they currently using it, what impacts are being made to increasing 
combat power of the program (if any), and what other programs might 
benefit from this solution? How are the Military services currently 
optimizing maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission 
readiness requirements? Would establishing a Common Readiness Model 
across the Department of Defense be beneficial towards this effort?
    General Martin. At this time, the Army does not believe a Common 
Readiness Model across the Department of Defense would be beneficial, 
as the model may not account for system complexity or organizational 
nuance. Army Materiel Command is currently assessing Opus Suite's 
predictive maintenance capabilities alongside commercial off-the-shelf 
solutions from three other vendors, with decision point end at end of 
FY. Big Data platforms, such as Army Vantage and the Office of the 
Secretary of Defense (OSD)'s Advancing Analytics (ADVANA), have 
accelerated a Commander's ability to generate insights through the 
creation of a common data layer. With this foundation, the Army is now 
applying advanced algorithms and integrating modeling and simulation 
capabilities to enhance decision making. This includes applying 
predictive analysis tools to inform maintenance plans and policies, 
isolate gaps and inform resource shortfalls, and mitigate risks to 
readiness. The Army is moving toward decision support platforms that 
will generate multiple courses of action and propose optimized outcomes 
based on existing business rules.
    Mr. Scott. I commend the Army's use of Advanced Medium Mobile Power 
Sources (AMMPS) to modernize its power generation capabilities systems 
to be more fuel efficient, reduce emissions and its logistics 
footprint, and take advantage of existing and planned smart power 
solutions. These critical generator sets help ensure the readiness of 
the military by providing reliable electric power to the Network/
Command, Control Communications and Intelligence (C3I), Air and Missile 
Defense, Long Range Precision Fires, Command Post and Combat Support/
Combat Service support systems. Given the Army's continued emphasis on 
standing up the Futures Command to drive the service's top 
modernization priorities, it is important for the Army to continue to 
keep in mind that power and the AMMPS program is a fundamental need for 
these initiatives to be successful.
    How does the Army plan to insert new technology into the existing 
architecture to enable advanced control features that will provide 
secure protocols and communications, enable telematic capability and 
provide easy integration of renewables and energy storage that is 
compatible with the current fleet of AMMPS generators?
    General Martin. The Army is modernizing the mobile power 
architecture to incorporate the newly approved Tactical Microgrid 
Standard (TMS--MIL-STD-3071). This is a secure and flexible 
communication standard, which will allow future power generation, 
electrified vehicles, renewable sources, and intelligent power 
distribution to communicate on a common interface. It will enable 
remote telematics, maintenance monitoring, remote control, and 
automatic grid optimization for power resilience and reduced fuel 
consumption.
    This development and demonstration of the TMS control hardware is 
funded in FY 2023 by the OSD-managed Operational Energy Prototyping 
Fund (OEPF). Implementation into the Advanced Medium Mobile Power 
Sources (AMMPS) fleet is projected for FY 2026, as part of a service 
life extension and technology refresh initiative.
    Mr. Scott. Is the U.S. Army interested in integrating renewable 
power sources into the tactical power portfolio, like the USMC's Mobile 
Electric Hybrid Power Sources (MEHPS) program, which is a hybrid power 
system consisting of a stand-alone AMMPS, high-energy battery storage, 
system controller, and a solar-photovoltaic (PV) array.
    General Martin. The Army is closely monitoring the United States 
Marine Corps (USMC)'s Mobile Electric Hybrid Power Sources (MEHPS) 
program. It has informed the Army's Hybrid AMMPS Power System (HAPS), 
which is in direct support of the Integrated Fire Control Network Relay 
(IFCN Relay). Currently in competitive prototyping, this program will 
provide a 10kW hybrid AMMPS power unit, capable of providing improved 
power reliability and efficiency using battery energy storage and power 
conversion electronics. It builds off the lessons learned from the 
MEHPS program to boost affordability and simplify operation.
    Mr. Scott. What is the Army's plan to leverage this technology 
considering there is not a specific requirement?
    General Martin. The AMMPS program is incrementally enhancing 
capabilities by leveraging integrated system requirements such as the 
Integrated Fire Control Network Relay, Command Post Integrated 
Infrastructure (CPI2) and Army Hospital Centers. The requirements of 
those integrated systems have enabled Microgrid expansion to three 
variants, hybridization of the 10kW AMMPS, and integrated onboard 
vehicle power systems. By cost sharing the development efforts, the 
Program Manager for Mobile Electric Power Systems has expanded the 
capabilities of the AMMPS fleet without additional power generation 
funding or requirements.
    Mr. Scott. How does the Army plan to develop and procure such 
systems without a requirement for a hybrid power system?
    General Martin. The Sustainment Center of Excellence, part of Army 
Futures Command, is drafting a requirement based on the recently 
demonstrated Secure Tactical Advanced Mobile Power (STAMP) Joint 
Capability Technology Demonstration. It will include advanced Tactical 
Microgrid Standard enabled power distribution architecture, integration 
of renewable inputs, and interconnectivity with Onboard Vehicle Power 
for a future hybrid electric or all electric tactical fleet.
    Currently the Small Tactical Electric Power (STEP) Program has a 
validated requirement for hybrid/renewable integrated capability for 
power systems 3kW and below. Beginning in FY 2024, Program Manager 
Mobile Electric Power Systems will begin Engineering and Manufacturing 
Development (EMD) on a Hybrid Augmentation System, which will work in 
conjunction with the STEP 3kW generator (which is currently in EMD with 
a production award estimated in FY 2026).
    Mr. Scott. Is the Army's organic industrial base ready for large 
scale combat operations?
    General Martin. Yes, the Army's organic industrial base (OIB) is 
postured to support Large Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) and we 
appreciate your continued support. The organic industrial base (OIB) 
enterprise has an immediate surge capability using overtime, second 
shifts, and weekends. We have also accelerated modernization projects 
that are focused on 155mm production and associated components at Iowa 
Army Ammunition Plant (AAP), Holston AAP, Radford AAP, and Scranton 
AAP. The Army developed a 15-year OIB Modernization Implementation Plan 
(MIP) to reinforce the viability of the OIB, focusing investments that 
ensure we have the facilities that meet future production demands, 
ensure workforce safety, reduce environmental impacts, and sustain 
production continuity to meet future LSCO requirements.
    Mr. Scott. What are the enhancements to readiness in the 
information battlespace provided by Lynk Global's newly developed, and 
proven ``satellite direct to standard mobile phone'' technology?
    General Martin. Lynk Global's approach to provide a satellite-to-
phone capability without the limitations associated with the need for 
towers aligns with the Army's intent to increase mobility for the 
force, while maintaining assured communications. Although the Army does 
not currently field Lynk Global's patented technology, several standard 
phone and voice over internet protocol (VoIP) over satellite connection 
capabilities are fielded. For future solutions, the Army encourages 
Lynk Global to compete in opportunities to refresh or augment current 
equipment.
    Mr. Scott. During World War I, the British Army experienced a 
severe munition shortage in what became known as the ``Shell Crisis of 
1915'' due to the inadequate peacetime production and stockpile of 
artillery shells prior to the start of the war. Would the U.S. Army 
experience a shell/munition crisis of its own TODAY should we be 
engaged in large scale combat operations against a peer enemy?
    General Martin. The Army will not experience a munitions crisis 
today in LSCO. However, there are select munitions with current 
inventories below the Total Munitions Requirement (TMR). The TMR 
consists of war reserve, training and test requirements. The Army 
conducts detailed planning to develop the TMR in accordance with the 
DOD Munitions Requirements Process (MRP). The Army MRP process 
identifies munitions required to support combat operations against 
specific near-peer threats. The Army builds inventory and industrial 
base capacity to support the munitions requirements identified in the 
TMR process. The Army is taking a multi-pronged approach of expanding 
production in the U.S. industrial base and leveraging available 
capacity from foreign sources to meet immediate demand, replenish our 
nation's stocks, and support the industrial base for sustained long-
term demand and surge capacity. We are investing in both our organic 
and commercial industrial base to address production increases of key 
systems while also expanding production at existing suppliers and 
standing up new suppliers for certain items.
    Mr. Scott. How many watercraft are needed today to sustain a force 
of 100,000 soldiers deployed in large scale combat operations against a 
peer enemy?
    General Martin. Focused at enabling operational reach, empowering 
freedom of action, and prolonged endurance in support of LSCO in the 
MDO environment, recent Total Army Analysis (TAA) modeling projected a 
requirement of eight Composite Watercraft Companies (CWC) consisting of 
up to 16 vessels each in order to support approximately 250,000 widely 
dispersed Soldiers. Taking mission, dispersion and capabilities into 
consideration, a Joint Force of roughly 100,000 might be supported with 
four companies with as few as 60 vessels, again depending on design and 
capacity.
    Mr. Scott. Would expanding the number of watercraft while 
decreasing their size enhance the readiness of the Army to operate in a 
combat zone?
    General Martin. The operational environment requires numerous, 
mostly small scale-unimproved port and over-the beach movements for 
which the Army's shallow-draft vessels are particularly qualified. The 
Army must ``right size'' the fleet of the Army Watercraft Systems by 
balancing the need to provide light draft, heavy sealift across vast 
distances while maintaining the single lift capacity to effectively 
move land combat configured troops and equipment in a highly contested 
environment.
    Mr. Scott. The Navy has undertaken the implementation of the Navy 
Common Readiness Model (NCRM) as part of the Model Based Product 
Support (MBPS) program. MBPS will provide the Navy with a comprehensive 
modeling and simulation capability to understand and optimize lifecycle 
management, readiness and cost. Could the Navy explain how NCRM is 
being used and how the efficiencies gained in both cost savings and 
improved availability will be reflected in Navy operations? Which 
NAVSEA programs are currently part of the NCRM and how does the Navy 
plan to expand the modeling development across all NAVSEA programs?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. OSD Sustainment faced the challenge of using legacy 
modeling and simulation tools that were limited in scope and usefulness 
preventing actionable insight leveraging the full power of today's 
predictive analytics. Moreover, OSD Sustainment is currently using Opus 
Suite, a COTS solution, to provide information and predictive analysis 
to maximize combat power and readiness across fleets of complex 
systems. Which programs are currently utilizing this COTS solution, how 
are they currently using it, what impacts are being made to increasing 
combat power of the program (if any), and what other programs might 
benefit from this solution? How are the Military services currently 
optimizing maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission 
readiness requirements? Would establishing a Common Readiness Model 
across the Department of Defense be beneficial towards this effort?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. With the expected losses due to enemy action and 
mechanical failure, how do we plan to rescue aviators out of the water 
in the western Pacific?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. How limited is our ability to fully use our special 
forces if we cannot deliver and extract them in a theater dominated by 
shallow seas and countless islands, bays, coves, and rivers?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. How could the readiness of the U.S. Navy be enhanced by 
the addition of seaplanes/flying boats to its inventory of aircraft?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of monthly flying hours 
needed for F-18 and F-35 pilots to guarantee Air Dominance in a future 
war against adversaries with 4th and 5th generation aircraft?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. How does the use of non-5th generation aircraft in our 
aviation aggressor squadrons enhance the readiness of our pilots to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy air forces?
    Admiral Crites. Potential adversary nations possess both 5th-
generation and non-5th-generation aircraft. Training consequently 
requires the use of both categories of aircraft. Utilizing non-5th 
generation aircraft to train squadrons provides a representative and 
affordable method of training to skillsets necessary for achieving air 
dominance in future conflicts. The Department of the Navy is currently 
completing a study on the aerial combat training family of systems 
which will inform future requirements and decisions for training to 
peer conflict in the 2030+ timeframe.
    Mr. Scott. In your best military judgement, what is the ideal 
number of foreign submarines that should train with the U.S. Navy in a 
submarine aggressor role? Are there any laws or regulations that 
prohibit the use of foreign submarines in this role?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What are the benefits of our pilots training against 
aggressor squadrons made up of 5th generation aircraft, and how do 
those training benefits translate into our ability to achieve Air 
Dominance in a fight against a near peer adversary? In today's 
environment, is there any valid, wartime-relevant reason to train 
against anything other than a 5th generation adversary?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. During World War I, the British Army experienced a 
severe munition shortage in what became known as the ``Shell Crisis of 
1915'' due to the inadequate peacetime production and stockpile of 
artillery shells prior to the start of the war. Would the U.S. Navy 
experience a munition crisis of its own TODAY should we be engaged in 
large scale combat operations against a peer enemy?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What anti-submarine warfare training opportunities can 
the Submarine Force's Aggressor Squadron (AGGRON) provide for the 
Navy's surface and aviation communities?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. Is the Submarine Force's Aggressor Squadron (AGGRON) 
fully resourced in terms of personnel and platforms to prepare our 
submarine force to achieve Undersea Dominance against enemy submarines? 
If not, what shortfalls exist?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. Does the Mine Warfare community need an aggressor 
squadron?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. 14 USC 2 states that the U.S. Coast Guard, ``shall 
maintain a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in 
the Navy in time of war, including the fulfillment of Maritime Defense 
Zone command responsibilities.'' What, if any, readiness concerns does 
the U.S. Navy have about the U.S. Coast Guard's ability '' to function 
as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war''?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of steaming days per quarter 
for U.S. warships to best prepare their crews for combat against an 
enemy Navy?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of aggressor training sorties 
needed by your service to ensure your combat aviators will be able to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy pilots? How many aggressor training 
sorties are slated for FY 22? How many are budgeted for FY 23? How 
many, if any, additional aggressor aircraft do you need to meet your 
aggressor training sortie goals?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. How would Unmanned wing-in-ground aircraft enhance the 
U.S. Navy's ability to provide agile, low-observable, and scalable 
methods to deploy mines in denied areas?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. Could an unmanned hybrid airship enable expeditionary 
long-range airborne mine countermeasures at an equivalent or better 
cost than replacing or sustaining the MH-53E Sea Dragon fleet?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. Should the U.S. Navy establish Surface Warfare Needs 
Aggressor Squadrons? How much would it cost and how many ships would be 
needed to establish surface aggressor squadron on both the East Coast 
and the West Coast?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What should the minimum mission capable rate be set at 
for your respective fleet of combat aircraft in order for the United 
States to achieve Air Dominance and to prevail swiftly in a future war 
against a peer enemy?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. What operational benefits does the light amphibious 
warship provides for the cost as compared to the Army logistics support 
vessel?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Scott. OSD Sustainment faced the challenge of using legacy 
modeling and simulation tools that were limited in scope and usefulness 
preventing actionable insight leveraging the full power of today's 
predictive analytics. Moreover, OSD Sustainment is currently using Opus 
Suite, a COTS solution, to provide information and predictive analysis 
to maximize combat power and readiness across fleets of complex 
systems. Which programs are currently utilizing this COTS solution, how 
are they currently using it, what impacts are being made to increasing 
combat power of the program (if any), and what other programs might 
benefit from this solution? How are the Military services currently 
optimizing maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission 
readiness requirements? Would establishing a Common Readiness Model 
across the Department of Defense be beneficial towards this effort?
    General Smith. The Marine Corps is aware of OSD Sustainment's usage 
of the Opus Suite, but does not use it today. Like many other 
organizations that utilize ``COTS'' AI solutions to solve complex 
problems, the Marine Corps understands successful management of 
sustainment data is a force multiplier. The Marine Corps supports a 
congressionally funded, joint solution that mandates usage from the 
acquisition organizations to reduce the stovepipes of information and 
improve the cost data used to justify necessary lifecycle sustainment 
tradeoffs. In the interim, USMC is leveraging ADVANA and Jupiter to 
make our sustainment data available at the Service level in order to 
leverage advances of AI models that could then be incorporated into a 
Service or joint solution.
    Mr. Scott. During World War I, the British Army experienced a 
severe munition shortage in what became known as the ``Shell Crisis of 
1915'' due to the inadequate peacetime production and stockpile of 
artillery shells prior to the start of the war. Would the U.S. Marine 
Corps experience a munition crisis of its own TODAY should we be 
engaged in large scale combat operations against a peer enemy?
    General Smith. The Marine Corps uses two primary metrics to measure 
readiness of Service munitions inventory--the War Reserve Munitions 
Requirement (WRMR) and the Total Munitions Requirement (TMR). DOD 
Instruction 3000.04 defines the TMR as the combination of WRMR and the 
inventory necessary for training and testing in a year. The WRMR 
equates to the munition quantity required for the Service to execute a 
large-scale combat operation against a peer enemy. The Marine Corps has 
balanced Service readiness risk (training and material readiness) with 
strategic readiness risk to ensure we have sufficient munitions in the 
time of crisis.
    Additionally, the Service continually assesses current munitions 
inventories against the WRMR, Service training requirements, munitions 
production schedules, and other factors prior to making decisions in 
support of Ukraine Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA). Overall, 
Marine Corps readiness has not been significantly impacted by support 
to Ukraine via PDA. With few exceptions, the Service will non-concur 
with PDA munition requests that negatively impact WRMR inventories and/
or Service training requirements.
    The Marine Corps has incurred some short-term training readiness 
impacts to its artillery units due to sourcing 155mm High Explosive 
(HE) artillery and Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS) rounds 
in support of Ukraine. However, mitigations have been implemented to 
ensure the Marine Corps will meet Global Force Management requirements 
and rebuild the 155mm HE inventory. Mitigation efforts vary by munition 
type, but generally include reduction and prioritization of training 
allocations, use of alternative munitions, and the use of simulation 
trainers. These mitigations will limit short-term impacts to readiness; 
however, the Service remains concerned that continued requests to 
support Ukraine may require the Service to assume additional risk to 
training and/or inventories in the mid- and long-term.
    This increased demand is stressing Service inventories, global 
stocks, and outpacing new production. Procurement and delivery of 
replacement munitions are dependent on industrial base capacity, 
competition with other Services, ongoing support to Ukraine and Foreign 
Military Sales. The Office of Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and 
Sustainment) is working with the defense industrial base to increase 
capacity and prioritize new deliveries to meet global demand and 
rebuild inventories.
    The Service is appreciative of the additional $2.7B for munitions 
production and capacity expansion in the FY23 NDAA. However, consistent 
funding to industry throughout the FYDP is required to send a message 
to the manufacturers that increased munitions production is not a 
``surge'' effort but a long-term investment that requires capital 
investment for expanded infrastructure and workforces.
    Due to the classification level of specific Service-level readiness 
impacts, additional information can be provided in a classified manner 
upon request.
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of aggressor training sorties 
needed by your service to ensure your combat aviators will be able to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy pilots? How many aggressor training 
sorties are slated for FY 22? How many are budgeted for FY 23? How 
many, if any, additional aggressor aircraft do you need to meet your 
aggressor training sortie goals?
    General Smith. The USMC aggressor squadron is slated for 3,632 
sorties totaling 2,905 hours in FY24, a 12% increase from FY23. The 
Marine Corps currently has one dedicated adversary squadron, Marine 
Fighter Training Squadron (VMFT)-401, located at Marine Corps Air 
Station (MCAS) Yuma, AZ. The second dedicated adversary squadron, VMFT-
402, is scheduled to stand up at MCAS Beaufort, SC, by the end of FY24 
to provide adversary training to East Coast units.
    The Marine Corps also has contract adversary services to fill the 
gap between required and available aggressor training sorties. Once the 
second Marine Corps aggressor squadron is fully operational, estimated 
CY2026, the two aggressor squadrons plus our contract adversary support 
will generate approximately 8000 sorties per year.
    The Department of the Navy is currently completing a study on the 
aerial combat training family of systems which will inform future 
requirements and decisions for training to air dominance in a peer 
conflict in the 2030+ timeframe.
    The Marine Corps estimates that 26,000 aggressor training sorties 
will be required on an annual basis to meet our requirements in 2030 
and beyond. The Marine Corps will continue to mitigate the gap in 
required adversary sorties through in-house means, simulation, and 
increasing our adversary sortie generation rates.
    Mr. Scott. How does the use of non-5th generation aircraft in our 
aviation aggressor squadrons enhance the readiness of our pilots to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy air forces?
    General Smith. Potential adversary nations possess both 5th-
generation and non-5th-generation aircraft. Training consequently 
requires the use of both categories of aircraft. Utilizing non-5th 
generation aircraft to train squadrons provides a representative and 
affordable method of training to skillsets necessary for achieving air 
dominance in future conflicts. The Department of the Navy is currently 
completing a study on the aerial combat training family of systems 
which will inform future requirements and decisions for training to 
peer conflict in the 2030+ timeframe.
    Mr. Scott. What should the minimum mission capable rate be set at 
for your respective fleet of combat aircraft in order for the United 
States to achieve Air Dominance and to prevail swiftly in a future war 
against a peer enemy?
    General Smith. Marine Aviation began a comprehensive readiness 
recovery plan in December 2014 with the goal of achieving 75% mission 
capable rate to meet the growing demands of Combatant Command 
requirements.
    Big-5 Readiness accounts: Enacted initiatives from FY17 through 
FY23, designed to increase material readiness, improve training levels, 
and retain and develop talented Marines, have yielded steady progress.
    Stable, adequate, and predictable funding levels remain crucial in 
achieving Marine Aviation's readiness initiatives and goals. As the 
Force continues to evolve to face rising threats from a peer adversary, 
Marine Aviation is postured to remain lethal, relevant, and ready for 
the coming fights.
    Mr. Scott. Substantial gains have been made in the F-35 program to 
achieve the Secretary of Defense's mandate of 80 percent Mission 
Capability (MC80) through the work done by Systecon North American in 
developing and implementing supply chain and performance optimization 
strategies, optimizing outcomes, and uncovering and validating 
affordability initiatives. These tool development efforts led by 
Systecon have allowed the Joint Program Office (JPO) to optimize the 
logistics support and supply chain while performing numerous Modeling & 
Simulation (M&S) studies for performance-based outcomes (e.g., 
manpower, sparing, and cost). The JPO team reduced the time to produce 
a performance analysis and cost study from 6 months to 6 days. 
Additionally, they uncovered cost savings and cost avoidance on the 
program that reduced long term program cost estimates by 11 percent and 
allowed for current budget totaling over $100M to be diverted to 
reliability improvement initiatives. Has the Air Force researched 
methods for expanding the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for 
predictive maintenance and leveraging Navy Common Readiness Modeling to 
help address the readiness and sustainment challenges of the Ground 
Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) and Minuteman III? Could the Air Force 
please explain how an Artificial Intelligence predictive maintenance 
tool would be helpful in addressing the GBSD and Minuteman III? Has the 
Air Force considered using GBSD as the first program in larger 
implementation of M&S software like the Navy for service-wide 
efficiency improvement?
    General Allvin. The predictive maintenance portion of the Sentinel 
design is still in the early phases and is guided by requirements such 
as reliability-centered maintenance and condition-based maintenance 
plus. As a result, the Sentinel weapon system will generate massive 
amounts of daily data requiring machine-learning predictive maintenance 
tools to analyze and predict maintenance requirements. For the 
Minuteman III operational system, developed decades ago, the program 
office is exploring AI as a method of better addressing sustainment 
challenges, with predictive maintenance as a possible opportunity.
    Sentinel has a close partnership with Navy Strategic Systems 
Programs (SSP) Office including sharing lessons learned and 
implementation of modeling and simulation (M&S) software. As the design 
progresses, the AFNWC Sentinel Program Office and AFGSC/A4 will utilize 
M&S software to optimize logistics support.
    Mr. Scott. OSD Sustainment faced the challenge of using legacy 
modeling and simulation tools that were limited in scope and usefulness 
preventing actionable insight leveraging the full power of today's 
predictive analytics. Moreover, OSD Sustainment is currently using Opus 
Suite, a COTS solution, to provide information and predictive analysis 
to maximize combat power and readiness across fleets of complex 
systems. Which programs are currently utilizing this COTS solution, how 
are they currently using it, what impacts are being made to increasing 
combat power of the program (if any), and what other programs might 
benefit from this solution? How are the Military services currently 
optimizing maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission 
readiness requirements? Would establishing a Common Readiness Model 
across the Department of Defense be beneficial towards this effort?
    General Allvin. The Air Force is leveraging Opus Suite to support a 
variety of programs. These include:
        (1) The Survivable Airborne Operations Center (SAOC), which is 
        using these tools to support Reliability, Availability, 
        Maintainability and Cost analysis
        (2) F-15E, C-17, and KC-135, which are using these tools to 
        accomplish supply forecasting, demand planning, and spares 
        optimization
        (3) KC-46 and MQ-9, which are using these tools spares 
        optimization and staff decision support for acquisition and 
        sustainment.
    In general, Opus Suite enables programs to conduct supportability 
analyses, as well as to model and simulate impact of decisions, in 
order to optimize cost and performance outcomes.
    A variety of software solutions, including some that have been 
organically developed by the government, are available for use by 
programs conducting supportability analysis. Programs must consider 
their specific requirements when selecting a tool to use. In some 
cases, it may be preferable for AF programs to leverage organically 
developed software solutions such as the Logistics Composite Model 
Analysis Toolkit (LCOM ATK) or the Computerize Optimization Model for 
Predicting and Analyzing Support Structure (COMPASS) to conduct 
supportability analysis, rather than utilizing a tool like Opus Suite.
    Headquarters Air Force is heading several initiatives to optimize 
maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission readiness 
requirements. Condition Based Maintenance (CBM+), Theory of Constraints 
(ToC), Repair Network Integration (RNI), merging of maintenance 
manpower Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC), Competency-Based Training 
(CBT), Additive Manufacturing (AM), implementing improvements to Legacy 
Optimization tools and Alternatives to Forecasting are efforts to 
improve the Air Force's support to the warfighter and ensure better 
alignment of resources to meet mission readiness requirements.
    Condition Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+): Predictive maintenance is 
accomplished through CBM+, which is a maintenance concept that 
decreases unscheduled maintenance and enables leadership the ability to 
optimize resources and aircraft availability. CBM+ turns costly 
unscheduled maintenance into more predictable planned activities, 
saving time, increasing equipment availability, and improving mission 
readiness.
    The USAF CBM+ program currently consists of 16 platforms and 
monitors a fleet of over 3,000 aircraft which includes legacy and fifth 
generation fighters and has executed 1,500 predictive maintenance 
component replacements prior to failure.
    The Rapid Sustainment Office is leading the execution of CBM+ 
across the USAF, while AF/A4 provides overall policy/guidance and has 
already updated DAF21-101 and the USAF CBM+ Strategic Implementation 
Plan.
    Theory of Constraints (ToC): We are improving mission generation 
through implementation of ToC. ToC is an industry-proven method for 
eliminating barriers to efficiency and it improves maintenance 
processes, aircraft availability and mission generation readiness. The 
Air Force has implemented over 25 ToC initiatives across the logistics 
enterprise; some results include:
      a 79 percent increase in sortie effectiveness at Shaw 
AFB, SC,
      a reduction of aircraft in work by 41 percent at MacDill 
AFB, FL,
      a reduction of aircraft in work by 20 percent at Kadena, 
Japan, and
      a reduction of aircraft in work by 28 percent at 
Fairchild AFB, WA.
    We also enabled 1,500 additional KC-135 availability days at one 
wing, the equivalent of 4 extra tails available per day. The 552nd Air 
Control Wing Pilot Flight Training backlog was reduced from 3 years to 
8 months at Tinker AFB, OK; and vehicles awaiting maintenance was 
reduced by 70% at Seymour Johnson AFB, NC.
    We continue to expand ToC implementation across our bases and 
units.
    Repair Network Integration (RNI): Expansion of RNI at base level 
has already resulted in $185M in cost avoidance as work continues to 
unlock unrealized enterprise maintenance capacity by connecting Total 
Force repair nodes.
    Latest expansion to the scope of repair parts in the network brings 
the total to 4.3K parts representing more than a 500% increase, and a 
reduction of an average of 14 days of maintenance awaiting parts per 
item.
    To date, the Air Force has integrated the repair network across 14 
weapon systems, 10 Major Commands, and Total Force has yielded a 50% 
increase in access to residual repair capacity Air Force-wide.
    Maintenance Manpower: We are merging AFSCs to create more agile 
maintainers to meet sortie demand with less manpower. While this may 
increase training cost, it will potentially decrease direct maintenance 
cost over time.
    Also, Air Education and Training Command is implementing 
Competency-Based Training (CBT). The CBT modeling framework is scalable 
to assist career fields in developing their occupational competency 
models.?
    CBT outlines foundational competencies, which are a combination of 
knowledge, skills, abilities, and other characteristics that culminate 
into an observable, measurable pattern of behaviors that improve an 
Airman's performance.
    CBT will become the bedrock to developing the Airmen we need, and 
it provides Airmen with a roadmap to become future-ready, critically 
thinking warfighters.
    Additive Manufacturing (AM): AM continues to evolve and will have a 
positive influence in the sustainment enterprise by enabling a wide 
range of applications. AM processes are extremely flexible and can 
produce a part with minimal lead time and often zero tooling.
    AM empowers supply chain management across the AF to ensure 
continuous warfighter advantage. As of FY23/Q2, the AM program office 
has provided 4K parts across 29 platforms with a projected return on 
investment of $78M.
    Legacy Optimizations: The Air Force continues to refine legacy 
optimization models including Customer Oriented Leveling Technique 
(COLT), which optimally allocates worldwide consumable requirement to 
bases as levels. Within the larger Enterprise Supply Chain Analysis, 
Planning & Execution (ESCAPE) inventory management systems, there is an 
Inventory Planning Capability, which optimally allocates worldwide 
requirements to bases. Lastly, we use the aircraft availability and 
aircraft sustainability models to provide an optimization minimizing 
expected backorders to maximize aircraft availability.
    Mr. Scott. With the expected losses due to enemy action and 
mechanical failure, how do we plan to rescue aviators out of the water 
in the western Pacific?
    General Allvin. In line with the Air Force Future Operating 
Concept, the USAF plans to rescue aviators lost in the maritime 
environment by layering multi-domain effects in a series of pulsed 
operations to create episodic windows of air superiority where CSAR 
forces can recover isolated personnel within a contested environment. 
To provide additional capacity across the sizable INDOPACOM AOR, the 
USAF plans to fully integrate Joint and Partner Nation capabilities to 
provide layered recovery options. And to mitigate risk, the USAF 
further plans to modernize how it trains and equips personnel for 
extended survival, improving communications architectures for 
distributed operations, enhancing its Find-Fix-Track capabilities in 
support of isolated personnel, and supporting science and technology 
efforts to mature technological solutions that may provide enhanced 
capability.
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of monthly flying hours 
needed for F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 pilots to guarantee Air Dominance 
in a future war against adversaries with 4th and 5th generation 
aircraft?
    General Allvin. A fully executed Flying Hour Program funded to the 
requirement is the flying necessary to produce ready aircrew across the 
spectrum of military operations and experience pilots for future 
mission qualification upgrades. Programmed flying hours (funding) have 
been at risk of Congressional marks due to systemic under-execution 
dating to 2010 creating a downward spiraling condition that erodes 
hours, subsequent funding, and overall readiness. We need Congressional 
advocacy to grow the program to meet the requirement. A need for 
consistent funding of foundational readiness accounts (FHP, WSS, 
training infrastructure, critical skills/personnel) are needed in the 
appropriate sequence to ensure the readiness requirements are met. The 
Flying Hour Program (inclusive of a degree of variability in Overseas 
Operations Cost (OOC) taskings) accounts for peacetime training 
requirements, but is constrained due to aging legacy fleets, growing 
costs for flight line maintenance parts and growing WSS requirements. 
These factors ultimately diminish both efficiency and effectiveness of 
the Flying Hour Program and erode readiness.
    Mr. Scott. How does the use of non-5th generation aircraft in our 
aviation aggressor squadrons enhance the readiness of our pilots to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy air forces?
    General Allvin. Experience and experimentation have taught us that 
combat crews are more lethal and less prone to attrition when they 
train against the actual or representative threats they will encounter 
in combat. We are fully committed to advancing and modernizing our live 
and synthetic programs to provide relevant and realistic training for 
tomorrow's force. Readiness and relevance require training improvements 
modernizing the replication of current and future adversarial threats. 
Live training will always be the cornerstone of Air Force readiness. 
However, the live training environment is constrained by the geographic 
limitations and technological improvements of both our current and 
future adversaries' capabilities. These limitations mandate a shift in 
portions of our combat training to the synthetic training environment. 
The synthetic environments will allow aircrew members to fully use 
their capabilities and effectively practice the tactics, techniques, 
and procedures they will employ against future adversaries.
    Mr. Scott. What are the benefits of our pilots training against 
aggressor squadrons made up of 5th generation aircraft, and how do 
those training benefits translate into our ability to achieve Air 
Dominance in a fight against a near peer adversary? In today's 
environment, is there any valid, wartime-relevant reason to train 
against anything other than a 5th generation adversary?
    General Allvin. Air Force and our potential adversaries' 
capabilities are advancing at a rate that challenges our ability to 
maintain relevant and realistic training in both a live and synthetic 
environment. The challenge requires us to develop a level 4 (near-peer 
threat) training capability for all operational units for both the live 
range training as well as the synthetic environment.
    Mr. Scott. What are the enhancements to readiness in the 
information battlespace provided by Lynk Global's newly developed, and 
proven ``satellite direct to standard mobile phone'' technology?
    General Allvin and General Thompson. It is incumbent on the Air 
Force and Space Force to provide the most resilient, effective, secure, 
and affordable communications technologies to warfighters. Direct-to-
Cell technology as demonstrated by Lynk Global and other providers is 
still very nascent and one of many variations of 5G implementation that 
is part of a shifting commercial communications landscape. More and 
more proliferated low-Earth orbit (pLEO) SATCOM companies are 
partnering with telecommunications companies as part of this shift. 
While the Air Force and Space Force do not have existing requirements 
for these specific capabilities, we are in the process of completing a 
Narrowband Force Design and Analysis of Alternatives. These 
technologies are being considered as part of a mix of capabilities to 
provide resilient communication options; however, security and costs 
must be mindful considerations as well.
    Mr. Scott. During World War I, the British Army experienced a 
severe munition shortage in what became known as the ``Shell Crisis of 
1915'' due to the inadequate peacetime production and stockpile of 
artillery shells prior to the start of the war. Would the U.S. Air 
Force experience a munition crisis of its own TODAY should we be 
engaged in large scale combat operations against a peer enemy?
    General Allvin. An extended, large-scale combat operation against a 
near-peer adversary is not the fight the Joint Force seeks to conduct. 
If required to engage in such a combat operation today, the Air Force 
may experience munitions stockpile challenges in the Air Dominance, 
Long Range Strike, and Maritime Strike mission areas. The Air Force has 
taken steps to address these challenges and ensure we have an 
affordable mix of weapons that can deliver the capacity and capability 
needed to maintain a competitive advantage over near-peer adversaries. 
The Air Force is making investments to expand production capacity, 
procure munitions at favorable economic rates, and strengthen the 
industrial base. The FY24 budget request includes three new multi-year 
procurement programs that maximize AMRAAM, JASSM, and LRASM production. 
The Air Force is also collaborating with partner nations and the Navy 
to share munitions costs and technologies, allowing us to focus on 
delivering precision effects in contested environments against high 
value targets.
    Mr. Scott. What is the minimum number of aggressor training sorties 
needed by your service to ensure your combat aviators will be able to 
achieve Air Dominance against enemy pilots? How many aggressor training 
sorties are slated for FY 22? How many are budgeted for FY 23? How 
many, if any, additional aggressor aircraft do you need to meet your 
aggressor training sortie goals?
    General Allvin. Total Combat Air Forces (CAF) Adversary Air (ADAIR) 
(holistic and contracted) requirement is 90K sorties per year. 
Contracted ADAIR accomplishes 30K of the 90K sortie requirements, 
however, about 7-8K sorties are currently funded over the next five 
years. Organic ADAIR sorties are considered low value added and consume 
Air Force pilot resources flying red air tactical scenarios rather than 
accomplishing training for the high-end fight thus detracting from full 
spectrum combat mission readiness.
    Mr. Scott. What should the minimum mission capable rate be set at 
for your respective fleet of combat aircraft in order for the United 
States to achieve Air Dominance and to prevail swiftly in a future war 
against a peer enemy?
    General Allvin. We are addressing both the present and projected 
future requirements of our combatant commanders around the world. We 
are focused, in particular, on the pacing challenge in the Indo-Pacific 
region. With developments in Europe and other global operational 
requirements, we focus our analysis to balance mission capable rates to 
meet present-day operational requirements and for projected future 
threats.
    As we talk to combatant commanders, we discuss balancing risk over 
time. More than a minimum across the board, we want a balance so that 
we don't buy down all our risk her today and then, actually, when we 
get to a future, we have a lot more risk.
    Mr. Scott. OSD Sustainment faced the challenge of using legacy 
modeling and simulation tools that were limited in scope and usefulness 
preventing actionable insight leveraging the full power of today's 
predictive analytics. Moreover, OSD Sustainment is currently using Opus 
Suite, a COTS solution, to provide information and predictive analysis 
to maximize combat power and readiness across fleets of complex 
systems. Which programs are currently utilizing this COTS solution, how 
are they currently using it, what impacts are being made to increasing 
combat power of the program (if any), and what other programs might 
benefit from this solution? How are the Military services currently 
optimizing maintenance, supply, and manpower resources to meet mission 
readiness requirements? Would establishing a Common Readiness Model 
across the Department of Defense be beneficial towards this effort?
    General Thompson. The U.S. Space Force is building a SIPR 
application within Basing and Logistics Analytics Data Environment 
(BLADE) in order to optimize maintenance, modification and upgrade 
initiatives as well as provide information for decision-making and 
planning across the Space Enterprise. This is a complex endeavor given 
the range of geographically separated assets, many of which are aging, 
legacy equipment, lacking modern sensors as well as the extent to which 
the space community has relied upon contractor support and various 
analytical applications used across a wide array of contractual 
vehicles.
    BLADE is already online and being used by Air Force, but this 
effort is a new utilization for Space Force. IOC is expected January 
2024 with further refinement beyond that. The desired end-state in 
using BLADE is ingestion of data from various, disparate data streams 
to include organic systems and available COTS, which are currently 
leveraged by programs across the enterprise and perhaps most notably 
for sensor maintenance in the missile warning arena.
    Additional initiatives to improve maintenance planning, 
specifically how USSF conducts predictive maintenance activity, include 
exploration and feasibility of incorporating Air Force Rapid 
Sustainment Office's (RSO) Predictive Analytics and Decision Assistant 
(PANDA) into the Space Enterprise, as well as potentially leveraging 
efforts under the Space C2 umbrella of Kobayashi Maru for data 
analytics and visualization.
    Mr. Scott. What are the enhancements to readiness in the 
information battlespace provided by Lynk Global's newly developed, and 
proven ``satellite direct to standard mobile phone'' technology?
    General Thompson. It is incumbent on the Air Force and Space Force 
to provide the most resilient, effective, secure, and affordable 
communications technologies to warfighters. Direct-to-Cell technology 
as demonstrated by Lynk Global and other providers is still very 
nascent and one of many variations of 5G implementation that is part of 
a shifting commercial communications landscape. More and more 
proliferated low-Earth orbit (pLEO) SATCOM companies are partnering 
with telecommunications companies as part of this shift. While the Air 
Force and Space Force do not have existing requirements for these 
specific capabilities, we are in the process of completing a Narrowband 
Force Design and Analysis of Alternatives. These technologies are being 
considered as part of a mix of capabilities to provide resilient 
communication options; however, security and costs must be mindful 
considerations as well.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SPEIER
    Ms. Speier. Even though the war in Afghanistan has ended, I am 
still hearing from service members that the OPTEMPO is incredibly high. 
This OPTEMPO can contribute to family stress and suicide. To each of 
you, what are you doing to balance OPTEMPO and readiness requirements 
when this tempo seems unsustainable?
    General Martin. The Army remains engaged around the world with over 
120,000 Soldiers deployed and more than 60,000 additional Soldiers 
prepared to respond to short notice national requirements. To manage 
those requirements and reduce stressors on the Total Army, the Army has 
institutionalized the Regionally Aligned Readiness and Modernization 
Model (ReARMM). This synchronization tool ensures stability in how we 
source units against mission needs to balance operational tempo 
(OPTEMPO) and readiness in a sustainable manner. Mission lines are 
built against specific requirements in specified locations to allow 
Commanders, Soldiers, and Families to plan into the future. The process 
provides that predictability and enables the Army to minimize both 
OPTEMPO and personnel tempo (PERSTEMPO) turbulence.
    Ms. Speier. Last year's NDAA established a Joint Safety Council to 
address a troubling trend of preventable operational and training 
deaths, as well as Safety Commands for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 
this year's NDAA would also create Safety Commands for the Army and Air 
Force. Unfortunately, we continue to see preventable training deaths, 
and when these happen, such as in the AAV disaster that killed 9 
service members, the accountability is insufficient--no more than a 
slap on the wrist. Are the Joint Safety Council and the Safety Commands 
making any difference yet, and what other steps are you taking within 
your departments to prevent training deaths?
    General Martin. We take seriously our commitment to the safety of 
our Soldiers and remain vigilant in the enforcement of procedures to 
assess and mitigate risk, as well as investigate properly and improve 
as a result of that process.
    The Deputy Secretary of Defense established the Joint Safety 
Council (JSC) in June 2022 and has reviewed major areas impacting 
operational safety to focus future JSC analysis and enhance the 
Department's mishap prevention efforts. The JSC reports through the 
Defense Safety Oversight Council as the Department of Defense's 
existing principal senior leader safety forum, governing overall safety 
and occupational health efforts for both operational safety and 
occupational safety and health. The JSC is focused on the areas of 
mishap analysis, information sharing, safety information protection, 
and standardization of mishap report information.
    As directed by the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA), the Army is performing a comprehensive 
evaluation of its organizational structure to identify whether the 
establishment of a Safety Command similar to the Navy may more 
effectively allow for oversight and execution of the Army safety and 
occupational health program mission functions. This evaluation includes 
a review of the support needed by Army Commands, and a governance 
structure for the functions of a Learning to Action Board that would 
ensure the implementation of recommended actions arising from accident 
investigations. The Army intends to provide a final report to Congress 
by 30 September 2023. Implementation of the safety and occupational 
health restructure efforts will occur in the next FY. These efforts, 
along with the ongoing efforts of the JSC, are expected to contribute 
to mishap prevention.
    Ms. Speier. Even though the war in Afghanistan has ended, I am 
still hearing from service members that the OPTEMPO is incredibly high. 
This OPTEMPO can contribute to family stress and suicide. To each of 
you, what are you doing to balance OPTEMPO and readiness requirements 
when this tempo seems unsustainable?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. Last year's NDAA established a Joint Safety Council to 
address a troubling trend of preventable operational and training 
deaths, as well as Safety Commands for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 
this year's NDAA would also create Safety Commands for the Army and Air 
Force. Unfortunately, we continue to see preventable training deaths, 
and when these happen, such as in the AAV disaster that killed 9 
service members, the accountability is insufficient--no more than a 
slap on the wrist. Are the Joint Safety Council and the Safety Commands 
making any difference yet, and what other steps are you taking within 
your departments to prevent training deaths?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. Vice Admiral Crites, the Navy has the longest waitlists 
for child care at military child development centers and, unlike the 
Army and Air Force, has failed to meet all demand for child care fee 
assistance. Child care is not just the right thing to do--it is 
critical for recruitment and retention. What is the Navy doing to 
increase child care capacity?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. Even though the war in Afghanistan has ended, I am 
still hearing from service members that the OPTEMPO is incredibly high. 
This OPTEMPO can contribute to family stress and suicide. To each of 
you, what are you doing to balance OPTEMPO and readiness requirements 
when this tempo seems unsustainable?
    General Smith. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. Last year's NDAA established a Joint Safety Council to 
address a troubling trend of preventable operational and training 
deaths, as well as Safety Commands for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 
this year's NDAA would also create Safety Commands for the Army and Air 
Force. Unfortunately, we continue to see preventable training deaths, 
and when these happen, such as in the AAV disaster that killed 9 
service members, the accountability is insufficient--no more than a 
slap on the wrist. Are the Joint Safety Council and the Safety Commands 
making any difference yet, and what other steps are you taking within 
your departments to prevent training deaths?
    General Smith. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. General Smith, I have received several calls from 
female Marines who feel they have been retaliated against due to 
reporting sexual harassment. Given such low numbers of women in the 
service, what is the Marine Corps doing to combat sexual harassment and 
retaliation?
    General Smith. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Ms. Speier. Even though the war in Afghanistan has ended, I am 
still hearing from service members that the OPTEMPO is incredibly high. 
This OPTEMPO can contribute to family stress and suicide. To each of 
you, what are you doing to balance OPTEMPO and readiness requirements 
when this tempo seems unsustainable?
    General Allvin. The Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) construct 
is designed to maintain a sustainable peer adversary readiness focused 
OPTEMPO. The AFFORGEN rotational cycle gives USAF units back the time 
in garrison needed to conduct readiness training for the pacing 
challenge by returning to SECDEF-directed deploy-to-dwell goals. 
AFFORGEN is a key initiative within CSAF's ``Accelerate Change'' 
priorities and SECAF operational imperatives applicable to the Total 
Force. Successful employment of AFFORGEN for sustainable OPTEMPO 
requires disciplined adherence to the National Defense Strategy (NDS), 
and a paradigm shift; we can no longer sacrifice future readiness by 
over-using limited forces for the lower priority fight ``right now''.
    Ms. Speier. Last year's NDAA established a Joint Safety Council to 
address a troubling trend of preventable operational and training 
deaths, as well as Safety Commands for the Navy and Marine Corps, and 
this year's NDAA would also create Safety Commands for the Army and Air 
Force. Unfortunately, we continue to see preventable training deaths, 
and when these happen, such as in the AAV disaster that killed 9 
service members, the accountability is insufficient--no more than a 
slap on the wrist. Are the Joint Safety Council and the Safety Commands 
making any difference yet, and what other steps are you taking within 
your departments to prevent training deaths?
    General Allvin and General Thompson. Over the last two years, the 
main causes of major USAF aviation and ground training mishaps have 
encompassed material issues, poor risk assessment and management of 
known hazards, as well as non-compliance with established guidance. To 
date, the USSF has not suffered a space training mishap. Investigations 
identified the root causes in each of these training mishaps and 
generated numerous recommended actions to prevent reoccurrence 
including equipment/system modifications, revised training and 
procedures, and additional inspections. The DAF also employs numerous 
proactive safety efforts to identify and mitigate hazards before a 
mishap occurs. These efforts include mobile hazard reporting 
capabilities, recurring analysis of operational parameters across the 
operational spectrum, unit safety climate and cultural assessments 
conducted by the Air Force Safety Center, and a codified risk 
identification, management, and approval process.
    Training programs are continually evaluated to ensure the most 
effective and safest environment possible. Recent training adjustments 
have included implementation of enhanced supervisory risk management 
practices, improved aviation communication procedures, and 
instructional improvements to procedural training including emergency 
response procedures.
    The Joint Safety Council initially convened in August 2022 with the 
DAF Chief of Safety as the inaugural Chair. The council has focused on 
numerous safety matters targeted at reducing mishaps across the 
military departments.
    The enacted NDAA language did not authorize the DAF to standup a 
safety command and one was not established. However, all the functions 
and strengths of a safety command are already being exercised by the 
Air Force and Space Force Chief of Safety and the Air Force Safety 
Center.
    Ms. Speier. General Allvin, given the extreme pilot shortage not 
just in the military but in the civilian community as well, what is the 
Air Force doing to retain and recruit more pilots?
    General Allvin. The AF values experience and focuses on retaining 
using both monetary incentives and quality of service.
    In the aggregate, AF enlisted & officer retention remains 
consistently strong over the last five years, with a tight range of 
89.5% to 91% for enlisted and very close range for officers of 93.1% to 
94%.
    Comparatively, the current and 5-year retention is in a favorable 
trend space with the 20-year average for enlisted and officer retention 
ranging between 85-95%. Current Regular AF (active duty) retention for 
enlisted is 89.5% and officers at 92.7%, indicating that AF retention 
is normalizing. Peak retention occurred in 2021 in the immediate wake 
of COVID-19 pandemic, with 90.5% for enlisted retention and 94.5% for 
officer retention.
    When we look at individual communities, we see a few communities in 
which retention levels are trending lower than the AF average--and are 
lower than we need for the active duty. These career-fields include 
pilots, cyber professionals and aircraft maintenance. The continued 
support of Congress with aviation, cyber and selective reenlistment 
bonuses will assist the AF in retaining these critical skill sets in 
the future.
    The Aviation Bonus (AvB) Legacy released on 6 June 23, paused on 11 
July 23, and restarted the week of 24 July 23. The Air Force plans to 
release the 2023 NDAA AvB Demonstration Program this summer using the 
new program's authorities. Identified pilots in the Air Force's most 
critical communities will be offered monetary incentives up to $50K per 
year and an assignment of preference to assist with ongoing retention 
efforts.
    Ms. Speier. General Allvin, the Air Force has had the bonus and 
retention pay authority for almost a decade, yet we still have a huge 
shortfall. How does the Air Force assess the effectiveness of the bonus 
pay, and what other recruiting tools are you considering?
    General Allvin. The Air Force deeply appreciates the bonus and 
special pay authorities congress has provided to help us attract and 
retain talent. The Air Force has developed a more agile approach to 
managing the Initial Enlistment Bonus program, providing a quarterly 
review/approval of targeted career fields to quickly adapt to career 
field-specific recruiting shortfalls in the year of execution. Our 
analysts currently leverage data that includes missed recruiting 
targets, missed training seats, career field health, retention data and 
criticality of the specialty, to determine the effectiveness and 
continued need for recruitment and retention bonus pay.
    In addition to bonuses, we are pulling all available levers to 
attract and retain talent, including non-monetary incentives such as 
the enlisted assignment swap program, the assignment of choice program 
under the Aviation Demonstration program, increasing public affairs and 
marketing campaigns, expanding diversity and inclusion efforts, 
programs to improve economic security, and making quality of life 
enhancements.
    Ms. Speier. What do the exit surveys show about pilots leaving the 
military?
    General Allvin. Analysis of the 2022 Aircrew Engagement Survey 
compared to the 2021 Exit Survey shows that family stability is the 
primary consideration for pilots deciding whether to remain or leave 
the military. The exit survey indicated that additional duties 
significantly influenced pilots' decisions to separate from service. To 
retain more pilots, the Air Force has taken proactive steps. Firstly, 
longer assignment cycles are implemented to offer greater stability 
catering to pilots' desires. This will support pilots and their 
families, leading to higher retention rates. Secondly, the Air Force is 
seeking resources to reduce the burden of extra duties in flying 
squadrons. Freeing pilots from non-essential tasks aims to boost job 
satisfaction and improve retention rates. The strategic initiatives to 
enhance family stability and reduce additional duties aim to create a 
more supportive environment for pilots. This, in turn, encourages them 
to continue their valuable contributions to the military by staying in 
service.
    Ms. Speier. Even though the war in Afghanistan has ended, I am 
still hearing from service members that the OPTEMPO is incredibly high. 
This OPTEMPO can contribute to family stress and suicide. To each of 
you, what are you doing to balance OPTEMPO and readiness requirements 
when this tempo seems unsustainable?
    General Thompson. The USSF is not seeing the same challenges as the 
other Services, but there are unique challenges we believe are 
manageable with a healthy command climate, focused and positive teams, 
and managing shift work for our 24/7 operations and supporting 
families. Maintaining high clearance level (TS and above) that our 
space operators require to do their job is critical in maximizing 
availability and relief; we remain focused on that. Additionally, 
leadership being cognizant and involved with our employed-in-place 
construct is crucial to ensure the wellbeing of our Guardians and their 
families.
    Ms. Speier. General Thompson, what steps are being taken within the 
Space Force to ensure as you create this new force, that you ensure 
diversity and inclusion throughout all ranks and positions?
    General Thompson. USSF is the only service that has full time DEIA 
coordinators supporting commanders at the delta and field command 
levels. Currently, we have 9 authorized positions with 7 filled and 2 
in the final recruitment phase. All DEIA full time employees across 
USSF completed AF Audit Agency barrier analysis training in Feb 2023. 
All our DEIA coordinators present at their installation's community 
action boards and chief diversity and inclusion officers provide input 
and presentations as requested at the field command level.
    At the delta level, we have a DEIA councils established to review 
and resolve issues as well as providing feedback to their field 
command. These councils meet monthly and focus on overall quality of 
life issues and identification of barriers related to DEIA. For 
example, the councils conducted a service wide data call on lactation 
rooms to determine gaps in service and one council worked to establish 
expectant mother parking across their installation. Another established 
an LGBT community connection group and a women and family connection 
team to address family member issues.
                                 ______
                                 
                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. CROW
    Mr. Crow. General Martin, your written testimony recognizes that 
the threat of extreme weather makes the Army's core mission of winning 
our Nation's wars more challenging and that the Army must proactively 
reduce climate impacts and respond to climate risks to maintain its 
strategic edge. Beyond Army-specific lines of effort, can you update me 
on the Army's progress in updating its installation master plans to 
reflect considerations of military installation resilience, as required 
by Sec. 2801 of the FY2020 NDAA? When will all Army installations have 
their master plans updated by?
    General Martin. The Army has completed Installation Climate 
Resilience Plans (ICRPs) at Anniston Army Deport, Alabama and at Fort 
Carson, Colorado to address the requirement for installation resilience 
plans in the FY 2020 NDAA. Additionally, the Army is in the process of 
finalizing the U.S. Army Garrison-Alaska and Fort Bliss, Texas ICRPs, 
and will submit those to Congress once completed. Prior to the 
publication of the congressional guidelines for ICRPs, the Army also 
completed climate change resilience assessments at Military Ocean 
Terminal Concord (MOTCO) and Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point 
(MOTSU). The Army anticipates that it will revise those assessments to 
meet all applicable ICRP requirements. The Army currently has ICRPs in 
progress at: Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely, Alaska; Fort Liberty, 
North Carolina; Fort Cavazos, Texas; and Fort Stewart, Georgia.
    The Army is in the process of clarifying the optimal scheduling, 
funding, and staffing pathways to complete ICRPs for all remaining 
installations. The Army will ensure that these reports are consistent, 
accurate, and provide actionable information to enhance resilience 
against climate hazards. A memorandum from the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment, dated 
2 February 2022, subject: ``Installation Climate Resilience Plan (ICRP) 
of the Installation Master Plan,'' stipulated that all Army components 
will update installation master plans no later than 30 September 2023 
with the best readily available climate information. Full ICRPs will be 
completed on the usual master plan update schedule over the regular 
five-year cycle, per the same memorandum.
    Mr. Crow. Vice Admiral Crites, your written testimony notes that as 
the Navy works to improve readiness, you are prioritizing issues which 
most impact mission, quality-of-life, environmental stewardship and 
climate resiliency. Can you update me on the Navy's progress in 
updating its installation master plans to reflect considerations of 
military installation resilience, as required by Sec. 2801 of the 
FY2020 NDAA? When will all Navy installations have their master plans 
updated by?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
    Mr. Crow. General Allvin, your written testimony recognizes that 
climate change is a significant challenge and threat, and that the Air 
Force will continue to incorporate climate considerations into its 
guidance, plans, policies, and infrastructure development. Can you 
update me on the Air Force's progress in updating its installation 
master plans to reflect considerations of military installation 
resilience, as required by Sec. 2801 of the FY2020 NDAA? When will all 
Air Force installations have their master plans updated by?
    General Allvin. In response to the 2020 and 2022 NDAA requirements 
to include a `Military Installation Resilience Component' within the 
Installation Development Plan (IDP), the Department of the Air Force is 
developing an Installation Climate Resilience Plan (ICRP) for all 
installations requiring an IDP by the end of FY26. Two ICRPs are 
complete: Vandenberg SFB and Joint Base Langley Eustis. Additionally, 
35 ICRPs are contracted for completion and under development and 41 
additional ICRPs are currently awaiting contract award.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BERGMAN
    Mr. Bergman. The Air Force awarded a $30 million contract in June 
2022 to upgrade and encrypt its entire fleet of P5 pods. How does this 
price point compare with the Navy plan to purchase new encrypted pods? 
When will the Air Force pods be fully encrypted as compared to the 
timeline of the new Navy training pods will come online? Once 
encrypted, the Air Force training pods will be fully interoperable with 
encrypted training pods currently being installed on all current 
variants of the F-35. Will the Navy training pods also be interoperable 
to the encrypted training pod on the F-35? If not, what is the 
projected cost and mitigation strategy?
    Admiral Crites. [No answer was available at the time of printing.]
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JOHNSON
    Mr. Johnson. General Martin, during testimony you said that roughly 
20,000 soldiers in the Army remain unvaccinated. A July 15th release of 
information by the Army indicates that 4 percent of the Active Army, 12 
percent of the National Guard, and 10 percent of the Army Reserve 
remains unvaccinated. Would you please provide the number of 
unvaccinated soldiers to include refusals, those granted exemptions, 
and pending exemptions as of July 19th?
    General Martin. The tables below provide COVID-19 vaccination 
rates, refusals, and exemption status as of 10 January 2023 for all 
components. After the Secretary of Defense rescinded the COVID-19 
vaccine mandate on 10 January 2023, the Army ceased ongoing reviews of 
COVID-19 actions and ended its accessions requirement.
 [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    .epsMr. Johnson. General Martin, during testimony you stated that 
the Active Army's end-strength will decline to between 445,000 and 
452,000. What are the projected end-strengths for the Army National 
Guard and Army Reserve in FY23 and FY24?
    General Martin.
    U.S. Army Reserve (USAR):
    FY 2023 Projection: 176.4K
    FY 2024 Projection: 177.5K

    While the USAR is experiencing recruiting challenges, their efforts 
to reduce attrition, focus on retention, and ensure strong Active 
Component to Reserve Component (AC2RC) performance are making up that 
shortfall. Current strength is at FY 2023 NDAA-directed strength of 
177.0K.

    Army National Guard (ARNG):
    FY 2023 Projection: 321K--325K
    FY 2024 Projection: 321K--325K
    NDAA Directed Strength: 325K

                                  [all]