[Senate Hearing 117-487]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-487

                    A REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 DEPARTMENT OF 
                            DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

            COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            SPECIAL HEARING

                     JUNE 17, 2021--WASHINGTON, DC

                               __________

         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
        
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
49-551                    WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                              
                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                    PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
PATTY MURRAY, Washington             RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Vice 
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California             Chairman
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
JACK REED, Rhode Island              SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
JON TESTER, Montana                  LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JERRY MORAN, Kansas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia          Virginia
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                     MIKE BRAUN, Indiana
                                     BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
                                     MARCO RUBIO, Florida

                   Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
               Shannon H. Hines, Minority Staff Director
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Opening Statement of Chairman Patrick Leahy......................     1
Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby...........................     2
Statement of Senator Jon Tester..................................     3
Statement of Hon. Lloyd J. Austin III, Secretary, U.S. Department 
  of Defense.....................................................     4
    Prepared Statement...........................................     6

Statement of General Mark A. Milley, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 
  Staff..........................................................    14
    Prepared Statement...........................................    16

National Defense Strategy........................................    22
National Guard Reimbursement.....................................    23
Continuing Resolution............................................    23
Microelectronics.................................................    24
Prioritizing China...............................................    24
Hypersonics and Quantum Computing................................    25
Iron Dome........................................................    26
Mil-to-Mil Engagements...........................................    26
Missing Weapons..................................................    27
DDG Procurement..................................................    31
Women and Girls in Afghanistan...................................    32
Apolitical Military..............................................    32
Cybersecurity....................................................    33
Wasteful Spending................................................    34
Arctic Strategy..................................................    34
Critical Minerals Supply Chain...................................    35
Divestments......................................................    36
Multi-Year Procurement Contracts.................................    37
Cyber Attacks....................................................    37
Iran's Nuclear Program...........................................    38
Afghanistan......................................................    38
Border Control...................................................    39
Military Capability of China.....................................    39
Support to Afghan Partners.......................................    40
Hybrid Warfare...................................................    41
Law of the Sea Treaty............................................    42
Defense Supply Chain.............................................    42
Guam Missile Defense.............................................    43
Indo Pacific Allies..............................................    43
Sexual Assault Prevention........................................    44
Military Family Support..........................................    45
Nuclear Posture Review...........................................    46
Strategic Deterrence.............................................    46
Support to Israel................................................    47
Competition in the Arctic........................................    47
Taiwan...........................................................    47
Defense Topline..................................................    48
Defense Industrial Base..........................................    48
Force Posture....................................................    49
China Deterrence.................................................    49
Cyber Attacks....................................................    51
Defense of the Homeland..........................................    51
Information Warfare..............................................    51
Middle East Basing...............................................    52
New START Treaty.................................................    53
Military Medicine Investments....................................    54
USU Military Construction Funding................................    55
Budget Process...................................................    55
Additional Committee Questions...................................    57

Questions Submitted to Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III.............    57
    Questions Submitted by:
        Chairman Patrick Leahy...................................    57
        Senator Tammy Baldwin....................................    59
        Senator Chris Van Hollen.................................    60
            Privatized Military Housing..........................    60
            Audit................................................    60
            SLCM-N...............................................    61
        Senator Richard C. Shelby................................    62
        Senator Susan M. Collins.................................    62
            Syria Force Posture..................................    63
        Senator Lisa Murkowski...................................    64
        Senator Lindsey Graham...................................    66
            Afghanistan..........................................    66
            Functional Center for Security Studies in Irregular 
              Warfare............................................    66
        Senator Shelley Moore Capito.............................    66

Questions Submitted to General Mark A. Milley....................    68
    Questions Submitted by:
        Chairman Patrick Leahy...................................    68
        Senator Chris Van Hollen.................................    68
        Senator Lisa Murkowski...................................    69

Conclusion of Hearing............................................    70

 
      A REVIEW OF THE FY 2022 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
                               Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met at 10:02 a.m. in room SD-192, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick Leahy (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Leahy, Murray, Feinstein, Durbin, Tester, 
Shaheen, Coons, Schatz, Baldwin, Murphy, Van Hollen, Heinrich, 
Shelby, Collins, Murkowski, Graham, Blunt, Moran, Hoeven, 
Boozman, Capito, Hyde-Smith, and Braun.


              opening statement of chairman patrick leahy


    Chairman Leahy. The Committee will come to order.
    I would note, to both the Secretary of Defense and the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, that we usually stay a little bit 
closer together. At least we are not doing it remotely or 
wearing masks. And I note that the Secretary has been through 
some extraordinarily long days, flights, everything else. In 
fact, we just had a discussion on one of those flights. At some 
point then, if the Secretary needs a break just give a signal 
and we will take a break.
    We have the President's budget request before us, and I 
wanted the whole Committee, all the Republicans and Democrats, 
to hear it. Senator Shelby and I, of course, work closely 
together on this.
    The budget request totals $715 billion for the Department 
of Defense. It is a 1.6 percent increase over FY (fiscal year) 
2021. It has important investments to deter our adversaries, 
support for our military and civilian personnel and their 
families, funds to combat the ongoing pandemic and prepare for 
future public health challenges, and important investments to 
mitigate the national security impact of climate change.
    It reflects the approach that we all understand to be true. 
The United States Defense budget, while an important component, 
is just one component of the overall strength of our Nation. We 
may divide domestic and defense spending on paper, but the 
reality is the investments we make in our defense posture and 
in our strategy pay immense dividends domestically. It is also 
true that without domestic investments in education and 
healthcare, research, economic development, and science, we 
cannot train and equip a successful defense.
    So I look forward to hearing in greater detail how the 
administration's request, and the strategy it supports, 
restores United States' commitment to our allies, to enhancing 
our partnerships. For all the discussion about deterring China 
and Russia, and these are important discussions, it is also 
important to remember the United States has always been most 
successful and best protected when it works with many other 
nations, because that makes us a global leader.
    You know, some have said President Biden's proposed 
increase for the Department of Defense is too little, others 
say it is too much. That is simply not true. President Biden 
does not propose to cut defense spending. He proposes a 1.6 
percent increase. On top of the increase, the Department of 
Defense will have access to $12 billion in additional dollars 
to dedicate to other priorities as a result of leaving 
Afghanistan. So I think it is fair.
    But in order to be able to begin our work drafting bills, 
including for the Defense Department, the Committee has to have 
agreed-upon top lines. I have urged that Congress should begin 
bipartisan and bicameral discussions with the White House to 
establish agreed-upon top lines soon, so we can begin our work 
in short order.
    For too long Congress has divided spending in terms of 
defense and non-defense. It is time we started looking at the 
totality of our investments in the American people. That is 
what the Appropriations Committee is charged to do: allocate 
precious Federal dollars to the greatest needs of today. Time 
is wasting. We have got to get to work.
    Now, I am going to turn, first, to Vice Chairman Shelby for 
his opening statement. But then to Senator Tester, who is the 
new chairman of the Defense subcommittee, and he is probably as 
well equipped as anybody to be there.
    Senator Shelby.


                 statement of senator richard c. shelby


    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, want to 
welcome Secretary Austin and General Milley back to this 
Committee.
    The world is complex--is a complex and dangerous place, and 
we all know that you understand the magnitude of the challenges 
that we face from our near-peer adversaries, who seek to 
undermine the U.S.'s position as a world leader and dominant 
military power. China and Russia are formidable adversaries. 
And China, Mr. Secretary, is proving to be a true pacing 
threat; China seeks hegemony, militarily, technologically, 
economically, and geopolitically, and is making unprecedented 
investments to see that to fruition. Meanwhile, Russia is 
nearing the end of a massive military modernization program 
that saw its defense spending increased 30 percent in real 
dollars over the last 10 years.
    The National Defense Strategy provides a roadmap for what 
the Department of Defense needs, at a minimum, to meet the 
challenges posed by reemergence of long-term strategic 
competition with China and Russia. Anything less jeopardizes 
readiness, the recapitalization of capital assets, and 
necessary investments in new and emerging technologies. Yet, 
the budget that we are discussing today, does just that, 
proposing what is, effectively, a cut in defense spending for 
2022. I believe that is the plan that I cannot get behind, and 
it is not a plan that sends the right message, I believe, to 
our adversaries or to our men and women in uniform, who are 
asked to make the ultimate sacrifice.
    In years past, we made the investments necessary to ensure 
that we have the best trained, best prepared, best equipped 
fighting Force in the world. But this year, the budget proposal 
by this administration signals to the world that the 
administration is not committed to investing in readiness, 
training, state-of-the-art equipment and technological 
overmatch. The military investments in China and Russia 
continuing to outpace U.S. investments, I find it hard to 
believe that the requirements outlined by General Dunford just 
4 years ago are no longer instructive. If anything, I believe 
it has likely increased. Competition with China requires a 
whole-of-government investment. We saw last week that the 
Senate made some investments on the non-defense side, and we 
must ensure investments in our military are just as robust.
    I look forward to today's hearing from each of you about 
the budget proposal, and in particular how you plan to keep 
pace, or how we keep pace and counter the threats from Russia 
and China while simultaneously cutting investments in defense. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Vice Chair.
    Chairman Tester.


                    statement of senator jon tester


    Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Leahy and Senator 
Shelby, for calling this hearing. I want to welcome our guests. 
Thanks for being here. I know, Secretary Austin, this is your 
first appearance before the Full Senate Appropriations 
Committee. Welcome. General Milley, you have appeared before 
the Defense subcommittee, several times. Welcome back.
    As our adversaries continue to invest in new capabilities, 
the United States' decisive military advantage is not assured. 
Today, I am interested in hearing more about how the 
Department's emphasis on innovation and meeting the challenge 
from our top adversaries, including China and Russia, has 
directly impacted this defense spending proposal.
    While we are likely to hear a lot of debate today on what 
the total defense budget ought to be, it is not up to our 
witnesses to figure that out. Where Secretary Austin and 
General Milley can be helpful for this Committee is with the 
question of whether we are getting the best bang for the 
taxpayer buck.
    In my brief time as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations, 
I have seen troubling signs that this is not the case. This 
matter--this matters because the issues we deal with on the 
Appropriations Committee are not about pinching pennies or 
revealing accounting procedures, it is about getting our troops 
what they need to do their jobs, at the right time, at the 
right cost so that they can be successful.
    To that end, it will also be important for us to understand 
the financial impacts of the administration's decision to 
retrograde from Afghanistan, both with respect to reductions in 
spending for in-country activities in Afghanistan, as well as 
cost increases for over-the-horizon support.
    And finally, we hope to dig in on your team's 
implementation of the Department-wide priorities, such as 
increasing the DOD's climate resiliency, modernizing the 
nuclear triad, and what it means to divest from legacy 
capabilities, particularly when these divestments can have real 
impacts on our warfighting.
    Once again, I want to thank the witnesses for their 
testimony today, and I look forward to hearing from each of 
them.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And we have tried to follow the 
Office of Attending Physician's guidelines on the distance 
here. If anybody is not fully vaccinated, they are required to 
wear a mask.
    We will have 5-minute rounds. After Senator Shelby and I 
have our turns, Senators will go back and forth and will be 
recognized in order of seniority. If somebody misses their turn 
and rejoins, we will put them back in line.
    This is Secretary Austin's first time appearing here before 
this Committee. As I already told him earlier this week, I 
appreciate that. General Mark Milley has appeared before this 
Committee in the past, but I believe, General, this is your 
first time as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. I, like the rest of 
us, support you in that position.
    So, Secretary Austin, please feel free to go ahead, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, SECRETARY, U.S. 
            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir. Chairman Leahy, Vice 
Chairman Shelby, Chairman Tester, distinguished members of this 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about 
the President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2022.
    I am pleased to appear alongside General Milley whose 
counsel has been crucial to us as we developed our budget, and 
as we continue to defend this Nation, which of course is our 
top priority.
    Let me say at the outset that I believe our budget request 
will help us to match resources to strategy, and strategy to 
policy, and policy to the will of the American people. This 
budget is informed by the President's Interim National Security 
Guidance, and my own message to the Force, and we believe that 
it funds the right mix of capabilities that we need most to 
defend this Nation now and in the future.
    It invests in hypersonic weapons, and artificial 
intelligence, microelectronics, 5G technology, space-based 
systems, shipbuilding, and nuclear modernization, to name a 
few. In fact, this budget asks you to approve nearly $28 
billion to modernize our nuclear triad, and $112 billion for 
research, development, testing, and evaluation, the largest R&D 
(research and development) request ever put forth by this 
Department.
    Our request also gives us the flexibility to divest 
ourselves of systems and platforms that no longer meet our 
needs, including older ships, aircraft, and ISR (intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance) platforms that demand more 
maintenance, upkeep, and risk than we can afford. The 
Department must be ready to keep pace with our competitors and 
if necessary to fight and win the next war, and not the last 
one. That is why we have commissioned the Global Posture Review 
and a new National Defense Strategy, which will further inform 
and guide our resource decision.
    And this budget reflects our focus on the pacing challenge 
that we clearly see from the People's Republic of China (PRC) 
to include more than $5 billion for the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative, and DOD investments more broadly. Last week our 
China Task Force completed its work and I issued an internal 
directive kicking off Department-wide efforts that will, among 
other things, help bolster our deterrence against the PRC and 
revitalize our network of regional allies and partners, and 
accelerate the development of cutting-edge capabilities and new 
operational concepts.
    However, China is not our only challenge. Our budget also 
invests $617 million to counter the damaging effects of climate 
change, and additional funds to prepare for future challenges 
like another pandemic. It helps us counter belligerence from 
Russia, especially in the cyber realm. And you will see more 
than $10 billion devoted to cybersecurity, cyber space 
operations, and cyber research and development.
    And with its emphasis on space, missile defense, and more 
sophisticated sensors, our budget will also help us counter the 
increasing ballistic missile capabilities of nations like Iran 
and North Korea. It funds the troop presence and counter-
terrorism capabilities in the Middle East and South Asia, and 
to meet the threats posed by not only by Iran, but also by 
terrorist networks like ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the 
Levant) and al-Qaeda, and in Africa like those posed by al-
Shabaab. And it helps us maintain the integrated deterrent 
capability and global posture necessary to back up the hard 
work of our diplomats, our allies, and partners. Now I know 
that Afghanistan remains on top of all our minds, and I can 
report that the retrograde remains on pace. We had a chance 
this week to update our NATO (North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization) allies in Brussels, and I was encouraged by their 
continued support for the new direction that we are taking.
    We have accomplished the mission for which our troops were 
sent to Afghanistan 20 years ago, and I am very proud of the 
brave men and women who made it possible, and those who gave 
their lives for that mission. I am also deeply grateful to the 
families of our Service members who have endured so much as 
they sent their sons, and daughters, and husbands, and wives 
into battle. We will now transition to a new bilateral 
relationship with our Afghan partners, one that helps them meet 
their responsibilities to their citizens, but one that will not 
require a U.S. footprint larger than what is necessary to 
protect our diplomats.
    And that is one reason why we are asking to move overseas 
contingency operations funding inside the budget. This will add 
greater transparency, accountability, and predictability to the 
budgeting process, and frankly, it is overdue.
    Now, this budget also takes care of our people. It 
increases funding to support in-home care and support, which 
has become increasingly important during the pandemic. We also 
seek to improve military base pay, and retention bonuses, and 
other incentives that will help us attract and retain the best 
talent. And we will be working hard to combat challenges that 
make the service in the ranks more difficult for all the men 
and women of the Department, from getting a better handle on 
the extent to which we experienced extremist behavior, to 
combating sexual assault and harassment. We know we have a lot 
of work to do in this regard, and we are ready to do it.
    Chairman Leahy, members of the Committee, we field the 
greatest military in human history, made up of the finest men 
and women who have ever donned the cloth of their Nation, and 
we also enjoy a civilian workforce deeply committed to every 
mission that we take on, and no adversary can match the quality 
of our people.
    I am immensely proud and humbled to serve with them again, 
and I can assure you that the President's budget request for 
fiscal year 2022 fulfills our obligations to them and their 
families.
    I thank you for your steadfast support of the Department 
and for all that you do to ensure that we remain ready to 
defend this Nation. And I look forward to answering your 
questions. Thank you.
    [The statement follows:]

          Prepared Statement of Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III
Introduction
    Chairman Leahy, Vice Chairman Shelby, Chairman Tester, 
distinguished members of the committee: thank you for the opportunity 
to testify in support of the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 
(FY) 2022.
    On behalf of myself, Deputy Secretary Hicks, the leadership of the 
Department of Defense, and the men and women of our Department and 
their families, let me also thank you for your continued support and 
partnership as we work to address the threats facing the United States 
of America today, and build the force that can address the challenges 
of tomorrow. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff, General Mark Milley, who is testifying alongside me and is a 
critical partner in realizing the Department's priorities.
    The President's $715 billion defense budget request for FY 2022 
provides us with the capabilities we need most and drives investment in 
efforts that will help us advance our three key priorities: defending 
the nation, taking care of our people, and succeeding through teamwork.
    Today, the Department of Defense stands ready to deter conflict in 
any domain and, if necessary, to fight and win against any challenger. 
Since becoming Secretary of Defense, I have met with many of our 
service members and commanders in the field and have seen first-hand 
the dedication of the men and women of our Department. I can assure you 
that we continue to have the best joint fighting force on Earth and a 
civilian workforce fully dedicated to the many critical missions we 
face.
    We must maintain and improve this advantage on land, at sea, in the 
air, and in emerging domains, including space and cyberspace. I am 
confident that the President's budget request helps us do that. The 
request is driven by our recognition that our competitors--especially 
China--continue to advance their capabilities. We must outpace those 
advances to remain a credible deterrent to conflict around the world.
    The President's budget request represents my commitment to matching 
resources to strategy, strategy to policies, and policies to the will 
of the American people. This budget also reflects difficult funding 
decisions necessary to ensure that we have the right mix of 
capabilities that we need most. We have proposed cuts to systems and 
capabilities that no longer meet the challenges and requirements of the 
Department, making room for more advanced programs that do. In making 
these decisions, we were guided by the President's Interim National 
Security Strategic Guidance and informed by a set of program reviews 
conducted by the Department early in this Administration.
    We are also undertaking a series of strategic reviews in the 
Department to ensure that our global force posture, and our nuclear and 
missile defense capabilities, are matched with the challenges that we 
face and aligned with the priorities of the President. The Global 
Posture Review will help inform my advice to the Commander-in-Chief 
about how best to allocate our forces around the world to advance our 
national interests, and our nuclear and missile defense reviews will 
consider how we maintain our deterrent and defensive capabilities, 
within and across domains.
    I take very seriously the importance of being good stewards of 
taxpayer dollars and ensuring that we are transparent and honest with 
the American people about how their money is spent. This year, the 
President's budget consolidates the Overseas Contingency Operations 
funding and the base budget, raising transparency of direct war costs 
to a level not seen in several years.
    We are also working to address our audit responsibilities as 
quickly and effectively as possible and move forward on reform to our 
business operations. This is not just about finding and reapplying 
savings to higher priorities, it is about improving organizational 
performance and efficiency. The best advocates for reform are those 
closest to the issues, so we will hold leaders appropriately 
accountable for a management improvement agenda within their respective 
components. Reform also requires a holistic approach-including concepts 
of operation, organizations, personnel, training, and modern systems-
and must have a seat at the table in our deliberations over Department 
programs and priorities.
    The FY 2022 budget also reflects the President's decision to 
retrograde in Afghanistan, following 20 years of war in that theater. 
We are profoundly grateful to our uniformed service members and their 
families, and to our civilian workforce, who have served and sacrificed 
so much through combat deployments in the defense of our nation since 
the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. We are now 
engaged in a deliberate, safe, and orderly withdrawal from Afghanistan 
following the President's decision.
    Moving forward, we must continue to engage in a concerted effort to 
recruit, retain, and develop the finest talent available for the 
uniformed and civilian workforce, providing quality opportunities for 
personal and professional growth, advancement, and leadership to those 
in our charge.
    We owe it to them to build an environment that is safe, welcoming, 
and free of fear, harassment, or violence. That is why I have focused 
some of my earliest efforts on addressing sexual assault and harassment 
in the Department, identifying and addressing extremist behavior in the 
ranks, and ensuring that everyone is given a fair and equitable 
opportunity to serve this country.
    But we cannot do this work alone. Whether it is defending the 
nation, building a force of the future, growing our talent, or building 
an environment welcoming to all, we rely on teamwork that starts at the 
senior-most levels of the Department, filters down into our workforce, 
and extends across departments to our relationships with interagency 
colleagues, Congress, and our allies and partners.
    When called upon to protect and defend our nation, the Department 
of Defense will always answer, but diplomacy must be our first national 
security tool of choice. That is why the President's FY 2022 budget 
helps fund a Department of Defense able to credibly back up the hard 
work of our diplomats through our deterrent capabilities and our force 
posture.
    As we look outward to our global security interests, we are focused 
on strengthening our relationships with our allies and partners. The 
investments in this budget demonstrate that the United States will 
continue to be a key guarantor of the peace, security, and the rules-
based world order that we have helped foster for the past seven 
decades.
    The FY 2022 budget request ensures that we will remain the best-
trained and best-equipped military in the world and will have the 
resources to defend the nation, with the confidence to advance our 
priorities and build and sustain the force we need now and in the years 
ahead.
Defending the Nation
    As the President has noted, the country finds itself at an 
inflection point. The rapid pace of development of capabilities by our 
competitors, and the changing character of conflict that comes with it, 
mean that we can no longer do things the way we always have and sustain 
our military edge.
    China has invested heavily in new technologies, with a stated 
intent to complete the modernization of its forces by 2035 and to field 
a ``world-class military'' by 2049. Russia has shown that it is not 
afraid to target the United States in contested domains like cyberspace 
and still shows a continued interest in regional hegemony. Iran 
continues to advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to 
support destabilizing proxy groups in the Middle East in an effort to 
threaten its regional neighbors. We also face challenges from North 
Korea, a country with the ambition to be capable of striking the U.S. 
homeland.
    We will continue to address violent extremist and transnational 
criminal organizations active in several theaters and to face 
unexpected but challenging tests of our resolve like the deadly spread 
of COVID-19. Climate change is a growing challenge, the effects of 
which are driving regional conflicts and instability, even as extreme 
weather caused by a changing planet threatens installations and 
readiness.
    As the character of conflict and competition changes and 
accelerates, our strategic competitors have watched our efforts in 
warzones over the last two decades, seeking to understand not only our 
capabilities but also our will to defend our interests abroad. They are 
watching us and learning from us.
    I have asked the Department to think through our capabilities and 
operational concepts and how we use cyber, space, and nuclear 
capabilities to create a more credible and resilient deterrent against 
our competitors, including China. What I have in mind are ways we can 
better use the capabilities we already have, including by integrating 
across domains, and determining the capabilities we need to address 
potential future conflict.
    This means investing in cutting edge technologies like artificial 
intelligence and quantum computing. It also means ensuring that if an 
adversary attacks one system or domain-in cyberspace or Global 
Positioning System (GPS) satellites, for example-we are able and ready 
to respond through appropriate and separate means in other domains, as 
necessary.
    This is going to take a culture shift in the Department because it 
requires working across Military Services, domains, and regions in a 
way that we have not done before. It also requires deeper integration 
with our allies and partners, ensuring that their capabilities add 
value in deterrence and in conflict.
    The FY 2022 budget request will help us achieve this new vision of 
21st-century deterrence, and we look forward to your support and 
partnership to help get it right.
Regional Challenges
    In the Indo-Pacific region, we are facing an increasingly assertive 
People's Republic of China (PRC). Beijing's regional ambitions have 
grown, as has its footprint around the world, drawing on significant 
economic influence to encourage and, in some cases, coerce countries 
into a deepening relationship with the PRC.
    But China's ambitions are not only economic. It seeks to use its 
influence to shift rules and norms in the region, erode democratic 
values and human rights, and challenge a free and open Indo-Pacific 
region.
    The President's Interim National Security Strategic Guidance 
identifies China as the only global competitor capable of combining its 
economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to mount a 
sustained challenge to the international order.
    As the Department of Defense, our responsibility is to protect and 
defend our interests in the Indo- Pacific region and to assure our 
allies and partners of our commitment to our shared goals. That 
requires keeping pace with the rapid military modernization of the 
People's Liberation Army (PLA) and remaining sighted on the PLA's 
advancements in the South and East China Seas, the Second Island Chain, 
and beyond.
    That is why I established the China Task Force early in my tenure. 
The Task Force's mandate was to conduct a baseline assessment of 
Department policies, programs, and processes on China-related matters 
so that we might better meet the challenge posed by the PRC. The Task 
Force has now completed its work. Based on its recommendations, 
yesterday I issued internal guidance initiating major Department- wide 
efforts to address China as the United States' number one pacing 
challenge.
    Even as we address China's growing military capability, we will 
remain focused on North Korea. Pyongyang continues to develop its 
nuclear and ballistic missile programs, posing an increasing threat to 
regional allies and partners and with ambitions to be able to strike 
the U.S. homeland. Leading with diplomacy, the United States will 
continue to work to mitigate North Korea's destabilizing and 
provocative behavior and maintain peace and stability on the Korean 
Peninsula.
    In Europe, I am focused on strengthening our relationships with our 
allies and partners, bilaterally and in NATO. The Department will 
ensure that we are postured to deter aggression from Russia or any 
other power that seeks to challenge us in the region. Our alliance with 
NATO remains ironclad, and our allies remain a force multiplier for 
U.S. security around the world. We are encouraged that NATO defense 
spending has increased for the seventh straight year, demonstrating 
their commitment to the strength of the alliance. The FY 2022 budget 
supports efforts to grow the capability and capacity of our allies.
    Over the past 20 years, much of our effort as a Department has been 
focused on the threat posed by violent extremist organizations 
operating out of parts of the Middle East and South Asia. We remain 
committed to ensuring that no one launches an attack on the U.S. 
homeland, and we will maintain the capability to protect the United 
States and our interests in the region. That includes countering the 
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, al-Qa'ida, and associated terrorist 
networks that pose ongoing threats to the United States.
    Meanwhile, Iran remains a destabilizing force as it seeks to 
advance its nuclear and ballistic missile programs, threaten freedom of 
navigation, and support proxy terrorist and militia groups. We will 
continue to maintain the capability to deter Iran in the Middle East. 
We will also continue to support our partners in the region, including 
by helping to ensure that Israel has the capability to defend itself 
effectively and maintain its qualitative military edge.
    In Afghanistan, the Department is working to conduct a deliberate, 
orderly, and safe withdrawal, as directed by the President. This is an 
important step in responsibly ending this two-decade-long conflict, and 
it offers us an opportunity to redirect our resources toward strategic 
competition.
    In Africa, the Department is focused on sustaining and improving 
the capabilities of our partners, particularly as we deter and disrupt 
terrorist attacks by al-Shabaab. The group remains an active threat to 
Somalis, their neighbors, our interests in Africa, and those of our 
allies and partners. Our partner-centric strategy has always been at 
the core of our counterterrorism mission, and we will continue to help 
regional partners strengthen their capabilities to counter shared 
threats. This is critical to stability and the opportunity for 
political and economic development in East Africa.
    To the north, the Department remains committed to preserving a free 
and open Arctic region, which is why we undertake annual Arctic 
exercises and operations, including with allies and partners, such as 
ARCTIC EDGE, ICEX, and NORTHERN EDGE. These exercises provide valuable 
experience and offer important lessons learned for conducting multi-
domain operations in the High North.
    In the western hemisphere, our competitors seek to gain a foothold 
through economic and security investment and cooperation. We remain 
focused on building partner capacity and capability to ensure that the 
United States remains the partner of choice and to address 
transnational criminal and terrorist networks active in the region.
    Additionally, the Department supports interagency efforts to 
address the migration crisis. Although other departments and agencies 
appropriately lead efforts to respond to this challenge, DoD supports 
partner nations in addressing the security-related aspects of the root 
causes of migration. This includes providing limited humanitarian and 
medical assistance and participating in engagements to strengthen the 
professionalism of Central American militaries and defense 
institutions.
    Here in the United States, our men and women in uniform have 
supported our critical domestic missions. National Guard personnel 
provide support to our fellow Americans, including at Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) mass vaccination sites. National Guard 
personnel have also helped secure our national Capitol at various times 
over the past year, and thousands more have helped secure State 
capitals across the United States at the direction of State officials. 
We also continue to support law enforcement operations on our southern 
border by providing limited enabling capabilities. At the request of 
the Department of Health and Human Services, we are supporting its 
mission to shelter unaccompanied migrant children arriving at the 
border.
COVID-19
    Tackling COVID-19 has been one of my highest and most urgent 
priorities. Since I became Secretary of Defense, the Department has 
received almost 500 FEMA mission assignments and 67 requests for 
assistance from other Federal departments and agencies. As of June 15, 
more than 4,700 active-duty service members have deployed to 34 
community vaccination centers in 28 States and territories.
    Additionally, more than 32,000 National Guard personnel have 
deployed, carrying out FEMA mission assignments issued to DoD to assist 
their local communities.
    In total, the Department has administered nearly 17 million vaccine 
doses to the American people, with more than 4.9 million delivered by 
active-duty personnel and more than 11.9 million supported by the 
National Guard. Within the Department, we have executed one of the most 
complex vaccination programs in the world, vaccinating millions of 
service members, beneficiaries, and Department personnel in 42 
countries, including multiple combat zones. Internally, the Department 
has protected its force and families by administering more than 3.8 
million vaccinations.
    We are also making investments in the Defense Health Agency to 
ensure that we have the resources needed for public-health surveillance 
and force protection. We continue to review and update our force health 
protection policies, and even as vaccinations increase, we remain 
committed to testing, which will expand our genomic sequencing efforts 
so that we can track variants and declining immunity.
    I am tremendously proud of our men and women in uniform who stepped 
up to join our whole-of-nation response. But this will not be the last 
time our nation and our world will face such a challenge. That is why 
our budget request also funds programs that support biological threat 
reduction, in cooperation with our global partners, emerging 
infectious-disease surveillance, biosafety and biosecurity, and medical 
countermeasure research and development.
Climate Change
    We face a grave and growing climate crisis that is threatening our 
missions, plans, and capabilities. From increasing competition in the 
Arctic to mass migration in Africa and Central America, climate change 
is contributing to instability and driving us to new missions.
    At the same time, increasingly frequent extreme weather events 
degrade force readiness and drain resources. Recent DoD budgets have 
been forced to absorb recovery costs at battered bases such as Naval 
Air Station Pensacola, among others. Our military installations, and 
the mission-critical capabilities they support, must be made resilient 
to climate-induced extreme weather.
    Our mission objectives are aligned with our climate goals. The 
Department is investing in projects and capabilities that mitigate the 
impacts of climate change while improving the resilience of our 
facilities and operations to a range of threats. Our budget request 
also invests in initiatives to reduce operational energy demand to 
enhance capability, improve freedom of action in contested logistical 
environments, and reduce costs. Those investments are good for the 
climate, and they are critical for the mission.
    Additionally, this budget invests in power and energy research and 
development to improve installation and platform energy performance and 
optimize military capability. The Department can help lead by 
leveraging its buying power to deploy technologies such as energy 
storage and microgrids that support the mission while protecting the 
climate.
    The Climate Working Group is coordinating the Department's work 
implementing the President's Executive Order on this crisis and 
building up climate expertise within DoD. It will also track the 
implementation of climate- and energy-related actions and progress 
toward future goals.
Modernization and Innovation
    One of our chief priorities is to drive innovation across the 
Department and modernize our culture, people, systems, and processes to 
meet our future needs. It is critical to nearly everything we do. Even 
as we develop new capabilities, we will always adhere to our 
international humanitarian law obligations in the use of new weapons of 
war, as well as ensure the protection of civilians in all missions.
    This budget supports our efforts to:
  --Modernize the nuclear Triad to maintain a strong and effective 
        strategic deterrent;
  --Make critical investments in advanced technologies such as 
        microelectronics, fifth-generation network (5G), and artificial 
        intelligence (AI);
  --Ensure access to precursors and key inputs by shoring up our 
        critical supply chains;
  --Accelerate investments in cutting-edge capabilities that will 
        define the future fight, such as hypersonics and long-range 
        fires; and
  --Advance our joint warfighting concepts and commit to rapid 
        experimentation and the fielding of emergent capabilities 
        across warfighting domains.
    The nuclear Triad remains the bedrock of our national defense and 
strategic deterrence, ensuring that no adversary believes it can employ 
nuclear weapons against the United States or our allies without risking 
devastating consequences.
    But we must modernize our aging capabilities to ensure a credible 
deterrent for the future. As we do, we will review ongoing programs to 
assess their performance, schedule, risks, and projected costs. The FY 
2022 budget invests in nuclear modernization efforts, and the 
Department will always seek to balance the best capability with the 
most cost-effective solution. We are also launching a nuclear posture 
review to ensure that we have the right capabilities matched with the 
national nuclear strategy.
    Microelectronics enable many of today's capabilities, such as GPS, 
radar, command and control, and communications. Advanced 
microelectronics are key to nearly all of the Department's 
modernization efforts, from AI and hypersonic weapons systems to 5G 
wireless networks. The Department will continue to invest in programs 
to secure U.S. microelectronics interests; reverse the erosion of 
domestic innovation and supply; and establish a strong foundation for 
the next generation of microelectronics technology for DoD 
applications, while also sustaining current systems.
    The U.S. military must also utilize the connectivity provided by 5G 
to operate with the speed, precision, and efficiency required in the 
future. Countries that master advanced communications technologies and 
connectivity will have long-term military advantages; for example, 
tomorrow's warfighters will be able to use local and expeditionary 5G 
networks to move considerable amounts of data to connect distant 
sensors and weapons into a dense, resilient battlefield network.
    Similarly, the power of AI will help us modernize not only our 
warfighting decisions but also our business processes. We must be able 
to ingest, make sense of, and act on the vast amounts of information 
available to our warfighters on the battlefield and our decision-makers 
leading our Department. As I have said, we must understand faster, 
decide faster, and act faster. And we must do it all responsibly and at 
scale.
    To support many of these efforts, we recently launched the 
Innovation Steering Group. This entity, chaired by the Under Secretary 
of Defense for Research and Engineering, will advise me on science, 
technology, and technological transition. It will also empower efforts 
to make the changes to incentives, processes, and structures needed to 
truly innovate.
    However, our efforts are not just focused on buying the 
capabilities of the future. We must fundamentally shift the way we 
think and the way we do business. We have not yet made full use of our 
most agile acquisition authorities, and we remain too risk-averse as a 
Department to move decisively beyond the capabilities of today and 
prepare for the future.
    We also remain too reliant on critical minerals produced in or by 
China. To shore up our critical supply chains, we must focus on 
building our domestic production capabilities and growing our defense 
industrial base. That is why I am establishing the Supply Chain Risk 
Management Group, which will complement the work of the Industrial Base 
Council, both of which are chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense 
for Acquisition and Sustainment.
    Tomorrow's conflicts will be contests of speed within and across 
domains of conflict. The President's budget request invests in the 
development and testing of hypersonic strike capabilities, while 
enhancing existing long-range strike weapons to bolster deterrence and 
improve survivability and response timelines. Long-range fires provide 
key offensive capabilities that are cost-effective and improve 
deterrence. By enabling power projection from standoff ranges, the risk 
to critical U.S. assets decreases while the defensive burden imposed on 
the enemy increases.
    The Department is also focused on developing enhanced joint 
warfighting concepts; expanding experimentation and fielding; shifting 
our budget and investment priorities to incentivize innovation; and 
improving acquisition systems while making use of more flexible ones to 
identify and deliver new capabilities at scale. These efforts will help 
build a force that is more resilient and integrated and that ensures 
decision advantage across all domains.
Domain Challenges
    On land, the Army continues to invest in its six modernization 
priorities: long-range precision fires, future vertical lift, next-
generation combat vehicle, air and missile defense, the network, and 
soldier lethality. To sustain the required funding levels for the 
development and procurement of next-generation capabilities, the Army 
reduced resources for several platforms as well as missiles, munitions, 
and conventional ammunition.
    At sea, delivering all-domain naval power that can defend the 
homeland, deter adversaries, control the seas, and project power ashore 
in a conflict requires the Navy to balance current operational demands 
with the need for modernization. Maintaining naval power is critical to 
reassuring allies and signaling U.S. resolve to potential adversaries. 
The budget request proposes responsible investments in the Navy fleet. 
It also continues the recapitalization of our strategic ballistic-
missile submarine fleet and invests in remotely-operated and autonomous 
systems and the next-generation attack submarine program.
    We also seek to divest of some platforms that do not contribute 
effectively to power-projection needs. The FY 2022 request reflects a 
strong commitment to continued U.S. naval dominance, including a 
properly sized and well-positioned defense industrial base. The health 
of the defense industrial base continues to be fundamental to achieving 
and sustaining our future fleet. Our shipbuilding and supporting vendor 
base constitute a national security imperative that must be steadily 
supported and grown to maintain a skilled workforce.
    In the air domain, the Air Force will shift away from certain 
platforms in favor of key weapons systems such as the F-35 Joint Strike 
Fighter, the F-15EX Eagle II, and the Next Generation Air Dominance 
aircraft to bolster the Air Force's ability to provide air superiority. 
Meanwhile, we will drive down sustainment costs, the fleet's average 
age, and inherent risk. At all times, we will work to ensure rigorous 
oversight of maintenance costs of the F-35.
    Additionally, Air Force investments in hypersonics, the Long-Range 
Standoff Weapon, the B-21 Raider, and the Ground-Based Strategic 
Deterrent will allow the Department to conduct global strike operations 
with precise conventional and unconventional capabilities, delivered 
from both standoff capabilities and penetrating platforms. Meanwhile, 
the Navy is developing the ``Air Wing of the Future'' to deliver game- 
changing lethality and survivability. These efforts include 
transforming Carrier Air Wings with the addition of the F-35C, E-2D, 
and CMV-22B aircraft and rapidly developing the MQ-25 Stingray.
    Unfettered access to space and the freedom to maneuver there 
enhances every aspect of American power and underwrites the design of 
the joint force. Competitors including China and Russia are seeking to 
challenge the United States' advantage in space by developing weapons 
to deny or destroy U.S. space capabilities in conflict. The FY 2022 
budget request strengthens our ability to deliver flexible capabilities 
and strategic options swiftly to outpace emerging threats in space.
    Priority areas in this budget include investment in a resilient 
architecture of capabilities for missile warning and missile tracking; 
modernization of all segments of GPS to ensure precision and 
availability; development of cyber-resilient space command-and-control 
capabilities that can integrate with Joint All- Domain Command and 
Control; and investment in a broader base of domestic launch providers 
to further ensure our access to space.
    In cyberspace, the United States is facing increasingly aggressive 
activity, including strategic campaigns by competitors, other nation-
states, and proxies seeking to undermine our national security and 
democracy. The FY 2022 budget invests in cybersecurity and cyberspace 
activities that build on the goals in DoD's Cyber Strategy. The Cyber 
Operations portion of the budget supports U.S. Cyber Command's 
operational element, the Cyber Mission Force, which performs cyberspace 
operations to defend the nation, support the joint force, and secure 
DoD infrastructure and networks.
    The budget also enhances our cybersecurity by mitigating key cyber 
deficiencies and strengthening our defensive capabilities to counter 
malicious attempts to exploit U.S. technology. Ultimately, we seek to 
improve joint force offensive capabilities to stay ahead of foreign 
threats.
Taking Care of Our People
    The dedicated men and women who make up the Department of Defense 
are the greatest strength and asset we have. That is why I have 
prioritized growing our talent, building resilience and readiness in 
the force, and ensuring appropriately accountable leadership as we 
address tough workforce issues.
    The FY 2022 budget request prioritizes improvements to recruiting, 
retention, training, and education, and support for military spouses, 
caregivers, survivors, and dependents. We are also intensely focused on 
ending sexual assault and harassment and identifying and addressing 
extremist behavior in the Department, two of my top priorities.
    We have established the Deputy's Workforce Council, a senior-level 
governance forum co-chaired by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the 
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which is dedicated to 
addressing the most pressing people management, personnel policy, and 
total force requirements. This includes issues such as diversity, 
equity, and inclusion; military healthcare and childcare; sexual 
assault prevention and response; and more. This forum will ensure that 
workforce issues remain a critical priority for Department leadership, 
including the Secretaries of the Military Departments and our 
commanders, and will help bring the same vision and disciplined 
execution to workforce issues that the Department devotes to weapons 
systems and budgeting.
Growing Our Talent
    We accomplish our mission far better when we look to the full range 
of talent that the United States has to offer. That means drawing on a 
diversity of experiences and backgrounds, which will help drive 
creative thinking and adaptation, innovation, and cultural 
understanding. These will be vital to meet the complex challenges of 
today and the future.
    Longstanding, systemic barriers for historically marginalized and 
underrepresented communities persist today. We must do all we can to 
ensure that we recruit and retain talent from the broadest pool of 
qualified, eligible candidates.
    This spring, we updated the Department's policy on the open service 
of transgender people in the military. We welcome the recruitment, 
retention, and care of all qualified transgender individuals, and we 
look forward to their continued service with honor and dignity. The new 
policy reinforces that principle and also allows for a short 
implementation period for the Military Departments and Services to 
update their policies.
    We also must continually grow and develop our workforce and create 
new avenues for advancement to drive the promotion and retention of our 
outstanding next-generation leaders. That requires thinking about our 
critical skill sets with an eye to the future, in particular by 
recruiting and training individuals in Science, Technology, 
Engineering, Math, and advanced technologies.
Building Resilience and Readiness
    In building a resilient and ready force, we must recognize the key 
role that our military families play in supporting our personnel. The 
health and well-being of our service members and their families are 
inextricably linked to the readiness of our force, and we must do all 
we can to take care of them.
    The effects of COVID-19 have been especially tough for our military 
families, putting a particular strain on those who have lost childcare 
or civilian employment. The FY 2022 budget expands our efforts to 
provide high-quality childcare to our military families, and we 
continue to provide virtual career support through Military OneSource.
    The budget also addresses efforts related to our military 
electronic health records, through which the Department is working to 
implement needed modernization most effectively. We must get military 
healthcare right for our service members and their families.
    We will also remain focused on addressing suicide and mental health 
issues in our joint force by enhancing services and support while 
seeking to reduce the stigma around seeking help.
Ensuring Appropriately Accountable Leadership
    We must provide our workforce with a safe, secure, and welcoming 
environment that empowers them to do their best work and grow 
personally and professionally. At the most basic level, that means 
creating a workplace free of discrimination, hate, and harassment. It 
also means guaranteeing swift and clear accountability to anyone who 
does not live up to the highest standards of the Department.
    Sexual assault and harassment have no place in our country and no 
place in the Department of Defense. For too long, the Department's 
leadership has tried to get a handle on this challenge, but we have not 
made significant progress. One case of sexual assault or harassment is 
too many, and we are losing the confidence of our junior enlisted 
personnel and officers because we have yet to make significant progress 
against this challenge.
    That is why, at the direction of the President, I established a 90-
day Independent Review Commission (IRC) on sexual assault in the 
military. The IRC is responsible for reviewing DoD policies and 
processes related to sexual assault and harassment to determine where 
we can improve as a Department.
    The IRC will soon complete its work on all four lines of effort-
accountability, prevention, climate and culture, and victim care and 
support. I recently received an initial set of recommendations from the 
IRC Chair and provided the Department the opportunity to review those 
recommendations. It is critically important that we get this right, and 
I am grateful for congressional partnership as we seek to do that.
    The vast majority of those who serve in uniform and their civilian 
colleagues do so with great honor and integrity. But extremism in our 
ranks can have an outsized impact on the Department, which will not be 
tolerated. The Department is focused on rooting out extremist behavior, 
and this fight is about our values, the Constitution, and the 
obligations in the Oath of Office we swear to uphold.
    Behavior that defies or degrades our core values erodes unit 
cohesion as well as good order and discipline. It can also damage the 
health, morale, and readiness of the workforce.
    I have moved immediately to meet this problem head-on. On February 
5, I directed that within 60 days, commanding officers and supervisors 
at all levels conduct a one-day extremism stand-down to emphasize the 
importance of the Oath of Office we take, and to give military members 
and civilian employees the opportunity to participate in and continue 
to have this important conversation.
    On April 9, I further directed several immediate actions to combat 
extremism, including reviews of what constitutes extremist activity, 
training for transitioning service members who may be targeted by 
extremist groups, and establishing the Countering Extremism Working 
Group to develop long-term recommendations to ensure all those who 
serve do so with honor and fealty to our values and our democracy. This 
must be a sustained effort, embraced by Department leadership.
Succeeding Through Teamwork
    To accomplish anything we set out to do, the Department must 
operate as a unified team. That requires that we build unity among our 
leadership and ensure the right balance of civilian and military inputs 
to our decision-making and Department processes. In the last four 
months, we have made significant progress in rebuilding normal order in 
the Department to safeguard civilian oversight of the military.
    In particular, we have established several bodies aimed at 
supporting the efforts of our Deputy's Management Action Group, the 
Department's principal governance body for management actions, 
including resource management and planning, programming, budgeting, and 
execution.
    We have also established the Deputy's Workforce Council to address 
the Department's people management, personnel policy, and total force 
requirements, and task forces and working groups on COVID-19, China, 
climate change, and extremism.
    Protecting the United States requires teamwork at every level: 
state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal. It requires cooperation 
with all who have a stake in our national security, including Congress, 
private industry, civil society, and the American people.
    Our work to combat COVID-19 is a prime example of our commitment to 
working with our fellow Americans. Across the Executive Branch, DoD has 
worked closely with the Department of Homeland Security, including 
FEMA, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the State 
Department in efforts to end the pandemic. We are also investing in the 
defense industrial base to produce more personal protective equipment 
and test kits. And across the nation, we continue to work closely with 
the Department of Health and Human Services and State, local, tribal 
and territorial authorities to bring life- saving vaccines to the 
American people. At all times, our support to the nation is reliant on 
our partnership with Congress, which plays an integral role in 
providing the authorities, appropriations, and leadership necessary to 
have the most effective Department of Defense.
    As part of our efforts to build teamwork into all we do, and in 
line with the President's intent, we are also leading with diplomacy, 
our first national security tool of choice. I am committed to ensuring 
that the Department of Defense continues to field a credible force able 
to back up the hard work of our diplomats around the world. We are 
working in lock-step with the State Department and other departments 
and agencies, and I took my first trip as Secretary of Defense with 
Secretary Blinken to reassure our allies and partners in the Indo-
Pacific region that this Administration is committed to our 
relationships there. Secretary Blinken and I also traveled to Europe to 
assure our allies and partners of our commitment to the region.
    When I traveled to NATO Headquarters earlier this spring, I shared 
a key message: we must consult together, decide together, and act 
together. Global crises, such as the pandemic, climate change, and 
economic downturns, present significant dangers that span our borders. 
In many countries, internal strife, brought on by corruption, 
inequality and polarization, and transnational threats, such as violent 
extremism and criminal organizations, threaten stability around the 
alliance's rim. In Afghanistan, we went in together and we will leave 
together, after a substantial consultative effort. Meanwhile, 
aggressive and coercive behaviors from emboldened strategic competitors 
such as China and Russia reinforce the importance of collective 
security.
Conclusion
    The challenges we face are many, but the Department stands ready to 
defend the United States against any enemy, foreign or domestic, just 
as we always have. We remain resolute in our commitment to protect the 
nation and will not shy away from any challenge.
    The FY 2022 budget will help us fulfill that responsibility, and we 
are grateful for your support in working with us as we build the 
Department of the future. We need your help.
    We also remain grateful for the tremendous trust that the United 
States places in our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, and 
DoD civilian employees, all of whom will continue to defend our 
democracy, our people, and our way of life. Thanks to them, we will 
always operate from a position of strength. Thank you.

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
    And, General Milley.
STATEMENT OF GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT 
            CHIEFS OF STAFF
    General Milley. Chairman Leahy, and Vice Chairman Shelby, 
and Chairman Tester, and distinguished members of the 
Committee, thanks for the opportunity to testify before you 
today. And it remains my distinguished honor and privilege to 
represent the soldiers, sailors, the airmen, marines, and 
guardians of the United States Joint Forces, the most capable 
military in the world. Our troops are the best led, the best 
equipped, and the best trained Force anywhere in recent 
history.
    And now I want to personally thank Secretary Austin for his 
steady leadership and wise guidance. Your Joint Force is 
standing watch, protecting American interests in all domains, 
Air, Sea, Land, Cyber and Space around the globe 24/7.
    We are also fully engaged at home in both defense support 
to civil authorities through COVID-19 medical and vaccination 
support as well as homeland defense to keep Americans safe.
    We are conducting major exercises in Europe. We are 
monitoring the DMZ in Korea. We are conducting freedom of 
navigation operations in the strategic waterways of the global 
commons. We are sustaining operations in space and cyberspace. 
We are supporting our allies and partners in Africa and Latin 
America, and we are patrolling the skies of the Middle East.
    And, our Joint Force is currently conducting a safe, 
responsible, and deliberate strategic retrograde from 
Afghanistan in good order, while ensuring continued support of 
the Afghan National Security Forces.
    The purpose of the United States Military is to protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States of America against 
all enemies, foreign and domestic, and with that, comes two key 
tasks: Task one, is to prepare to fight and win America's wars 
in order to deter our enemies. And key task two is to fight and 
win America's wars if deterrence fails. In short, it is 
prepared to fight a war and, if necessary, to fight and win a 
war.
    The United States Military is a critical component of 
national power, which, in concert with our diplomatic efforts, 
economic engine, and overriding hope of the American message 
that will, in combination, deter our adversaries and preserve 
great power peace. We are in an era of increased strategic 
competition. The current geostrategic landscape is witnessing 
rapid change, and the potential for increased threat to the 
peace and stability of various regions, and indeed for the 
world, is increasing, not decreasing.
    States and non-state actors are rapidly transforming 
technologically, and we are bearing witness to a fundamental 
change in the character of war. In particular, China is 
increasing its military capability at a very serious and 
sustained rate, and we must ensure that we retain our 
competitive and technological edge against this pacing threat, 
as Secretary Austin has directed us to do.
    Readiness, modernization, and combat power are key to deter 
war and maintain the peace. And equally important are the 
combat multipliers of teamwork, cohesion, and well-led units, 
we must resolve the issue of sexual assault and confront the 
issue of extremism, both are corrosive to the very essence of 
what it means to be in the Military, and they destroy cohesion, 
they destroy teamwork, and they reduce combat power. 
Additionally, we must continue to invest and lead the 
development in talent management required for future operating 
environment.
    And finally, we must continue to nurture and sustain the 
key strategic source of our strength, which is our network of 
many close allies and partners around the world.
    The Joint Force appreciates the work that our elected 
representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed 
to train, equip and man the Force in order to ready. The days 
of the Budget Control Act, as noted, are over, and repeated 
continuing resolutions which eroded readiness are, hopefully, 
behind us for good.
    The Joint Force will deliver modernization of our armed 
forces, and security to the people of America with the FY22 
budget request of $715 billion. It is a significant commitment 
of treasure by the American people. And we know that it is 
entrusted to us, and we will work diligently to ensure it is 
spent prudently in the best interest of the Nation.
    The FY22 Presidential Budget (PB) is a result of very hard 
choices, in a year which the Nation has suffered economic 
hardship due to COVID-19 pandemic. In alignment with the 
Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, this budget 
delivers a ready, agile, and capable Joint Force that will 
compete, deter, and win across all domains anywhere on the 
globe. And we are postured for continued overmatch in the 
future.
    This budget prioritizes nuclear modernization, long range 
fires, hypersonic technology, artificial intelligence, 
shipbuilding, micro electronics, space, cyber, and 5G. These 
investments, in concert with our recently developed joint 
warfighting concept, will pave the way for a Joint Force that 
will win any future conflict.
    The PB22 defense budget request increases the readiness of 
the Force, by developing a Joint Force of the future, ensuring 
our people are our number one priority, and positioning us to 
achieve through teamwork. Consistent, predictable budgets 
informed by the will of the people are critical to this 
Nation's defense, and to the health of this republic, and the 
passage of this budget in a timely way is critically important.
    The FY22 Presidential Budget strikes an appropriate balance 
between preserving present readiness and future modernization. 
It is a down payment on the investment to the future, with a 
bias toward the future operating environment. It is now that we 
must set ourselves on a path, to modernize the Joint Force, and 
this budget contributes to doing just that. Many enemies, 
historically, have grossly underestimated the United States of 
America and our people.
    We are ready now, and we will remain so in the future, and 
any adversary of the United States should never underestimate 
our military capabilities, our skill, our will, and our combat 
power.
    Our job as your Joint Force, our contract with the American 
people is that, we, the United States Military will be able to 
fight and win when called upon. We will support and defend the 
Constitution, always and forever. And I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The statement follows:]

           Prepared Statement of General Mark A. Milley, USA
Introduction
    It remains my distinct honor and privilege to represent the 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Guardians of the United States 
Joint Forces--The most capable military in the world. Our troops are 
the best led, best equipped, and best trained force anywhere. Alongside 
our allies and partners, American Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines 
and Guardians are currently standing watch in 165 countries and 
conducting operations that keep Americans safe.
    The United States Military is a critical component of national 
power which in concert with our diplomatic efforts, economic engine and 
overriding hope of the American message deters our adversaries and 
preserves peace. We are prepared to fight and win if those who seek to 
attack the United States and our allies and partners are undeterred.
    The Joint Force appreciates the work that our elected 
representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed to 
train, equip, and man the force in order to be ready. The days of the 
Budget Control Act of 2011 and repeated continuing resolutions which 
eroded readiness are hopefully behind us for good.
    The Joint Force will deliver modernization of our armed forces and 
security to the people of the United States at the FY 2022 budget 
request of $715 billion. While it is a modest increase from the enacted 
FY21 budget, it is a significant commitment of treasure that the people 
of the United States have entrusted to us and we will work diligently 
to ensure it is spent prudently in the best interest of the Nation. 
This FY 2022 budget is the result of hard choices in a year in which 
the nation has suffered economic hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic. 
In alignment with the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance 
(INSSG) this budget delivers a ready, agile, and capable Joint Force 
that will compete, deter and win across all domains and which is 
postured for continued dominance in the future.
    Consistent predictable budgets informed by the will of the American 
people are critical to our Nation's defense. The passage of timely 
budgets enables planning and prioritization.
Strategic Environment
    The current strategic landscape is witnessing rapid change and 
potential for increased threat to the peace and stability of various 
regions and for the world.
    China: is our #1 geostrategic security challenge. History is not 
deterministic, war with China is not inevitable. China is clearly an 
increasingly capable strategic competitor and we need to keep our 
relationship at competition, not conflict. This is best done through 
integrated deterrence where the United States remains militarily strong 
relative to China and we retain military overmatch in all the various 
domains of war. If we remain militarily superior to our adversary, then 
conflict is less likely.
    China is challenging the peaceful status quo in the Pacific, and is 
intent on revising the global international order by midcentury. China 
is conducting large-scale exercises in the region with an emphasis on 
amphibious landing, joint fires, and maritime strike scenarios. These 
actions threaten our allies and partners' autonomy, jeopardize freedom 
of navigation, overflight and other lawful uses of the sea, and 
compromise regional peace and stability. In short, China has and 
continues to develop significant nuclear, space, cyber, land, air, and 
maritime military capabilities.
    Russia: retains a large nuclear capability to deter and threaten 
the United States and our allies and partners. Russia has also 
demonstrated the capability and will to conduct complex malicious cyber 
activities targeting American protected digital infrastructure, both 
military and commercial. Increasingly Russia uses irregular warfare and 
mercenary contract support, along with regular troops, to conduct 
aggressive operations, the most notable being illegal seizure of 
Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula and the ongoing conflict in eastern 
Ukraine. Its actions in Libya as well as Syria and elsewhere 
demonstrate Moscow's relative flexibility, resourcefulness, and 
opportunism.
    North Korea: continues to enhance its ballistic missile capability 
and possesses the technical capacity to present a real danger to the US 
homeland as well as our allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific. 
They show no signs of moderation in their focus on military capability 
at the expense of their most vulnerable citizens and peace of the 
Korean Peninsula.
    Iran: The current irregular warfare conflict between Iran and its 
neighbors threatens to push the Middle East into broader regional 
instability. Through its funding of terrorist activities, and a proxy 
army inside the borders of its neighbors, and through its ballistic 
missile programs, Iran seeks to revise the regional order and balance 
of power in Iran's favor.
    Violent extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al Shabaab, 
and others continue to export their terror, destruction, and 
destabilization. Until and unless the root causes of instability that 
give rise to these types of groups are resolved, we will continue to 
deal with their attacks to undermine legitimate governments worldwide. 
The root causes can only be effectively addressed by including 
governments of the region and we can best influence outcomes with 
diplomatic, economic, information and stability efforts along with 
train, advise, assist and intelligence sharing. Through coalition 
efforts and in concert with the local governments affected by these 
groups, we will continue to ensure they do not possess the capacity and 
capability to exert their will.
    As we move into the middle of the twenty first century, it is 
imperative that we maintain our technological advantage over our 
competitors. As the diffusion of military technology permeates the 
globe, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain the advantage 
that we've enjoyed for last seven decades.
    This year's budget will adequately fund our department priorities, 
with bias on the future while ensuring we continue to deter the 
adversaries of today. The character of warfare is changing in a 
fundamental way. How we fight, the weapons, doctrine, organizations and 
leader development are all undergoing a transformation not seen in 
scale and scope since the decades between World War I and World War II. 
The current rapid and radical change in technology along with its 
diffusive nature will provide decisive advantage to those nation states 
that best master the convergence and capability in precisions 
munitions, all domain sensors, all domain command and control, 
robotics, hypersonics and artificial intelligence. Our collective 
success or failure to adapt the United States military to this future 
as a Nation is an increasingly challenging security environment.
    Climate change presents a growing threat to U.S. national security 
interests and defense objectives. The adverse impacts of climate change 
are already being felt across the Joint Force in terms of increased 
operational demands, adverse impacts on our installations and new 
requirements for equipment and formations able to operate in a world 
defined by climate change and as a contributing factor to regional 
instability.
    As we enter the third quarter of this fiscal year, it is imperative 
that we finish the fight against COVID-19. The Joint Force has 
contributed planning and logistics expertise during all phases of the 
pandemic response and continues to assist with vaccination efforts. We 
will continue to be able to provide equipment, personnel, and vaccine 
deployment and development assistance when called upon to assist. We 
all should be very proud of the conduct of our Joint Force and our 
ability to continue to deploy and defend the interests of the United 
States during this unprecedented global event as the pandemic has only 
modestly impacted the Joint Force's readiness.
    Our alliances and partnerships are key to maintaining the 
international rules-based order that offer the best opportunities for 
peace and prosperity for America and the globe. This budget allows us 
to build our partners and allies capabilities, foster interoperability, 
and strengthen relationships. Doing so allows us, our allies, and 
partners to counter the coercion of our strategic competitors, the 
malign activity of regional threats, and meet the varied security 
challenges state and non-state actors, terrorism, climate change, and 
pandemics or any other threat that may emerge. We are stronger when we 
operate closely with our allies and partners.
Readiness and Modernization
    The Joint Force is in a position where modernization is an 
imperative. We must avoid the tyranny of the now at the expense of our 
future. The United States as a nation has always had the advantage and 
time to conduct a long build up prior to the beginning of hostilities. 
The operating environment of the future will likely not afford us the 
luxury of time to project force so having modernized forces in 
sufficient size and readiness will be the key to sustaining deterrence 
and maintaining the peace and if deterrence fails then fight and win.
    The Interim National Security Strategic Guidance, National Defense 
Strategy, and National Military Strategy discuss the re-emergence of 
strategic competition and directs the Joint Force to develop the 
capabilities and capacity to counter near-peer threats. Strategic 
adversaries are accelerating military modernization; to maintain 
military advantage, the Joint Force must adapt to the future operating 
environment. It is imperative that we maintain US technological 
advantage over our adversaries and improve the concepts and doctrine 
which organize our conduct of warfare. In the fall of 2019, the 
Secretary of Defense tasked the Joint Staff to develop a threat-
informed Joint Warfighting Concept (JWC) to address strategic conflict. 
The Joint Warfighting Concept will guide and revitalize how we 
organize, train, and equip the Joint Force. It will constantly evolve 
to help us shape our strategic environment and future operations. The 
JWC is a multi-year effort to develop a comprehensive approach for 
joint operations against future threats and provide a guide for future 
force design and development. Supporting concepts to the JWC describe 
key warfighting functions. They are fires, logistics, C2, and 
information advantage. The Joint All Domain Command and Control (JADC2) 
framework enables the holistic development and realization of the JWC 
and Supporting Concepts. JADC2 today is beginning to deliver the 
capability to sense, and act at speeds greater than our adversaries.
    JADC2 uses data, artificial intelligence, machine learning and 
predictive analytics to create decisive information advantage at all 
echelons in the Joint Force.
    Utilizing cloud-based networks and agile software development, our 
modular open sourced systems will deliver the necessary strategic 
operational advantage required within both competition and conflict. 
Our JADC2 architecture is increasingly providing the attributes and 
interfaces to transition to a data-centric force able to operate at 
scale within multiple security levels and across all-domains and the 
electro-magnetic spectrum.
    We will also revise our leader development Joint Professional 
Military Education to support the JWC. Specifically, we are increasing 
the amount of JPME devoted to the study of the changing character of 
war and both China and Russia as potential adversaries.
    In addition to adapting our concepts, doctrine, training, and 
military education, we must continue to invest in capabilities that 
close gaps or sustain our advantage. Key investments in this budget are 
nuclear modernization, long range fires, hypersonic technology, 
shipbuilding, space and cyber.
    Nuclear modernization: The nuclear triad has been the bedrock of 
our strategic deterrent for decades. Together, the three legs of the 
Triad allow us to hedge against geopolitical, technological, 
operational and programmatic risks. Our Cold War era systems have been 
extended beyond their original service lives and we must recapitalize 
our nuclear enterprise.
    Modernization of our nuclear forces, weapons complex, and requisite 
nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) capabilities are a 
high priority. The Department projects the cost of modernization will 
peak at 7% of the DoD budget in 2029 before decreasing again. If these 
projections bear out, compared to past modernization efforts, the cost 
would be significantly less as a proportion of the overall DoD budget--
the nuclear recapitalization in the 1980s cost 10.6% at its peak and 
17% in the early-1960s.
    Long range fires: provide key offensive capabilities that are both 
cost-effective and cost- imposing means of improving deterrence. By 
enabling power projection from standoff ranges, the risk to critical 
U.S. assets decreases while the defensive burden imposed upon the enemy 
increases. China has thousands of ground-launched theater-range 
missiles in its arsenal that would be difficult for the U.S. to counter 
given its current inventories. Investments in long range missiles are a 
cost-effective strategy that improves our ability to compete with 
China. Recent budget requests have enhanced the lethality and 
resilience of the Joint Force by developing and expanding the long-
range fires portfolio. PB22 funding is essential to mitigate offensive 
fires capacity shortcomings, enhance operational flexibility in 
multiple domains, and accelerate the transition of hypersonic weapons 
from development to procurement and fielding. PB22 balances long-range 
fires investments between both proven solutions and higher risk/high-
payoff systems, such as hypersonic fires.
    Hypersonic technology: Hypersonics are a suite of capabilities that 
provide transformational warfighting capability to our Joint Force. Our 
competitors are investing in this capability and in order to provide 
our Joint Force with the best possible technology we will need to 
invest to defend the nation, our allies and partners.
    Legacy platform divestment: Continuing to purchase and maintain 
legacy equipment takes needed defense dollars away from the acquisition 
of systems that are needed for modernization. We need to divest select 
legacy platform to ensure that every defense dollar spent on programs 
and equipment that will be relevant in the next fight.
    Shipbuilding: The industrial base continues to be the fundamental 
enabler for achieving and sustaining the Navy's future fleet. Our 
shipbuilding and supporting vendor base are a national security 
capability that needs support to grow and maintain a skilled workforce. 
The FY 2022 President's Budget reflects the Administration's strong 
commitment to continued American naval dominance, including a properly 
sized and well-positioned industrial base to meet the demands of our 
current and future defense needs. Commitment to the steady acquisition 
profiles underlying our budget is key to ensure the industrial base 
achieves the capability and capacity required to build and maintain the 
Navy's future fleet. The conclusions from past force structure analyses 
have been fully considered and simple ship count is an incomplete 
metric, as it fails to fully capture the capability, payload capacity, 
and employment of ship classes in the fleet. This budget specifically 
procures warships and submarines with credible combat power to deter 
China while continuing remotely operated ship development and investing 
in the industrial base to support fleet modernization and on time 
delivery of the Columbia class submarine.
    Space: Space is essential to our way of life; space capabilities 
are essential to our economy, quality of life, our exploration 
initiatives, and our ability to wage war. Competitors are testing and 
fielding space weapons that threaten not just our National interests 
and advancements in space, but those of all nations that rely upon 
space. Russia has recently tested both a ground- based anti-satellite 
missile and an on-orbit anti-satellite weapon prototype which threatens 
our space capabilities. In 2007, China destroyed a satellite to 
demonstrate their anti-satellite capabilities and the resulting debris 
will remain in orbit, threatening commercial, civil, and national 
security satellites for more than a century. Left unsecured, our 
capabilities in space may become strategic vulnerabilities.
    Cyber: Adversaries continue to use operations in the cyber domain 
as a means to compete with the U.S. and pursue a position of advantage 
in crisis and conflict. Malign cyberspace actors increasingly exploit 
supply chain vulnerabilities, such as commercial software, to gain 
network access and conduct cyber operations against U.S. citizens, 
organizations, and institutions. The low cost/barrier to entry and 
anonymity that cyberspace provides make this domain a priority focus 
for adversaries to asymmetrically compete without escalation. 
Therefore, we must increase our ability to compete in cyberspace and 
ensure all elements of informational power are integrated into 
operations, activities, and efforts to deter our adversaries and 
protect the U.S. homeland. This requires DoD to invest in partners and 
technology, building and maturing cyber operations and readiness, 
reducing risk to weapon systems and critical infrastructure, 
strengthening cybersecurity, and improving network resiliency.
Advanced Capabilities
    The changing character of war necessitates that we continue to 
modernize and innovate. We must be able to have clear linkage from 
sensors to shooters in an advanced information environment with the 
technology present to protect our warfighters, critical assets, and 
homeland. Investment in ensuring reliable supplies of microelectronics, 
advanced network technology such as 5G, and artificial intelligence 
will ensure that we maintain our technological edge over our 
adversaries. The current globally distributed supply chains present 
vulnerabilities to the Joint Forces' ability to acquire necessary parts 
and technology in the event of a crisis that either prevents the 
manufacture, or shipping of material to our units in the field.
    Advanced microelectronics are the key element in all of the 
Department's modernization efforts, from Artificial Intelligence and 
Hypersonic Weapon Systems to Fifth Generation Wireless Networks. High-
speed connectivity will transform the way militaries operate.
    Tomorrow's warfighters will use local and expeditionary 5G networks 
to move massive amounts of data to connect distant sensors and weapons 
into a dense, resilient battlefield network.
    Communication networks are fundamental to how the United States 
trains, plans, and engages adversaries. The U.S. military must utilize 
the connectivity provided by 5G to operate with the speed, precision, 
and efficiency necessary to remain effective and survivable in the 
future.
    U.S. Army: The Army faces an inflection point that requires 
innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurship in the application of 
combat power. The battlefield is increasingly faster, more lethal, and 
more distributed. Overmatch will belong to the side that can make 
better decisions faster. To meet emerging challenges, the Army is 
transforming to provide the Joint Force with the speed, range, and 
convergence of cutting edge technologies that will generate the 
decision dominance and overmatch required to win the next fight. The 
Army's materiel modernization transformation is based on the six 
modernization priorities announced in 2018: Long Range Precision Fires, 
Next Generation Combat Vehicle, Future Vertical Lift, the Army Network, 
Air and Missile Defense, and Soldier Lethality. By 2035, the Army will 
realize its vision of a multi- domain force. Decisive outcomes in war 
are ultimately achieved on land where people live and maintaining a 
capable land force in the United States Army is key to our overall 
deterrence capability and national security.
    U.S. Navy: America is a maritime nation. Our security and 
prosperity are inextricably linked to the seas. To sustain America's 
advantage at sea, we must deliver combat-ready forces to deter 
aggression and keep the seas free and open. Deploying battle-ready 
ships, submarines, and squadrons around the world-from the South China 
Sea to the Arctic-deters aggression, reaffirms our commitment to allies 
and partners, and keeps the seas open and free. Readiness underpins our 
forward-engaged posture and touches all elements of the Navy, from our 
shipyards and aviation depots to the steaming and flying hours our 
Sailors use to hone their skills. This budget prioritizes a fleet that 
is ready for combat over a larger fleet that is not ready to fight.
    U.S. Marine Corps: The Marine Corps is optimizing the force for 
competition in the vast littoral regions of the globe by modernizing 
the force for Strategic Competition. As codified in law, Marines serve 
in cooperation with the Navy in the conduct of naval campaigns. As 
international relations are defined more by periods of cooperation and 
competition, the Marine Corps will focus on the competition phase 
before conflict by generating a persistent reconnaissance force for the 
Joint Force that has organic long-range, precision fires with mobility. 
Thus far, they have fully invested in their modernization by divesting 
of capabilities and capacities that no longer offer the best value for 
a maritime force in the contact and blunt layer.
    U.S. Air Force: Moving forward, the Air Force will prioritize its 
resources to transform our equipment, support our Airmen, and bolster 
our core missions. To deter and defeat today's competitors and 
tomorrow's adversaries, this budget continues to re-capitalize our Air 
Force. The Air Force is retiring legacy platforms with a bias toward 
the future, so that we can focus on aircraft that can penetrate high 
end defenses. A cutting edge Air Force that is without peer is 
fundamental to successful land or sea operations and is the key element 
to maintaining deterrence and sustaining the force.
    U.S. Space Force: The Space Force investments accelerate 
modernization of the entire Joint Force. Space Force capabilities 
underwrite, enhance, and enable Joint Force operations. The Space Force 
protects U.S capabilities and freedom of operation outpacing actions of 
our competitors.
    Ongoing actions to fully resource the United States Space Force 
(USSF) including transfer of the Space Development Agency (SDA) and 
unit transfers from the Army and Navy, will enhance the USSF's ability 
to organize, train, equip and present forces who can compete, deter and 
if necessary prevail should war initiate in, or extend to space.
People First/People and Families
    People are our most important resource in the Joint Force. We must 
ensure that we are doing all that we can do to take care of and guard 
our most critical resource. Taking care of people is a critical 
readiness issue, it decisively impacts unit cohesion, recruitment, 
retention, and confidence in leadership. The Joint Force has been 
working to rid our military from the scourge of sexual assault and 
sexual harassment for years. We must do more to finally implement real 
and lasting change. Sexual assault undermines our military values and 
undercuts our ability to field a cohesive fighting force. Sexual 
assault and harassment prevention, response and accountability are 
leadership issues. We will hold DoD leaders at every level responsible 
for building a safe environment for our people, guaranteeing anyone who 
does not act within the highest standards of the Joint Force is held 
accountable.
    We will not tolerate actions that go against the fundamental 
principles of the oath we share, including actions associated with 
extremist ideologies. Extremism also destroys readiness because it 
destroys cohesion. Extremism presents a complex and unique challenge to 
DoD. We must meet this head-on, and place the highest importance on 
treating all personnel with dignity and respect, in an environment free 
from discrimination, harassment, and maltreatment. We must be ever 
vigilant in our efforts to identify and counter extremist behavior 
within our ranks.
    We continuously earn the trust of our service members and their 
families by ensuring that they continue to receive excellent quality of 
life benefits. Our premier all-volunteer force will continue to be the 
greatest in history only if we continuously affirm how much we value 
the service that our military and civilian members provide their 
country.
    The Joint Force is committed to growing our talent and ensuring 
that all who meet the requirements to serve are able to serve. The 
Joint Force competes for the talent of America's youth along with every 
other business, and organization who seeks our Nation's best and 
brightest. Service to Nation is a worthwhile cause and we welcome all 
who are eligible to serve. Despite our inclusive approach only 29% of 
today's youth are eligible for military Service without a waiver. The 
Joint Force's objective is to field the most lethal and combat 
effective fighting force in the world. We will continue to support the 
accessions of all qualified people to all jobs and positions within the 
Joint Force.
    The Nation's largest employer-sponsored child care program supports 
our Joint Force, with more than 27,000 staff members providing daily 
care for more than 160,000 children aged birth to 12 years in 
approximately 700 nationally-accredited child care centers. Taking care 
of families is a holistic approach that ensures that our troops are 
ready to fight because they know their families are well cared for.
    Housing our forces is critical to ensure that our junior and most 
vulnerable families are able to live in a healthy environment wherever 
the Nation calls them to serve. Families don't raise their hand and 
join the service. We as a nation owe it to our troops to ensure they 
have what they need. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative 
(MHPI) reform efforts are actions that will improve the tenant 
experience, rebuilt tenant trust, and maintain MHPI housing project 
financial viability. The MHPI Tenant Bill of Rights (BOR), issued in 
February 2020, is a visible and important commitment in DoD's larger 
effort to regain resident trust.
Achieving Through Teamwork
    We in the Joint Force are a team of teams. Sworn to support and 
defend the constitution, teamwork is our watchword. There is no 
daylight between the services when it comes to ensuring the security of 
the American people. The Joint Force is a collective effort, and no 
services ever fights alone.
    Joint exercises with all services, allies and partners 
participating are a key component to our warfighting readiness. 
Ensuring that exercises such as Defender Pacific and Defender Europe 
continue and that we fastidiously increase the number of participants 
and complexity in these exercises will guarantee the best preparation 
for war and a mechanism to demonstrate our commitment and resolve to 
those who wish to question our friends and our capabilities.
Conclusion
    The United States Joint Force is a flexible and adaptable force 
ready to deter, fight, and win our Nation's wars. The PB22 budget 
request increases the readiness of the force by developing the Joint 
Force of the future, ensuring people are our number one priority, and 
positioning us to achieve through teamwork. America's network of allies 
and partners is a strategic source of strength. Many enemies have 
grossly underestimated the United States and the American people in the 
past. They've underestimated our national resolve. They've 
underestimated our capability, our skill and our combat power, and each 
made a fatal choice which ended with their enrollment in the dustbin of 
history. The same will be true of any enemy that makes that mistake 
today or tomorrow. We are ready now, and will remain so in the future, 
we are also facing tough strategic choices, and we are being 
increasingly challenged with very capable potential adversaries, 
clearly acting in opposition of our interests. Our job as your Joint 
Force, our contract with the American people is that we, the United 
States military will always be ready to deter our enemies and if 
deterrence fails then to fight and win.

                       NATIONAL DEFENSE STRATEGY

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you both very much.
    Secretary Austin, on Monday you and Secretary Blinken 
joined the President at the NATO Summit where he called the 
North Atlantic Treaty a sacred obligation of mutual defense, 
and we have discussed that meeting. I have said before, and 
past secretaries of Defense of both parties' administrations 
have agreed with me, that our Nation's defense is strongest 
when we invest not only in our military, but in our people, in 
the best of priorities that are the hallmark of this democracy.
    The Department of Defense is part of a network of Federal 
agencies, including Department of State, Department of Homeland 
Security, Treasury, Commerce, Agriculture, and more, that seek 
to secure our Nation, and promote our national defense.
    Secretary Austin, do you agree that our investments in 
education, medical research, nutrition, economic development, 
agriculture, environment, and all these, do enhance our 
national security and support our Nation's defense strategy?
    Secretary Austin. Mr. Chairman, I do. I think that one of 
the things that has occurred over the years is that we have--we 
have fallen behind in ability to produce, you know, enough 
scientists and engineers to be able to create the kinds of 
technology that we need going forward. So our goal is to make 
sure that, you know, we begin to, re-shore a lot of the things 
that we have exported to overseas capabilities in the past. And 
we will need the technological base to be able to do that going 
forward. So I absolutely do, Senator--Chairman.

                      NATIONAL GUARD REIMBURSEMENT

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. As a result of the 
unprecedented assault on January 6th of The Capitol, the 
National Guard spent nearly 5 months assigned to protection 
duties at the Capitol, with Guard members from all over the 
country. The cost for that deployment is estimated to be over 
$500 million. I know you were told the Guard would rightly be 
reimbursed for these costs. Senator Shelby and I are 
responsible for drafting a Senate alternative to the House-
passed security supplemental. We have other urgent needs too: 
overtime, hazard pay, mental health services for our Capitol 
Police. All these must be met.
    My question for you is this: What happens if Congress does 
not pass the Supplemental Appropriations Bill reimbursing the 
National Guard for these costs before the Senate and House go 
out of session in August? What is the impact on the men and 
women in the Guard?
    Secretary Austin. Well, the short answer, Chairman, is 
that, it will impact their ability in the short--in the near 
term to be able to train and adequately prepare the Guard for 
its future--for its current responsibilities. And I would just 
like to say, while I am answering this question, Chairman, that 
you know, I am absolutely proud of the work that our Guard has 
done.
    And you mentioned the tremendous work that they did in the 
Capitol, but they have also, around the country, been very 
instrumental in helping to--helping us to get shots out and 
into people's arms during the vaccination effort. They have 
answered the call to fight fires, and other disasters. And so 
they have been very busy, and we need to make sure that we have 
the resources required to ensure that we can continue to train 
and equip the Guard.
    Chairman Leahy. I agree. I have seen what they have done in 
natural disasters in my own State of Vermont, but also in other 
states around the country.

                         CONTINUING RESOLUTION

    And General Milley, there have been calls to expand the 
Defense budget, or we face a dire outcome. You said it is not 
simply about numbers, it is about having the discipline and the 
certainty to spend the money you have wisely. What are some of 
the consequences the Department of Defense faces--and by 
extension, of course, the men and women in uniform and their 
families--if we just simply put it on autopilot with a 
continuing resolution and stop gap funding?
    General Milley. Thanks. Thank you. Senator, I think that 
the goal of continuing resolution will be a significant 
negative impact on the readiness and modernization of the 
Force, things like contracts for--that we let in order to build 
new--bring in new equipment, et cetera. But also it will have a 
negative impact on the training of the units from a day-to-day 
basis.
    We have gone through this drill several times over the past 
couple of years, but a continuing resolution is not a good 
course of action for the defense budget, in my opinion, and has 
a definite impact. With respect to your question on the 
National Guard, just one quick piece on that, as you know, the 
National Guard, they are all over the world, and we have them 
committed overseas, as well as domestically. They are a 
tremendous investment, big bang for the buck for the National 
Guard, both Air and Army, over 50 percent of the United States 
Army is the National Guard.
    So if we don't get the $500 million to supplement for the 
deployment of the Guard in the Capitol, they will have a 
significant negative impact in their ability to maintain their 
readiness as well.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you.

                            MICROELECTRONICS

    And, Secretary Austin, in Vermont we have a semiconductor 
fab that is part of the Trusted Foundry, as it is in many other 
States. We just passed a bill that includes $54 billion through 
the Commerce Department for such commercial fabs to revitalize 
and bring us up-to-date in microelectronics.
    But I ask: How is the Department investing in such 
microelectronic technology, because we are going on more and 
more networks? And we know that other countries are 
accelerating their use of such things. And I apologize to 
Senator Shelby for going over my time, but if you could respond 
to that, sir?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Chairman. As you have seen, 
there is $2.3 billion in this budget for microelectronics, and 
Department of Defense is participating a part of a whole-of-
government effort to ensure that we begin to boost domestic 
production of key electronic elements that we know that we will 
need going into the future.
    Chairman Leahy. Senator Shelby, we need to pause 5 minutes 
to fix a couple of microphones. Is that okay with you? Or would 
you rather take your time first? Why don't you go ahead with 
your question first, then we will pause.
    We will pause for 5 minutes to fix the microphone. And I 
have no idea how you do that. I will leave that to somebody at 
a much higher grade. Thank you.
    [Pause.]
    Chairman Leahy. And I will ask, Chairman Milley, is it 
working now? Oh, there you go. Okay. It is working.
    Senator Shelby, go ahead, sir.

                           PRIORITIZING CHINA

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe his mic 
is working, General, thank you.
    The Department stated that it is prioritizing China as our 
number one pacing challenge. I pose this question to the 
Secretary, and to you General. How does this year's flat 
defense budget adequately reflect that prioritization? What 
specific investments are we making to counter China's 
increasing military capabilities, and assuming it appropriately 
prioritizes China, what are we ignoring? Because we can't do 
everything with a flat budget, and I know some of the stuff you 
cannot talk about in this hearing today, but tell us what you 
are prioritizing and why, and if you are?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Vice Chairman. China is, in 
fact, our pacing challenge, and it is my priority focus. You 
have seen that through, quite frankly, our actions. My first 
overseas trip, along with Secretary Blinken, was over to the 
Indo-Pacific region. You saw me stand up a China Task Force 
that has helped to focus the efforts of the Department on 
making sure that we are doing the right things to create the 
capabilities and develop the operational concepts that we need 
to be successful.
    In terms of specific issues or capabilities that we are 
investing in in this budget, you see, almost $21 billion for 
missile defense and defeat, $6.6 billion for long range fires, 
$52 billion investment for lethal air force, $34 billion for 
effective naval forces, and $12.3 billion for effective ground 
forces.
    And in addition to that, we are investing almost $28 
billion to modernize the nuclear triad. So I think when you 
consider that, when you consider the $10.4 billion that we are 
investing in things like cyber, what we are doing in space to 
create additional capabilities, we are investing quite a bit.
    We also invested $5.1 billion for the Pacific Defense 
Initiative, and I think--I think the aggregate there really 
has--will generate a lot of capability that is focused on 
China.
    General Milley. Senator, could I make a comment as well, if 
that is okay?
    Senator Shelby. Yes, sir. General, go ahead.
    General Milley. This budget biases future modernization. I 
mean, you always have to do future modernization, which is 
another word for saying future readiness, and current 
operations and current readiness. There is always a balance. 
Previous budgets biased the present, this budget starts leaning 
into the future, and it is now that we need to pivot, because 
the future, believe it or not, is going to get here someday.
    In about 10 or 15 years from now, we will be in a world of 
hurt in the national security geostrategic world, unless we 
invest in the modernization of the United States Military. This 
budget specifically starts doing that in very explicit ways 
with explicit programs, such as the Secretary just outlined. We 
are in the midst of a change in the character of war, perhaps 
the biggest change in over a hundred years.
    And we are investing in hypersonics, robotics, 5G, 
microelectronics, and all kinds of investments in this. And 
this is the beginning of a pivot to a future U.S. Military that 
will be able to maintain its overmatch in some future conflict 
against, for example, a pacing threat like China.

                   HYPERSONICS AND QUANTUM COMPUTING

    Senator Shelby. Secretary, so you believe that we are 
investing enough money in your budget, or proposed budget 
that--for hypersonic weapons, and also for the quantum 
computing, both are very important for the future, as the 
General just talked about that?
    Secretary Austin. I think these are--thank you, Vice 
Chairman. I think these are both critical capabilities that we 
will need going forward. In terms of hypersonics, we not only 
need an offensive capability, but we also need to be able to 
defend ourselves against a hypersonic capability generated by 
China or Russia. And I think this budget, Vice Chairman, gives 
us the flexibility to go after the right mix of capabilities 
that we will need to be not only relevant in the future, but 
dominant.

                               IRON DOME

    Senator Shelby. Shifting a little bit. Last month President 
Biden pledged his full support, voting to replenish Israel's 
Iron Dome missile defense system after a significant numbers of 
rounds were used to shoot down Hamas fired rockets.
    Secretary Austin, should we expect, this Committee expect 
to see a request to replenish Israel's Iron Dome, if not, why 
not?
    Secretary Austin. You will see a request, Vice Chairman.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. You know, I have had this conversation 
with Minister of Defense, Benny Gantz. We were together about 2 
weeks ago, and he walked through the details of, you know, what 
his requirements were. We are working to flesh out those 
details.
    Senator Shelby. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. And you will see a request in the future.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you.

                         MIL-TO-MIL ENGAGEMENTS

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
    And Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Austin, General Milley, as you mentioned, the 
Department of Defense is focusing more on the Indo-Pacific and 
China. And I think we face--as a Californian, I think we face a 
challenging, strategic environment, and that the United States 
has to be prepared to act in a region that is much closer, in 
many respects, to China than to the United States.
    So we need to be smart. We need to have conversations, and 
we need to be strong as well. And one of the things that has 
concerned me, I see a lot in the West about various countries 
having military-to-military meetings, interaction between 
various countries. And I don't see that with respect to us. 
What is the policy of this kind of Mil-to-Mil engagement by our 
Defense Department?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Senator. I would just tell you 
that one of the strengths of the United States of America is 
that we have a lot of allies and partners who want to work with 
us, and we will be successful in the future. And one of the 
ways that it is going to--one of the means that is going to 
create that success is, you know, leveraging the capacity and 
capability of our allies.
    As I pointed out earlier, my first trip overseas was out to 
the region, in the Indo-Pacific region where I met with our 
allies and in Japan, and South Korea, and further traveled to 
India to meet with partner--with our partner there. And just 
as--just as recent as 2 nights ago, I was on a--in a conference 
with ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) nations, 
and exchanging ideas about how we could better work together.
    What I have done with the China Task Force is focused our 
efforts a bit more that--in a way that will create 
opportunities for us to better partner with allies and partners 
in the region, because I think that is really, really 
important. But to answer your question, we have done quite a 
bit, but we will do a lot more because I think this is very, 
very important.
    General Milley. Senator.
    Senator Feinstein. Please.
    General Milley. Our INDOPACOM (Indo-Pacific Command) 
Command, Admiral Aquilino, and each of the services, Army, 
Navy, Air Force, Marines, to include Joint Staff, we interact 
with all of our allies and partners in the Pacific on a routine 
basis. Yeah, I think your question may be directed about China 
though, specifically China, and that is an issue, and we need 
to improve our Mil-to-Mil relationship with China in order to 
be able to deescalate during a crisis, and to understand each 
other better.
    I routinely call my counterpart, but we are not doing it at 
echelon, and we need to improve the speed at which we can 
communicate. So it is push to talk, I can pick a phone up, or 
the Secretary can pick a phone up. We are working through that. 
We want to improve those systems, but you are hitting a very 
important point that will keep us and prevent any sort of great 
power conflict in the years to come. Those systems do need to 
get set up.
    Senator Feinstein. General, thank you very much for that. 
It is very much appreciated, and I think you are 100 percent on 
the right track. So thank you.

                            MISSING WEAPONS

    General Milley, recent reporting claims that at least 1,900 
U.S. Military firearms were lost or stolen during the past 
decade, they say mostly from the Army. Explosives have also 
gone missing. The reporting also says that the Pentagon has not 
been transparent about this. California authorities recently 
found a stolen military assault rifle in Fresno that was stolen 
8 years prior from Fort Irwin, in 2018, a Government 
Accountability Office report found shortcomings in securing 
weapons.
    So I would just like to ask you to briefly outline what is 
being done today to see that there are no problems like this, 
and that weapons are well secured?
    General Milley. Thanks, Senator, for the question. First, 
we, the Department of Defense, and I can tell you everyone in 
the Military wearing a uniform, from company commander, platoon 
sergeant, all the way up to myself, we take the security of 
weapons extraordinarily seriously. We have got an order of 
magnitude of about, call it, somewhere around 3 million or so 
small arms.
    I am not talking big-ticket items, in aircraft carriers and 
F-35s. I am talking small arms. What you are mentioning about 
the rifles, machine guns, pistols, rocket launches, the things 
that were mentioned in these reports. I have asked each of the 
Service Chiefs to go back, and let's get the numbers, let's get 
the reports over to you to make sure that we can level set as 
to what is correct, and incorrect.
    I saw the reports as well in the media. I was frankly 
shocked by the numbers that were in there. The reports I have 
from the services, as of this morning, are significantly less 
numbers than are reported in the media. That is not to say it 
is zero, but it is much less. So I need to square the balance 
here. I owe you a firm answer as to what is being done though.
    I can assure you that every company commander, every 
company grade officer out there that is in charge of an 
organization, every single month is doing a 10 percent 
inventory on their arms room. And they are required, by law, by 
policy, by regulation, to inventory and account for all of 
those weapons, anything lethal at all, to include explosives. 
If anything becomes missing, or unaccounted for in any manner, 
shape or form, there is a full-fledged investigation by CID 
(Criminal Investigation Command), as well as unit chains of 
command.
    And if anyone is found negligent at all, they are relieved 
of their command, or punished in some way. And if there is a 
criminal involved, for example, you mentioned Fort Irwin, there 
were people arrested, prosecuted and then currently in jail, as 
a result of some of those weapons that you are talking about, 
with the AK-47.
    So everything is rigorously investigated, there are weapons 
that we can't account for, but I can assure you that we take it 
extraordinarily seriously, and I owe you the exact numbers that 
we are getting, and I will get you those very, very quickly.
    [The information follows:]
    
    

    
    
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
    Senator Feinstein. Thanks General for your very direct and 
honest answer. It is much appreciated. Thank you.

                            DDG PROCUREMENT

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
    Senator Collins.
    Senator Collins. First, welcome, Secretary Austin, and 
General Milley. We appreciate your service.
    Secretary Austin, the administration's budget prioritizes 
national security and homeland security spending last, relative 
to, seemingly, every other area of the budget. That strikes me 
as not only unwise, but dangerous, particularly when we look at 
what the Chinese are doing.
    Mr. Secretary, one of the biggest mistakes in the budget, 
from my perspective, is the decision to cut a DDG from the 
current multi-year procurement contract. This reflects a 
broader trend of not making the investments necessary to build 
anywhere close to a 355-ship Navy that multiple studies have 
confirmed is needed.
    China, on the other hand, now has the world's largest Navy, 
has about 60 more ships than our own fleet and has surpassed 
our own 355-ship goal. The Office of Naval Intelligence 
projects that China will have 400 battle force ships by the 
year 2025. DDGs are the workhorse of the Navy, and the Flight 
IIIs will be the most capable ships in the world.
    And I want to stress that these are ships in production 
right now. They are not conceptual ideas, or designs for a 
future ship, we need more DDGs patrolling the Pacific, not 
fewer. And it is surely significant that the Navy has listed as 
its number one unfunded priority the restoration of funding for 
the missing DDG. My question is this: Will you work with the 
Committee to find ways to restore that DDG that has been cut; 
and to meet, the Navy's number one unfunded priority?
    Secretary Austin. Senator, you have my commitment that I 
will continue to work with the Committee to do everything we 
can to resource our Navy. We have the most powerful; we have 
the dominant naval force on the face of the planet. It has been 
so in the past, it is now, it will remain so going forward. And 
I absolutely agree with you that 355 ships is a good goal to 
shoot for.
    And I want to make sure that we have, you know, the right 
mix of capabilities, size matters, but capabilities also 
matter. And so we are going to continue to work with the Navy 
and with this Committee to make sure that we have the right 
capabilities in place. And our plan is to resource that DDG in 
the FY23.
    Senator Collins. Well, an Admiral once told me that 
quantity has a quality all of its own. That has always stuck 
with me. And I am also very concerned about the impact on our 
industrial base. We only have two yards that build the large 
surface combatants, and Bath Iron Works in Maine has hired 
3,000 additional shipbuilders since 2018, it is working quickly 
to improve it is productivity to reach two ships per year build 
rate. And it has a hot production line that is getting more 
efficient by the day.
    But if this budget passes, BIW is rushing toward a workload 
cliff that will lead to lots of jobs, reverse these 
productivity gains, and weaken the industrial base. So that is 
the other point that I would ask that you think about the 
importance of that productivity.

                     WOMEN AND GIRLS IN AFGHANISTAN

    Just very quickly, for General Milley; I described to you 
my very first trip to Afghanistan when I met in an Army truck--
an Army tent, rather, with the other members of the CODEL when 
Hamid Karzai had been smuggled back into the country. And we 
were allowed, each, only one question of him. And my question 
was: ``Will you get girls back into the schools? Will you 
reverse what the Taliban has done?''
    I am very concerned that Afghanistan is going to fall to 
the Taliban and that we, once again, will see the imposition of 
Sharia law, and that girls and women will not be allowed to 
pursue an education or participate fully in society. Senator 
Shaheen and I have worked very hard about this issue and are 
very concerned. Do you have any comments in that area?
    General Milley. Well, I would tell you this, Senator. Your 
concern is a valid concern. There is a range of outcomes here, 
and without going into classified probabilities here, of these 
outcomes there are a wide range of outcomes that we have looked 
at. And we assess that based on risk. Right now the Government 
of Afghanistan is holding, and they have approximately, about a 
325- to 350,000-person security force, Army, and Police Forces.
    There is ongoing violence, as we know, and we are drawing 
down our Force. Now the question remains: What will happen in 
the future? Will that military disintegrate? Will the 
government collapse? Will the Taliban come in? If the answer to 
that worst-case scenario is yes, then I think your concern is a 
very valid concern. What will happen to women and girls? And 
not only that, but many, many others, and they are probably 
going to be at risk. But I would also tell you, that is not a 
certain outcome.
    There are many other outcomes that are possible, and we are 
going to work to try to have those outcomes achieved as opposed 
to the worst-case outcome. This is not a done deal yet. It is 
the President's intent to keep an Embassy open, to keep our 
security forces around the Embassy, and to continue to work 
with the Afghan Government, to continue to fund the Afghan 
security forces, and to keep that situation from devolving into 
the worst case.
    And that is what we are planning on, and that is where we 
are working toward. There are no guarantees in any of this. You 
are right to bring it up as a concern, and we are working to 
fulfill that concern.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin. Senator, I would just add on by saying, 
we really appreciate the bipartisan support that we have gotten 
for--over the year for the women and girls in Afghanistan. And 
we are going to do everything within our power, as General 
Milley has indicated, to work through the Embassy to carry 
forward with as much of this as we can.
    Senator Collins. Thank you.

                          APOLITICAL MILITARY

    Chairman Leahy. Senator Durbin.
    Senator Durbin. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Mr. Secretary, and General Milley, for joining us.
    At least two of the pillars of our national defense are 
civilian control, of the military, and our ambition, goal, 
demand that those who serve in the military be nonpartisan and 
above politics. America is bitterly divided on political 
questions. What are you doing to make certain that our military 
is not infected with this partisanship?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Senator. It is. This is a 
very, very, important issue for me. And also, I would add, 
General Milley. The Military has been apolitical in the past, 
it is apolitical now, and it will be apolitical going forward. 
There is no place for politics in our Military.
    I fully expect that, you know, all of our troops will have 
the opportunity to participate in the--in the political 
process, but the Military we will--we are going to do 
everything we can to make sure that the Military remains 
apolitical.
    Senator Durbin. General.
    General Milley. I can assure you as well on the part of 
myself, and the Joint Chiefs, and the entire Uniform Branches 
that we understand civilian control in the military, we are 
committed to being an apolitical military, and we will give our 
dying breath to defend the Constitution of the United States of 
America.

                             CYBERSECURITY

    Senator Durbin. Thank you. A critic may take a look at our 
budget and say our national defense budget continues to grow to 
record numbers, even though we may retrench from time to time, 
but the real threats may not be addressed by this budget. It 
was not a hypersonic aircraft, or a missile, or a stealthy 
group of saboteurs who closed down the oil pipeline, the 
Colonial Oil Pipeline, and really disrupted the American 
economy. And other vulnerabilities, which we are obviously 
aware of, are in the area of cybersecurity. What is our 
military doing to complement any other agency efforts in that 
regard?
    Secretary Austin. Well, Senator, the Military, as you have 
indicated just now, is one element of a larger government 
effort to ensure that we can protect our networks. And we have 
the ability to engage adversaries, in kind of a forward manner, 
and at the source of the mischief, and we have the ability to 
sustain contact with potential adversaries.
    So we are doing two things, protecting--three things, 
protecting our DOD networks, adding to the overall effort that 
the government has in terms of defense against cyber attacks, 
and also remaining engaged with adversaries, forward deployed.
    General Milley. And Senator, on the military side, as you 
know, we have CYBERCOM, and each of the service branches has 
cyber organizations inside it. We have got defensive and 
offensive cyber protection teams. We are very aggressive--not 
to be discussed in open testimony--but we are very aggressive 
offensively where needed and when directed, and we are 
continuing to build our defensive capabilities, the domain of 
cyber, as a domain of war, as a domain of competition with 
adversary nations, is a relatively new domain. And we are 
building those capabilities.
    We have the most significant cyber capabilities in the 
world, that doesn't mean it is perfect. And we witnessed what 
happened with the hackers in Colonial Pipeline, and we have to 
do much, much more. This budget puts about, I think, $2.3 or 
$2.4 billion into increasing our cyber capabilities just in the 
Uniform Branches, but there is a lot more work to do. There is 
no question about it. And this is an area in which we are 
vulnerable and we need to continue to invest.

                           WASTEFUL SPENDING

    Senator Durbin. Someone may look at a $750 billion budget 
for our National defense and question, whether we are wasting 
any money in the spending of that amount. My guess is we are, 
even with the best of efforts on our part. Both of you have 
extensive backgrounds and careers in the military. What would 
you identify as the largest potential source of waste in our 
Federal--our Federal military spending at this point?
    Secretary Austin. One of the things that makes--that is a 
challenge for us, Senator, is to be able to invest in the 
capabilities that we know that we need for the future, and as 
we do that, to divest capabilities that won't be relevant going 
forward. And so as we hang on to systems that we know will not 
be relevant in the future, I think that creates drag on the 
overall budget. I think that that makes it more complicated for 
us. And so I would ask, you and the Committee to, to help as 
much as you can, in terms of those things that we have worked 
with the services to identify that we--that won't be relevant 
in the next fight. Help us to be able to divest of some of 
those systems.
    Senator Durbin. Mr. Secretary, that was a very tactful 
answer at a congressional hearing. I would just add, that I 
think our procurement process in this country is in desperate 
need of reform. We are wasting too much time and too much money 
in our procurement process, and the responsibility of changing 
it is your hands; and ours as well. Thank you both.

                            ARCTIC STRATEGY

    Chairman Leahy. Senator Murkowski.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, 
thank you for your leadership. Greatly appreciate it.
    Mr. Secretary, I appreciated the opportunity that we had, 
for a discussion on some Arctic-related matters. Just last week 
I expressed my appreciation for the Department's initiative in 
this focus on the region. We have seen the service-level Arctic 
strategies released over the last year, or so, those have been 
good, actually exceptional.
    These strategies really give the attention to this region 
that I think we recognize needs to be a priority, or at least 
it gives the attention in, in writing. I was hoping that we 
would see the implementation and resourcing of these strategies 
reflected better in this budget request, as I look at it, it 
seems like we have missed the mark a bit here.
    I think we recognize we are seeing regional competition, we 
are seeing a level of activity in the region from those that--
who would have ever thought that the interest would be coming 
from China. That China would be resourcing, whether it is--it 
is icebreakers, training with the Russians. We know we can see 
what is happening up there.
    Senator Sullivan had an opportunity earlier this week--or 
last week, I believe, to question General VanHerck on how the 
services could use what was included in this year's budget 
request to implement their respective Arctic strategy. And his 
response was a little less than encouraging. He said: I see an 
inching along. We did not move the ball very far down the field 
this year in the budget with regards to resources in the 
Arctic.
    So the question to you this morning is whether you believe 
we are--we do have adequate funding for the Arctic strategies 
in the budget? What can we do to--to use General VanHerck's 
words: to move the ball forward in the Arctic in a more 
responsive manner?
    Secretary Austin. Well, what we can do--or first of all, 
thank you for your support of our efforts in the Arctic, 
Senator. They have been tremendous over the years, and 
certainly they have helped us--you have helped us in a major 
way. As you probably know, we are in the--in the process of 
developing a National Defense Strategy. My goal is to make sure 
that our efforts in the Arctic, our requirements in the Arctic 
are reflected in that new National Defense Strategy.
    And so as we do that, it will help us to better link our 
resources to our strategy going forward. And again, there is 
some capability there now, but I agree with you, we need to--we 
need to better resource our Arctic efforts in the future.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, as I have--I have reminded folks, 
when I start any conversation, right now the Arctic is not a 
hot spot, and I think we all would agree, we want to keep it 
from becoming so, and readiness is what we need to speak to.

                     CRITICAL MINERALS SUPPLY CHAIN

    I will also want to raise the issue of mineral security in 
the context of national security. President Biden's Executive 
order on America's supply chains required the Department to 
produce a report identifying the risks in the supply chain for 
critical minerals.
    Your report states that the United States has always relied 
on imports of strategic and critical minerals to meet its 
public and private sector needs. We recognize that, we 
certainly have strong domestic supplies in Alaska and elsewhere 
around the country.
    So the question that some might ask is: Why is this 
important from a national security perspective? What are the 
consequences if we fail to create a domestic supply chain? 
Because we can't continue to rely on resources from others, I 
think we recognize that right now, we rely more heavily on 
China for these critical minerals, particularly in the area of 
rare earth.
    And that creates a vulnerability, it takes us back to a 
time and a place where we were very vulnerable, very reliant on 
others for oil. We are kind of heading in that direction a 
little bit. We are actually importing more oil from Russia 
right now than we are from Alaska, so from a national security 
perspective; if you could just speak to the consequences if we 
fail to secure a critical mineral supply chain.
    Secretary Austin. I think we have seen this play out in the 
recent past here. It is a risk to our national security, if we 
don't have secure supply chains. And so what we are doing is, 
there is $341 million in this budget that we have set aside to 
help us partner with U.S. companies. And part of that is 
designed to help us begin to establish our own capabilities for 
rare earth elements, that can help us to maintain or create a 
more secure supply chain. But it is certainly a risk if we 
don't have a secure supply chains.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                              DIVESTMENTS

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
    And Senator Tester, the Chair of the Defense Subcommittee.
    Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. And thank you 
all for what I have heard so far. I certainly appreciate the 
answers you gave to Senator Shelby in particular, on his 
questions.
    This year's budget proposal includes numerous requests to 
divest legacy platforms all across the services for a projected 
total of $2.8 billion in savings in FY22. I agree with you that 
there are some old weapons systems that don't have a place in 
our next fight, and I have expressed this to you before. And I 
support that. But I also want to see the math and understand 
how these divestments were selected. For example, I want to 
know if our National Guard, which we all think highly of, is 
taking a disproportionate share of cuts as it applies to legacy 
systems.
    So Secretary Austin, when divestments occur, it impacts the 
resources available to our National Guard, potentially 
degrading Force readiness. So how are you balancing finding 
savings to tomorrow's Force with potentially reduced 
capabilities today?
    Secretary Austin. Well, we certainly, in everything that we 
do, in terms of systems, we want to make sure that our Guard 
has the capability to be properly equipped. And as the Chairman 
mentioned earlier, you know, the Guards are not just doing 
domestic--they are not just involved in domestic activities. We 
have them deployed in a number of cases. They have gone to war 
with us over and over again with the active component. And so 
they need up-to-date, modernized equipment. And our goal is to 
make sure that they have that. And so retiring a system that is 
no longer relevant for the future, does not impose, 
necessarily, a tax or a cost, or a burden, on our--on our 
National Guard.
    Senator Tester. So I will direct this to General Milley, 
just simply, because I want to see if his mic is working. So, 
do I see this incorrectly then, that you do----that you guys 
don't believe that the Guard is taking more of a cut as it 
applies to the legacy, than the active duty?
    General Milley. Yes. I will check the specific numbers, but 
I do not have the impression that the Guard has taken a 
disproportionate cut of the divestitures. But the real message 
here, though, I think for the Committee, and for all of us is 
we must pivot to a future military force, and yes, there are 
legacy--so called ``legacy systems'' that are quite good. They 
are very capable in today's world.
    But they will likely not be as relevant in a future fight. 
We must invest in some of these emerging technologies, of 
artificial intelligence, robotics, hypersonics, and so on. We 
must do that now. We cannot invest in horses when we are about 
to face machine guns and tanks. Those mistakes were made 150 
years ago. We can't do that. We must keep pace with the threat 
environment that is ongoing.

                    MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS

    Senator Tester. Thank you for that. I think it is an 
important message for all of us to hear, and I think we need to 
take it to heart. I want to talk about multi-year contracts for 
a little bit. It does apply to something that Senator Collins 
asked you about when I was out of the room; but at the Defense 
Department's request Congress approved a limited number of 
multi-year procurement contracts.
    These longer contracts are a commitment to the industry to 
buy a certain number of ships, airplanes, missiles, and with 
the idea that we are going to save money in the long haul and 
give them certainty also.
    Secretary Austin, because multi-year procurement 
contracting authority is specifically provided by Congress at 
the request of the DOD, does the Department have an obligation 
to fulfill multi-year procurement contracts once we sign up for 
them?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Senator. The Department has an 
obligation to provide the best mix of capabilities, that we can 
possibly provide to our services, where we can--you know, if we 
have the ability to honor a multi-year contract, then I think 
that is exactly what we should do. If we have to make a 
difficult choice and invest in something else, then I think we 
need to be prepared to make that difficult choice. And 
certainly that we will pay--we will pay a tax for not abiding 
by that multi-year contract, but I think what is most important 
is that we provide the right capabilities for the Service.
    Senator Tester. So, I got you, and I agree with you. But I 
also have a--I also have a belief that if we are going to sign 
a multi-year contract, we ought to live up to it, or we should 
not sign it in the first place. Can you give me your thoughts 
on that? Because the reason I bring this up, the Department 
agreed to a Navy proposal, not to fund two Navy's guided 
missile destroyers this year, that would break a multi-year 
contract. I think the destroyer that Senator Collins talked 
about is the same thing.
    Secretary Austin. And so for the DDG, the tax for not 
complying with the multi-year contract is about, what, $300 
million. But, you know, when you compare that to a couple of 
billion dollars that you would have had to spend on that DDG.
    Senator Tester. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. So I mean, we have to make choices, and 
in this case we invested in a DDG, two submarines, and a 
frigate.
    Senator Tester. I got you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very 
much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                             CYBER ATTACKS

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Tester.
    Senator Graham.
    Senator Graham. Thank you. Thank you both for your service 
to our country.
    Secretary Austin, does the Department of Defense have a 
definition of what a cyber attack against the United States 
constitutes?
    Secretary Austin. I don't, I don't recall a specific 
definition for it.
    Senator Graham. Yes. I don't either. And I am not blaming 
you. We need one. Don't you think we need to define what a 
cyber attack would be, and rules of engagement about how to 
respond. Do you think that would be a worthy endeavor for all 
of us? And I am not blaming you; I think all of us need to do 
this.
    Secretary Austin. I think it certainly would be--would be 
very helpful.

                         IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM

    Senator Graham. Okay. That is good. I am good. I got 5 
minutes here. Iran, do both of you agree with the assessment, 
that just about everybody in the intel world, that the Iranians 
are trying to develop a nuclear weapon, not a peaceful nuclear 
power program.
    Secretary Austin. I agree that if left to their own 
devices, the Iranians would acquire a nuclear weapon in----
    Senator Graham. General Milley, do you agree that is sort 
of their end game here?
    General Milley. You know, Senator, I think, yes, but I also 
know that I don't--I don't believe, and I have not seen any 
evidence that they have met an actual--national level decision 
to do that. But it is clear to me if you----
    Senator Graham. You need to check with the CIA.
    General Milley. Well, I have.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    General Milley. And I am talking about national strategic 
conditional----
    Senator Graham. Yes. Well I don't know how you----
    General Milley. They have set the groundwork.
    Senator Graham. Okay. Where does the national strategic 
plan come from in Iran?
    General Milley. That would have to be the Supreme Leader of 
Iran to make that decision.
    Senator Graham. Yes. So I don't know how you determine what 
he says or doesn't say. So here is my belief. They are trying 
to develop a nuclear weapon, and I hope we understand that, 
because if we don't understand it, it would be hard to stop 
them.
    General Milley. My belief as well, Senator.

                              AFGHANISTAN

    Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you, sir. Afghanistan, both of 
you: How would you rate the likelihood of international 
terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIS regenerating 
inside of Afghanistan, and presenting a threat to our homeland 
or our allies, given what you see today? Is it a small, medium, 
large? How would you assess it?
    Secretary Austin. I would assess it as medium. I would also 
say, Senator, that it would take, possibly, 2 years for them to 
develop that capability.
    Senator Graham. Fair enough.
    General Milley.
    General Milley. I concur with that, and I think that if 
certain other things happen, if there was a collapse of the 
government, or dissolution of the Afghan Security Force, that 
risk would obviously increase.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    General Milley. But right now, I would say medium, and in 
about 2 years or so.

                             BORDER CONTROL

    Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you very much. Do you consider 
the border situation, in terms of 160 percent increase in 
illegal crossings in the last year, a national security threat 
for the United States, Secretary Austin?
    Secretary Austin. I think that we should be able to control 
our borders, and I would defer to Secretary Mayorkas----
    Senator Graham. Would you agree with me, General Milley 
that 160 percent increase in illegal crossings does represent a 
threat?
    General Milley. Sure. I think it is a possibility or 
probability of contraband, or people with malfeasance of 
forethought, and criminals, and terrorists, and all that kind. 
So that is all possible. And I think the border protection of 
any nation, the sovereignty of any nation is a national 
security issue for any country, to include ours. I also think 
that the primary responsibility to do that is law enforcement 
of the United States.
    Senator Graham. Yes. I understand. We have taken $2 billion 
away from the Department of Defense to build a wall. Do you 
think we should--based on your assessment of the threat--do you 
think walls will help? Or are you just not able to give me an 
answer on that?
    Secretary Austin. I think there are other ways to work to 
control the border, Senator.
    Senator Graham. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. I am not sure that a wall----
    Senator Graham. So you are okay with the Biden decision to 
stop building the wall?
    Secretary Austin. I certainly support my President's 
decision, Senator.

                      MILITARY CAPABILITY OF CHINA

    Senator Graham. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. 
China: General Milley, in the next decade, given what we see 
today, where is China heading in terms of their military 
capability?
    General Milley. China has announced, publicly, their intent 
to be a peer of the United States, and to be militarily 
superior to the United States by mid-century. They have a 
program, a plan, if you will. A national aspiration to do that, 
and they have a very, very powerful economy, and they intend to 
resource that, to that end. That is exactly what they plan to 
do.
    Senator Graham. And our response should be?
    General Milley. I think we--I think it is incumbent upon 
us, the United States, to make sure that we maintain military 
overmatch relative to China in order to maintain peace and 
deterrence. If we fail to do that, it is my personal and 
professional opinion that we are going to place a future 
generation at great risk.
    Senator Graham. I couldn't agree with you more. Thank you 
both.

                       SUPPORT TO AFGHAN PARTNERS

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
    And Senator Shaheen.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you both for 
being here this morning. Over the course of the almost 20 years 
of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, we have relied on our 
partners on the ground to help us, particularly in Afghanistan, 
where, at the time the President announced the intent to 
withdraw. We had 18,000 Afghans in the queue who say that they 
are being threatened with harm to themselves and their families 
because of their willingness to help the United States.
    General Milley, you have stated that the Department was 
rapidly preparing plans to evacuate Afghans that have worked 
with the U.S. Government. Can you give us an update on those 
plans and whether you think we are in a position with what 
appears to be a rapid end to our withdrawal from Afghanistan, 
to help those people who are in the queue?
    General Milley. Yes, Senator. And I said those remarks a 
couple of weeks ago.
    Senator Shaheen. You did.
    General Milley. Planning is ongoing. The Department of 
State is the lead agency to work with any host nation on the 
evacuation of citizens who desire that. In that case--in the 
case of Afghanistan is a special immigrant visa program, the 
State Department is running that, they are working it. We, the 
Department of Defense, where the Military are in support of 
Department of State's plans are working at Echelon, from the 
Embassy all the way up to Washington, DC, lots of planning is 
ongoing, various contingencies are out there, and we have to 
wait and see what the--what the situation is as it develops.
    We, the Military, are capable of doing basically whatever 
is directed, and we are very confident we can do whatever is 
required.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, I have expressed my concerns to the 
State Department as well, and when I did that a month or so 
ago, I understood that there were three people who had been 
sent on temporary duty to help with the backlog, that is not 
going to get us through 18,000 people. And given the potential 
threat, I hope that DOD will coordinate very closely with 
State, so that we don't have the kind of situation we had when 
we withdrew from Vietnam.
    General Milley. Could I--Senator, if I could? My 
professional opinion, I do not see that unfolding. I may be 
wrong. Who knows? You can't predict the future, but I don't see 
Saigon 1975 in Afghanistan.
    Senator Shaheen. Good. I appreciate that.
    General Milley. The Taliban is not the North Vietnamese 
Army.
    Senator Shaheen. And I hope that is correct.
    General Milley. Yes. The Taliban just are not the North 
Vietnamese Army, it is similar--it is not that kind of 
situation.
    Secretary Austin. You have our commitment, Senator, that we 
will--this Department will do everything within our power to 
number one, support the State Department's efforts. If we are 
required to generate capabilities, like transportation, 
whatever we are required to do we are--we will be fully behind 
this effort.
    Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you. Just to follow up a 
little bit on Senator Collins' question about the impact on 
women and girls. And we discussed this General Milley, several 
weeks ago. But are we working with our international partners 
to protect those vulnerable populations as we leave, and once 
we have left?
    General Milley. I think we are doing every--we, the 
Military, are doing everything we can to ensure that those that 
have worked with us, and those that remain are protected to the 
extent that we have that capability to do that. But, 
realistically, if we are not there, we are going to have very 
limited impact on the protection of those that are still in 
Afghanistan.
    And if certain scenarios unfold, it's too early to tell if 
that is going to happen, but if they did then, yes, your 
concerns and everyone else's concerns about women and girls are 
justified.

                             HYBRID WARFARE

    Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I think, General Milley, you 
were talking about pivoting to future military force, and the 
need to invest in hypersonics, and robotics, and AI, you both--
you also talked about that, Mr. Secretary. And I certainly 
agree with that. But as I look at some of the situations where 
our aggressors have been successful in the last decade, it has 
really been through hybrid warfare and gray zone efforts. And 
what are we doing to address those?
    Because as I look at the potential for Vladimir Putin to 
engage again in Eastern Europe, as I look at the potential in 
the Asia-Pacific region, it is those efforts that I am most 
concerned about. And so how are we responding on those efforts?
    General Milley. On the uniform side, we have just 
published; in fact, the Secretary just signed, the Joint 
Warfighting Concept, and embedded within that is a concept of 
integrated deterrence, it is a concept of globally integrated 
operations, and gray zone operations, as you call them, and as 
we call them, those are fully part of that.
    And so what are we doing specifically? SOCOM has a very big 
role to play with all of our special forces. Obviously the 
world--the domain of cyber and space play a critical role. Our 
ability to see and develop intelligence, surveillance, and 
reconnaissance in that area, and there is a lot of money in 
this budget to do just that.
    So those are the type of capabilities along with other 
agencies in the government that would deal in levels below the 
level of open armed conflict. If you get into open armed 
conflict, you will still face hybrid war, with not only 
conventional forces, but also irregular forces. And irregular 
warfare is one of the key parts of the current National Defense 
Strategy. And I expect, you will see that again in a future 
National Defense Strategy.

                         LAW OF THE SEA TREATY

    Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. I am out of time, but 
I have a final, very brief question. Would we be in better 
shape to protect the Arctic and other--South China Sea and 
other aspects of our oceans, if we were a member of the Law of 
the Sea Treaty?
    General Milley. I personally think it is a good idea to 
support the Law of the Sea Treaty, because it is all about 
freedom of navigation. We are the principal nation that 
advocates freedom of navigation. It is our Navy that goes 
around on a day-to-day basis enforcing freedom of navigation or 
implementing that. And I think the Law of the Sea is a key part 
to that. So I would--I would advocate for, doing that. Yes.
    Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
    And Senator Blunt.
    Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman. Thanks to----
    Chairman Leahy. And incidentally, just so people will know, 
they are going to have a vote at--not to come out of Senator 
Blunt's time--but we are going to have a vote in about 10 or 15 
minutes. When we do, I will take a 10-minute break at that 
time. I will come back after the vote, just so you know.
    But go ahead, Senator Blunt.

                          DEFENSE SUPPLY CHAIN

    Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. And 
Secretary Austin, General Milley, thanks to both of you for 
your service and for being here today; and I also want to 
commend your efforts in developing a National Defense Strategy 
that takes into account China's continued growth, and their 
global influence, and their obvious commitment, economically, 
militarily, and in other ways, to compete with us, and to 
better us, if they can. And we, of course, don't want to let 
that happen.
    I know Senator Murkowski talked about mining and minerals. 
You know, we produce no nickel in the country today, we produce 
no lithium in the country today, we have about 10,000 mines 
that have closed, some of them for environmental reasons, some 
of them because whenever they try to open in an area where 
China has made a studied effort all over the world to get 
their--get control of these various minerals and resources, 
they would just undersell any American company, or any company 
anywhere in the world that tries to compete.
    And I think that is an area of great concern. I didn't hear 
your entire answer to Senator Murkowski. So you might have 
covered that already. But I do think from a defense 
perspective, we have to start looking at the supply chain of 
what it takes to have the equipment we need to defend the 
country. If there is anything either of you want to say on that 
that you have not said, I would be glad to give you a moment.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, Senator. I will just 
say, I absolutely agree with you. The Department agrees with 
you, and that is why we are investing some $341 million in 
enabling us to better partner with U.S. companies. And part of 
that is going after some of those rare earth elements that you 
talked about, and that are required to produce some of the 
capabilities that we will need going forward.
    Senator Blunt. And, you know, rare earth is not nearly as 
rare as you might think it is, but every time, again, somebody 
tries to develop it, China has put themselves in such--in a 
situation there where they can make it incredibly unprofitable 
to try to do that.

                          GUAM MISSILE DEFENSE

    On that regard, the Indo-Pacific command, generally, the 
top of their unfunded requirements in that command, the Missile 
Defense Agency expressed a need for additional funding to boost 
a defense against ballistic military threats in the Pacific, 
specifically the Indo-Pacific commander's number one priority 
is more money to develop a ballistic missile defense system for 
Guam. I would be interested to hear your assessment of what 
happens when we don't fund that priority.
    Secretary Austin. It is a top priority for me to be able to 
protect the United States of America. And of course Guam is a 
part of our country here. So we have invested $118 million in 
his budget towards the development of a missile defense 
capability on Guam.
    Senator Blunt. And do you think that met the Indo-Pacific 
commander's request?
    Secretary Austin. That is not what he requested, but I 
think it gets us--it gets us moving in the right direction. And 
then of course as we further develop this, we can invest more 
as time goes forward.
    Senator Blunt. But, you know, one thing this Committee has 
always looked at, and I think we will--again, this year is the 
unfunded list and the prioritization on that list. And this may 
be a topic we want to revisit later.

                          INDO PACIFIC ALLIES

    While we are in the Indo-Pacific, General Milley, as an 
example, you know, our ally, Australia, clear that China is 
doing everything they can to make the world uncomfortable for 
Australia economically and militarily. What are we doing to 
further partner with and better support Australia, or any of 
the other Indo-Pacific allies you would want to mention?
    General Milley. Senator, thanks. Let us take from the 
comment on Guam.
    Senator Blunt. I think your mic may not be on again.
    General Milley. Can you hear me now? Well, Guam is part of 
the homeland, so Guam is defended, I don't want anyone to think 
it's not defended BMD was tasked to do that, we have a tiered 
layered defense, ballistic missile defense set of systems so 
Guam is defended, this budget gets after some things that will 
improve the defense, it doesn't fully fund what it is that 
Admiral Davidson, now Admiral Acquilino asked for.
    With respect to Australia, now we have routine mil to mil 
contact with them, routine exercises, and we continue to do 
that, we train with them that on a daily basis, now with 
myself, I talk with Angus Campbell a lot, and I know Admiral 
Acquilino does as well. We do it at the unit bases as well, so 
we are doing it in the Navy, we are doing it in the Army, we 
are doing it in the Marines, we are doing it in the Air Force, 
and we have worked very, very closely with them, in cyber and 
with space capabilities.
    So we are very interoperable now with the Australian 
Military, and they, of course, they have conducted operations 
with us in both Afghanistan and Iraq very regularly. So we are 
very tight with the Australian Military.
    Senator Blunt. Well, I think that is the kind of thing that 
our adversaries, and our friends, and our potential friends 
look at. And I am glad that you are continuing to do all the 
things that you are doing there. It is obvious, it is 
noticeable, and the same time, it is important.
    Thank you, Chairman.

                       SEXUAL ASSAULT PREVENTION

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
    Senator Murray.
    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And welcome Secretary Austin, General Milley, to the 
Committee. I really do appreciate all the work you are doing to 
make sure that our armed services are a professional and 
welcoming environment. But one thing I am concerned about is 
that within our armed forces we are still seeing discrimination 
and extremism, and I really encourage you to continue your 
focus for this on the Department. I know there is a long ways 
to go.
    And another similar problem is sexual assault. After all 
the work that has occurred, as you both know, over many, many 
years, I am not satisfied that there has been meaningful 
progress in ending sexual assault and sexual harassment in our 
services. Congress has provided significant funding, and 
authorities, and been patient with studies and training 
programs, but the numbers remain far too high. Your testimony 
referenced those problems, but I want to know what specific 
steps you think need to happen to finally make meaningful 
progress in eliminating these problems in the rank.
    Secretary Austin, if you want to start?
    Secretary Austin. It may be helpful just to kind of tell 
you where we are in the--you know, in our efforts to take on 
this very important issue, Senator. And I absolutely agree with 
you. A lot of effort has gone into this, and we have gotten a 
lot of support from this Committee and others to help us focus 
on this over the years, but we have not made much progress.
    So one of the very first things I did coming in as 
Secretary was issue a directive to the services to provide me 
input, and their best advice, best ideas on how we could 
improve. But beyond that, I commissioned an Independent Review 
Commission, by direction of the President, to look at ourselves 
on sexual assault.
    Four lines of effort in that commission: the first is 
accountability, and that addresses how we prosecute violations, 
or sexual assault offenses, and of course this is--this 
addresses the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice); another 
line of effort was prevention; another line of effort was 
climate and culture, and then finally victim care. I have 
already gotten the input back on accountability and, you know, 
I have talked about that input with the Service secretaries and 
the Service chiefs, and very shortly I will make a 
recommendation to the President on how I--how I think we should 
proceed.
    But, clearly, I believe we have to take a different 
approach to be able to restore confidence in our system. I 
think right now we are at a point where we don't have the 
confidence that we should have in our young troops who are in 
our ranks. And so we have to do something about that.
    Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you.
    General.
    General Milley. Yes, Senator. And I have said publicly, and 
I said in testimony in other committees. You are correct. We 
have not moved the needle. And we have not reduced, 
significantly or even a little bit, the numbers, the actual 
numbers of reported sexual assaults. Therefore, we need to do 
something fundamentally different.
    The IRC, the Independent Review Commission, is coming up 
with recommendations. I have had an opportunity to interact 
with both the commission, and I obviously give my advice to the 
Secretary. And I and the other chiefs are very open to 
fundamental and significant change in the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice with respect to sexual assault, and sexual 
harassment, and related crimes. We are reviewing the other 
lines of effort very carefully, and I think you are going to 
see some substantive change here very shortly.

                        MILITARY FAMILY SUPPORT

    Senator Murray. Very good. I look forward to seeing that 
soon. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin, as you know, military families face a 
range of challenges on a day-to-day basis. And, you know, one 
study shows one in eight military families are experiencing 
food insecurity, with that rate being higher, actually, in some 
areas of the country like my home State of Washington. I hear 
frequently from families in my State about the long wait list 
for childcare, military families from Washington State struggle 
to find affordable housing, with shortages of military family 
housing on-base, and rising prices for homes. Talk to me about 
how you are going to prioritize these issues and empower the 
Department to take meaningful action to improve this.
    Secretary Austin. Well, as you know, Senator, we had some 
issues with these types of things before the pandemic.
    Senator Murray. Correct.
    Secretary Austin. The pandemic exacerbated these problems 
because, you know, spouses lost jobs, they could not get 
childcare, and that sort of stuff. So we have--we have made 
provisions in this budget to address military family support 
programs. And I think you will see, you know, over $8 billion 
that will be focused on this, and I think it will provide a 
tremendous help and assistance going forward.
    Senator Murray. Well, thank you. And I look forward to 
supporting that, retention and recruitment, these are 
absolutely critical issues to that effort. So thank you for 
that.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you.
    Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much.
    And Senator Hoeven, I recognize you. I understand the vote 
will be on time. So when you finish, we will take a short 
recess.

                         NUCLEAR POSTURE REVIEW

    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Now, Secretary Austin, in the 2022 budget, the nuclear, 
modernization efforts is adequately funded both the GBSD 
(Ground Based Strategic Deterrent) and the LRSO (Long-Range 
Standoff Missile). I understand the administration wants to do 
a Nuclear Posture Review. Two questions in regard to that: Will 
that be completed prior to the determinations in the 2023 
budget as far as upgrading the nuclear mission? And, also are 
you--will you commit that it will be done with an eye toward 
the escalation of both Russia and particularly China, in terms 
of their overall military, and certainly in terms of their 
nuclear capabilities?
    Secretary Austin. Our plan is to complete the review within 
the next year or so. Yes, to answer your question. And the 
second question is absolutely. We will take into consideration 
the current threats, and emerging threats as we do the review.

                          STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

    Senator Hoeven. Would the existing U.S. strategic deterrent 
remain credible if China fielded forces twice the size they 
have today?
    Secretary Austin. I think we have to look at deterrence--to 
answer that question, yes. Yeah, our intent is to remain 
credible, no matter what. And so the purpose of a review is to 
make sure that we have the right capabilities in place to 
counter any threat presented by China, Russia, or whomever.
    Senator Hoeven. And would you agree that the efficacy and 
strength of our conventional forces is necessarily buttressed 
by having an adequate nuclear deterrent that equals or exceeds 
that of our major adversaries?
    Secretary Austin. You know, our nuclear triad has been the 
bedrock of our deterrence effort for many, many years. And it 
will continue to be so to be so in the future. And so the 
answer to that question, Senator, is yes.
    Senator Hoeven. General Milley, I would ask you, 
essentially the same question?
    General Milley. Yes. First, the answer is yes, now and in 
the future. If we continue to fully modernize the triad then 
the U.S. nuclear strategic deterrent is fully adequate to deter 
any adversary, to include China, even if China doubled what 
they have right now. There is no question in my mind.
    But deterrence, as you know, requires not only the 
capability and the will, but also the communication, and your 
adversary needs to understand that you have the capability and 
the will. So all of that, together, it is a complicated piece 
there, but all of it together, I am very, very confident that 
our nuclear systems, once modernized and fully modernized, 
today they are adequate, and I think once modernized they will 
be adequate in the future.
    The conventional piece, the nuclear piece, and the 
conventional piece go hand in hand, and it is a dynamic that 
works in order to keep great power peace. And it is very, very 
important that we retain overmatch relative to China and/or 
Russia, but specifically now we are talking China, into the 
future. And in combination, those two in combination, will keep 
us at a level of competition, and we won't be able to--or we 
won't get from competition into conflict. And that is a 
critical thing as we go to the future.

                           SUPPORT TO ISRAEL

    Senator Hoeven. Do you support, helping Israel replenish 
its missile defense following the recent attacks by Hamas?
    General Milley. Do I support that? Yes. That is a policy 
question about whether we should support, we have the 
capabilities to do it. And I think it is a policy question as 
to whether we----
    Senator Hoeven. Then I would ask, Secretary Austin?
    Secretary Austin. Absolutely, you know, we remain committed 
to supporting the defense of Israel.

                       COMPETITION IN THE ARCTIC

    Senator Hoeven. General Milley, does the FY22 budget 
request provide you with the tools you need to compete in the 
Arctic region, particularly with the focus that both Russia and 
China are putting on the Arctic region?
    General Milley. I think it does for right now, and for the 
period of time of the--of the budget, but the Arctic is going 
to become increasingly important, geostrategically, and we see 
that already with some activities that both Russia and China 
are doing in the Arctic. So as the Arctic ice melts and 
resources become more available, et cetera, there is going to 
be increased competition in the Arctic in the years to come.
    So I think that this budget does for the immediate future, 
which is what this budget does, but as you go into the future 
that remains to be seen, we are going to have to have to 
continue, and probably increase resourcing for the Arctic in 
the future.

                                 TAIWAN

    Senator Hoeven. The final question is, are there other 
things that we should be doing vis-a-vis Taiwan to help ensure 
its defense?
    General Milley. Do you want to say something?
    Secretary Austin. We are committed to Taiwan's ability to 
defend itself and, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, 
and the Three Joint Communiques, and Six Assurances. So we are 
doing a lot now to help them to be able to defend themselves. 
And we will continue to do that in the future.
    Senator Hoeven. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And I thank the two witnesses. I 
apologize; we will take a 10-minute break. I am going to go 
vote, and come right back, and then we will pick up with the 
order. I hope that works for our witnesses.
    [Recess.]

                            DEFENSE TOPLINE

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you everybody. We will go back to the 
hearing. Senator Baldwin next, and then, if others come back to 
the hearing, we will go to them.
    Senator Baldwin.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 
thank you for your service.
    Your top line request this year is $715 billion. That is a 
1.6 percent increase. I have been actually reading about and 
hearing a lot of criticism about the level of funding compared 
to the budgets under the previous administration. However, this 
neglects the fact that, while President Trump's top line was 
higher, he also diverted billions of defense dollars to fund a 
wall on the southern border. I may have differing views on the 
appropriate size of the defense budget, but Secretary Austin, I 
would just like to give you a chance to explain why this top 
line is the right amount.
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Senator. I think this--well, 
first of all the budget is based upon, or is informed by the 
President's Interim National Security Strategy, and also my 
Message to the Force. I think it buys us the flexibility that 
we need to go after the right capabilities that will ensure 
that we remain relevant in any competition with any great 
power.
    And so we are trying to invest in those things that will be 
absolutely relevant for the future, and it includes, again, 
tremendous investments, in missile defeat and defense, $6.6 
billion in long range fires. We invest $52 billion in buying a 
lethal air force, $34 billion in buying combat-effective naval 
forces, and $12.3 billion for combat-effective ground forces. 
And when you combine that with our investment in cyber, which 
is about $10.5 billion, and some other things, it really does 
create a tremendous capability force.

                        DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. I want to briefly talk about 
buy America policies. We really excel in the U.S. at 
innovation, but we have allowed our domestic industrial base to 
atrophy, and the National Defense Industrial Association gave 
our Defense Industrial Base, a grade of C in February.
    Meanwhile, China's has grown exponentially, especially in 
areas like shipbuilding and suppliers. I think that our defense 
acquisition system focuses too heavily on upfront costs, 
perhaps at the expense of factoring in the long-term dividends 
for having a competitive U.S. manufacturing and production edge 
over competitors like China. Although, I have discussed this 
with you, and with the China Task Force, I don't hear much 
about protecting and expanding our domestic supplier base when 
we talk about China. So please discuss how the Department can 
leverage the benefits of Made in America during acquisition 
decisions.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you. Thank you for--you have 
heard the President talk about making sure that we begin to 
reinvest in our--in our industrial base here, and also our 
educations--education system to ensure that we are creating the 
best and brightest scientists and engineers. And I think that 
is--that is really important.
    You may have heard me say earlier that we are investing 
$341 million in an effort to be able to better partner with 
U.S. companies and to really begin to strengthen our supply 
chains. We want to be competitive across the board, and that 
includes, you know, what we are doing here in the homeland with 
industry. We want to make sure we are growing the best 
scientists and engineers. And so this is going to take some 
time, but it is absolutely our focus to be able to compete 
across the board and not just military items alone.

                             FORCE POSTURE

    Senator Baldwin. Thank you. The U.S. will withdraw all U.S. 
Forces from Afghanistan by September. A decision I agree with. 
Can you, please, follow up with the Committee and me, in 
writing, but certainly I will welcome your comments right now, 
describing what the enduring over the horizon requirements will 
be for Afghanistan once we withdraw, which is now in less than 
90 days.
    And yesterday, The New York Times reported that the 
administration is reconsidering its rules on conducting drone 
strikes as well--as well as the future for U.S. special 
operations forces in Somalia. So I am concerned about any 
expanded footprints or operations without significant 
congressional oversight. But I am also concerned with any 
expansion while the services testify that they have other 
underfunded needs.
    So do you have any update on the decision timelines? And 
any relevant authorities or funding issues associated with 
these policies?
    Secretary Austin. As you know, we are doing a Force Posture 
Review, and I won't predict when we will complete that work, 
but we will get through it as quickly as we can, the Somalia 
issue and other issues will be a part of that. But the focus 
will be to make sure that, you know, whether it is in Somalia 
or some other place in the world that terrorists don't have the 
ability to threaten our homeland from an ungoverned space.
    I think we owe it to the American people to make sure that 
we are defending forward. In terms of our requirements for over 
the horizon capabilities, we will absolutely lay those out for 
you in writing as you have requested.
    Chairman Leahy. Thank you.
    Senator Baldwin. Thank you.

                            CHINA DETERRENCE

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Coons is here.
    Senator Coons, go ahead, and if nobody else comes we will 
recess.
    Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Leahy, and Vice Chairman 
Shelby. And it is great to see you both. Thank you, Secretary 
Austin, General Milley, both for your testimony today and for 
your decades of tireless service to our Nation.
    General, Milley, I enjoyed our conversation earlier this 
week and agree that the House and Senate need to do our job and 
pass an on-time budget for the DOD to avoid a continuing 
resolution, and to deliver the sort of robust financial support 
that the men and women at arms who serve our Nation deserve.
    Given the swift rise of China, given ongoing threats from 
Russia, and Iran, and DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea), and others, and the prolonged challenges presented by 
the pandemic. I think this is a crucial defense budget. I am 
pleased to see significant investment in modernizing our armed 
forces by developing, and adopting and deploying the 
technologies of tomorrow, cyber warfare capabilities in 
particular, as well as artificial intelligence, hypersonics, 
microelectronics, 5G, and others.
    The character of warfare, as you both testified, is 
changing and our budget needs to reflect that. This week NATO 
for the first time recognized the security challenges posed by 
China's aggressive foreign policy, and I am hopeful that this 
budget will allow us to work more closely with allies and 
partners, to secure and maintain our Force posture in the South 
China Sea, the Strait of Taiwan, and the larger Indo-Pacific 
region.
    I would be interested in hearing from both of you, if 
possible. We just had a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
Taiwan. How likely is China to actively pursue a unification 
strategy with Taiwan through force in the near future? How are 
we working with allies and partners to deter China from taking 
any further provocative action in the Taiwan Strait? And how 
does this budget support, capabilities relevant or critical for 
deterrence, more broadly in the Indo-Pacific?
    If you might, Mr. Secretary, and then Mr. Chairman?
    Secretary Austin. Uniting with Taiwan is no question, a 
goal of China in terms of, you know, what the timeline or 
timeframe for that is, is left to be seen. And of course there 
are a number of intelligence estimates that address that issue. 
An issue that we would have to go into closed session to 
address.
    But we know that it is a goal of China, and we also know 
that our position is that we remain committed to helping the 
defense of Taiwan, in terms of providing the ability for them 
to defend themselves, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations 
Act, the Three Communiques and the Six Assurances. So it is 
very likely that they will want to do that, in terms of when 
they will have the capability to do that is left to seen.
    And over to General Milley--excuse me.
    General Milley. Senator, and you have heard testimony 
recently from the former INDOPACOM Command and the current 
INDOPACOM Command on this very topic. And you have heard from 
others as well. My assessment, in terms of capability, I think 
China has a ways to go to develop the actual no-kidding 
capability to conduct military operations to seize through 
military means the entire island of Taiwan, if they wanted to 
do that.
    Secondly is intent--I think you asked about probability, we 
can go into a classified session and tell you why I think this, 
but I think that there is little intent right now, or 
motivation, to do it militarily. There is no reason to do it 
militarily, and they know that. So, I think right now the 
probability is probably low, in the immediate near-term future, 
but I do think it is a core, C-O-R-E, national interest of 
China to unite Taiwan, and the internal politics of China are 
up to China, as long as whatever is done is done peacefully, 
and doesn't destabilize the region or the world.

                             CYBER ATTACKS

    Senator Coons. Thank you, both. We have just seen how well-
placed cyber attacks can cripple a critical infrastructure. 
There is a recent incident involving Colonial Pipeline. There 
is significant investment in this budget for cyber. How are we 
positioning ourselves, Mr. Secretary, to both defend against 
and respond to cyber attacks?
    Secretary Austin. In terms of defending, you know, we are 
part of a whole-of-government effort to work in defense of our 
Nation, our infrastructure, and other things, we have the 
ability to defend forward, in terms of making sure that we 
address aggressive actions at the source of the--of the 
activity, and maintaining contact or, you know, with that 
element throughout. But in terms of defense of the homeland, we 
are one of a number of elements that are working--that is 
working together to--in a whole-of-government effort.

                        DEFENSE OF THE HOMELAND

    Senator Coons. Two things, if I might. Just a concern and a 
last question: Several of my colleagues have raised concerns 
about the timing and the planning for the retrograde operations 
in Afghanistan, and making sure that we have provided 
sufficient planning and capability for those who have served 
alongside us. I look forward to working with you both on 
addressing those challenges.
    General, if I might, one last question. As the Department 
reviews its global force posture, how do you view the U.S. 
Military's role in responding to Jihadist extremist groups in 
the Sahel, and the Horn of Africa, and our partnerships with 
other nations, and ensuring that they do not develop the 
capacity to strike the homeland?
    General Milley. Well, our primary role is to protect the 
United States, the homeland, its citizens, and our interests 
worldwide. And we will--we will do that no matter where they 
are, whether in the Sahel, or wherever. Specifically though, I 
think the best approach, not only there, but globally, is to 
work by, with, and through friends and allies in the region, 
small train, advise, missions, intelligence, surveillance, 
reconnaissance, assets, and that sort of thing, and then some 
financial aid.
    I think that is the best approach, broadly speaking, in 
order to contain, or disrupt, or deny, any advanced terrorist 
actions against United States. And where we see it developing 
then, if appropriate, we would recommend to take direct action 
if necessary.
    Senator Coons. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                          INFORMATION WARFARE

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Coons.
    Senator Murphy.
    Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 
you both for your service, and appearing before the Committee 
today.
    In 2017 Senator Portman and I authored and passed into law, 
the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act. This 
was legislation that established the Global Engagement Center 
at the Department of State. We did this, primarily, because 
Russia and China, as well as lots of non-state actors, they 
understand that today's information environment allows them to 
have real-time access to a global audience. They often have a 
first mover advantage. They flood the space with information 
that is deliberately manipulated, so that it is mostly truthful 
with carefully crafted deceptive elements. And these actors can 
gain leverage to threaten our interests.
    Understanding that this capability to combat misinformation 
lies both at the State Department, and at the Department of 
Defense, I understand that in the final months of the Trump 
administration there was a move made to let the military run 
these influence campaigns, sort of commonly referred to as 
PSYOPs (Psychological Operations), let them run them more 
efficiently with--from what I understand--less input from the 
State Department. And I understand, Mr. Secretary, that you are 
right now in the middle of a review.
    I understand the need to move fast. We want to be able to 
confront that first-mover advantage that many of our 
adversaries have in the information space, but I also believe 
that the State Department needs to maintain their lead role in 
public diplomacy overseas. And so my question is this: Do you 
believe that we can balance quick response when it comes to 
information warfare along with maintaining a meaningful lead 
role for the State Department and public diplomacy?
    Secretary Austin. I do, Senator. And this is a--this is a 
subject that Secretary Blinken and I have discussed. And I 
think we see this alike. I do think that State should lead in 
this effort, and we should work together to make sure that we 
are creating the right kinds of effects in the space.
    Senator Murphy. You know, my understanding is that under 
the prior rubric it would sometimes take months for the State 
Department to respond. That is too much time. At the same time, 
I do think it is incredibly important for them to continue, 
especially those that are serving in post--embassies overseas 
to have meaningful input. I appreciate that.

                           MIDDLE EAST BASING

    A question for both of you on our basing footprint in the 
Middle East; you know, in the 1980s the Middle East was a key 
Cold War theater. It was the primary source of U.S.-purchased 
oil, accounting for 80 percent of our imports. Today the Cold 
War is over, and while there is still great power competition 
happening in the Middle East, it is not the same as it was in 
the 1980s.
    And, of course, today our share of imported oil that comes 
from the Middle East is down to about 11 percent, and we import 
from Mexico than we do from Saudi Arabia, and yet we still have 
over 30 bases in the region. And I guess I think we need to 
have an honest conversation as a committee about the costs 
associated with those bases, both the financial costs, but they 
also draw our focus away from increasingly important theaters 
in Africa and Asia.
    They create pressure on the United States to ignore serious 
human rights abuses, lest our criticism of these regimes put 
our troops at risk. And they sometimes stand out as, you know, 
propaganda fodder for Iran, or al-Qaeda, or ISIS.
    The question to both of you is that: As you look at our 
proper basing footprint around the world, isn't it time for us 
to take a hard look at our Force level, and our basing levels 
in these locations in the Middle East to try to match that 
footprint to an updated national security assessment of the 
real threats that are presented to the United States? It is not 
the 1980s any longer, and there is a big--there is a big 
expense to this Committee, and to the taxpayers that come with 
that footprint, but it also tends to draw our focus away from 
theaters that I know are of increasing importance.
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, Senator. The Middle East is 
important to us now, and it will be so going forward. You have 
heard me say a number of times that our pacing challenge, my 
pacing challenge is China. And so our focus is on making sure 
that we have the right operational concepts and capabilities to 
deter China, or Russia, or anybody else who would want to take 
us on.
    We are undergoing a Force Posture Review, we are also 
developing a new National Defense Strategy, and so to answer 
your question, it is time to take a look at where we are and 
what we are doing, it is, you know, the right way to do 
business. And so more to follow on that, but we are doing that.
    General Milley. And I sign up to that as well. We have 
troops actually in about 160, 165 countries around the world. 
In many, many bases beyond the Middle East, and a holistic 
review, a Force Posture Review, to include bases, to ensure 
that the disposition of the U.S. Military is out there doing 
what we needed to do in terms of our national interests, et 
cetera.
    And specific to the Middle East, the short answer is, yes. 
We absolutely need to do the review. Our interests have changed 
over time, and we need to make sure we have got the right 
people in the right place to achieve the right effect in 
accordance with the NDS (National Defense Strategy), or the new 
NDS that will come out in accordance with the President's 
guidance, and in accordance with the ends that we are trying to 
achieve here.
    Chairman Leahy. Senator, we are going to have to stop very 
soon because of the vote. I am going to Senator Van Hollen. I 
believe one other Senator has come in. If you both keep it to 5 
minutes, then we will recess the hearing at that time.
    Senator Van Hollen.

                            NEW START TREATY

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary 
Austin, General Milley, thank you for your service to the 
country.
    Secretary Austin, I know you stated previously that you 
believe extending the New START (Strategic Arms Reduction 
Treaty) Agreement is very much in our national security 
interest, and you also indicated that follow-on negotiations 
with Russia, China and others on nuclear arms control could 
serve our interest.
    General Milley, I am interested in your thoughts as well. I 
saw that just last month Admiral Richard on behalf of STRATCOM 
(Strategic Command) had said that he thought extension of New 
START was very much in our interest. And General Hyten, as you 
well know, formerly STRATCOM Commander and now Vice Chairman 
Joint Chiefs, have said the same thing. He said he thought it 
was a good thing. Do you agree that extension to the New START 
is in our national security interest?
    General Milley. I do. And, not only that, but as a matter 
of principle, I am in favor of arms control, in general, and 
especially when it comes to those types of weapons. So, yes on 
New START.
    Senator Van Hollen. And you also agree, I think, that 
continuing negotiations with Russia and initiating discussions 
with China on arms control can serve our national security 
interests?
    General Milley. I absolutely believe that putting limits 
on, and having international regimes, and treaties, et cetera, 
to limit weapons, especially weapons like those, I think is 
always in our national interest.

                     MILITARY MEDICINE INVESTMENTS

    Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that.
    Secretary Austin, a little closer to home, including 
Maryland, but still of national significance; I know both of 
you agree that quality healthcare for our troops is a very 
important element of military readiness, and the coronavirus 
pandemic has underscored the critical importance of military 
medicine, as well as other medical research in our country.
    Last year for the first time in its history, the Uniform 
Services University (USU) of Health Sciences graduated its 
class early, so they could deploy to the frontlines in the 
fight against COVID-19. Yet, at the same time, the Department 
of Defense, under former leadership, was proposing dramatic 
cuts to military medicine, and cuts specifically to USU. I am 
pleased that the FY22 budget turns away from those cuts and 
authorizes a 2-percent increase in military, medical end 
strength.
    Secretary Austin, can you just talk briefly about the role 
of military doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals in 
the fight against COVID-19, and how the FY22 budget proposal 
invests in military medicine?
    Secretary Austin. Well, to adequately describe the role of 
our docs and military professionals in the COVID fight might 
take a couple of hours. But you won't be surprised to know that 
I am absolutely proud of what we have seen here over this past 
year, not only from our docs and our military medicine 
professionals, but also from the Military overall.
    This is something that has taken the lives of 600,000 
Americans. And so coming into this, the Chairman and I really 
want it to have the ability to influence this, and do our part 
to help our country recover from this awful pandemic. And that 
is exactly what we did. You saw us out helping to distribute 
vaccines, deliver vaccines, Warp Speed, a number of things, but 
that it is just absolutely important to us to be a part of 
this. And I think we have had the ability to make a difference 
there.
    In terms of the budget, I believe this budget does resource 
the--you know, our medical professionals. How much is enough? 
There is probably never enough. This is something that is very 
important to me, and you have my word that I will remain 
sighted on it, and we will make sure that we resource our 
medical professionals to the best of our ability, going 
forward.

                   USU MILITARY CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Just in my 
remaining 30 seconds, I do want to put something very much on 
your radar screen in connection with this issue, which is while 
a sort of operational ongoing funding has been restored to USU 
and the FY22 budget, there had been previously on track in the 
military construction budget, funds for the new education and 
research building at USU.
    When the previous administration cut military medicine 
funds they also cut that out of the long-year, 5-year budget 
review. So I do look forward to working with you and your team 
to make sure we get that critical program back on the budget as 
it had been planned to be for a very long time. Do I just have 
your commitment to discuss that with you?
    Secretary Austin. You do have my commitment, Senator.
    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you 
both.

                             BUDGET PROCESS

    Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much.
    And, Senator Braun, you are recognized for 5 minutes. And 
then we will adjourn, but I will keep the record open for 
questions until Thursday of next week.
    Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to preface 
my first question. It will be to both gentlemen. I think 
defense is the most important thing we do here in the Federal 
Government. I think that infrastructure is important. We are 
wrestling with that as well, but the States can weigh in on 
that. And the one thing that we should do and do well is defend 
our country.
    I am going to quote the General Mike Mullen, made back in 
2010, saying that the most significant threat to our country, 
in his mind, is not the red menace, but the red ink. I would 
like each of you to comment on what General Mike Mullen said 
back in 2010. And I think if anything, back then we were 
significantly less in debt than we are now.
    Chairman Leahy. And just note for the record, it is Admiral 
Mike Mullen, not General.
    Senator Braun. Admiral.
    Secretary Austin. He is a mentor of mine, so he will be 
honored that you called him a General, Senator. Yes, I know him 
well enough to know that he was always focused on making sure 
that we could afford the capabilities that we needed to defend 
this country. And so making sure that we not only had a budget, 
but we had a budget on time, so we didn't have to continue to 
go through continuing resolutions.
    Because, as you know, you can't do new starts when you 
are--when you are in a continuing resolution, so that was a 
principal focus of his, and as I hear him talk today, it 
remains a principal focus. And I certainly would agree with 
him. We have to have a timely budget, and they have to be 
adequate to resource the capabilities that we need. And as you 
heard me say earlier, I think this budget does that for us. It 
gives us the ability to go after, you know, the right mix of 
capabilities that we need to defend the Nation.
    General Milley. So, Senator, thanks. And I served for 
Admiral Mullen many times, and I know he wanted to be a General 
throughout most of his career.
    Chairman Leahy. He did pretty good, as Chairman of Joint 
Chiefs.
    General Milley. I get a call from him regularly. But what 
he is talking about there, I think was the budgets, but also in 
a broader sense that Admiral Mullen was talking about the 
national, U.S. national economy. And as you look at national 
security and you take a very wide-angled view, you are not 
going to have a military unless you have a robust, healthy, 
vibrant economy. You are just not going to have a military.
    It takes--we are a very expensive entity--50 cents on every 
discretionary dollar spent, half of the President's budget is 
going to defense, $715 billion is a lot of money, and that 
can't be done unless there is a very robust economy. So in the 
very wide-angle view, and in looking at it holistically, your 
economic strength and vibrancy is perhaps your number one 
critical national security capability that you have.
    From a strictly military standpoint, however, I think, 
strictly military standpoint, China is, as the Secretary said, 
the pacing threat, and it is the pacing threat as we move 
forward into the years to come. China is going to be, it is, 
and will--it will become the greatest geostrategic challenge, 
militarily, that the United States has faced in a long time.
    Senator Braun. Thank you. And for the short time I have 
been here, the process works seemingly in this way: one side of 
the aisle puts great emphasis on defense; the other side of the 
aisle does on domestic spending. Neither one of us has the 
political will and discipline to do anything about the stuff 
that we like most. That is why I think it is incumbent upon 
Defense to subject itself to audits. To find all the ways that 
you can get better value out of.
    And I can say this with almost absolute certainty. You 
cannot keep doing what we have been doing in the short time I 
have been here, which has added nearly $10 trillion to our 
debt, to be able to do anything in a healthy fashion in the 
long run. You can't run a school board that way; you can't run 
State and local government that way; and the rigor of the 
marketplace or the economy which has competition that keeps you 
in line prevents any other entity from performing the way we do 
here.
    And I would love to see, Secretary, that you embrace cost 
cutting, getting better value out of the money that we spend, 
and especially having audits that are done soon, so we can take 
a peek at what is going on, not only in defense across the 
Government, because you cannot justify this with the modern 
monetary theory. And just because you can get by with it, you 
keep doing it. Thank you so much.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Chairman Leahy. [inaudible] I wanted all Senators to hear, 
if we want to avoid a continuing resolution, we must begin 
bipartisan and bicameral discussions with the White House to 
establish top lines for fiscal year 2022, so the Appropriations 
Committee can do its work. It does neither the country, 
Department of Defense, nor any other department good to govern 
by continuing resolution. In fact, it is a disservice to the 
country. I will continue to work to get real appropriations, 
and vote them up, or vote them down.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
          Questions Submitted to Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III
             Questions Submitted by Chairman Patrick Leahy
    Question. Given the priority the administration has placed taking 
care of our people, and the important role that unit cohesion plays in 
improving readiness, it is crucial that the Air Force take a fresh look 
at policies and practices that may not support all servicemembers. To 
that end, please outline what changes, if any, the Air Force has made, 
is making, plans to make, or is considering in order to:

  --Improve diversity in leadership positions
    Answer. To improve diversity in leadership positions, the 
Department of the Air Force has taken a holistic review of potential 
barriers to development and inclusion. Adjustments have been made to 
uniform and appearance policies and several adjustments have been made 
to help improve deliberate development of diverse leaders. One such 
area was the DAF establishment of diversity requirements for Key 
Developmental Slates. The purpose of this initiative is to promote 
greater opportunity and consideration among qualified candidates, who 
offer diverse perspectives and represent diverse backgrounds and 
experience. This initiative will require that the pool of Airmen and 
Guardians considered for key military developmental positions and 
nominative assignments (e.g. Aide-de-Camp, Military Assistant, 
Executive Officer, Career Field Manager, Senior Enlisted Advisor, 
Commander's Action Group member) include qualified, diverse candidate 
based on gender, race and/or ethnicity.

  --Improve diversity retention at all levels
    Answer. To assist with improving diversity retention the Department 
of the Air Force has identified and began removing disparate policies, 
procedures, barriers and other cultural practices that may be unfairly 
impacting the retention of Airmen and Guardians. These changes include 
revisions to dress and appearance regulations, expanding child/career 
balancing options such as deferring the decision to separate 12 months 
post birth, expanding parental leave, and continued utilization of the 
Career Intermission Program (CIP). Since CIPs establishment in 2014, 
54% of all participants have been female and 99% of the Airmen who 
completed the program have returned to service. The Department of the 
Air Force acknowledges that diverse, resilient, and ready Airmen and 
Guardians (both military and civilian) are the core of the Department's 
present and future readiness and lethality.

  --Improve trainings, including sexual assault prevention, with input 
        from women LGBTQ servicemembers, BIPOC servicemembers, and 
        sexual assault survivors
    Answer. The Department of the Air Force is committed to improving 
training that improves the lives all of our diverse Airmen and 
Guardians while promoting a sense of belonging to the DAF. The DAF is 
working hard to ensure our training is evidenced based and includes 
considerations of and input from many vulnerable populations including 
women, LGBTQ servicemembers, BIPOC servicemembers, and both male and 
female sexual assault survivors. We are working closely with the DoD 
Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, the 
DAF Interpersonal Violence Taskforce, and developed a prevention plan 
of action to improve prevention efforts that provide a foundation for 
concrete actions to address interpersonal and self-directed violence. 
We are committed to implementing the recommendations to provide 
appropriate and tailored trainings that meet the unique needs of 
diverse Airmen and Guardians.

  --Increase availability and accessibility of mental health support 
        services for servicemembers and their families, including 
        services tailored specifically toward minority servicemembers
    Answer. To maximize the availability of our mental health services, 
the Department of the Air Force (DAF) has sought to create mental 
health clinic workflows to match patient needs and increase 
efficiencies. Through the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown period, the DAF 
expanded its tele-mental health services 3600% compared to 2019. As a 
result, the DAF mental health enterprise was able to sustain 90% of its 
2019 care operations levels during this period. DAF is going to 
maintain its expanded tele-mental health services and ensure this 
option is well-known within the military health system. We are focused 
on all Service members, including those in minority categories.

  --Improve outreach to and support for minority servicemembers facing 
        discrimination from within their units
    Answer. The Air Force continues to evaluate and refine the Out and 
About outreach program used to gather equal opportunity and human 
relations information that may impact service members.
    The Installation Equal Opportunity Director is responsible for 
scheduling Out and About Assessments in coordination with unit 
leadership and ensures unit leadership receives a summary of 
observations following the assessment. Observations and discussions 
focus on EO, human relations and organizational effectiveness factors 
that impact morale and mission readiness to include, but are not 
limited to: Interpersonal communication/interaction/polarization (break 
rooms, work areas, recreation/entertainment facilities, etc.); 
Accessibility to unit leadership; Bulletin board and public display 
items (individual/group recognition, policy letters/posters, etc); 
Workplace conditions/environment; Dormitory conditions/environment; 
Graffiti; Personal display of pictures, posters, artifacts, etc.; and 
overall general impressions. Information gathered throughout the 
assessment is used as part of the overall Organizational Climate 
Assessment Program.
  --Improve medical care for transgender servicemembers, women, and 
        Black parents, particularly for transition care, pregnancy, and 
        post-partum care
    Answer. In order to improve readiness and support of Airmen, the 
DAF established a Transgender Health Medical Evaluation Unit (THMEU). 
The THMEU operates under a patient- centered care model that ensures 
compliance with Department of Defense (DoD), DAF, and Defense Health 
Agency policies and transgender healthcare clinical guidelines, 
regardless of where patients are located. The THMEU will function as a 
``Center of Excellence'' and share clinical guidelines and patient 
education experiences throughout the Military Health System.
    In addition to the THEMU, the Air Force Surgeon General established 
an Office of Diversity and Inclusion Office to improve readiness and 
support for minority service members. This office is also working with 
the Defense Health Agency to evaluate and intentionally address 
disparities in healthcare delivery, which would include pregnancy and 
postpartum care.
    On top of these efforts, the DAF is also focused on improving the 
pregnancy and postpartum care provided to Airmen, particularly with a 
focus on return to duty and readiness. For example, Air Force 
Instruction on Duty Limiting Conditions (48-133) was updated to allow 
fitness assessment exemptions following perinatal loss (miscarriage and 
stillbirth). A parallel update regarding convalescent leave after such 
losses is currently pending revisions to Air Force Manual on Tricare 
Operations and Patient Administration (41-210). Additionally, updates 
were made to breast feeding policies (AFGM2020-36-01) to improve Airmen 
and Guardians access to breast pumping resources and milk storage, as 
well as increase flexibility in scheduling pumping time during the duty 
day.
    Furthermore, in order to better address the needs of Airmen 
following pregnancy and birth of a newborn, the DAF is working on a 
multidisciplinary approach to comprehensive postpartum care and 
reintegration. At select locations (currently Nellis AFB, expanding to 
Seymour Johnson AFB and Joint Base Langley-Eustis), DAF Units are 
piloting a program facilitating comprehensive Airmen and Guardian 
fitness during pregnancy and in postpartum. This program includes 
fitness classes, lactation support, mental health, wellness screening 
and access to services such as physical therapy and nutrition.
    In addition to the efforts mentioned above, the Air Force Medical 
Service and the Defense Health Agency are working together on 
implementing the latest evidence-based perinatal care services at 
military treatment facilities. Across the Military Health System, 
procedures to address postpartum bleeding to improve maternal and 
neonatal outcomes were established. New guidance was also developed to 
standardize ultrasound examinations to improve the identification of 
abnormal findings. Moreover, a Defense Health Agency review board was 
established to review cases of severe maternal harm in order to 
identify areas of improvement. Finally, a working group was established 
to identify and address any racial disparities in obstetric outcomes, 
unconscious bias education, and cultural competency in maternity care.
    Question. Vermont is home to a semiconductor fab that is a Trusted 
Foundry, a program to help the Department to acquire and sustain 
microelectronics from the commercial market at an economical price. The 
Senate has just passed a bill that includes $54 billion for commercial 
fabs to revitalize existing fabs, like the one in Vermont, and build 
new ones.
    How will you invest not just in research and engineering of new 
capabilities, but in supporting the industrial base that can sustain a 
supply of the chips the Department needs now and will need for the 
modernized force?
    Answer. On-shoring microelectronics (ME) production capability will 
require more than investment in new capabilities. The same economic 
forces that drove domestic ME manufacturing capability from the U.S. 
still exist and would not allow it to survive, if re- established. We 
must find ways to make our domestic sources cost competitive. Examples 
of enablers that could be employed include tax incentives and workforce 
training credits. The DoD is developing a comprehensive ME strategy 
that balances the need for state-of-the-art technologies to achieve 
dominance over an adversary with the continuing need to provide robust 
sources and access to current and mature technologies. The strategy 
includes a flexible acquisition framework for system technology 
refreshes that allow for new technology to transition into current and 
planned systems of record, in addition to identifying strategic 
investments to sustain key production technologies for the Department.
    Question. As the U.S. military moves to increasingly relying on 
networked 5G technology and beyond, how important is an investment in 
enhancing the capability of Radio Frequency chips to handle the 
increased load?
    Answer. 5G allows large volumes of information to be transmitted at 
high speeds and low latency, enabling near real time decision 
advantages for the military. The DoD will adapt 5G and ``next-G'' 
technologies to operate through congested, contested, and compromised 
spectra to ensure maximum readiness, lethality, and coordination with 
allies and partners. 5G requires state-of-the-art chips to achieve 
performance with the highest security protocols. The development of 
domestic capabilities using open Radio Access Network standards is 
critical to enabling long-term economic and military advantage for the 
U.S.
                                 ______
                                 
              Question Submitted by Senator Tammy Baldwin
    U.S. military systems like the conformal, wearable battery for 
soldier power, BB-2950 batteries for communication systems, 6T 
batteries for ground vehicles, and large energy storage systems for 
directed energy weapons are heavily dependent on lithium-ion (Li-ion) 
batteries. Disruptions in the current global Li-ion battery supply 
chain would severely impact the domestic industrial base's capacity to 
supply batteries for these systems. Indeed, the potential to be cut off 
from strategically important Li-ion components-like LiPF6, a salt that 
is ubiquitous in Li-ion batteries and produced almost exclusively in 
China-has been identified by DoD as a critical U.S. national security 
threat.
    I am concerned that if China were to stop exporting LiPF6 domestic 
production of Li-ion cells by manufacturers of specialized Li-ion 
batteries for DOD customers would quickly cease. This is in addition to 
the disruptions to commercial applications that are critical to 
President Biden's clean energy and climate agenda. It's my 
understanding that the only way to ensure a stable domestic supply of 
LiPF6 is through its domestic production.
    Question. Mr. Secretary, does DOD see our reliance on China as a 
national security risk? What steps is DOD taking to ensure access to 
key inputs to Li-ion batteries throughout the supply chain, including 
LiPF6 and other electrolyte materials? Would you support efforts, 
including appropriate U.S. government support, to stand up a domestic 
manufacturing facility for LiPF6?
    Answer. As outlined in our analysis of DoD's supply chains, 
significant numbers of strategically vital materials are currently 
sourced only overseas. This includes China, a major producer of lithium 
ion batteries and battery materials. The DoD is aware of many, but not 
all, specialty lithium battery materials and their supply chain risks. 
Lithium hexafluorophosphate (LiPF6) is one specialty material used in 
the vast majority of Li-ion cells. LiPF6 is synthesized through three 
main routes, all involving hazardous chemicals and producing 
significant waste streams. Currently, Asia produces the majority of 
LiPF6 supplied to battery cell manufacturers. U.S. industry has 
developed a less hazardous synthesis method which may be more 
economically viable and environmentally sustainable. Domestic 
production is more likely to be achieved if supported by appropriate 
incentives. The DoD will work with interagency partners to achieve some 
level of mitigation to the impediments to the domestic production of 
LiPF6.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
                      privatized military housing
    Question. Significant progress has been made in implementing the 
Tenant Bill of Rights as required by Congress. However, recent reports 
indicate that four of the 18 rights have seen delays in implementation: 
a dispute resolution process, a universal lease, process for 
withholding rent during dispute resolutions, and providing a tenant 
with seven years of a unit's maintenance history. What has been the 
specific challenge in implementing these four rights and when does the 
Department expect the Tenant Bill of Rights to be fully implemented 
nationwide?
    Answer. The Department has issued all policy guidance necessary to 
implement prospectively all 18 Military Housing Privatization 
Initiative (MHPI) tenant rights at all MHPI housing projects. However, 
as Congress recognized, retroactive application of the requirements at 
existing MHPI projects requires voluntary agreement by the respective 
MHPI companies; the Department cannot unilaterally change the terms of 
the complex, public-private partnerships that established the MHPI 
housing projects. The Department has been seeking to secure voluntary 
agreements, and nearly all of the MHPI companies have agreed to 
implement all 18 tenant rights at their existing projects. The 
Department will continue to pursue agreements not yet reached. Based on 
our efforts to date, all 18 rights are available at 84 percent of MHPI 
family housing projects, and, with few exceptions, the Department 
expects all 18 rights to be fully available at all MHPI housing 
projects by the end of FY 2021.
                                 audit
    Question. What, if anything, could Congress do to accelerate the 
timeline to a clean audit opinion for the entire Department of Defense?
    Answer. I want to reaffirm that the entire DoD leadership team 
remains fully committed to making steady and consistent progress toward 
achieving an unmodified audit opinion on our consolidated financial 
statements. Although the DoD has yet to attain a clean opinion on its 
consolidated financial statements, the total combined assets of 
individual DoD Components with clean opinions is greater than the total 
assets of 15 of the CFO Act Agencies combined as of fiscal year (FY) 
2020. Achieving a clean opinion will take time. It took the Department 
of Homeland Security 10 years, and DoD is more than 15 times the size 
based on total assets. Congress needs to continue to hold the 
Department accountable by asking us to demonstrate progress and support 
audit efforts with sufficient resources, and by providing consistent 
policy and oversight. I believe Congress has done this by mandating 
that we provide congressional defense committees an annual ranking of 
all audited Components in terms of audit progress, and that we report 
additional audit metrics for Components that rank in the bottom 
quartile. This transparency has been a meaningful incentive to attain a 
clean opinion.
    Additionally, Congress can help further audit initiatives by:
  --Continuing to engage in dialogue with the Department on progress 
        achieved and challenges encountered;
  --Preserving funding for audit and audit remediation costs;
  --Ensuring adequate funding for system transformation efforts such as 
        Identity, Credential, and Access Management; and
  --Supporting our requests in the form of legislative proposals that 
        might facilitate more cost effective ways to meet current 
        standards.
    Question. What do the findings of completed DOD audits indicate 
about the relationship between auditability and back-office functions 
like IT, business process modernization, contract management, financial 
management, and support infrastructure management?
    Answer. The findings of completed DoD audits to date are clear and 
consistent. There is a direct correlation between auditability and how 
well the DoD performs these cross-cutting management functions, in 
particular managing more than 250 business systems and the processes/
data sets they support. Of the Department's Notices of Findings and 
Recommendations (NFRs), one half relate to information technology (IT) 
issues within that population of business systems. There are additional 
findings related to ``non-IT'' business processes/procedures and 
current practices that are supported by these systems. The bottom line 
is that the fewer discrete/legacy systems we retain, and the more we 
use compliant enterprise business capabilities, the better we can 
ensure the quality and auditability of those systems, and the faster we 
can progress toward a consolidated audit opinion.
    DoD is committed to an aggressive simplification and 
standardization timeline for the business systems enterprise to enable 
operational effectiveness, auditability, security and affordability. 
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is close to 
finalizing an updated DoD Financial Management Functional Strategy that 
will drive toward that target business environment which includes 
modern business and IT architectures, a Defense-wide road map, and 
prioritized campaigns to focus efforts over the next 24 months and 
beyond to achieve specific IT reductions per year through FY 2026.
    Within the IT-related NFRs: Over 80 percent of the FY 2020 IT NFR 
conditions (as well as in FY 2018 and FY 2019) involve the 
effectiveness of the IT general control environment (i.e., access 
controls (40 percent), security management (10 percent), segregation of 
duties (15 percent) and configuration management (15 percent).
    To specifically solve access control and segregation of duties 
problems, we are implementing an Enterprise Identity, Credential, and 
Access Management (ICAM) capability. DoD's Enterprise ICAM solution 
began implementation in FY 2021, with nine early adopter applications 
currently scheduled to on-board by the end of FY 2021, and will 
continue an aggressive enterprise deployment schedule thereafter.
    Within the non-IT NFRs: These findings generally involve End-to-End 
business process issues that often cross financial management, contract 
management, and support infrastructure.
    Examples include:
  --Incomplete accounting records for government property owned by 
        contractors;
  --Lack of controls over the existence, completeness, and valuation of 
        inventory;
  --Inadequate controls that accounting adjustments were valid, 
        complete, and accurately recorded in accounting and general 
        ledger systems;
  --Inability for DoD systems to capture intradepartmental and 
        intragovernmental data at the transaction level to perform 
        eliminations;
  --Inadequate justification for beginning balances on financial 
        statements; and
  --Inability to reconcile Fund Balance with Treasury.
    To prioritize and monitor business process improvement efforts, the 
Office of the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Financial Improvement and 
Audit Remediation Directorate is collaborating with the Components and 
holding the business lines accountable for findings that directly align 
with material weaknesses and their focus areas for corrective actions. 
Bottom line: DoD cross-cutting management functions have clear impact 
on our auditability, which is why the audit is a team sport and a focus 
area for all DoD senior leadership, regardless of business line.
    Question. What are the long-term impacts of failing to invest in 
business systems and processes that ensure a healthy, efficient, well-
functioning organization that is not vulnerable to waste, fraud, and 
abuse?
    Answer. The long-term impacts of failing to invest in modern 
systems/processes can be debilitating for the overall organization in 
terms of unity of effort and focus. Smart investments in the future 
business environment--characterized by retirement of currently 
vulnerable/legacy systems, adherence to standards, repaired 
foundational enterprise capabilities/processes, and amplified funding 
for innovation--will minimize inefficiencies and security risks that 
embolden waste, fraud, and abuse. The longer ``porous'' vulnerable/
legacy systems remain in our environment, the more susceptible we are 
to mission failure--both internal and external. The good news is we 
know what needs to be done and we have the leadership resolve and 
workforce commitment to drive to these critical outcomes.
    DoD leaders are actively promoting a culture of engagement, 
inclusiveness, purpose, and integrity alongside appropriate monitoring 
and oversight to minimize these risks while we continue our 
transformation journey.
                                 slcm-n
    Question. Would arming our Virginia-Class attack submarines with 
nuclear cruise missiles reduce the number of conventional missiles each 
boat can carry? How would this impact our conventional deterrence in 
key theaters like the Asia-Pacific and the Tomahawk strike capabilities 
of our attack submarines?
    Answer. A SLCM-N Analysis of Alternatives has been completed and 
the results of the analysis and any impacts regarding missile capacity 
or conventional deterrence capabilities in the Asia-Pacific theater are 
classified. We look forward to discussing this issue with the Committee 
in the right venue.
    Question. How would deploying nuclear-armed cruise missiles on Navy 
vessels impact the Navy's ability to conduct allied port calls with 
such vessels?
    Answer. Analysis on impacts to allied port calls has not been 
determined at this time. We will work with you on this question if and 
when that analysis is conducted.
    Question. In its 2021 report on nuclear weapons spending, the CBO 
projected that developing the SLCM and its warhead over the 2021-2030 
period will cost approximately $10 billion. This projection does not 
include the costs for integrating the capability onto Navy vessels. In 
addition to the cost to acquire the missile and warhead, would there be 
additional certification, security, storage, and operational costs to 
deploy the capability?
    Answer. Yes, there would be additional costs. No total-life-cycle 
cost estimates of this capability have been performed at this time.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby
    Question. The National Security Space Launch (NSSL) program has 
provided assured access to space for critical national security space 
assets. The NSSL contract lowers the costs by leveraging buying power 
across a multitude of mission types. I am concerned about recent moves 
by the Space Development Agency to procure launches outside of the NSSL 
enterprise for the same type of rocket. If individual programs continue 
to pursue commercial launch and remove missions from the NSSL program 
future phases of the NSSL program will likely increase in cost.
    Do you agree that the significant investments made in NSSL have 
resulted in an affordable launch program?
    Answer. Yes, NSSL provides assured access for our Nation's most 
critical warfighting space assets. The NSSL approach achieves lowest 
overall costs to the Government across the full spectrum of mission 
needs, including assured access, demanding orbits, and complex 
satellites. NSSL Phase 2 contract achieved commercial-like pricing for 
commercial-like missions, and reduced launch costs by about 50% on the 
more demanding orbits the NRO and USSF missions use the most. Acquiring 
NSSL-class capability outside the NSSL contracts forfeits the NSSL-
provided Mission Assurance, limits the flexibility provided by the 
Phase 2 contract, and reduces future Government buying power.
    Question. Under what circumstances would you waive the requirement 
for a program to use the NSSL enterprise?
    Answer. These cases are reviewed on a case-by-case basis and must 
be in the best financial and national security interest of the United 
States. There may be limited instances where other factors override 
these significant impacts to NSSL Phase 2 and future Government buying 
power; but, these circumstances should always consider the impacts to 
the overall space enterprise.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins
    Question. It is U.S. policy to maintain Israel's qualitative 
military edge (QME)-effectively, Israel's ability to defend itself, by 
itself, against any threat or potential combination of threats.
    Can you speak to the importance of continuing U.S. arms sales to 
Israel, and in particular the recently notified sale of J-DAM precision 
missiles?
    Answer. The Biden Administration is committed to maintaining 
Israel's Qualitative Military Edge as a policy priority and in 
accordance with statutory requirements. To this end, the United States 
supports Israel's defense acquisition priorities with $33 billion in 
Foreign Military Financing grant assistance consistent with a 10-year 
Memorandum of Understanding (fiscal years 2019-2028), to include J-DAM 
acquisition. The Administration consults closely with the Government of 
Israel on its defense acquisition priorities and with Congress to 
ensure Israel's overall security.
    Question. The Biden administration has agreed to proceed with the 
$23 billion arms sale to the UAE.
    Can you review the considerations that went into the sale and how 
Israel's QME has been protected?
    Answer. The Administration is committed to moving forward the F-35 
sale. Implementation of this sale is an indication of the strength of 
our strategic partnership with the UAE and supports shared national 
security interests to counter regional threats and enhance 
interoperability with one of our most capable security partners in the 
region. The F-35 sale comes with the expectation DoD has for all 
purchasers of U.S. military platforms--that U.S. technology and 
advanced weapons systems will be protected and used in accordance with 
all applicable laws, including the law of armed conflict. Consistent 
with statutory requirements, the State Department led a thorough 
interagency process to consider these sales, including related to 
Israel's Qualitative Military Edge, with participation from the 
Department of Defense.
    Question. According to the latest National Strategy for 
Counterterrorism, ``Iran remains the most prominent state sponsor of 
terrorism, supporting militant and terrorist groups across the Middle 
East.
    What steps is the Pentagon taking to push back on Iran's regional 
aggression and support for terrorism--specifically in Syria, Yemen, 
Iraq and Lebanon? Can you speak to our ongoing efforts to address 
Iranian arms smuggling?
    Answer. The recent fighting in Gaza saw the deployment of Iran-
supplied weapons and expertise by Hamas and others. Iran arms, trains, 
and funds proxy and militia forces in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, as well as 
Hezbollah in Lebanon.
    DoD's efforts to counter Iran's destabilizing activities, including 
its support for terrorism and weapons proliferation, runs along 
multiple lines of effort. This includes interdictions, such as the May 
2021 interdiction by the USS Monterey of weapons bound for the Houthis 
in Yemen, and U.S. military support to regional partners, including 
training and provision of advanced systems to build the capabilities 
and capacity of our partners to defend themselves. More broadly, DoD 
aims to work with our global allies and regional partners to deter 
malign Iranian actions. The Department is also constantly evaluating 
our presence in the region to ensure that we are appropriately postured 
to protect U.S. personnel against Iranian-backed threats.
    The recent fighting in Gaza saw the deployment of Iranian supplied 
weapons by Hamas. We also frequently see Iranian arms used in Yemen 
against the Saudis and in Iraq against U.S. and coalition forces.
    Question. For eleven days last month, Iranian-backed terror groups 
Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad targeted Israeli civilians with 
more than four thousand rockets launched from Gaza. I very much 
appreciate your strong support for Israel's right to defend its 
citizens over this period. President Biden has committed to re-
supplying Israel with the Iron Dome interceptors, which saved countless 
lives during the conflict.
    Can you discuss your conversations with your Israeli counterpart 
with respect to the recent conflict and resupply of Iron Dome?
    Answer. The Department of Defense remains deeply committed to 
working with Israel to ensure that the Iron Dome Defense System is 
capable of protecting Israeli civilians. The Department supports 
Israel's request for additional support for its Iron Dome Defense 
System, and continues to consult with the Israeli Ministry of Defense 
on the details of the request.
    Question. What is the status of that effort?
    Answer. The Department of Defense has provided Congress with 
information in support of Israel's request, and stands ready to answer 
any questions, as needed. The Department also continues to consult 
closely with the Israeli Ministry of Defense on Israel's security 
needs.
                          syria force posture
    Question. How is the administration assessing our force posture in 
Syria?
    Answer. The Department of Defense mission in Syria remains the 
enduring defeat of ISIS. Although ISIS no longer holds territory, it 
remains a capable and dangerous threat seeking to exploit a weak 
economy, overburdened displaced persons camps, and makeshift detention 
facilities managed by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). DoD 
assistance bolsters the SDF's capacity to detain ISIS fighters humanely 
and securely mitigating the risk of breakouts that could fuel ISIS's 
efforts to reconstitute. The United States, working by, with, and 
through vetted local partner forces, including the SDF, is postured to 
achieve this mission.
    Question. What kind of presence or lack thereof will we have in 
Syria moving forward?
    Answer. The United States will maintain its military presence in 
northeast Syria and in the vicinity of al-Tanf Garrison in southeast 
Syria. The enduring defeat of ISIS cannot be achieved by military means 
alone. U.S. and Coalition military presence and support enables the 
civilian-led stabilization efforts necessary to address the underlying 
grievances that facilitated ISIS's rapid expansion. The Department is 
committed to keeping Congress informed going forward.
    Question. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for rapid 
scalability of treatment containment solutions to address outbreak 
surges in both military and civilian treatment facilities. During the 
crisis, the nation saw a huge spike in demand for modular negative 
pressure mobile containment rooms that can offer a Military Treatment 
Facility or hospital the capability to safely assess and treat patients 
with suspected COVID-19 symptoms.
    What is the status of the Department's review of its pandemic 
preparedness required by NDAA Section 732, which requires a review and 
update of DOD's inventory of medical supplies and equipment?
    Answer. The Department is undergoing a department-wide review on 
pandemic preparedness activities, including inventory medical supplies 
and equipment. The data collection, analysis, and validation of 
findings are currently ongoing within the Department. The Department 
remains on track to submit the final NDAA section 732 report by 
December 31, 2021 and believes this is a secure deadline
    Question. What is the utility for DOD and the Defense Health Agency 
of procuring commercial-off-the-shelf negative air pressure containment 
systems in preparation for future pandemics or biological threats?
    Answer. These systems create a negative pressure environment 
designed to contain airborne infectious pathogens with minimal 
preparation time and disruption to permanent facility structures. 
Modular negative air pressure room systems have the potential to serve 
as an alternative solution for pathogen containment. Integration of 
such systems is most applicable in situations that necessitate 
operating beyond surge capacity (e.g., uniquely positioned overseas 
facilities) and in the required transport of potentially contagious 
patients. One unique system with demonstrated success is the US 
Transportation Command/Air Mobility Command developed Negatively 
Pressurized CONEX and CONEX Light (NPC, NPCL), which allowed the 
transport of critically ill patients with highly contagious diseases 
aboard pressurized, military cargo aircraft. The CONEX and CONEX Light 
systems are available as commercial-off-the shelf systems and DOD has 
already purchased systems and plans to purchase additional systems to 
enhance pandemic preparedness.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
    Secretary Austin, I appreciated our phone call last week. During 
that call I expressed to you my appreciation and commendation for your 
department's initiative in addressing our national interests in the 
Arctic region. To that end I am particularly referencing the service 
level Arctic strategies that have been released over the last year or 
so. I have long advocated for our country to pay greater attention to 
the region. These strategies certainly give the Arctic region more 
attention--at least in writing. I was really hoping that the 
implementation and resourcing of these strategies would be reflected in 
this year's budget request. I'm afraid that perhaps we've missed the 
mark here.
    I believe the requests made in the defense spending document are 
inadequate to maintain serious regional competition from the United 
States in the Arctic region. We have been touting the rise of China for 
some time now and the serious threat the PRC is likely to become. And 
if the argument for not spending money on Arctic related initiatives is 
that China is not interested or prevalent in the region then that is 
wrong. China's investments in the Arctic have gone from $150B in 2012 
to over $300B today. The Chinese are building ice breakers and the 
Chinese are training with the Russians. The Russian's--of course--have 
made serious investments in the region.
    Mr. Secretary, I believe that I am not alone in feeling that 
funding for Arctic strategies is inadequate. My colleague from Alaska, 
Senator Sullivan, had the opportunity to question General VanHerck on 
how the services could use what was included in this year's budget 
request to implement their respective Arctic strategies. His response 
was less than encouraging. He said, ``I see an inching along....we 
didn't move the ball very far down the field this year in the budget 
with regards to resources in the Arctic.''
    Question. Who is in charge of coalescing the Arctic strategies into 
one greater, defense wide, strategic plan?
    Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy is responsible 
for establishing a Department of Defense-wide joint strategic approach 
to the Arctic region. The Navy, Army, and Air Force have each developed 
a strategic Arctic approach in recent years, and their approaches 
reflect the growing awareness of emerging challenges in the region. 
These challenges include climate change (especially as it impacts 
operating environments), defense of the homeland, and strategic 
competition. DoD's strategic planning for the Arctic will be informed 
by the forthcoming National Security Strategy and National Defense 
Strategy, which will provide the overarching considerations with which 
a defense-wide Arctic strategy must align.
    Question. Can you commit to providing me with a list of funding 
priorities for the Arctic?
    Answer. DoD supports the Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget 
request, recognizing that the Department is in a resource-constrained 
environment and must balance national objectives on a global scale. The 
Department will continue to assess the defense challenges in the 
Arctic, in light of the region's connections to three key areas of 
responsibility (AORs): the United States homeland and U.S. Northern 
Command, Europe and U.S. European Command, and the Pacific and U.S. 
Indo-Pacific Command. Given this geographic and command and control 
breadth, as well as current strategic direction and guidance, the 
Department's current priorities in the Arctic include homeland defense, 
power projection, and the rule of law. The Department will rely upon 
the forthcoming National Security Strategy and National Defense 
Strategy, which take DoD's Arctic activities into consideration, to 
inform all of DoD's funding priorities and will submit budgets in 
accordance with Executive Branch budget processes.
    The Department thanks Congress for its support for the Department's 
mission, and we look forward to keeping you informed about defense 
activities in the Arctic.
    Question. At a recent budget hearing for the State Department, 
Secretary Blinken told me that, by his own determination, and I quote: 
``the United States would be extremely well served by ratifying the Law 
of the Sea Treaty.'' He even went as far as to say that this is not 
only his opinion, but ``it's been the judgement across the board by our 
military leadership, uniform and civilian for many years.'' Secretary 
Blinken is the latest in a long line of department secretaries to agree 
on this point. I believe that ratifying the Law of the Sea is in the 
best interest of the United States. Along with Senator Hirono, I put 
forward legislation urging the Senate to ratify Law of Sea. Mr. 
Secretary, as the civilian leadership in the Department of Defense, do 
you believe the Senate should ratify the Law of Sea?
    Answer. Like past Administrations, both Republican and Democratic, 
this Administration supports the United States joining the Law of the 
Sea Convention and would be prepared to support an effort to secure 
Senate advice and consent to accede to the Convention when there is a 
reasonable prospect that such an effort will succeed. The Convention 
reflects customary international law on which the United States has 
long relied for its freedoms of navigation and overflight around the 
world. These rights and freedoms are vital to our national security, 
and joining the Convention is in our interest.
    Question. What benefit will it provide to the United States? Would 
we be in a stronger military position if we were to ratify the Law of 
the Sea?
    Answer. Joining the other 168 parties to the Convention would 
reinforce the freedom of the seas and air space. The Convention 
provides legal certainty in the world's largest maneuver space, 
guarding our rights and freedoms against States that are actively 
attempting to erode them. Accession would strengthen the legal 
foundation protecting our right to transit through international 
straits, archipelagic waters and territorial seas without notice or 
permission; as well as our freedom to conduct military activities in 
international airspace and other countries' Exclusive Economic Zones 
(EEZs) without notice or permission, and the sovereign immunity of 
warships. The United States currently relies largely on customary 
international law as the legal basis for these and other benefits. 
Joining the Convention would also demonstrate our commitment to the 
rule of law, strengthening our credibility among those nations that are 
already party to the Convention, especially when challenging excessive 
maritime claims. For decades, the U.S. has affirmed that the 
Convention's provisions concerning traditional uses of the ocean 
generally reflect customary international law that is binding on all 
States, including the United States. Accession would attach a political 
commitment to longstanding practice. This creates legitimacy, backs up 
our actions and words with a treaty commitment, putting the U.S. in 
good company with like-minded nations. Finally, it would directly 
support the advancement of our maritime interests and shape future 
maritime developments to our benefit.
    Question. And what would you say to those that want to be tough on 
China and Russia, but are still against the ratification of the treaty?
    Answer. Acceding to the Convention would strengthen our credibility 
and strategic position in relation to like-minded partners and in 
standing up to countries who violate international law and norms, 
including the People's Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and Iran. These 
states routinely cite the non-party status of the United States when 
justifying their violations of maritime rules and norms. Moreover, 
ratification would give the United States a direct voice in Convention 
bodies like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the 
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, and the 
International Seabed Authority.
    The United States should do everything it can to strengthen its 
position in debates over maritime conduct, particularly as the PRC 
continues to assert its excessive and unlawful maritime claims and 
demonstrate increasingly coercive behavior in the South China Sea. As 
widely reported, PRC warships, law enforcement vessels, and other 
Chinese-flagged vessels have failed to respect the rights of maritime 
nations under the Convention. Russia also asserts excessive maritime 
claims and jurisdiction contrary to international law along its 
Pacific, Black Sea, and Arctic coasts. As a party to the Convention, 
U.S. objections to these violations of our navigational rights and 
freedoms would have significantly more force and credibility, 
nullifying spurious claims from these States that only parties to the 
Convention may enjoy its benefits.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
                              afghanistan
    Secretary Austin and General Milley: The latest U.S. intelligence 
assessment states that the Afghan government could fall as soon as six 
months after the removal of all our military forces from Afghanistan. 
During the Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on June 17, 2021, 
you responded to one of my questions stating that you believed that 
following the removal of our forces from Afghanistan, there was a 
medium risk that terrorist organizations could reemerge and threaten 
our homeland in two years. You also said that if the government 
collapsed, the risk would increase.
    Question. Does this latest assessment change what you told the 
committee regarding the risk level and timeline for the possible 
reemergence of threats to the homeland?
    Answer. Given the changes of the last 48 hours, DoD will come back 
to you with an up-to-date answer soon.
      functional center for security studies in irregular warfare
    Question. Secretary Austin, Section 1299L of the Fiscal Year 2021 
National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 116-57) required that the 
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, 
submit a report to Congress that assesses the merits and feasibility of 
establishing and administering a Functional Center for Security Studies 
in Irregular Warfare. This report was due no later than 90 days after 
enactment. When will the report be delivered to the congressional 
defense committees?
    Answer. The Department is completing drafting and coordination of 
the 1299L report, and expects to deliver it to Congress in August 2021.
                                 ______
                                 
          Questions Submitted by Senator Shelley Moore Capito
    As you are well aware, the United States relies on China for much 
of our rare earth elements (REEs) supply. REEs are becoming 
increasingly important in our daily technologies, but particularly so 
in the equipment used by our military. I am proud of the research being 
conducted at West Virginia University, where they have found a way to 
extract REEs from acid mine drainage. For this reason, I proposed 
report language, which passed as part of the FY21 NDAA, encouraging the 
Department to submit a report to Congress on the domestic supply chain 
of rare earth elements and how the Department plans to store these 
elements as domestic extraction increases.
    Question. Secretary Austin, what work is the Department currently 
doing when it comes to the domestic supply chain and stockpiling of 
rare earth elements? Is this something that you view as a priority and 
have you engaged the Department of Energy on this issue?
    Answer. Increasing the resiliency of U.S. rare earth elements 
(REEs) supply chains is a Department priority. Under President Biden's 
Executive Order on America's Supply Chains (EO 14017), DoD took the 
lead on a 100-day assessment of critical minerals and strategic 
materials. That assessment was published in a report on June 8, 2021 
(EO 14017 Report) and concluded that many U.S. industries are facing 
market pressure to find the lowest costs of production. This market 
pressure makes them overly reliant on foreign supply sources, including 
China, for raw materials like REEs. The EO 14017 Report's 
recommendations focus on developing solutions with industry and 
interagency partners to achieve supply chain resiliency, including how 
to address market behavior in order to sustain capability.
    Accomplishing meaningful change will require a whole-of-government 
effort, including appropriate government incentives and industry 
support, and efforts to develop domestic REE separation capacity and 
magnet production capability. The Department will continue to leverage 
the National Defense Stockpile (NDS) and the Defense Production Act 
(DPA) Title III program. The NDS was authorized to begin small scale 
stockpiling of REEs in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. The 
DPA Title III program was invoked in 2019, and the Department has 
investments underway for commercial scale production of REE oxides and 
REE neodymium iron boron magnets. We are also focused on NDS 
transaction fund solvency and increasing the breadth of our 
inventories.
    We are in constant contact with the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE 
has been supportive of our DPA program efforts, and DOE's more recent 
pilot-scale efforts are critical for regaining the technological edge 
our country has lost in strategic and critical material processing.
    Question. Are you willing to commit to submitting a report to 
Congress, assessing the domestic supply chain of REEs and how the 
Department plans on stockpiling them?
    Answer. The Department currently reports on strategic and critical 
materials issues and strategies in the ``Annual Industrial Capabilities 
Report'' that we publish pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2504. In addition, 
the Defense Logistics Agency produces the Biennial Report on Strategic 
and Critical Material Stockpile Requirements pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 
Sec. 98h-5. As discussed in these reports, the Department is currently 
executing Defense Production Act programs in the domestic rare earth 
element (REE) industry and working to increase the breadth and scope of 
REE stockpiles.
    Question. The Army Interagency Training and Education Center 
(AITEC), located at Camp Dawson and the St. Albans Readiness Center in 
West Virginia, is the National Guard Bureaus' (NGB) lead in training 
both military and civilian personnel in protecting critical 
infrastructure. As we have seen over recent weeks, the threat to cyber 
security is great, which is why I believe it is important that the 
National Guard play a greater role in this. Given that AITEC is the 
NGB's lead on critical infrastructure training, it would be a great 
location for the National Guard to conduct cyber security training, and 
I know that the WVNG would be up for this task.
    With the rise in cyber-attacks, how is the Department looking to 
further the role that the National Guard plays to combat such attacks, 
and is expanding the National Guard's role in cyber security something 
that you view as a priority for the Department?
    Answer. The Department of Defense welcomes opportunities to improve 
the dual-status capabilities of National Guard cyber forces and align 
them with missions to prevent and respond to cyber incidents. The 
National Guard is already postured to reinforce the interagency's 
capabilities upon request and coordinates with USCYBERCOMMAND, ARCYBER 
and AFCYBER to ensure correct resources are aligned.
    Question. With the success that AITEC has had so far in critical 
infrastructure training, I urge you to look into expanding its training 
to include cyber-security.
    Answer. Thank you for your support of the Army Interagency Training 
and Education Center (AITEC), West Virginia National Guard. AITEC is 
currently evaluating options to establish Cyber Critical Infrastructure 
Teams to conduct training, consequence and inter-dependency analysis, 
and promote information sharing. The intent for the teams is to support 
the Department of Defense and the civilian critical infrastructure 
community under existing policy and authorities.
    Question. I am thrilled that the West Virginia National Guard 
(WVNG) was selected by the Air Force to convert its legacy C-130H 
models to the newer C-130J model aircraft and it was announced last 
month, that the first C-130J will arrive at the 130th Airlift Wing this 
summer. The WVNG is deserving of the upgrade and I look forward to 
seeing the increased role that the WVNG will play in carrying out 
missions that are critical to our national security.
    While this will not directly affect the WVNG, I am concerned to see 
that the FY22 budget proposal would reduce the number of Air National 
Guard C-130 Total Aircraft Inventory. What has led the Department to 
come to this decision and please explain the future that you see for 
the C-130s in our military and particularly the National Guard?
    Answer. Incorporating a number of analytical efforts, the 
Department of the Air Force (DAF) is proposing to deliberately right-
size its tactical airlift fleet and refocus resources toward the future 
force informed by the future threat environment. The DAF believes the 
proposed C-130 fleet augmented by the C-17 fleet is well suited to meet 
both operational missions and assist with defense support to civil 
authorities. The DAF will continue to work closely with the Air 
National Guard to appropriately manage the C-130 fleet to ensure our 
airmen have the correct balance of current and modernized equipment to 
meet our nation's needs.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted to General Mark A. Milley
             Questions Submitted by Chairman Patrick Leahy
    Question. Given the administration's priority of taking care of our 
people, and the important role that unit cohesion plays in improving 
readiness, it's crucial that the Air Force take a fresh look at 
policies and practices that may not support all servicemembers. To that 
end, please outline what changes, if any, the Air Force has made, is 
making, plans to make, or is considering in order to:

  --Improve diversity in leadership positions
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.

  --Improve diversity retention at all levels
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.

  --Improve trainings, including sexual assault prevention, with input 
        from women, LGBTQ servicemembers, BIPOC servicemembers, and 
        sexual assault survivors
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.

  --Increase availability and accessibility of mental health support 
        services for servicemembers and their families, including 
        services tailored specifically toward minority servicemembers
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.

  --Improve outreach to and support for minority servicemembers facing 
        discrimination from within their units
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.

  --Improve medical care for transgender servicemembers, women, and 
        Black parents, particularly for transition care, pregnancy, and 
        post-partum care
    Answer. I Defer to Department of the Air Force to provide 
appropriate response.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
    Question. Would arming our Virginia-Class attack submarines with 
nuclear cruise missiles reduce the number of conventional missiles each 
boat can carry? How would this impact our conventional deterrence in 
key theaters like the Asia-Pacific and the Tomahawk strike capabilities 
of our attack submarines?
    Answer. As you know, the President's budget for FY23 did not 
include funding for the nuclear-armed sea launched cruise missile.
    That said, if at some point in the future we chose to develop and 
deploy nuclear cruise missiles on our Virginia-Class attack submarines, 
that would indeed reduce the number of conventional missiles each boat 
can carry, depending on the concept of operations for employing such a 
system. Again, development of a specific concept of operation would 
account for the tradeoff between conventional deterrence and nuclear 
deterrence in key theaters like the Asia-Pacific.
    Question. How would deploying nuclear-armed cruise missiles on Navy 
vessels impact the Navy's ability to conduct allied port calls with 
such vessels?
    Answer. The President's budget for FY23 did not fund the nuclear-
armed sea launched cruise missile.
    That said, the impact on the ability of Navy vessels to conduct 
allied port calls if, in the future, we chose to deploy nuclear-armed 
cruise missiles on such vessels would depend on the specific concept of 
operations. It would also depend on allied policy regarding such port 
calls and U.S. policy regarding confirming or denying the presence of 
nuclear weapons on U.S. Naval vessels.
    Question. In its 2021 report on nuclear weapons spending, the CBO 
projected that developing the SLCM and its warhead over the 2021-2030 
period will cost approximately $10 billion. This projection does not 
include the costs for integrating the capability onto Navy vessels. In 
addition to the cost to acquire the missile and warhead, would there be 
additional certification, security, storage, and operational costs to 
deploy the capability?
    Answer. CBO's cost projection was based on development of the Long-
Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) and its associated warhead. Additional 
funding would be required for certification, security, storage, and 
operational costs to deploy. Based off the LRSO design, some 
modifications to existing Navy vessel launch and control systems may be 
required as well. The Department completed a classified Nuclear Sea 
Launched Cruise Missile (SLCM-N) Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) effort 
which evaluated the total life cycle costs associated with various 
implementations. This evaluation included: weapon development, warhead 
integration, launch platform integration, certification, security, 
storage, operations & support, and demilitarization. Other 
implementations may have lower integration costs.
                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
    General Milley, you testified to our House counterparts in response 
to a specific question regarding maintaining a technological advantage 
that we are facing a rapid developmental convergence of an assortment 
of technologies including hypersonic weapons. You also said that ``if 
we do not put a lot of money towards developing [hypersonic weapons] to 
a level of capability to deploy the joint force, we will be at a 
significant disadvantage to those countries that do develop them.''
    Question. Where do we see the biggest infrastructure or support 
challenges in developing our race to develop these weapons?
    Answer. There are three primary infrastructure and support 
challenges in accelerating the development and fielding of hypersonics 
weapons.
  --Industrial base capability and capacity readiness for production
  --Workforce development to meet the accelerated demand
  --Test & Evaluation capability and capacity to meet future demand.
    The Department is working with the industrial base to increase 
capability and capacity to rapidly and affordably manufacture 
hypersonic weapons in volume.
    The Department is working through the University Consortium of 
Applied Hypersonics to accelerate hypersonic science development and 
enhance capabilities of future hypersonic systems while growing the 
research workforce we need for the future.
    Question. What is our current capacity to test hypersonic weapons 
and where are we doing so?
    Answer. The Department's hypersonic test enterprise relies on 
national infrastructure and encompasses assets in all critical test 
disciplines.
    Critical wind tunnels and multiple open-air ranges exist in several 
DoD-, 
NASA-, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers/University 
Affiliated Research Center, and commercially-owned test centers and 
complexes around the country. Smaller university wind tunnels exist in 
many states and account for another 46 wind tunnel capabilities.
    The Department assesses that this infrastructure has the capacity 
to adequately test current hypersonic prototypes.
    Question. How does this budget request support your ability to 
develop and test hypersonic weapons?
    Answer. The Fiscal Year 2022 budget includes funding to accelerate 
the development and transition of hypersonic weapons to enable fielding 
of operational prototypes in quantity from land, sea, and air by the 
mid-2020s.
    The budget includes investments for creating agile, airborne flight 
test capability and operations, and the establishment of additional 
long range flight test corridors increasing flight test throughput and 
operational test capability.
    The budget also includes investments addressing aerodynamic wind 
tunnel, and high temperature material and propulsion test capability 
and capacity needs.
    Question. At a recent budget hearing for the State Department, 
Secretary Blinken told me that, by his own determination, and I quote: 
``the United States would be extremely well served by ratifying the Law 
of the Sea Treaty.'' He even went as far as to say that this is not 
only his opinion, but ``it's been the judgement across the board by our 
military leadership, uniform and civilian for many years.'' Secretary 
Blinken is the latest in a long line of department secretaries to agree 
on this point. I believe that ratifying the Law of the Sea is in the 
best interest of the United States. Along with Senator Hirono, I put 
forward legislation urging the Senate to ratify Law of Sea.
    General Milley, as the uniformed leadership in the Department of 
Defense, do you believe the Senate should ratify the Law of Sea?
    Answer. Like my predecessors, I support accession to the Law of the 
Sea Convention. The Convention reflects customary international law on 
which the United States has long relied for its freedoms of navigation 
and overflight around the world. These rights are vital to our national 
security, and joining the Convention is the best means of placing them 
on a secure footing and maximizing the ability of our armed forces to 
move through and over the world's ocean waters.
    Question. What benefit will it provide to the United States? Would 
we be in a stronger military position if we were to ratify the Law of 
the Sea?
    Answer. Being a party to the Convention enhances the United States' 
security posture by reinforcing freedom of the seas and airspace, as 
well as other rights vital to ensuring our global force posture. The 
Convention provides legal certainty in the world's largest maneuver 
space. Accession would strengthen the legal foundation for our ability 
to transit through international straits and archipelagic waters; 
preserve our right to conduct military activities in international 
airspace and other countries' Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) without 
notice or permission; reaffirm the sovereign immunity of warships; 
reinforce the internationally recognized framework to counter excessive 
maritime claims; and preserve our operations and intelligence-
collection activities. Joining the Convention would also demonstrate 
our commitment to the rule of law, strengthen our credibility among 
those countries that are already party to the Convention, and allow us 
to bring the full force of our influence in challenging excessive 
maritime claims. Finally, it would secure for us a leadership role in 
shaping and influencing future maritime developments.
    Question. And what would you say to those that want to be tough on 
China and Russia, but are still against the ratification of the treaty?
    Answer. Acceding to the Convention would strengthen our credibility 
and strategic position in relation to our global competitors, including 
the PRC and Russia. These countries routinely cite the non-party status 
of the United States when justifying their breech of maritime rules and 
norms.
    The United States, therefore, should do everything it can to 
strengthen its position in these debates, particularly as the PRC 
continues to assert its excessive and unlawful claims, demonstrating 
increasingly coercive behavior in the South China Sea. As widely 
reported, PRC warships, law enforcement vessels, and other PRC-flagged 
vessels have failed to respect the rights of maritime nations under the 
Convention. Russia claims excessive maritime boundaries and 
jurisdiction contrary to international law along its Pacific, Black 
Sea, and Arctic coasts. As a party to the Convention, United States 
objections to these violations of our navigational rights and freedoms 
would have significantly more force and credibility, nullifying false 
claims from these countries that only parties to the Convention may 
enjoy its benefits.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARING

    Chairman Leahy. I thank you two gentlemen. It has been a 
long morning. I know you have other duties, but it has been a 
most informative discussion, your answers to the members of 
both parties, and I appreciate it.
    We stand adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., Thursday, June 17, the hearing 
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.]

                                 [all]