    [Senate Hearing 117-982]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-982

     THE NOMINATION OF FRANK KENDALL III TO BE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
         HEIDI SHYU TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND
         ENGINEERING, AND SUSANNA BLUME TO BE DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT
         AND PROGRAM EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 25, 2021

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

                     [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     Available via: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    62-982 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2026

                          COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                       JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman

    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire		   JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York		   ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut		   DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii			   TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    TIM KAINE, Virginia			   MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
    ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine		   JONI ERNST, Iowa
    ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts		   THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
    GARY C. PETERS, Michigan		   DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia		   KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois		   RICK SCOTT, Florida
    JACKY ROSEN, Nevada			   MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  	   JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
                                         	   TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama

                       Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
                    John D. Wason, Minority Staff Director

                                      (ii)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                    __________

                                  may 25, 2021

                                                                       Page

    The Nomination of Frank Kendall III to be Secretary of the Air        1
      Force, Heidi Shyu to be Under Secretary of Defense for Research
      and Engineering, and Susanna Blume to be Director of Cost
      Assessment and Program Evaluation, Department of Defense.

                               Members Statements

    Reed, Senator Jack...............................................     1

    Inhofe, Senator James M..........................................     3

                               Witness Statements

    Kendall, The Honorable Frank, III, to be Secretary of the Air        10
      Force.

      Advance Policy Questions.......................................    56

      Questions for the Record.......................................    97

      Nomination Reference and Report................................   111

      Biographical Sketch............................................   112

      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................   114

      Signature Page.................................................   126

    Shyu, The Honorable Heidi, to be Under Secretary of Defense for      13
      Research and Engineering.

      Advance Policy Questions.......................................   126

      Questions for the Record.......................................   151

      Nomination Reference and Report................................   157

      Biographical Sketch............................................   158

      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................   162

      Signature Page.................................................   170

    Blume, Susanna V., to be Director of Cost Assessment and Program     16
      Evaluation, Department of Defense.

      Advance Policy Questions.......................................   170

      Questions for the Record.......................................   185

      Nomination Reference and Report................................   191

      Biographical Sketch............................................   192

      Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire......................   194

      Signature Page.................................................   207

                                     (iii)

    THE NOMINATION OF FRANK KENDALL III TO BE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE,
         HEIDI SHYU TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND
         ENGINEERING, AND SUSANNA BLUME TO BE DIRECTOR OF COST ASSESSMENT
         AND PROGRAM EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 25, 2021

                                  United States Senate,
                                   Committee on Armed Services,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in room
    SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Committee Members present: Senators Reed, Shaheen,
    Gillibrand, Blumenthal, Hirono, Kaine, King, Warren, Peters,
    Manchin, Duckworth, Rosen, Kelly, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer,
    Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Tillis, Sullivan, Cramer, Scott,
    Blackburn, Hawley, and Tuberville.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED

        Chairman Reed. Let me call the hearing to order.
        The Committee meets this morning to consider the
    nominations of Mr. Frank Kendall III to be Secretary of the Air
    Force, Ms. Heidi Shyu to be Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering, and Ms. Susanna Blume to be the
    Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation. On behalf
    of the committee, I want to thank each of you for your
    willingness to return to public service.
        Mr. Kendall, I would like to welcome your wife, and also
    know that each of the nominees have additional family members
    who have liked to have been here this morning but because of
    the pandemic restrictions they are watching from home. So we
    thank them all for the continuous support that they have given
    to you as you continue to serve the Nation.
        I thank former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter for joining
    us today via Webex. He will introduce both Mr. Kendall and Ms.
    Shyu, and I also thank former Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob
    Work, who will introduce Ms. Blume this morning via Webex.
        As we consider Mr. Kendall's nomination, I note that he has
    a wealth of experience in aerospace and defense policy spanning
    several decades, including his most recent role in government
    as Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
    Logistics in the Obama administration.
        Mr. Kendall, if confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force,
    you will lead the service during a major transformation as we
    strengthen our ability to deal with near-peer competitors. In
    addition to balancing the size and modernization of the Air
    Force, you must also continue to implement guidance
    establishing a Space Force.
        After two decades of high operating tempo and continuous
    overseas deployments, readiness remains a challenge. The next
    Secretary's efforts in improving the force structure and
    supporting our airmen will be crucial. The Air Force is on the
    threshold of modernizing several critical capabilities,
    including the bomber force, the ground-based intercontinental
    ballistic missile force, and the Advanced Battle Management
    System program. But modernization can only be successful if the
    Air Force retires legacy platforms. Force structure
    realignments and the divestment of certain platforms have long
    been among the most contentious issues facing this committee
    and the Congress, and there are near-term risks as we balance
    modernization against size. However, the number of aircraft we
    buy does not necessarily represent the service's readiness.
        Mr. Kendall, I would ask that you share with the committee
    this morning how you would plan to address all of these
    challenges.
        Ms. Shyu, you have had a distinguished career at the
    junction of cutting-edge technology and defense policy, serving
    most recently in government as the Assistant Secretary of the
    Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology. If confirmed as
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, you
    will be responsible for managing the Department's investments
    in key modernization priorities outlined in the National
    Defense Strategy, such as quantum computing, hypersonics,
    biotechnology, and microelectronics.
        In order to maintain our technological lead over China and
    Russia in these technology areas, there are several pressing
    challenges that you will need to address. First, you will need
    to advocate for investments in modernization programs while the
    Department works through many near-term development and
    readiness issues. Which will require close working
    relationships with the Under Secretary for Acquisition and
    Sustainment and the Services, relationships that were strained
    during the previous Administration. You must also establish
    appropriate protections to mitigate undue foreign influence in
    our universities and defense contractors. Balancing the control
    of information related to defense technologies, while embracing
    the open innovation that has been the engine of scientific and
    technological progress.
        Perhaps most importantly, you will be charged with
    overcoming the Pentagon's so-called ``Valley of Death,''
    ensuring that the Department is able to turn research
    innovations into real operational capabilities. This will
    require strengthening connections between research and
    engineering activities and the Service acquisition programs and
    defense prime contractors. It will also include investing in,
    and protecting, the people and infrastructure at organizations
    like DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], the
    Defense labs, and test ranges.
        Ms. Shyu, this is a position created by this committee,
    reflecting our acknowledgment that effective high-level
    leadership is needed to guide DOD's critical modernization
    activities. I hope you will share your views on your role
    regarding these challenges at this important moment for the
    Department of Defense.
        Ms. Blume, if confirmed as Director of Cost Assessment and
    Program Evaluation (CAPE), you will provide independent
    analytic advice on all aspects of defense programs, including
    alternative weapon systems and force structures, evaluation of
    defense programs' performance, and the cost-effectiveness of
    defense systems. Your many years of analytical experience at
    the Defense Department and, most recently, the Center for a New
    American Security, will serve you well in this role.
        Like the other nominees present today, you will face
    considerable challenges. In the near term, you will need to
    work with the Congress to improve the quality and timeliness of
    reporting critical data on acquisition programs. Hopefully, you
    can work to establish new, streamlined methods for data sharing
    that reduce bureaucratic burdens and allows Congress to play
    its important role of oversight.
        In the longer term, CAPE will need to improve the ability
    to estimate operation and sustainment costs for major weapons
    programs, which represents the lion's share of costs for these
    systems. You will also need to work with the Comptroller and
    other officials to develop ways for accurately estimating and
    reporting on the growing slice of the Pentagon's budget spent
    on contracting for services.
        Further, you will be responsible for balancing the need for
    rigorous cost estimates with the need to move quickly and use
    tailored acquisition approaches. This will depend on
    strengthening DOD's workforce and capacity for conducting
    independent, rigorous, and objective cost and schedule
    estimates, and assessments of program risk, based on solid
    analytic methods, tools, and data.
        These challenges will require thoughtful, resolute
    leadership. Ms. Blume, I would ask that you share with the
    Committee how you would plan to deal with these issues.
        Thank you, again, to our nominees. I look forward to your
    testimonies.
        Now let me now recognize Ranking Member Inhofe.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES INHOFE

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are glad to
    have our witnesses back here and for being with and their
    willingness to serve the nation, again. Each one of the
    witnesses today has been, at least a second time serving.
        Our nation's top military and intelligence leaders have
    told this committee that right now our country is in the most
    dangerous situation that we have been in, and I agree with
    that.
        The 2018 National Defense Strategy provides a roadmap to
    deal with these security challenges, and that is why this
    committee's top priority has been ensuring we effectively
    implement it.
        We have a daunting set of challenges in the areas that you
    would be overseeing, and the threat is not a 2040 timetable. It
    is now, and we are behind.
        Insufficient and uncertain funding has hamstrung our
    military for years. We must do a better job of resourcing the
    strategy, improving our ability to make decisions quickly, and
    invest in the right capabilities to keep up with China and
    Russia.
        We certainly need to accelerate our invention and adoption
    of advanced technologies, from hypersonic weapons, to
    biotechnologies and quantum computing.
        The National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence
    (AI) told us the Chinese will dominate us, as soon as 2025, if
    we do not change course. 2025 is also when our combatant
    commanders tell us the Chinese will have more fifth-generation
    stealth fighters on the front line than we do. Our days of
    airpower dominance are long gone. We have got a lot of work to
    do. If confirmed, you would have the honor of supporting a team
    of Americans who represent everything that is noble and best in
    our nation.
        Our servicemembers and our military families do everything
    we ask of them and more. They deserve strong civilian
    leadership that I hope you will provide this. I am sure that
    you will, and I am very excited about all three of you in these
    positions.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
        Just a note for my colleagues. If we have a quorum I will,
    at an appropriate time, ask for the consideration of nominees
    that are pending for a vote.
        But at this time I am honored to be able to recognize and
    introduce former Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, for
    introduction of Mr. Kendall and Ms. Shyu. Mr. Secretary,
    please.
        Mr. Carter. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Inhofe, distinguished members of the Armed Services Committee.
    I am so pleased to see you all. I miss each and every one of
    you.
        I am honored to introduce the President's nominee for
    Secretary of the Air Force, Frank Kendall, and his nominee for
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, Heidi
    Shyu.
        I first got to know Frank Kendall in the early 1980s, in
    Huntsville, Alabama, where we were both working on ballistic
    missile defense systems, Frank for the Army and I for Secretary
    Weinberger, and then-President Reagan's Arms Control
    Negotiator, Paul Nitze. I saw immediately that Frank was a
    superb program manager, a superb systems engineer, and a superb
    military leader.
        In the years after, we both did work in industry, I some
    finance and academic, and Frank some law. We stayed in touch
    and both involved in defense.
        So when I became Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics I asked that Frank
    become my principal deputy, and then to take my place as Under
    Secretary when I was Deputy Secretary of Defense.
        During all these years, Frank skillfully managed some
    tricky and troubled existing weapons programs while starting
    new programs, including classified ones in full, and I should
    say very early, recognition of the need to redirect strategy
    and innovation to keep our edge against high-end competitors
    like China.
        The duties of the Air Force Secretary are much broader than
    those of Under Secretary for AT&L, and Frank has demonstrated
    all of the characteristics needed for that job. His handling of
    the Acquisition Workforce Initiative emanating from this
    committee is one example; and the heart--the heart Frank put
    into urgent support for troops on the battlefield in Iraq and
    Afghanistan another; of the care Frank would show for airmen
    and their families.
        With his strong experience with defense and national space
    programs, Frank would also be able to fulfill the vision for
    our new Space Force, to fully integrate at least space systems
    into military operations.
        I hope the Committee will give Frank its favorable support.
        Heidi Shyu also worked closely with me for years as the
    Army Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics leader, and she is
    now the President's nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering. Heidi is an accomplished and deeply
    respected engineer in her own right. In addition to her
    government experience, Heidi has had a successful career in
    industry, at senior levels over a wide range of technologies.
        Every one of the Services has its own unique acquisition
    and technology needs, and I can that Heidi worked very strongly
    on behalf of the Army mission and leadership, which had some
    understandable frustrations with its acquisition system. She
    was a great help and a great success.
        Now the defense technology system function best when the
    Services and the Secretary of Defense's Office work well
    together in mutual support. Heidi's experience with the Army
    proved that she will be able to ensure a strong common effort.
        A second critical ingredient of the defense technology
    effort is effective linkages and bridges between the outside
    tech sector in industry and the inside of the Pentagon.
    America's secret sauce in the competition, China's communist
    statism, is a set of independent outside research, training,
    industry, and investment communities, all with a strong
    coupling to DOD's in-house research and engineering
    infrastructure. Above all, a respectful relationship between
    tech and the military. As a recognition in tech that all the
    freedom and prosperity that the private sector enjoys depends,
    in the end, on the security provided by DOD.
        The respect that Heidi possesses in the tech community
    guarantees such linkages, and that as a consequence, the U.S.
    military remains, as one of our former Presidents used to say,
    ``the firstest with the mostest.''
        Frank, Heidi, and I worked side by side with Lloyd Austin,
    now our Secretary of Defense, and Kath Hicks, now our Deputy
    Secretary, so I am confident theirs will be a strong team. I
    give them my highest recommendation for your consideration.
        Once again, it is nice to be with you, and I look forward
    to the opportunity to visit with you all in person in your
    office someday soon.
        Chairman Reed. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary,
    not only for the introduction but for your distinguished
    service to the Nation.
        Now it is another pleasure to be able to recognize former
    Deputy Secretary of Defense, Bob Work, to introduce Ms. Bloom.
    Mr. Secretary?
        Mr. Work. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe,
    and distinguished Members of the Committee. It is always an
    absolute honor to appear before the SASC [Senate Armed Services
    Committee], but today I am doubly honored to introduce to you,
    and enthusiastically commend and endorse the Biden
    administration's nomination to be the Pentagon's next Director
    of the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Ms.
    Susanna V. Blume.
        As you all know, Congress created CAPE as well as the
    position of Director in the Weapons System Acquisition Reform
    Act of 2009. It assigned CAPE the mission to provide the
    Secretary and the Department with timely, insightful, and
    unbiased analysis on resource allocation and cost estimation
    problems. CAPE's ultimate role is to deliver the optimal
    portfolio of Department of Defense military capabilities,
    through the most efficient and effective use of each taxpayer
    dollar. In my judgment, there is absolutely no one more
    qualified to fill this vital role than Susanna Blume.
        I first met Susanna when I was the Under Secretary of the
    Navy in the first Obama administration. As part of the Defense
    Policy Review Initiative, at that time the Department was in
    delicate negotiations with the government of Japan as well as
    the Governor of Guam to move marines off of Okinawa to Guam.
    The DPRI was extraordinarily sensitive and expensive. Then-
    Chairman Carl Levin and late Ranking Member John McCain took a
    personal interest in these negotiations and were, shall I say,
    quite energetic in their oversight. My backside still has the
    calluses to prove it.
        At the time, Ms. Blume worked for now-Deputy Secretary of
    Defense Kathleen Hicks, who oversaw the DPRI for the Under
    Secretary for Policy, who coordinated action between OSD and
    the Department of the Navy. Susanna impressed me from the first
    moment I saw her in action. It was obvious she was an
    absolutely superb analyst. She came to meetings armed with
    facts and figures, and she was determined to get the move of
    marines from Okinawa to Guam right. She had an absolute knack
    for working from high-level strategy through operational
    alternatives to the discrete budget details. She was cool,
    confident, articulate, and, I would have to say, she utterly
    laid waste to anyone who came to meetings unprepared. As a
    marine, I recognized and admired her warrior spirit, and I
    vowed to myself to steal her from Policy and get her on my
    staff as soon as I possibly could.
        As it turned out, I ultimately succeeded in getting her on
    my staff, but it was not until I became the Deputy Secretary of
    Defense, and the Under Secretary for Policy could no longer
    fight me off. I knew exactly where Susanna's talents would best
    fit on my staff, and I made her my Deputy Chief of Staff for
    Program and Plans. As such, for 3 years she worked with CAPE to
    help shape the defense program envisioned first by Secretary
    Chuck Hagel, then Secretary Ash Carter, and finally Secretary
    James Mattis. She oversaw and managed the Deputy's Management
    Action Group (DMAG), the organization that made all final
    program recommendations to the Secretary of Defense. By the
    time I left the Department there were few people who understood
    better the confluence of strategy, program, and budget than
    Susanna Blume.
        Susanna herself left government service and joined the
    Center for a New American Security in August of 2017. There she
    quickly rose to the position of Director of the Center's
    Defense Program. In this role, she authored reports on the link
    between strategy and resources, the optimization of the DOD
    program for great power competition, and how to make the
    planning, programming, budgeting, and execution process work
    better. When I heard that President Biden had nominated her to
    be director of CAPE, I was not surprised. She was literally
    made for the role.
        Before I close there is one last thing I would like to
    note. Everyone knows the director of CAPE needs to be a
    hardcore analyst, but not everyone comprehends the director's
    heavy responsibility for independent cost estimates, upon which
    the fate of programs often hinge. Those who disagree with ICE,
    be they program managers, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
    Service Chiefs and Secretaries, and even Members of Congress
    and their staffs exert pressure on the director to modify it.
    Directors, therefore, have to have the moral courage to stand
    their ground and speak truth to power, and Susanna has moral
    courage to spare. She is not one to bend in a strong breeze.
    You can all be assured she will always say what she means and
    mean what she says.
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished Members
    of the Committee, I urge you to confirm Ms. Blume as the
    director of CAPE. You simply will never find a more dedicated,
    talented, and capable candidate.
        Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for affording me the
    privilege of introducing this remarkable lady to you.
        Chairman Reed. Well, thank you very much, Secretary Work,
    not only for your introduction but also for your extraordinary
    service to the nation.
        Since a quorum is now present, before I introduce the
    witnesses, I ask the Committee to consider one civilian
    nomination and a list of 3,438 pending military nominations.
    First, I ask the Committee to consider the nomination of the
    Honorable Christine E. Wormuth to be Secretary of the Army.
        Is there a motion to favorably report Ms. Wormuth's
    nomination to the Senate?
        Voice. So moved.
        Chairman Reed. Is there a second?
        All in favor?
        All opposed?
        The ayes have it. The motion carries.
        Finally, I ask the Committee to consider a list of 3,438
    pending military nominations. Included in this list is the
    nomination of General Paul J. LaCamera, U.S. Army, to be
    Commander of the United Nations Command, Combined Forces
    Command, and United States Forces Korea. Of these nominations,
    one nomination is one day short of the committee's requirement
    that nominations be in committee for 7 days before we report
    them out. No objection has been raised to this nomination and I
    recommend the committee waive the 7-day rule in order to permit
    the confirmation of the nomination of this officer before the
    Senate recesses for the Memorial Day recess.
        Is there a motion to favorably report this list of 3,438
    pending military nominations to the Senate?
        Voice. Motion.
        Chairman Reed. Is there a second?
        Voice. Second.
        Chairman Reed. All in favor say aye, please.
        The motion carries. Thank you very much.

        [The list of nominations considered and approved by the
    Committee follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Does anyone wish to comment, or, Senator Cramer, do you
    have a comment?
        Senator Cramer. I do, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I would just
    like to be recorded as abstaining on the Wormuth nomination.
        Chairman Reed. So moved. Your abstention will be noted in
    the record. Thank you, Senator Cramer.
        Now let me call on Mr. Kendall for his opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANK KENDALL III, TO BE SECRETARY
                            OF THE AIR FORCE

        Mr. Kendall. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe,
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee to be
    Secretary of the Department of the Air Force. I am honored and
    humbled to have this opportunity. I would like to thank
    President Biden and Secretary Austin for having the confidence
    in me to forward my nomination for this position.
        I am joined today by my spouse, Beth Halpern. I want to
    specifically thank Beth for her love and support. When I
    returned to government in 2010, Beth and I had been married for
    6 years and she had no idea what she was getting into. This
    time is different, and I am especially grateful for her support
    in what we both know will be a challenging role should I be
    confirmed.
        I would also like to acknowledge my 6-year-old son, James,
    who is quite excited about his dad potentially having something
    to do with the Space Force. James is a big Star Wars fan, and
    his reaction when being told about his dad's possible new job
    was, ``Dad, there is really a Space Force?'' There certainly is
    a Space Force, and it is a critical contributor to our national
    security. If confirmed, I will be honored to have a role in
    making it a success.
        I would also like to acknowledge my grown-up sons, Scott
    and Eric, who have supported me throughout my career. I am very
    proud of them and of their wives, Amy and Jennifer, and of my
    five grandchildren, who, in alphabetical order, are Caroline,
    Mackenzie, Madison, Holden, and Jackson.
        I would like to briefly outline for the committee my
    reasons for seeking one more chapter in a long career of public
    service, and also to lay out some of my priorities, if this
    Committee and the Senate see fit to confirm my nomination.
        My career in national security started with a year of ROTC
    followed by attendance at West Point, all during the war in
    Vietnam. I spent ten years on Active Duty at the height of the
    Cold War, including serving in West Germany commanding an air
    defense unit assigned to the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force.
    As a civil servant, I served in engineering positions and
    program management oversight roles, first for missile defense
    and then for all of Department of Defense tactical warfare
    programs. For over a decade I worked to ensure that America had
    the necessary weapons to deter and defeat a peer competitor,
    the Soviet Union. I was still in this role during the First
    Gulf War, when we demonstrated to the world how much
    conventional military dominance the United States had achieved.
        I then spent about 15 years working in the defense industry
    before returning to the Pentagon in 2010. It was in 2010 that I
    discovered how much our potential adversaries had advanced
    their own capabilities. China had studied our success in the
    First Gulf War and had embarked on an ambitious military
    modernization program with the clear goal to defeat the ability
    of the United State to project power near China. Russia was
    also modernizing its forces and had increased its emphasis on
    tactical nuclear weapons.
        We have made progress against these threats, and our
    adversaries should never doubt the United States, but there is
    much still to be done. My hope is that, if confirmed, I will be
    able to lead the Department of the Air Force in organizing,
    training, and equipping our Nation's Air and Space Forces so
    that the United States can continue to deter, and if necessary,
    fight and win, against all adversaries.
        If confirmed, my priorities would be straightforward and
    mirror precisely those articulated by Secretary of Defense
    Austin as they apply to the Department of the Air Force: taking
    care of our people, mission performance, and building teams.
    Our military is people first and foremost. The Air and Space
    Forces are not just equipment and concepts of operation. At its
    heart, they are the people who operate, create, and support
    those things. We have to do everything we can to ensure that
    our people have the training, the equipment, and the support
    they need to do their jobs, and we have to ensure that they can
    do those jobs in an environment that treats everyone with
    dignity and respect and maximizes their potential to grow and
    to serve the nation.
        With regard to mission performance, I believe the range and
    severity of the threats that we face, and will face, the rapid
    pace of technological innovation, and the need to rapidly
    harness that technology in new operational concepts demands a
    sense of urgency and a laser-like focus on getting our choices
    right.
        Finally, teamwork is critical, and it covers a lot of
    territory. Every member of a military family, every member of
    the Total Force, Active, Guard and Reserve, the civil servants,
    and the industry that supports our military are all part of the
    team. America has an enormous strategic asset in our alliances
    and partnerships, and one of the key roles of our armed forces
    is to support American diplomacy.
        If I am confirmed, and with your help, I hope to move the
    Department of the Air Force forward in each of these areas.
    They are strongly interdependent and all our essential for our
    success.
        I look forward to your questions and thank you again.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kendall follows:]

                      Prepared Statement by Frank Kendall
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as the nominee
    to be Secretary of the Department of the Air Force. I am honored and
    humbled to have this opportunity. I'd like to think President Biden and
    Secretary Austin for having the confidence in me to forward my
    nomination for this position.
        I'm joined today by my spouse, Beth Halpern and my niece, Sophie
    Kendall. I want to specifically thank Beth for her love and support.
    When I returned to government in 2010, Beth and I had been married for
    six years and she had no idea what she was getting into. This time is
    different, and I am especially grateful for her support in what we both
    know will be a challenging role should I be confirmed. I'd also like to
    acknowledge my six-year-old son James, who is quite excited about his
    Dad potentially having something to do with the Space Force. James is a
    big Star Wars fan, and his reaction when being told about his Dad's
    possible new job was ``There's really a Space Force?'' There certainly
    is a Space Force, and it is a critical contributor to our national
    security. If confirmed, I'll be honored to have a role in making it a
    success. I'd also like to acknowledge my grown up sons Scott and Eric,
    who have supported me throughout my career. I'm very proud of them and
    of their wives Amy and Jennifer and of my five grandchildren; in
    alphabetical order--Caroline, Mackenzie, Madison, Holden, and Jackson.
        I'd like to briefly outline for the committee my reasons for
    seeking one more chapter in a long career of public service, and also
    to lay out some of my priorities, if this Committee and the Senate see
    fit to confirm my nomination. My career in national security started
    with a year of ROTC followed by attendance at West Point, all during
    the war in Vietnam. I spent ten years on Active Duty at the height of
    the Cold War, including serving in West Germany commanding an air
    defense unit assigned to the Fourth Allied Tactical Air Force. As a
    civil servant, I served in engineering positions and program management
    oversight roles, first for missile defense and then for all DOD
    tactical warfare programs. For over a decade I worked to ensure that
    America had the necessary weapons to deter and defeat a peer
    competitor--the Soviet Union. I was still in this role during the First
    Gulf War, when we demonstrated to the world how much conventional
    military dominance the US had achieved. I then spent about 15 years
    working in the defense industry before returning to the Pentagon in
    2010. It was in 2010 that I discovered how much our potential
    adversaries had advanced their capabilities. China had studied our
    success in the First Gulf War and had embarked on an ambitious military
    modernization program with the clear goal to defeat the ability of the
    United State to project power near China. Russia was also modernizing
    its forces and had increased its emphasis on tactical nuclear weapons.
    We have made progress against these threats, and our adversaries should
    never doubt the United States. But there is much still to be done. My
    hope is that, if confirmed, I will be able to lead the Department of
    the Air Force in organizing, training, and equipping our Nation's Air
    and Space Forces so that the United States can continue to deter, and
    if necessary, fight and win, against all adversaries. If confirmed, my
    priorities would be straightforward and mirror precisely those
    articulated by Secretary of Defense Austin as they apply to the
    Department of the Air Force; taking care of our people, mission
    performance, and building teams. Our military is people first and
    foremost. The Air and Space Forces aren't just equipment and concepts
    of operation. At its heart, they are the people who operate, create,
    and support those things. We have to do everything we can to ensure
    that our people have the training, the equipment, and the support they
    need to do their jobs, and we have to ensure that they can do those
    jobs in an environment that treats everyone with dignity and respect
    and maximizes their potential to grow and serve the nation. With regard
    to mission performance, I believe the range and severity of the threats
    that we face and will face, the rapid pace of technological innovation,
    and the need to rapidly harness that technology in new operational
    concepts demands a sense of urgency and a laser like focus on getting
    our choices right. Finally, teamwork is critical, and it covers a lot
    of territory. Every member of a military family, every member of the
    Total Force, Active, Guard and Reserve, the civil servants, and the
    industry that supports our military are all part of the team. America
    has an enormous strategic asset in our alliances and partnerships and
    one of the key roles of our armed forces is to support American
    diplomacy.
        If I am confirmed, and with your help, I hope to move the
    Department of the Air Force forward in each of these areas. They are
    strongly interdependent and all our essential for our success. I look
    forward to your questions and thank you again.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Mr. Kendall. Ms. Shyu, please.

    STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HEIDI SHYU, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF
                  DEFENSE FOR RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING

        Ms. Shyu. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Senator Inhofe, and
    distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the honor
    to appear before you today. I would like to thank President
    Biden and Secretary Austin for nominating me to the position of
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
    and this Committee for considering my nomination.
        My grandfather, a World War II-era Air Force squadron
    commander, had the great opportunity to come to the United
    States for 2 years of training. To this day, I remember him
    saying how much he appreciated the generosity of the Americans.
    My late grandmother, who passed away at the age of 103, told
    me, ``Don't stop working, and make something of yourself.''
    Both of them were my guiding light.
        I came to this country at the age of 11\1/2\ from Taiwan,
    and I am extraordinary grateful for the tremendous
    opportunities that I have had in my career. In 2012, I had the
    honor and privilege to be confirmed as the Assistant Secretary
    of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. In my 5
    years in the Pentagon, I had the fortune to work with
    tremendously dedicated military and civilian personnel and with
    patriotic contractors across the U.S. This was an experience of
    a lifetime that I will treasure forever.
        Today, I am honored to be considered for the position of
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The
    mission of furthering science, technology, and innovation
    across the Department of Defense could not be more important
    than it is today. As Secretary Austin has stated, China is the
    pacing threat for the United States military, and the
    challenges facing our military are both diverse and complex,
    ranging from sophisticated cyberattacks, to supply chain risks,
    to hypersonic missiles, to biothreats. To address these
    challenges, the Department must harness our Nation's incredible
    innovation to stay ahead of our adversaries.
        Thankfully, there is no shortage of innovation. As a
    Nation, we are able solve incredibly tough problems by working
    collaboratively towards a common cause. DOD can collaborate
    more strongly with our allies and partners to share insights
    and lessons learned from our combined exercises and
    experiments. DOD can also work more closely with the commercial
    and defense industries, as well as its ecosystem of
    universities, Government labs, Federally funded research and
    development centers, and university-affiliated research
    centers. By working collaboratively, DOD can address our
    Nation's toughest challenges.
        When collaborating with the commercial sector in
    particular, DOD should leverage the commercial sector's
    tremendous investments in research and development and
    accelerate DOD's ability to incorporate innovative, commercial
    technologies. Inside the Department, DOD should avoid
    duplicating private sector research and focus its investments
    on the innovative technologies that DOD uniquely needs but that
    the commercial sector is not developing on its own.
        DOD should also take steps to change its internal
    investment strategy. Today, sustainment makes up 70 percent of
    total weapon system cost, with development and procurement
    making up only 30 percent. DOD should strive to flip this ratio
    and invest more in the development of new technologies than it
    does in the sustainment of legacy systems.
        To begin changing this ratio, I believe that several core
    principles should guide DOD's pivot towards modernization. For
    example, DOD should prioritize investments in emerging
    technologies and capabilities such as artificial intelligences,
    hypersonics, and synthetic biology; create networked systems-
    of-systems that collect and share information securely, and are
    robust against cyber and electronic warfare threats; reduce the
    military's logistics footprint by developing advanced materials
    and increasing fuel efficiency; design secure, robust, and
    upgradable software; and widen the pipeline of STEM [Science,
    Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] talent and ensure that
    the talent is diverse.
        Where shifting away from legacy platforms is challenging,
    DOD should look for opportunities to insert the innovative
    technologies by leveraging modular open architectures and
    standard interfaces. Going forward, DOD should shift away from
    its traditional linear system development process and adopt a
    nimbler approach to iteratively design, test, and fix systems.
    By leveraging rapid prototyping, collecting user feedback from
    testing, incorporating that feedback into digital redesigns,
    and utilizing advanced manufacturing, DOD can shorten system
    cycle times, field capabilities more rapidly, and deliver the
    military advantage that this Nation needs. Flexible contracting
    approaches will be critical to ensure this approach and, if
    confirmed, I look forward to addressing these issues
    collectively with the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Acquisition and Sustainment.
        Again, collaboration, across DOD, the private sector, and
    with allies and partners, is what is required to address the
    tough technical challenges that are facing our military and
    this Nation. Should I be confirmed, it would be a tremendous
    honor and privilege to again serve our Nation at the Department
    of Defense and to shape the Department's research and
    engineering, ensuring that our warfighters are the best
    equipped and second to none. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Shyu follows:]

                   Prepared Statement by Honorable Heidi Shyu
        Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Senator Inhofe, and Distinguished
    Members of the Committee, thank you for the honor to appear before you
    today. I would like to thank President Biden and Secretary Austin for
    nominating me to the position of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering, and this Committee for considering my
    nomination.
        My grandfather, a WWII-era Air Force squadron commander, had the
    great opportunity to come to the United States for two years of
    training. To this day, I remember him saying how much he appreciated
    the generosity of the Americans. My late grandmother who passed away at
    the age of 103, told me ``don't stop working and make something of
    yourself.'' Both of them were my guiding light.
        I came to this country at the age of eleven and half from Taiwan
    and I am extraordinary grateful for the tremendous opportunities that I
    have had in my career. In 2012, I had the honor and privilege to be
    confirmed as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition,
    Logistics, and Technology. In my five years in the Pentagon, I had the
    fortune to work with tremendously dedicated military and civilian
    personnel and with patriotic contractors across the U.S. This was an
    experience of a life time that I will treasure forever.
        Today, I am honored to be considered for the position of Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering. The mission of
    furthering science, technology, and innovation across the Department of
    Defense could not be more important than it is today. As Secretary
    Austin has stated, China is the pacing threat for the U.S. military and
    the challenges facing our military are both diverse and complex,
    ranging from sophisticated cyber-attacks, to supply chain risks, to
    hypersonic missiles, to bio-threats. To address these challenges, the
    Department must harness our Nation's incredible innovation to stay
    ahead of our adversaries.
        Thankfully, there is no shortage of innovation. As a Nation, we are
    able solve incredibly tough problems by working collaboratively towards
    a common cause. DOD can collaborate more strongly with our Allies and
    partners to share insights and lessons-learned from our combined
    exercises and experiments. DOD can also work more closely with the
    commercial and defense industries, as well as its ecosystem of
    universities, Government labs, Federally funded research and
    development centers (FFRDCs), and university affiliated research
    centers (UARCs). By working collaboratively, DOD can address our
    Nation's toughest challenges.
        When collaborating with the commercial sector in particular, DOD
    should leverage the commercial sector's tremendous investments in
    research and development and accelerate DOD's ability to incorporate
    innovative, commercial technologies. Inside the Department, DOD should
    avoid replicating private sector research and should focus its
    investments on the innovative technologies that DOD uniquely needs but
    that the commercial sector is not developing on its own.
        DOD should also take steps to change its internal investment
    strategy. Today, sustainment makes up 70% of total weapon system cost,
    with development and procurement making up 30%. DOD should strive to
    flip this ratio and invest more in the development of new technologies
    than it does in the sustainment of legacy systems. To begin changing
    this ratio, I believe that several core principles should guide DOD's
    pivot towards modernization. For example, DOD should:
          Prioritize investments in emerging technologies and
    capabilities such as artificial intelligences, hypersonics, and
    synthetic biology;
          Create networked systems-of-systems that collect and
    share information securely, and are robust against cyber and electronic
    warfare threats;
          Reduce the military's logistics footprint by developing
    advanced materials and increasing fuel efficiency;
          Design secure, robust, and upgradable software; and
          Widen the pipeline of STEM talent and ensure that talent
    is diverse.
        Where shifting away from legacy platforms is challenging, DOD
    should look for opportunities to insert the innovative technologies by
    leveraging modular open architectures and standard interfaces. Going
    forward, DOD should shift away from its traditional linear system
    development process and adopt a nimbler approach to iteratively design,
    test, and fix systems. By leveraging rapid prototyping, collecting user
    feedback from testing, incorporating that feedback into digital
    redesigns, and utilizing advanced manufacturing, DOD can shorten system
    cycle times, field capabilities more rapidly, and deliver the military
    advantage that this Nation needs. Flexible contracting approaches will
    be critical to enabling this approach and, if confirmed, I look forward
    to addressing contracting issues collaboratively with the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
        Again, collaboration--across DOD, the private sector, and with
    allies and partners--is what is required to address the tough technical
    challenges that are facing our military and the Nation. Should I be
    confirmed, it would be a tremendous honor and privilege to again serve
    our Nation at the Department of Defense and to shape the Department's
    research and engineering, ensuring that our warfighters are the best
    equipped and second to none. Thank you.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Ms. Shyu. Ms. Blume, please.

         STATEMENT OF SUSANNA V. BLUME, TO BE DIRECTOR OF COST
        ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Ms. Blume. Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
    Inhofe, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am deeply
    honored to be here before you today as President Biden's
    nominee to be the Department of Defense's Director of Cost
    Assessment and Program Evaluation.
        Thank you for taking the time to consider my nomination,
    and for all that you do for the Department, its people, and our
    nation's security. The bipartisan cooperation this Committee
    demonstrates in tackling the most difficult challenges in
    national defense provides much needed stability in our Nation's
    defense policy, and is a shining example of good governance.
        I would also like to thank President Biden for nominating
    me for this position, and Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary
    Hicks for their confidence in me. Many thanks also to Secretary
    Work for his very kind introduction. It was a privilege and a
    pleasure to work for him, and I learned something new from him
    every day, from how to lead large organizations down to the
    finer points of the history of military innovation.
        Last but not least, I would like to thank my family,
    especially my parents, Karolyn and Peter, who are watching
    today from home in Pennsylvania. Without their unwavering love
    and support, I would not be here before you today.
        I began my career as a civil servant in the Department of
    Defense, and have long understood and appreciated CAPE's role
    supporting the Department's senior leadership in making some of
    the toughest decisions put before them.
        In my time working for then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob
    Work, I saw firsthand how the most senior leaders in the
    Department rely on CAPE for independent assessments grounded in
    rigorous analysis.
        After leaving the Department, I spent 3\1/2\ years at the
    Center for a New American Security, working on ideas for
    improving DOD's decision-making processes and mechanisms to
    drive innovation throughout the Joint Force.
        If confirmed, I look forward to bringing these experiences
    together, continuing CAPE's long and proud tradition of
    rigorous independent analysis, while also pursuing reforms
    necessary to ensure that the U.S. Military remains the world's
    preeminent fighting force well into the future.
        CAPE can serve these goals in three primary ways. The first
    is supporting the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in reviewing
    the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). At its heart, this
    process is about making the defense strategy real, aligning
    resources to reshape the Joint Force in service of the nation's
    strategic objectives.
        The second is the responsibility to produce independent
    cost estimates of the Department's major weapons systems, which
    is a mission Congress tasked this organization with when it
    created CAPE as we know it today.
        Underlying both of these is the heart and soul of CAPE:
    analysis. In addition to cost and programmatic analysis, CAPE
    also produces strategic and operational analysis used to inform
    a wide range of departmental decisions, including development
    of the National Defense Strategy.
        In doing so, CAPE serves the American people by serving the
    warfighter. Ensuring that our soldiers, sailors, airmen,
    marines, guardians, and civilians are appropriately resourced
    to protect American interests against a rising China, a
    revanchist Russia, rogue states, and non-state actors.
        Should the Senate choose to confirm me in this role, it
    would be the honor of a lifetime to lead CAPE's incredibly
    talented and dedicated public servants in this vitally
    important work.
        Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward
    to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Blume follows:]

                     Prepared Statement by Susanna V. Blume
        Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
    distinguished Committee Members. I am deeply honored to be here before
    you today as President Biden's nominee to be the Department of
    Defense's Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation.
        Thank you for taking the time to consider my nomination, and for
    all that you do for the Department, its people, and for our nation's
    security. The bipartisan cooperation this Committee demonstrates in
    tackling the most difficult challenges in national defense provides
    much needed stability in our Nation's defense policy, and is a shining
    example of good governance.
        I would also like to thank President Biden for nominating me for
    this position, and Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks for
    their confidence in me.
        Last but not least, I'd like to thank my family, especially my
    parents Karolyn and Peter, who are watching today from home in
    Pennsylvania. Without their unwavering love and support, I would not be
    here before you today.
        I began my career as a civil servant in the Department of Defense,
    and have long understood and appreciated CAPE's role supporting the
    Department's senior leadership in making some of the toughest decisions
    put before them.
        In my time working for then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, I
    saw first-hand how Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries rely on CAPE for
    frank and independent assessments grounded in rigorous analysis.
        After leaving the Department, I spent three and a half years at the
    Center for a New American Security working on ideas for improving DOD's
    decision making processes and mechanisms to drive innovation throughout
    the Joint Force.
        If confirmed, I look forward to bringing these experiences
    together, continuing CAPE's long and proud tradition of rigorous
    independent analysis while also pursuing reforms necessary to ensure
    that the U.S. Military remains the world's preeminent fighting force
    well into the future.
        CAPE can serve this goal in three primary ways:
        The first is supporting the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in
    reviewing and adjusting the Department's Future Years Defense Program.
    At its heart, this process is about making the defense strategy real,
    aligning resources to reshape the Joint Force in service of the
    nation's strategic objectives.
        The second is the responsibility to produce independent cost
    estimates of the Department's major weapons systems, which is a mission
    Congress tasked the organization with when it created CAPE as we know
    it today.
        Underlying both of these is the heart and soul of CAPE--analysis.
    In addition to cost and programmatic analysis, CAPE also produces
    strategic and operational analysis used to inform a wide range of
    Departmental decisions, including development of the National Defense
    Strategy.
        In performing these functions, CAPE provides leadership across the
    cost, analytic, and programming communities in DOD.
        In doing so, CAPE serves the American people by serving the
    warfighter, ensuring that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines,
    guardians, and civilians are appropriately resourced to protect
    American interests against a rising China, a revanchist Russia, rogue
    states, and non-state actors.
        Should the Senate choose to confirm me in this role, it would be
    the honor of a lifetime to lead CAPE's incredibly talented and
    dedicated public servants in this vitally important work.
        Thank you for considering my nomination, and I look forward to your
    questions.

        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Ms. Blume. Under the
    rules of the committee I must pose certain questions to the
    witnesses. Please respond appropriately.
        Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
    governing conflicts of interest?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Have you assumed any duties or taken any
    actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the
    confirmation process?
        Mr. Kendall. No.
        Ms. Shyu. No.
        Ms. Blume. No.
        Chairman Reed. Exercising our legislative and oversight
    responsibility makes it important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress
    receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and other
    information from the Executive Branch on a timely basis. Do you
    agree, if confirmed, to appear and testify before this
    committee when requested?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Do you agree to provide records, documents,
    and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested
    by this committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and to consult with the requestor
    regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or denial in
    providing such records?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Will you ensure that your staff complies
    with deadlines established by this committee for the production
    of reports, records, and other information, including timely
    responding to hearing questions for the record?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
    and briefers in response to congressional requests?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Will those witnesses and briefers be
    protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you all very much. Now let me assume
    my question period and then recognize the ranking member. Thank
    you all for your testimony.
        Ms. Shyu noted the issue of sustainment costs. Seventy
    percent of the cost of the lifecycle of these systems is made
    up of sustainment, only 30 percent procurement. She responded
    with some suggestions. Starting with Mr. Kendall, what specific
    steps can you suggest that we take to control sustainment
    costs?
        Mr. Kendall. One of the most important things, Mr.
    Chairman, is to invest in the earlier stages of a program, in
    features that will result in lower sustainment costs. The
    design decisions that are made early really reflect downstream,
    and often in programs, if money gets tight up front people cut
    those things out. So having the discipline to do the things
    that are necessary up front to end up with lower sustainment
    costs is critical.
        Chairman Reed. I presume that would require making
    sustainment costs one of the critical factors in developing a
    new system?
        Mr. Kendall. That is exactly right, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you. Ms. Blume, in CAPE you will have
    the responsibility of looking over everyone's shoulder when it
    comes to sustainment costs, so can you give us some ideas?
        Ms. Blume. Yes Senator, Chairman. I share your concerns
    that sustainment costs are a critical issue for the Department
    going forward. It is my understanding that CAPE already has a
    pretty robust effort underway to improve the Department's
    ability to estimate sustainment costs ahead of time. I think
    they got a lot of help from the Congress in the last NDAA in
    this direction as well, some very useful new direction and
    authorities, and if confirmed, I look forward to continuing to
    advance that work.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. The committee has been
    focusing some attention on the Planning, Programming,
    Budgeting, and Execution process, PPBE. It has been with us
    since the 1960s, with Secretary McNamara. It was a model that
    was appropriate for the Industrial Age, but we are in a post-
    Industrial Age.
        Starting with Ms. Shyu, can you give us a sense of your
    view on reforming the PPBE process and any specific changes you
    would suggest?
        Ms. Shyu. Absolutely. I think part of the reason why there
    is a ``Valley of Death'' for technology is because a lot of the
    technology programs are being developed by small companies, and
    once it passes through a certain point, it needs to transition
    into a program of record. Part of the problem is to transition
    into a program of record it has to be in the POM [Program
    Objective Memorandum] ahead of time, and the POM is 2-year
    process. Therefore, unless you had the foresight 2 years ago to
    understand that the technology is going to be mature within 2
    years' time, to plan it into your POM there is a 2-year gap.
        So if you are putting the POM, because now you like this
    particular technology you want to put it in the POM, by the
    time you get the money to buy that technology it is 2 years old
    now. So there is absolutely a gap in terms of our ability to
    buy the latest technology. If confirmed, I would love to be
    able to work internally within the Department, with the
    Services, and come back to Congress with some ideas of how we
    can bridge this ``Valley of Death.''
        Chairman Reed. Thank you. Ms. Blume, your thoughts too.
        Ms. Blume. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share Heidi's
    concerns that the process, as it exists now, is not necessarily
    sufficiently agile to keep pace with the current pace of
    technology development. However, the process also has a lot of
    merits, in that it is very comprehensive, it is inclusive, it
    is transparent within the Department. If confirmed, I would
    look to make adjustments to the existing process, both things
    the Department can do on its own and things that the Department
    and the Congress would need to work on together to improve the
    agility of the process to overcome the ``Valley of Death'' that
    Heidi just described.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you. Mr. Kendall, your comments
    please.
        Mr. Kendall. Mr. Chairman, the one comment I think I would
    make on that is that I think it would be very helpful if the
    Department could manage risk over time more than it does under
    the current process. There is a tendency to focus on near-term
    requirements as opposed to long-term requirements and how risks
    are changing.
        The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Brown, and the
    Commandant of the Marine Corps recently published on op-ed on
    readiness, and essentially that was their point, that we need
    to think about readiness and what our needs will be in the
    future, not just what they are currently, and invest in a way
    which deals with those threats are they are evolving, and to
    some degree we can project where the threats are going to go.
    But there is a tendency to focus very much on immediate needs
    as opposed to longer-term needs.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. I thank the witnesses
    for their testimony. Let me recognize Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kendall, it
    has been said that the Air Force is too small and too old to do
    what the Nation asks it to do, and sending a fourth-generation
    aircraft to do fifth-generation work is something that is not
    going to work. I know that the F-35 has been criticized by a
    lot of very prominent people, and this has concerned me for
    some time now. The F-35, I believe, is the most capable and
    cost-effective fighter that is available out there today. It
    has had problems, but there is no other aircraft that offers
    the capability and the capacity of the F-35. Now at least that
    is what we hear from the people who fly them.
        So I would ask you, for beginners here, do you agree with
    General Brown that the F-35 is a cornerstone of the Air Force
    fighter fleet for the future?
        Mr. Kendall. Ranking Member Inhofe, the F-35 is the best
    tactical aircraft of its type in the world and will be so for
    quite some time. It is a complex, expensive weapon,
    unfortunately, but it is a dominant weapon when it goes up
    against earlier-generation aircraft.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, the concern I have is that the
    complaints still come, and they are out there. I remember, I
    have been around here long enough, I remember back in 1997,
    when we cut the F-22s. At that time that was the first and only
    fifth-generation fighter we had. We started out with, I believe
    it was over 700, I think, and we ended up 187.
        Now, we watched this happen, and my concern right now is
    what kind of actions could we take to ensure that we are
    fielding the number of F-35s needed to fight against Russia and
    China? It is a different game out there altogether now. We all
    understand that. But we are going to have to be dealing with
    the numbers. What strategy can you have to try to come down
    with the right numbers?
        Mr. Kendall. Ranking Member, we have to get to an
    affordable mix that meets our needs as driven by the National
    Defense Strategy. That is what should guide those investments.
        I have a long history with the F-35. It has struggled,
    certainly, and since I left government 4 years ago, I
    understand the sustainment costs are a concern. Ms. Shyu
    mentioned those and talked about those a little bit also. There
    is concern with the upgrade to the most recent version, and it
    is having trouble there, which I heard about through press
    accounts only and I will have to take a look at it if I am
    confirmed.
        The key to keeping the cost down in an air fleet is getting
    the numbers up. There is a very strong correlation between the
    size of the fleet and the cost to sustain that fleet. So if
    there were one thing that I think would drive costs down
    overall it is continuing to buy. I know there is an issue with
    the total number that has been on the table for some years,
    what the requirement is. My own view, at this point in time, is
    that we are well short of that number, and that what we should
    be working on most is getting the cost down and keeping the
    procurement at a rate that makes sense.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, I know the Chairman covered that, and
    that is a concern that we all have.
        Now, Heidi Shyu, do you remember McAlester, Oklahoma?
        Ms. Shyu. I sure do.
        Senator Inhofe. They remembered you too. I was in
    McAlester--you have got to hear this now--I was in McAlester on
    Saturday, and I had mentioned that Heidi Shyu--because I knew
    that they knew you--was coming back, and they said, ``Heidi
    Shyu is coming back?'' The only uniformed officer there was all
    excited about that, and he was not even there at the time that
    you were. So I have to say that last Saturday was Heidi Shyu
    Appreciation Day in McAlester, Oklahoma. Okay?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Shyu. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. Let me just ask you, because you
    have a background that you can answer the hard questions to
    answer, and that would be, in which specific emerging
    technology areas are we behind or falling behind China and
    Russia?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator Inhofe, it has certainly been a huge
    concern of mine to see how rapidly China has advanced its
    technology, especially in the area of hypersonics, in space, in
    AI, in microelectronics. I firmly believe that we, as a nation,
    need to work collaboratively together across our entire R&E
    [research and engineering] enterprise to solve our toughest
    challenges, moving ahead. I firmly believe we can once again
    become a leader in these technology areas if we put a focus on
    disruptive technologies, and with Congress' help to protect our
    funding we will be able to get there.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much. I agree with that, and
    you commented, and Mr. Kendall did too, on this document, and
    it is still worth a lot to us.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Senator Shaheen,
    please.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    each of you for your willingness to be considered for these
    very important positions.
        Mr. Kendall, as I am sure you are aware, we are making
    parts for the F-35 in Turkey now, and this Congress has made a
    statement that we should stop doing that because of Turkey's
    embrace of the S-400 and the potential for that to compromise
    our F-35. Do you have a position on that, and do you think it
    is a good idea for us to continue to manufacture those parts in
    Turkey?
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Under the current
    situation with Turkey I think we should not be building F-35
    parts in Turkey.
        Senator Shaheen. Will you--and I guess I should ask Ms.
    Blume this too--will you all do what you can to ensure that
    that ends as soon as possible?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, I will.
        Senator Shaheen. Ms. Blume?
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        There are reports, Mr. Kendall, that renovating Space
    Command's current location in Colorado for long-term use rather
    than moving the command and authorizing new MILCON [military
    construction] will save taxpayers dollars and achieve full
    mission capability 7 years faster than moving to Huntsville,
    Alabama. Will you commit to this Committee that you will give
    us cost estimates for both relocating Space Command and the
    potential costs to build a new facility in Huntsville?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator Shaheen, I understand there is a
    review going on of that decision, and what I would like to do,
    first of all, is to see the results of that review. I will
    commit to work with you on that as soon as we get some more
    facts on the table.
        The Air Force went through a process--I think, in fact,
    there may be two reviews going on, and I would like to have the
    results of those, and then we could have a discussion about the
    specifics at that point.
        Senator Shaheen. Is that something, Ms. Blume, that CAPE
    would take a look at the analysis of?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, it is my understanding that both the
    Air Force and the IG [inspector general], the DOD IG, are
    reviewing that decision. Ordinarily, CAPE would not, unless
    asked to for some reason by the Secretary, and if that happens
    I am happy to take a look.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I am just suggesting that it
    would be helpful for this Committee to know what the analysis
    is and to be able to weigh in with DOD on that, since we are
    the authorizers of funding.
        Ms. Shyu, you talked a lot about the importance of research
    and innovation for DOD in accomplishing its mission. Right now
    it administers about $2 billion a year through the Small
    Business Innovation Research program and the Small Business
    Technology Transfer program. As I am sure you are aware, one of
    the challenges with those programs is the one that you just
    discussed about moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2 so the
    innovations can be commercialized. Can you talk about what you
    might do to help address that?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator, I think one of the key successes within
    a SBIR [Small Business Innovation Research] program, going from
    Phase 1 to Phase 2 and then ultimately transitioning into a
    program of record, I would like to share some insights and
    experiences and success stories. I know back when I was working
    in the defense industry, one of the business units was very,
    very proactive, reaching out to the SBIRs, small business
    organizations, to identify and create an Industry Day on the
    tough critical challenges that they had.
        After having Industry Day with 23 little companies, they
    identified a list of tough technical problems. These small
    companies went off, thought about solutions to that, and the
    big prime actually collaborated with a small company to create
    the Phase 1 and help them transition to Phase 2 and transition
    into the program of record. That is a great success story that
    I have seen that is done. So if confirmed, I would like to push
    that particular model to make sure that the primes are helping
    out the small, innovative companies to ensure more successful
    transition into programs.
        Senator Shaheen. That is great. As you are probably aware.
    SBIR is set to end its authorization next year, in 2022. How
    important is it, do you think for us to reauthorize that
    program and keep it going?
        Ms. Shyu. I think it is very important. I will plead with
    you to please reauthorize that.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much. I agree.
        Mr. Kendall, I have just a brief amount of time left, but I
    would be remiss if I did not raise the KC-46 with you, given
    the current concerns, and the importance of trying to see if it
    can take on other operations despite the challenge still with
    the remote vision system and some other problems. I hope you
    will focus on integrating the KC-46 into other operations that
    the Air Force is trying to do, especially the Aeromedical
    Evacuation enterprise.
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator. I am aware of some things
    that are being done with the KC-46. It is being used as part of
    the movement to network Air Force's forces in a demonstration
    that is coming up, I think, fairly soon. I am not aware of
    other activities to integrate it, but any asset like that we
    should be getting as much out of it as we can, and if I am
    confirmed, I will work to make sure that happens.
        Senator Shaheen. That would be great. I would encourage you
    to come up and see the first National Guard base that got the
    KC-46s, in New Hampshire. We have our full component and we are
    still waiting to use them, so we hope you will help us do that.
        Mr. Kendall. I am looking forward to doing that, Senator.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Senator Wicker,
    please.
        Senator Wicker. I hope you will visit us all over the
    country, Mr. Kendall.
        Ms. Blume, good morning to you. You wrote, in 2019, ``U.S.
    military superiority is eroding vis-a-vis China.'' I agree with
    that. I think Members of this Committee agree with that. We
    need to do something about it. There is an acknowledgement on
    the floor of the Senate, last week and this week, in the form
    of the Endless Frontier Act, which acknowledges that our R&D
    [research and development] is eroding vis-a-vis China, and we
    are attempting to address that on the floor.
        You also say in your statement, ``The first goal at CAPE is
    aligning resources to the needs.'' I will tell you, I think it
    is the desire of Members of the Congress and Members of this
    committee to say, ``Tell us what the needs are,'' particularly
    with regard to meeting our national defense needs, and more
    specifically, with China. Tell us what the needs are, and let's
    find the resources together. But to cut back on what we are
    intending to do because of a lack of resources to me is
    unacceptable.
        Last week, media reports indicated that the budget, to be
    released this Friday, will include only eight ships, including
    one destroyer. Now I am sure you are aware, Ms. Blume, that in
    section 124 of last year's NDAA, this Committee approved a plan
    to bundle LPDs 31, 32, 33 with LHA 9. This was signed into law
    by the President of the United States, and subsequently the
    money was appropriated to do just this. It is clear that the
    congressional intent was for DOD to procure these four
    amphibious ships in this manner.
        Are you able to answer yes or no, do you support this
    congressionally authorized and appropriate acquisition strategy
    for amphibious ships?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, first let me say that I believe that a
    robust and highly capable and sustainable Navy is critical to
    U.S. national security. In terms of the multi-ship procurement,
    I think multi-ship procurements can do at least two important
    things. First, obviously, they can save the taxpayers some
    money, but they also provide badly needed stability for the
    defense industrial base.
        Senator Wicker. Right. So are you able to answer yes or no,
    in my limited time?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I apologize for taking your time. I
    cannot get ahead of the President and the Secretary in terms of
    what may be in the 2022 budget request, but if confirmed, I
    look forward to working with you on this issue.
        Senator Wicker. So you are unable to answer yes or no on
    that. All right. Well, that is a concern.
        I recently completed Air Force Design 2030 efforts to
    reaffirm the continued requirement for conventional amphibious
    warships, with the addition of a new class of smaller, light
    amphibious warships. The Commandant of the Marine Corps has
    written, ``A multiple ship contracting strategy also creates
    resilience and confidence in our Nation's shipyards, supply
    chains, and highly specialized workforce.'' Ms. Blume, do you
    agree or disagree with the Commandant of the Marine Corps on
    amphibious ships?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I agree that multi-ship procurements
    can provide important stability for our defense industrial
    base.
        Senator Wicker. They can be cost effective.
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Wicker. In the Navy's annual 30-year shipbuilding
    plan--I want to ask you a question with regard to the Navy's
    battle force design. The regional combatant commanders advocate
    naval presence as the appropriate driver for the size of our
    modern Navy--naval presence as the driver of our modern Navy.
    Do you agree or disagree with this?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I think there are many factors that
    contribute to the Department's decisions about the size and the
    shape of the Navy. That is certainly one very important one.
        Senator Wicker. Well, let me just say that that is the
    opinion of the regional combatant commanders, the men and women
    who we have assigned to go out into difficult areas to enforce
    our national security.
        Let me just ask you this. In 2016, the Navy identified 355
    ships as the force structure assessment. That target became
    U.S. policy in the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA. Do you support the
    congressionally mandated 355-ship fleet goal?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I certainly respect that that is the
    law, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with you and
    others in the Congress, in a transparent way, to see where the
    analysis that the new Administration will do will take us on
    that question.
        Senator Wicker. Tell us what the needs are and we will
    enact the law and get you the resources, ma'am. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Let me recognize,
    via Webex, Senator Gillibrand, please.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kendall,
    thank you for our discussion earlier this week. I appreciate it
    very much.
        As you know, fighting sexual assault in the military is one
    of my foremost issues, and it requires positive command climate
    where survivors can feel safe and they can disclose their
    assault. To be frank, the military has not acquitted itself
    well in this regard. What is your current assessment of the Air
    Force command climate, and how will you improve it?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, that is a difficult question. Let me
    begin by congratulating you on all your efforts in this area,
    and particularly Senator Ernst as well, for her efforts to
    partner with you. I think you have made a lot of progress and
    we are on the brink of some important change that I hope will
    be very beneficial in this area. Change is necessary, and
    hopefully we can move forward.
        My overall assessment throughout my career of command
    climate is generally positive, but there are exceptions. There
    are cases, and I think Fort Hood has been a recent example in
    the Army, with investigations that have revealed that there are
    some significant problems. What I can commit to you is that if
    I am confirmed, I will take command climate and the culture
    that is created within the Air Force extremely seriously in
    this regard. I think it is, frankly, at the root of the
    problems that we have with sexual assault and sexual
    harassment, and if we cannot address that we are not going to
    be successful with prevention.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. The IRC will be recommending
    that sex crimes such sexual assault and harassment be taken out
    of the chain of the command. The IRC did not review whether all
    serious crimes should also be taken out of the chain of
    command, because it was not within their purview.
        A bill that I authored with Senator Ernst, and have 63
    other co-sponsors on, the Military Justice Improvement and
    Increasing Prevention Act, will take all serious non-military
    crimes out of the chain of command. There are many reasons for
    doing so, but one of the important ones that recent studies
    have shown is that there are significant racial disparities in
    the military justice system, including that black
    servicemembers are up to twice as likely to be charged with a
    crime as white servicemembers.
        Does that concern you, and do you commit to working with me
    on that problem?
        Mr. Kendall. It concerns me very much, and I absolutely do
    commit to working with you on that. There is a report that came
    out of the Air Force just last winter, last fall, that
    highlighted the disparities in a number of areas, including the
    ones that you talked about. It does not get at root causes for
    that, but I think we have to do that, and I would be delighted
    to work with you on that. It is important to the health of the
    force and its mission readiness and its capabilities that we
    get at this.
        You and I spoke yesterday, just yesterday, about the
    additional coverage under your bill of additional crimes and so
    on, and I have not had a chance to look into that. But you made
    some persuasive arguments, but I would really like to hear from
    the Air Force leadership as well on that before having a final
    opinion on that.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. We also talked about one of
    New York's finest assets, which is the 109th Airlift Wing,
    which plays a very important role in the Arctic mission and
    will continue to do so given Russia's interest in the Arctic.
    However, the LC-130H aircraft flown by the 109th are aging and
    will soon need to be replaced. Given their importance to our
    Arctic strategy, do you have a view on replacing these
    aircraft?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator Gillibrand, you introduced me to that
    issue yesterday and I did a little bit of research as a result
    of that. You have some unique assets up there and I think they
    are very important to the Arctic. I have not had a chance to
    assess their age or how much life they have left on them, but I
    can commit to you that if confirmed, I will do so and try to
    take the appropriate action.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. For Ms. Shyu and Ms. Blume,
    the last time Eric Schmidt testified in our committee he spoke
    about improving innovation with DOD software. He recommended
    changing the mindset from thinking of software programs as a
    weapon system to think of them as a consumable, since the
    competition cycle is so quick. Programs are obsolete before
    they hit the force. Do you agree with that assessment?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator Gillibrand, I actually do agree with it.
    So one of the key areas I would like to focus on is software.
    Software is absolutely ubiquitous in all of our weapons
    systems, and we have to think about how we can develop software
    continuously, and test it continuously, so this way we can
    ensure the latest capabilities as quickly as possible. So I
    absolutely do agree with you.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Ms. Blume?
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator, I agree as well. If confirmed, I
    really look forward to digging in to understanding how we need
    to think about software differently from other kinds of
    development and procurement programs that the Department does.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Now let me
    recognize, via Webex, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary
    Kendall, I appreciate the experience with our nation's nuclear
    enterprise that you bring to this role from your previous
    service in government, and in particular, your understanding of
    the tight timelines many of our nuclear modernization programs
    face, most importantly GBSD [ground-based strategic deterrence]
    and the LRSO [long range stand off]. I was happy to see your
    statement in response to the committee's advanced policy
    questions that in your view, ``The nuclear enterprise is by far
    the most important and significant responsibility of the
    Secretary of the Air Force.''
        I think that is absolutely right. Nuclear deterrence is the
    most important mission of the Department of Defense, and as the
    Service responsible for two of the three legs of the triad, the
    success of this mission depends heavily on the Air Force. I
    know that if confirmed, you are going to be thoroughly
    reviewing the nuclear modernization programs and I hope that
    review will also include the Air Force elements of our nuclear
    command, control, and communications networks.
        I am particularly concerned about the Air Force's plan to
    recapitalize the E-4B. This is an issue that has been under
    constant study for well over a decade. But the challenges of
    maintaining an outdated airplane are only getting harder as
    time passes. I think it is vital that the Air Force
    expeditiously move forward, and this issue not be studied
    indefinitely. So I hope that that is something that you will
    take a close look at.
        Mr. Kendall. I can commit to do so, Senator. When I left
    office a few years ago the E-4B issue was looming on the
    horizon but had not really confronted us yet. But I am aware of
    it, and the replacements for those aircraft and maintaining the
    nuclear command and control system is an essential part of our
    nuclear deterrent, and I would definitely be taking a close
    look at that.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much, and also, Secretary
    Kendall, as we discussed on our phone call last week, Offutt
    Air Force Base continues to rebuild after the 2019 floods, and
    I commend the Air Force's efforts to date, but the work is not
    over.
        Do I have your commitment to work with me as a partner to
    continue the Offutt rebuild as well as to finish the Offutt
    runway project so that this crucial element of the Air Force
    continues to contribute to the fight now and also well into the
    future?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I have not had a chance to look at
    the exact status of that project, but Offutt as a strategic
    headquarters is extremely important, and the asserts there are
    extremely important. So I would absolutely commit to work with
    you on that.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. The erosion of our military's
    technological advantage is something that you have been talking
    about for a long time, Secretary. I remember, in 2014, my
    second year in the Senate, on the Emerging Threats and
    Capabilities Subcommittee, you briefed us on that. There is a
    lot more attention that is being paid to this challenge now,
    but at that time that was not a widely appreciate issue.
        Understanding that you have been out of government for a
    while, can you frame the problem as you see it and share some
    of your thoughts about how, if confirmed as a Service
    Secretary, you can help address that?
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator. If there one reason I
    would like to come back into government, and hopefully will be
    confirmed, it is to address that problem. As I mentioned in my
    opening statement, I became aware of Chinese modernization
    programs and how successful they have been in 2010, and that
    briefing that you mentioned, I remember it very well. It was a
    highly classified briefly, and we walked through some of the
    specific threats.
        I hope to address that. I know that progress has been made.
    There has been a lot of additional attention focused on this in
    the last few years. The Nation Defense Strategy that the
    Ranking Member mentioned takes us in that direction, and I
    think that there is general consensus now that China is the
    pacing threat, as I think Ms. Shyu mentioned, and I am looking
    forward to working on that. That is the reason, perhaps, that I
    am interested in coming back into government.
        Senator Fischer. Very good. Thank you.
        Secretary Shyu, this Committee has made a number of
    changes, including creating the position for which you are
    nominated, in order to improve its ability to deliver
    innovative solutions to the warfighter. But one thing Congress
    cannot legislate is the culture of the workforce, which
    witnesses have testified is generally risk averse. Can you talk
    about the importance of culture and risk tolerance, in
    particular, when it comes to innovation, and do you believe the
    Department and the Services need to be perhaps more tolerant of
    risk?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, ma'am, absolutely. I think there is a very
    different culture in the technology community versus your
    standard acquisition community. In the technology community,
    typically there is a lot more risk, and you push the edge of
    the envelope to create innovation. But on the program
    management side, you are judged and evaluated, and your career
    depends upon how well you execute based on performance, cost,
    and schedule. Therefore, by that definition, they are going to
    be risk averse. Any perceived technical risks incorporating
    their program they are going to be averse to it, because it
    impacts the schedule, the cost, thereby their career.
        Senator Fischer. What happens to innovation then?
        Ms. Shyu. Well, that is the problem. So they want to see
    the technology being very mature. So one of the key things that
    we need to do, when I get into my position, if confirmed, is to
    help to bridge this ``Valley of Death'' that we talked about a
    little earlier. Make sure the technology we test out in labs
    are tested in a relevant setting, relevant environment, so the
    program manager will feel more comfortable adopting that
    technology.
        I think one of the key things we ought to take a look at is
    after we develop a technology, even a prototype, get the user
    to test it. Get feedback from the user incorporated into the
    redesign. The Israelis do that. They are very, very fast in
    developing a prototype, getting it in the hands of a user, to
    get feedback as to what needs to be modified, then redesign
    that.
        Based upon my experience with Roboteam, which is a small
    robotics company in Tel Aviv, that is exactly what they did.
    They are able to do three prototypes, three generations of
    prototypes in one year, and that is the kind of speed we need.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Let me recognize
    Senator Blumenthal, please.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
    for your public service, and thank you for what you will in the
    future.
        Ms. Shyu, I was very interested and impressed by your goal
    of flipping the percentages of sustainment versus new
    technology, 70/30 percent. I noted, however, that there is no
    reference in the concepts that you set forth in flipping that
    ratio and investing more in new technologies, there is no
    mention of climate change and environmental sustainability. I
    wonder if you have any thoughts, beyond fuel efficiency--and I
    recognize that you mentioned fuel efficiency--in what the
    military can do in driving the efforts against climate change
    forward, because the military has been such a powerful force in
    innovation and creativity, whether it is the internet or
    medical devices, and I think there is a real opportunity for
    the Pentagon to drive innovation here.
        Ms. Shyu. Senator Blumenthal, I probably do not have enough
    time to answer in detail, but I would like to take this moment
    to kind of explain to you some of my thoughts.
        I have had the honor and privilege to work with a number of
    small companies who have developed advanced materials that are
    lighter, stronger, and has ability to reduce fuel efficiency.
    We need to incorporate these type of materials into our design.
    Logistically, it would be a lot easier to move. That is one
    example.
        I have also had the opportunity to work with some small
    company that develops engines that will shrink the size down to
    one-third of the current size. That would significantly change
    the equation as well as the sustainment of these engines.
        So there is a lot of innovation that is out there. I also
    saw a six-person company that has developed any type of fuel as
    input, and the output is a DC plug. Those are the types of
    creative, innovative, technologies we need to nurture, and they
    are struggling, trying to figure out who to talk to in the DOD.
        So if confirmed, I would like to help these type of
    companies to advance their technology maturity so we can
    deliver unprecedented capabilities, and it will absolutely help
    the issue of climate change, because you are reducing the
    logistics burden.
        Senator Blumenthal. It is a matter not only of cost savings
    but also, obviously, national security----
        Ms. Shyu. Absolutely.
        Senator Blumenthal.--that the Secretary of Defense has told
    this committee very persuasively, and I would hope that you
    will work with us, not only in receiving applications but
    proactively reaching out to companies like the ones that you
    mentioned, that are in this area.
        I have found, all too often, there are Connecticut
    companies, for example, and I suspect my colleagues share this
    experience, that have tried to find the entry point in this
    system, which seems, from the outside, just like the Pentagon
    building, a huge, implacable construct without a welcoming
    entry point. So I would hope that you would do proactively what
    you have suggested here.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, sir. Absolutely. I plan to talk to a number
    of the small companies, to meet with them, to understand the
    impediments that they have, and work to resolve those
    impediments. You are absolutely, 100 percent right. This is a
    giant fortress. They have no idea where the door is.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Secretary Kendall, you and I had a good discussion about
    the C-130A planes, and I indicated, and I think you agreed,
    that these planes can play an essential role for our Air
    National Guard, which have been so important. Our Air National
    Guard has been at the tip of spear, not only in our wars abroad
    but also in responding to natural disasters here at home. I
    have learned that the C-130A propeller upgrade program has been
    delayed, possibly delayed again. There is funding for 26
    additional propeller hits and spares provided in last year's
    Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Appropriations Bill, that have not
    been executed. The contract expires on July 6th, unless there
    is additional funding put in the contract. I know I am hitting
    you with this issue somewhat cold, but I would like your
    commitment that you will come back to me by July 6th, if
    possible, and I would hope that you would be confirmed, I hope
    all three of you will be confirmed by then, with an explanation
    as to what could be done to make sure that the modernization of
    our C-130 fleet is accomplished, because it is so important. It
    is a workhorse aircraft, as you well know, and it performs a
    vital function.
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I can commit to that. The C-130 is a
    very valuable workhorse, as you say. It is a very versatile
    aircraft. It does an awful lot of things in support of a lot of
    missions. I am not aware, in detail, of this specific issue
    with the propellers, but if confirmed, I will commit to take a
    look at that and get back to you on it.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I will just close by saying
    I hear the sentiments of a number of my colleagues that the F-
    35 should be advanced, that the Air Force should be very
    assertive in asking, in this next budget, for the numbers of
    aircraft that will drive down the cost per copy of each of the
    F-35 aircraft, and I hope that we will discuss it further.
    Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Let me
    recognize, via Webex, Senator Cotton, please.
        Senator Cotton.--appearing before the committee today.
    Congratulations on your nominations.
        Mr. Kendall, I want to direct most of my questions towards
    you. First, an issue that has long been a concern of mine, on
    which I worked with Senator King, is the Air Force shortage of
    pilots. This is a perennial concern. It drives up operations
    tempos for our personnel while decreasing their quality of
    life, causing some of them to leave the force altogether.
        What are your thoughts on this recurrent issue and how we
    can address what a previous service chief has referred to as a
    crisis?
        Mr. Kendall. Sir, I am aware that there is a shortfall. It
    is on the order of 2,000 pilots, I believe, and it is an issue
    that I would certainly address as a high priority, if
    confirmed. There have been some issues, I think, with planning,
    as we have moved through the COVID experience and the airlines
    have shut down. That has given the Air Force a temporary break,
    but they may have overplayed that. So it is something I want to
    look at carefully.
        There are a lot of possibilities for increasing the flow of
    pilots into the pipeline. Minority pilots, in particular, are
    relatively short numbers in the Air Force, and I think we can
    do something about that. So I would be happy to work with you
    on that issue. I agree with you it is very important.
        Senator Cotton. Thank you. One point I would make, and this
    is something we learned in our sensing sessions with pilots, is
    that a common solution is putting more money into pilot
    compensation. Air pilots are never going to turn down bonuses
    to stay in the Air Force, and we should recognize their
    service. But at root, we cannot compete against the salaries
    that private airlines or aviation companies are going to offer
    pilots. We need to recognize, in my opinion, that these young
    men and women join the Air Force to fly high-performance
    aircraft in defense of our nation, and the more we can do to
    get more pilots in, so they are flying more and doing other
    routine administrative duties less, the more we can contribute
    to their quality of life.
        The second question, Mr. Kendall, the Air Force now has a
    fleet with an average age of 30 years. What are your thoughts
    on how to improve acquisitions so that we can ensure the Air
    Force is prepared to fulfill national security requirements
    with technologically relevant and reliable fleet of aircraft?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, the age of the aircraft is an issue.
    I think the number I heard was 28 years, roughly 30 years.
    There are two things you can do about that problem. You can get
    rid of the older planes and you can buy new airplanes, and I
    think we need to take a look at both of those, quite frankly.
        I mentioned earlier how we manage risk over time in the
    Department, and one of the things that I think we should look
    at is getting rid of some near-term capability in order to have
    more longer-term capability. But that is a tradeoff that I
    would be interested in certainly, if I was confirmed.
        Senator Cotton. Yes. Thank you for that. I am broadly
    supportive of what the Air Force has proposed over the last
    couple of years in terms of modernization, and some of that
    does involve divesting in older aircraft. To be clear, not
    every old aircraft needs to be divested. Some very old aircraft
    are still performing vital missions and performing them
    effectively and safely. But as you say, some of these older
    aircraft, we are going to need to divest them so we can invest
    more in cutting-edge technology.
        One final question, Mr. Kendall. Last December, there was a
    very concerning report released by the National Commission on
    Military Aviation Safety. It states that we have lost 224
    lives, 186 aircraft, and almost $12 billion to training
    accidents in just 7 years. What are your thoughts on what the
    Air Force can do to prevent such accidents and deaths in the
    future?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I have not seen that report, but that
    sounds unacceptable to me, quite frankly. We overall, in the
    military, in the U.S., have had a very good record for flying
    and mishaps, and I know it is a source of constant attention in
    the Air Force. A lot of focus is placed on that, from my
    previous experience.
        But I will take a look at that report and I will see what
    kind of corrective action is necessary and can be implemented,
    if confirmed.
        Senator Cotton. Yes, I think it would be well worth your
    time to review that. I have my concerns that one possibility is
    that we are shortening training timelines in part because of
    the shortage we discussed earlier, and that we are relying too
    much on augmented reality or other simulator training in place
    of actual flight time in the aircraft for our junior aviators.
        My time has nearly expired. Thank you all again for your
    appearance. Mr. Kendall, thank you for your answers. I look
    forward to supporting your nomination.
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Let me just also
    thank Senator Hirono for yielding her time at this moment to
    Senator King. Senator King, please.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Senator
    Hirono.
        Ms. Blume, on the assumption that you are confirmed--I can
    make that assumption; you can't--I would appreciate it if one
    of your first tasks might be an updated assessment of the
    sustainment cost of the F-35. The figures that I have seen,
    which may be outdated, are 40 hours of maintenance for every
    hour of operation, anticipated only 250 hours of operation a
    year, $36,000 an hour of cost of flying the airplane. We need
    to understand where that is now. It may be that we have made
    some progress on that, but I would appreciate it if you could
    commit to giving us a comprehensive updated of that issue, and
    also some thinking about how to do something about it.
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator, I share your concerns about F-35
    sustainment, and if confirmed, I look forward to digging into
    that and providing you an update.
        Senator King. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Shyu, we had a wonderful conversation. It strikes me
    that one of the things that has not been mentioned very much
    today, that I think is a strategic gap, is both the defense and
    offense in terms of hypersonic weapons, and I view that as an
    important part of acquisition over the next 5 to 10 years. We
    have platforms that are very vulnerable to hypersonic weapons,
    and we need to figure out how to both defend them and also to
    maintain or develop our own offensive capability in order to
    serve as a deterrent. This is one area where we do not really
    have a deterrent. Is that something that you intend to follow
    up on?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator, absolutely. A lot of the stuff you are
    talking about is in the classified arena, so once I get briefed
    on the latest state of where we are in this area I will be
    happy to come back and share the results with you.
        Senator King. Thank you, and maybe in a classified setting
    we can discuss it more thoroughly. But as I said, I think it is
    a strategic gap right now, and this is a question, I think, for
    you, perhaps also for Mr. Kendall. In my view, we should never
    buy another military system without also buying the IP
    [Intellectual property]. We have to be able to print our own
    parts and not be dependent upon the OEM [original equipment
    manufacturer] for parts. I understand that is one of the
    sustainment costs is parts and availability of parts. So I hope
    that all contracts in the future, for an acquisition, whether
    it is a tank or an airplane or a coffee dispenser, we will also
    buy the IP so that we will have the ability do our own
    development of parts. I foresee a day where every ship and
    every aircraft hangar has a 3D printer that will be capable of
    supplying many of the parts. Is that something you will see to,
    Ms. Shyu?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes. Actually, I agree with you. The other thing
    that I know the Services are all working towards is having a
    modular open architecture with standard interfaces. If we
    implement that across our programs, even if you do not have a
    specific part, you could potentially develop another part that
    has the same form, fit, and function as well. So there are two
    prongs to this I would like to take a look at.
        Senator King. I appreciate that, and, Mr. Kendall, good to
    see you again. Welcome, and I am delighted that you are willing
    to take on this challenge.
        They often say that September 11th was a failure of
    imagination on the part of this country, that we did not
    imagine what could happen. We are now imagining cyber in a
    serious way, and in discussing, for example, the upgrade of the
    modernization of the nuclear triad, in my view it is really a
    nuclear quad. It is submarines, air, and missiles, and
    communications and command and control.
        Give me your brief views on the significance of cyber. I
    believe the next major attack on this country will not be
    landing craft or missiles. It will be cyber, and we are not
    adequately prepared.
        Mr. Kendall. Senator King, first of all I want to
    compliment you on your work on the Solarium Commission. I think
    it was a very good body of work and very helpful. I also want
    to recollect our time together on a submarine under the ice in
    the Arctic.
        Senator King. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Kendall. It was a great experience with you.
        You are right. Cyber is a ubiquitous problem. It is a
    potential Achilles Heel in any number of places in our overall
    economic, social, military enterprise, including potentially in
    the nuclear command and control area. It is an area that, as we
    look at nuclear modernization, we have to look at very, very
    seriously.
        At the time I left government I thought we had a reasonable
    posture there, but I think it is well worth taking a look at,
    and continuous diligence in that area is what is actually
    required, because the threats never stop. They keep coming at
    you.
        Senator King. Not only do the threats never stop, the wake-
    up calls never stop, and we are not thoroughly awake. So I hope
    you will make this a high priority in your work in the Air
    Force, because a jet fighter is not useful if its command and
    control and navigational system is knocked out in the first
    moment of a conflict.
        Mr. Kendall. I complete agree, Senator, or its logistics
    support system.
        Senator King. Correct.
        Mr. Kendall. There are a lot of attack vectors are possible
    against our assets, as you are well aware.
        Senator King. Thank you. Thank you all for your dedication
    and willingness to come back to work for the American people.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator King. Let me recognize
    Senator Rounds, please.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kendall, I
    would like to follow up where Senator King is leaving off. The
    Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA, Section 1657, directed each military
    department Secretary to appoint an independent principal cyber
    advisor to act as the principal advisor to the Secretary
    concerned on all cyber matters affecting that department. With
    the surge in high-profile cyber-attacks against the United
    States, the need for breaking down the cyber silos is needed
    now more than ever.
        If confirmed, I would like your commitment that you will
    conduct an in-depth review of the implementation of the
    principal cyber advisor position, and within 60 days of
    assuming that office, to get back to this committee with your
    findings. Would you do that, sir?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, Senator, I will. You are correct in that
    there are silos of activity in cyber that are not often as well
    connected as they should be, and the overall posture of our
    institutions needs to be better understood at an integrated,
    aggregate level, to make sure we are putting our resources
    where they belong. I would see that as an important role of the
    principal cyber advisor.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Ms. Shyu and Ms. Blume, there
    have been a couple of questions asked now about how quickly we
    can acquire new products and also to integrate them into a
    supply system. Ms. Shyu, from Senator King there was just a
    discussion about how once we purchase an asset, today when it
    comes to either replacing or fixing, we do not necessarily have
    the parts and pieces and therefore we go back to the original
    supplier.
        You indicated that you would like to have the ability,
    because of the open architecture that we are building in, to be
    able to plug-and-play other products that are similar in
    nature. But the third part to that component is that we do not
    necessarily purchase the intellectual property rights that go
    with that to begin with, and I think that is a critical part of
    that discussion as well. Would you agree?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, sir, I do agree.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, and Ms. Blume, when Ms. Shyu was
    talking about the need to be able to basically integrate a more
    quickly moving process, one in which we can investigate, find,
    determine, test in the laboratory and then bring back out and
    implement in the field. When we do that, that sometimes means
    that we are really good at doing workarounds. Meaning if we
    have got a supply system in place and it is not moving fast
    enough, we create a new office which accelerates the
    purchasing, and yet we leave the other one in place, in part
    because our rules require that we do so.
        If Ms. Shyu is correct that we need to find a way to more
    quickly acquire--and I happen to agree with her. I think the
    time has come that we, as a government, recognize that the old
    way of doing business simply does not work anymore--folks in
    your position, that actually come back in and look and analyze
    afterwards, you are going to find that we are moving around
    systems that are in place today. Are you prepared to work with
    those individuals to not only find the workaround but to find
    the appropriate way so that we do not have to work around it
    anymore but rather to create the system in which the existing
    infrastructure actually works efficiently in the first place so
    we do not need the workaround?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, yes, I do commit to working on that, if
    confirmed. I think that CAPE's role in this space is twofold.
    The first is going to be making sure that there is sufficient
    agility in the programming process in order to put money where
    it needs to be in a timely manner, and the second is making
    sure that the analysts, both in CAPE and across the Department,
    have access to good datasets they need to do that kind of
    analysis much quicker, in order to make sure that decisions
    that we are making are supported and are the right ones, but
    quickly.
        Senator Rounds. Ms. Shyu, I agree with you that we have to
    move more quickly. Whose job is it to overhaul the system, to
    see that it gets done?
        Ms. Shyu. I think it is the senior leaders' role within the
    Pentagon. It is working from R&E through A&S. Also
    collaborative providing the information data to the tester,
    DOT&E, working collaboratively with CAPE as well, and all the
    Service Secretaries.
        Senator Rounds. Do you include yourself as one of those
    senior leaders?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, sir, I do.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. So in terms of accountability, we are
    talking about the folks that are in front of us right now being
    accountable for seeing that this gets done. Ms. Blume, would
    you consider yourself to be one of those senior leaders to see
    that this gets done, as well?
        Ms. Blume. If confirmed, yes, sir.
        Senator Rounds. Mr. Kendall?
        Mr. Kendall. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Rounds, and once again
    let me thank Senator Hirono for her graciousness and recognize
    her.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask the
    following two preliminary questions of all nominees who come
    before any of the committees on which I sit. The first
    question, since you became a legal adult, have any of you ever
    made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any
    verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
        Ms. Shyu. No.
        Ms. Blume. No.
        Mr. Kendall. No.
        Senator Hirono. Have any of you ever faced discipline or
    entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
        Ms. Shyu. No.
        Ms. Blume. No.
        Mr. Kendall. No.
        Senator Hirono. For Ms. Shyu, I am very glad that President
    Biden nominated such a highly qualified individual like
    yourself, and if confirmed, you will be the highest-ranking
    civilian Asian American at the Department of Defense. I think
    we all recognize that diversity is a welcome thing in all of
    our services.
        So hearing your testimony, it is very clear that you work
    very closely with a lot of small businesses, and I am really
    glad that you recognize the importance of reauthorizing SBIR
    program. So one of the concerns we have, there are a lot of
    innovations being done by small businesses. In fact, there is
    recognition that most innovation comes from small businesses.
    There are a lot of them out there, and you did get asked some
    questions about it. How are these innovative small businesses
    to access your office? You indicated that you understand that
    they need to know where the door is and that you will be making
    concerted efforts to make sure that they see the door and that
    they can go through the door, and work with somebody in your
    office to propose their ideas.
        You also mentioned that Israel is a country that can
    develop a prototype and then be able to have that prototype
    used in the field so that changes can be made that make sense
    to the people in the field. So when you raise Israel as an
    example, are you saying that we do not do enough of this kind
    of utilization in the field of prototypes?
        Ms. Shyu. Ma'am, what I have noticed is they, being a much
    smaller country, they are much more agile. The user will go to
    a company and say, ``I need a particular capability,'' for
    example, unmanned ground vehicle. ``I need to send the ground
    vehicle into a long tunnel. Can you develop something like
    that?'' So in a period of 4 months, they are able to develop a
    prototype, and then give it to the user, and say, ``Go ahead
    and use it, and give me some feedback.'' So the user used it
    and provided the feedback back to the developer, and the
    developer was able to modify the design per the request by the
    users.
        Senator Hirono. So I am running out of time. So that is the
    role that you play then, to contact or to interface with the
    users and then to translate their needs to the people who will
    develop the prototype to meet the need. So in a big outfit like
    our DOD, that is a critical role that you can play with regard
    to supporting our small businesses.
        I do have a question for Ms. Blume. In 2019, the Missile
    Defense Review identified the Homeland Defense Radar Hawaii,
    HDRH, as a requirement for detecting and discriminating against
    inbound missile threats from an increasingly capable North
    Korea. Congress appropriated $133 million for fiscal year 2021
    to keep this radar develop on track. Both Admiral Davidson and
    General LaCamera have testified before this committee in the
    last 2 months that HDRH would be an important part of the
    region's layered missile defense system to protect Hawaii and
    the Lower 48 from long-range North Korean missiles.
        I am concerned that the new Administration may cut the
    radar's funding in this year's budget, based on a CAPE
    assessment. I understand that CAPE had gone through an
    assessment of this radar program and had okayed it in prior
    years. Was that earlier assessment that gave the go-ahead to
    HDRH Hawaii wrong, and are you now providing some new
    assessment that changes the environment and we no longer need
    this radar for Hawaii?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I am not familiar with the original
    assessment that you mentioned. I am not aware of work that CAPE
    is presently doing on this question.
        Senator Hirono. Should you be confirmed, this is definitely
    an area of interest to all of the delegation from Hawaii, I can
    tell you that, so I would really appreciate your paying
    attention, or looking at this issue. It is really important. I
    am sure you are aware that we had a scare not too long ago when
    people of Hawaii thought there actually was a missile headed to
    Hawaii and there was an extreme fright of all of the people in
    Hawaii.
        So if there is some other system, a new system, that can
    protect Hawaii, then I would like to be apprised of it.
    Otherwise, I also would like to know why CAPE is planning to
    change its assessment of the need for this system. Thank you.
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator, I agree completely that defending
    Hawaii is absolutely imperative, and if confirmed, I look
    forward to working with you on that.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Let me recognize
    Senator Tillis, please.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here. Mr. Kendall, thank you for being generous with your
    time last week.
        Ms. Blume, Senator Sullivan has already expressed
    disappointment that I do not have my 680-page proposal for the
    next-generation handgun. I honestly tried to find it but it is
    somewhere in a box from my prior office. But I use that as an
    example, when you are talking about reviewing programs and
    really trying to stratify them, based on risk and cost. I use
    it as an example. There is no excuse for 10 years to define the
    next-generation handgun and 5 to 10 years to deploy it.
        I know you have got a lot of forward-looking work that you
    are going to be required to do in CAPE, but I hope we can go
    back and do some after-actions on some of these programs to
    really learn from it and make sure we do not repeat that
    mistake again. I would love to know if there is anybody in the
    DOD that thought that that was the right kind of time and
    effort to find the next-generation handgun. I will bring my
    prop back when you come back for an oversight hearing.
        But Ms. Blume and Mr. Kendall, I wanted to ask a question
    that may swim into both of you all's lanes. It has to do with
    the KC-46 and the KC-10. We are retiring KC-10s, but it seems
    to me that the KC-46 still has problems and is not really able
    to complete all the mission set that it was designed to do. I
    know the Air Force has come back and said, well, it is
    providing some of it. Ms. Blume, do you have any current
    experience or insights into this program, and any opinions as
    to whether or not the KC-10 can be retired, given the
    deficiencies in the KC-46 program?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I am certainly familiar with the public
    reporting on this issue, and perhaps just ever so slightly
    deeper than that. If confirmed, I would look forward to working
    with both the Air Force and TRANSCOM in order to make sure that
    that tanker force is sufficient to need.
        Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, as I mentioned in our call, I
    do not want to artificially extend the life of the KC-10. I
    want the best capabilities in play. But it just seems to me
    that we really have to take a look at the readiness of KC-46s
    that are in operation but not fully operational, and weigh that
    and measure that against the KC-10's capabilities to fill the
    gaps. I spoke with you about it last week. I just wanted your
    commitment to take a look at it. It seems like it could be a
    readiness issue, but I am happy to see a report that
    definitively answers the question, if the current posture is
    the correct posture. I think I got your commitment to look at
    that last week, and it does seem like it swims a little bit
    into CAPE's lane as well.
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, Senator. I will take a look at that and I
    will get back to you. Like Ms. Blume, I know from press reports
    the general situation out there, but I have not had any chance
    to look at the detailed tradeoffs between keeping the 10s and
    the 46, and I would commit to do that.
        Senator Tillis. Yes, I would just like to see a drilled-
    down report back. Ms. Shyu, you know, I think a lot of the
    ratios, you talk about flipping a ratio in your opening
    statement, and I can't remember the exact subject matter. I
    feel the same way about the DOD's leading role in the past in
    R&D. I mean, we were the technology lead. Now those ratios have
    shifted more into the civilian sector. I think that is a
    reality of the pace and scale of technology today. But I am
    particularly concerned with making the Federal Government and
    the DOD an attractive place for digital cyber experts to come
    and work, and possibly even moving into and out of the DOD to
    keep their skills fresh.
        Do you share a view that we have got to come up with a
    different way to onboard, retain, and fully exploit the talent
    that we are lacking right now in the DOD?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, sir. I absolutely do agree with you. I would
    like to share with you something that, in my experience, has
    worked very well in terms of attracting new grads. PEI STRI
    [Program Executive Office Simulation, Training and
    Instrumentation] down in Florida has been very, very effective
    in terms of attracting brand-new talent. They have an
    internship program, during the summer, 6 weeks, in which they
    bring interns in to work them, to show what the Army does, in
    the simulation and modeling world. What happens is, because
    they are so closely integrated, they have an opportunity to see
    what the Army does. They have virtually 99.9 percent retention
    rate, okay. As soon as they graduate, they enter the PEO and
    they stay there. There is only 1 loss over 126 people. That is
    because that person's husband got transferred.
        But that is exactly the kind of things we need to do to
    attract young talent, because young talent loves to be able to
    see that the work they are doing is for a common cause. It
    contributes to something greater than themselves. I think this
    is the kind of model we need to do across the board.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you all. Congratulations on your
    nominations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Tillis. Let me recognize,
    via Webex, Senator Warren, please.
        Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    congratulations to each of you on your nominations.
        Mr. Kendall, I want to spend some time talking about
    military housing and climate change this morning, but before I
    do that I want to briefly ask you about the strategic basing
    process. This is the formal process the Air Force uses to
    decide where to station new aircraft, like the F-35 or the KC-
    46 that you have been talking about.
        The Air Force has gone to admirable lengths to ensure that
    when it is choosing installations for these aircraft, issues
    like the quality of education available near a base and
    licensure reciprocity are a big part of the consideration. This
    is important because the quality of schools available for their
    children, and the ability of spouses to obtain jobs and sustain
    careers are critical issues that impact servicemembers' quality
    of life.
        So, Mr. Kendall, can you commit to ensuring that the
    quality of education and licensing reciprocity are indeed
    factored into the strategic basing process going forward?
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator Warren. I have lived in
    military housing. It has been a while, but I know exactly what
    that is like and what some of the considerations are. I
    actually applaud what the Air Force has done, as I understand,
    relatively recently, to take into account quality of life for
    families and issues like licensing, and the support the
    community gives to people.
        So the answer to your question is absolutely. The process
    that you described is a several-step process. It gets to a
    small number of candidates and then it compares them over
    several factors--cost, mission support--but also quality of
    life and the ability of the community to support a military
    family. So I think that is all very important and all should be
    taken into account.
        Senator Warren. Good. Well, one thing that is not formally
    considered during part of the process is the effects of climate
    change and extreme weather. A 2019 Pentagon analysis found that
    of all the services, the Air Force's base infrastructure is
    most at risk for climate change threats such as recurrent
    flooding, drought, desertification, wildfires, thawing
    permafrost. Do you think it is worth making that another factor
    in the strategic basing decision-making process?
        Mr. Kendall. I am not aware of the extent to which it is
    risen at the moment, but it should be a consideration,
    absolutely.
        Senator Warren. All right, sir.
        Mr. Kendall. Trying to change implications affect cost,
    they affect mission performance, and other things. So it should
    be included, in my view, as one of the things that is looked
    at.
        Senator Warren. That is terrific. Thank you. On the subject
    of climate change, there is no way to address the climate
    crisis without confronting DOD's role as the largest consumer
    of fossil fuel on the planet. Will you commit to using all the
    tools and authorities at your disposal to make the Air Force
    more climate resilient and to reduce its carbon footprint
    whenever possible?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, Senator. It is an all-of-the-above type
    of problem, and there are a number of things that can be done.
    The Air Force is impacted by geopolitical changes even that
    affect the threats that we face. But it is also affected by
    extreme weather events that affect our bases. The Air Force,
    among the DOD, which, itself, as you pointed out before, is a
    very large consumer of fossil fuels. It is the highest
    consumer, because of the large fleet of aircraft that the Air
    Force operates. So there are a number of things that can be
    done there.
        Ms. Shyu mentioned lighter-weight materials as one thing. I
    am aware of some technology programs on propulsion that would
    reduce the consumption of fuels substantially, and also
    increase operational capability.
        So it is an all-of-the-above problem that needs to be
    addressed on a great many fronts simultaneously.
        Senator Warren. Good, and I if I can I want to get in a
    question about military housing. We have all heard the stories
    from military families about the deplorable conditions of on-
    base, privatized housing. The companies that were hired by DOD
    escaped accountability by fudging their numbers and sweeping
    complaints under the rug. My office still hears from military
    spouses that the problem is not getting any better and that
    landlords are not following the laws that Congress passed that
    are designed to protect the military tenant.
        So let me ask, if confirmed, will you commit to using all
    the tools available to hold landlords and private companies
    accountable to make sure that they build and maintain quality
    housing for our servicemembers and ensure that they are not
    profiting off substandard housing?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, again, I have lived in military
    housing. I know how important it is to families to have quality
    housing, and it is a fundamental obligation of someone who
    would be confirmed, potentially, in a position like the
    Secretary of the Air Force. So the short answer to your
    question is yes. But what we need to do is have sound contracts
    and we need to enforce those contracts and ensure that people
    get the quality housing that they deserve.
        Senator Warren. You bet. Thank you. I plan to hold you and
    the other Service Secretaries to these commitments. You know,
    military housing and climate change are issues of military
    readiness, but for too long our Services have paid only lip
    service to this reality. So it is time for that to change, and
    I look forward to working with you on it, to make this happen.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Warren. Let me now
    recognize Senator Sullivan, please.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
    congratulate all the nominees. Mr. Kendall, I appreciated our
    meeting. Very constructive. Ms. Shyu, I really enjoyed our
    meeting, and I think you are going to do a great job in this
    position. Your experience, patriotism is what this position is
    going to need, so congratulations. Ms. Blume, I look forward to
    meeting with you soon. Sorry we did not get a chance to meet
    before this hearing.
        Mr. Kendall, I want to start with you. The father of U.S.
    Air Force, Billy Mitchell, in an Armed Services hearing I think
    in the 1930s, stated, ``This place''--and I am not going to
    mention the place; you are going to mention the place. This is
    a quiz for you--``is the most strategic place in the world. Any
    nation that fully controls this place controls the world.''
    What was this place in Billy Mitchell, the father of the Air
    Force's statement to the Congress?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I have a suspicion it might be
    Alaska.
        Senator Sullivan. Yes, it was Alaska. My colleagues should
    know this too. I ask this question about once a week.
        In all seriousness, I do want to get a commitment from all
    three of our witnesses to come to Alaska, see the most
    strategic place in the world, according to the father of the
    U.S. Air Force, soon in your tenure. Can I get that commitment
    from all three of you?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, sir.
        Senator Sullivan. Each nominee? Are you guys all nodding
    your head yes?
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Ms. Shyu. Yes. Looking forward to it.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Ms. Blume?
        Ms. Blume. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. Okay. Great. Let me ask, you know, we
    have not talked a lot about budget, and I am concerned. The
    Biden administration is having double-digit increases to many
    Federal agency budgets, but it looks as if they will be
    requesting a decline, adjusted for inflation, of the budget for
    DOD. I hope that is not the case, but that is the rumor. We are
    going to know soon.
        The National Defense Strategy Commission report, previous
    two Senate-confirmed SecDefs [Secretary of Defenses], and the
    previous and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs all stated
    and agreed with the Commission, of the National Defense
    Strategy Commission, of a 3 to 5 percent annual real growth to
    the defense budget. Can I get your commitment--I know you have
    to do what the President puts out, you have got to support
    that, but before that you are going to have to fight for a
    budget. I think it will be a very disappointing and problematic
    issue for our nation's national defense if we are increasing
    the budget of the EPA and the Department of Interior by 15
    percent and DOD gets slashed. Can I get your commitment, all
    three of you, to support and fight for that 3 to 5 percent
    annual real growth that the National Defense Strategy
    Commission said was needed for our national defense? Mr.
    Kendall?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, rather than try to pick a number,
    what I can commit to you is that I will fight for the budget
    that is necessary to fulfill the National Defense Strategy,
    whatever that may be. If it is 3 percent, yes, if it is 5
    percent, if it is 10 percent, I will try to get the money that
    is needed by the Department of the Air Force, if I am
    confirmed, so that the Air Force can support combatant
    commanders as they need to carry out that strategy.
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Shyu?
        Ms. Shyu. I would definitely commit to fighting for the
    resources for research and engineering to make sure that we
    have the most innovative technologies that can transition into
    our warfighters, so that we are second to none.
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I also commit to advocating for the
    resources that I believe the Department needs.
        Senator Sullivan. So I have just two final quick question.
    One--and again, Ms. Blume, we will talk about this--so I follow
    our Special Operations Forces a lot. It seems like CAPE, on a
    very regular basis, looks at these, particularly focused on
    MARSOC [Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command], makes
    MARSOC try to justify its existence year after year. Can I get
    your commitment to fully understand what the SOCOM enterprise
    is doing, including MARSOC, and how effective they have been,
    once you are confirmed? This is like an exercise. It gets
    tiring. You know, all these forces do a really good job, but
    for some reason CAPE seems to have a focus on the relevance of
    that unit, and I think it is kind of a focus that is misplaced.
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I am not aware of what work CAPE may
    have done on that specific question, but if confirmed, I do
    commit to fully understanding what is happening in the Special
    Operations enterprise.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, and finally, Mr. Kendall,
    Alaska will be home to 100 fifth-generation fighters, over 100
    fifth-generation fighters, almost by the end of this year,
    combat-coded F-22s, F-35s. The former Secretary of Defense
    testified in front of this committee, if you combine 100 fifth-
    gen fighters with a very serious, strong tanker fleet, that
    that will give the United States extreme strategic reach,
    particular with our great power competitors.
        The Secretary of Defense, during his confirmation,
    committed to me to work with this Committee and me to review
    the Air Force's bed-down of the KC-46. They have moved it from
    an OCONUS [Outside the Continental United States] strategy to a
    CONUS-based posture that I think is more budget-driven than
    strategy-driven. Can I get your commitment to work with me and
    this committee on that very important issue that the Secretary
    of Defense has already committed to?
        Mr. Kendall. The short answer is yes, Senator. I have not
    had a chance to look at the bed-down approach that the Air
    Force is taking to the KC-46, but I would certainly do so and
    would be happy to work with you on that.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Sullivan. Now
    let me recognize Senator Rosen via Webex.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Reed, of course Ranking
    Member Inhofe, for holding this hearing. I really appreciate
    the nominees. Thank you for testifying, and Mr. Kendall, for
    meeting with me yesterday. I would like to, at this time, take
    one moment to express my condolences to the family and the
    friends of the pilot that was killed yesterday, providing
    necessary adversary air support near Nellis Air Force Base, and
    to the North Las Vegas and Nellis communities. My thoughts are
    always with our brave airmen and airwomen, everyone who served,
    and so we mourn this loss.
        But now I would like to move on. Mr. Kendall, I would like
    to talk a little bit about nuclear waste and the Nevada Test
    and Training Range. Because of the Department of Energy's
    proposed routes to transport and permanently dispose of high-
    level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, that potentially border
    the Air Force's Nevada Test and Training Range, NTTR, and
    Creech Air Force Base. Many other installations that we have
    across Nevada and across the country that are located in 44
    states, nuclear waste may be transported through 44 states in
    order to come to Yucca Mountain.
        There has long been Air Force opposition to the Yucca
    Mountain project due to concerns that the project would impact
    the ability of Nellis to carry out its air combat training
    mission at NTTR, the crown jewel of the Air Force. As you know,
    NTTR provides the largest air and ground military training
    space in the contiguous U.S., without interference from
    commercial aircraft, and it is home to 75 percent--75 percent--
    of all stateside Air Force live munitions.
        So in 2017, Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson addressed
    major concerns with the Yucca Mountain project, citing how it
    could directly impact military readiness. I am going to quote
    her here. She says, ``There is no route across the range that
    would not impact testing and training.'' Secretary Wilson's
    concerns are consistent with those expressed in the House Armed
    Services Committee in 2003 by Air Force Secretary James Roche.
        So, Mr. Kendall, do you share the concerns from the former
    Secretaries of the Air Force that transporting thousands and
    thousands of metric tons of nuclear waste around or through
    Nevada's Test and Training Range to Yucca Mountain would be
    detrimental to testing and evaluation of weapons systems,
    tactics development, advanced air, combat training, and our
    overall military readiness?
        Mr. Kendall. Well, Senator Rosen, first of all let me join
    you in offering condolences for the loss that occurred
    yesterday. Our training advantage in the United States,
    particularly for our air crews, is an important advantage we
    have over our adversaries, but unfortunately there are times
    when that training comes at a very high price. That is what
    apparently happened yesterday.
        With regard to Yucca Mountain, I have not had a chance to
    look at that issue. We talked about it in your office. I can
    only commit to you at this point that if confirmed, I would do
    so and that I would try to understand the mission impacts that
    you highlighted and raise issues with that, if I think that is
    appropriate.
        Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to move a little bit
    now onto land withdrawal. In fiscal year 2021, the NDAA
    reviewed the Air Force existing withdrawal of almost 3 million
    acres of public lands for the next 25 years, and included a
    provision that Senator Cortez Masto and I inserted that
    mandates an intergovernmental executive committee between the
    Air Force and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to help
    improve the Administration of and resolve conflicts on jointly
    managed lands. We have to support military modernization, keep
    up with current and emerging threats, but we also have to
    maintain Nevada's natural and cultural resources. This
    committee is one way to do so.
        As you take on this challenge and you pursue modernization
    of the range, can you commit to exchanging information,
    collaborating with local, state, and tribal governments on any
    proposals to withdraw Nevada's public lands and work with me
    and the rest of the Nevada delegation on any future land
    requests, and also will you commit to setting up the
    intergovernmental executive committee and getting its first
    meeting scheduled, as the Navy has already done, in Fallon,
    Nevada?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, with regard to the second part of
    your question, I would have to go look into that, but in
    general I think I would support that and try to make it happen
    as expeditiously.
        With regard to the first part, absolutely. Transparency is
    central to a process like this. There are a lot of affected
    stakeholders, and having a clear, understandable, and
    transparent is, I think, the key to success. These issues can
    be very, very difficult and very tough on all concerned, but
    they need to resolve it expeditiously so we can get to the
    right place, and doing that effectively requires a very open,
    transparent process.
        Senator Rosen. My time is up but I will look forward to
    meeting with you, because the intergovernmental executive
    committee is now mandated. The Navy has already done it. We can
    follow the template that they have done up in northern Nevada,
    so you can set one up for the Air Force in southern Nevada. I
    look forward to working with you and your team on that. Thank
    you so much.
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator Rosen.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Let me recognize
    Senator Scott, please.
        Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank each of
    you for your willingness to serve. You know, Communist China is
    clearly a despicable government. Whether it is stealing our
    jobs, which hurt our American families, stealing our
    technology, which puts our military and our business community
    at a disadvantage, putting a million Uighurs in prison for
    their religion, harvesting organs involuntarily, or taking away
    the basic rights of Hong Kong citizens, it is just despicable
    what they are doing. On top of that, they are trying to build a
    military that will clearly either be able to defeat us or
    clearly push us out of the Pacific Rim.
        So, Mr. Kendall, can you talk about your priorities in
    implementing the National Defense Strategy as it relates to
    dealing with Communist China?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, the mission of the Air Force
    that I would be responsible for is to make sure that we equip,
    train, and support our combatant commanders in order for them
    to carry out the National Defense Strategy for the Secretary
    and the President.
        The specific problem that I have been concerned about for
    some time is China's investments in capabilities that are
    intended to defeat U.S.'s ability to project power in that
    region, and the Air Force, of course, is a key contributor to
    that, both the Air Force and the Space Force within the
    Department of the Air Force. You know, I would be working very,
    very hard, as a high priority, to ensure that we make the right
    decisions about future operational concepts, first of all, and
    about future equipment that supports those operational
    concepts, and then that we move as quickly as possible to
    realize those things so that they are in the hands of our
    combatant commanders.
        Senator Scott. Thank you. Where do you think we stand today
    with our ability to defend our interest in the Pacific along
    with the interests of our allies, with regard to Communist
    China? Do you believe we are in the position that we can----
        Mr. Kendall. I do not believe anyone should doubt either
    our resolve or our capability. You know, Secretary of Defense
    Austin has talked about agile deterrence and a way to respond
    in more ways than the enemy may expect, and across different
    fronts, and I think that is a sound concept and I would support
    that, and I think, if confirmed, I would work to facilitate the
    Air Force's role in that.
        Senator Scott. Do you believe, with the defense budget that
    the President has proposed, that you will be able to continue
    to, if you are confirmed, do your job?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I am convinced that President Biden
    will submit a budget that he thinks is necessary to meet the
    security obligations of the United States. There will be
    tradeoffs within that. It will be difficult. I think that would
    be true in any level of the budget. But I believe that the
    funding that I understand the President will request in 2022 is
    adequate to meet the National Defense Strategy.
        Senator Scott. Ms. Shyu, can you talk a little bit about,
    in procurement, is there an opportunity to use off-the-shelf
    products that would reduce our costs significantly and give us
    more capability?
        Ms. Shyu. Absolutely. There is a lot of opportunity to do
    exactly what you are talking about. I will give you an example.
    One thing that I am very proud that the Army is doing is buying
    Skydio small UADs [Unmanned Attack Drones]. They are
    basically--you can flip it into the size of a little pack,
    okay. It is commercial. They sell it to the commercial
    industry, but Army is buying, I think, 6,000 of them in
    production right now. So right on point. Instead of redesigning
    it for a specific purpose, utilize what you can buy off the
    shelf.
        Senator Scott. Do you believe that we need to be careful
    about continuing to fund legacy programs rather than using off-
    the-shelf products? Do you think there will be a lot of
    pressure to just keep using existing companies because we have
    relationships and they have great lobbyists, rather than what
    is best for our military?
        Ms. Shyu. I think we need to look at the capabilities that
    the new product brings and trade it off versus a legacy. So it
    is a cost trade as well as a performance trade.
        Senator Scott. Have you had any time to look at the ability
    of our military to talk to each other, and just our
    communications systems and whether they are compatible enough
    to allow the transfer of information?
        Ms. Shyu. Sir, that is one of the areas I would like to do
    a deep dive in, especially the fully networked C3, to see how
    well we are able to communicate within a Service, across a
    Service, and across different domains.
        Senator Scott. Mr. Kendall, did you find that a problem
    when you served, the ability to share information among all the
    combatants and different branches of service?
        Mr. Kendall. I am sorry, Senator. I did not catch the
    question.
        Senator Scott. Did you ever have any experience with the
    inability to share in formation rapidly in the military?
        Mr. Kendall. Sharing information is a fundamental thing
    that the military is working on right now. A lot of effort is
    going into, sometimes it is called the ``Military Internet of
    Things.'' Is that what you are referring to?
        Senator Scott. Yes.
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, that is one of the very prominent areas
    of investment and modernization that the Services are talking
    about right now. The Air Force version of that is something
    called ABMS, Advanced Battle Management System. I have not had
    the chance to look at the details of that, but it would be of
    very high concern to me, to make sure that that program is on
    track and getting where it needs to be, if confirmed.
        Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Scott. Let me recognize
    Senator Peters, please.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to each of our
    nominees, congratulations on your nomination and your
    willingness to serve our country.
        Mr. Kendall, Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Harrison
    Township, Michigan, is in the running to host and F-16 and F-35
    FMS mission. This would consist of F-16s and F-35s from the
    Republic of Singapore and also F-35s from Finland, Poland, and
    Switzerland. I know you and I had a chance to speak at length
    about this mission in a phone call earlier, and my Michigan
    colleagues and I have also written to Acting Secretary Roth
    earlier this year and to former Secretary Barrett last fall.
        As we discussed, Selfridge is a finalist for this basing
    decision, and its location clearly exceeds all of the mission
    requirements. Michigan hosts the largest contiguous joint
    overland service range airspace complex east of the Mississippi
    River. Selfridge has extensive flying operations, hosting both
    the A-10 as well as the KC-135. As we discussed, from a cost-
    effective basis, which I know is important to you, Selfridge
    would require no significant infrastructure upgrades in order
    to complete this mission. The runway length, the number of
    aircraft shelters, ramp space are all adequate as they are
    right now. In addition, the folks on the ground in Macomb
    County have been enthusiastic hosts of this base for over 100
    years. Not many air bases can say that, that they have been
    around for over 100 years, and having community support to
    handle this mission and others.
        So my question to you is can I have your commitment that if
    you are confirmed prior to a decision being made that you will
    ensure that it is fair, it is transparent, and that the Air
    Force will make its judgment solely upon the merits of the
    installation?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, if I am confirmed, I will see to it
    that all Air Force basing decisions are fair, transparent, and
    that people are properly informed of the results.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that, and I think you
    will see the facts very clearly as I have outlined them here,
    and I look forward to working with you forward.
        My next question for you, Mr. Kendall, is that Michigan
    communities have a number of PFAS [Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
    Substances]-contaminated sites, including the former Wurtsmith
    and K.I. Sawyer Air Force Base. What they are dealing with,
    these communities are dealing with, is a challenge, and they
    certainly deserve greater transparency and communication about
    the ongoing remediation efforts that the Air Force is engaged
    in.
        They hosted the Air Force for many years, and it is simply
    wrong that this process has been slow-walked over the years.
    The pace for PFAS cleanup on the ground is simply too slow for
    anybody and is unacceptable. My question for you is, if
    confirmed, will you ensure that the Air Force conducts
    meaningful and substantive engagement with communities affected
    by PFAS?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, Senator, I will. My understanding is
    there are some regulatory things that need to happen for us to
    move forward that are not under the responsibility of the Air
    Force. But in any event, I will make that commitment to you. We
    will do everything we can to address this problem.
        Senator Peters. You will commit to pursuing expedited
    remediation of these sites?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I will make that a priority. It
    will be something that would have to trade off with other
    priorities in the budget, of course, but the Air Force would
    have obligations, I believe, as we move forward, and I would do
    everything I could to make sure the Air Force met those
    obligations.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that, and we would like
    to welcome you to Michigan to be at Selfridge and perhaps these
    other bases as well. If confirmed, I know you are going to want
    to get out and see these facilities, and we would look forward
    to having an opportunity to host you in Michigan.
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Peters. Ms. Shyu, you mentioned earlier your
    appreciation of the speed at which the Israelis were able to
    develop and field new technologies. As part of the fiscal year
    2021 NDAA, I led an effort to create a U.S.-Israel operations
    technology working group, so that the U.S. conducts cooperative
    research and development with tech-savvy countries like Israel.
        My question to you is, if confirmed, will you work with my
    office to build upon this effort and also work to expand our
    innovation cooperation with other allies? Maybe related to
    that, as you mentioned, the Israelis were particularly good.
    Are there other allies that we should be forming a closer
    relationship in order to expedite research and development and
    innovation?
        Ms. Shyu. Absolutely. I think that it is absolutely key to
    do that. I look forward to working with your office to increase
    the collaboration with our allied countries so we can share the
    knowledge and the lessons learned.
        Senator Peters. Great. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Peters.
    Senator Tuberville.
        Senator Tuberville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    being here today and thanks for your service. First I would
    like to thank you, Mr. Kendall and Ms. Blume, for standing by
    the data of the decision to put Space Command in Huntsville. My
    colleagues seem to continue to fight that for some reason. The
    Air Force analysis showed the location at Redstone saves
    taxpayers millions of dollars, which we all look forward to--I
    know you do, Ms. Blume--and that co-locating Space Command with
    NASA, Blue Origin, and ULA makes strategic sense. I am proud
    that Secretary of Defense Austin is supportive of the Air
    Force's analysis, and it is my hope that the decision, which is
    good for both national security and the taxpayer, remain a
    political.
        Mr. Kendall, you established a procurement strategy for the
    National Security Space Launch Phase 2 program and the
    retirement of Atlas V. In Alabama, we are proud to help the
    Nation transition from Russian-made engines to American-made
    engines. That was insightful for our national security.
        How should DOD boost our industrial base and secure the
    United States access to space?
        Mr. Kendall. Thank you, Senator, and as we talked yesterday
    in your office, I have visited Huntsville for some time and I
    am very familiar with the capabilities that are there.
        The thing that we did in the previous Administration in
    which I served, the Obama administration, was to reintroduce
    competition for space launch, and that has had a significant
    impact on cost in a very positive way. It has also led to the
    opportunity to modernize our space launch capabilities.
        A lot depends, in the future, on what happens in the
    commercial markets, but one thing I think that the Department
    should do, and if confirmed I would work to see that this
    happens, is to take advantage of the synergy with the
    commercial market for space launch to minimize the cost to the
    Air Force and Space Force for their future launches.
        Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Ms. Blume, do you think we
    have problems with how we share data with Congress, in your job
    coming up, how do you think we can make it better?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I think that the way in which the
    Department shares data with Congress is sometimes a little bit
    outdated in terms of what modern data collection, tracking,
    accessibility tools can do for us. If confirmed, I do look
    forward to working with the Congress to figure out ways that we
    can improve that flow of communication.
        Senator Tuberville. Thank you. Ms. Shyu, I do not know if
    you have been to Huntsville, Alabama. Have you been to
    Huntsville?
        Ms. Shyu. Many times.
        Senator Tuberville. Yes. Thank you. As you well know, we do
    a lot of research there. We have over 1,000 defense
    contractors, and, of course, NASA and Missile Defense, and we
    want to invite you to come. We talked a little bit earlier
    about hypersonic missiles. I have seen the work on this, and,
    of course, we are behind the 8-ball and we need to catch up
    with that. I would just like to end here--we are probably
    running a little bit long on time--but invite all three of you
    to come to Huntsville. We have the Army Command, Material
    Command in Huntsville, Ms. Blume. We have spent a lot of money
    but we ship it everywhere, and, you know, we are proud of what
    we have there, and all over Alabama, in terms of our seven
    military bases.
        So thanks for being here today, and I look forward to
    working with you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Tuberville.
        Okay. First of all we are going to stand by for a few
    minutes, because we have two votes that are taking place right
    now and we are all switching back and forth.
        I recognize Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just ran down
    from that vote. It is so good to see everybody here today. I
    just want to first start off by openly acknowledging the
    nominees sitting before us, Mr. Kendall, Ms. Shyu, and Ms.
    Blume. Congratulations. You all bring significant experience
    and expertise to these important roles, and I appreciate each
    in your willingness to continue to serve.
        Ms. Shyu, if confirmed, you will be the highest-ranking
    Asian American Native American Pacific Islander civilian in the
    Department of Defense. I have fought for better representation
    for the community in this Administration, so I was so pleased
    to see your nomination. If confirmed, I am sure that you will
    make significant contributions to the Department of Defense. I
    believe truly that our military is stronger when it draws on
    the full richness of our population for talent, ideas, and
    leadership.
        Mr. Kendall, it is so good to see you again and so good to
    see you nominated for this role. In fact, I have read your
    reports in my classwork on acquisition reform, and I am just so
    pleased that you have been nominated to lead our Air Force.
        The Air Force does fulfill a critical set of missions for
    the Joint Force and the nation. This is especially true with
    the Air Force Reserve and the Air National Guard, where we
    supply the C-130, the workhorse of the Air Force, handling both
    missions overseas and critical domestic mission such as airlift
    support, aeromedical missions, weather reconnaissance,
    firefighting support for the U.S. Forest Service, and natural
    disaster relief. The C-130 also sustains the training and
    operational readiness of the Army National Guard units as well
    as the airborne units of the Active Army.
        The Reserve components have seen unprecedented activity in
    the last few years, and our air wings are no exception. The Air
    National Guard's C-130 fleet has provided 68 percent of
    hurricane support and 42 percent of civil unrest support since
    fiscal year 2018. These domestic operations are only projected
    to grow in coming years. In short, our Nation relies on our
    Reserve component's C-130 fleet, composed of hard-working units
    like the 182nd Air Wing in Peoria--you knew I was going to
    throw Illinois in here somewhere, right?
        Yet the Air Force do plan on divesting multiple C-130s
    squadrons from the Reserve components in the next few years.
    While I understand that the Air Force has difficult decisions
    to make in how it manages its budget, I have heard from my
    [inaudible] is that the Illinois Air National Guard will not be
    able to fulfill its duties to Illinois and to the country if
    there are further C-130 divestments without replacement
    platforms. I know other Members of this Committee have heard
    the same from their governors and their CAGs.
        If confirmed, Mr. Kendall, will you commit to working with
    the governors and the CAGs of states with Reserve National
    Guard C-130 wings to ensure that they are able to fulfill their
    domestic missions and that the Air Force's divestment plans do
    not eliminate the C-130 capacity that our Nation has come to
    rely on, without at least replacing it with some other flying
    platform?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I am very aware of the versatility
    and the utility and the very wide range of missions the C-130
    can perform. It is a remarkable platform that has served us all
    for a very long time.
        I absolutely can commit to taking all those things into
    consideration in any tradeoffs we have to make in terms of what
    fleet we can sustain, and I would agree, certainly, to work
    with the CAGs and with the states on that to make sure their
    needs are met.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I am also concerned about our
    air mobility capacity. In fact, I sat down with the Air Force's
    A-8 last month to receive a classified update on the plans for
    that C-130 fleet, and in the course we discussed the fact that
    the Air Force had not created a plan for the future of air
    mobility beyond the C-130. While the C-130 continues to play a
    critical role in our military, and will for years,
    technological advances mean that we need to be thinking about
    the long-term future of air mobility. This is especially true
    when it comes to providing air mobility in a contested logistic
    environment in the Indo-Pacific region, where we need to be
    prepared to face long distances and advanced adversary
    targeting and sensing capabilities.
        If confirmed, Mr. Kendall, will you commit to rapidly
    delivering a plan for the modernization of the Air Force's air
    mobility platforms that factors in both overseas and domestic
    missions?
        Mr. Kendall. In general, yes, Senator. I am not sure what
    activities are underway. That should be something that is going
    to be reviewed as we build the fiscal year 2023 budget, and
    hopefully we will be able to provide a plan in conjunction with
    that. If confirmed, that is some of the things I would look at,
    overall mobility posture and how the Department of the Air
    Force supports that.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. It is clear to me that
    without this important enabler we do not have a combat-credible
    deterrent in the Indo-Pacific, and I hope that you share my
    concern and sense of urgency when it comes to making sure that
    we are going to be effective in the Indo-Pacific region.
        Mr. Kendall. I absolutely do.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Again, it is so good to see
    you, and I look forward to working with you. Since we last
    spoke I now am Chair of the Air-Land Subcommittee, so yay, we
    get to work together a lot more.
        Mr. Kendall. I look forward to that as well, Senator. Did
    you get your Ph.D.? I am curious.
        Senator Duckworth. I got it on a different topic. I
    actually got it on the use of electronic medical records, but I
    am still working on the acquisition reform, and we should talk
    about future vertical lift as a model on how we operationalize
    lessons from future vertical lift to other DOD acquisition
    programs.
        Mr. Kendall. It is a great topic. Thank you.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I yield. Oh, I am out of
    time, Mr. Chairman. You have been very generous.
        Chairman Reed. [Presiding.] Thank you very much, Senator
    Duckworth, and now let me recognize Senator Hawley, please.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all
    the witnesses for being here. Congratulations on your
    nominations.
        Mr. Kendall, let me start with you. I enjoyed our
    conversation last week. We talked about the fact that Missouri
    is the proud home of the 139th Airlift Wing, and we talked
    about the fact that the 139th can use the C-130s to get to
    places that few other units can. Let me ask you how you see
    this unique capability, allowing the 139th and Air National
    Guard units like it to support distributed operations in the
    years ahead.
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, we talked earlier about how important
    C-130 is and how versatile a platform it is. It serves many
    missions and many functions, and I have historically been a big
    supporter of that program. I have not looked at the specific
    unit that you are talking about and what its capabilities are,
    but I am sure it is an important part of that overall mix.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you for that. Ms. Blume,
    you wrote, in 2019, that China is investing in capabilities
    that are designed not to defeat the United States Military but
    to hold it at bay long enough for Beijing to achieve their
    objectives before the U.S. can respond effectively, and you
    went on to write that the resulting fait accompli would present
    U.S. policymakers with an appetizing dilemma, risk escalation
    through a massive counterattack against a nuclear-armed state
    or accept an armed attack on a U.S. ally or partner and the
    consequent devaluation of U.S. security guarantees.
        Can you just tell me, from an analytic perspective, why
    would it be so difficult for the United States to dislodge
    Chinese forces from Taiwan, in particular, if we fail to deny a
    fait accompli at the outset?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I think the fundamental crux of that
    challenges is the U.S., in that context, would be fighting an
    away game. It is much more difficult to project power over the
    vast distances that exist in the Western Pacific than it would
    be for China to defend its position once it has achieved a
    lodgment.
        Senator Hawley. Given that, would you agree that it is
    important that we maintain forces forward in the first island
    chain in order to effectively be postured to defeat, deny a
    fait accompli?
        Ms. Blume. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Mr. Kendall, along those same
    lines, you said last week that if China initiated an offensive
    against Taiwan they would try to make it impossible for us to
    intervene before they had accomplished their objectives, which
    is a classic fait accompli, in a way that Ms. Blume has
    described.
        The Air Force Chief of Staff, General Brown, said recently
    that the Air Force needs to be postured forward in order to
    blunt a Chinese fait accompli against Taiwan. Do you agree with
    that assessment?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes, Senator, I do.
        Senator Hawley. Ms. Blume, let me come back to you. I have
    said for a while now that the Department needs to take a harder
    look at burden sharing, not only to ensure that other nations
    do not take advantage of our own spending and defense but also
    for the simple reason that the United States military cannot do
    everything. We cannot possibly defend every scenario in every
    theater.
        If you are confirmed, can you give us a sense of how you
    will ensure that CAPE takes full account of the capabilities
    that our allies and partners can bring to bear and make sure
    that those variables are fully incorporated into any relevant
    analytic effort?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I agree completely that the U.S.'s
    allies and partners are a critical strategic advantage for us
    in this environment, and if confirmed, I would look forward
    to--you know, CAPE is an analytic organizations, incorporating
    allied and partnered capability in the analysis that the
    organization produces across the board.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. I think that is really important
    and I am really glad to hear you say that.
        Let me just, Ms. Blume, going back to China if I could,
    there is a tension between the requirements for shoring up
    deterrence in the Western Pacific over the next 5 to 7 years
    and transforming the force so that we can sustain deterrence
    over the medium and long term. My question is, from an analytic
    standpoint, under what conditions should the Department accept
    some level of duplication, maybe even at extra cost, so that we
    can strengthen deterrence in the near term while bridging to
    solutions that will allow us to maintain deterrence in the
    medium and the long term?
        Ms. Blume. Senator, I think the short answer is that the
    Department needs to do both. Of course, the devil is in the
    details. I think that it is really important to look at each of
    these mission areas on a case-by-case basis to understand what
    the risks are and tee that up for the Secretary and the Deputy
    Secretary to make judgments about what risks are acceptable and
    what risks are not.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you.
        Mr. Kendall, finally, General Goldfein testified last year
    that the Air Force required 145 B-21s in order to achieve both
    its conventional and nuclear missions at moderate risk to the
    force. You and I talked a little bit about this on the phone.
    Give us your assessment of the number of B-21s you think the
    Air Force requires.
        Mr. Kendall. Well, sir, I think that number is a reasonable
    number at this point. We are a long way from achieving that,
    and requirements may change over time. But I think as far as
    the target and basis to manage the program it is reasonable
    right now.
        Senator Hawley. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Hawley. Let me recognize
    Senator Kelly, please.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
    all our witnesses for being here today.
        I want to start with Mr. Kendall. We spoke last week about
    your views on the future of the Air Force. For the past four
    decades, the A-10 Warthog has been an invaluable, close-air
    support asset to America's troops on the ground. Its
    capabilities are unmatched, and its cost-effectiveness cannot
    be beaten.
        As a former test pilot and combat pilot, and having flown
    close-air support missions myself, I do not see how the F-35 or
    the F-16 is going to be effective in this mission--flying low
    under cloud cover, delivering ordnance on an enemy position
    while digitally identifying where our guys on the ground are
    and ensuring we keep them safe, being able turn around the
    aircraft very quickly and getting it back into the fight.
        Mr. Kendall, how would you assess the ability of other
    fighter aircraft to meet these requirements and conduct close-
    air support missions?
        Mr. Kendall. Well, Senator, as we discussed, the A-10 is a
    very special airplane. It was designed specifically for the
    close-air support mission. I am a former Army officer. I have
    talked to a lot of Army officers, particularly infantrymen, and
    if they are going to get some help in the air they want it to
    be an A-10. It is a formidable aircraft in that mission,
    particularly in suppressing enemy fire. My son was an
    infantryman in Iraq, and I am quite sure that if he needed some
    support he would have preferred to see the A-10 show up. So I
    am a proponent of the airplane, just because of my background.
        There are hard trades that have to be made, and I think
    there is a question about how much inventory can be kept in the
    A-10. A lot of them have been rewinged to extend their life.
    But they provide a unique capability and I would be reluctant
    to see them come out of the inventory entirely.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, and I think it is important to
    remember that this is not like hypothetical. The consequences
    of getting this wrong, of being less effective in this mission,
    real consequences. I mean, it is the difference of life and
    death for our soldiers and our special operators on the ground.
        So you have gotten feedback. I have as well, from our
    troops on the ground with respect to the A-10, and I have flown
    an airplane that was a great, all-weather attack airplane. It
    did not do the CAS mission very well, so I appreciate your
    comments here. You know, I think it is critical to our national
    security to make sure that we sustain the entirety of the
    current fleet of this very cost-effective and combat-proven
    aircraft for the U.S. Air Force, and I look forward to working
    with you on this issue.
        Mr. Kendall. Same here, Senator.
        Senator Kelly. I have got a couple more minutes. Ms. Shyu,
    good to speak with you again. I enjoyed our conversation last
    week. I know from our past discussions that you share my view
    of the imperative of bringing advanced semiconductor production
    capabilities back to our country. It is hard to believe that
    today that United States scientists and industry have to look
    to China to test advanced capabilities in semiconductors, and
    it is clear that investing in United States semiconductor
    research and fabrication capability today is going to lead to
    dividends for our national security in the long term.
        That is why I am working with colleagues on both sides of
    the aisle to make sure we fund and support these efforts. A
    critical element of this work is the National Network for
    Microelectronics R&D, and it was authorized in last year's
    defense bill. The network would simultaneously leverage the
    advanced research capabilities at universities across the
    country, and it would support American innovation and alleviate
    supply chain security concerns in today's market.
        So Ms. Shyu, can you speak to why this reshoring is so
    critical to our security, and if confirmed, can you commit to
    working with me to implement the microelectronics network?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator Kelly, I absolutely believe that
    reshoring our microelectronics is critical. There are so many
    microelectronics components across all of our weapons systems,
    as well as in the commercial industry. So I am fully supporting
    the Congress' effort in terms of finding funding to reshore
    this capability. I will be more than happy to work with your
    office once I get a chance to dive into a little bit more
    details of the microelectronics initiative. I will be happy to
    come back and chat with you.
        Senator Kelly. Well, thank you, and thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, and just to reiterate, I believe that these
    investments are critical to our long-term security, and it is
    important that we support rapid implementation in this year's
    NDAA. Thank you.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Kelly. Now let
    me recognize, via Webex, Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think
    somebody was not looking at my camera being on and I got
    skipped a little bit ago. So thank you for coming back to me.
        Mr. Kendall, I enjoyed our conversation and, of course, we
    had a good discussion about Arnold Engineering and the fact
    that we have wind tunnels and engine test cells and arc heaters
    and space testing chambers all there at Arnold, but crumbling
    infrastructure is a problem, and we are hopeful that you are
    going to make maintenance a priority.
        So given the considerable risk that our infrastructure
    poses to the Air Force test mission, and that affects our
    combat power, are you confident that our testing facilities are
    sufficiently well maintained and modern to meet the high
    demands of our priority testing items like hypersonics?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, I have not had a chance to review the
    current status of those facilities. In my previous position in
    the Department I was responsible for test facilities, and I
    consider that very important and a high priority, that those
    facilities enable us to move technology forward, and
    hypersonics, that you mentioned, in particular, was an area in
    which I supported additional investments. Once you have the
    facilities of course you have to take care of them. If you
    don't then it becomes very un-cost-effective to try to maintain
    them, use them, or cause them to recover.
        So I am, in general, very supportive of that type of
    installation. Now I have not had a chance to look at the
    current state of those facilities and what has happened over
    the last few years to places like Arnold, but I can commit to
    you that if I am confirmed I will do so.
        Senator Blackburn. Of course, we know that in order to
    compete with Beijing and Moscow that that hypersonic capability
    is going to be important. So what do you understand to be the
    national security risk of not modernizing these testing
    facilities, and what roles do you see for preventative
    maintenance to mitigate some of these risks?
        Mr. Kendall. Again, you need to take care of the things
    that you have so that they can function properly and be used to
    do the tests that are necessary. So both modernization of those
    facilities and acquiring new, more capable facilities that can
    do things that existing ones cannot, as well as taking care of
    the things you already have. There is, obviously, some
    prioritization that has to happen in all of that, and you have
    to look carefully at what your expectations are for the future.
    But it is certainly a high priority.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you. Ms. Shyu, thank you for the
    time last week, and I so enjoyed the conversation about new and
    innovative partnerships. We discussed that in the Pathfinder
    program, that Vanderbilt and the University of Tennessee are
    participating in.
        So my question to you is how would you seek to more quickly
    transition emerging technologies through leveraging some of
    these public-private partnerships and also the capabilities
    that we find our national labs?
        Ms. Shyu. Senator Blackburn, it was great chatting with you
    last week. I absolutely believe the fact that the university is
    working so closely with the users to develop critical
    technologies that would have strategic implications, that is
    absolutely the right way to go, because it is the users who
    understand where the shortfalls are. Collaborating with the
    universities as well as small companies is the right step
    moving forward.
        What I would want to do, if confirmed, is making sure that
    the capability that is developed has a transition path into
    programs, to get into the hands of our warfighters. So that
    would be a key focus of mine.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. I appreciate that, and I think
    that finding that pathway so that you have that participation
    by the warfighters in developing both hardware, software,
    applications. There was discussion from Senator King earlier
    about 3D printing and looking at those capabilities.
        Mr. Kendall, our Guard in Tennessee has some really top-
    level talent when it comes to cyberspace, remotely piloted
    vehicles, the drones. The 118th ISR Group, along with five
    other Air National Guard targeting units, provided robust
    support to the Active component Air Force Targeting Enterprise
    to ensure continuity of the mission during COVID. What is your
    view on the role of the MQ-9 reaper in great power competition?
        Mr. Kendall. Senator, the MQ-9 reaper has been a very
    valuable program. It has served us incredibly well. We bought
    an awful lot of them for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    for the war on terror, and they were used other places around
    the world as well.
        The concern people have about that now is its utility in a
    high-threat environment, in a non-permissive environment, it is
    called. So I think we would have to look at what we could do to
    sustain that program in that environment. I know that some
    things have been talked about, including adding more
    countermeasures to the aircraft and providing some standoff
    capability, and I think those are well worth looking at. We
    have made a big investment in that platform and it would be a
    shame to not be able to utilize it against more sophisticated
    threats.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Blackburn. Let
    me thank the panel for your attendance here today but also your
    willingness to serve the Nation once again after your
    distinguished service previously. You have demonstrated the
    thoughtfulness and the integrity and the commitment that is
    essential to be a part of the Department of Defense. I look
    forward to your confirmations.
        With that let me adjourn this hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the Committee adjourned.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Honorable Frank Kendall
    III by Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                          duties and responsibilities
        Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
    the Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. The Secretary of the Air Force is responsible for the
    supervision and control of the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force
    and any other activities as may be prescribed by law, the President, or
    the Secretary of Defense. By statute, the Secretary of the Air Force is
    the senior official and head of the Department of the Air Force with
    authority and responsibility for conducting all affairs of the
    Department of the Air Force, subject to the authority, direction, and
    control of the Secretary of Defense (10 U.S.C. Sec. 9013). The
    Secretary of the Air Force is solely responsible for the functions of
    recruiting; organizing; supplying; equipping; training; servicing;
    mobilizing; demobilizing; administering; maintaining; construction
    outfitting and repair of military equipment; construction maintenance
    and repair of buildings, structures and utilities; and real property
    acquisition and management. Subject to the authority, direction, and
    control of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Air Force is
    responsible for the functioning and efficiency of the Department of the
    Air Force; the formation of policies consistent with national security
    objectives and policies established by the President or the Secretary
    of Defense; the effective and timely implementation of policy program
    and budget decisions and instructions of the President or the Secretary
    of Defense; fulfilling the current and future operational requirements
    of the unified and specified combatant commands and effective
    cooperation between the Department of the Air Force and other Military
    Departments and agencies of the Department of Defense; the presentation
    and justification of the positions of the Department of the Air Force
    on the plans, programs, and policies of the Department of Defense; the
    effective supervision and control of the intelligence activities of the
    Department of the Air Force; and such other activities as may be
    prescribed by law or by the President or Secretary of Defense, after
    first informing the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the Air
    Force may make such recommendations to Congress relating to the
    Department of Defense as he considers appropriate. (10 U.S.C.
    Sec. 9013).
        Question. What background and experience do you possess that render
    you most highly qualified to perform these duties and responsibilities?
        Answer. My background includes a number of positions in the
    national security arena. I am a West Point graduate and served over 10
    years in the U.S. Army on active duty and for approximately 20 years as
    a member of the U.S. Army Reserve. I am a graduate of the Army War
    College. I commanded an Army air defense unit in West Germany during
    the cold war, giving me an invaluable background in troop leadership. I
    have two graduate degrees in aeronautical engineering from Caltech,
    have taught aeronautical engineering at West Point, worked as a civil
    servant and a systems engineer on defense systems development, and
    worked in industry as the chief engineer of a major defense company. In
    government I have held several positions of responsibility for U.S.
    weapon systems development, including as Deputy Director of Defense
    Research and Engineering for Tactical Warfare Programs, Principal
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
    Logistics and then as Under Secretary for approximately 5 years. In
    these positions I was responsible for oversight of a broad range of
    programs including all major Air Force and Space Force programs. I hold
    MBA and law degrees from Long Island University and Georgetown,
    respectively, and have been the co-founder and a managing partner in an
    aerospace and defense industry consulting business, as well as an
    independent consultant. I have also served on various advisory boards
    for government and industry and on fiduciary boards of several
    aerospace and defense contractors. Finally, my experience includes
    positions as a senior fellow and senior advisor for national security
    think tanks where I was involved in a range of defense related issues,
    including many affecting the Department of the Air Force.
        Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
    take to enhance your ability to perform the duties and responsibilities
    of the Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. No. While I would have a great deal to learn in office, I
    believe that, if confirmed, I am prepared to perform the duties of the
    Secretary of the Air Force.
        Question. What other duties and responsibilities do you anticipate
    the President or the Secretary of Defense would prescribe for you, if
    confirmed?
        Answer. At this time, I am not aware of any additional duties the
    President or Secretary of Defense would prescribe if I am confirmed.
        Question. If confirmed, what innovative ideas would you consider
    providing to the Secretary of Defense regarding the organization and
    operations of the Department of the Air Force?
        Answer. At this time, I do not have any specific recommendations
    for the Secretary of Defense regarding the organization and operations
    of the Department of the Air Force. If confirmed, I would particularly
    evaluate the progress being made on standing up the U.S. Space Force
    and executing the direction from the Congress in that regard. Based on
    that assessment, and if I am confirmed, I might have recommendations
    for the Secretary of Defense in this area. If confirmed, I would be
    committed to making the Space Force a success and a first step would be
    to evaluate the plans and directions currently being implemented.
        Question. To the extent that the functions of the Air Force overlap
    with those of other Department of Defense (DOD) components, what would
    be your approach, if confirmed, to consolidating and reducing
    unnecessary duplication?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretaries of the Army
    and Navy and with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to identify
    and to reduce unnecessary duplication. Some degree of operational
    capability overlap is beneficial, as it compounds the problem set that
    our potential adversaries would face. In other cases, duplication and
    redundancy are wasteful and should be eliminated as much as possible. I
    have a long history of trying to get the Military Departments and
    Services to work together and I am open to initiatives in this area
    that would benefit the Department of Defense and the Department of the
    Air Force.
        Question. If confirmed, what specifically would you do to ensure
    that your tenure as Secretary of the Air Force epitomizes the
    fundamental requirement for civilian control of the Armed Forces
    embedded in the U.S. Constitution and other laws?
        Answer. I am a firm believer in civilian control of the military. I
    have always been impressed with the way in which America's senior
    military leaders accept civilian control and direction. If confirmed, I
    would work closely with senior military leaders, especially the Chief
    of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations. If
    confirmed, I would view their inputs as invaluable, but the direction
    of the Department of the Air Force is by statute the responsibility of
    the Secretary of the Department of the Air Force.
        Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
    assign to the Under Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. The Under Secretary of the Air Force has a very short set
    of statutory responsibilities; in general, it is to carry out the
    direction and duties assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force. Having
    worked at a senior level in DOD in the past, I understand the
    importance and value of a capable second in command. If confirmed, I
    would assign specific responsibilities to the Under Secretary
    consistent with the skill sets and experience that person brings to the
    table, taking into account our relative strengths and weaknesses. I
    have held some preliminary discussions with the nominee to be the Air
    Force Under Secretary, but it is premature prior to possible
    confirmations to be overly specific in those conversations. That said,
    the nominee's experience as an Air Force officer who has deployed
    overseas on multiple occasions, led Air Force personnel, experienced
    life on Air Force bases, and who has special expertise in intelligence,
    suggests a lead role in these related areas. I would also expect any
    Under Secretary to work as my partner in managing the Secretary's
    office and ensuring the military staff and secretariat are aligned, in
    representing the Air Force in various fora--as a leader with full
    authority when representing me or the Department of Air Force, and with
    various stakeholder and oversight communities.
        Question. If confirmed, over which members and organizations of the
    Air Force would you direct the Chief of Staff of the Air Force to
    exercise supervision and what would be the scope of such supervision?
        Answer. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force is the senior military
    advisor to the Secretary of the Air Force and senior military officer
    of the Air Force. The Chief of Staff presides over the Air Staff,
    communicates plans and recommendations of the Air Staff to the
    Secretary of the Department of the Air Force, and advises the Secretary
    of the Department of the Air Force on those plans and recommendations.
    In addition to his role as an advisor, the Chief of Staff of the Air
    Force is responsible for the effective and efficient functioning of Air
    Force organizations and commands in executing their statutory missions
    and assisting the Secretary of the Department of the Air Force in the
    performance of other functions assigned by statute to the Secretary of
    the Department of the Air Force. Furthermore, the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force also performs the duties prescribed for him as a member of
    the Joint Chiefs of Staff under section 10 U.S.C. Sec. 151. This
    response also applies to the Chief of Space Operations.
        Question. What other duties would you assign to the Chief of Staff
    of the Air Force?
        Answer. At this time I have no other specific duties that I would
    assign to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (or to the Chief of Space
    Operations). My intention, if confirmed, is to ensure that the
    Department of the Air Force Secretariat, the Air Staff, and the Space
    Staff work closely together and that the standup of the Space Force is
    supported as fully and as efficiently by the Air Force as possible to
    maximize mission performance and minimize costs. If confirmed, I would
    give direction to achieve this objective as needed.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. What do you consider to be the most significant
    challenges you would face if confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would consider the following to be
    significant challenges: mission performance, people issues, and
    teambuilding. With regard to mission performance, I have been beating
    the drum about the need to respond aggressively to Chinese, and to a
    lesser extent Russian, military modernization programs. The Chinese
    have invested heavily in capabilities intended to defeat the power
    projection capabilities of the U.S. While the level of attention to
    this threat has increased and some steps have been taken, I do not feel
    that there have been adequate responses to this challenge to date. If
    confirmed, I intend to move the needle significantly to improve the
    fielded conventional deterrent capabilities of the United States. In
    addition, and tightly coupled to mission performance, there is a
    financial challenge associated with recapitalizing the two nuclear
    triad legs for which the Department of the Air Force is responsible and
    in maintaining current mission capabilities while simultaneously
    investing in future capabilities. Next, there are a number of
    personnel-related challenges on which I do not believe the Department
    of the Air Force has made adequate progress. These include gender
    issues and others including sexual assault, racial inequities,
    extremism, and suicide. I am also aware of issues in areas like housing
    and support to families in which more progress is needed. Finally, I
    believe there are challenges in making the Air and Space Forces more
    effective contributors to joint and combined operations. Specifically,
    the operational resilience and support to operations provided by the
    Space Force, and the achievement of integrated command and control
    between both the Space Force and the Air Force and with other Services
    and allies are areas where the Department of the Air Force will play a
    critical role.
        Question. What plans do you have for addressing each of these
    challenges, if confirmed?
        Answer. As a first step in each case, if confirmed, I would need to
    assess the current situation to better understand the posture of the
    Department of the Air Force. I have been out of government for 4 years
    and am not fully current on the situation I would face if confirmed. I
    was not previously directly involved in some personnel issues that I
    would be responsible for, and a number of new programs have been
    started in each of the areas in which I believe the Department of the
    Air Force has challenges. In addition to assessing the current
    situation, I would need to understand how performance is being measured
    in each of the areas in which I see challenges and I would have to
    evaluate the current plans to achieve improvements in each of these
    areas. I am aware that the Department of the Air Force is addressing
    each of these challenges and that plans are in place or being prepared.
    Once I have completed these assessments I would be in a position to
    direct any changes I thought were necessary. In some areas, I am sure
    there will be relevant direction from the Congress, the President, and
    the Secretary of Defense that I would be charged to carry out, if
    confirmed.
                      2018 national defense strategy (nds)
        Question. The 2018 NDS prioritized ``great power competition and
    conflict'' with China and Russia as the primary challenge with which
    the United States must contend, while also recognizing the need to
    deter and counter rogue regimes like North Korea and Iran, and move to
    a more resource sustainable approach to counterterrorism. Secretary of
    Defense Austin has announced that the Department will review and update
    the 2018 NDS and conduct a Global Posture Review to assess requirements
    for military capability.
        If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the review and
    update of the NDS?
        Answer. I understand the DOD has kicked off a review of the 2018
    NDS. The Department of the Air Force will have a significant role to
    play in this review, and I would focus my efforts on providing my best
    advice regarding how the evolving security environment impacts the
    organize, train, and equip function of the Department. I agree with
    Secretary Austin that the 2018 NDS helped consolidate a bipartisan
    consensus around the threat posed by the growth of China's military
    capabilities and his prioritization of China as the DOD's pacing
    challenge. It is also my understanding that since 2018, the Department
    of the Air Force has made significant progress in developing new
    operational concepts and identifying the capabilities needed to
    implement the strategy. If confirmed, I would also review these efforts
    and evaluate them to determine how to best inform Secretary of Defense-
    led efforts to review the strategy.
        Question. In your view, what, if any, changes should be considered
    in reshaping the NDS, taking into account developments since 2018?
        Answer. While the 2018 NDS accurately assesses the strategic
    environment, it underemphasized the importance of our allies and
    partners. It is important that the Department of the Air Force work in
    conjunction with its counterparts and the Office of the Secretary of
    Defense to continue revise the NDS in light of those changes. For
    example, the pace of China's military modernization--it's increasingly
    aggressive actions in the INDO-PACIFIC, and its ability to threaten the
    homeland should be continually assessed. In my view, the NDS should
    involve deliberate prioritization to guide decisions regarding
    tradeoffs between short-term, mid-term, and long-term risks the Nation
    will face.
        Question. If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in the
    Global Posture Review?
        Answer. Ensuring an effective, survivable and affordable Defense
    posture that allows the United States to deter our adversaries,
    reassure our allies and partners, maintain our global power projection
    capabilities, and is responsive to anticipated changes in the strategic
    environment is essential. Tough choices on how and where we posture our
    forces are needed. It is my understanding that the Air Force is
    providing comprehensive analyses that explore our posture needs and
    requirements, but there is still much work to do. If confirmed, I look
    forward to continuing these vital efforts and having these discussions.
        Question. In your view, what new requirements for Air Force
    capabilities should be incorporated in the Global Posture Review?
        Answer. I believe the Global Posture Review (GPR) should help
    inform discussions on new operational concepts to address current and
    anticipated capability gaps and shortfalls. An understanding for the
    need to make some global presence tradeoffs as we reprioritize for
    near-peer competition is critical. If confirmed, I look forward to
    learning more about investments and work being done in these areas and
    participating in deliberations about the most cost effective way
    forward.
                              air force readiness
        Question. How would you assess the current readiness of the Air
    Force--across the domains of materiel and equipment, personnel, and
    training--to execute its require missions?
        Answer. At this time, I do not have an adequate basis to assess the
    current and prospective readiness of the Department of the Air Force.
    The Nation relies upon the Air Force to be ``first in'' due to its
    unique capabilities of global reach, agility of employment, speed of
    response, and lethal precision. If confirmed, I will be committed to
    ensuring the force is manned, trained, and equipped to provide the
    readiness needed to meet the growing global security challenges that
    face our Nation. The Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Commandant
    of the Marine Corps have recently articulated the need for a more
    expansive approach to readiness over time. I am in agreement with that
    perspective.
        Question. In your view, what are the priority missions for which
    current and future Air Force and Space Force forces should be trained
    and ready in the context of day-to-day activities, as well as for
    contingencies?
        Answer. Air Force and Space Force capabilities are critical
    contributors to both strategic and conventional deterrents and to
    achieving our military objectives if called on to do so. The Space
    Force provides critical missile attack warning and nuclear command and
    control assets for the Nation. The Air Force executes two thirds of the
    nuclear triad and essential elements of the nuclear command and control
    network. Both the Air and Space Forces provide essential connective
    fabric for command, control and communications of the Joint Force
    across all domains. The Air Force provides both global strike
    capabilities and forward based tactical airpower to support operations
    in all geographic combatant commands. Both the Air and Space Forces
    provide essential supporting capabilities to the Joint Force and in
    support of our allies. Examples include position, navigation, and
    timing (PNT) services and global air mobility services. All of these
    missions and function are critical to the Department of Defense and the
    Nation.
        These missions and functions remain a priority in deterring would-
    be adversaries, defending the homeland, and winning today and in the
    future fight.
        Question. Does the Air Force have the requisite analytic
    capabilities and tools to support you, if confirmed as the Secretary of
    the Air Force, in measuring its readiness to execute the broad range of
    potential Air Force missions envisioned by 2018 NDS and associated
    operational plans--from low-intensity, gray-zone conflicts to
    protracted high intensity fights? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I don't know the answer to this question. One of my first
    goals, if confirmed, will be to assess the analytic capacity and
    capability the Department has available to support decisionmaking on
    future investments and in analyzing the new operational concepts that I
    believe will be necessary to deal with current and emerging threats. As
    a person who spent 20 years involved with operational analysis during
    the cold war, I am concerned that the Department's capability in this
    area has atrophied. We may not have the tools needed, and the requisite
    skills in place, to conduct the high quality analysis necessary to
    support sound modernization decisions.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize maintaining
    readiness in the near term, with modernizing the Air Force to ensure
    future readiness?
        Answer. I would follow the guidance of the President and Secretary
    of Defense and the direction implicit or explicit in statutory
    requirements. My own view for over a decade is that threats to our
    military superiority, in all domains, are increasing over time and that
    the Department of the Air Force should be making plans and decisions
    with that reality in mind.
                                     budget
        In its 2018 report, the National Defense Strategy Commission
    recommended that Congress increase the base defense budget at an
    average rate of three to 5 percent above inflation through the Future
    Years Defense Program. The President has released budget totals that
    indicate that the DOD budget for fiscal year 2022 will not increase
    from Fiscal Year 2021, but will essentially remain flat.
        Question. If confirmed, by what standards would you measure the
    adequacy of funding for the Air Force?
        Answer. The Department of the Air Force should be funded adequately
    to execute its missions with acceptable risk today, tomorrow, and in
    the future. This requires a balance of funding between current force
    structure and readiness, recapitalization and upgrading of aging
    equipment and investment in both technologies and systems that will be
    necessary to perform the Department's missions for the foreseeable
    future. People, airmen and guardians and their families, are essential
    to the Department's current and future success. So are the government
    civilians and the industrial base that supports the Air and Space
    Force. If confirmed, I would try to strike the best possible balance of
    each of these contributors to our national security. I would measure
    the adequacy of funding against the degree of risk of current or future
    mission failure.
        Question. Section 222a of title 10, U.S. Code, provides that not
    later than 10 days after the President's submission of the defense
    budget to Congress, each Service Chief must submit to the congressional
    defense committees a report that lists, in order of priority, the
    unfunded priorities of his or her armed force.
        If confirmed, would you agree to support the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations in providing their unfunded
    priorities lists to Congress in a timely manner?
        Answer. Yes.
                           alliances and partnerships
        Mutually beneficial alliances and partnerships are one of our
    greatest comparative advantages in competition with near-peer rivals.
        Question. What do you see as the role of the Air Force and Space
    Force in building relationships and interoperability with allies and
    partners?
        Answer. In an era of strategic competition, the Department of the
    Air Force should work closely with our allies and partners to deter and
    influence our adversaries in the air, space, and cyber domains. The Air
    and Space Forces should proactively engage in security cooperation and
    relationship building events with Air and Space components of our
    allies and partners, in coordination with the geographic combatant
    command priorities. Increasing interoperability with allies and
    partners strengthens the position of the United States vis-`-vis its
    strategic competitors.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific actions would you take to
    prioritize and strengthen existing U.S. alliances and partnerships,
    build new partnerships, and take advantage of opportunities in
    international cooperation?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the efforts outlined in
    President Biden's Interim National Security Strategic Guidance to build
    mutually beneficial partnerships through security cooperation. By
    leveraging the Department's resources for security cooperation through
    key-leader engagements, international armaments cooperation, and
    supporting arms export for the air and space domains, the Department
    can empower our allies and partners to meet those challenges beside us.
    Together we will close gaps, reduce costs, and increase resilience in
    our collective capabilities.
                              indo-pacific region
        Question. What are the key areas in which the Air Force must
    improve to provide the necessary capabilities and capacity to the Joint
    Force to deter Chinese aggression and, if necessary, prevail in a
    potential conflict with China?
        Answer. As I testified during the Obama administration, the
    fundamental vulnerability the Chinese anti-access/area denial
    investments have attacked is the limited resilience of American high
    value power projection assets including forward air bases and
    satellites as well as forward logistics nodes and naval assets. China
    is attempting to acquire the ability to defeat American power
    projection forces in the region referred to as inside the first, (and
    increasingly the second) island chain off China's coast in the Western
    Pacific.
        Question. How would you assess the threat to Air Force forces and
    facilities from Chinese missile forces?
        Answer. In my view, the threat is severe and growing.
        Question. In your assessment, have Air Force investments, posture
    shifts and/or new operational concepts sufficiently addressed this
    threat?
        Answer. The short answer is that I don't know. I do know that
    significant attention has been paid to this problem and that some
    efforts are underway. My concern at this point is that those efforts
    are not adequately focused or moving fast enough to provide meaningful
    military operational capability to our forces in the region. If
    confirmed, I will assess the adequacy of the efforts currently underway
    and work with the military leadership of the Air and Space Forces to
    make any necessary adjustments.
        Question. In your assessment, what are the priority investments the
    Air Force could make that would help implement the NDS in the Indo-
    Pacific?
        Answer. I believe priority investments for the Air Force in the
    Indo-Pacific include those that enable the Air Force to perform its key
    missions in a complex anti-access/area denial threat environment. Air
    Force modernization must ensure that the service is able to accelerate
    meaningful and cost effective change to adapt to these challenges.
        Question. What is your current assessment of the risk of
    operational failure in a conflict with China as a result of a critical
    logistics failure?
        Answer. I believe that the emerging capabilities of China to
    disrupt and attack our logistics pose a significant risk. I understand
    that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021
    identifies posture and logistics as a requirement equally as important
    as modern aircraft and advanced weapons to maintain a credible military
    deterrent. Military logistics planning must be re-aligned to account
    for China's anti-access/area denial systems and the simultaneous
    temporal and geographic demands placed on operations in the Western
    Pacific.
                                     europe
        Question. What are the key areas in which the Air Force must
    improve to provide the necessary capabilities and capacity to the Joint
    Force to deter Russian aggression and, if necessary, prevail in a
    potential conflict with Russia?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the adequacy of
    Air and Space Force capabilities to support European combatant command
    and NATO operational needs. At the time I left government in 2017, the
    Department of Defense had taken some steps to improve our posture in
    Europe, but I am not familiar with the current capabilities relative to
    the threat posed by Russia. If confirmed, I would assess the adequacy
    of existing and planned forces to support U.S. and NATO requirements in
    the region.
        Question. In your view, are there investments the Air Force should
    prioritize for the competition with Russia below the level of direct
    military conflict in order to counter Russian malign influence and
    hybrid warfare operations?
        Answer. In my view, the Russian threat continues to evolve,
    combining both hard and soft power through the use of hybrid tactics.
    Countering these tactics will require a comprehensive approach
    involving our allies and partners and other U.S. Government departments
    and agencies. The Department of the Air Force has a key role to play in
    this effort. If confirmed, I would examine the areas in which the
    Department of the Air Force is investing and how it works with the
    interagency, our allies and partners to support a comprehensive
    approach.
                                  acquisition
        Question. Congress has expanded and refined the acquisition-related
    functions of the Service Chiefs.
        If confirmed, how would you synchronize your acquisition-related
    responsibilities with those of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and
    the Chief of Space Operations?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with both the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations to meet the
    needs of our combatant commanders. Congress has provided for a formal
    role for the Service Chiefs in the acquisition process and if confirmed
    I would ensure that role is filled by the Service Chiefs who would
    report to me as required.
        Question. If confirmed, what role would you assign to the Chief of
    Staff of Air Force and/or the Chief of Space Operations for delivering
    acquisition programs on time and on budget?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would assign both the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force and the Chief of Space Operations the role of providing
    appropriate resources to acquisition units and programs, as well as
    establishing cost effective and achievable requirements for future
    programs.
        Question. In you view, who should be held accountable for large-
    scale acquisition failures?
        Answer. The leaders who made the key decisions that caused the
    failure. Often this individual or individuals have retired or been
    reassigned before a failure becomes apparent, but that is not a reason
    for the individual to avoid responsibility. The most important decision
    in an acquisition program is the approval of the plan to enter
    development for production, usually the Milestone B in a program. At
    this point requirements, schedule, and cost are approved and any
    technical or engineering risks should be understood and mitigated.
    Programs can fail in many ways for many reasons, but this decision
    generally sets in motion all that will follow. In most programs it
    takes three or more years after this point for the scale and severity
    of problems to be apparent.
        Section 804 of the fiscal year 2016 NDAA authorized DOD to employ
    an acquisition approach (``Middle Tier Acquisition'') intended to
    support the rapid delivery of new capability to meet emerging
    operational needs.
        Question. In your view, what benefit has the Air Force derived from
    its robust utilization of Section 804 authority?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review how the Department of the Air
    Force is using these authorities to the fullest extent while still
    maintaining sound acquisition practices and achieving the fielding of
    meaningful operational capability. I am aware that the Department of
    the Air Force has used these authorities extensively, but I am not
    familiar with the status of each of the Section 804 programs. I will
    review them if confirmed.
        Question. What risks accrued?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review how the Department of the Air
    Force is using these authorities and will ensure the Department of the
    Air Force is appropriately mitigating program risk.
        Question. What processes would you put in place to ensure
    appropriate oversight of the Air Force's use of 804 authorities? Please
    explain your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I would expect the Air Force and Space
    Acquisition Executives to ensure that the programs they were
    responsible for had sound acquisition strategies tailored to fielding
    meaningful military operational capability as cost effectively as
    possible, taking into account operational urgency. I will review how
    the Department of the Air Force is using these authorities and will
    ensure we are focused on program execution and discipline, while also
    providing transparency to support congressional oversight.
        Question. One of the challenges facing many acquisition programs--
    ranging from weapons systems to business systems--is unrealistic and
    infeasible technical specifications.
        What best practices can the Air Force employ to generate realistic
    and feasible specifications, particularly in sophisticated, rapidly
    evolving technical areas such as cybersecurity, hypersonics, and
    artificial intelligence?
        Answer. Everything in a program flows from the nature of the
    product being acquired. It is a best practice to identify the
    challenges and risks associated with a product and to design the
    acquisition strategy around the need to manage and mitigate those
    specific risks. In some cases, for example, they are software related,
    in others propulsion or aerodynamic performance, or often some
    combination. The basic rule of thumb is to do the hardest things first,
    and if necessary to revise requirements to be consistent with the
    results achieved. Experimentation and prototyping are tools that can
    mature technology and balance desired requirements with prototype
    demonstrations so that ultimately Airmen and Guardians can receive
    capability faster and at lower cost. Another important best practice is
    to focus programs on the most efficient path to the true goal--
    meaningful capability in the hands of military operators; everything
    else is a distraction.
        Question. Would you expect the Air Force to derive benefits from
    participation in a greater number of joint acquisition programs? Please
    explain your answer.
        Answer. There are exceptions, but joint acquisition programs,
    especially C3 programs, have an abysmal record. The most successful
    Joint programs have a single-service lead and are purchased by other
    Services once they get into serial production. It is difficult to
    answer this question abstractly, but I would encourage joint programs
    where there was a clear lead service, strong commitments by all
    participants, and strong economic incentives.
        Question. Do you perceive any unique requirements, capabilities, or
    processes that are, or should be associated with the Air Force's
    acquisition of software?
        Answer. Software engineering is continuously improving, paced by
    commercial practices. In my previous position I found the Defense
    Digital Service to be invaluable in identifying commercial best
    practices and helping to proliferate them across the Department of
    Defense. I am not current on how the Department of the Air Force is
    managing software intensive acquisition programs, but I understand this
    has been the focus of significant attention. Critical and in some ways
    unique factors for the Air Force will be the security of its software
    products and the reliability and responsiveness of its software
    development and fielding practices to meet urgent operational needs. If
    confirmed, I would assess the maturity of the Air Force's current
    practices and benchmark them against the most modern commercial
    practices.
        Question. What additional acquisition-related reforms would you
    recommend for implementation, if confirmed?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will direct the Air Force and Space
    Acquisition Executives to assess the opportunities for reform in their
    respective areas of responsibility.
                           the acquisition workforce
        Question. What is your assessment of the size and capability of the
    Air Force acquisition workforce?
        Answer. I do not have current information on the size and
    capability of the Department of the Air Force acquisition workforce. If
    confirmed, I look forward to working with Department of the Air Force
    and Space Force acquisition leadership to ensure an appropriately
    sized, highly qualified acquisition workforce.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    the Department of the Air Force has an acquisition workforce of the
    size and capability needed to manage acquisition challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with Department of
    the Air Force leadership to ensure we have an appropriately sized,
    highly qualified acquisition workforce. I believe a properly skilled
    and experienced acquisition workforce is vital to the Nation's military
    readiness, increased buying power, and achieving substantial long-term
    savings.
        One long-standing special civilian personnel management program is
    the DOD Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration Project
    (commonly known as AcqDemo).
        Question. Should AcqDemo continue as a temporary authority or be
    made a permanent program?
        Answer. I have some experience with AcqDemo from my previous
    government position. AcqDemo has been proven successful for many years.
    I am not fully aware of its status relative to other current
    alternatives, however. If confirmed, I will support the Department of
    Defense in determining if it should be made a permanent personnel
    program.
        Question. In either case, should AcqDemo be expanded?
        Answer. If confirmed, the expansion of AcqDemo is something I would
    look into for the Department of the Air Force. I need to learn more
    about recent experience with AcqDemo and how it might compare to other
    alternatives before I could make such an assessment.
                              test and evaluation
        Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe it
    appropriate to procure weapons systems and equipment that have not been
    demonstrated through test and evaluation to be operationally effective
    and operationally suitable?
        Answer. In general, I believe that limited initial production
    should be used to support formal operational testing. In general, I
    believe that developmental production prototypes should be used to
    conduct developmental testing to some degree prior to a decision to
    initiate production, but this is highly dependent on the urgency of the
    operational need and the nature of the system being procured. I believe
    it may be appropriate in some circumstances to procure weapons systems
    and equipment that have not been fully demonstrated through test and
    evaluation when an urgent and clear warfighter need exists, the
    technical risk is low, the system has been demonstrated in some
    capacity (including cyber-security), and the planned procurement is
    limited. Even then some degree of safety and basic performance should
    usually be demonstrated prior to fielding.
        Question. What do you see as the role of the developmental and
    operational test and evaluation communities with respect to rapid
    acquisition, spiral acquisition, and other streamlined acquisition
    processes?
        Answer. I believe the role of these communities is to ensure prompt
    fielding of systems that provide operational advantages to our
    warfighters and that comply with their requirements. For any program
    with any structure, testing sequencing and content should be tailored
    to the specific program, taking into account technical and operational
    risk, operational need, and the efficiency of the test program.
        Question. Are you satisfied with Air Force test and evaluation
    capabilities?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to evaluate current Air
    Force test and evaluation capabilities. If confirmed, I will review the
    test and evaluation capabilities of the Department of the Air Force and
    make any adjustments necessary.
        Question. In which areas, if any, do you feel the Air Force should
    be developing new test and evaluation capabilities?
        Answer. I believe that future opportunities exist for the Air Force
    to develop space, hypersonic, cybersecurity, directed energy, and
    autonomous systems test capabilities.
                                     audit
        Question. Do you support efforts to drive the Air Force to obtain a
    clean financial audit opinion?
        Answer. Absolutely. I know from my previous service that the audit
    has proven to be a challenge for the Department of Defense as well as
    for Department of the Air Force. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
    that the Department of the Air Force can obtain a clean financial
    opinion.
        Question. Do you think the Air Force should invest funding as
    needed in audit activities and audit remediation activities to achieve
    the goal of obtaining a clean financial audit opinion?
        Answer. In general, Yes. With funding being a constant constraint,
    it is critical that the DAF utilize every dollar as efficiently and
    effectively as possible and make informed business decisions. A
    successful audit can contribute to that process. There may be some
    cases, however, where the cost of achieving a clean audit in a specific
    area vastly exceeds the value of doing so. If confirmed, I will ensure
    the DAF measures its audit remediation progress to maximize the audit's
    effectiveness and that it is adequately funded to maximize
    efficiencies.
        Question. How will you hold Air Force civilian and military
    leadership accountable for achieving Air Force and Departmental audit
    goals?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that there is an executable
    plan to meet audit goals with well-defined milestones and metrics to
    track achievements leading to full audit readiness and I will ensure
    that senior leaders within the Department of the Air Force are held
    accountable for meeting the metrics for which they are responsible.
                       reform of dod business operations
        Question. What ideas would you explore and implement, if confirmed,
    to reform the Air Force's business operations?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will leverage both government and industry
    best practices to enhance the Department of the Air Force's business
    operations. The introduction of best practices is particularly
    important as we balance the needs of both the Air Force and Space
    Force. Moreover, I will adjust resources as necessary to maximize the
    efficacy of the Department's reform activities across all functional
    areas so any efficiencies found are reinvested into readiness and
    lethality programs.
        Question. Why is the reform of business operations relevant to Air
    Force missions?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would be open to any new idea or process
    that improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of Department
    business processes and operation--whatever the source. I would be
    particularly interested in bringing commercial best practices into the
    Department where they would apply and could be tailored to be effective
    in a government organization. In a fiscally constrained environment, it
    is critical that we ensure all available resources are directed in
    support of our warfighters and our mission, not only the Department of
    the Air Force, but as a Department of Defense. If confirmed, I will
    continue to promote and invest in cost effective targeted reform
    efforts within the Department of the Air Force while ensuring
    Department of the Air Force leadership is committed to establishing and
    executing both Department-level and Defense-wide reform initiatives.
                               nuclear enterprise
        Question. The Air Force is responsible for maintaining and
    operating two legs of the nuclear triad, including its nuclear weapons
    and the majority of the 107 nuclear command, control and communications
    systems that link the President to the nuclear forces. There have been
    a number of troubling incidents since 2007, including the inadvertent
    transportation of six nuclear armed AGM-86 cruise missiles without
    authorization by a B-52 from Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air
    Forces Base, and the shipment of ICBM fuzes to Taiwan. There have also
    been continued reports of low morale and incidents of cheating on exams
    at ICBM bases. These actions resulted in a loss of confidence and
    dismissal of the two senior leaders of the Air Force, both the
    Secretary and the Chief of Staff. They also resulted in number of
    reviews, including a DOD enterprise review in 2014 by Secretary Hagel.
    The reviews resulted in such actions as creation of Air Force Global
    Strike Command and the establishment of a Deputy Chief of Staff for
    Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration (A10).
        What are your overall views on responsibility of the Secretary of
    the Air Force as regards the nuclear enterprise?
        Answer. In my view, the nuclear enterprise is by far the most
    important and significant responsibility of the Secretary of the Air
    Force. The Secretary is responsible for overseeing the safety,
    security, reliability, effectiveness, and credibility of the nuclear
    deterrence mission of the Air Force to support national security
    objectives. The Secretary executes those responsibilities through the
    Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Deputy Chief of Staff
    designated to oversee the Department of the Air Force's nuclear
    deterrence mission. As the Interim National Security Strategic Guidance
    emphasizes, this responsibility includes, ``ensuring our strategic
    deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective and that our extended
    deterrence commitments to our allies remain strong and credible.'' If
    confirmed, I will do my utmost to ensure the Department of the Air
    Force's continued diligence in ensuring the safety, security,
    reliability, effectiveness, and credibility of the people, processes,
    procedures, and systems the Air Force utilizes to conduct, execute, and
    support its nuclear weapon systems and operations.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to oversee the
    continued implementation of these reforms of the nuclear-focused
    organizational and personnel systems?
        Answer. If confirmed, I first would assess the overall status of
    the nuclear enterprise within the Department of the Air Force to
    include the status of these reforms to see if the Department of the Air
    Force adequately implemented them. If confirmed, I would also direct an
    evaluation of the success of these reforms to see if they have had the
    desired impact.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to ensure these
    nuclear-related systems are adequately resourced?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will closely monitor and evaluate how the
    Department of the Air Force resources the nuclear enterprise within its
    corporate processes. If confirmed, I would ensure the nuclear
    enterprise receives sufficient resources to maintain the safety,
    security, reliability, effectiveness and credibility of the Air Force
    nuclear deterrence mission. This would include independent internal
    evaluation of the health of all aspects of the Department of the Air
    Force nuclear enterprise.
        Question. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will personally
    visit Air Force nuclear facilities and bases to gain an in-depth
    understanding of both the infrastructure, hardware, and especially how
    our airmen operate, maintain and secure them?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. The 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) reaffirmed long-
    held American doctrine that includes limiting the use of nuclear
    weapons to ``extreme circumstances'' and the need to maintain the
    Nation's nuclear triad of land-, sea-, and air-based capabilities. The
    NPR also recommended both the development of a low-yield nuclear weapon
    to deter threats from Russia, and potentially, the return of a nuclear
    sea-launched cruise missile to the Navy fleet.
        Do you believe a nuclear ``No First Use'' policy would be
    appropriate for the United States?
        Answer. I understand that the Administration has begun a series of
    strategic reviews that will include will direct the interagency to
    conduct a review of the U.S. nuclear posture, where I expect possible
    adjustments to U.S. nuclear declaratory policy will be considered. If
    confirmed, I will ensure the Department of the Air Force, as provider
    of two of the three legs of the triad, provides support in conducting
    the review and input in determining what nuclear policy and posture
    would be appropriate based on the threats we expect to face, the risks
    associated with the existing policy and with any change to that policy,
    and including an assessment of the impacts on our allies and partners.
        Question. Why or why not?
        Answer. In my view, there are risks and benefits to both the
    current policy and a ``No First Use'' policy. Any change to current
    policy would be a Presidential decision that would carefully weigh all
    the implications and, as stated by President Biden, would include
    consultations with the U.S. military and U.S. allies. If confirmed, I
    would support any review of this policy undertaken by the
    Administration.
        Question. Do you agree that modernizing each leg of the nuclear
    triad and the Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapons complex is a
    critical national security priority?
        Answer. As Secretary Austin has stated, nuclear deterrence is the
    Defense Department's highest priority mission. An effective U.S.
    nuclear deterrent remains vital to U.S. national security and to the
    security of our allies. Updating and overhauling our Nation's nuclear
    forces is a critical national security priority. If confirmed, I will
    assess the status of the Department of the Air Force's current nuclear
    weapon systems and modernization programs to evaluate how the Air Force
    can best maintain such a deterrent.
        Question. Do you believe the current program of record is
    sufficient to support the full modernization of the nuclear triad,
    including delivery systems, warheads, and infrastructure?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the current status
    of the programs of record. If confirmed, I would assess each of the
    Department of the Air Force's nuclear programs to ensure they are
    sufficiently resourced.
        Question. In your view, does the Stockpile Stewardship Program
    provide the tools necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the
    nuclear weapons stockpile without testing? Q64. If not, what additional
    tools and resources are needed?
        Answer. It has been over 4 years since I chaired the Nuclear
    Weapons Council. At the time I left the Department in 2017, I believe
    the Stockpile Stewardship Program was adequate, and as certified by the
    national laboratory directors, resumption of testing was not required.
    I have not had the opportunity to evaluate the current status of the
    program.
        Question. While serving as Undersecretary for Acquisition,
    Technology, and Logistics, you approved the Milestone A decisions for
    the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent and the Long-Range Stand Off
    Weapon programs.
        Do you support the current program of record for the Ground Based
    Strategic Deterrent?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the status of the
    GBSD program. As Secretary Austin has stated, nuclear deterrence is the
    Defense Department's highest priority mission and updating and
    overhauling our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national security
    priority. If confirmed, I will review the details and status of the
    GBSD acquisition program.
        Question. Do you support the current program of record for the
    Long-Range Stand Off weapon?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the status of the
    LRSO program. As Secretary Austin has stated, nuclear deterrence is the
    Defense Department's highest priority mission and updating and
    overhauling our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national security
    priority. If confirmed, I will review the details and status of the
    LRSO acquisition program.
        Question. Do you support the program of record for making the F-35
    a dual capable aircraft?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the status of the
    dual-capable F-35 program. At the time I left the Department in 2017,
    the dual capability was a firm requirement. As far as I am aware that
    is still the case.
        Question. The Air Force owns and operates the majority of the 107
    nuclear command, control and communications systems. Major reforms have
    been put in place at U.S. Strategic Command to set future requirements,
    while the Undersecretary for Acquisition and Sustainment oversees the
    acquisition of new capabilities to replace existing systems.
        What are your views on the adequacy of the current Air Force
    nuclear, command, control and communications systems?
        Answer. In general, these systems are aging and need to be upgraded
    or replaced, but I am not aware of the current status. Maintaining a
    safe, secure, reliable, effective and credible deterrent to include
    nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems is a top
    U.S. national security priority. If confirmed, I will assess the status
    of the Department of the Air Force's current NC3 systems and evaluate
    how they ensure such a deterrent.
        Question. Do you support the current organizational approach to the
    acquisition and management oversight of the modernization of nuclear
    command, control and communications?
        Answer. I am not aware of the current status of these programs. If
    confirmed, I will assess the current Department of the Air Force's
    organizational approach to the acquisition and management oversight of
    the modernization of NC3, evaluate current structures, and determine if
    any adjustment in approaches are required.
        Question. The E-4B National Airborne Operations Center utilizes an
    aging 747-200 platform that must be replaced in the 2030's to ensure
    the capability and continuity of a number of essential missions
    including nuclear, command, control and communications.
        What are your views on the program to replace this platform?
        Answer. I am aware of the need to replace this system, but I do not
    know the current status of the replacement program. If confirmed, I
    will review the details and status of the E-4B National Airborne
    Operations Center replacement program. I cannot make an assessment at
    this time.
                               air force programs
        Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
    research, development, and acquisition programs supporting Air Force
    modernization?
        Answer. Until I have the opportunity to be briefed in detail, I do
    not have enough information to assess the cost, schedule, and
    performance of these programs. These programs are vital to Air and
    Space Force execution of the National Security Strategic Guidance and
    for a new National Defense Strategy, when crafted by the Secretary of
    Defense. If confirmed, I would review these programs and work with the
    service acquisition executive to ensure all programs are on track to
    meet cost, schedule and performance criteria, and take appropriate
    actions if needed.
        Question. Where do you believe the greatest gaps remain between
    required and current capability in both the Air and Space Forces?
        Answer. In general, I believe that more needs to be done to
    identify new operational concepts and to fully fund the programs that
    will transition those concepts into meaningful operational military
    capability for our combatant commanders to deter and if necessary
    defeat peer or near peer potential adversaries. I understand that the
    Department of the Air Force has been working to identify new
    operational concepts and addressing associated gaps and shortfalls, I
    also understand both the Chief of Space Operations and the Chief of
    Staff of the Air Force are looking closely at changes needed to
    implement new operational concepts. If confirmed, I look forward to
    more fully understanding their processes, conclusions, and
    recommendations.
        Question. The Air Force is on record as needing to purchase a
    minimum of 72 fighter aircraft per year to maintain requisite force
    structure.
        If confirmed, how would you plan to meet that minimum?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the validity of
    this number or the programs and choices needed to achieve it. Alongside
    OSD, I understand the Air Force is currently performing a TACAIR study
    to evaluate how efficiently different force mixes meet future
    warfighting challenges. I believe the intent is that results from this
    study will provide well-developed recommendations on the mix to build
    the needed force for the Nation.
        Question. In your opinion, what is the optimum mix of 4th and 5th
    generation aircraft required to meet the threat outlined in the 2018
    NDS?
        Answer. Some mix of 4th and 5th generation fighters will be a
    reality for over a decade. In my view, based on my previous government
    service, it will still be some time before we can purchase enough
    fifth-generation fighters to have an optimal mix. I understand that the
    Air Force has recently analyzed various war-game scenarios and
    developed alternative plans to achieve the optimum mix of 4th and 5th
    generation and NGAD aircraft. If confirmed, I will be in a position to
    comment on a total force number and mix after I have had a chance to
    adequately review that analysis and to apply appropriate budget
    constraints and choices that balance near and longer term risk.
        Question. Given the importance of extending the range of U.S.
    aircraft, what do you believe to be the overall tanker requirement for
    the Air Force and at what rate and on what schedule must the Air Force
    procure the new KC-46 to attain that requirement?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review combatant
    commanders' plans and their requirements for tanker support. I
    understand that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
    2021 requires the Air Force to maintain 412 primary mission aircraft
    inventory (PMAI) tanker aircraft through 2025. If confirmed, I will
    look at the overall fleet requirements in light of both the NDAA
    direction and the Air Force's projected requirements.
        Question. Large-scale exercises such as Red Flag have illustrated
    that 5th generation fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 need to fly
    against multiple adversary aircraft to conduct much of their required
    training. The Air Force has taken a number of steps to address
    shortages in adversary air, including using contract air and requiring
    units to supply their own adversary air.
        What are your views as to the appropriate balance of contract and
    organic adversary air capability?
        Answer. At this time, I do not have enough knowledge of this
    situation to offer an opinion. Training to the high-end fight described
    in the National Defense Strategy does require a mix of 4th-and 5th-
    generation adversary air threats. If confirmed, I will review this
    situation and evaluate the Air Force's plans to meet this requirement.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Air Force
    properly addresses the challenges associated with the availability of
    adversary air to ensure that its 5th generation fighters are properly
    trained and ready for combat?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would evaluate Air Force efforts and plans
    to ensure its 5th-generation fighter force is combat mission ready and
    make any adjustments necessary to meet this objective.
        Question. What is your assessment of the readiness of the Air Force
    heavy bomber fleet?
        Answer. At this time, I don't have the information needed to make
    this assessment. The B-1, B2, and B-52 heavy bomber fleets remain a key
    component of both conventional and nuclear force employment options.
    Acquisition of the B-21 will further enhance this capability. If
    confirmed, I will ensure the viability and readiness of the collective
    bomber force today and work to recapitalize and modernize the fleet to
    meet future requirements
        Question. 0/81. As to each of the airframes listed below, what
    improvements should be made to increase airframe readiness?
        Until I have the opportunity to be briefed in detail, I do not have
    enough information to assess what improvements could be made to
    increase airframe readiness for the B-1, B-2 and B-52.
                                   munitions
        Question. Air Force munitions inventories--particularly for
    precision guided munitions and air-to-air missiles--have declined
    significantly due to high operational usage, insufficient procurement,
    poor program execution, and a requirements system that does not
    adequately account for the ongoing need to transfer munitions to our
    allies.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the Air Force has
    sufficient inventories of munitions to meet the needs of Combatant
    Commanders?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Air Force has
    adequate munitions inventories to meet our national security needs. I
    would also assess the requirements system to ensure our partners remain
    combat relevant in support of combatant commander regional objectives.
    Additionally, if confirmed, I will ensure ally capability and capacity
    requirements are understood and integrated into DAF processes.
        Question. What changes in budgeting and acquisition processes would
    you recommend to facilitate faster Air Force munitions replenishment
    rates?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would assess the adequacy of budgets for
    munitions and also assess the potential for the consolidation of
    program elements to generate flexibility to meet changes in
    replenishment rates. Additionally, I would explore the potential for
    more efficient business practices, such as multi-year procurement
    authorization based on design maturity that could provide for unit cost
    savings and increased replenishment rates. I would also evaluate the
    cost and benefits of creating additional industrial capacity to meet
    surge requirements to support contingencies.
        Question. In your view, how should the Air Force adapt to self-
    imposed DOD restrictions on area attack and denial munitions,
    consistent with the Ottawa Agreements?
        Answer. The Air Force should comply with directions from the
    Secretary of Defense including limitations on munitions. The U.S. is
    not signatory to the Ottawa Convention, but I understand that current
    policy imposes some restrictions consistent with the Convention. If
    confirmed, I will ensure that the Air Force continues to follow the DOD
    policy.
                                     space
        Question. The United States is increasingly dependent on space,
    both economically and militarily--from the Global Positioning System on
    which many industries and military capabilities rely, to the missile
    warning systems that underpin U.S. nuclear deterrence. Our strategic
    competitors--China and Russia--are engaged in a concerted effort to
    leap ahead of U.S. technology and limit U.S. freedom of action in the
    space warfighting domain.
        In your view, does the 2018 NDS accurately assess the strategic
    environment as it pertains to the domain of space?
        Answer. In identifying emerging great power competition with China
    and Russia and highlighting the continuing importance of our allies and
    partners, the 2018 National Defense Strategy accurately assesses the
    current strategic environment, including as it applies to space.
        Question. In your view, what will ``great power competition'' look
    like in space and to what extent do you view China's and Russia's
    activities related to the space domain as a threat or challenge to U.S.
    national security interests?
        Answer. Space is already an arena of great power competition. More
    than other nations, the United States relies on space capabilities to
    guarantee our security and project power. As a result, Chinese and
    Russian military doctrine view space as critical to modern warfare and
    consider the use of counter space capabilities as both a means of
    reducing U.S. combat effectiveness and winning future wars. Both
    countries consider space access and denial as critical components of
    their national and military strategies and have weaponized the domain
    as a way to deter and counter U.S. military intervention in regional
    conflicts that impact American interests. I would anticipate continued
    Chinese and Russian development, testing, and deployment of space and
    counter space capabilities as a key component of their respective
    operations, activities, and investments across the competition
    continuum.
        Question. Are there other nation-states or other actors operating
    in space that you perceive as a risk to the United States or as cause
    for concern? Q88. If so, why?
        Answer. While presenting less of an advanced threat than China or
    Russia, Iran and North Korea are also capable of holding U.S. space
    capabilities at some level of risk, principally through jamming that
    targets satellite communications and positioning, navigation, and
    timing signals. Other space-faring nations are conducting space
    activities of concern and the relative absence of norms or standards to
    shape or regulate those activities presents risk to U.S. assets.
    Finally, the recent increase in commercial and private activity in
    space, while not without benefit, is also not without risk to the U.S.
    as the related proliferation of satellites and launch debris contribute
    to an already congested space environment.
        Question. Do you support the creation of a separate Service
    Acquisition Executive for Space as required under section 957 of the
    fiscal year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)?
        Answer. Personally I am not convinced of the need for this
    position, but if confirmed I will ensure it is filled promptly with a
    qualified individual and that the position has the resources and
    support needed to be successful. If confirmed, I will hold each SAE
    accountable for the cost, schedule, and performance of the acquisition
    programs under their purview.
        Question. What specific actions would you take, if confirmed, to
    enhance existing Air Force acquisition policies and process to move
    space operations projects to orbit faster and cheaper?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work to make all Department of the Air
    Force programs more cost-effective including achieving faster and more
    efficient fielding across the board. Space programs, like other
    programs, should be tailored to the most efficient acquisition strategy
    possible, taking into account the technology, requirements, risks and
    opportunities for improvement. If confirmed, I would continue to work
    with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the executive branch, and
    the Congress to improve all Department of the Air Force acquisition
    policies and processes, while increasing transparency of our actions,
    to enable the Department to operate with speed and agility in the face
    of an evolving and pacing threats.
        Question. Do you believe the space launch market can sustain four
    launch providers?
        Answer. I have a long history with ensuring the availability of at
    least two national security space launch service providers and of
    supporting the introduction of competition into national security space
    launch services I also understand the statutory requirement for assured
    access to space requires at least two launch providers who can meet the
    full spectrum of national security space missions. Whether or not more
    than two launch providers can be sustained is highly dependent on the
    extent of the competitive commercial space launch market and how it
    will evolve--something I am unable to predict with confidence.
    Commercial opportunities in space and their profitability will
    determine how many launch providers continue to exist. If confirmed, I
    will ensure the Department of the Air Force uses maximum competition--
    and the benefits it provides--as we look to build the future strategy
    beyond the existing contracts.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you apply section 1601 of the
    fiscal year 2017 NDAA regarding exceptions to purchase of the RD-180
    engine for national security missions?
        Answer. In my former government position, I was part of the effort
    to eliminate the RD-180 and I fully support that goal. The Fiscal Year
    2015 NDAA, as amended by the Fiscal Year 2016 and Fiscal Year 2017
    NDAAs, allows the procurement of up to 18 Atlas V launch services using
    RD-180 engines before 31 December 2022. I understand from media
    coverage that the Department of the Air Force has procured fewer than
    half of the allowed 18, and does not expect to procure any more. If
    confirmed, I would support ending the use of the RD-180 as quickly as
    possible.
                          cyber and electronic warfare
        Question. Section 1657 of the fiscal year 2020 NDAA directed the
    appointment of an independent Principal Cyber Advisor (PCA) for each
    Military Department, to act as the principal advisor to the Secretary
    concerned on all cyber matters affecting that Department.
        What do you see as the role of this position in the Air Force?
        Answer. The PCA will provide me and the DAF services' leadership
    with independent advice on all cyber matters. I expect the PCA to
    actively interact with key leaders throughout the Department including
    the CIO, cyber operators, and acquisition staff in both Services.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you plan to utilize the Air Force
    PCA as part of your leadership structure?
        Answer. As an independent advisor for all cyber matters, if
    confirmed, I would follow NDAA guidance that states the PCA will help
    the SecAF, CSAF, and CSO ensure the Department's cyber posture and
    programs are aligned both internally and with the larger joint
    community. The PCA will be responsible for advising the SecAF, CSAF and
    CSO on the best utilization of our cyberspace operations capabilities,
    enterprise IT framework, as well as coordinate and oversee
    implementation of policy, strategies, and sustainment in partnership
    with key DAF stakeholders. If confirmed, I will also empower my PCA to
    regularly work with congressional staff in order to maintain
    transparency on all of our cyber efforts.
        Question. What are Air Force's top three cyber challenges, and how
    will you use the PCA to address them?
        Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to provide an
    understanding of the Air Force's top three cyber challenges today, but
    I do think the Principal Cyber Advisor could significantly help with
    cyber workforce readiness, advance digital modernization, and
    prioritizing our efforts to support Joint all-domain operations. I am
    also concerned about the cyber security of legacy weapons systems and
    business systems that could be vulnerable to cyber-attack. Every part
    of the entire DAF enterprise has to be protected against cyber threats
    and every individual involved in the enterprise has to be diligent and
    attentive to cyber threats.
        Question. In May 2018, the Cyber Mission Force achieved full
    operational capability. In September, DOD released its 2018 Cyber
    Strategy.
        In your view, how well postured is the Air Force to meet the goals
    outlined in the 2018 DOD Cyber Strategy?
        Answer. I am not able at this time to assess how well postured the
    Air Force is to meet the goals outlined in the 2018 DOD Cyber Strategy.
    But if confirmed, cyber security, including protection of defense-
    related critical infrastructure and the defense industrial base, will
    be among my highest priorities.
        Question. What actions would you take, if confirmed, to mitigate
    any gap between Air Force capacity and capability and Cyber Strategy
    goals?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will endeavor to arm and protect our Airmen
    and Guardians and the combatant commanders they support with the
    offensive and defensive cyber capabilities they need for the Department
    and the Joint Force. By pursuing partnerships with the Joint Force,
    allies, and industry, I will work to strengthen the capability
    development apparatus by capitalizing on state-of-the-art commercial
    cyber security developments and incorporating emerging/disruptive
    technologies that integrate analytics, software, platforms, waveforms
    and sensors.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve
    military and civilian cybersecurity career paths?
        Answer. I believe we must elevate cybersecurity as an imperative
    across the government in order to defend the American people and U.S.
    critical infrastructure; the combined military and civilian workforce
    is central to achieving that objective. If confirmed, I would support
    continued efforts to enhance and modernize our military and civilian
    cyberspace career fields. This initiative includes streamlining career
    opportunities to maximize depth in cybersecurity through partnership
    with private industry and academia to improve talent management
    strategies and opening up new pathways for transition from outside the
    Department to government service. I will work with Congress and DOD to
    find ways to better compete with industry to attract and retain the
    best cyber talent through incentives and targeted cybersecurity
    development programs.
        Question. If confirmed, what would you do to enhance Air Force
    information dominance capabilities?
        Answer. Air and Space Force core missions depend on information
    dominance. As the Department of the Air Force looks to develop Joint
    All Domain Command and Control and Globally Integrated Intelligence,
    Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities, it must consider the
    interconnectedness of systems and the need for actionable information
    at the point where operational decisions must be made. Future
    operations will demand near real-time flow of relevant tactical
    information over a global network without disruptive classification
    constraints or other barriers to the effective sharing of information
    with Joint, Allied, and Coalition partners. If confirmed, I will strive
    to leverage partnerships and shared objectives to field high-priority
    information systems that effectively support air and space power and
    the other Services and our partners for the joint and combined force to
    meet our national security priorities.
        Question. In your view, does the Air Force need to conduct a
    ``Cyber Readiness Review'' similar to that conducted by the Navy in
    2019?
        Answer. I am not familiar with the Navy's 2019 review; however, a
    ``Cyber Readiness Review'' can bring insight into how the Department of
    the Air Force can improve its cybersecurity operations, identify
    roadblocks and gaps, and inform investment decisions on emerging
    technology. If confirmed, I will work with the Chief of Staff of the
    Air Force and Chief of Space Operations to assess the Department's
    cyber posture on a continuing basis, to formulate plans to improve that
    posture, and establish metrics to measure and track progress at
    improving that posture.
        Question. If confirmed, specifically what measures would you take
    or direct to improve the cybersecurity culture across the Air Force
    workforce--military, civilian, and contractor?
        Answer. I have not had to opportunity at this point to assess the
    Department's cyber security posture or culture. Cybersecurity has to be
    everybody's business, but we can't rely on or expect perfect human
    performance--the many threats we face are capable and adaptive and
    cover a wide range of levels of capability. The Department needs a mix
    of strong cyber security awareness and human performance, technology,
    and resilience. Managing and addressing the risks of cyber-attack must
    become a ubiquitous and ever present consideration in all that the
    Department of the Air Force does and in all our interactions and
    transactions. The Department must extend this culture to its business
    partners and stakeholders. Technology and design for resilience are
    certainly part of the solution, but this must be coupled with high
    awareness of the threat and diligence at all levels to practice correct
    cyber hygiene and to hold people accountable when they fail to do so.
        Question. How would you empower and hold key leaders accountable
    for improvements in DOD cybersecurity?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would establish meaningful metrics for
    cybersecurity performance, track trends in that performance through
    monitoring, regularly test the adequacy of cyber security
    implementation and practices, and hold leaders at all levels
    responsible for the performance of their organizations. Leaders would
    be empowered to implement cybersecurity in their organizations, but I
    would work to ensure that they had appropriate tools and resources to
    address cyber security risks.
        Question. In 2019, Air Combat Command merged the Twenty Fourth and
    Twenty Fifth Numbered Air Forces to better integrate cyber effects,
    intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations, electronic
    warfare operations, and information operations.
        In your view, are there other Air Force commands and organizations
    that should be merged or modified to increase unity of effort across
    like capabilities? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I do not have information to assess if other commands and
    organizations should be merged or modified. There are often benefits to
    a merger, providing agility and seamless coordination; however, mergers
    also can introduce disruption and risk to the organization and the
    competing priorities and multiple constituents of broader missions. If
    confirmed, I will assess, in coordination with the Chief of Staff of
    the Air Force and Chief of Space Operations, the pros and cons of this
    type of effort.
        Question. Should the Space Force take a similar organizational?
    Please explain your answer.
        Answer. My understanding is that the Space Force was designed as a
    lean and agile service, dependent on the Air Force for shared services
    for most of its support. This includes information operations and
    offensive cyber operations, as the Space Force. The Space Force is
    currently concentrating on defensive cyber teams. As the Service
    continues to develop and these capabilities mature, I will evaluate the
    pros and cons of the reorganization steps that have already been taken
    and consider options for creating a combined space ISR and cyber
    effects organization. In general, the Space Force as a completely new
    organization is at this point an experiment with uncertain outcomes. As
    the Department learns with experience I believe it should be open-
    minded about possible future changes.
        Question. What is your vision for the future of Air Force
    electronic (EW) capabilities?
        Answer. I believe electronic warfare (EW) is a critical warfighting
    capability and an area in which the Department of the Air Force must
    invest to ensure future operational superiority. As part of a joint and
    combined multi-domain force the Air Force and Space Force will need to
    focus EW capabilities on the broader electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) and
    joint capabilities. My view is that future battlefields will require an
    Air Force and Space Force with distributed software-defined systems and
    capabilities that are rapidly updatable that operate in coordination
    and jointly to maintain an advantage over any adversary. If confirmed,
    I would support EW as a priority and the introduction of new and
    innovative concepts and doctrine in this area.
        Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy and efficacy of
    the EW training that Air Force personnel received in an Air Force
    environment in specific airframes?
        Answer. I am not in a position to evaluate the adequacy of EW
    training at this time. If confirmed the total EW posture of the
    Department of the Air Force will be an item of high priority to me. I
    did have the opportunity to participate in an EW study conducted by IDA
    for the Joint staff approximately 2 years ago. My impression from that
    study, as well as from an earlier study by the Defense Science Board,
    was that there is significant room for improvement in all aspects of
    EW.
        Question. In a joint environment with other Military Services?
        Answer. I do not have a current assessment of the adequacy and
    efficiency of the Department in this regard either, but my impression
    is that there is significant room for improvement here as well.
                   air force information technology programs
        Question. If confirmed, how would you improve the Air Force's
    development and deployment of major IT systems, including business
    systems?
        Answer. My experience with IT systems development and fielding has
    been mixed at best, but I believe I have learned a great deal about how
    to structure IT programs for success from that experience. The
    Department of the Air Force must continue to evolve its business
    practices and supporting IT systems to improve efficiency and to meet
    the changing needs of its mission and objectives. If confirmed, I will
    leverage my experience in both the Department of Defense and in
    industry to expedite and further these efforts. I will encourage the
    continued use of modern business methods, as they apply in a military
    context, leverage the expertise of both commercial industry leaders and
    DAF leaders, and take into consideration both government and industry
    best practices to help the Department reduce cost, exceed performance
    expectations, and meet schedule goals. If confirmed, I would seek out
    the most cost effective ways to invest in IT to improve the operational
    and business performance of the DAF enterprise.
        Question. In your view, what is the relationship between Air Force
    efforts to develop and implement enterprise IT programs and efforts
    being undertaken by the DOD Chief Information Office, the Defense
    Information Systems Agency, and other Defense Agencies?
        Answer. I do not have current information about how well the Air
    Force and Space Force are working in conjunction with other elements of
    the DOD IT enterprise. My most recent experience in this area was with
    DOD healthcare management modernization. In general, the DAF is part of
    a larger DOD and government information ecosystem in which it should be
    a solid team player and when appropriate a leader in areas where the
    DAF can contribute to the total enterprise. If confirmed, I will
    encourage and support cooperation between the DAF, the DOD CIO, and
    DISA as well as with the other military departments and agencies.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that appropriate
    business process reengineering is accomplished before the Air Force
    initiates, develops, and deploys new business IT systems?
        Answer. Yes. The business IT environment is ever-changing--one in
    which business process re-engineering is an opportunity and a necessary
    element for effective modernization. If confirmed, I will direct and
    support the elements of a cost effective and responsive business
    environment, such as end-to-end re-engineering analysis of the business
    processes in conjunction with acquiring and deploying new business IT
    systems.
        Question. Do you perceive a role for the Air Force research and
    testing enterprise in the development and deployment of Air Force
    business IT systems? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Yes. Military environments place requirements on business
    IT systems that are unique. These include resilience to various forms
    of attack, including cyber and possibly EW or kinetic threats. The
    Department of the Air Force research and testing organizations should
    play appropriate roles in developing technology needed for these
    environments and in testing IT systems in those environments. We cannot
    assume our adversaries will allow us to operate critical business
    systems that support our people and operations with impunity.
                   air force-related defense industrial base
        Question. What is your assessment of the systems and processes for
    identifying, evaluating, and managing risk in the Air Force's organic
    and commercial defense industrial base, including the munitions
    industrial base?
        Answer. I am out of date on this topic, but I believe that the
    risks and opportunities in this area have both increased since I left
    government over 4 years ago. Industry had developed supply chain
    management and assessment tools which would improve the Department's
    ability to understand and anticipate risk on the supply chains. At the
    same time, the threats and vulnerabilities to disruption in those
    supply chains may have increased or at least become more evident.
    Supply chain resiliency and risk management requires persistent
    attention and resources. If confirmed, I will fully assess the systems
    and processes for identifying, evaluating, and managing risk in the
    Department of the Air Force's organic and commercial defense industrial
    base, including the munitions industrial base, and make the necessary
    adjustments based on that assessment.
        Question. How should Air Force acquisition leaders consider impacts
    on the industrial base when addressing requirements for
    recapitalization or modernization of major defense weapons systems and
    munitions?
        Answer. The industrial base impacts are one of many considerations
    when planning acquisition programs. Usually these impacts are not
    determinative of outcomes, but this is not always the case. In
    addition, long term implications, as well as immediate risks and
    benefits, should be taken into account. We need an industrial base that
    can meet growing warfighter readiness requirements, reduce sustainment
    costs, increase environmental resiliency, and posture for future
    threats. At the heart of achieving those goals is the availability of
    competition from industry--in any form. Next in importance is ensuring
    that there is a business incentive to supplying the Department. If
    confirmed, I will work with acquisition leaders and industry leaders
    and organizations to consider impacts on the industrial base and its
    ability to meet the needs of air and space power.
        Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you pursue in
    systems and processes to ensure that risk in the Air Force-relevant
    sectors of the defense industrial base is adequately managed to enable
    the development, production, and sustainment of technically superior,
    reliable, and affordable weapons systems and munitions?
        Answer. A robust defense industrial base is critical to providing
    air and space capabilities to the warfighter. If confirmed, I will
    fully examine the Department of the Air Force systems and processes to
    ensure we can manage industrial base risk and work to make changes
    deemed necessary to enable the development, production, and sustainment
    of technically superior, reliable, and affordable weapons systems and
    munitions. I will ensure that the Department is considering both short
    and long term industrial base impacts in its acquisition planning and
    doing everything it can to sustain and grow competition. The only
    changes I can tentatively identify at this point are the potential
    greater use of modern commercial supply chain risk assessment tools and
    forging stronger cooperation with prime contractors who are already
    engaged in managing the supply chains that they depend upon.
                    operational energy and energy resilience
        Question. The Department defines operational energy as the energy
    required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and
    weapons platforms for military operations, including the energy used by
    tactical power systems, generators, and weapons platforms. As early as
    2004, then-General James Mattis testified before Congress that DOD must
    ``unleash us from the tether of fuel'' if U.S. forces are to sustain
    momentum and retain freedom of maneuver. He cautioned that ``units
    would be faced with unacceptable limitations because of their
    dependence on fuel'' and resupply efforts ``made us vulnerable in ways
    that would be exploited by the enemy.'' Today, DOD energy requirements
    are projected to increase geometrically due to technological advances
    in weapons systems and distributed operations over longer operating
    distances.
        If confirmed, how would you lead the Air Force in harnessing
    innovations in operational energy and linking them with emerging joint
    operational concepts in order to reduce contested logistics
    vulnerabilities for warfighters?
        Answer. If confirmed, this issue will be a high priority for me.
    The DOD is a major energy consumer and I have been involved in earlier
    efforts to improve the DOD's operational energy posture, both in
    foreign deployments and in CONUS. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
    DAF is adequately supporting the development of more efficient and
    alternative energy sources with a focus on those situations where the
    greatest gains are possible. These include alternative propulsion
    systems, more efficient engines, use of electrical power and fuel cells
    for example. I will also support the Department's capability
    development process, ensuring that operational energy is a
    consideration in all of our plans and I will strengthen the linkages
    between Department of the Air Force offices and industry to promote
    innovative energy concepts, particularly those that maximize combat
    capability in contested domains, to support both current and future
    requirements.
        Question. In what specific areas, if any, do you believe the Air
    Force needs to improve the incorporation of energy considerations and
    alternative energy resources in the strategic planning processes?
        Answer. I am not aware of any place where energy generation and use
    would not be a consideration. The Department of the Air Force must have
    reliable energy to accomplish its mission, but it should acquire and
    use energy in ways that are efficient and environmentally friendly
    whenever possible. In operational energy, I believe that the Department
    must continue to identify operational energy opportunities and explore
    traditional and alternative energy options during war games, as well as
    throughout weapon system design and sustainment activities. In
    installation energy, the Department must ensure resiliency as the
    Department conducts and supports operations from overseas and CONUS
    installations.
        If confirmed, I will review and analyze energy consumption data to
    make better-informed decisions on efficiency, impact, and affordability
    in the strategic planning process. I would also review and advance
    installation energy goals to ensure resilient operations.
        Question. How can Air Force acquisition systems better address
    requirements related to the use of energy in military platforms to
    decrease risks to warfighters?
        Answer. The Department's acquisition processes can better address
    energy requirements in military platforms by considering energy as a
    foundational capability from day one. If confirmed, I will examine the
    incorporation of energy considerations into both initial capability
    development activities and throughout the acquisition life cycle.
        Question. In your view, what steps can be taken to render ``energy
    supportability that reduces contested logistics vulnerabilities'' a key
    performance parameter in the requirements process, as compared to
    ``check the box'' consideration it is today?
        Answer. I do not know the degrees to which energy may be a ``check
    the box'' consideration today, but if confirmed I will ensure that
    energy considerations are taken seriously. Energy supportability is a
    vital key performance parameter, not only to ensure the suitability of
    new systems with existing and future energy infrastructure, but also to
    preserve compatibility with legacy systems which are critical to
    enabling sustained global combat capability across all domains. If
    confirmed, I will ensure appropriate emphasis is placed upon the energy
    key performance parameter, specifically by ensuring thorough analysis
    of campaign-level energy consumption and that expected logistics risks
    are addressed.
        Question. If confirmed, specifically how would you prioritize
    energy resilience and mission assurance for the Air Force, including
    acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable energy assets to
    support mission critical functions and address known vulnerabilities?
        Answer. Energy supportability is a vital key performance parameter,
    not only to ensure the suitability of new systems with existing and
    future energy infrastructure, but also to preserve compatibility with
    legacy systems which are critical to enabling sustained global combat
    capability across all domains. If confirmed, I will ensure appropriate
    emphasis is placed upon the energy key performance parameter,
    specifically by ensuring thorough analysis of campaign-level energy
    consumption and that expected logistics risks are addressed.
                                  environment
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Air Force
    complies with environmental protection laws, regulations, and guidance
    from the Environmental Protection Agency?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure the Department of the Air
    Force has the policy and resources necessary to comply with all
    applicable environmental protection laws, regulations and guidance from
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
        Question. What are your ideas for improving collaboration with the
    Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to find
    cooperative ways to ensure military readiness, while protecting the
    environment on and around installations?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department of the Air Force
    continues to collaborate with the Department of Interior and the U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service in ways that support military readiness while
    at the same time protecting the environment on and around
    installations.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you further efforts to identify
    and remediate PFOS/PFOA contamination on Air Force installations,
    including Reserve component locations?
        Answer. I am familiar with the PFOS/PFOA issue, and, if confirmed,
    I will ensure the Department addresses Department of the Air Force-
    caused PFOS/PFOA impacts and complies with all applicable environmental
    laws, regulations, and guidance from EPA for all our installations. I
    am committed to ensuring the safety and health of our Airmen,
    Guardians, their families, and the communities in which they serve,
    including reserve-component installations.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to addressing
    the health concerns of service members and their families regarding
    alleged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants on Air Force
    installations and in the context of performing military duties?
        Answer. Nothing is more important than the health and well-being of
    our people and their families. If confirmed, I will make sure health
    concerns reported are promptly reviewed, investigated, and mitigated as
    necessary.
              readiness and resource impacts from extreme weather
        Question. In 2017, three hurricanes resulted in over $1.3 billion
    in damage to military installations across the U.S. In 2018, extreme
    weather events caused roughly $9 billion in damage at Tyndall Air Force
    Base, Camp Lejeune, and Offutt Air Force Base.
        Based on these readiness and resource impacts, do you believe it
    necessary to use more resilient designs in Air Force infrastructure?
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed I will ensure the Department pursues
    initiatives that integrate common sense resilience practices into
    infrastructure planning. They are cost effective and promote
    installation survivability and recovery.
        Question. How can the Air Force better use authorities on extreme
    weather mitigation granted by Congress in recent NDAAs?
        Answer. Severe weather and other climate change-related impacts
    have degraded the Department of the Air Force's ability to operate and
    train. If confirmed, I will work to develop a full understanding of the
    national security implications of extreme weather, taking a
    comprehensive approach that includes use of authorities, impacts on
    operations, installations, infrastructure, and force development.
                           infrastructure challenges
        Question. Non-DOD funding mechanisms such as energy savings
    performance contracts, utility energy savings contracts, and power
    purchase agreements are excellent means by which the Air Force can
    improve infrastructure, increase resilience, reduced deferred
    maintenance, implement alternative energy resources, save taxpayer
    funds, and secure other benefits without the need for upfront
    appropriated funds.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to streamline the process
    for the identification and use of appropriate non-DOD infrastructure
    funding mechanisms, and how long would it take you to resume entering
    into contracts that benefit Air Force installations?
        Answer. I am familiar with some of these opportunities and programs
    from my previous position in government. If confirmed, I will ensure
    the Department utilizes all available authorities, including third-
    party performance contracts, to strengthen energy resilience. I will
    work with all services, OSD, and the Department of Energy to look for
    opportunities to streamline the processes and expedite solutions.
                      science, technology, and innovation
        Question. What are the key technologies that the Air Force should
    be focused on to support modernization activities?
        Answer. The re-emergence of great power competition and the
    specific military modernization programs being pursued by China and
    Russia area central challenge to U.S. security. Focused DOD-wide effort
    to advance and transition technology into modernized warfighting
    capability through new operational concepts is critical to maintaining
    our technological advantage. I have been sounding the alarm about these
    threats since 2010 when I returned to government after being in the
    private sector for 15 years. The key technologies of interest include
    autonomy and some forms of artificial intelligence, secure high data
    rate networks, and advanced sensor technology, just as examples.
        Question. What do you see as the most significant challenges (e.g.,
    technical, organizational, or cultural) to U.S. Air Force development
    of these key technologies?
        Answer. I need to be better informed about ongoing development and
    analysis efforts to have a clear picture, but my observation at this
    point is that the Department in general has accepted the need for
    change, but may not be ready to accept the degree of change that will
    be required. I do not believe there is a lack of innovation per se or
    that the needed technologies are out of reach. In my view the challenge
    is to determine how to best harness those technologies into operational
    concepts that well be effective and resilient against current and
    emerging threats. There is currently a major emphasis on speed, but
    going in the wrong direction is not progress. My view is that effective
    fielded capability at scale should be our North star and that the first
    and most critical task may be to ensure we are moving in the right
    direction, at any speed. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more
    about current efforts and how they align with our military needs.
        Question. How well has the Air Force prioritized limited R&D
    funding across its technology focus areas?
        Answer. At this time, I am not well-enough informed to answer this
    question. My general experience is that the Air Force allocates R&D
    funding reasonably well, but I have not had an opportunity to review
    the current portfolio. If confirmed, doing so would be a high priority.
    As a Nation, we must prioritize modernization efforts toward
    capabilities with the greatest chance of success against future
    adversary technologies. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DAF
    continues to work closely with the DOD research and engineering
    enterprise, including the military departments and agencies, to
    leverage and partner on shared technology interests, capability needs,
    and delivery of joint warfighting capability.
        Question. How is the Air Force balancing revolutionary capability
    advancements, including investments in basic research, as compared to
    ``quick win'' incremental improvements that can be rapidly fielded?
        Answer. I am not well-enough informed at this point to be able to
    say how well the DAF is balancing these needs and others. In my
    experience, the DAF did have a balanced portfolio of technology
    investments, but I have had the opportunity to review the current
    portfolio and how it is being developed. To maintain technological
    advantage, the DAF must ensure a prioritized research and development
    investment that ensures long-term competitive advantage, development of
    cost-imposing disruptive capabilities, and nearer-term incremental
    improvements that can provide performance and lifecycle cost benefits.
    If confirmed, I will work to ensure the DAF has a properly balanced
    portfolio focusing on near-term research and development and longer-
    term S&T, including basic research.
        Question. In your view, what steps must DOD and the Air Force take
    to ensure that critical technical information is protected by Air Force
    organizations, industry, and academia?
        Answer. Preserving our technological advantage requires a
    comprehensive strategy that fosters technology development,
    integration, and fielding, while protecting critical mission
    capabilities and technologies against unwanted transfer or
    interference. All of this has to be accomplished without discouraging
    the participation of the talent and partners that we wish to attract
    and engage. While open collaborations are critical to the DOD, we must
    protect against those who would seek to exploit the openness that is
    the basis for our innovation potential, economic strength, and national
    security. If confirmed, I will continue the momentum the Department has
    created to strengthen our industrial and innovation bases, including
    implementation and enforcement of cybersecurity standards, cyber-threat
    information sharing, and guidelines for research technology protection.
        Question. If confirmed, what would you do to increase the
    interaction between Air Force labs and the private sector, and between
    Air Force labs and the rest of the DOD innovation enterprise (i.e., the
    Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
    Defense Innovation Unit, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency,
    and the other Military Services)?
        Answer. Innovation does not happen in a vacuum and increasingly
    innovation comes from global commercial and academic sources as well as
    DOD and other government agency-sourced efforts. If confirmed, I would
    ensure that the DAF's leaders in science and technology actively engage
    with all sources of technology with a focus on the unique needs of the
    Air and Space Forces and on the efficient application of commercial
    technology to high priority DAF operational problems.
        Question. What are the challenges you perceive to effectively
    transitioning technologies from research programs into programs of
    record?
        Answer. In my opinion the Department of Defense, including the
    Department of the Air Force continues to struggle with the so-called
    ``valley of death'' between technology research and fielded
    capabilities embodied in programs of record. My tentative observation
    is that we may have overemphasized early stage experimentation and
    demonstrations over the steps needed design, develop, and field
    meaningful operational capability to combatant commanders. If
    confirmed, I will review the Department of the Air Force's efforts to
    overcome the transition challenge, including experimentation,
    prototyping, and open systems architectures to enable technology
    insertion, and work to find ways to prioritize transition from research
    to warfighter capability.
        Question. How would you address these challenges, if confirmed?
        Answer. I believe the fundamental problem is not the lack of ideas
    or technology but the lack of resources to effect transitions to
    fielded capability at scale. Resources are always limited, so difficult
    choices will have to be made about what capabilities to take into full
    scale development, production and fielding. If confirmed, I will ensure
    that the DAF brings technologists and operators together to make sound
    decisions on new operational concepts and the highest priority
    investments needed to make them a reality.
        Question. Recent budget requests for defense Science and Technology
    (S&T) have fallen short of the Defense Science Board's recommended goal
    of dedicating 3 percent of the total defense budget to S&T. Robust
    investment in S&T underpins technological advances in our military
    capabilities and is vital to maintaining our military technological
    superiority over emerging adversaries. However, over the past few
    years, the Air Force has prioritized near-term research and development
    over long-term S&T.
        If confirmed, what metrics would you use to assess whether the Air
    Force is investing adequately in S&T programs and whether the Air Force
    has achieved the proper balance between near-term research and long-
    term S&T?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the data available to benchmark
    the current efficiency and effectiveness of the Department of the Air
    Force science and technology enterprise and link the appropriate
    combinations of measures to enable the research and development (R&D)
    required for the U.S. to maintain technology advantage. I will consider
    various options for allocating resources to near and longer term
    investments. In general, I believe that the threats we face are going
    to be more and not less severe over time and that we cannot shortchange
    long-term investments in high-priority technologies, especially those
    that are uniquely military.
                              technical workforce
        Question. A significant challenge facing the Air Force today is a
    shortage of highly skilled data scientists, computer programmers, cyber
    and other scientific, technical, and engineering talent to work at
    Defense laboratories and technical centers.
        If confirmed, what actions would you take to increase the
    recruiting and retention of scientists, engineers, software coders, and
    in other technical positions across the Air Force's research,
    development, and acquisition enterprise?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Department of the Air Force
    leadership to increase recruiting and retention of scientists,
    engineers, software coders, and other critical technical positions
    across the research, development, and acquisition workforce. As part of
    competing for talent with industry and developing talent for the
    Nation, the Department of the Air Force also supports efforts to
    attract diverse individuals with untapped potential into technical
    fields, develop talent, and ensure the DAF technical enterprise
    provides a welcoming and inclusive opportunity.
        Question. In your view, what are the pros and cons of having Air
    Force active duty military personnel trained and working as scientists,
    engineers, software coders, and in other technical positions across the
    Air Force's research, development, and acquisition enterprise?
        Answer. Warfare is changing. Its technical component is constantly
    increasing in importance. I believe having military personnel serve in
    technical positions is critical for mission success. The linkage
    between the warfighter and the research, development, and acquisition
    communities makes for a much stronger organization and more capable
    forces for the DAF. I was trained in program management by Air Force
    officers decades ago. Active management of programs and deep technical
    knowledge is essential for supervision of contractor efforts.
    Experienced technical professionals in the military enhance the
    research, development, and acquisition community's ability to drive
    toward warfighter needs while informing military operators as to what
    is possible.
        Question. If confirmed, what specifically would you do to provide
    the directors of Air Force Research Laboratories technology
    directorates with the workforce management tools they need to shape
    their science, technology, and engineering workforces consistent with
    their missions and local needs?
        Answer. America is in a global competition for talent. If
    confirmed, I will ensure that Air Force Research Laboratory leadership
    and others in the acquisition community are using the most effective
    techniques to recruit, hire, and retain top talent to shape the
    technology, science, and engineering workforce. We need to be open to
    the use of new tools to attract this critical workforce and we need to
    use modern personnel management tools that are appealing to the current
    generation of technologists coming out of our schools. In the past,
    cooperative programs with students have been highly effective and if
    confirmed I would evaluate the potential to expand these programs as
    well as scholarship programs that bring talent into the enterprise and
    inspire it with the work and the mission. If confirmed, I would also
    explore ways to expedite the hiring and security clearance processes.
        Question. What are the major challenges or barriers to the Air
    Force being able to compete effectively for technical workforce against
    the private sector and other nations?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Department of the Air Force
    acquisition leaders to understand and address barriers to effectively
    competing for a robust technical workforce. Compensation is clearly one
    barrier. Geography can be another, and if confirmed I would look for
    opportunities for more remote work as a means to make working for the
    DAF more attractive.
        Question. How should the Air Force engage foreign nationals with
    expertise in critical technology areas who are interested in staying in
    the United States and working to support national security missions?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with Department leaders to
    understand the challenges of recruiting foreign nationals, in
    particular university students, and devise strategies to ensure that
    the Department of Air Force has access to the best talent. If
    confirmed, I would explore and support options for foreign nationals
    with needed talent to become permanent residents and citizens.
        Question. Are you concerned that this foreign national talent is
    being recruited by China?
        Answer. Yes. Programs like China's Thousand Talents program are
    directed at pulling top international experts toward China. The country
    that attracts the talent will have advantages in critical areas such as
    microelectronics, hypersonics, and artificial intelligence. If
    confirmed, I will review what actions the Department of the Air Force
    can take to counter these efforts.
        Question. If so, how should the U.S. counter these efforts?
        Answer. The U.S. should grow its investment in graduate university
    research and facilitate American attendance at these schools. We should
    encourage foreign student visas and subsequent work visas for students
    from friendly nations and encourage those students to remain in the
    U.S. The dominance of graduate education in the U.S. has historically
    provided America a strong tool to attract and retain foreign talent.
    When I was a graduate student at Caltech decades ago a large fraction
    of the aeronautical engineering students in my class were foreign. They
    all hoped to stay in the U.S. and work for an American firm. Today an
    even larger fraction of our technical graduate school students is
    foreign, many of them from China. Programs such as optional practical
    training (OPT) and H1 visas help retain desirable U.S.-trained talent
    after graduation and are therefore an important tool in countering
    Chinese recruitment efforts. If confirmed, I would work with others in
    DOD and elsewhere in government and with academia to strengthen the
    sources of technical talent for the DAF and for the Nation.
        Question. In your view, should the Air Force develop mechanisms to
    employ foreign talent in DOD, Air Force, or partner organizations in
    some capacity, even performing unclassified work, so that this talent
    is not lost to the national security enterprise?
        Answer. Yes, but with appropriate caution. Our first priority
    should be to develop American talent, but we should not ignore the
    contributions that high performing immigrants can bring to the Nation.
    Our military's success in a global technology competition will require
    the Department of the Air Force to engage the best global talent. If
    confirmed, I will look for ways to embrace open innovation as broadly
    as prudent security concerns will allow. The global fight for talent is
    becoming tighter and America should take advantage of its
    attractiveness to talented individuals.
                        air force military end strength
        Question. Is the Air Force's current end strength sufficient to
    meet national defense objectives?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review that adequacy of
    current Air Force end strength. If confirmed, I intend to review end-
    strength requirements for both the Air Force and Space Force to ensure
    we continue to balance risk in maintaining legacy capabilities to
    support ongoing deployments and operational tempo against demands of
    future force requirements.
        Question. If not, what end strength do you believe is necessary?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will be committed to the judicious use of
    military end strength to sustain a force structure that provides
    required warfighting capability and capacity to combatant commands. If
    confirmed, I intend to review end strength requirements for both the
    Air Force and Space Force to ensure we continue to balance risk in
    maintaining legacy capabilities to support ongoing deployments and
    operational tempo against demands of future force requirements.
        Question. How will the continued stand up of the Space Force, and
    the related transfer of Air Force personnel, impact Air Force and Space
    Force end strength requirements over the next 5 years?
        Answer. From what I understand, the Space Force's overall end
    strength is expected to grow modestly over the next few years as it
    continues building out the necessary force to meet National Defense
    Strategy objectives and fulfill requirements of combatant commanders. I
    also understand that the Space Force is dependent on the Air Force for
    numerous shared services where the Space Force lacks the scale to
    justify the overhead associated with an independent capability. This
    appears to be the best approach to supporting the Space Force, and if
    confirmed I will work to ensure the Space Force receives high quality
    and timely support in those areas. I understand that the plan going
    forward includes mission transfers from Air Force, Army, Navy, and
    headquarters growth. The Air Force end strength should stay tied to
    force structure requirements in order to maintain readiness and avoid
    manning shortages. If confirmed, I intend to review end strength
    requirements for both the Air Force and Space Force to ensure we
    continue to balance risk in maintaining legacy capabilities to support
    current requirements against demands of future force requirements.
        Question. What additional force shaping authorities and tools does
    the Air Force need, in your view?
        Answer. At this time, I am unaware that the Department requires any
    additional authorities. If confirmed, I will closely review all
    existing authorities to ensure we have the tools necessary to manage
    force strength.
                       air force recruiting and retention
        Question. Currently, the Air Force is experiencing a 20-year high
    in personnel retention levels. This will challenge leaders to ensure
    that there is sufficient room for fresh talent to enlist or commission.
        If confirmed, how would you ensure the Air Force can continue to
    bring in new talent, while balancing high retention?
        Answer. My understanding is that the Air Force and Space Force
    continue to maintain high standards and achieve authorized end
    strength. Both are warfighting imperatives and are essential to
    attracting, building, and retaining an effective force. If confirmed, I
    will work to ensure our recruiting, retention, and training remain
    strong while we maintain our high standards of readiness for the
    Nation's security. I will look for innovative and effective approaches
    to improving the talent pool that enters the Air and Space Forces, with
    a strong emphasis on diversity, especially in the officer corps.
        Question. How will an individual's job performance factor in to
    your decisions to grant enlistment extensions or officer continuation?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would ensure that individual job
    performance be a critical factor in all such decisions. If confirmed, I
    will focus on continuing service members with increased experience who
    are fully qualified to serve, while balancing the need to achieve
    targets in critical skill areas.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Air Force
    maintains sufficiently high recruitment and retention standards?
        Answer. The quality of personnel is the hallmark of the military.
    If confirmed, I will work to ensure our standards remain high and the
    recruiting processes remain strong, while also assessing our standards
    to ensure there are no artificial barriers to service.
        Question. What impact do current medical and other qualifications
    for enlistment in the Air Force have on the number of individuals
    eligible for military service?
        Answer. I understand that medical reasons disqualify most of the
    youth in the 17-24 age range eligible for service, a third of which are
    disqualified for being overweight. If confirmed, I will work with the
    Department of Defense, other Services, and with Congress on developing
    ideas and initiatives to increase the number of young Americans
    qualified for military service.
        Question. If confirmed, what changes to such qualifications, if
    any, would you recommend to increase the number of individuals eligible
    for Air Force service without degrading the quality of recruits?
        Answer. The limited population who are eligible to serve and a low
    propensity to serve are concerning, as this challenge impacts the
    Department's ability to meet its national security objectives. While it
    is important to maintain the high standards for service, it is also
    important to make sure that there are not artificial barriers to
    entrance and any standard is needed to maintain the quality and
    readiness of the force. If confirmed, I will work to take a holistic
    view and assess both the propensity to serve and continually address
    qualifications. I am committed to working with Congress and the
    Department as a whole to increase interest and eligibility for military
    service among young Americans.
        Question. What factors do you consider to be key to the Air Force's
    future success in retaining the best qualified personnel for continued
    service in positions of greater responsibility and leadership in the
    Air Force?
        Answer. To retain talented Airmen and Guardians, the Department
    must constantly look to maximize the quality of their service and the
    quality of life for the Airmen/Guardian and their families. There are
    inherent sacrifices associated with military service. However, if
    confirmed, my job will be to ensure the quality of the experience for
    Airmen/Guardian and their families is the best that we can make it,
    consistent with the demands of military service, and that our airmen
    and guardians recognize how much their service is valued and critical
    to the Nation.
        Question. Do you believe that current military entrance testing
    methods unnecessarily restrict the pool of eligible recruits, for
    example, by penalizing prospective recruits for whom English is not
    their native language?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current efforts across the
    Department to ensure valid, reliable, and fair criteria and measures
    are used to access applicants with highest potential, to include non-
    native English speakers. If necessary, if confirmed, I will direct
    actions that achieve a wider reach to all populations while maintaining
    appropriate standards. The overarching goal should be to have a
    representative force comprised of members with the highest potential to
    perform.
        Question. Rather than relying solely on ever-higher compensation
    for a shrinking pool of volunteers, what creative steps would you take,
    if confirmed, to expand the pool of eligible recruits and improve Air
    Force and Space Forces recruiting?
        Answer. I believe that Department must continue to reach and
    inspire Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life to serve the
    United States. While maintaining an adequate compensation profile is
    important, we seek those that are inspired and looking for a challenge
    and the opportunity to grow. To do that, prospective Airmen and
    Guardians need to see themselves in the force and they need to be part
    of a force that treats all with dignity and respect, values every team
    member, and sets the conditions and environment where they can make a
    contribution to their nation while maximizing their talents and
    reaching their fullest potential.
        The Air Force reversed recently a decision to cancel ROTC
    scholarships for hundreds of high-performing cadets. Included in this
    group of cadets were scholarship recipients pursuing technical majors
    at some of the Nation's most elite universities.
        Question. How do you view the effectiveness and utility of the
    various officer commissioning sources?
        Answer. I view each of the Air Force's commissioning sources as
    important and necessary. The Department of the Air Force needs an
    officer force representative of a wide variety of skills, demographics,
    backgrounds, and experiences. Having multiple avenues of commissioning
    enhances the Air Force's ability to attract and commission those who
    will lead our force into the future.
        Question. Do you believe the Air Force should prioritize available
    officer slots for cadets who pursue technical degrees or who attend
    selective universities?
        Answer. The future of warfare will increasingly be about the
    application of technology to operations. The Air Force and Space Force
    are technical forces and having technically competent Airmen and
    Guardians is essential. In order to ensure the Department's continued
    success, we must ensure our officers have the right knowledge and
    competencies necessary to propel the service into the future. As such,
    I believe the Air Force does and should prioritize officer slots based
    on the needs of each career field as well as those of the Air and Space
    Forces.
                                pilot retention
        Question. The Air Force has reported a shortage of approximately
    2,000 pilots last year, including a shortage of ?950 fighter pilots.
        What impact, if any, has the COVID-19 pandemic had on Air Force
    pilot retention?
        Answer. I understand that pilot retention increased in fiscal year
    2020, which was likely a result of reduced airline hiring and economic
    uncertainty. However, the Air Force expects a return to pre-COVID
    retention by fiscal year 2023. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Air
    Force continues to look for opportunities to increase retention. I am
    concerned that the post COVID period may bring a surge in demand for
    commercial pilots and if confirmed I would be monitoring that situation
    closely.
        Question. What are the Air Force's current efforts to address this
    critical problem?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the DAF's efforts
    in this area. If confirmed, I will ensure that the DAF creates a
    sustainable plan that will increase both pilot production and
    retention, allowing for sustainable officer corps personnel management.
        Question. How would you assess the effectiveness of these efforts
    to date?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess the effectiveness
    of current plans and efforts in this area. I understand that the Air
    Force has developed targeted retention programs, and is seeing high
    take rates for bonuses with up-front payment options, but still not
    reaching required retention levels. If confirmed, I will review
    retention and production initiatives to assess additional opportunities
    to improve pilot manning health.
        Question. What monetary and non-monetary incentives and initiatives
    implemented by the Air Force have yielded the most positive impacts on
    pilot retention?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review data on this, but
    I understand that higher payment options and up-front payment have seen
    the most success. There may be several non-monetary options available,
    and if confirmed I will evaluate these options.
        Question. What additional authorities does the Air Force need from
    Congress to address this shortfall definitively?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review whether there are additional
    authorities that I would recommend Congress provide the Department to
    address the pilot shortfall.
        Question. In your view, was it prudent to disestablish the Air
    Mobility Command (AMC) ``flying-only'' career track? Please explain
    your answer.
        Answer. I do not have a basis to offer and opinion on this program,
    but I am told that AMC found there was little interest in the program.
    If confirmed, I will consider and evaluate this and other available
    options for improving the retention and morale in AMC flying units.
        Question. In your view, how will AMC's Resource Driven Allocation
    Project contribute to pilot readiness?
        Answer. I understand the Readiness Driven Allocation Process helps
    units predict their operations pace. I do not have an in-depth
    knowledge, but, if confirmed, I will review how this project will
    contribute to pilot readiness.
        Question. How has the Air Force increased pilot production capacity
    commensurate with the demands of the NDS?
        Answer. I have not seen data on this, but I understand that the Air
    Force strategy to retain more pilots for longer periods combines
    production increases with retention adjustments. If confirmed, I will
    evaluate the effectiveness of this approach.
        Question. As the Air Force prepares for competition with a peer-
    adversary, what steps is it taking to increase quality standards within
    and screening rates for flight school, and the pipeline beyond?
        Answer. I have no basis to assess this situation at this time, but
    I understand and believe the Air Force continually looks for ways to
    improve and enhance its training. If confirmed, I will look for ways
    the Air Force can incorporate new technologies, tactics, and procedures
    into its pilot training programs.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you implement the Air Force's
    Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) ``Get Well'' plan?
        Answer. I have not reviewed this plan; however, I understand that
    the ``RPA Get-Well Plan'' was created in 2015 with the objective of
    increasing pipeline training capacity and operational unit manpower. I
    also am told that those objectives were met in 2016 by increasing MQ-9
    instructors, growing the RPA pilot inventory, and achieving better
    crew-to-combat ratios. If confirmed, I will ensure instructor manning
    and necessary contractor support will be in place to continue
    sustainable student throughput.
                               reserve components
        Question. In your view, what is the appropriate relationship
    between the active Air Force and the Air Force Reserve and Air National
    Guard?
        Answer. All the components of the total Air and Space Forces are
    necessary to mission success. The Total Force's capabilities and
    lethality are greater than the sum of the individual contributions of
    the active Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. I do
    not have access to DAF-internal data which would be needed to provide a
    view of how appropriate the current relationship is or whether it
    needed to be modified. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to
    ensure the active Air Force, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard
    individually and in concert are ready and resourced to meet operational
    requirements.
        Question. What is your vision for the roles and missions of the Air
    Force Reserve Components?
        Answer. I have not evaluated these relationships and it would be
    premature for me to provide my vision for the roles and mission of the
    Air Force Reserve components at this point. If confirmed, I would work
    with DAF and Air Force Reserve component leaders to ensure we are fully
    leveraging the strategic depth and operational capacity within the
    Reserve components and to identify any needed changes in respective
    roles and missions.
        Question. If confirmed, what new objectives would you seek to
    achieve with respect to the Air Force Reserve Components' organization,
    force structure, and end strength?
        Answer. It would be premature for me to provide an assessment of
    new objectives with respect to the Air Force Reserve components'
    organization, force structure, and end strength. If confirmed, I would
    assess the current situation and existing plans and I would work with
    DAF and Air Force Reserve component leaders to ensure we were fully
    leveraging the strategic depth and operational capacity within the
    Reserve components.
        Question. Are you concerned that continued reliance on Air Force
    Reserve Components to execute operational missions--both at home and
    around the globe--is adversely affecting the ability to meet their
    recruiting and retention missions? Q172. Why or why not?
        Answer. I do not have access to DAF-internal data regarding the
    ways in which the operational tempo of Air Force Reserve components may
    be affecting--adversely or positively--their ability to meet their
    recruiting and retention missions. If confirmed, I would work with
    Reserve component leaders to understand how the operational tempo may
    be affecting these missions and how best to address any potential
    adverse effects.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to creation of
    a Reserve Component of the Space Force?
        Answer. As a former Army reservist, I appreciate the value that the
    Reserve component can bring to a military service. At the same time, I
    recognize that the Space Force has unique features. In general, I can
    see significant value in a Reserve component for the Space Force. If
    confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to review Space Force
    requirements and to evaluate how a Reserve component can best satisfy
    Space Force needs, especially in wartime or an emergency.
                             military compensation
        Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of military
    compensation and benefits?
        Answer. I have not had an opportunity to assess this situation. In
    general, my impression is that military compensation and benefits are
    adequate and appropriate. The cost of maintaining an all-volunteer
    force is high, but the Congress has consistently increased pay and
    benefits for service members across the board. That said, there may be
    special situations and skill sets in which national security needs
    cannot be satisfied at current levels of compensation. If confirmed, I
    will work with DAF and DOD leaders to ensure we are continually
    identifying how DAF-internal requirements and/or factors external to
    the DAF may be affecting the competitiveness of military compensation
    and benefits as compared to the private sector.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to control the
    rising cost of military personnel?
        Answer. I do not have access to DAF-internal data to understand why
    and how the cost of military personnel are rising, and whether those
    costs are in line with inflation rates. At the time I left government
    in 2017, healthcare costs were increasing at a greater pace than
    inflation and imposing an increasing burden on military budgets, but I
    do not have data to indicate whether that trend continued or not. If
    confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to understand the nature of the
    rising costs and what may be done to address them while remaining
    sufficiently competitive with private sector compensation and benefits
    to attract and retain the people essential to DAF mission success.
                         military health system reform
        Question. Do you support the purpose and implementation of section
    702 of the fiscal year 2017 NDAA, as clarified by sections 711 and 712
    of the fiscal year 2019 NDAA?
        Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with OSD and DAF leaders to
    ensure we are efficiently and effectively transitioning the
    Administration of military treatment facilities to the Defense Health
    Agency while continuing to provide first-rate care for our Airmen,
    Guardians, and their families.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure the rapid and
    efficient transfer of the Administration and management of Air Force
    military treatment facilities to the Defense Health Agency?
        Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to review
    these timelines, and identify ways to potentially expedite transfers
    while ensuring our Airmen, Guardians, and their families continue to
    receive first-rate medical care.
                         non-deployable service members
        Question. In your view, should airmen and guardians who are non-
    deployable for more than 12 consecutive months be subject either to
    separation from the service or referral to the Disability Evaluation
    System, as is current Department policy?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand how significant this problem is or how the Disability
    Evaluation System is working in practice and how changes to the current
    policy may affect readiness. If confirmed, I will implement the current
    policy while I assess this situation unless the Secretary of Defense
    provides different guidance.
        Question. Under what circumstances would the retention of a service
    member who has been non-deployable for more than 12 months be ``in the
    best interest of the service''?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data to understand how frequent
    this situation is or if this criterion has traditionally been defined
    nor the potential consequences of deviating from that definition and
    its application. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to
    understand the costs and benefits of the current approach, and ensure
    any changes in criteria meet the spirit and intent of the provision
    while satisfying operational readiness requirements.
        Question. In your view, how should this policy be applied to
    service members with HIV?
        Answer. I do not have sufficient data to answer this question. I
    understand the Department of Defense is continuing to review HIV-
    related policies in light of medical science regarding the treatment
    and prevention of HIV. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of
    Defense to ensure the DAF experiences are understood and taken into
    consideration in any changes to DOD policy and I will implement any
    related changes in policy by the Secretary of Defense.
        Question. In your view, should an airman's or guardian's readiness
    to perform the required specific missions, functions, and tasks in the
    context of a particular deployment also be considered in determining
    whether that service member is deployable?
        Answer. Generally speaking, yes, but I do not have enough data to
    answer this hypothetical question. If confirmed, I would work with DAF
    leaders to ensure Airmen and Guardians had the training and resources
    needed to be successful in their deployment and to reduce non-
    deployable rates. If confirmed, I will also ensure that policies that
    support non-deployment decisions are be administered fairly and
    uniformly, taking into account individual circumstances as warranted
        Question. What are your ideas for addressing the challenges of
    medical non-deployability in the Reserve components?
        Answer. At this point, I do not have access to the non-
    deployability rate for the Air Force Reserve components, nor a
    sufficient understanding of factors contributing to that rate to offer
    an opinion. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to assess the
    current rate of medical non-deployability in the DAF Reserve components
    and work to address any challenges identified.
        Question. The new DOD transgender policy (DODI 1300.28) states,
    ``any determination that a transgender Service member is non-deployable
    at any time will be consistent with established military department and
    Service standards, as applied to other service members whose
    deployability is similarly affected in comparable circumstances
    unrelated to gender transition.'' The same policy requires commanders
    to review and approve service member requests to transition gender in a
    manner that ``maintains military readiness by minimizing impacts to the
    mission (including deployment, operational, training, and exercise
    schedules, and critical skills availability).''
        What Air Force standards and policies related to an airmen's or
    guardian's ability to deploy will be applied to transgender service
    members undergoing gender transition procedures or treatment?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review DAF-internal
    standards and policies that govern an Airman or Guardian's ability to
    deploy; therefore, it is premature for me to identify those which would
    apply to transgender service members undergoing transition procedures
    or treatment. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders and medical
    professionals to understand what current standards may be applicable
    and to assess the need for additional standards.
        Question. As the Air Force implements the DOD policy, what level of
    commander will be responsible for balancing Service member requests to
    transition gender while maintaining military readiness?
        Answer. I do not have access to DAF-internal deliberations that
    informed the current level of commander involved in those decisions. If
    confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to understand how that
    decision was reached, determine if that level of commander remained the
    most appropriate, and review the suite of resources afforded to any
    commander so that she/he can make an informed decision when presented
    with member requests to transition gender. If confirmed, I will also
    follow any policies promulgated by the Secretary of Defense.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that commanders are
    permitted to deny or delay gender transition requests if it such a
    request would degrade unit readiness and deployability?
        Answer. I do not have sufficient data to answer this question
    because I do not understand the potential medical and mental health
    consequences of delaying a service member's transition. If confirmed, I
    would work with DAF leaders and medical professionals to balance
    readiness and deployability with the medical needs of affected Airmen
    and Guardians.
                            military quality of life
        Question. If confirmed, what qualify of life and morale, welfare,
    and recreation (MWR) programs would you consider to be a priority?
        Answer. I do not have data on the full suite of MWR programs, which
    programs are a priority for our Airmen and Guardians, the relative
    State of each program, nor whether additional programs have been
    requested. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders, including
    senior enlisted leaders and families to answer these critical questions
    before determining how best to support the quality of life and MWR
    programs. As a former Army officer, I know MWR programs provide
    critical resources for our service members and their families and if
    confirmed I am committed to supporting those programs.
        Question. What metric would you apply in determining which MWR and
    quality of life programs should be sustained or enriched and which
    should be eliminated or reduced in scope as ineffective or outmoded?
        Answer. In general, I would listen to the views of our Airmen and
    Guardians in making these decisions. I do not have data on the full
    suite of MWR programs, which programs are a priority for our Airmen and
    Guardians or their families, the relative State of each program, nor
    whether additional programs have been requested. If confirmed, I would
    work with DAF leaders, including senior enlisted leaders and families
    to answer these critical questions before determining how best to
    support the MWR programs. As a former Army officer, I know MWR programs
    provide critical resources for our service members and their families.
                     military family readiness and support
        Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
    readiness issues for service members and their families?
        Answer. I do not have sufficient data to answer this question at
    this point. If confirmed, I look forward to working with DAF leaders
    and military families to understanding and addressing the most pressing
    readiness issues facing our Airmen, Guardians, and their families. If
    confirmed, I will support programs that reinforce a strong DAF
    community and focus on those that build and sustain resilient families.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific actions would you take to
    ensure that military families are provided with accessible, high-
    quality childcare, at an appropriate cost?
        Answer. As a former military parent of young children I understand
    how important high-quality childcare is to military families first
    hand. I do not have DAF-internal data regarding the demand for
    accessible and affordable, high-quality childcare and the DAF's ability
    to meet that demand. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders
    including senior enlisted leaders and with families to understand how
    we are meeting that demand and potentials ways to improve doing so.
    Quality childcare is critical to early childhood development as well as
    to our sacred obligation to support our people and our ability to
    retain the talented people needed to perform the DAF's missions.
                support for military families with special needs
        Question. What is your view of the overall effectiveness of the
    exceptional family member program (EFMP)?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data regarding the objectives
    and measures of effectiveness for the EFMP program, so it would be
    premature for me to provide an assessment at this point. If confirmed,
    I will work with DAF leaders to ensure this program is best supporting
    our Airmen and Guardians and that commanders and supervisors are well-
    versed in the full scope of what the program provides.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you incentivize service member
    enrollment in EFMP?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand the current challenges with service member enrollment. If
    confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to understand why incentives
    may be needed for service member enrollment and how best to craft
    those. If confirmed, my ultimate objective would be ensuring our Airmen
    and Guardians and their families feel and are in fact supported.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you empower military families to
    advocate and access individualized educational programs and other
    support to which their family members may be entitled under the
    Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, including from public
    schools in the vicinity of military installations?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand the current challenges service members and their families
    face in accessing their entitlements under the Individuals with
    Disabilities Education Act. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders
    to understand the scope of the challenges and as necessary enlist the
    support and expertise of others within the U.S. Government, and as
    needed Members of Congress, to ensure our military families' rights are
    protected.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you enhance support to a service
    member in navigating the TRICARE system to obtain the medical services
    and support required by a family member with special needs, regardless
    of where that family member is located?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand the current challenges service members and their families
    face in navigating the TRICARE system. If confirmed, I would work with
    DAF leaders to understand the scope of the challenges and potential
    solutions to ensure our service members' families have the support they
    deserve, regardless of their location.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with Military Housing
    Privatization Initiative partners and military commanders to ensure
    that the needs of service members with an exceptional family member are
    considered in the military housing assignment process?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand the current challenges service members with an exceptional
    family member face with respect to the availability of housing that
    meets their special needs. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders
    to understand the scope of the challenges and ensure that our Military
    Housing Privatization Initiative partners meet the housing needs of
    service members with exceptional family members in accordance with the
    privatized housing project legal agreements, the Fair Housing Act, and
    the Americans with Disabilities Act.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you eliminate or reduce the
    bureaucratic administrative burdens currently experienced by EFMP
    participants?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal data that would help me
    understand the current administrative requirements in place and why
    some requirements may be considered overly bureaucratic and burdensome.
    If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders and EFMP leaders to review
    administrative requirements, and understand potential areas to reduce
    administrative requirements while maintaining data needed to measure
    program effectiveness and ensure accountability.
                               suicide prevention
        Question. The number of suicides in each of the Services continues
    to concern the Committee. It is believed that, over the course of a
    single week at the end of March 2020, two U.S. Air Force Academy First-
    Class cadets committed suicide.
        What is your assessment of the efficacy of suicide prevention
    programs at the U.S. Air Force Academy?
        Answer. Any suicide is a tragedy, and suicides among young people
    and especially those at an institution like the Air Force Academy are
    particularly tragic and the Air Force must do everything it can to
    prevent these events, at the Academy and anywhere in the Department. I
    do not have USAFA-internal data regarding the scope of its suicide
    prevention program, so I am unable to provide an assessment at this
    point. If confirmed, I look forward to better understanding the program
    and working with USAFA leaders to improve it. If confirmed, I would
    specifically focus on ways to improve cadets' ability to identify
    behaviors in one another that may be markers for potentially self-
    harming behavior.
        Question. Has the Air Force conducted a comprehensive review of the
    two recent suspected Academy suicides to determine whether there are
    any common causal factors? Q198. If so, what did the Air Force find and
    how will those findings be applied to suicide prevention efforts going
    forward?
        Answer. I do not have DAF-internal information regarding these two
    suspected suicides. If confirmed, I pledge to review the facts related
    to these cases and assess how the findings can be applied to future
    suicide prevention efforts.
        Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to maintain
    a strong focus on preventing suicides in the Active Air Force and Space
    Force, in the Reserve Components, and in Air Force and Space Force
    families across all Components?
        Answer. At this point, I am not aware of the full suite of suicide
    prevention resources available to DAF personnel and their families. If
    confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to review those and identify
    opportunities to strengthen them as needed, specifically for those in
    career fields and/or assigned to locations with higher rates of
    attempted and/or reported suicides. If confirmed, I will work with DAF
    leaders to ensure commanders and supervisors are knowledgeable of the
    knowledgeable of the support resources, including mental health and
    behavioral health resources, available to them and their personnel, and
    other critical resources to potentially identify self-harming
    behaviors.
        Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to enhance
    the reporting and tracking of suicide among family members and
    dependents of airmen and members of the Space Force across all
    Components?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will do everything I can to eliminate
    suicide within the Department of the Air Force. I do not yet have data
    on DAF-internal methods to report and track suicides among family
    members and dependents of Airmen and Guardians across all components.
    If confirmed, I would work with DAF and DOD leaders as well as other
    outside experts to identify ways we may be able to improve the
    reporting, tracking, and information sharing of such data to help
    identify Airmen and Guardians that may benefit from proactive suicide
    prevention support.
        Mental and Behavioral Health Care
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
    sufficient mental and behavioral health resources are available to
    airmen and guardians in an operational theater, as well as to they and
    their families at home station locations?
        Answer. I have not seen DAF-internal data to fully understand the
    demand for mental health resources and the DAF's ability to meet that
    demand. If confirmed, I would work to understand the severity of that
    deficit and work with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
    for Health Affairs to address the needs of those assigned in an
    operational theater, as well as the needs of their family members
    abroad and at home station. If confirmed, I would specifically look at
    how expanding telehealth and telepsychiatry services may help to meet
    demands across the force.
        Question. If confirmed, what specifically would you do to ensure
    that sufficient mental and behavioral health resources are available to
    Reserve Component airmen and their families who do not reside near a
    military installation?
        Answer. I have not seen DAF-internal data to fully understand the
    demand for mental health and behavioral health resources from our
    Reserve Component, nor the DAF's ability to meet that demand. If
    confirmed, I would work to understand the challenges associated with
    providing mental and behavioral care based on the individual's
    activation status. My priority would be to ensure the service member
    receives the appropriate care and does not face bureaucratic hurdles
    that deter him/her for seeking the care they need. If confirmed, I
    would specifically look at how expanding telehealth and telepsychiatry
    services may help to meet mental health and behavioral health demands
    across the Reserve Component.
        Question. Although the Department has made great strides in
    reducing the stigma associated with help-seeking behaviors, many
    service members remain concerned that their military careers will be
    adversely affected should their chain of command become aware that they
    are seeking mental or behavioral health care. At the same time, the
    military chain of command has a legitimate need to be aware of physical
    and mental health conditions that may affect the readiness of the
    service members under their command.
        Regarding the provision of mental and behavioral health care, how
    does the Air Force bridge the gap between an airman or guardian's
    desire for confidentiality and the chain of command's legitimate need
    to know about matters that may affect the readiness of the airman,
    guardian, and the unit?
        Answer. I am not familiar with DAF-internal protocols governing an
    Airman or Guardian's desire for confidentiality and when his/her chain
    of command should be notified regarding matters that may affect
    readiness. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to understand
    current protocols, understand how well they are working, as well as
    where they may be opportunities to improve the protocols so as to
    encourage Airmen and Guardians to seek the mental health and behavioral
    health care they may need.
        Question. In your view, do non-medical counseling services provided
    by DOD Military Family Life Counselors have a role in promoting the
    readiness of airmen, guardians, and their families? Please explain your
    answer.
        Answer. I am not familiar with current DAF processes used to
    determine when it is appropriate to utilize a DOD Military Family Life
    Counselor versus medical counseling services. If confirmed, I would
    work with DAF leaders to understand how that determination is made, the
    current scope of work performed by DOD Military Family Life Counselors,
    and how best to utilize DOD Military Family Life Counselors moving
    forward.
                     sexual assault prevention and response
        Question. In your view, how adequate and effective are the
    policies, programs, and training been that the Air Force has put in
    place to prevent and respond to sexual assault?
        Answer. Not adequate and effective enough. Though my understanding
    is that the Air Force has attempted to leverage best practices, simply
    put the policies, programs, and training by themselves have not been
    sufficient to achieve the goal of dramatically reducing and eliminating
    sexual assault. The public reports indicate prevalence of sexual
    assault within the DAF that requires immediate attention, as the
    existing situation threatens Air Force and Space Force readiness.
    Despite years of investment into training and prevention programs,
    there does not appear to be the decrease in instances of sexual assault
    that we need to see. I understand the Independent Review Commission
    will release its findings and recommendations shortly, and if
    confirmed, I will work with OSD and Air Force and Space Force leaders
    to best implement directed and necessary changes within the DAF and to
    comply with any statutory changes that are implemented.
        Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to increase
    focus on the prevention of sexual assaults?
        Answer. While encouraging victims to report and hold perpetrators
    accountable are of great importance, I believe that as much attention
    or even more should be paid to prevention. These crimes are
    particularly onerous when they take place in the DAF or any military
    institution where teamwork and a safe supportive climate for all
    members of the team are essential to mission success. I have not been
    briefed on DAF-internal deliberations focused on the prevention of
    sexual assaults. If confirmed, I would want to hear from DAF leaders
    about preventative approaches in development, as well as approaches
    they decided not to pursue and why. In my mind, prevention and
    accountability go hand in hand. Accountability is an important part of
    prevention, but it is not by itself enough. Individuals may not be
    deterred from engaging in sexual assault if they believe they will not
    be held accountable. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to
    ensure we are equally focused on preventing sexual assaults and holding
    accountable those who engage in this unlawful behavior. I understand
    the Independent Review Commission will release its findings and
    recommendations shortly. If confirmed, I would work with OSD and Air
    Force and Space Force leaders to best implement changes within the DAF.
        Question. What is your assessment of the potential impact, if any,
    of proposals to remove from military commanders case disposition
    authority over felony violations of the Uniform Code of Military
    Justice, including sexual assaults?
        Answer. I have not participated in recent DOD or DAF-internal
    discussions to understand the potential impacts of such proposals, so
    it would be premature for me to provide an assessment. However, if
    confirmed, the prevention of sexual assault and sexual harassment will
    be a top priority, and I am committed to exploring all promising ideas
    to address these challenges to our ability to recruit and retain top
    talent. While I am open to an alternative criminal process from the
    current one, if confirmed, I would want to ensure that commanders are
    not relieved of their responsibility for everything that happens in
    their units and for creating a positive command climate in which every
    member of the organization feels respected and safe.
        Question. What is your assessment of the Air Force's implementation
    of protections against retaliation--most notably social ostracism and
    reputation damage--for reporting sexual assault?
        Answer. I have not seen DAF-internal data regarding the assessed
    prevalence or reported instances of retaliation against those who
    reported sexual assault, so it would be premature for me to provide an
    assessment here. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to ensure
    our processes and policies to prevent and address sexual assault
    prioritize confidentiality and the victim's privacy so as to not
    inadvertently re-victimize the victim. Moreover, I would work with DAF
    leaders to ensure the DAF has a culture and a command climate in which
    everyone understands that retaliating against victims, or those who
    reported the assault, in any way is against the Air Force Core Values
    and will not be tolerated.
        Question. In your view, do military and civilian leaders in the
    Department of the Air Force have the training, authorities, and
    resources needed to hold subordinate commanders and supervisors
    accountable for the prevention of and response to, sexual assault and
    retaliation? Q210. If not, what additional training, authorities, or
    resources do you believe are needed, and why?
        Answer. I do not currently have access to the DAF-internal suite of
    training and resources available to military and civilian leaders to
    help them understand the scope of their authorities and available
    resources to both prevent sexual assault and address potential
    instances of retaliation for those who report. Therefore, it would be
    premature for me to provide a view here. I understand the Independent
    Review Commission will release its findings and recommendations
    shortly, some of which may address training, resources, and
    authorities. If confirmed, I would work with OSD and Air Force and
    Space Force leaders to best implement those changes within the DAF and
    to ensure that training, authorities and resources are adequate.
                               sexual harassment
        Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the
    military sexual harassment prevention and response programs of the Air
    Force?
        Answer. The public reports indicate the DAF is not making the
    improvements needed to dramatically reduce and eliminate sexual
    harassment, and this poses a threat to Air Force and Space Force
    readiness. Despite years of investment into training and prevention
    programs, there does not appear to be an appreciable decrease in
    instances of sexual assault and harassment. I understand the
    Independent Review Commission will release its findings and
    recommendations shortly, and if confirmed, I will work with OSD and Air
    Force and Space Force leaders to best implement changes within the DAF.
        Question. In your view, do methods for tracking the submission and
    monitoring the resolution of informal complaints from airmen or
    guardians of harassment or discrimination provide DOD and Air Force and
    Space Force leaders, supervisors, and managers an accurate picture of
    the systemic prevalence of these adverse behaviors in the force?
        Answer. I do not have data on how well the process for tracking the
    submissions and monitoring the resolutions of informal complaints works
    in practice. However, I believe critical to ensuring these methods are
    as effective as possible is to ensure Airmen and Guardians trust the
    process' outcomes, in the form or prevention and/or accountability
    measures. Increased trust in the process is ultimately what most helps
    to close the gap between what is reported and the prevalence of those
    behaviors. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to identify ways
    to strengthen confidence in the reporting process to help Airmen and
    Guardians see the value in reporting.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to improve the
    quality of investigations into allegations from airmen or guardians of
    sexual harassment?
        Answer. I have not seen DAF-internal data to suggest there is a
    deficiency in the quality of investigations conducted once allegations
    are made. However, if confirmed, I will review the current
    investigative process and take appropriate steps to ensure all Airmen
    and Guardians receive a thorough and fair investigation into
    allegations of sexual harassment.
        Question. Does the Department of the Air Force's (including the
    Space Force) method for recording the outcomes of informal complaints
    of harassment or discrimination from airmen or guardians provide DOD
    leaders, supervisors, and managers with a means of identifying repeat
    perpetrators in the military?
        Answer. I am not familiar with how DAF records these outcomes.
    However, if confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to identify how we
    might further improve information sharing to ensure we have as complete
    a picture of potential repeat perpetrators as possible.
        Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
    and Gender Relations survey, 17.7 percent of female and 5.8 percent of
    male DOD civilian employees indicated that they had experienced sexual
    harassment and/or gender discrimination by ``someone at work'' in the
    12 months prior to completing the survey.
        What is your assessment of the current climate in the Air Force and
    Space Force civilian workforce regarding sexual harassment, gender
    discrimination, and other harassment?
        Answer. I have not seen current DAF-internal survey responses;
    however, if confirmed, you have my commitment that preventing such
    harassment and gender discrimination from occurring and holding
    individuals accountable when they engage in such behavior will be a top
    priority. This is fundamentally a leadership issue, and we must
    aggressively tackle these issues that threaten readiness and degrade
    our ability to retain top talent.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
    receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment,
    discrimination, or other harassment from a civilian Air Force or Space
    Force employee?
        Answer. I would immediately notify the appropriate Human Resources
    and Equal Employment Opportunity offices. I would take complaints of
    this nature very seriously, enforce appropriate accountability at all
    levels, leverage opportunities to train and educate leaders and the
    staff, and reiterate my stance that this kind of behavior has no place
    in the workplace.
        Question. Does the Air Force's method for responding to complaints
    of harassment or discrimination in the civilian workforce provide
    appropriate care and services for victims?
        Answer. I do not have data on DAF-internal methods of responding to
    such complaints nor the current process by which care and services are
    provided to victims. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders to
    ensure victims, military or civilian, are fully aware of their legal
    rights, avenues for reporting, and services and care to which they are
    entitled and to make certain that those actions are appropriate and
    professional.
                                   extremism
        Question. What is your view of the prevalence and effect of
    extremism in the Air Force?
        Answer. As a former Army officer, I know that extremism threatens
    good order and discipline in the ranks and degrades unit cohesion;
    however, I also believe that the vast majority of Airmen and Guardians
    serve honorably and continue to uphold their sworn oath to support and
    defend the Constitution of the United States. Recent events have shown
    however that some active duty members and veterans are susceptible to
    extremist ideology, from various perspectives. If confirmed, I will
    work with DAF and OSD leaders to ensure we have processes and policies
    in place to identify and address extremist behavior within the ranks,
    while also protecting the rights of our service members.
        Question. In your view, what beliefs and actions should constitute
    ``extremism?''
        Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense is continuing
    to review and refine its definition of ``extremism'' and unacceptable
    conduct in order to provide the clearest guidance possible to our
    service members and their leaders. In my view, any belief that
    advocates violence against the government or violence as a political
    tool should not be acceptable. America values and protects freedom of
    thought and belief and an open public debate about conflicting ideas.
    Extremism is very much in the eyes of the beholder and my view is that
    the military, including the DAF, needs to carefully balance the need to
    reduce or eliminate extremist ideology from the military with the need
    to also respect the freedom of thought and expression that are core
    American values. Establishing standards of behavior and conduct for
    various purposes that correctly balances these interests is not a
    simple task. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leaders and others to
    ensure all Airmen and Guardians are able to serve to their full
    potential, and free from the threat of actions meant to denigrate,
    illegally discriminate, or otherwise deprive service members of their
    civil rights. If confirmed, I will continue close coordination and
    participation with the DOD in this endeavor.
        Question. In light of ongoing efforts to combat extremism, what are
    your views on the current DOD policy that states, ``A Service member's
    right of expression should be preserved to the maximum extent
    possible?''
        Answer. I agree with this policy, but all freedoms have
    limitations. As a former Army officer, I know that leaders do not stop
    being leaders once they leave the unit. Their off-duty words and
    actions continue to set the tone for an organization as much as their
    words and actions on duty. While I agree that the right of expression
    for service members should be preserved to the maximum extent possible,
    service members should also be held to accountable standards when their
    speech or expression threatens good order and discipline or our
    national security.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to eliminate
    extremism within the Air Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of the Air
    Force continues to support the comprehensive DOD review to combat and
    eliminate extremism. Once the report and its findings and
    recommendations are finalized, if confirmed, I will work with Air Force
    and Space Force leaders to develop clear action plans to implement the
    necessary changes. My expectation is that the DOD and the DAF will both
    go through a period of adjustment as we learn from our experience and
    try to get the balance between freedom of belief or speech and good
    order and discipline right. At the end of the day one cannot regulate
    thought, but one can regulate conduct. The problem in this area will be
    defining pragmatic and effective standards of conduct and correlating
    them to decisions about a person's fitness to serve or to hold
    positions of leadership, increased responsibility, and trust. It is not
    a crime to hold extremist views, but extremist views are not compatible
    with military service or being a member of a close knit military
    organization.
                 domestic and child abuse in military families
        Question. Recent press reports indicate that the number of
    incidents of domestic and child abuse in military families has
    increased. What is your understanding of the extent of this issue in
    the Air Force, and if confirmed, what actions would you take to address
    it?
        Answer. The abuse of children is reprehensible. It is especially
    reprehensible in a military family. If confirmed, I will be committed
    to ensuring Air Force and Space Force families have the support and
    protections they deserve. Child abuse and domestic abuse have no place
    in our military, and if confirmed, I would work with the Family
    Advocacy Program and DAF leaders to understand what may be causing the
    spike, and how best to screen for, report, and address such abuses. As
    in other areas of misconduct, prevention should receive equal or
    greater attention than accountability and punishment. If confirmed I
    will do everything I can to eliminate abuse in military families.
        Question. Do you believe that the Air Force Family Advocacy Program
    strikes the right balance between healing families and holding
    individuals accountable for acts of domestic violence and child abuse?
        Answer. I do not have sufficient information to address this
    question. If confirmed, I would work with DAF leadership, the Family
    Advocacy Program, and the Judge Advocate General to understand if we
    are doing all that we can in both areas and to identify additional
    steps we can take to better serve and protect service members, and
    their children and families.
                             u.s. air force academy
        Question. What is your assessment of the diversity of cadets at the
    Air Force Academy?
        Answer. Although I have not had an opportunity to fully assess
    diversity at the Academy, I am committed to ensuring our Air Force and
    Space Force have talent as diverse as the country itself. I understand
    that over the last 10 years, the Air Force Academy has consistently
    increased the diversity of the Cadet Wing, though areas of improvement
    remain. I understand that the class of 2024 is the most diverse class
    in Air Force Academy history (women comprise 29 percent, while students
    of color comprise 31 percent). Despite these improvements, the Air
    Force must continue to devote significant focus and resources on
    recruiting diverse talent into the Air Force Academy as the DAF
    competes with the other services and the private sector for talent. If
    confirmed, I would work with USAFA leaders to support targeted outreach
    and recruiting events, field Second Lieutenant recruiters focused on
    diverse populations, and support the Air Force Preparatory School,
    which provides significant diversity to the Air Force Academy Cadet
    Wing. Additionally, I would work with Members of Congress, particularly
    those who represent diverse constituents, to ensure they have the
    resources to nominate competitive diverse students.
        Question. What particular demographic does the Air Force Academy
    struggle to recruit most?
        Answer. It is my understanding that recruiting within the American
    Indian/Alaska Native communities continues to be a challenge for the
    Air Force Academy. While USAFA tracks with other institutions across
    higher education, this demographic is the most under-represented of all
    racial and ethnic groups. If confirmed, I am committed to improve
    overall representation with deliberate, targeted recruiting efforts.
        Question. What is your assessment of the efficacy of the policies
    and processes in place at the Air Force Academy to prevent sexual
    assault and sexual harassment, and to ensure that cadets who do report
    assault or harassment are not subject to retaliation--social ostracism
    and reputation damage--in particular?
        Answer. Although I have not had a chance to review those policies
    and processes, to be clear: any instance of sexual assault or sexual
    harassment is a failure of the good order and discipline we expect, and
    achieving our goals to eliminate these behaviors not only requires
    policies and processes but also changes in climate and culture. If
    confirmed, I commit to work with USAFA leaders to ensure our processes
    and policies to prevent and address sexual assault and sexual
    harassment prioritize confidentiality and the victim's privacy so as to
    not inadvertently re-victimize the victim. Moreover, I would work with
    leaders of the Air and Space Forces and with USAFA leaders to create a
    culture that understands retaliating against victims in any way is
    against the Air Force Core Values and will not be tolerated.
        Question. Do you believe the current 5-year minimum Active Duty
    service commitment for Military Service Academy graduates is sufficient
    return on investment for the U.S. military and the American taxpayer?
        Answer. I have not had a chance to assess the tradeoff between
    different commitments and recruiting and retention at the USAFA. As a
    West Point graduate, I understand the immense investment that American
    taxpayers make into our service academies and the future leaders they
    educate. Overall, I think that return is well worth the investment
    based on the actual retention beyond the 5-year minimum. I would be
    concerned about the impact on recruiting a longer commitment might
    have. A 5-year Active Duty service commitment helps the Department
    manage the force and facilitates retention in mission critical career
    fields, which strengthens Air Force and Space Force readiness and
    lethality but the commitment for academy graduates has evolved over
    time and this isn't the only potential policy. If confirmed, I am open
    to understanding the potential benefits and costs of different lengths
    and types of Active Duty service commitments for USAFA graduates.
        Question. In your view, do the Military Service Academies
    contribute to the pool of military officer accessions commensurate with
    their attendant costs? Q229. Why or why not?
        Answer. Yes, but admittedly as a West Point graduate I am hardly
    objective about this. The USAFA plays an invaluable role in educating,
    training, and developing leaders to serve in our Air Force and Space
    Force. My understanding is that the USAFA provides a high percentage of
    Air Force and Space Force officers. About 90 percent of Air Force
    Academy graduates annually serve in Air Force operations or operations
    support career fields. Of those, over half enter the pilot pipeline,
    and the remaining 10 percent commission directly to the Space Force
    primarily as space operators. I value all of our commissioning sources
    and the combination of the various sources significantly enhances our
    officer corps.
        Question. Given the provisions of title 10, U.S. Code, applicable
    to each of the Military Service Academies, under what conditions would
    you deem it appropriate, if confirmed, to permit an Air Force officer
    to play professional sports prior to completing at least two
    consecutive years of commissioned service following graduation from the
    Air Force Academy?
        Answer. I do not have a strong opinion on this topic. I have not
    assessed this situation for the USAFA, but as another service academy
    graduate I have thought about it. The USAFA sports programs are a
    critical recruiting tool for the academies and for the Air Force and
    Space Force more broadly. They help to broaden the Services' exposure
    to populations and demographics that are under-represented in the
    services. The benefits to the DAF and overall strength of these
    programs may increase if USAFA graduates were provided additional media
    exposure through participation in professional sports soon after
    graduation. The prospect of playing professionally sooner would
    certainly help the academy recruit more capable athletes, and I have a
    lot of classmates from West Point who would support this. On the other
    hand, that is not what we have military academies for; they exist to
    prepare officers for service to the Nation. Anyone attending, and
    getting the costly taxpayer provided benefits of an academy education,
    should do so with that intent. Athletes at the academies truly
    represent their schools and should not be in a separate category from
    other cadets. In my opinion that shared academy experience should
    include the same or a similar commitment to service as their
    classmates. If confirmed, I am open to understanding the potential
    benefits and costs of allowing a limited number of Air Force and Space
    Force officers to play professional sports prior to completing at least
    two consecutive years of commissioned service following graduation from
    USAFA, but I am not convinced that this is a net benefit to the academy
    or to the Nation.
                        general/flag officer reductions
        Question. The Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA reduced the number of General/
    Flag Officers by about 12 percent.
        What progress has been made in reducing the number of Air Force
    General Officers (GO) and restructuring the Air Force General Officer
    grade pyramid?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess this situation,
    but I understand that the Department is on track to meet the mandated
    reduction in general officers. If confirmed, I will continue to
    implement the guidance laid out in the Fiscal Year 2017 NDAA and work
    to ensure we have the right number of GOs, along with the appropriate
    grade pyramid within both the Air Force and Space Force, to lead and
    execute our missions around the globe.
        Question. What is the impact of the establishment of the Space
    Force on the authorized number of Air Force GO positions?
        Answer. I have not had the opportunity to assess this situation,
    but I understand that most of the Space Force GO positions have been
    filled within the Air Force GO cap and that the Department of Defense
    is working to meet Space Force GO requirements within the mandated GO
    reductions across DOD. If confirmed, I will assess this situation and
    continue to monitor it closely.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific actions would you take to
    ensure the Air Force is successful in meeting this GO reduction and
    restructuring mandate?
        Answer. I understand that the Department is on track to meet the
    mandated reduction in GOs. If confirmed, I will monitor the timely
    implementation of this reduction to meet the required goals and I will
    assess the adequacy of GO billets in meeting the Air and Space Force
    mission requirements and restructuring mandate.
        Question. Are you satisfied that the Air Force has in place
    sufficient training and resources to provide its General Officers the
    training, advice, and assistance they need to ``play the ethical
    midfield''? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. We owe it to our Airmen, Guardians, and the American
    taxpayers to ensure that decisions made on behalf of the Air Force and
    Space Force are done so solely in the interest of national security and
    consistent with American values. If confirmed, I would work to ensure
    our GOs have the training, advice, and assistance to ensure they are
    upholding the highest ethical standards of conduct.
                  officer personnel management system reforms
        Question. The fiscal year 2019 contained several provisions to
    modernize the officer personnel management system. These reforms were
    designed to align officer career management with the priorities
    outlined in the 2018 NDS.
        How is the Air Force implementing these authorities and to what
    effect?
        Answer. I have not had an opportunity to assess the implementation
    of these authorities. It is my understanding the new authorities
    granted by the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA have given the Department of the
    Air Force more flexibility to better manage the officer corps. I am
    aware that last year the Air Force stopped using below-the-zone
    promotions, and the Secretary gave promotion boards the authority to
    reorder promotion lists based on merit. If confirmed, I intend to
    assess the impacts of these changes and to continue pursuing
    implementation of authorities that help the Department manage talent
    and increase flexibilities for service members and their families.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you lead the Air Force in further
    leveraging these new authorities?
        Answer. It is imperative we continue to develop and modernize our
    talent management tools and processes to build the force we need for
    great power competition and to recruit and retain top talent. If
    confirmed, I will work to ensure Air Force and Space Force leaders
    understand the full extent of these new authorities so they may be best
    leveraged.
        Question. Are there other authorities that the Air Force needs in
    order to modernize the management of its officer personnel?
        Answer. Not that I am currently aware of. If confirmed, I will work
    with Air Force and Space Force leaders to understand where there may be
    in gaps in authorities that are affecting the DAF's ability to best
    modernize the management of its officer personnel. If gaps in authority
    are identified, I will work with DAF leaders and Congress to identify
    and scope additional authorities that may be helpful.
        Question. Does the Department of the Air Force have any plans to
    utilize the ``Alternative Promotion Authority'' contained in sections
    649a-619k of title 10, U.S. Code? Q239. If not, why not?
        Answer. I am not aware of the Air Force's plans with regard to
    using these authorities or of the reasons for any decision to date. In
    general I am a proponent of flexibility in personnel management
    decisions. If confirmed, I would work with Air Force and Space Force
    leaders to ensure we are use those authorities appropriately.
                            joint officer management
        Question. In your view, do the requirements associated with
    becoming a Joint Qualified Officer (JQO), and the link between
    attaining joint qualification and eligibility for promotion to General
    Officer, continue to be consistent with the operational and
    professional demands of Air Force and Space Force line officers?
        Answer. In my view, the movement toward multi-domain operations
    only increases the importance of joint perspectives and experience.
    Fulfilling the Interim National Security Strategy and optimizing the
    resources and capabilities the Air Force and Space Force bring to bear
    requires our officers have a strong appreciation for how their sister
    services operate, and the introduction of the JQO qualification has
    gone a long way toward developing that operational knowledge. If
    confirmed, I would work with Air Force and Space Force services, as
    well as the other service secretaries to ensure the requirements for
    the JQO qualification continue to best prepare our officers to operate
    in a joint environment and prepare them for promotion to General
    Officer.
        Question. What additional modifications, if any, would you
    recommend to JQO prerequisites necessary to ensure that Air Force and
    Space Force officers are able to attain both meaningful joint and
    Service-specific leadership experience, as well as adequate
    professional development?
        Answer. At this point, I do not know enough about the current
    implementation of this requirement to recommend modifications. However,
    if confirmed, leadership development will be a top priority of mine.
    And, as part of that, I would work with Air Force and Space Force
    services, as well as the other service secretaries to ensure the
    requirements for the JQO qualification continue to best prepare our
    officers to operate in a joint environment and prepare them for
    promotion to general officer.
                        professional military education
        Question. What changes or reform would you recommend to the
    professional military education system to ensure that tomorrow's
    leaders have the tools necessary to ensure the Department is able to
    meet the national defense objectives of the future?
        Answer. The vast majority of Airmen and Guardians have not served
    during a period of great power competition--against a competitor whose
    diplomatic, economic, and military capabilities are formidable against
    our own. It is important that our PME quickly help our Airmen and
    Guardians understand the history, worldview, and interests of these
    competitors to ensure our actions--from our planning activities and
    material investments to our engagements with partners and allies--help
    us maintain our strategic advantages. I believe this approach helps us
    accomplish the intent of the Interim National Security Strategy. If
    confirmed, I will work with Air Force and Space force leaders, as well
    as the Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, to
    better incorporate this content into the PME curriculum of our Airmen,
    Guardians, and civilian workforce.
                 department of the air force civilian workforce
        Question. How would you describe the current State of the
    Department of the Air Force (including the Space Force) civilian
    workforce, including its morale and the Department's ability to
    successfully recruit and retain top civilian talent?
        Answer. I do not have current data on the State of the civilian
    workforce, but having served as a DOD civilian for many years, I know
    our civilian workforce makes invaluable contributions--from technical
    expertise to critical continuity--to our Air Force and Space Force.
    While I have not seen DAF-internal data regarding the morale of the
    civilian workforce, I know the relative increase in furloughs and
    government shutdowns over the last several years have generally
    strained the DOD civilian workforce, and more so when the private
    sector is relatively strong. More recently, the COVID pandemic has
    significantly impacted the workforce. These actions have unfortunately
    translated into personal financial uncertainty for the civilian
    workforce at times and significantly disrupted normal operations for
    the past year. All of this factors into our ability to recruit and
    retain top civilian talent. If confirmed, I look forward to working
    with this committee, as well as Air Force and Space Force leaders to
    ensure our civilian workforce is fully supported and has the training,
    resources, and leadership to accomplish the Department's mission.
        Question. In your judgment, what is the biggest challenge facing
    the Air Force and Space Force in effectively and efficiently managing
    their civilian workforce?
        Answer. Recruiting and retaining the technical talent needed to be
    competitive in an increasingly technology dominated and competitive
    conflict environment. Having served as a DOD civilian for many years
    and having held a leadership role for the over 150,000 acquisition
    professionals in the DOD, I am a firm believer in investing in and
    growing our civilian workforce talent from within. However, I also
    recognize the value and rate of technological advancements outside of
    the DAF. Additionally, I recognize that there are at least three
    generations serving within the DAF civilian workforce at any given
    time, each with different expectations and time horizons for their
    employment with the DAF. I see these as opportunities as much as I do
    challenges, and if confirmed, I would work with Air Force and Space
    Force leaders to ensure we are right-sizing our incentives and
    professional growth opportunities, while also thinking creatively about
    how best to bring in and manage civilian workforce talent to meet
    mission needs.
        Question. How will the Air Force and Space Force sustain requisite
    capacity and capability during the impending workforce ``bath tub''--a
    descriptor used to illustrate graphically the impending loss of senior
    civilian workforce expertise due to the retirement of large numbers of
    baby boomers and the lack of experienced personnel to fill the
    resulting vacancies?
        Answer. At this point, I have not seen DAF-internal data to
    understand the scope of these challenges in the Air Force and Space
    Force. In my previous role we had made good progress at filling this
    ``bathtub'' in the acquisition workforce at the time I left government.
    If confirmed, I look forward to working with Air Force and Space Force
    leaders to quickly understand: which fields and specialties are
    expected to be most affected and by when, the depth of the current DAF
    talent pool to address those potential gaps, and potential options to
    mitigate expected leadership and expertise gaps.
        Question. In your view, do Air Force and Space Force supervisors
    have adequate authorities to address and remediate employee misconduct
    and poor duty performance, and ultimately to divest of a civilian
    employee who fails to meet requisite standards of conduct and
    performance?
        Answer. At this point, I have not seen DAF-internal data
    surrounding instances of employee misconduct and/or poor duty
    performance, nor the ways in which current authorities were deemed
    inadequate to address an employee who failed to meet requisite
    standards of conduct and performance. In confirmed, I would work with
    Air Force and Space Force leaders to ensure civilian employees were
    provided with clear standards of conduct and performance, and that
    supervisors have the appropriate training and authorities to adequately
    address misconduct and poor duty performance.
        Question. If so, are both civilian and military supervisors
    adequately trained to exercise such authorities? Q248. If not, what
    additional authorities or training do Air Force and Space Force
    supervisors require?
        Answer. I do not have sufficient information to answer this
    question. However, if confirmed, I would work with Air Force and Space
    Force leaders to understand where additional training may be needed to
    ensure civilian and military supervisors understand the scope of their
    authorities and to seek additional authority if needed.
        Question. In your view, how can DOD and its Components better
    utilize telework, while maintaining supervisory and employee
    accountability for high quality performance and the appropriate use of
    official time?
        Answer. There seems to have been a general increase in the
    recognition that telework is a viable, even preferred and more
    productive means of work for many institutions and individuals due to
    the COVID experience. We should all take advantage of this new
    knowledge. Regardless of the work setting, supervisors must still set
    clear expectations regarding project timelines and deliverables. This
    is key to a successful work environment, whether someone is physically
    working in the office or is working remotely. My main concern is making
    sure we have access to the best talent. The pandemic has reshaped
    workers' expectations around flexible workplace schedules for a number
    of reasons (e.g., caregiver responsibilities, childcare accessibility),
    and I think telework is a critical way to ensure the DAF remains
    competitive with the private sector. If confirmed, I would work with
    Air Force and Space Force leaders to ensure telework is used as
    efficiently and effectively as possible.
        Question. Has the Department of the Air Force's (including the
    Space Force) experience with the new Defense Performance Management and
    Appraisal Program (DPMAP) to date evidenced the increased supervisor-
    employee engagement and meaningful ``face-to-face'' counseling sessions
    at the core of the program's objectives?
        Answer. I have not reviewed this program or its effectiveness.
    Developing leaders is the most important activity taking place within
    the DAF, and if confirmed, I look forward to working with Air Force and
    Space Force leaders to ensure the DPMAP is working as intended,
    quantitatively and qualitatively.
        Question. Has the Department of the Air Force's experience to date
    with DPMAP's 3-tiered rating structure resulted in the rationalization
    of employee ratings, such that a ``3'' rating of ``fully successful''
    is now the mode? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I do not have the data necessary to answer this question.
    In general, we do ourselves and our people a disservice if we are not
    able to differentiate between our top performers and their peers. If
    confirmed, I look forward to working with Air Force and Space Force
    leaders to ensure the DPMAP is working as intended, quantitatively and
    qualitatively.
                            senior executive service
        Question. Given that competent and caring leadership is one of the
    most significant factors in shaping a high-performing DOD civilian
    workforce, if confirmed, what factors and characteristics would be most
    important to you in selecting candidates for appointment to the Senior
    Executive Service?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the current senior executive
    recruitment and selection processes and ensure it best supports
    selecting executives who can lead our workforce as effective
    professionals and managers. The Department needs executives who
    demonstrate executive leadership qualities with a consistent
    professional track record, who possess the needed level of technical
    expertise, are passionate about serving, and have the ability to
    persevere, especially in these challenging times.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that SES under your
    authority are held accountable for both organizational performance and
    the rigorous performance management of their subordinate employees?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will assess current SES performance
    management policies, ensuring goals and expectations of the Department
    are clearly communicated. SES members will be held accountable for
    their performance and that of their subordinate workforce based on
    meaningful and measurable performance objectives.
        Question. Are you satisfied with the subject matter and rigor of
    SES professional development programs currently available across DOD
    and in the Air Force and Space Force? Q255. If not, what changes would
    you make to these programs, if confirmed?
        Answer. I do not have recent experience with these programs, but
    overall, I support and approve of the Department's professional
    development programs which I understand remain tailored to SES
    developmental needs. If confirmed, I will review the current program to
    ensure SES members are developed and equipped to lead in a complex and
    challenging strategic environment.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this Committee and other
    appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
    briefings, reports, records (including documents and electronic
    communications) and other information from the Department.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records (including documents and electronic
    communications), and other information as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, Federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                     accountability in acquisition programs
        1. Senator Reed. Mr. Kendall, you were asked in the advance policy
    questions, ``Who should be held accountable for large-scale acquisition
    failures?'' In your answer you said, ``The leaders who made the key
    decisions that caused the failure. Often this individual or individuals
    have retired or been reassigned before a failure becomes apparent, but
    that is not a reason for the individual to avoid responsibility.'' How
    would we apply that to a situation like an aircraft carrier where the
    officials who set up the program left government service 10 to 15 years
    before the full scope of the problems were realized?
        Mr. Kendall. Holding individuals and organizations accountable is
    partly about motivating people and organizations to do better and
    partly about learning from experience so that mistakes are not
    repeated. Problem programs occur for complex reasons and are seldom
    because of incompetence or malicious motivation. Most of the time
    unrealistic requirements, overly optimistic assumptions about technical
    risk, underfunding, and unrealistic schedules, or some combination are
    at fault. The best point to avert these problems is the decision point
    at which commitment to design for production is made. The person who
    makes that decision is the Milestone Decision Authority for Milestone
    B. I highlighted those individuals and the results of the programs they
    approved in the reports I published annually as USD(AT&L). Most of the
    time major problems emerge within three to five years of these decision
    points. I see no reason why those decision makers could not be
    compelled to testify about their decisions. In some rare cases the time
    period could be longer, but these are rare exceptions. Even when that
    occurs, it is still worthwhile to understand the situation that led to
    the errors of judgement that put a program on the road to disaster so
    that history does not repeat itself.
                   balancing the needs of oversight and speed
        2. Senator Reed. Mr. Kendall, in your respective positions, you
    will be responsible for development and accurately estimating costs, as
    well as oversight of programs. These activities require data and
    analysis, and take time. The activities also are part of a process,
    which needs to move faster. How will you balance these competing needs?
        Mr. Kendall. Accurate cost estimation and program oversight remain
    key to acquiring weapon systems that are on cost, on schedule, and meet
    performance parameters. At the same time, fielding these weapons
    systems in an expeditious manner is more important than ever, as we
    pivot toward acquiring and sustaining technologies to compete with near
    peer adversaries. If confirmed, I would review the acquisition data
    available to best balance between cost, schedule, performance, and
    fielding speed by focusing on ensuring the program strategies are
    grounded in strong risk identification and management.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                                     kc-46
        3. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kendall, the KC-46 is the premiere
    aeromedical evacuation capability in the world. I understand that the
    KC-46s at Pease Air Force Base should be ready to perform aeromedical
    and personnel transport missions this summer. Will you commit to
    integrating the KC-46 platform in the global aeromedical evacuation
    enterprise?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would make it a priority to review the
    potential role of the KC-46 as part of the global aeromedical
    evacuation enterprise. I certainly support options to use our assets
    effectively in aeromedical evacuation operations.

        4. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kendall, it is my understanding that the
    preliminary design review on the KC-46 Remote Vision System (RVS) 2.0
    should soon be getting underway, which a critical milestone to assess
    the progress on the capability's redesign. With the importance of the
    KC-46 to Air Force, it is imperative that this program have the
    personal attention of the Secretary of the Air Force. Will you commit
    to personally reviewing the schedule and plans for the RVS redesign in
    search of any issues standing in the way of declaring operational
    capability for non-refueling missions, like cargo, aeromedical, and
    passenger flights?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would commit to personally review the
    schedule and plans for the KC-46 Remote Vision System redesign, and,
    through the Service Acquisition Executive, identify any issues standing
    in the way of declaring operational capability for non-refueling
    missions.

        5. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kendall, will you commit to briefing me on
    the findings of that review?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would commit to briefing you on
    the findings of my review of the KC-46 Remote Vision System and any
    issues standing in the way of declaring operational capability for the
    KC-46.
                           homestead air reserve base
        6. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kendall, I understand there's increasing
    concern among national environmental organizations with the request
    being made of the Air Force to allow commercial aviation activity at
    the Homestead Air Reserve Base located between two national parks,
    Biscayne Bay and Everglades National Parks. Congress has invested
    billions of dollars over many years in the restoration and protection
    of the Everglades ecosystem, including Biscayne Bay. Are you aware of
    the environmental community concerns connected to the Homestead Air
    Reserve Base?
        Mr. Kendall. I have not yet had the opportunity to familiarize
    myself with the specific environmental community concerns related to
    the Homestead Air Reserve Base but I can commit to doing so if
    confirmed. If confirmed, I would also commit to ensure we first follow
    the established process to assess whether any proposed civil flight
    operations are compatible with the military operations at the base and
    to conduct the required environmental analysis. If the base is found to
    be compatible with civil aviation use, I understand that the Air Force
    would then conduct the required analysis under the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to making any decision on any
    major federal action. This would include public notification prior to
    any decision.

        7. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Kendall, how would you factor federal
    ecosystem restoration priorities into your decision-making on such
    requests?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would consider the generally accepted
    basic restoration principles which focus on ecosystem health,
    integrity, sustainability, and addressing disturbance to environmental
    conditions as factors affecting federal ecosystem restoration
    priorities.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
                               air force strategy
        8. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, you will play a large
    part in the Air Force's modernization decisions over the next several
    years, as well as important decisions affecting the contours of how the
    new Space Force will support our national defense strategy. In
    February, General Charles Brown, the Air Force Chief of Staff, launched
    a study into the service's future fighter jet force mix. With
    significant cost overruns already in the F-35 program, what are your
    thoughts on this issue?
        Mr. Kendall. The Air Force has to get this right if the United
    States is to continue to have strategic and conventional deterrence and
    the warfighting dominance required to support the National Security and
    Defense Strategies. I understand the Air Force has recently analyzed
    various war-game scenarios and developed alternative plans to achieve
    the optimum mix of 4th-generation, 5th-generation, and NGAD aircraft.
    If confirmed, I would review this analysis, and other existing analysis
    and alternative plans for both the Space Force and the Air Force. If
    confirmed, I would conduct additional analysis as needed to formulate
    my final decisions on how to work within budget constraints to
    appropriately balance near- and long-term risks.

        9. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, what are some of the things you
    plan to consider as the Air Force makes competing decisions on its
    future fighter force?
        Mr. Kendall. My understanding is the Air Force is conducting a
    tactical air study that will inform critical decisions about its future
    fighter force mix. If confirmed, I would evaluate the findings of this
    study and other Air Force efforts and plans to field a fighter force
    that is combat mission ready and conduct additional analysis as needed
    to support making any adjustments necessary to meet the objectives of
    the National Defense Strategy. My primary consideration would be
    ensuring the Air Force fields a fighter force structure that adequately
    meets the threats posed by China and Russia. I would seek to ensure the
    Air Force can achieve air superiority and dominance over peer
    adversaries, as well as the capacity to meet world-wide demands in the
    2030s and beyond.

        10. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, what are your views on a pending
    plan to add a Reserve component to the Space Force?
        Mr. Kendall. As noted in my Advance Policy Questions, I see
    significant value integrating the reserve component into the Space
    Force. If confirmed, I will work with DAF leaders to review Space Force
    requirements and to evaluate how a reserve component can best satisfy
    Space Force needs, especially in wartime or an emergency.
                      protecting non-military space assets
        11. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, we know that space-based
    capabilities will be an indispensable component of U.S. power, both
    military and non-military--they will also be vital to our Nation's
    security, prosperity, and scientific achievement. As many satellites
    are put into space for non-military purposes, like GPS [global
    positioning system] and communications, what do you envision the role
    of the Space Force in protecting commercial assets and non-military
    satellites from attacks?
        Mr. Kendall. The role of the Space Force is to organize, train and
    equip space forces to protect United States interests in space, which
    includes ensuring space remains secure, stable and accessible for our
    civil, commercial, and national security space needs. If ordered to do
    so by national leadership, Space Force units must have the ability to
    protect and defend vital space capabilities, which can include
    commercial and non-military space capabilities.

        12. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, as China continues to integrate
    advanced space and counterspace systems into its military arsenal, how
    can the Space Force work with our allies to combat malign activity in
    space?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would pursue ways to strengthen
    international space partnerships to address the growing Chinese and
    Russian threat, and work with those partners to better understand how
    our space posture contributes to deterrence in all domains. I will
    continue to build upon existing and new allied and partner capabilities
    to identify complementary or collaborative capability areas to ensure
    our collective competitive advantage in the space domain. For example,
    through the Space Force, if confirmed, I would support ongoing NATO
    efforts to further integrate space capabilities and knowledge into that
    alliance.

        13. Senator Hirono. Mr. Kendall, should the United States work
    toward entering into international agreements regarding appropriate
    activities in space?
        Mr. Kendall. To build a secure, stable, and accessible space domain
    that underpins our collective security, we must model and encourage
    responsible behavior relating to space. I fully support the Interim
    National Security Strategic Guidance, issued by President Biden in
    March 2021, which affirms that the United States will lead in promoting
    shared norms of responsible behavior in outer space.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
                            f-35 and f-15ex fielding
        14. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, Dr. Will Roper, former Assistant
    Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics,
    recommended last year a reduction in the projected number of F-35A
    aircraft from 1763 to 800. Dr. Roper supported a plan to increase the
    investment in the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) 6th generation
    fighter aircraft. \1\ Do you support this recommendation?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ CNN, ``Senior Trump Air Force official suggested dramatically
    slashing F-35 jet numbers,'' Oren Liebermann, May 15, 2021,'' https://
    www.cnn.com/2021/05/15/politics/f-35-jet-air-force/index.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Kendall. I am aware of these recommendations; however, I have
    not reviewed the basis for those recommendations. I would need to know
    more about these programs, especially NGAD, in order to make any
    assessments regarding future investments. If confirmed, I would examine
    the Air Force analysis from various war-game scenarios and alternative
    plans to achieve the optimum mix of 4th-generation, 5th-generation and
    NGAD aircraft, appropriately balancing near and long term risks.

        15. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, if so, what impact would this
    process have on the present and projected recapitalization and basing
    plan of the aging F-15C, F-16, and A-10 fighter aircraft, as well as
    the projected purchase and fielding number of both the F-35 and F-15EX
    throughout the Air Force, and specifically the Air National Guard?
        Mr. Kendall. I do not have the information needed to respond to
    this question at this time. If confirmed, I would review the Air
    Force's plan to manage its fighter inventory, including Air National
    Guard inventory, and including recapitalization and basing plans for
    older aircraft as a high priority.
                       adaptive engine transition program
        16. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, the Adaptive Engine Transition
    Program (AETP) is a technology maturation, risk reduction prototyping
    effort to design, fabricate, and test flight-weight Adaptive Cycle
    Engines (ACE) in preparation for next-generation propulsion
    requirements. \2\ Adaptive engines provide a transformational
    improvement in propulsion capability, including up to 20 percent thrust
    increase, 25 percent improvement in fuel efficiency, and step-change in
    thermal management capacity over current fighter engines in service
    today. \3\ Unfortunately, the Adaptive Cycle Engine program is reaching
    its conclusion without a clear transition to a program of record.
    Failing to capitalize on this revolutionary leap in capability, missing
    the opportunity to diversify and strengthen the U.S. advanced fighter
    engine industrial base, and avoiding the injection of competition into
    the F-35 platform opens the door to our adversaries matching our
    fielded capabilities. Should the Air Force integrate this capability
    into the F-35 roadmap?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GE Aviation, ``Testing on GE's First XA100 Adaptive Cycle
    Engine Concludes, Proves Out Transformational Capabilities,'' May 13,
    2021, https://www.geaviation.com/press-release/military-engines/
    testing-ges-first-xa100-adaptive-cycle-engine-concludes-proves-out
        \3\ Defense News, ``Pratt, GE Battle for Future of Military
    Engines,'' Jen Judson, Lara Seligman, October 10, 2015, https://
    www.defensenews.com/air/2015/10/10/pratt-ge-battle-for-future-of-
    military-engines/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Kendall. I am aware of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program
    (AETP). I sponsored the program as USD(AT&L) as part of the Air
    Dominance Initiative. However, my knowledge is four years out of date
    on the status of the program. I would need to learn more details about
    the current state of the program and the Air Force's plans before I
    could make such an assessment about future integration. If confirmed, I
    would look into the program as a high priority.

        17. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, should the Air Force capitalize on
    the significant taxpayer investment that has been made to this point
    and transition this capability to our warfighter? If yes, please detail
    the next steps including timing for these actions.
        Mr. Kendall. I am aware of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program
    (AETP); however, my knowledge of the status of AETP is four years out
    of date. I would need to learn more details about the current state of
    the program and the Air Force's current plans before I could make such
    an assessment about future transition and timing. If confirmed, I would
    look into the program as a high priority.
                                     ethics
        18. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, I have long been concerned with
    the influence of money in politics and the cozy relationship between
    powerful special interests, corporations, and lawmakers and government
    officials--including the relationship between defense contractors and
    the Pentagon. In 2018, I introduced the Anti-corruption and Public
    Integrity Act, legislation to strengthen Federal laws governing
    conflicts of interest, recusals, and the revolving door between
    government and industry. In May 2019, I introduced a companion bill
    focused on the Defense Department, the Department of Defense Ethics and
    Anti-corruption Act. If enacted, the following requirements would apply
    to all senior DOD officials: (1) Four-year cooling off period for all
    senior DOD officials before they can seek compensation from a DOD
    contractor; (2) Extension of the existing prohibition on retired
    general and flag officers from lobbying DOD to 4 years; (3) Heightened
    recusal standard for DOD employees that would prohibit them from
    participating in any matter that affects the financial interests of
    their former employer for 4 years; and (4) A ban on senior DOD
    officials owning any stock in a major defense contractor and a ban on
    all DOD employees from owning any stock in contractors if the employee
    can use their official position to influence the stock's value. (This
    was adopted in the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA.)
        In response to my request at his hearing, Secretary Lloyd Austin
    committed to recusing himself from all matter involving Raytheon for
    the duration of his government service, not seeking a waiver from that
    recusal, and to not seek compensation from a defense contractor for a
    period of 4 years post government service. Will you make the same
    commitments as Secretary Austin?
        Mr. Kendall. I have no financial interests in the Raytheon company.
    If confirmed, I will comply with the requirements set forth in my
    Ethics Agreement to terminate my outside positions with and divest my
    financial interests in defense contractors. I have dedicated my career
    to serving and protecting our country. I will always seek to serve the
    good of our country and the good of the men and women in uniform. I
    have made extensive ethics commitments as requested by the Office of
    Government Ethics and documented in a written agreement, which I have
    signed. My Ethics Agreement and the President's Ethics Pledge will
    require me, if confirmed and appointed, to recuse myself for a period
    of two years from participating personally and substantially in any
    particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that a
    former employer or client identified in my Ethics Agreement is a party
    or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate by
    the appropriate ethics official. If confirmed, I agree to extend this
    term of my Ethics Agreement from two years to four years. I will ensure
    that I have a robust screening process in place to help implement these
    recusals. I have no intention to seek a waiver and no expectation that
    it will be required, but if unanticipated circumstances were to arise,
    I would consider available alternatives to a waiver before seeking one
    and would consult very carefully with DOD ethics officials.
        I have committed to abide by the extensive post-government
    employment ethics rules required by Federal law and the Biden
    Administration, just as I have complied with the applicable ethics
    rules throughout my 50-year career in public service and private
    industry. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of the
    Secretary of the Air Force honorably and will seek any post-government
    employment in full compliance with the applicable ethics rules, as I
    have done during previous transitions from public service to the
    private sector.

        19. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, will you recuse yourselves from
    matters involving the companies you listed as compensating you for
    consulting, corporate board services, or other matters on your Office
    of Government Ethics Form 278 and on post government employment?
        Mr. Kendall. My Ethics Agreement and the President's Ethics Pledge
    will require me, if confirmed and appointed, to recuse myself for a
    period of two years from participating personally and substantially in
    any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that a
    former employer or client identified in my Ethics Agreement is a party
    or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate by
    the appropriate ethics official. If confirmed, I agree to extend this
    term of my Ethics Agreement from two years to four years. Moreover, I
    will implement a robust screening arrangement. The screening
    arrangement does not create any exceptions, waivers, or modifications
    to my Ethics Agreement, but rather provides guidance to Department
    personnel to assist in implementation of my ethics requirements. I can
    pledge to you that I will be mindful of not only the legal requirements
    that govern my conduct, but also of the need to ensure that the public
    has no reason to question my impartiality, and I will consult with the
    Department's ethics officials should such issues arise. I will always
    place the good of our country and the men and women in uniform above
    all other interests.

        20. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, will you refrain from seeking a
    waiver on these recusals?
        Mr. Kendall. I have no intention to seek a waiver and no
    expectation that it will be required, but if unanticipated
    circumstances were to arise, I would consider available alternatives to
    a waiver before seeking one and would consult very carefully with
    Department ethics officials. If I am privileged to be confirmed, I can
    pledge to you I will be mindful of not only the legal requirements that
    govern my conduct but also of the appearances to ensure that the public
    has no reason to question my impartiality and I will consult with
    Department ethics officials on these issues and require everyone who
    serves with me to ensure public service is and will remain a public
    trust.

        21. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall, will you not seek compensation
    from a defense contractor for a period of 4 years post government
    employment?
        Mr. Kendall. I have promised to abide by the extensive post-
    government employment ethics rules required by Federal law and the
    Biden Administration, just as I have complied with the ethics rules
    throughout my 50-year career in public service and private industry.
    These statutory and Administration provisions set forth comprehensive
    restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
    contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
    behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
    existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
    interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of the
    Secretary of the Air Force honorably, and I will seek any post-
    government employment in full compliance with the applicable ethics
    rules, as I have done during previous transitions from public service
    to the private sector.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Jacky Rosen
                                      mq-9
        22. Senator Rosen. Mr. Kendall, the MQ-9 Reaper is critical to
    supporting our current intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    (ISR) requirements. U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) commander, General
    Kenneth McKenzie has previously told this committee of the MQ-9
    importance and his need for more of them, not fewer. The Air Force
    today still lacks the ISR capacity to meet combatant commanders'
    requirements contained in the 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS).
    Despite this, the Department has previously proposed cutting this cost-
    effective platform. If confirmed, what will be the Air Force's plan for
    the MQ-9?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would work with all the combatant
    commands to support current intelligence, surveillance, and
    reconnaissance (ISR) requirements while also balancing resources to
    modernize for future information superiority and ISR capability.

        23. Senator Rosen. Mr. Kendall, given its importance, cost-
    effectiveness, and the requirement from combatant commanders for more
    ISR assets, why has the Air Force in the past sought to divest from
    this platform?
        Mr. Kendall. I do not have the information needed to speak to the
    reason for prior Air Force divestment recommendations. In general,
    while many platforms are important, the Department of the Air Force
    needs to modernize systems that can operate in contested environments.
    As I noted during my recent nomination hearing, the MQ-9 has been a
    valuable platform in the War On Terror and I understand there have been
    some proposals to make it more useful in a contested environment, but I
    have not had a chance to review those proposals. If confirmed, I would
    ensure decisions for divestitures are carefully balancing risks now as
    we modernize for future conflicts.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Kelly
                         a-10 re-wing program execution
        24. Senator Kelly. Mr. Kendall, Arizona is proudly home to the
    largest contingent of A-10 aircraft at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
    These aircraft provide the warfighter with unparalleled close air
    support capability and have proven themselves time and time again. In
    order to keep the entire fleet of 281 aircraft flying into the 2030s,
    as I believe is of paramount importance, it is necessary to replace the
    wings on 108 aircraft that have not been previously re-winged.
        Last year, Congress appropriated $100 million to purchase
    additional wing sets under the A-10 ATACK re-wing program--a program
    intended to purchase 112 wing sets, of which I am fully supportive. I
    believe Congressional intent is clear that this fiscal year 2021
    funding should be executed expeditiously. I have been concerned to see
    comments from Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown during a
    hearing in the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee earlier this
    month and other Air Force products that indicate the Air Force plans on
    only executing 50 present of this funding by the end of the fiscal
    year.
        If confirmed, will you commit to rapidly executing the balance of
    $100 million in fiscal year 2021 funding by purchasing additional wing
    sets? This would be a show of good faith as Congress considers the
    Fiscal Year 2022 President's Budget request, which I am hopeful will
    likewise include robust funding to complete re-winging the entire fleet
    of 281 aircraft.
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would ensure the Air Force obligates
    all fiscal year 2021 funds within the three-year timeframe of
    obligation authority granted by Congress. I would expect that fiscal
    year 2021 funding will be allocated towards kit buys and also
    installations, engineering change orders, and other government costs/
    efforts that are typically required to execute major modification
    programs of this nature.
                 vertical integration and ensuring competition
        25. Senator Kelly. Mr. Kendall, in your prior tour at the Pentagon,
    you expressed significant competitive concerns about the Lockheed
    Martin acquisition of Sikorsky, noting that ``with size comes power,
    and the Department's experience with large defense contractors is that
    they are not hesitant to use this power for corporate advantage.''
        The Department has another large Lockheed Martin acquisition
    pending, over which you will have oversight, if confirmed. Lockheed has
    proposed to acquire the last independent domestic rocket motor vendor,
    a matter which is currently before the Fedeal Trade Commission (FTC).
        In 2018, the FTC indicated that the acquisition of the second to
    last rocket motor vendor would produce anticompetitive harms. It would
    follow from that logic that the loss of the last independent vendor
    would result in even greater competitive harm.
        I am concerned it could result in decreased innovation and higher
    prices borne by taxpayers by constricting the already limited field of
    companies capable of competing for U.S. Government missile system
    contracts. I am also concerned the Department may not be adequately
    considering the long-term implications of such consolidation.
        Please outline the principles by which DOD should review such
    transactions and assess the potential harm to the industrial base of
    vertical consolidation.
        Mr. Kendall. While I was USD(AT&L) the DOJ and the FTC issued a
    memorandum that covers the principles for such a review. The memorandum
    included broader national security concerns as well as direct anti-
    competitive effects as factors to be considered in reviewing a
    potential merger. If confirmed, this is the approach that I would use
    in making recommendations within DOD.

        26. Senator Kelly. Mr. Kendall, do you believe it would be
    premature for DOD to make a final recommendation on this specific issue
    before Senate confirmed officials such as service secretaries and
    acquisition executives are in place?
        Mr. Kendall. I have no reason to believe that the decision should
    be delayed until additional confirmations take place.

        27. Senator Kelly. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, will you commit to
    taking a hard look at this specific case and ensuring that the
    Department weighs the long-term implications of a loss of
    competitiveness and innovation for our national security and for
    taxpayers?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would ensure mergers and acquisitions,
    including this specific case, if it has not been resolved, and others
    of Department of the Air Force interest, are properly assessed for
    anticompetitive implications or adverse national security implications
    to ensure the U.S. sustains a healthy defense industrial base.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Thom Tillis
                           f-35 joint strike fighter
        28. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, Congress has sent clear
    congressional intent that we would like to see the Department ramp up
    towards full rate production. More specifically, the Air Force needs to
    make the investments necessary to ramp F-35 production to 60 on a path
    to 80 aircraft per year, yet the Air Force continues to disappoint with
    a limited number of F-35s in the budget request year over year, with
    mixed messages on its support of the program and continued concerns on
    modernization and sustainment. I am hearing that the Air Force may be
    considering reducing their buy to 44 F-35As in the fiscal year 2022
    budget, which is extremely concerning to me. This down from 48 jets per
    year, and despite the Air Force's stated need to procure 72 fighters a
    year. If confirmed, do I have your commitment to support the current
    program of record and full-rate production profile of 60-80 F-35As per
    year to ensure we can maintain an edge for our fighter force?
        Mr. Kendall. I agree with General Brown's recent statement that the
    F-35 is a cornerstone of the future fighter force. However, I am also
    aware that the Air Force is conducting a tactical air study in
    conjunction with the Office of the Secretary of Defense and that the
    crucial Block 4 upgrade to the F-35 is experiencing delays. If
    confirmed, I would commit to the importance of the F-35A as part of a
    balanced future force that provides the combat capabilities our country
    needs, but I need to understand the full status of the program and how
    it fits into overall Air Force plans before committing to a specific
    production profile. As I stated during my recent nomination hearing,
    increasing inventory is important to reducing ownership cost per
    aircraft, but the Air Force must also procure the Block 4 aircraft it
    needs to deal with advanced threats.

        29. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, I know sustainment costs have been
    a concern on the F-35 program. It is my understanding that the Joint
    Program Office (JPO) has recently stated the cost per flight hour of
    the F-35A is approx. $33,000 (in fiscal year 2012 dollars), less than
    F-15EX will be. I also understand that dialog has begun between the
    Department and industry to explore a longer-term, outcome-based
    approach to sustainment to assist with ways to drive down sustainment
    cost on the F-35 program. I would like your commitment, if confirmed,
    to explore a sustainment summit with the U.S. Government, Lockheed
    Martin, and Pratt & Whitney to put all options on the table to bring
    down F-35 sustainment costs. Further, I would like your commitment that
    the Department will be a willing partner to work with all parties
    involved to take an enterprise approach to bring these costs down?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I commit to explore such a summit and to
    working with my Department of the Navy counterpart, senior military
    leadership, the Joint Program Office, Allies, and industry partners to
    assess opportunities for cost reduction across the F-35 enterprise in a
    way that ensures product support during peace and conflict and meets
    warfighter needs.

        30. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, as the Air Force is looking to
    bring down sustainment costs of the F-35A, manpower is a large
    contributor to those costs. I understand Luke Air Force Base and Hill
    Air Force Base have successfully demonstrated for over 3 years that
    they can maintain F-35As with 25 percent fewer maintainers but that Air
    Combat Command has reduced emphasis on that initiative. However, there
    are multiple third party studies which recommend a different manpower
    approach and corroborate the real-world activity in the field. If
    confirmed, would you commit to an objective look at reshaping the Air
    Force's approach to maintaining the F-35 to ensure that the Air Force's
    portion of sustainment costs come down?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to working diligently with
    our maintenance professionals to review options to ensure the most
    efficient utilization of manpower across all Air Force weapon systems,
    including the F-35A.

        31. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, as you know, reducing operations
    and support (O&S) costs will require a team effort (enterprise
    approach), and I understand the air-vehicle portion has come down 44
    percent over the last 5 years and is expected to decline an additional
    40 percent over the next 5 years. If confirmed, what will you do reduce
    the Air Force's O&S costs?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would review the sustainment cost
    structure for F-35 and plans to reduce costs to determine if additional
    opportunities are available. I will ensure the Air Force is doing
    everything it can to explore and evaluate cost-reduction options in
    collaboration with the F-35 Joint Program Office, and others as
    appropriate to pursue avenues to reduce all F-35 program costs
    including procurement, modernization, and sustainment.

        32. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, what will you do to ensure that
    Pratt & Whitney, as the engine provider, takes action to reduce O&S
    costs?
        Mr. Kendall. I understand engine issues are a significant challenge
    to Air Force F-35 readiness today and that the Air Force and Navy are
    working together with the Joint Program Office to develop a revised
    concept of operations for engine sustainment. If confirmed, I commit to
    work with the Joint Program Office, and others as appropriate to
    continue those and other opportunities to make the F-35 engine more
    affordable while maximizing F-35 availability for operations and
    training.

        33. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, will you ensure the Air Force is
    an active partner with industry to bring down overall costs?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to work with the Joint
    Program Office, our F-35 Partners, and industry to explore
    opportunities to reduce procurement, modernization, and sustainment
    costs across the F-35 enterprise. The Air Force will operate the
    largest fleet of F-35s and must play an active role in managing costs.
    I will also investigate mechanisms to increase the utilization of
    competition in the program.
                              air-to-air refueling
        34. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, the KC-46A Pegasus aircraft has
    yet to achieve full rate production and lacks a remote visual system
    that is fully functional during all light levels. Moreover, a KC-46
    carries only 2,000lbs more transferable fuel than a KC-135 and carries
    140,000lbs less than a KC-10. In an effort to reduce cost at the risk
    of mission failure, the Air Force seeks to retire legacy aircraft with
    fully functional and approved fuel transfer systems; specifically, KC-
    10s. In your opinion, are cost savings more important than strategic
    mission success? Put differently, should a legacy platform with proven,
    capable systems be maintained and utilized over a future system that
    has yet to meet primary mission requirements?
        Mr. Kendall. Both mission success and cost savings are important to
    the long-term health of the Air Force. I have not had the opportunity
    to review the trade-offs in cost, near-term operational risk, and
    future performance associated with the KC-46 and KC-10 decisions. If
    confirmed, I would work closely with U.S. Transportation Command and
    Air Mobility Command to ensure we strike the proper balance between the
    need to modernize and the need to provide capable air refueling assets
    on a continuing day-to-day basis.

        35. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, do you support the Air Force's
    expedited retirement initiative of KC-10s?
        Mr. Kendall. I have not had the opportunity to review this
    initiative. I generally support the Air Force's efforts to accelerate
    modernization, which includes retirement of aging systems and fleets
    but I also support the Air Force's obligation to conduct global
    refueling operations on a day-to-day basis. If confirmed, I would work
    closely with U.S. Transportation Command and Air Mobility Command to
    ensure we properly balance the important tanker missions.

        36. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, how important is it that
    ``warfighters train like they fight'' and prepare for future
    deployments by tanking from platforms that they will encounter overseas
    and in combat?
        Mr. Kendall. As we learned long ago in Vietnam, aircrew
    survivability in combat will improve exponentially if we provide them
    their first 10 combat sorties in a training environment. This concept
    applies across all elements of Air Force operations, but I am not in a
    position to assess how important training on specific tankers is to
    that conclusion. In general, training like we fight is critically
    important, and my assumption is that this includes training on any
    tanker platform.

        37. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, last year General Stephen Lyons,
    Commander, U.S. Transportation Command, testified before this committee
    that the KC-10 and KC-135 legacy tanker retirements proposed in fiscal
    year 2021 would ``create a capacity bathtub with significant impacts to
    combatant command daily competition and wartime missions, and
    negatively impact senior leader decision space for mobilization when
    confronted with a crisis.'' Congress prevented some, but not all, of
    these retirements in the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA). Given that the KC-46 is still not fully
    operational, and aerial refueling requirements have presumably either
    increased or remained the same, would you support efforts to increase
    tanker capacity in order to meet aircrew training and daily combatant
    command (COCOM) operational requirements?
        Mr. Kendall. In general, yes, and, if confirmed, I commit to
    reviewing the internal trade-offs that might be required to achieve
    that goal. If confirmed, I would work closely with U.S. Transportation
    Command and Air Mobility Command to ensure we properly manage the air
    refueling mission.

        38. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, I have serious concerns regarding
    the Air Force's desire to retire a significant number of legacy tankers
    prior to the KC-46 becoming fully operational. I am particularly
    concerned by the potential loss of the KC-10, which provides
    significantly more fuel offload than both the KC-135 and the KC-46. I
    understand that the KC-10 fleet has many more years left in terms of
    potential service life, and am concerned that prematurely retiring such
    a strategic asset would result in a loss of warfighter capability that
    cannot be regained for many years to come. Based on your experience and
    knowledge, please describe the importance of the KC-10 to the Air
    Force's aerial refueling capability, and the potential impact to
    missions for Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps pilots and aircrews if
    we cut additional KC-10s.
        Mr. Kendall. I have not had the opportunity to review current
    analysis of the adequacy of the tanker fleet. The tanker fleet is a
    critical part of the DOD's overall global capabilities. If confirmed, I
    would ensure that the Air Force strategically weighs decisions to
    retire aircraft fleets to provide resources that will benefit future
    warfighter missions. Working with U.S. Transportation Command and Air
    Mobility Command, I will ensure the Air Force strikes the proper
    balance between allocating resources toward modernization and mission
    capabilities for tomorrow and the future.

        39. Senator Tillis. Mr. Kendall, I understand that there have been
    conversations regarding possible uses for KC-10 aircraft prior to being
    fully retired and sent to the boneyard. I understand that one option is
    to provide the aircraft to industry, either through sale or as
    Government Furnished Equipment, for use in a commercial air refueling
    program. I understand that the Navy and Marine Corps have been
    successfully utilizing a commercial air refueling program for the last
    20+ years. Do you believe the Air Force should be pursuing a commercial
    air refueling program to address current and future aerial refueling
    shortfalls?
        Mr. Kendall. At this time, I am unaware of the industry interest or
    intentions for the KC-10, but if there is potential residual financial
    and operational value in the aircraft. If confirmed, I would work with
    the Navy and Marine Corps to understand their programs and with U.S.
    Transportation Command and industry to investigate capturing that
    potential residual financial and operational value in the aircraft.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
                             armed forces readiness
        40. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, over several years this
    Committee has worked tirelessly to restore military readiness--across
    each of our services--to levels that would enable our success in a
    conflict. We've had some success, but there is STILL a lot of work to
    do. If you have not done so already, I recommend that every senior
    defense leader read T.R. Fehrenbach's ``This Kind of War'', which
    provides a cautionary tale of our Nation's failure to adequately fund
    and train our Armed Forces before the Korean War. The consequences were
    steep and American servicemembers paid with their lives. If confirmed,
    each of you--based on your positions--will invariably make decisions
    that directly or indirectly impact readiness. Accordingly, will you
    commit--if confirmed--to work with this committee and within the
    Department to ensure the readiness failures we endured in the Korean
    War do not happen again?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would do everything in my power
    to ensure our Air and Space Forces remain the world's most capable and
    ready. I share General Brown's view that readiness is a complex matter
    that has to include an understanding of future readiness needs and
    their impact as well as present needs. I recognize that maintaining a
    ready combat force is a task without end and that any question of
    readiness can only be answered relative to an adversary. I look forward
    to any opportunity to work alongside the committee to enhance the
    capabilities and readiness of the Department of the Air Force.
                             strategy driven budget
        41. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, the National Defense Strategy
    Commission report, the two previous Senate-confirmed Secretaries of
    Defense, and the previous and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff have all stated the need for sustained 3 to 5 percent annual real
    growth to the Defense budget to implement the NDS, increase much-needed
    readiness, and advance long-overdue modernization. To further emphasize
    the need for consistent and increased funding, the NDS Commission
    report stated, ``America is very near the point of strategic
    insolvency, where its `means' are badly out of alignment with its
    `ends.''' This critical situation is negatively compounded by the Biden
    administration's proposal for a topline that does not keep pace with
    inflation. With these facts in mind, and understanding your ability to
    influence the budget will be limited to future year submissions, will
    each of you commit to advocating for a strategy-driven budget vice a
    budget-driven strategy?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of
    Defense to develop a budget that supports the President's strategy, and
    I would talk candidly about the risks associated with difficult
    strategy and budget decisions.
                     great power competition in the arctic
        42. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, given the National Defense
    Strategy's focus on great power competition and increased Russia and
    Chinese activity in the Arctic, would you agree that the Arctic is an
    emerging front-line for great power competition and rivalry? Please
    elaborate.
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. I am aware of the Arctic's strategic importance
    for U.S. national security interests. The U.S. has seen increased
    activity in the region from Russia and China, and climate change has
    enabled increased physical access that could lead to greater regional
    competition. If confirmed, I would work to maintain and improve the
    Department of the Air Force's ability to support deterrence and any
    required operations in the region and look for opportunities for
    collaboration with allies and partners in the region to increase
    interoperability and maintain Arctic regional awareness.

        43. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall in your personal opinion, what
    makes Alaska an important strategic region for the United States, and
    why would our adversaries want to limit our presence and power
    projection capabilities in the Arctic region? Please elaborate.
        Mr. Kendall. Alaska's unique location and resources are integral to
    our ability to project air and space power and to defend the homeland.
    Alaska serves a critical role in deterrence and defense of the
    homeland, due to its proximity to adversaries with the potential to
    launch strategic air and missile attacks against the United States.
    Alaska also provides unique opportunities for training and supports
    global power projection by the United States. Adversaries are well
    aware of the strategic importance of the region and Alaska's strategic
    importance is only increasing as the Artic itself becomes more
    accessible.

        44. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, what air and space power
    capability gaps presently exist that inhibit our ability to effectively
    project and sustain power in the Arctic and compete with Russia and
    China in the northern latitudes? Please elaborate.
        Mr. Kendall. The Arctic region is an expansive area with
    challenging environmental conditions that requires coverage by surface,
    subsurface, space, and air capabilities in order to monitor and defend
    our homeland. I agree with the 2020 Department of the Air Force Arctic
    Strategy's position that ``Given the Arctic's vast distances and
    challenges to surface operations, air and space capabilities have long
    been essential to gain rapid access and provide all-domain awareness,
    early warning, satellite command and control, and effective
    deterrence.'' If confirmed, I would review the Air and Space Forces'
    approaches for power projection to identify and address any gaps in
    capability. If confirmed, I would also work with our NATO Arctic
    Allies, as well as Finland and Sweden to carefully consider how best to
    ensure the United States can outpace our adversaries in the region.
                           air force arctic strategy
        45. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, the Department of Defense
    released its Arctic Strategy in June 2019, the Air Force followed suit
    with its own in July 2020, and the Navy and Army published their
    respective strategies earlier this year. Through their respective
    confirmation processes, both the Secretary of Defense and Deputy
    Secretary of Defense committed to resourcing the service Arctic
    strategies. If confirmed, can I get your commitment to follow through
    on those pledges to fully resource the Department of the Air Force's
    Arctic strategy so that our Nation can successfully defend the Homeland
    along our northern approaches?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would review the implementation
    of the 2020 DAF Arctic Strategy, to include potential resourcing
    requirements for the Air Force and Space Force, then make a
    determination accordingly.

        46. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, since the release of the
    Department of the Air Force's Arctic strategy last year, the
    Headquarters and 11th Air Force staffs have moved out on developing a
    robust implementation plan for execution. To ensure momentum and action
    continue on this critical effort, can I get your commitment to review
    the strategy and implementation efforts within 30 days of your
    confirmation and then schedule a sit down with me to discuss your
    views, vision, and way forward for executing the Department of the Air
    Force's Arctic strategy?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the
    full DAF Arctic Strategy and implementation efforts, and meeting with
    you to discuss the execution of the DAF Arctic Strategy.
                                  kc-46 basing
        47. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, the previous Senate-confirmed
    Secretary of Defense Mark Esper acknowledged that collocation of 100
    5th-Generation Fighters with KC-46 tankers would provide our Nation
    with ``extreme strategic reach''. The commander of U.S. Transportation
    Command (TRANSCOM), General Stephen Lyons, USA, has stated: ``The
    aerial refueling fleet continues to underpin the Joint Force's ability
    to deploy an immediate force across all NDS mission areas . . . ''
    Given Alaska's beddown of F-35s, access to expansive training ranges,
    and proximity to several high-priority regions, will you commit, as
    Secretary Lloyd Austin has, to take a personal look at tanker basing in
    Alaska--specifically as it relates to the KC-46--to ensure our Nation
    pursues a strategy-driven decision rather than a budget-driven one?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. Department of the Air Force tanker decisions,
    including basing actions, should be strategy-driven, budget-informed
    decisions. If confirmed, I would ensure the tanker bed downs best meet
    all national priorities.

        48. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, in your personal opinion, would
    you agree with former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper that collocation
    of 100 5th-Generation Fighters with KC-46 tankers in Alaska would
    provide extreme strategic reach to the United States? Please elaborate
    on how that kind of air power could affect our power projection
    posture, strengthen our alliances, and message to our adversaries.
        Mr. Kendall. The 5th-generation fighter fleet provides strategic
    advantages across the whole national defense spectrum providing
    assurance to our allies and deterring potential aggressors. It is
    important to bed down these assets and their support systems, to
    include tankers, in the locations that most efficiently and effectively
    meet combatant command requirements and provide the flexibility for
    contingency operations. If confirmed, I commit to ensuring force
    structure is aligned with these priorities.
                joint pacific alaska range complex modernization
        49. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, in March of 2020, the Department
    of the Air Force submitted a report to the congressional defense
    committees concerning range modernization for the Joint Pacific Alaska
    Range Complex (JPARC) and the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR).
    The report identified JPARC and NTTR as the only two major training
    ranges the Air Force would modernize to Threat Matrix Level 4 (e.g.
    near peer) capability. The report also stated it would complete such
    modernization efforts by fiscal year 2026. Will you commit to continue
    prioritizing and accelerating investments so that JPARC and NTTR
    achieve Threat Matrix Level 4 capability by 2026?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would continue efforts to modernize
    JPARC and NTTR to a Threat Matrix Level 4 capability as rapidly as
    feasible to facilitate the training needed to support the National
    Defense Strategy. Air Force readiness is dependent upon superior
    training opportunities that ensure our Nation can address the potential
    aggression of near-peers.

        50. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, in your opinion, what benefits
    will the Air Force, joint, ally, and coalition partner forces realize
    when the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex is modernized to Threat
    Matrix Level 4 capability?
        Mr. Kendall. We know from both experience and experimentation that
    combat crews increase lethality and reduce attrition when they are able
    to train against the actual threats they will encounter in combat.
    Benefits are magnified when the training occurs with joint, ally and
    coalition partners. Air Force crews will achieve a significant training
    advantage over their adversaries by replicating a peer adversary at
    JPARC. This benefit could be the difference between winning and losing
    a future fight.

        51. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, on my most recent trip to visit
    the Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex--alongside Admiral John
    Aquilino--I was briefed on the need for a new Joint Range Operations
    Center with highly classified capabilities to ensure integration of
    4th, 5th, and 6th generation assets with advanced threats. Will you
    commit to reviewing this requirement, and--if valid--ensure its
    submission as part of the President's Budget or as an unfunded
    requirement?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would review the requirement,
    and, if valid, I would ensure it is pursued in the budget or as an
    unfunded requirement.
                                  f-35 beddown
        52. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, roughly half of the F-35s (25)
    are on the ground at Eielson Air Force Base, and as of March 2021, the
    base is projecting an additional 283 inbound military servicemembers
    with approximately 560 dependents to complete the beddown. The last F-
    35 is expected to be delivered by March 2022. According to the Air
    Force, community housing growth is not keeping pace with aircraft
    delivery and personnel arrival which may negatively impact or delay the
    beddown. Will you commit to review the housing issue and provide me an
    update of your assessment within 30 days of being confirmed?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the housing
    situation and further ensuring the Air Force partners with the
    community so they understand the specific housing needs of our members
    and their families. If confirmed, I would provide you an update within
    30 days of being confirmed.
                                 kc-135 beddown
        53. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Kendall, the site survey for the KC-135
    beddown at Eielson Air Force Base was scheduled to be completed by the
    end of April 2021. The Environmental Impact Analysis process is
    expected to be completed with a decision placed on the Secretary of the
    Air Force's desk by March 2022. This puts the additional KC-135
    operational capability at Eielson Air Force Base into fiscal year 2023.
    Will you commit to ensuring the environmental impact statement (EIS)
    process is expedited to the extent possible, to keeping my staff
    apprised of any new developments, and to follow-up with me when the EIS
    process is complete?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. I am aware of this important basing action and
    commit to timely communications with your staff throughout the process.
    If confirmed, I would keep your staff appraised of any new developments
    as we complete the required National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    actions.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
                                 infrastructure
        54. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, what would be
    your specific priorities for the Air Force's infrastructure investment
    strategy--and ultimately for reversing the Service's maintenance
    backlog? Please explain.
        Mr. Kendall. I understand the Department of the Air Force's
    installations are warfighting platforms essential to accomplish its
    missions. If confirmed, I would evaluate the strategy, consider how to
    provide adequate funds to sustain its infrastructure within the overall
    Department priorities, identify how to invest those funds using
    targeted and cost effective decision criteria, then evaluate and as
    feasible expand the use of creative investment and divestment
    strategies to bring down the maintenance backlog.

        55. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, what additional
    investments--including in personnel--would you prioritize to support
    the testing needed across the hypersonic spectrum to better compete
    with Beijing and Moscow?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would review the current and planned
    testing capacity, including personnel, to determine what additional
    investments might be needed. My priorities would also be shaped by the
    detailed roadmaps created by the Test Resource Management Center, an
    organization within the Office of the Secretary of Defense that
    reported to me when I was USD(AT&L).

        56. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, what specific efforts would you
    undertake to expeditiously stand up the nascent Ground Test Asset Board
    (GTAB)?
        Mr. Kendall. I have not had the opportunity to review the Ground
    Test Asset Board's status or resource requirements. If confirmed, I
    would make it a priority to do so and would take action to expedite the
    GTAB standup as appropriate.
                            unmanned aerial vehicles
        57. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, how can we leverage the large,
    existing fleet of flexible and highly reliable MQ-9 Reaper aircraft in
    a near-peer fight?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would review existing analysis and
    reporting on how we can leverage the Air Force's fleet of MQ-9s, as
    well as their potential utilization in non-permissive environments
    against more sophisticated and complex threats. I am open to funding
    cost-effective upgrades, such as adding more countermeasures to the
    aircraft and providing standoff capability, to the MQ-9 to make it more
    survivable.

        58. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, how do you intend to leverage
    Air Force intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), to
    include the rapidly developing Air National Guard Cyber ISR Enterprise
    in the increasingly critical cyber domain?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would ensure the Department of the Air
    Force assesses the operational need and opportunities to maximize the
    integration of the rapidly-evolving Air National Guard Cyber and ISR
    capabilities with the Department's current and future ISR capabilities.
    My view is that the need for ISR is virtually unlimited, and the Air
    Force needs to maximize the return on all of its ISR investments,
    including particularly those in National Guard cyber and ISR
    capabilities.

        59. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, what would be the value of
    layering redundancy into our MQ-9 Command and Control architecture--
    specifically, moving MQ-9 command/return links to a commercial low-
    earth-orbit constellation? Please explain.
        Mr. Kendall. If I am confirmed as Secretary of the Air Force, I
    would work to achieve operationally-resilient redundancy wherever it is
    cost-effective and operationally-important. As part of this process, I
    would consider any viable options to provide layered redundancy for the
    MQ-9 command and control architecture.

        60. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, can I have your commitment that
    the Air Force will take a hard look at employing this unique capability
    to ensure that our unmanned fleet is postured to meet a peer adversary?
        Mr. Kendall. Yes. If confirmed, I would review the Air Force's
    unmanned fleet to determine its utility and effectiveness against a
    near-peer adversary in contested environments and seek to identify
    cost-effective new capabilities and operational concepts for unmanned
    platforms.

        61. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, how would you
    seek to leverage intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance--to
    include the rapidly developing Air National Guard Cyber ISR
    Enterprise--in the increasingly critical cyber domain?
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would ensure the Department of the Air
    Force assesses the operational need and opportunities to maximize the
    integration of the rapidly-evolving Air National Guard Cyber and ISR
    capabilities with the Department's current and future ISR capabilities.
    My view is that the need for ISR is virtually unlimited, and the Air
    Force needs to maximize the return on all of its ISR investments,
    including particularly those in National Guard cyber and ISR
    capabilities.
                                    culture
        62. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, how would you
    address the lack of an indigenous culture in the emerging skill area,
    of unmanned piloting?
        Mr. Kendall. I have not had an opportunity to review the efforts
    made to address this cultural issue in the Air Force to date. If
    confirmed, I would review the programs already in place to assess their
    effectiveness and direct any needed additional actions.
                                   cost data
        63. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, which specific opportunities do
    you identify for improving the completeness of DOD's cost data for
    weapons system software?
        Mr. Kendall. Accurately estimating and projecting software costs is
    a perennial issue, both in DOD and in the commercial world. Modern
    software methods that embrace agile processes and DevOps environments
    introduce more difficulties to accurate estimating, but also bring
    significant improvements over historical waterfall development methods
    and traditional earned-value metrics. I understand that it is still a
    work in progress, but that there is widespread recognition of the need
    to have more effective cost estimating and software development
    management tools that are compatible with modern software development
    processes. I also understand that the DOD has made some progress in
    addressing these issues, but I have not had the opportunity to review
    that work. I look forward to having the opportunity to do so. In my
    view it is essential that the DOD and the DAF have effectively planning
    and progress measurement metrics for software development. If
    confirmed, I would fully support the effort to achieve that goal.

        64. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, what should be DOD's biggest
    lessons learned from early weapons systems contracts that did not allow
    for fulsome data collection? Please explain.
        Mr. Kendall. In an age of integrated digital designs DOD should
    have seamless access to data that it needs from its contractors. The
    Air Force, under the leadership of Air Force Acquisition Executive
    William LaPlante actually pioneered the concept of ``owning the
    technical baseline.'' If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the DAF
    has access to and takes delivery of whatever data it needs to perform
    its missions.

        65. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Kendall, if confirmed, would you seek to
    implement a plan to execute and monitor the requirement that government
    organizations--such as DOD software centers--submit cost and software
    data? Please explain.
        Mr. Kendall. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the DAF has
    the tools and processes it needs to accurately and efficiently gather
    cost and other accountable data, including cost and productivity data
    from its own software centers. That data is necessary to manage
    productivity of these organizations and to benchmark them against other
    sources of similar work. I would also work to ensure that all DAF
    activities are auditable.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of The Honorable Frank Kendall
    III follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of The Honorable Frank Kendall
    III, which was transmitted to the Committee at the time the
    nomination was referred, follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Honorable
    Frank Kendall III in connection with his nomination follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the Committee's executive files.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [Nomination of Honorable Frank Kendall III was reported to
    the Senate by Chairman Reed on June 10, 2021, with the
    recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
    was confirmed by the Senate on July 26, 2021.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Honorable Heidi Shyu by
    Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                           duties and qualifications
        Question. Section 133a of title 10, U.S. Code, provides that the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E))
    shall be appointed from civilian life from among persons who have an
    extensive technology, science, or engineering background and experience
    with managing complex or advanced technological programs.
        What is your understanding of the duties and functions of the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the USD(R&E) serves as the
    principal staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary of Defense for all matters regarding the DOD Research and
    Engineering (R&E) Enterprise, defense R&E, technology development,
    technology transition, developmental prototyping, experimentation, and
    developmental testing activities and programs, and unifying defense R&E
    efforts across the DOD.
        The USD(R&E) also serves as the Chief Technology Officer of the
    Department with the mission of advancing technology and innovation.
    USD(R&E) also advises the Secretary of Defense on all matters related
    to research; engineering; manufacturing; developmental test and
    evaluation; and technology development, innovation, and protection
    activities and programs in the DOD and occurring internationally.
        Question. What background and experience do you possess that
    qualify you to perform these duties?
        Answer. As an industry and government leader in research and
    engineering, I have developed a broad understanding of the science,
    technology, innovation ecosystems, platform integration, and flight
    testing that will be essential to this role. Over the course of my
    career, I have managed research, technology and engineering programs on
    a broad range of technologies, including electronic protection,
    advanced radar systems, electronic warfare systems, unmanned combat
    vehicles, and major Intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance systems
    in the defense industry. My previous service in government as the
    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition Logistics and
    Technology gave me a deep understanding of the Department's approach to
    managing research and technology, since I was the Principal Science
    Advisor to the Secretary of the Army as well as the Army Acquisition
    Executive for 12 Program Executive Offices spanning across Aviation,
    Ground Combat Systems, Combat Support/Combat Service Support,
    Ammunition, Tactical Command & Control, Computers, Chemical &
    Biological Defense, Intelligence & Electronic Warfare Systems,
    Enterprise Information Systems, Missile & Space, Soldier Systems,
    Simulation, Training & Testing and demil of chemical weapons. My 10
    years of experience serving on the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board
    (AFSAB) gave me a broad understanding of the key challenges to the Air
    Force. As a member of the AFSAB, I participated in the annual S&T
    quality review of the Air Force Research Laboratory and participated
    and led studies on behalf of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and
    the Secretary of the Air Force. Since leaving the Army, I have served
    on the boards of several small start-up companies and gained insight
    into struggles of small innovative companies in doing business with the
    DOD.
                                 relationships
        Question. Please describe your understanding of the relationships
    and areas of collaboration between the USD(R&E) and the following
    officials and organizations:
        The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
        Answer. Although they have important missions independent of one
    another, USD(R&E) and USD(A&S) are two offices that absolutely must
    work closely together to ensure that DOD is able to rapidly insert the
    latest technologies into the next generation of weapons systems. If
    confirmed, I am committed to working in close collaboration with
    USD(A&S) to ensure that DOD makes real progress on its modernization
    priorities.
        Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
        Answer. USD(R&E) supports the policy development process,
    particularly on matters of missile defense and our research and
    engineering programs with our allies and partners. Both the President
    and the Secretary of Defense have made clear working closely with our
    Allies is a critical element of our national security. They are an
    absolute force multiplier when it comes to science and technology and
    if confirmed, I am committed to working closely with my counterparts in
    Policy to ensure we maintain and expand our science and technology
    partnerships around the globe.
        Question. The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
    Readiness.
        Answer. One of the keys elements of the Department's efforts to
    modernize and build a culture of innovation is its people. USD(R&E) and
    USD(P&R) must work closely together to make sure that DOD makes the
    best use of its hiring flexibilities and is recruiting a workforce that
    reflects the Nation's diversity. Additionally, USD(R&E) will continue
    to partner with USD (P&R) in the development and fielding of training
    capabilities to meet the needs of the warfighter.
        Question. The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of Operational
    Test and Evaluation to enhance the effectiveness, suitability, and
    survivability of DOD systems. I will communicate frequently with the
    Director to discuss strategic test and evaluation (T&E) policy and
    review the status of current collaboration efforts that include
    developing a joint strategic plan, publication of an Office of the
    Secretary of Defense (OSD) T&E Oversight List, development of T&E
    Guidebooks to address common T&E areas supporting the Adaptive
    Acquisition Framework pathways, and publication of updated joint T&E
    cybersecurity policy.
        Question. The Directors of the Defense Intelligence Agencies.
        Answer. The Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    (USD(R&E)) works closely through the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Intelligence and Security (USD(I&S)) to communicate the intelligence
    needs of the research and engineering enterprise to the Directors of
    the Defense Intelligence Agencies, and also to the wider intelligence
    community, in order to make informed technology development and
    protection decisions.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects
    Agency (DARPA).
        Answer. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency falls under
    the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
    Engineering and receives broad guidance and direction from that office.
    I am committed to ensuring that DAPRA, one of the crown jewels of the
    Department of Defense, continues to have the support it needs to
    conduct the kind of breakthrough research that led to the mRNA-based
    vaccine for COVID-19. I am committed to help to accelerate DARPA's
    innovation into the Services.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU).
        Answer. The Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) falls under the purview
    of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and
    receives broad guidance and direction from that office. The DIU plays
    an important role as the gateway through which many of firms on the
    cutting edge of technology first come into contact with the Department
    of Defense. I am committed to ensuring that DIU continues to play an
    important role the Department's innovation ecosystem and bring forth
    new dual-use technologies and products to the Services
        Question. The Director of the Defense Microelectronics Activity.
        Answer. The Defense Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) is a small,
    but critical, organizational element providing reliable
    microelectronics to the Department of Defense (DOD). The Defense
    Microelectronics Activity (DMEA) was part of USD(R&E) until January
    2021 when DMEA was transferred and placed under the authority,
    direction and control (ADC) of the USD(A&S). If confirmed, I will work
    closely with USD(A&S) and the Director of the DMEA to maintain, and
    sustain our legacy systems, and to seamlessly transfer and integrate
    microelectronics quantifiable assurance standard developed under the
    Trusted and Assured Microelectronics program under the USD(R&E).
        Question. The Administrator of the Defense Technical Information
    Center.
        Answer. On behalf of USD(R&E), the Defense Technical Information
    Center (DTIC) administers Science and Technical policy (S&T), captures
    the results of research into a central base of knowledge, and delivers
    that knowledge to the community. DTIC reaches across Service and Agency
    silos to connect people and activities. On behalf of the USD(R&E), DTIC
    operates Information Analysis centers which manage research and
    development contracts that support research and analysis services to
    DOD and ensures its protection.
        Question. The Director of the Test Resource Management Center.
        Answer. The Director of the Test Resource Management Center duties
    are fuflilled by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering for
    Advanced Capabilities, who is a direct report to the USD(R&E). TRMC is
    charged with oversight over the Department's testing and range
    facilities If confirmed, look forward to providing direction to ensure
    the TRMC is able to accomplish its departmental roles and
    responsibilities supporting DOD modernization.
        Question. The Director of the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center.
        Answer. The JAIC was formed in 2018 to accelerate the fielding and
    adoption of mature artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, while the
    Office of USD(R&E) is responsible for advancing and maturing AI
    technologies for DOD. The JAIC, as well as the Services' software
    development teams, DIU, and other rapid prototyping offices, are
    utilizing mature AI technologies to provide new capabilities for the
    Department as it modernizes its information technologies and weapon
    systems. USD(R&E) and the broader S&T enterprise are focused on
    maturing emerging AI technologies by leveraging deep learning and
    neural networks to unlock more efficient and effective capabilities. If
    confirmed, I look forward to collaborating with JAIC to help ensure
    that promising AI technologies are rapidly fielded and adopted.
        Question. The Director of the Defense Digital Service.
        Answer. The Defense Digital Service's (DDS) mission is to implement
    breakthrough technologies and methodologies to better government
    services, strengthen national defense, and care for service members and
    their families. Through the Principal Director (PD) for Cyber,
    OUSD(R&E) is assisting DDS with a new operational technology (OT)
    initiative, which will greatly enhance the resilience of DOD critical
    infrastructure systems. The PD for Cyber has had longstanding
    relationships with members of the DOD S&T community who are addressing
    OT security and resiliency challenges. If confirmed, I will ensure that
    USD(R&E) continues to collaborate with DDS, in order to advance its
    mission of implementing breakthrough technologies.
        Question. The Director of the Space Development Agency.
        Answer. The Space Development Agency currently falls under the
    purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering
    and receives broad guidance and direction from that office. However, as
    currently planned, the agency will transfer to the Space Force in
    fiscal year 2023. Until that transfer takes place, I will work to
    ensure the agency continues to have the support it needs to execute its
    mission to enhance space superiority
        Question. The Director of the Missile Defense Agency.
        Answer. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) falls under the purview of
    the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and
    receives broad guidance and direction from that office. I look forward
    to working closely with the director of MDA to ensure we maintain a
    robust multi-layered missile defense system capable of defending the
    homeland and our forward deployed forces as well as our allies.
        Question. The Service Acquisition Executives.
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Secretaries of
    the Military Departments and the Service Acquisition Executives.
    Technology maturation, mission engineering, and systems engineering
    efforts are areas where it is critical for USD(R&E) and the services to
    have close relationships to ensure that technology is efficiently
    transitioned to meet warfighting capability. If confirmed, I will also
    work with the Service Acquisition Executives through USD(R&E)'s
    Independent Technical Risk Assessments and Developmental Test
    Sufficiency Assessments of Service acquisition programs.
        Question. The Service Science and Technology Executives.
        Answer. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering for
    Research and Technology (DDRE(R&T)) chairs the Science and Technology
    (S&T) executive committee (EXCOM) composed of the S&T executives from
    the Services and Agencies. The S&T EXCOM provides a forum to unify and
    coordinate DOD S&T strategy, budget, and execution decisions. Through
    the S&T EXCOM, USD(R&E) oversees, coordinates, and aligns investments
    to maximize the Department's resources, avoids unnecessary duplication,
    and creates the future capabilities required by the nation.
        Question. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council
        Answer. USD(R&E) serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary
    and Deputy Secretary of Defense for all matters regarding the DOD
    research and engineering enterprise, to include technology development
    and transition, developmental prototyping, experimentation, and
    developmental testing; while unifying defense R&E efforts across the
    Department. This includes advising the Joint Requirements Oversight
    Council (JROC) on matters within the USD(R&E) authority and expertise
    to provide mission-based analysis to inform requirements, warfighting
    concepts, capabilities-based assessments, concepts of operation, and
    other matters related to USD(R&E)'s Mission Integration Management
    (MIM) responsibilities as outlined in section 855 of the Fiscal Year
    2017 NDAA. I understand that USD(R&E)'s support to the JROC focuses on
    technology issues related to linking joint warfighting concepts to
    prototyping, experimentation, capability development and fielding, and
    associated budget priorities. If confirmed, I will work closely with
    the JROC to synchronize warfighting concepts, technologies,
    requirements, capabilities, and programs to guide decisions focused on
    the end-to-end mission.
        Question. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
        Answer. The Office of USD(R&E) is responsible for providing
    expertise in the technical and technology portion of the CFIUS case
    reviews. Additionally, USD(R&E) subject matter experts review cases
    associated with the long-term technology modernization priorities and
    help the Defense Technology Security Agency to determine technology
    protection strategies which strike a proper balance between allowing
    U.S. industry to compete overseas while retaining control over
    technologies which enable U.S. military advantage.
        Question. The Defense Science Board.
        Answer. The Defense Science Board falls under the purview of the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and receives
    broad guidance. That direction includes providing study topics of
    interest to the Defense Science Board. It is my understanding that the
    Secretary is currently conducting a zero based review of the
    Department's boards. Should the Secretary decide to maintain the board,
    I look forward to working with its staff to re-constitute its
    membership and put it to work in support of the Department's innovation
    efforts.
        Question. The Defense Innovation Board.
        Answer. The Defense Innovation Board falls under the purview of the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and receives
    broad guidance and direction from that office. That direction includes
    the review of annual study plans, personnel and culture, technology and
    capabilities, practices and operations. It is my understanding that the
    Secretary is currently conducting a zero based review of the
    Department's boards. Should the Secretary decide to maintain the board,
    I look forward to working with its staff to re-constitute its
    membership and put it to work in support of the Department's innovation
    efforts.
        Question. Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
        Answer. USD(R&E) has the responsibility for setting the policy for
    DOD's ten Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs).
    In addition, the USD(R&E) is the primary sponsor for the MITRE National
    Security Engineering Center (NSEC), the Massachusetts Institute of
    Technology Lincoln Laboratory, and the Carnegie-Mellon University
    Software Engineering Institute. USD(R&E) collaborates with the entire
    Department to ensure that the FFRDCs are focused on the Department's
    priorities while also ensuring that they maintain the requisite core
    competencies to enable the Department's studies, system engineering,
    and R&D.
        Question. The Commanding General of Army Combat Capabilities
    Development Command.
        Answer. The Commanding General of the Army Combat Capabilities
    Development Command is responsible for ensuring that the Army's S&T
    enterprise investments are unified and coordinated to meet Army's
    capabilities needed for the future. If confirmed, I will work closely
    with the Army Combat Capabilities Development Command to collaborate
    DOD S&T with the Army's S&T.
        Question. The Chief of Naval Research.
        Answer. The Chief of Naval Research is responsible for ensuring
    that the Navy's S&T enterprise investments are unified and coordinated
    to meet Navy's capabilities needed for the future. If confirmed, I will
    work closely with the Chief of Naval Research to collaborate DOD S&T
    with the Navy's S&T.
        Question. The Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory.
        Answer. The Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory is
    responsible for ensuring that the Air Force's S&T enterprise
    investments are unified and coordinated to meet Air Force's
    capabilities needed for the future. If confirmed, I will work with the
    Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory to collaborate DOD S&T
    with the Air Force's S&T.
        Question. The Director of the White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy.
        Answer. The USD(R&E) works in close collaboration with the White
    House Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure the Department
    of Defense's science and technology efforts fit within broad
    administration policy. This includes national priorities like the
    fielding of 5G technology and ensuring the nation's access to
    microelectronics.
                            relations with congress
        Question. What actions would you take to create a productive and
    mutually beneficial relationship between the office of the USD(R&E) and
    the Congress generally, and this Committee, in particular?
        Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to maintaining a close working
    relationship with Congress in general and this Committee in particular.
    I will make myself and my staff available to you and your staff when
    requested. I will also commit to regular briefings and updates on the
    programs, activities, and initiatives being undertaken by the office of
    the USD(R&E) and seek out regular interaction with you and your staffs.
     office of the under secretary of defense for research and engineering
        Question. What is your vision for the Office of the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. The White House's Interim National Security Strategy states
    that ``America must reinvest in retaining our scientific and
    technological edge'' and ``seize the opportunities that advances in
    technology present.'' The Office of the USD(R&E) is DOD's primary means
    for achieving these ends.
        My vision is to work collaboratively with universities, commercial
    & defense industry, FFRDCs & UARCS and other DOD organizations, across
    the Services and our Allies to rapidly deliver innovative technical
    solutions to solve the toughest problems for National security. I see
    my role in setting the overarching DOD strategy for technology, address
    critical warfighting challenges by delivering innovative technology
    solutions to stay ahead of our threats.
        If confirmed, I plan to seek not only to enable scientific
    breakthroughs but also to leverage these investments to train the next
    generation of technologists--a cadre of preeminent scientists and
    engineers who reflect our Nation's diversity.
        Question. If confirmed, what recommendations, if any, would you
    make regarding changes to the organization, management, and resourcing
    of the Office of the USD(R&E) so as better to execute its duties and
    responsibilities?
        Answer. The Office of the USD(R&E) was established in 2018; as
    such, its organization, management, and resources were constructed to
    meet the then-current objectives in National Defense. If confirmed, I
    will review the Office's organization, management, and resources in the
    context of a new national defense strategy. I will also review these
    items in the context of the Secretary's and Deputy Secretary's
    priorities, which include developing innovative operational concepts,
    prototyping and experimenting with new capabilities, and fielding
    cutting-edge capabilities to the force.
        Question. Subordinate elements of the Office of the USD(R&E) are
    led by Directors--as opposed to the Senate-confirmed Assistant
    Secretaries of Defense who lead most subordinate elements in other
    Under Secretary-level offices in DOD? Does the lack of ASDs in the
    Office of the USD(R&E) affect mission accomplishment, in your view?
        Answer. DOD is a hierarchical institutional where rank and position
    matter, and where directors may not enjoy the same authority and
    influence as Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries. If confirmed, I
    will review USD(R&E)'s organizational structure, assess impacts mission
    effectiveness, and communicate recommendations to Congress.
        Question. Are there other assets, including staffing and resources
    that you believe the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering requires to optimize mission accomplishment?
        Answer. The Office of USD(R&E) sets priorities and policies for
    DOD's science and technology (S&T) investments and develops roadmaps to
    guide the development and fielding of critical technologies, including
    artificial intelligence and biotechnology. Among other
    responsibilities, the Office also sets priorities and policies for
    developmental prototyping and engineering and performs independent
    technical risk assessments for select acquisition programs. These
    activities, while critical, are focused primarily on implementation. If
    confirmed, I will review the Office's ability not only to implement the
    above activities, but also to shape DOD's technical trajectory. Just as
    DOD employs military strategists, it should look to the Office of the
    USD(R&E) to serve as the military's technology strategists.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure effective
    collaboration between your office, the Office of the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and the Services?
        Answer. DOD is challenged to divest from legacy platforms and to
    shift its investments toward modern, innovative systems. To address
    this challenge, the Offices of USD(R&E) and USD(A&S), as well as the
    military services, must work collaboratively and leverage each other's
    strengths and experiences. USD(R&E) offers it technical insight, vision
    and expertise for the future, as well as its expertise in identifying
    and mitigating technical risks in programs. USD(A&S) offers innovative
    contracting, program management experiences and knowledge of the
    defense industrial base. The military services, in turn, offer program
    management execution expertise, fielding and weapon system utilization.
    If confirmed, I look forward to sharing USD(R&E)'s technical expertise
    with its USD(A&S) and military service partners to rapidly transition
    critical technologies to meet the Service's needs. I look forward to
    working closely with USD(A&S) to establish joint town-hall style
    meetings and joint press conferences as an example of close
    collaboration.
        Question. If confirmed as USD(R&E), you would be vested with
    somewhat less statutory directive and decision making authority than
    previous Under Secretaries for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.
        If confirmed, how would you guide the Defense Department's overall
    approach to research, engineering, and technology--given powers and
    authorities provided you?
        Answer. USD(R&E) has the authority to set policies and supervise
    research, engineering, technology development, technology transition,
    developmental prototyping, experimentation, and developmental test. If
    confirmed, I. will: Assess if we are organized in the most efficient
    way to accelerate transition of technologies into critical capabilities
    needed by the Services; increase sharing of technologies across the
    Service Labs; establish metrics for the DOD labs, FFRDCs and UARCs to
    assess transition successes; increase outreach to small companies and
    commercial companies to enable them to easily do business with the DOD;
    work collaboratively with USD(A&S) and DOT&E to ensure modern testing
    methodologies are utilized from development testing to operational
    testing; increase technology sharing and joint testing with our Allies
    to increase lessons learned; grow our STEM workforce by creating more
    opportunities for fellowships and internships; maintain balance between
    basic and applied research.
        Question. In your view, should the USD(R&E) be vested with
    additional statutory powers and authorities? Please explain your
    answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review USD(R&E)'s statutory powers and
    authorities. If additional authorities are needed, I will brief
    Congress to seek its approval and any requisite authorities.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. What are the major challenges that confront the next
    USD(R&E), in your view?
        Answer. The next USD(R&E) will be challenged to advance
    technologies and leverage the incredible amount of innovation that
    exists across this Nation and work collaboratively across the
    commercial and defense industries, universities, FFRDCs & UARCs, and
    Allied partners to rapidly deliver technical solutions to our
    warfighters to counter near-Peer threats.
        Question. If confirmed, what would you do to address each of these
    challenges?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would focus DOD's research and development
    investments on the innovative technologies that DOD uniquely needs but
    that the commercial sector is not developing on its own. At the same
    time, I would leverage the commercial sector's tremendous investments
    and accelerate DOD's ability to incorporate innovative commercial
    technologies.
        Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
    in terms of issues that must be addressed by the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. Today, sustainment makes up 70% of total weapon system
    cost, with development and procurement making up 30%. If confirmed, I
    would strive to change this ratio and invest more in the development of
    new technologies that can reduce our sustainment cost. If confirmed, I
    would seek to prioritize investments in emerging technologies of
    advanced materials that can increase strength, reduce weight, increase
    reliability, reduce maintenance, increase power density, and fuel
    efficiency. These advanced materials have the tremendous opportunity to
    reduce the logistics footprint and maintenance. Other priorities
    include advanced manufacturing technologies such as additive
    manufacturing which can significantly reduce the need for our supply
    chain storage.
        Another critical area that I will focus on is providing mission
    assurance: technologies that can provide software assurance, supply
    chain assurance, trust of Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning,
    trusted autonomy, and design of robustness and security into our highly
    networked complex weapon systems.
        Question. In your view, what technologies do you consider the
    highest priorities for development in the DOD, based upon the ability
    of each to contribute to DOD mission accomplishment in the short- and
    longer-terms?
        Answer. USD(R&E) has identified 11 technology areas as
    modernization priorities. If confirmed, I will review these technology
    areas in the context of the forthcoming national defense strategy and
    assess the completeness of these priorities. After my assessment, I
    will brief the SASC on a potentially updated list of priorities.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you connect your technology
    strategies and plans with the efforts of other DOD components?
        Answer. USD(R&E)'s technology strategies and plans should connect
    with the efforts of other DOD components through concepts and
    capabilities. If confirmed, I will ensure that USD(R&E) supports
    technology-informed concept development, facilitates rapid prototyping
    and experimentation, and champions innovation technologies to cross the
    ``valley of death'' and transition into programs for the Services.
        Question. What scientific fields do you consider the most important
    for shaping and developing the new technologies, concepts, and
    capabilities that will be most relevant for future warfighting and
    defense missions?
        Answer. USD(R&E) has identified 11 technology areas as
    modernization priorities. If confirmed, I will review these technology
    areas in the context of the forthcoming national defense strategy and
    assess potential gaps. I will gladly brief the SASC on my findings and
    recommendations.
        Question. In your view, are any technology areas that should be
    added or removed from the current list of DOD's modernization
    priorities? If so, please explain your rationale.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review DOD's modernization priorities
    in the context of the forthcoming national defense strategy. I will pay
    close attention to technology areas where the commercial sector is
    leading and where DOD could simply implement the commercial
    technologies instead of developing the Defense-unique capabilities. I
    will also evaluate critical technology areas not being developed by the
    commercial industry that the DOD uniquely needs to meet mission
    capabilities.
                            chief technology officer
        Question. If confirmed as USD(R&E), you would serve as the Chief
    Technology Officer (CTO) of the Department of Defense.
        What do you perceive to be the current role of the CTO of the
    Department of Defense?
        Answer. The CTO's current role is to advise the Secretary of
    Defense on research, engineering, manufacturing, developmental test and
    evaluation, technology development, innovation, and technology
    protection activities occurring within DOD, as well as internationally.
        Question. Should the role of the CTO be modified in any way to
    enhance its effectiveness?
        Answer. The Deputy Secretary recently chartered an Innovation
    Steering Group, which is led by USD(R&E) and which reports to the
    Deputy's Management Action Group (DMAG). This new governance body
    strengthens USD(R&E)'s ability to advise the Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary on matters related to science, technology, and technology
    transition. The Innovation Steering Group has the potential to enhance
    USD(R&E)'s role as DOD's CTO. If confirmed, I will leverage the
    Innovation Steering Group to amplify USD(R&E)'s voice as CTO, and will
    also look for other opportunities to enhance the CTO's effectiveness.
        Question. Given the growing role of information technology and
    software in military capabilities, what do you understand to be the
    differences in roles, responsibilities, and authorities between the DOD
    Chief Information Officer and the CTO?
        Answer. The CIO advises the Secretary on enterprise information
    technology whereas the CTO advises the Secretary on a wide range of
    emerging technologies needed to meet the capabilities that the Services
    need to stay ahead of our adversaries.
        Question. Do you believe the position of USD(R&E) currently
    possesses adequate authorities to exercise the responsibilities of a
    CTO? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the authorities needed for the
    DOD CTO. If additional authorities are needed to increase the
    effectiveness of the CTO, I will inform the SASC and undertake steps
    necessary to request the needed authorities.
                      investment in science and technology
        Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to assess the
    suitability of the size and portfolio of investments made under the
    defense science and technology (S&T) program?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Intelligence Community
    to understand where threats are heading, and work the Services to
    understand their vision, mission and capability shortfalls. I will
    assess the DOD S&T portfolios to see if the research areas are well
    mapped in addressing the capability shortfalls and stay ahead of the
    threats. I will establish metrics to assess technology transitions into
    programs.
        Question. In your view, should the Secretary of Defense's Defense
    Planning Guidance include guidance on minimum funding levels for the
    science and technology programs of the Military Departments? Please
    explain your answer.
        Answer. Yes. Defense S&T investments represent a down-payment on
    our Nation's future security. As such, I believe that the Defense
    Planning Guidance should include guidance on minimum S&T funding
    levels.
        Question. Do you believe that the Defense Planning Guidance should
    include guidance on minimum investment levels for Military Department
    research and testing infrastructure? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. DOD's infrastructure resources are scarce. If confirmed, I
    will evaluate options to ensure that DOD makes necessary investments in
    research and testing infrastructure. These options may include
    providing guidance on minimum investment levels in the Defense Planning
    Guidance.
        Question. What role should the USD(R&E) play in the detailed
    development and coordination of Military Department and Defense Agency/
    Field Activity S&T investment strategies, programs, and budgets, in
    your view?
        Answer. USD(R&E) should continue to lead the Reliance 21 S&T
    executive committee (EXCOM), which was chartered to coordinate,
    synchronize, and align Military Department, Defense Agency/Field
    Activity S&T portfolios. The Reliance 21 EXCOM includes the Service S&T
    executives and representatives of the Joint Staff and Defense Agencies/
    Field Activities.
        Question. What role should the USD(R&E) play in the development and
    coordination of Military Department research and test infrastructure
    investment strategies, programs, and budgets, in your view?
        Answer. USD(R&E) should continue to lead the Reliance 21 S&T
    executive committee (EXCOM), which was chartered to coordinate,
    synchronize, and align Military Department and Defense Agency/Field
    Activity S&T portfolios, to include laboratories and test facilities.
    The Reliance 21 EXCOM includes the Service S&T executives and
    representatives of the Joint Staff and Defense Agencies/Field
    Activities., Through the Test Resource Management Center (TRMC)
    USD(R&E) also ensures the readiness of test and evaluation (T&E)
    infrastructure and workforce to support DOD modernization. If
    confirmed, I look forward to supporting the development and
    coordination of Military Department research and test infrastructure
    investment strategies, programs, and budgets, through this governance
    structure.
        Question. What S&T areas do you consider underfunded by the DOD?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate DOD's S&T portfolio in the
    context of the forthcoming national defense strategy and Administration
    priorities to assess areas that may be underfunded.
        Question. In your judgment, will the funding levels in these areas
    affect the Department's ability to meet the threats of the future?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the funding level across the
    DOD technology portfolios to enable the Services to rapidly operate in
    a highly contested environment consistent with the National Defense
    priorities.
        Question. If confirmed, what factors would you consider in
    assessing whether the Department's S&T investment strategy strikes the
    appropriate balance between funding innovative, disruptive technologies
    and addressing near-term operational needs and military requirements?
        Answer. High fidelity models and wargaming can provide insight into
    the effectiveness of innovative disruptive technologies vs near-term
    systems to meet operational needs. With these results, a collective
    informed decision can then be made to balance near-term needs vs the
    potential of a disruptive capability.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the
    Department's leadership is aware of the successes resulting from
    science and technology programs and organizations in supporting defense
    missions?
        Answer. Annual S&T reviews across the Services can provide the
    statistics on the program transition metrics. Successful transition of
    a technology into a program will be a key measure.
                                 basic research
        Question. Given the continuing nature of basic research and the
    broad implications and applications of discovery-focused and
    innovation-focused sciences, what criteria would you use to measure the
    success of DOD basic research programs and investments, if confirmed?
        Answer. Basic research is the early and an essential part of DOD's
    entire research ecosystem. Traditional metrics involving schedules and
    planned milestones do not apply, given basic research's high-risk and
    exploratory nature. The success of basic research can only be measured
    long term when basic research progresses into advanced research and
    into a prototype then into a program.
        Question. What concerns do you have, if any, about current levels
    of funding for Department of Defense basic research? How would you plan
    to address those concerns, if confirmed?
        Answer. The Council on Competitiveness, the National Academies of
    Science, and other experts recommend the percentage allocated to basic
    research be at least 20% of the total S&T budget. In the fiscal year
    2021 Congressional appropriation, the proportion allocated for basic
    research is below 16%, and has been steadily decreasing for the over
    the past 5 years. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and
    Deputy Secretary to evaluate options for and assess the implications of
    various basic research funding levels. If deemed appropriate, I will
    undertake steps necessary to request the resource levels needed ll to
    make basic research investments using the recommended share of its
    total budget.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps, if any, would you take to
    increase efforts in unfettered exploration, which has historically been
    a critical enabler of the most important breakthroughs in military
    capabilities?
        Answer. The DOD plays an essential role in supporting unfettered
    scientific exploration. As the Nation faces problems of unprecedented
    complexity and scale, DOD must continue to play this essential role. As
    I understand it, the Vannevar Bush Faculty Fellowship (VBFF) program
    exemplifies the type of DOD-sponsored, far-reaching, exploratory
    research with transformative potential that is highly prized by the
    academic community. The Multi-University Research Initiative (MURI) is
    another example for multi-disciplinary research. I believe that DOD
    should sustain basic research activities not only with the appropriate
    level of funding, but also with policies, guidelines, and oversight
    that promote the conduct of basic research, and embedding it into the
    entire S&T ecosystem at DOD. If confirmed, I will support the DOD S&T
    ecosystem's ability to pursue such unfettered exploration and
    revolutionary breakthroughs, unconstrained by near-term objectives.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that DOD's basic and
    applied research programs are executed in a manner consistent with
    National Security Decision Directive 189?
        Answer. As I understand it, the Department has been well-served by
    the open research environment in fundamental research established by
    National Security Decision Directive - 189 (NSDD-189). The
    implementation of NSDD-189 at the Department has been made through
    previous USD(R&E) Memoranda and broadly defines fundamental research at
    the Department as basic and applied research performed at universities,
    or basic research performed at defense labs and in industry. If
    confirmed, I would continue to promote the execution of fundamental
    research free from restrictions on publications or participation by
    individuals such as foreign nationals.
        Question. What efforts would you make, if confirmed, to enable the
    Department to benefit from open innovation in fundamental research,
    while protecting such research from undue foreign interference?
        Answer. Fundamental research generally involves areas of research
    that are speculative in nature and without a single, well-defined
    application in mind. As such, fundamental research benefits from open
    collaboration and the perspectives of exceptional researchers,
    regardless of their country of origin or citizenship. There is a long
    history of foreign-born scientists and engineers training and working
    in the United States, and they make essential contributions to our
    preeminence in science, engineering and technology today. Maintaining
    U.S.'s lead will require us to continue to attract and retain the best
    scientific talent globally. DOD should promote openness and
    transparency in fundamental research and promote collaboration to
    continue to develop the best ideas. The application of research for
    specific military uses should be protected from undue foreign
    interferences. If confirmed, I will work with the interagency,
    academia, and Congress to balance the openness and security of
    fundamental research that has military applications and to ensure that
    top research talent continues to view the U.S. as the research
    destination of choice.
        Question. If confirmed, what are your ideas for working with the
    academic community to limit undue foreign influence on university
    research programs, and limit unwanted foreign access to research
    expertise and results, without creating a chilling effect on the open
    and collaborative nature of the research community?
        Answer. I believe that the academic community and DOD should work
    collaboratively to solve the problem of undue foreign influence on
    university research programs. If confirmed, I will work with the
    National Academy of Sciences and with other interested agencies to
    implement consistent policies and procedures that U.S government
    agencies, as well as the academic community, can implement in order to
    target specific behaviors which are counter to open and transparent
    international norms for research and intellectual property development.
        Question. In your view, what steps could the USD(R&E) put in place
    to ensure that regulations pertaining to Department-funded university
    research are consistently applied by DOD and well understood by the
    university community?
        Answer. I understand universities have communicated to DOD that
    inconsistencies in fundamental research designations and the
    application of fundamental research policy have resulted in research
    delays. In an era of increasing international competition for
    scientific breakthroughs, DOD cannot afford these delays. If confirmed,
    I would work with Department stakeholders, the DOD Components, the
    National Academy of Sciences and the academic community to review and,
    if necessary, to update DOD's fundamental research policy. Important
    considerations may include keeping basic and applied research open at
    universities, providing clear guidelines for research conducted under
    grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and ensuring that policy is
    consistent across the Department.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to protect U.S.
    research and intellectual property from undue foreign influence,
    without unjustly singling out researchers from certain nations?
        Answer. For early-stage basic research, the innovative ideas and
    approaches are most readily available from academia. To protect this
    research, DOD should promote transparency through disclosures of actual
    or potential conflicts of interest and commitment. DOD should encourage
    universities to promote education and training in scientific ethics to
    include research integrity, conflicts of interest and commitment.
    Early-stage researchers who fulfill these requirements accurately and
    completely should be welcomed in the defense research enterprise. Once
    applications for basic research are identified or work becomes more
    sensitive, DOD should transfer research to cleared facilities or DOD
    labs where appropriate controls can be maintained. If confirmed, I will
    work to promote research security by providing tight protections around
    DOD's most sensitive work. I will also promote openness and
    transparency in basic research to ensure that DOD has access to
    breakthrough science, regardless of national origin.
                    expanding the dod academic research base
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase DOD
    research engagement with Historically Black Colleges and Universities
    and other Minority-serving Institutions?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will committ to strengthening DOD's
    engagements with Historically Black Colleges and Universities and
    Minority-Serving Institutions (HBCUs/MIs). HBCUs/MIs are vital to DOD
    modernization priorities and are an important source of diverse
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) talent. I will
    continue to support investments in HBCUs/MIs through funding
    opportunities for research and equipment grants as well as through
    cooperative agreements to establish additional centers of excellence in
    defense priority areas. In addition, I will support programs that bring
    HBCU/MI students and faculty into DOD research facilities to engage in
    research efforts alongside DOD staff. These may include summer
    internships for students and faculty fellowships, including
    sabbaticals, to facilitate relationships, exposure to state-of-the art
    equipment and instrumentation, and the opportunity for both students
    and faculty to work with DOD scientists. I will seek opportunities to
    expand these and other initiatives and strengthen DOD's outreach
    efforts to HBCUs/MIs.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take increase DOD
    engagement with universities participating in the Defense Established
    Program to Stimulate Competitive Research?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department continues
    to increase engagement with universities in the Defense Established
    Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR). DOD should also
    continue participating in the EPCoR Interagency Coordinating Committee,
    which serves as a working group for interagency coordination and
    communication and meets on a regular basis to coordinate federal EPSCoR
    and EPSCoR-like programs. DOD should also continue participating in
    conversations with the EPSCoR Foundation to receive feedback from the
    EPSCoR community and to provide funding opportunity announcements.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase the
    funding for and quality of fundamental research at defense
    laboratories?
        Answer. Our defense laboratories are a key component of the
    Department's research and engineering ecosystem and it is critical that
    they remain at the cutting edge of research. If confirmed, I will
    commit to reviewing the ongoing work of the labs to ensure they remain
    at the fore front of the science and technology in regard to the
    research that we are doing in the Department.
        Question. If confirmed, what would you do to expand DOD's academic
    research base to include more researchers from the social sciences,
    medical sciences, management and business schools, and other
    disciplines relevant to defense missions?
        Answer. Defense missions are increasingly impacted by the social
    and medical sciences, as well as by management and business
    disciplines. Cyber, AI, bio-threats, autonomous vehicles, climate and
    environmental change, acquisition programs, etc.--are all complex
    interdisciplinary problems that need to be informed by social, medical
    information, management, and business disciplines. If confirmed, I will
    expand the research base by increasing inter-disciplinary research
    areas to enhance DOD's ability to solve complex problems.
             science and technology activities of civilian agencies
        Question. Do you believe that Department of Defense and other
    national security missions benefit from robust funding for scientific
    research in civilian agencies? Please explain your answer?
        Answer. I believe that DOD and other national security missions do
    benefit significantly from our Federal partners' funding for scientific
    research. Federal basic scientific research, in areas such as quantum
    science and biotechnology for example, provides fundamental discoveries
    and insights that stimulate novel concepts and ideas for the Department
    to conduct applied research and technology development towards future
    military capabilities. Federal applied scientific research advances
    National capabilities, such as weather forecasting, vaccine
    development, or earth system monitoring and prediction technologies,
    that the Department can build on or directly leverage to address its
    specific needs for the Joint Force, our Service Members, and their
    dependents.
        Question. How do the following civilian science agency activities
    support Department of Defense missions?
        A.  National Science Foundation basic science funding
        B.  National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) research
    hypersonics and other space research and NASA testing facilities
        C.  National Institutes of Health medical research and vaccine
    development activities
        D.  National Institute of Standards and Technology cybersecurity,
    quantum science, and manufacturing research programs
        Answer. I understand that DOD collaborates with NSF, NASA, NIH and
    NIST in various research areas and that these civilian agencies provide
    important support for DOD missions. For example:
          NSF funds basic research in critical technology areas
    such as artificial intelligence and quantum science. NSF also
    coordinates basic research policies and grant management procedures.
          NASA supports DOD missions through a series of
    partnerships and joint projects, particularly in materials and advanced
    manufacturing; position, navigation, and timing (PNT); propulsion;
    communication; space intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
    (ISR); space situational awareness; and space resilience.
          DOD closely partners with NIH and leverages its medical
    research and vaccine development activities to advance DOD military
    medical capabilities, particularly by building upon and advancing the
    foundational health and medical discoveries that arise from NIH
    investments. The Department's core medical research and development
    activities are focused on advancing military health system and
    operational medical capabilities in medical simulation and information
    systems, military infectious diseases, military operational medicine,
    combat casualty care, and medical countermeasures against chemical,
    biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. Where NIH has
    investments in these focus areas, DOD program managers communicate with
    their NIH colleagues to identify promising advances and breakthroughs
    that could be incorporated into future DOD investments from applied
    research and advanced technology development through system development
    and demonstration.
          The NIST research activities in the areas of quantum
    sensing based timing (i.e, the next generation atomic clocks) are very
    well coordinated and collaborative with the DOD's efforts in this area.
    For example, the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland,
    was established collaboratively by NIST and Army Research Lab to not
    only perform scientific research in this area, but also establish a
    local STEM talent pipeline for both organizations. Furthermore, the
    value of NIST Cybersecurity S&T to the DOD cannot be overstated.
    Through the establishment of standards and authoring of special
    publications, NIST baselines cybersecurity for the entirety of the
    federal government. Several of the DOD's core cybersecurity constructs
    tie back directly to NIST.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with other federal
    agencies and the Office of Science and Technology Policy to improve
    coordination of research activities and harmonization of research
    funding decisions?
        Answer. In today's trans-disciplinary research and engineering
    landscape, interagency partnerships are critical to innovation. The
    White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's National Science
    and Technology Council provides a robust and highly effective framework
    for identifying, developing, and shaping shared federal research
    priorities and objectives and for fostering interagency partnerships on
    the full range of S&T topics that are relevant DOD. If confirmed, I
    will ensure the Department and its deep bench of technical subject
    matter experts maintain an active role in the NSTC and its subordinate
    entities, as well as other OSTP initiatives to foster innovation and
    collaboration in federal research and development. Additionally, the
    Department and the Military Services routinely engage federal agencies
    in bilateral and multilateral partnerships on research and development
    for shared mission objectives. If confirmed, I will engage with my
    interagency counterparts as well as with my colleagues within the
    Department to sustain existing areas of cooperation and to identify and
    advocate for new or expanded partnerships.
                              technology strategy
        Question. What weaknesses, if any, do perceive in the current
    Defense S&T strategic planning process?
        Answer. An effective S&T strategy should balance longer-term
    investments in basic research and scientific discovery with nearer-term
    opportunities to transition technology and modernize existing systems.
    A S&T strategy should also enable flexibility and the ability rapidly
    shift and adapt as new priorities, as well as new knowledge, emerges.
    If confirmed, I will evaluate DOD's current S&T strategic planning
    process focusing on improving the balance between near- and long-term
    technology investments.
        Question. What do you believe to be the key attributes of a good
    technology strategic plan and how could these attributes be carried
    through effectively to the DOD programming and budgeting purposes?
        Answer. A good technology strategic plan should have a clear vision
    of the future, well-defined long-term goals and near-term objectives,
    defined key performance indicators with which to measure progress over
    time, and milestones to assess technology progress and options. If
    confirmed, I will ensure that USD(R&E) leverages these attributes to
    translate its technologic strategic plans into programs and budgets.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure reliance on technology
    strategic plans as foundational elements of the budget, planning, and
    programming process?
        Answer. USD(R&E) currently has principal directors for each of its
    11 modernization priorities, who are responsible for ensuring that
    science, technology, engineering, prototyping, and demonstration
    investments are effectively leveraged and fully aligned with DOD's
    priorities. If confirmed, I will assess if the modernization priorities
    are well aligned with the new Defense strategy or if modifications are
    needed. I will ensure that principal directors, as well as other staff
    within USD(R&E), collaborate closely with OSD CAPE, Comptroller, and
    military services to ensure that technology strategic plans are
    foundational elements of the budget, planning, and programming process.
                             technology transition
        Question. How would you assess the effectiveness of current
    transition processes and systems?
        Answer. The Advanced Capabilities directorate within USD(R&E),
    which oversees prototyping and experimentation activities, transitions
    880% of its prototypes to the military services or the warfighter.
    While this is an impressive metric, I believe that we can and should do
    more to increase not only the rate of transition, but also the volume
    of capabilities transitioned. If confirmed, I will support efforts to
    enable more technologies to bridge the ``valley of death'' by expanding
    prototyping and joint experimentation initiatives.
        Question. In your view, what challenges exist in technology
    transition in DOD?
        Answer. A number of things can cause technology to not transition:
    innovative technologies may not be mature enough for program managers
    to take the risk in incorporating them into a program of record. The
    technology may be demonstrated in a laboratory environment but not in a
    relevant operational environment. Or, the technology may be mature but
    there doesn't fulfill a requirement identified by a Service. This is
    where the ``valley of death'' usually occurs.
        Question. What would you do, if confirmed, to address each of these
    challenges?
        Answer. Funding to further mature and demonstrate a promising
    technology in a relevant environment should be made available to bridge
    the valley of death. If confirmed, I will seek out promising
    technologies and increase prototyping and experimentation to reduce
    technical risks in order to improve technology transition into programs
        Question. As compared to other technologies, do you believe that a
    different methodology is needed to transition software capabilities
    from research to operational use?
        Answer. Yes. Modern software development uses DevSecOps
    methodology. Namely, continuous development and continuous testing.
    This is contrary to legacy software practices which follow a very
    linear process of development then testing. In order to rapidly
    transition the latest software, we need to have an open architecture
    that isolates the software from the hardware then allows rapid user
    testing.
        Question. What is your understanding of the role of the USD(R&E) in
    facilitating communication between technical communities, acquisition
    personnel, and end users to support or speed technology transition?
        Answer. USD(R&E) should play a critical role in bridging the
    technical communities to the acquisition community and the end users.
    The technical community informs the acquisition community and the end
    users the art-of-possible based on the emerging technologies. USD(R&E)
    should also inform them on the maturity of the technology and the
    associated risks. Lastly, USD(R&E) should also inform the acquisition
    community & the end users on trade space opportunities, and experiments
    needed to mature the technology.
        Question. What are your views as to whether DOD's approach to and
    processes for funding technology transition must be changed? What sort
    of changes, if any, would you recommend, if confirmed?
        Answer. DOD has several authorities that help accelerate technology
    transition, including ``year of execution'' prototyping programs and
    Other Transaction Authorities for more agile contracting. If confirmed,
    I will assess these authorities, as well as related policies and
    programs, to identify opportunities to increase technology transition.
    For example, one opportunity might be to create a flexible, robust, and
    non-specific 6.4 funding line that could be used to as a bridge to help
    mature technologies so that they can transition to a programs of
    record.
                            commercial technologies
        Question. What steps would you take to make appropriate use of
    commercial technologies for the benefit of DOD institutions and the
    warfighter?
        Answer. The DOD should leverage the commercial sector's tremendous
    amount of investments in research and development and accelerate DOD's
    ability to incorporate innovative commercial technologies. If
    confirmed, I will promote and enhance communication and collaboration
    between DOD and commercial industry
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to transition
    appropriate commercial technologies to acquisition programs or
    capabilities that are fielded at scale with one or more Military
    Services?
        Answer. The commercial sector is a proven source of remarkable
    rapid innovation. If confirmed, I will strengthen the dialog with
    innovative companies in the private sector and eek to understand
    impediments that they have to work with the DOD, then work to remove
    these impediments.
        Question. What do you believe to be the most significant barriers
    to Program Executive Offices or prime contractor adoption and
    transition of new technologies, including but not limited to commercial
    technologies, into acquisition programs? What should be done to address
    such barriers, in your view?
        Answer. I believe the biggest barrier to PEOs and prime contractors
    in adopting new technologies is the perceived risk associated with
    something new. PEOs and typical defense contractors are risk-adverse
    since they do not want to be delayed on a program or increase the cost
    of the program due to unforseen technical risks. Often, careers depend
    on how well they execute on cost, schedule and performance of a program
    that they manage.
        Question. What steps does the Department need to take to ensure
    that sustainment and life cycle costs for commercial technologies are
    understood and controlled as early in the decision cycle as is
    feasible?
        Answer. USD(R&E) has important responsibilities to ensure that
    sustainment and life cycle costs for commercial technologies are
    understood and controlled as early in the decision cycle as feasible.
    Technologies have a natural life cycle and becomes obsolete at the end
    of their life cycle. The Department needs to understand this natural
    life cycle of every technology and incorporate this information into
    the program plan and plan for upgrades to avoid obsolescence in
    sustainment.
        Question. What are the downsides, if any, to the use of commercial
    technologies and services by the Department of Defense?
        Answer. Commercial technologies will become obsolete much faster
    than the typical defense system life cycle. As a result, the DOD must
    incorporate a modular open system that isolates the hardware from the
    software to enable rapid insertion of the latest technology to avoid
    obsolescence.
        Commercial components are not tested at the same level as MILSTD
    components. This could potentially create failures when operating at
    extreme conditions.
        Question. In your view, would there be benefit to the Department's
    establishment of a comparative testing program for domestic commercial
    technologies--perhaps a program modeled on the successful Foreign
    Comparative Testing program?
        Answer. While there are a number of programs within the Department
    that search for innovative domestic technologies and when appropriate,
    seek to develop them further, none of these programs is explicitly
    designed to fund or conduct comparative testing activities. I believe
    it would be beneficial to have an equivalent testing program for
    domestic commercial technologies, assuming it is funded sufficiently to
    attract hundreds or thousands of U.S. commercial innovations and at the
    same time to effectively evaluate them. Modeling such a program on the
    existing Foreign Comparative Test (FCT) process would be a natural
    choice, since the FCT program has been a tremendous success story,
    benefiting both the DOD and the U.S. industrial base for 40 years since
    its inception.
                      systems engineering and prototyping
        Question. Does the Department of Defense have sufficient systems
    engineering expertise in its current workforce and contractor base?
        Answer. It typically takes a decade to train a system engineer, so
    experienced system engineers are both essential and hard to obtain. In
    my experience, the lack of quality experienced system engineers can
    result in poor architecture, poor program planning and it does result
    in poor program execution. The DOD does not have sufficient in-house
    systems engineering expertise and relies upon contractors, including
    FFRDCs, as a supplement.
        Question. What do you predict would be the impact of further
    reductions in DOD personnel allocations to the ability of the USD(R&E)
    to execute assigned systems engineering missions?
        Answer. I understand that USD(R&E) is experiencing a shortage of
    expertise in certain key areas (e.g., systems engineering, software
    development) and that additional cuts to its existing engineering
    workforce could have a negative impact on USD(R&E)'s mission. If
    confirmed, I will assess the USD(R&E) workforce and its alignment to
    mission, and will identify opportunities to address any shortfalls
    USD(R&E)'s technical workforce.
        Question. What changes, if any, do you believe should be made in
    the Department's systems engineering organizations and practices?
        Answer. I recognize the need to modernize systems engineering
    processes to leverage digital engineering and model-based systems
    engineering, as well as to facilitate rapid and iterative ``design-
    test-fix'' cycles. I also recognize that while DOD needs to be more
    flexible in its approach in systems engineering, it is also critical to
    retain fundamental engineering rigor. If confirmed, I will identify
    opportunities to balance between engineering rigor and flexibility and
    to modernize DOD's approach to systems engineering.
        Question. What role does prototyping play in efforts to increase
    the success of the Department's acquisition efforts?
        Answer. Prototyping and experimentation help drive down technical
    and integration risk, validate designs, obtain warfighter feedback, and
    inform requirements definition. Prototyping and experimentation can
    also help DOD explore emerging technologies early, in order to assess
    military utility. Prototyping and experiments allow DOD to ``fail
    fast'' before large investments are made. Ultimately, these activities
    help harness innovation, accelerate acquisition, and deliver capability
    more quickly.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work to increase the breadth
    and scope of systems engineering projects and prototyping efforts
    undertaken by the Department and its contractor base?
        Answer. Performing systems engineering up front reduces the risk of
    programs failing to meet its performance objectives. If confirmed, I
    will seek solid systems engineering analysis and trade-space be
    performed prior to a program start. Prototyping critical technologies
    early on reduces program risk in engineering design and manufacturing.
    I will assess and encourage prototyping activities to reduce program
    risks.
                                venture capital
        Question. In your view, what role should venture capital firms play
    in the Department's investments in developing technologies, including
    in the Small Business Innovation Research program?
        Answer. Venture capital must remain free to pursue leads and
    interest as the market dictates, not to address DOD prerogatives. That
    said, venture capital firms motivate early-stage companies to continue
    innovating and by provide them with resources to grow their products
    and services and this, when coincident with DOD interests, has the
    indirect benefit, from a DOD angle, of helping to develop and sustain a
    healthy industrial base. DOD can even signal areas of interest that
    might spur the coincidence of interest. Venture capital can help the
    Department accelerate product development and efficiently deliver
    breakthrough, war-winning capabilities.
        Question. What advantages and disadvantages do you see in the use
    of venture capital strategies?
        Answer.
        Advantages:
          Venture capital strategies provide start-ups with
    resources, access to connections and valuable business networks, and
    guidance as the companies' grow.
          The use of venture capital can help the Department
    accelerate product development and efficiently deliver breakthrough,
    war-winning capabilities.
          Venture capital protects small and new companies from
    predatory investments by reducing industry's need to accept foreign
    investment when they need capital to continue growing.
        Disadvantages:
          Venture capitalists may need strong demand signals from
    the government in order to accept the investment risk.
          There is a potential to lose some company autonomy, since
    investors may want to participate in company decision processes or to
    control some aspects of company business.
        Question. Should the Department decide to use venture capital
    strategies, what steps do you believe should be taken to ensure that
    Department funds are invested in technologies and companies that
    properly reflect national defense priorities, avoid the potential for
    conflicts of interest by industry partners, and to ensure that the
    Department's investments are not diluted?
        Answer. The Department can play a liaison role in bridging venture
    capital firms to promising small businesses.
        Question. What other strategies do you intend to employ, if
    confirmed, to ensure that the nation's most innovative companies work
    on the Department's research and engineering programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the services and Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to identify the most
    innovative companies and engage with them to understand their
    challenges in working with the DOD. I will work with the Services to
    resolve the impediments to their problems and garner support to help
    them to transition their technologies to the Services.
                         beneficial ownership concerns
        Question. What concerns do you have regarding foreign beneficial
    ownership of DOD contractors and subcontractors, especially those with
    venture capital funding?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with DCSA to ensure that
    companies with foreign ownership have a proper Special Security
    Agreement (SSA) structure in place to prevent sensitive information be
    released to foreign owners.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
    continuous monitoring and assessment of the beneficial ownership of DOD
    contractors and subcontractors?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with USD(A&S) to ensure
    appropriate reporting of DOD contractor ownership, in accordance with
    section 223 of Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA, ``Disclosure of Funding Sources
    in Applications for Federal Research and Development Awards.''
                    operational energy and energy resilience
        Question. The Department defines operational energy as the energy
    required for training, moving, and sustaining military forces and
    weapons platforms for military operations, including the energy used by
    tactical power systems, generators, and weapons platforms. Today, DOD
    energy requirements are projected to increase exponentially due to
    technological advances in weapons systems and distributed operations
    over longer operating distances.
        If confirmed, how would you lead the Department in harnessing
    innovations in operational energy in order to reduce contested
    logistics vulnerabilities for warfighters?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the USD(A&S), the
    Joint Staff, Services, Combatant Commands, the S&T community, and
    industry to identify opportunities to reduce the military's logistics
    footprint by developing advanced materials to dramatically reduce size
    and weight and increase fuel efficiency. I will also explore resilient,
    secure, and cost effective energy solutions, to include sustainable and
    renewable sources, that can reduce DOD's reliance on legacy energy
    sources while still meeting the warfighters needs.
        Question. In what specific domains, if any, do you believe the
    Department needs to improve the incorporation of energy considerations
    and alternative energy resources?
        Answer. I believe that the Department should incorporate energy
    considerations and alternative energy sources in the formal weapon
    system requirements process. If confirmed, I will work with the Joint
    Staff and USD(A&S) to ensure that requirements address the energy
    efficiency of weapon system platforms, especially throughout their life
    cycle.
        Question. How can the Department's acquisition systems better
    address requirements related to the use of energy in military platforms
    to decrease risks to warfighters?
        Answer. Through the requirements process, the Department can
    specify requirements for both the energy efficiency and operational
    risk of military platforms. Performing tradeoffs through rigorous
    systems engineering early in the acquisition life cycle, the Department
    can determine the optimal means for meeting requirements for both
    operational energy and decreasing risk to our warfighters.
        Question. In your view, what steps should be taken to render
    ``energy supportability that reduces contested logistics
    vulnerabilities'' a key performance parameter in the requirements
    process, as compared to the ``check the box'' consideration it is
    today?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint Staff and
    across the logistics enterprise to assess the contested logistics
    vulnerabilities and develop technical solutions to reduce the risks.
              readiness and resource impacts from extreme weather
        Question. Over the last few years, damage from extreme weather
    events have resulted in billions worth of damage to DOD installations,
    ranging from three hurricanes in 2017 with over $1.3 billion in damage
    to 2018 with roughly $9 billion in damage at Tyndall Air Force Base,
    Camp Lejeune, and Offutt Air Force Base.
        Based on these readiness and resource impacts, do you believe it
    necessary to use more resilient designs in DOD infrastructure? If so,
    and if confirmed, how would you recommend that DOD better incorporate
    extreme weather resilience into engineering and designs?
        Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with USD(A&S), who is the
    lead for DOD installations, to identify areas in which USD(R&E) can
    support the engineering and design of more robust DOD infrastructure.
        Question. How can the Department better use existing authorities on
    extreme weather mitigation granted by Congress in recent NDAAs?
        Answer. I understand that Congress, through recent NDAAs, has been
    supportive of DOD's climate resilience efforts. For example, NDAA
    requirements incorporate climate considerations into building codes and
    mandate installation resilience planning. If confirmed, I will ensure
    that DOD continues to invest in innovative research and engineering to
    develop new tools and capabilities which can enhance DOD's efforts to
    leverage these new authorities.
                       international research cooperation
        Question. In your view, how should increased globalization of
    defense technology affect the Department of Defense's research and
    technology development and investment strategy?
        Answer. DOD needs to strike a careful balance across the goals of
    promoting US innovation base health, strengthening alliances, and
    controlling the spread of cutting-edge technology for military
    superiority. For critical technologies and programs, for example, DOD
    can apply appropriate protections that prevent technologies from
    falling into the wrong hands. DOD can also establish procedures to
    reinforce the integrity of our research enterprise. DOD can engage with
    the broader S&T community and its stakeholders to provide improved
    threat awareness, inform necessary controls, and develop best practices
    that can be institutionalized across the DOD S&T enterprise. DOD can
    also support the free exchange of ideas that is critical to U.S.
    research institutions and can support those institutions by expanding
    opportunities for international S&T partnerships. If confirmed, I will
    take these and other steps in order to development and investment
    strategy that strikes the proper balance between promoting and
    protecting critical technologies.
        Question. What do you perceive to be the most significant obstacles
    to effective international research and development cooperation, and,
    if confirmed, how would you address those obstacles?
        Answer. Currently, I am not aware of any substantive issues facing
    USD(R&E)'s ability to pursue international partnerships in S&T and I
    understand that USD(R&E) recently released a ``DOD International S&T
    Engagement Strategy.'' If confirmed, I will review this strategy,
    assess obstacles that may impede its implementation, and work to expand
    international collaboration in S&T.
        Question. How would increased international technology cooperation
    and procurement of foreign goods and services affect our domestic
    defense industrial base, in your opinion?
        Answer. DOD's international partners have similar defense and
    security objectives and are investing their own R&D dollars to increase
    their capabilities. By increasing technology cooperation, DOD can pool
    its investments and leverage expertise and ideas that increase the
    U.S.'s industrial base capabilities. Additionally, international
    partners garner a greater understanding and appreciation of U.S.
    industry through participation in international armaments cooperation
    programs. If confirmed, I would continue the close collaboration
    between USD(R&E) and USD(A&S) on these and other international efforts.
        Question. What best practices should govern Departmental monitoring
    and assessment of the research capabilities of our global partners and
    competitors, and of the global commercial sector?
        Answer. DOD could conduct a data-driven assessment of global
    research capabilities by leveraging the enormous amount of open-source
    data, engaging with international and private sector partners, and
    working with the intelligence community to identify promising research
    trends and developments.
                              test and evaluation
        Question. What are your views on the adequacy and effectiveness of
    the Department of Defense's development and operational test and
    evaluation activities?
        Answer. Thorough testing of a system in an operationally realistic
    environment is critical for informing acquisition decision making,
    identifying programmatic opportunities to apply additional engineering
    and risk mitigation resources, and ensuring operational readiness. I
    believe that DOD still has work to do to align its test activities with
    the new Adaptive Acquisition Framework and to ensure that test and
    evaluation processes are properly structured to assess software-
    intensive systems, new capabilities such as artificial intelligence-
    enabled autonomous systems, and to leverage new systems engineering
    approaches such as digital engineering.
        Question. What modifications would you recommend to the test and
    evaluation processes in the Department to more efficiently and quickly
    develop and deliver operationally effective and suitable technologies
    to the warfighter?
        Answer. I believe that the test community should be engaged earlier
    and continuously in programs as it undergoes design and development. If
    confirmed, I willwork closely with USD(A&S) and DOT&E to adopt more
    modern testing methodologies. .
        Question. What role do you believe OSD should play in developmental
    test and what type of organizational structure and staffing is required
    to effectuate this role?
        Answer. I believe that DOD needs to execute enough testing to
    ensure that warfighters are equipped with affordable, effective,
    suitable, and survivable systems. Such testing must be commensurate
    with the urgency of deploying a capability. I also believe that test
    and evaluation should be thought of as a continuum--breaking down the
    stovepipes that have traditionally constituted contractor testing,
    developmental testing, and operational testing. Early successful
    mission-based evaluation will be a critical enabler to assessing
    operational effectiveness earlier in the testing lifecycle and will
    provide more confidence that operational testing has completed
    successfully. If confirmed, I will review and implement an appropriate
    organizational structure to ensure that developmental test and
    evaluation is properly staffed and resourced and has the necessary
    authorities to achieve these and other objectives.
        Question. The Department continues to streamline its acquisition
    processes to increase the speed of policy and oversight decision-making
    and to enhance organizational alignment, yet three test organizations
    remain separate within OSD. Industry generally maintains only a single
    organization for all of its test & evaluation--a model of agility for
    the assessment of weapon systems.
        What are your views on the proposal to realign OSD Developmental
    Test and DOT&E organizations, together with the Test Resource
    Management Center, under the auspices of a single leader? Please
    explain your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review previous proposals to improve
    test and evaluation, including organizational restructuring, and will
    advance strategies that accelerate delivering high-quality, suitably-
    tested, technologically-superior capabilities to our warfighters.
                             small business issues
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work to ensure that the Small
    Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is an integral part of DOD
    modernization strategies and activities?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to leverage the nearly $2B
    annual investment in America's innovative small businesses via the
    SBIR/STTR programs to help achieve DOD's modernization goals. Through
    the DOD SBIR/STTR program, small businesses are already contributing to
    important areas of modernization. If confirmed, I would seek to
    understand the impediments to transitioning from Phase 1 to Phase 2 and
    the difficulties in making Phases 2 contract awards by engaging with
    small companies and then working with the Services address the
    situation.
        Question. If confirmed, how might you modify the SBIR program to
    improve the transition of S&T capabilities into acquisition programs?
        Answer. I understand that the DOD SBIR/STTR program is piloting the
    OSD Transition SBIR/STTR Technology (OTST) Program to incentivize SBIR/
    STTR technology transition into programs of record. I also understand
    that efforts may be underway to modify SBIR/STTR authorities to allow
    additional Phase II awards and to provide DOD more flexibility in
    funding levels. These steps could enable further maturation of
    technologies so they can be inserted and integrated into a program of
    record or fielded systems. If confirmed, I will review these and other
    initiatives and promote opportunities to leverage the innovation
    inherent in small businesses.
        Question. If confirmed, how might you modify the SBIR program to
    improve its ability to attract non-traditional defense contractors,
    such as small startup companies, as participants?
        Answer. Non-traditional defense contractors may require more
    assistance understanding proposal submission requirements, completing
    pre-contracting activities, enhancing cybersecurity, and understanding
    foreign disclosure requirements. If confirmed, I would increase
    opportunities to educate non-traditional contractors and provide
    assistance to them to do business with DOD.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve DOD's
    consideration of intellectual property rights as an incentive for small
    business to engage with the Department?
        Answer. Retention of intellectual property (IP) rights is an
    important consideration for small businesses when engaging with DOD. If
    confirmed, I would explore steps to improve DOD's treatment of IP
    rights.
        Question. What emphasis would you place, if confirmed, on
    participation by the acquisition community in setting research
    priorities for the SBIR program and in incorporating new technologies
    and methods into existing programs of record?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would explore opportunities to help SBIR/
    STTR technologies bridge the ``valley of death'' into existing
    programs. An example of prior transition successes: the prime
    contractor worked closely with the SBIR program offices and established
    an Industry Day with small companies. The prime contractor then stated
    the technical challenges that they have and requested ideas from small
    companies. The prime then worked closely with the small companies on
    creating the SBIR phase 1 contract and then the phase 2 contract.
    Subsequently, the technology was successfully transitioned into a
    program of record.
                              defense laboratories
        Question. What is your overall assessment of the technical
    capabilities and quality of Defense laboratories relative to their
    peers at the Department of Energy, and in Federally Funded Research and
    Development Centers (FFRDCs), industry, and academia--both foreign and
    domestic?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will perform an assessment of the technical
    capabilities and quality of the Defense laboratories.
        Question. What do you believe to be the most effective management
    and human resources approaches for personnel at these Defense
    laboratory facilities?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will take a look at the effectiveness of
    the human resources approaches for personnel at the Defense laboratory
    facilities.
        Question. If confirmed, would you support increased delegation of
    operating authority to lab directors? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support increased delegation of
    operating authority. I believe that delegation of authority to the lab
    directors has been an effective management tool for increasing lab
    director flexibility, creativity, and effectiveness. Furthermore, I
    would encourage the lab directors to further delegate their authorities
    to increase flexibility and creativity.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific steps, if any, would you take
    to improve the quality, technical capabilities, and mission performance
    of the Defense laboratories?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will perform an assessment of the quality,
    technical capabilities and mission performance of the Defense
    laboratories.
                                workforce issues
        Question. What is your perception of the particular workforce
    challenges confronting the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. Created in February 2018, USD(R&E) is still a relatively
    new organization that is working to establish roles and
    responsibilities, define processes, and chart its course. Complicating
    matters, USD(R&E) has been without confirmed leadership since July
    2020. If confirmed, I am committed to providing the leadership, vision,
    and consistency that USD(R&E)'s workforce deserves.
        Question. How do personnel authorities applicable to the Office of
    the USD(R&E) compare to the human resources flexibilities available to
    the DARPA and the Defense laboratories? Should these flexibilities be
    expanded to apply also to the Office of the USD(R&E) and other research
    and engineering components of the DOD? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. I understand that the Defense laboratories and DARPA have a
    number of personnel flexibilities that enable these organizations to
    compete in a highly competitive technical market to attract and retain
    critical technical talent and remain at the cutting edge. I also
    understand that these authorities may not be applicable to USD(R&E),
    which operates under the Acquisition Demonstration program. That said,
    I believe additional authorities may benefit USD(R&E) and other
    technical components of DOD to attract top talent. If confirmed, I will
    review opportunities to improve DOD's ability recruit and retain
    technical talent through all means, including by potentially leveraging
    new human resources flexibilities.
        Question. With a view to improving productivity, performance, and
    mission accomplishment, how would you work with the personnel policy
    and management communities in the Office of the Secretary of Defense
    and the Military Departments to enhance the human resources
    flexibilities available to DOD labs, test ranges, and other research
    and engineering components of the DOD?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will take a look at personnel policies with
    an eye to increasing flexibilities available to the DOD Labs, test
    ranges and other research & engineering components of the DOD.
        Question. How would you work with the DOD lab, test range, and
    other research and engineering components of the DOD to maximize
    utilization of human resources flexibilities currently in place or
    newly authorized?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with my counterparts in USD(P&R)
    as well as with the Service Acquisition Executives to ensure that they
    maximize the utilization of flexibilities available to them. I will
    also coordinate with my counterparts to ensure that, where appropriate,
    human resources flexibilities guidance is coordinated and consistent
    throughout the DOD.
        Question. What is your assessment of the diversity of the workforce
    comprising the research and engineering organizations of the Department
    of Defense?
        Answer. Women and minorities have been historically under-
    represented in both national security and in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. The diversity of
    professionals who work at the intersection of both national security
    and STEM has historically been quite poor. If confirmed, I am committed
    to strengthening DOD's STEM workforce by taking steps to increase its
    diversity.
        Question. How do you think improvements in workforce diversity
    would improve the productivity, performance, and mission accomplishment
    of such organizations? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. USD(R&E)'s effectiveness is dependent on its ability to
    attract the most talented workforce from across this nation. USD(R&E)
    must provide opportunities for a diverse workforce since diversity
    provides different ideas that enrich our innovation. The United State
    of America is known for its innovation based on its ability to attract
    a diverse population.
        Question. What steps, if any, would you take, if confirmed, to
    increase diversity in the research and engineering organizations of the
    Department of Defense?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will explore opportunities to increase
    diversity in the Department of Defense.
        Question. Some research and engineering organizations, including
    DARPA and DIU, have different challenges in increasing diversity due to
    their need for more experienced, mid-career talent. In your view, are
    there meaningful steps these organizations can and should take to
    improve diversity notwithstanding?
        Answer. Yes. Organizations like DARPA and DIU can take steps to
    ensure that they consider a diverse pool of candidates for all
    positions. For example, these organizations could proactively recruit
    diverse candidates, leverage hiring flexibilities to access diverse
    talent at universities, industry, and federally funded research and
    development laboratories (FFRDCs), and build networks of diverse,
    early-career candidates who might be interested in working for these
    organizations later.
                      joint all-domain command and control
        Question. The Joint Staff J6 leads a cross-functional team (CFT)
    for Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), which overlays and
    integrates similar but Service-specific multi-domain command and
    control and targeting initiatives. The J6 has received support from the
    Principal Director for Fully Networked C3 in the Office of the
    USD(R&E), as well as from the Director for Mission Integration. Among
    the major objectives of the JADC2 initiative are interoperability
    across platforms and systems of all the Services, in all domains,
    coupled with decision aids geared to vastly increasing the speed and
    scale of sense- and decision-making.
        What are your views as to the importance of the JADC2 CFT and the
    ways in which the Office of the USD(R&E) can and should assist in
    furthering the objectives of this initiative?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will look into the JADC2 program and assess
    opportunities to assist them to achieve their objective.
                                  space issues
        Question. Given that one purpose underlying the creation of the
    U.S. Space Force was to consolidate space activities, section 956 of
    the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) as
    clarified by section 1601 of the NDAA for fiscal year 2021, requires
    transfer of the Space Development Agency (SDA) from the USD(R&E) to the
    Space Force, effective October 1, 2022.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to effectuate the timely
    transfer of the SDA to the Space Force?
        Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to work closely with the Space
    Force leadership and the Director of SDA to ensure a smooth, orderly,
    and on time transition as called for in the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA.
        Question. Prior to the creation of Space Force, the Government
    Accountability Office commented on the functional overlap of myriad DOD
    space entities.
        Answer. Yes, it is my understanding that DOD has a myriad of space
    entities including SDA, the Space Force, Air Force Space & Missile
    Command, Space RCO, and the Missile Defense Agency. A review of these
    organizations' role and responsibilities and missions may be helpful to
    ensure alignment with warfighter needs, identify opportunities to
    reduce duplication, and to encourage inter-organizational
    collaboration.
        Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
    the Office of the USD(R&E) and the Space Force? How can the USD(R&E)
    best support space research and engineering, without duplicating
    functions properly assigned to the Space Force?
        Answer. As with USD(R&E)'s role in relation to the other services,
    USD(R&E)'s role with the Space Force is to support its research and
    engineering efforts and also serve to synchronize and de-conflict those
    efforts with others being conducted elsewhere in the Department.
                             missile defense agency
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to expedite the
    Missile Defense Agency's shift in focus to research and development and
    divestiture of management responsibilities for existing weapon systems
    to the Military Departments?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with MDA director to shift its
    focus towards research and development and work to enable transition of
    its existing weapons systems to the Military Departments.
        Question. What specific missile defense systems should be
    transferred to the Military Departments, in your view?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the director of MDA to
    assess production missile defense systems that should be transferred to
    the Military Departments.
        Question. Given the findings and recommendations set forth in a
    recent Government Accountability Office report (GAO-21-314) what are
    your views on the Missile Defense Agency's current developmental and
    operational testing function? If confirmed, which, if any, of GAO's
    recommendations would you implement, and why?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Director of MDA to
    assess the current Developmental & Operational testing functions and
    review GAO's recommendations before forming an opinion.
               defense advanced research projects agency (darpa)
        Question. What adjustments would you expect to make, if confirmed,
    in the current style of DARPA research program management and
    investment strategy?
        Answer. DARPA has an enduring mission to make pivotal investments
    in breakthrough technologies for national security. Working with
    innovators inside and outside government, DARPA has repeatedly
    delivered on that mission, recently demonstrated by early investments
    in mRNA research which are being applied to the COVID fight today. I
    believe DARPA's authorities and funding allow it the flexibility to
    explore new areas of discovery and to rapidly pivot to emerging
    threats. If confirmed, I would carefully review DARPA's approach and
    portfolio to see how its programs align with national defense
    priorities and address not only near-term threats but also those on the
    horizon and beyond.
        Question. What is the appropriate relationship between DARPA and
    the Military Service S&T programs and laboratories?
        Answer. DARPA should have a strong understanding of the Military
    Service S&T programs and robust working relationships with the
    laboratories. DARPA participates as a member of the Science and
    Technology (S&T) Executive Committee as well as the Reliance 21
    Communities of Interest where Military Service S&T programs as well as
    DARPA programs are reviewed and discussed. DARPA should also keep the
    Services and laboratories informed of its S&T programs to prevent
    duplication of effort and to seek technical and programmatic assistance
    in the execution of and transition of technologies to the Services.
        Question. What is the appropriate relationship between DARPA and
    Military Department acquisition programs?
        Answer. DARPA should have strong relationships with the Military
    Department acquisition and requirements communities to facilitate
    transition of DARPA technologies to programs of record. DARPA should be
    aware of Service's capability gaps, acquisition programs and understand
    opportunities to transition.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve
    DARPA's effectiveness in transitioning successful programs and
    innovations to the Services?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with DARPA and the
    Services to understand the impediments to transition and collaborate on
    a transition path.
        Question. Is there value in assessing and endeavoring to increase
    the diversity of the DARPA program management workforce? Please explain
    your answer.
        Answer. Yes, there is significant value in assessing and working to
    increase the diversity of the workforce across the Department. If
    confirmed, I will review ways to increase underrepresented community
    participation across the USD(R&E) ecosystem, and support DARPA in its
    initiatives to increase the diversity of its program management
    workforce.
                         defense innovation unit (diu)
        Question. What is your assessment of the effectiveness of the DIU
    in transitioning capabilities into operational use?
        Answer. I understand that in 2020, DIU increased its technology
    programs transition to the Services from 35% in 2019 to 43%. This
    transition means that the Service procured the DIU developed systems.
    Part of its success is attributed to early transition planning,
    securing support from DOD partner organizations' leadership, and
    fostering acquisition and operator involvement earlier in projects. If
    confirmed, I will work to ensure DIU continues to increase the
    transition rate.
        Question. What do you believe to be is the appropriate management
    framework for the DIU? Should DIU continue under current reporting
    chains or align under a new construct? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review the DIU reporting chain to
    ensure maximum synergy between the multiple prototyping organizations
    within USD(R&E) and throughout the Services.
        Question. What is your assessment of DIU's effectiveness in
    partnering with the Services to support development and transition of
    commercial technologies?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will review challenges that prevent greater
    commercial technology transition, which may include securing funding
    within a budget cycle when a project is successful and incentivizing
    programs to insert commercial technologies.
       science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education
        Question. Do you agree with the premise of some that the Department
    of Defense specifically, and the Nation as a whole, are facing a crisis
    in STEM education?
        Answer. I do agree with the premise that there is a crisis in STEM
    education, particularly for the Department of Defense. National
    security requires that the U.S. have access to a substantial, high
    quality STEM workforce, which is adept at navigating an increasingly
    high-tech, digital, and connected world. At the graduate level, there
    is an insufficient number of U.S. citizens being trained and receiving
    advanced degrees in technical and engineering areas. The work of
    energizing the future workforce through STEM education begins at the K-
    12 level, and if confirmed, I will seek to maximize the effectiveness
    of DOD's STEM education investments.
        Question. In your view, how have deficiencies in STEM education
    affected the Department's ability to execute its missions?
        Answer. Deficiencies in STEM education have limited the ability of
    young people to discover and pursue the key fields which undergird the
    future technologies of the Department. The presence of fewer students
    and researchers entering science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics fields also limits the breadth and frequency of
    breakthroughs in critical technology areas. The Department of Defense
    has to compete with commercial and defense industries for the limited
    pool of STEM talent. All of these deficiencies hurt the Department's
    ability to execute its missions.
        Question. What role do you think the Department should play in
    supporting STEM education writ large?
        Answer. DOD is the primary funding source of engineering and math
    research and education programs in the U.S. and, therefore, plays a
    significant role supporting STEM education. I believe that DOD has a
    responsibility to examine its current balance between education,
    recruitment, and management to see if these investments address
    technical workforce needs. The science and engineering challenges DOD
    faces today are highly complex and often intersect with more than one
    scientific discipline. DOD should think about how to ensure that our
    research funding encourages an interdisciplinary approach. Engaging
    foreign-born STEM graduates is also an important component to
    addressing DOD's workforce needs, and therefore, reviewing immigration
    challenges and considering options to streamline accesses or statuses
    is prudent and may even be necessary.
        Question. What role should the Department play in supporting STEM
    education opportunities for service members?
        Answer. The Department can encourage service members to take
    advantage of the educational opportunities and STEM programs available
    to them. If confirmed, I will work with USD(P&R) to identify possible
    synergies in supporting further STEM education opportunities for
    service members.
        Question. What role should the Department play in supporting STEM
    education opportunities for dependents of service members?
        Answer. Military dependents could benefit from DOD's various STEM
    education programs. The Department is uniquely positioned to provide
    meaningful STEM education opportunities for dependents of service
    members through formal and informal STEM activities. If confirmed, I
    will seek to leverage the scientists, engineers, laboratories, and
    engineering centers across DOD's STEM enterprise to appropriately
    support STEM opportunities for military children.
        Question. What role should the Department play in other K-12 STEM
    educational activities?
        Answer. Preparation of a capable, STEM-literate workforce of the
    future starts with improving K-12 STEM education in the U.S. In 2016,
    China produced 4.7 million STEM graduates, compared to 568K in the
    United States at the undergraduate level. This gap is significantly
    amplified by the fact that the U.S. continues to lag in math and
    science proficiency at the secondary level. Engagement at all levels of
    the STEM pipeline is critical, starting with increasing interest in
    elementary students in sciences. STEM outreach for high school students
    leads to higher retention, when students do pursue STEM degrees at the
    college level. As the largest employer of scientists and engineers
    across the federal landscape, the Department is uniquely positioned and
    should play a significant role in supporting STEM education through
    formal and informal activities which leverage the USD(R&E) enterprise
    and support students throughout all levels of the STEM pipeline.
                                     jason
        Question. If confirmed, would you support a proposal to transfer
    management of the JASON scientific advisory group to the Office of the
    USD(R&E)? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I would support transferring oversight
    of the JASON scientific advisory group to USD(R&E). The JASON
    scientific advisory group was established as an eminent cadre of senior
    scientists, engineers, and technical experts across various disciplines
    who support DOD through short-term, technically based studies. These
    studies provide technical recommendations that help DOD formulate new
    research programs and review current programs. These functions align
    with the statutory role of the Office of USD(R&E) and would provide
    very valuable synergy, if managed by USD(R&E).
                                 manufacturing
        Question. What role should DOD play in investing in manufacturing
    innovation and ensuring that the resultant innovations are adopted into
    defense industry and the organic industrial base?
        Answer. DOD should further its manufacturing innovation ecosystem
    by leveraging existing authorities under the DOD Manufacturing
    Technology Program to stimulate the early development of manufacturing
    processes and the adoption of enterprise business practices, as well as
    providing concurrent support for science and technology development. To
    increase its national impact and accelerate the adoption of technology,
    DOD should also continue its close partnership with the DOD
    Manufacturing Innovation Institutes and use these institutes as
    mechanisms for unifying the DOD, Federal agency, state/local
    government, and private-sector communities to collaboratively tackle
    manufacturing technology challenges for the benefit of the Nation and
    the warfighter.
        Question. What is your assessment of the performance and impacts of
    the DOD Manufacturing Technology program, including the Manufacturing
    Institutes?
        Answer. The DOD Manufacturing Technology Program is an ambitious
    program that meets cross-cutting defense manufacturing needs beyond the
    ability of any single service to address. If confirmed, I will assess
    the successes that MII has achieved and seek to continue the innovation
    institutes. I will review the ManTech program's long-term engagement
    strategy with the MIIs to help ensure maximum effectiveness.
                                microelectronics
        Question. If confirmed, specifically what steps would you take to
    ensure that the Department of Defense has assured access to the
    microelectronics it requires for defense systems?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my team in USD(R&E) and
    DARPA, as well as with USD(A&S), our counterparts across all interested
    federal agencies, and industry to ensure that the Department retains
    continued access to state-of-the-art and radiation-hardened
    microelectronics, which are essential to DOD's most critical missions.
    Microelectronics are an essential element of much of what the
    Department does and I look forward to working with the team to find new
    opportunities to keep the Department on the cutting edge of these
    technologies.
        Question. What is your assessment of the Department of Defense's
    microelectronics needs, to include both legacy, state-of-the-practice,
    and state-of-the-art?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Department is currently
    working on a comprehensive microelectronics strategy, as directed by
    the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA, which will capture the needs of the
    Department for legacy, state-of-the practice, and state-of-the-art
    microelectronics. If confirmed, I will work with my colleagues,
    USD(A&S), DARPA to complete that strategy and ensure that it is
    provided to Congress in a timely fashion.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    the Nation has an effective microelectronics research enterprise?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to seek out opportunities to
    advance USD(R&E) and DARPA's strong relationships with industry,
    academia, the Services' labs and other interested agencies. The task is
    difficult and reliance on DOD alone misplaced: DOD represents just over
    1% of the microelectronics market. We depend on the commercial market
    to stay at the cutting edge.
        Question. What role should the Department of Defense play in
    supporting the commercial microelectronics industry?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Administration's ongoing
    effort to ensure a robust domestic microelectronics industry that can
    support the commercial and national security needs of the nation.
        Question. What role should the Department of Defense play in
    working with the interagency regarding domestic production of
    microelectronics?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the USD(R&E) is an integral
    part of the interagency efforts to address matters relating to
    microelectronics research, development, manufacturing, and policy to
    develop a national strategy on microelectronics research, development,
    manufacturing, and supply chain security. If confirmed, I will pursue
    opportunities to promote domestic production of microelectronics
    important for meeting DOD needs.
        Question. Should the Department of Defense be dependent on foreign
    sources of microelectronics for its systems and programs?
        Answer. Due to the national security implications of
    microelectronics, the United States should remain a world leader in
    state-of-the-art microelectronics technology and manufacturing. .
    Military unique integrated circuits used in critical weapon systems
    should be designed and fabricated by from secure sources either within
    the United States or from our closest trusted allies.
        Question. There is a shortage in strategic radiation hardened
    microelectronics required for the ongoing nuclear modernization?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will look into whether we have a shortage
    of RADHARD microelectronics required for nuclear modernization.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you recommend to correct
    this unique deficiency?
        Answer. I will work with my colleagues in the Department and in
    industry to gain a full understanding of the current situation and
    identify what steps areneeded.
        Question. Section 276 of the fiscal year NDAA requires the
    Secretary of Defense to submit to the President by June 1, 2021, a
    strategy for microelectronics that includes innovative models of
    public-private partnerships for managing the execution of the strategy,
    including consideration of establishing a semiconductor manufacturing
    corporation. The same law requires that the strategy address the need
    for funding and other forms of support for the development,
    demonstration, prototyping, and scale up of new microelectronics
    technologies.
        If confirmed, what steps would you take to prioritize the
    development and implementation of this strategy? How would you proposed
    to partner with the Under Secretary for Acquisition & Sustainment on
    this issue?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my USD(A&S) counterpart to
    make sure the Department is on track to submit the strategy called for
    in the NDAA.
                     social science and management research
        Question. In your view, what benefits would defense missions derive
    from increases in DOD-funded research in the social, information, and
    management sciences?
        Answer. Increasingly, we have seen how areas important to the
    Department--such as cyber, AI, autonomy, insider threat behaviors,
    cross-domain deterrence, climate and environmental change, etc.--are
    complex interdisciplinary problems that need to be informed by social,
    information, and management science. By funding research in social,
    information, and management sciences, the Department can better guide
    cross-discipline research in areas that focus on DOD needs.
        Question. What are your specific ideas for enabling engagement
    between the DOD science and technology community and outside academic
    experts in areas such as business, management, and public
    administration, to perform research, participate in personnel exchange
    programs, and provide technical expertise to support the Department's
    efforts to improve its management and business practices?
        Answer. A challenge to outside academic experts performing research
    within DOD is in facilitating access to data that may be classified and
    require clearances. If confirmed, I will explore options for
    aggregating and anonymizing data for researchers to use. I will also
    explore personnel exchange programs that would both facilitate
    opportunities for academic researchers in business, management, and
    public administration to hold clearances for purposes of conducting
    research that is informed by an appreciation of the challenges of the
    DOD mission space. This would also provide DOD administrators the
    opportunity to spend time within academic environments, generating
    opportunities for integrating external best practices upon their return
    to the Department.
                               sexual harassment
        Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
    and Gender Relations survey, 17.7 percent of female and 5.8 percent of
    male DOD employees indicated that they had experienced sexual
    harassment and/or gender discrimination by ``someone at work'' in the
    12 months prior to completing the survey.
        What is your assessment of the current climate regarding sexual
    harassment, gender discrimination, and other harassment in the Office
    of the USD(R&E)?
        Answer. The existence of sexual harassment, gender discrimination,
    and other harassment within our ranks is deeply disturbing and the
    conduct is unacceptable. These actions destroy good order and
    discipline and foster a climate that is inconsistent with the dignity
    and respect that our workforce deserves. The Department must continue
    its work to eliminate sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination,
    and any other form of harassment. The Department must ensure consistent
    incident tracking, ensure responsiveness, and provide training for the
    workforce to improve outcomes and strive for workforce stability. If
    confirmed, I would review previous workforce assessments including
    climate surveys, OPM Federal employee viewpoint survey results, and any
    other documentation that would give me insight into the USD(R&E)
    organization and help me make informed decisions on next steps to
    mitigate, and hopefully eliminate, sexual harassment, gender
    discrimination, and any other harassment within the Office of USD(R&E).
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
    receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment,
    discrimination, or other harassment from an employee of the Office of
    the USD(R&E) or an employee of an organization over which the USD(R&E)
    exercises authority, direction, and control?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would immediately reiterate to the
    workforce of the importance of equality and diversity as well as the
    Department's zero tolerance for harassment. Second, I would further
    reiterate my expectations of professional conduct to all employees, to
    include contractors. More importantly, I would take the complaint
    seriously and immediately contact the appropriate office to initiate an
    investigation to gather all facts, conduct the necessary interviews,
    collected appropriate information, and address the complaint within the
    specified guidelines of DOD regulations and policies.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
    timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
    electronic communications, and other information from the executive
    branch.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
    communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                            space development agency
        1. Senator Reed. Ms. Shyu, the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law 116-92) created the Space Force to
    consolidate disparate functions of space throughout the Department of
    Defense (DOD). In response to that mandate, section 1601 of the Fiscal
    Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 116-283)
    requires the Space Development Agency to be an element of the Space
    Force, effective on October 1, 2022. Will you ensure this happens on
    time, according to the law?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes, I will do all that is in my authority to effect a
    timely transition of the SDA.
                   balancing the needs of oversight and speed
        2. Senator Reed. Ms. Shyu, in your respective positions, you will
    be responsible for development and accurately estimating costs, as well
    as oversight of programs. These activities require data and analysis,
    and take time. The activities also are part of a process, which needs
    to move faster. How will you balance these competing needs?
        Ms. Shyu. Prior to product development, it is critical to develop a
    detailed cost model of the proposed concept. That cost model should
    encompass all of the anticipated components in the design and is
    initially populated by ``engineering cost estimate.'' As the
    development progresses, the cost model should be continuously updated
    by ``supplier quotes'' then by ``actuals.'' As a function of time, the
    cost model becomes more accurate as the design of the system under
    development matures and the ``engineering estimate'' is updated with
    actual component cost. Once a prototype is built, an accurate cost
    model is then available.
                                  hypersonics
        3. Senator Reed. Ms. Shyu, should you be confirmed, your Principal
    Director for Hypersonics, Mr. Mike White, has stated that the testing
    of hypersonics technologies will dramatically increase over the next
    several years. Can you tell the committee if the Department has the
    testing infrastructure to successfully implement the strategic
    direction for hypersonics?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I will look into the testing infrastructure
    for hypersonics, assess its sufficiency and provide my assessment back
    to the Committee.
                          testing and key technologies
        4. Senator Reed. Ms. Shyu, in light of the previous question and
    your response regarding the increase in testing and the Department's
    testing infrastructure, where does reusable flight testing fit into
    your plans for advancing the key technologies?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I plan to conduct a comprehensive look at
    our test infrastructure and assess our current capabilities and planned
    improvements. If there are testing capability gaps, I plan to identify
    technology options and the associated costs and risks to close that
    gap.
                   key modernization priorities--hypersonics
        5. Senator Reed. Ms. Shyu, your predecessor in the position for
    which you are nominated identified a number of key modernization
    priorities. Can you tell the committee where one of those--
    hypersonics--will fit into your set of priorities for the Department?
        Ms. Shyu. Hypersonic systems provide critical deterrence capability
    for this nation. If confirmed, it will remain a priority area
    consistent with the current National Defense Strategy (NDS) and
    upcoming update to the NDS.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
                    risk taking in research and development
        6. Senator Hirono. Ms. Shyu, the position you are filling was
    created with the expectation that one would take risks, press the
    technology envelope, test and experiment, and have the latitude to
    fail, as appropriate. If confirmed, what policies or procedures would
    you implement to help foster a culture of risk-taking and an
    appropriate tolerance for failure within DOD?
        Ms. Shyu. There appear to be successful pockets of risk taking
    innovation at the DOD, but we must do more to ensure that DOD has a
    strong culture of innovation across its entire workforce and within the
    military services. If confirmed, I would look to emulate successful
    innovation practices from across the private sector, academia, our
    allies and partners, as well as do more of what DOD is already doing
    well.
        The USD(R&E) is chartered to develop technologies from basic
    research (6.1) through to prototyping (6.4). 6.1 research to 6.4
    prototyping is inherently risky since we are maturing brand new
    technologies. If confirmed, I will encourage lab experimentation to
    prototype development and testing early on to reduce technical risks
    for potential insertion into acquisition programs. USD(R&E) needs to
    collaborate with USD(A&S) and the Services to identify and transition
    the most promising technologies that bring increased capabilities to
    our warfighters. This joint collaboration can identify additional
    technology maturation that is needed prior to inserting into a program
    of record.

        7. Senator Hirono. Ms. Shyu, what policies or procedures would you
    implement to increase DOD collaboration and engagement with leading-
    edge technology companies that have not historically been a part of
    DOD's innovation ecosystem?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I plan to review how USD(R&E) communicates
    with both conventional defense contractors as well as how the DOD does
    outreach to companies that are new to the DOD innovation ecosystem. It
    will be important to understand the perspective and challenges facing
    small business and start-ups. If confirmed, I would develop an
    engagement strategy including a sequence of round-table engagements
    with commercial and non-traditional defense entities. Listening and
    understanding are the first steps to taking actions to remove
    impediments to collaboration and to engaging with leading-edge
    technology companies.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
                                     ethics
        8. Senator Warren. Ms. Shyu, I have long been concerned with the
    influence of money in politics and the cozy relationship between
    powerful special interests, corporations, and lawmakers and government
    officials--including the relationship between defense contractors and
    the Pentagon. In 2018, I introduced the Anti-corruption and Public
    Integrity Act, legislation to strengthen Federal laws governing
    conflicts of interest, recusals, and the revolving door between
    government and industry. In May 2019, I introduced a companion bill
    focused on the Defense Department, the Department of Defense Ethics and
    Anti-corruption Act. If enacted, the following requirements would apply
    to all senior DOD officials: (1) Four-year cooling off period for all
    senior DOD officials before they can seek compensation from a DOD
    contractor; (2) Extension of the existing prohibition on retired
    general and flag officers from lobbying DOD to 4 years; (3) Heightened
    recusal standard for DOD employees that would prohibit them from
    participating in any matter that affects the financial interests of
    their former employer for 4 years; and (4) A ban on senior DOD
    officials owning any stock in a major defense contractor and a ban on
    all DOD employees from owning any stock in contractors if the employee
    can use their official position to influence the stock's value. (This
    was adopted in the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA.)
        In response to my request at his hearing, Secretary Lloyd Austin
    committed to recusing himself from all matter involving Raytheon for
    the duration of his government service, not seeking a waiver from that
    recusal, and to not seek compensation from a defense contractor for a
    period of 4 years post government service. Will you make the same
    commitments as Secretary Austin?
        Ms. Shyu. I have no financial interests in the Raytheon company. I
    do continue to participate in a pension plan, the value of which is not
    based on Raytheon's financial performance, and my right to receive this
    previously earned benefit is unconditional and enforceable under the
    law. I have made extensive ethics commitments as requested by the
    Office of Government Ethics and documented in a written Ethics
    Agreement, which I have signed. My Ethics Agreement and the President's
    Ethics Pledge will require me, if confirmed and appointed, to recuse
    myself for a period of two years from participating personally and
    substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in
    which I know that a former employer or client identified in my Ethics
    Agreement is a party or represents a party, unless I am first
    authorized to participate by the appropriate ethics official. If
    confirmed, I agree to extend this term of my Ethics Agreement from two
    years to four years. I will ensure that I have a robust screening
    process in place to help implement these recusals. I have no intention
    to seek a waiver and no expectation that it will be required, but if
    unanticipated circumstances were to arise, I would consider available
    alternatives to a waiver before seeking one and would consult very
    carefully with DOD ethics officials.
        I have promised to abide by the extensive post-government
    employment ethics rules required by Federal law and the Biden
    Administration. I have faithfully complied with post-Government
    employment requirements following my prior service and will seek any
    post-government employment in full compliance with the applicable
    ethics rules.

        9. Senator Warren. Ms. Shyu, will you recuse yourselves from
    matters involving the companies you listed as compensating you for
    consulting, corporate board services, or other matters on your Office
    of Government Ethics Form 278 and on post government employment?
        Ms. Shyu. My Ethics Agreement and the President's Ethics Pledge
    will require me, if confirmed and appointed, to recuse myself for a
    period of two years from participating personally and substantially in
    any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know that a
    former employer or client identified in my Ethics Agreement is a party
    or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate by
    the appropriate ethics official. If confirmed, I agree to extend this
    term of my Ethics Agreement from two years to four years. I will ensure
    that I have a robust screening process in place to help implement these
    recusals. The screening arrangement does not create any exceptions,
    waivers, or modifications to my Ethics Agreement, but rather provides
    guidance to Department personnel to assist in implementation of my
    ethics requirements. I can pledge to you that I will be mindful of not
    only the legal requirements that govern my conduct, but also of the
    need to ensure that the public has no reason to question my
    impartiality, and I will consult with the Department's ethics officials
    should any questions arise. I will always place the good of our country
    and the men and women in uniform above all other interests.

        10. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall and Ms. Shyu, will you refrain from
    seeking a waiver on these recusals?
        Ms. Shyu. I have no intention to seek a waiver and no expectation
    that it will be required, but if unanticipated circumstances were to
    arise, I would consider available alternatives to a waiver before
    seeking one and would consult very carefully with Department ethics
    officials. If I am privileged enough to be confirmed, I can pledge to
    you I will be mindful of not only the legal requirements that govern my
    conduct but also of the appearances to ensure that the public has no
    reason to question my impartiality and I will consult with Department
    ethics officials on these issues and require everyone who serves with
    me to ensure public service is and will remain a public trust.

        11. Senator Warren. Mr. Kendall and Ms. Shyu, will you not seek
    compensation from a defense contractor for a period of 4 years post
    government employment?
        Ms. Shyu. I have promised to abide by the extensive post-government
    employment ethics rules required by Federal law and the Biden
    Administration, just as I have complied with the applicable ethics
    rules throughout my career in public service and private industry.
    These statutory and Administration provisions set forth comprehensive
    restrictions relating to acceptance of compensation from defense
    contractors, as well as communicating back to the Federal Government on
    behalf of any future employers and clients. I believe that these
    existing rules are appropriate and sufficient to protect the public
    interest. If confirmed, I will carry out the responsibilities of the
    Under Secretary of Defense for Researching and Engineering honorably
    and will fully comply with all applicable post-government employment
    restrictions, as I have done during previous transitions from public
    service to the private sector.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Gary Peters
               federally funded research and development centers
        12. Senator Peters. Ms. Shyu, you have extensive experience with
    the DOD Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and
    I trust you are familiar with the three-legged stool idea (distinct
    roles for government, industry, and FFRDCs) introduced by Secretary
    Ashton Carter. I want to talk about one piece of that--the independent
    analysis provided by studies and analysis FFRDCs. This uniquely
    American capability is used by the Department of Defense and military
    services and results in analysis and material that help inform
    discussions with Congress and the public that is critical to ensuring
    leaders across our national security apparatus can make the best
    decisions for our national security and our servicemembers. Long-term
    trusted advisors like these can shine a light on critical departmental
    challenges and potential solutions based solely on where the data takes
    them, and provide independent and objective analysis to DOD to support
    policy development and decision-making, something that is needed now
    more than ever. This expertise has been critical in addressing numerous
    challenges, including helping to address long-term, strategic
    competition and serious personnel challenges like sexual assault. Do
    you agree with this assessment and can you share with me how you
    envision your role in ensuring an environment where this kind of
    analysis is widely available and most effectively used?
        Ms. Shyu. I firmly believe that FFRDCs have an important role to
    play. Independent analysis is an essential aspect of the decision-
    making process that should be fully utilized in the DOD to inform
    leaders. In my prior position as the Army Acquisition Executive, I
    frequently leveraged FFRDCs to provide me an independent perspective on
    technologies, programs and potential options.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
                             armed forces readiness
        13. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Shyu, over several years this Committee
    has worked tirelessly to restore military readiness--across each of our
    services--to levels that would enable our success in a conflict. We've
    had some success, but there is STILL a lot of work to do. If you have
    not done so already, I recommend that every senior defense leader read
    T.R. Fehrenbach's ``This Kind of War'', which provides a cautionary
    tale of our Nation's failure to adequately fund and train our Armed
    Forces before the Korean War. The consequences were steep and American
    servicemembers paid with their lives. If confirmed, each of you--based
    on your positions--will invariably make decisions that directly or
    indirectly impact readiness. Accordingly, will you commit--if
    confirmed--to work with this committee and within the Department to
    ensure the readiness failures we endured in the Korean War do not
    happen again?
        Ms. Shyu. Yes.
                             strategy driven budget
        14. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Shyu, the National Defense Strategy
    Commission report, the two previous Senate-confirmed Secretaries of
    Defense, and the previous and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff have all stated the need for sustained 3 to 5 percent annual real
    growth to the Defense budget to implement the NDS, increase much-needed
    readiness, and advance long-overdue modernization. To further emphasize
    the need for consistent and increased funding, the NDS Commission
    report stated, ``America is very near the point of strategic
    insolvency, where its `means' are badly out of alignment with its
    `ends.''' This critical situation is negatively compounded by the Biden
    administration's proposal for a topline that does not keep pace with
    inflation. With these facts in mind, and understanding your ability to
    influence the budget will be limited to future year submissions, will
    each of you commit to advocating for a strategy-driven budget vice a
    budget-driven strategy?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I will commit to advocating for a strategy-
    driven budget, consistent with the policies of the President, the
    Secretary of Defense and the NDS.
                                missile defense
        15. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Shyu, Secretary Lloyd Austin has stated,
    ``Defense of the Homeland is a key priority for DOD and missile defense
    is a central component of this mission.'' Deputy Secretary Kathleen
    Hicks agreed by saying, ``Defense of the Homeland is a top priority for
    DOD and the Homeland missile defense system is an essential component
    to that mission.'' Would you agree with the statements made by
    Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks, and do you support robust
    funding for its modernization? Please elaborate on your views of
    missile defense and its contributions to our national security.
        Ms. Shyu. I agree with Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks
    that defending the homeland is a top priority. A layered missile
    defense strategy is a critical deterrent against sophisticated long-
    range missiles.

        16. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Shyu, in Admiral Philip Davidson's
    statement for the record--presented to this committee during the U.S.
    Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) posture hearing--he highlighted that:
    `` . . . North Korea will remain our most immediate threat.'' Admiral
    Davidson went on to state, ``Pyongyang maintains a diverse and growing
    missile inventory, and North Korea unveiled several new ballistic
    systems . . . including two SLBMs [submarine-launched ballistic
    missile] and an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile].'' Finally,
    Admiral Davidson concluded that, ``Pyongyang's missile research and
    development efforts . . . are consistent with the regime's stated
    objective of being able to strike the U.S. Homeland.'' Provided this
    characterization, and the very real and growing missile threat posed by
    North Korea, will you commit to prioritizing and accelerating
    modernization and fielding of our homeland missile defense systems to
    include the Next Generation Interceptor?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I will commit to prioritizing the
    development of our layered missile defense strategy consistent with the
    NDS. I will review the Missile Defense Agency's portfolio of research
    and development activities to ensure the United States has the
    capabilities, including the Next Generation Interceptor, that are
    required to defend the homeland against a potential missile strike from
    North Korea.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Kevin Cramer
              missile defense agency and space development agency
        17. Senator Cramer. Ms. Shyu, last year's NDAA, specified a pretty
    clear line of effort to further missile defense against hypersonic and
    weapons. It specified the Missile Defense Agency to develop a sensor
    payload to detect and track hypersonic and ballistic missiles from
    places like Russia and China, and the Space Development Agency to
    integrate the sensor into its satellites and space architecture. Given
    both agencies will be under your supervision, if confirmed as the Under
    Secretary for Research and Engineering (R&E), can I get your commitment
    that you will follow the law and congressional intent to avoid
    duplication and quickly field a system to protect our troops from
    hypersonic and ballistic missiles in theater?
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I will commit to reviewing the Space
    Development Agency as well as the Missile Defense Agency. I will follow
    the law and congressional intent to avoid duplications and quickly
    field a system to protect our troops from hypersonics and ballistic
    missiles.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
                         emerging technology transition
        18. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Shyu, do you see opportunities for the
    Pathfinder model, which enables academic researchers to co-design
    technology with warfighter insights, to grow and to deliver emerging
    technologies at the speed of relevance?
        Ms. Shyu. The Pathfinder model seems promising in that it allows
    researchers and users to co-design technologies collaboratively. This
    can enable a product to be designed quickly with operation in mind. If
    confirmed, I will review this model and look for areas where it can be
    more broadly applied.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Tommy Tuberville
                                  hypersonics
        19. Senator Tuberville. Ms. Shyu, what specific advancements in
    hypersonics do you believe the Department of Defense should be focused
    on to meet the threats that face the United States? Please explain your
    answer.
        Ms. Shyu. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that DOD hypersonics
    efforts are aligned with the NDS. If confirmed, I will assess current
    hypersonics efforts and once briefed on all programs including
    classified efforts, provide more detail in the appropriate setting.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of Honorable Heidi Shyu follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The biographical sketch of Honorable Heidi Shyu, which was
    transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
    referred, follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Honorable
    Heidi Shyu in connection with her nomination follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the Committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the Committee's executive files.]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

        [The nomination of Honorable Heidi Shyu was reported to the
    Senate by Chairman Reed on June 10, 2021, with the
    recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
    was confirmed by the Senate on July 22, 2021.]
                                    ------

        [Prepared questions submitted to Ms. Susanna V. Blume by
    Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
    follow:]

                            Questions and Responses
                                     duties
        Question. What is your understanding of the duties and functions of
    the Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE)?
        Answer. CAPE provides decision support and independent analysis to
    the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. It does so through three
    primary lines of effort: programmatic decision support during the DOD's
    annual Program Budget Review process, independent cost assessment and
    oversight of Analyses of Alternatives to support the acquisition
    community, and leadership in the Department's analytic community.
        Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
    the duties and functions of the Director of CAPE, as set forth in
    section 139a of title 10, United States Code, and in Department of
    Defense (DOD) regulations pertaining to functions of the Director of
    CAPE?
        Answer. I believe the duties and functions entrusted to the
    Director of CAPE, and set forth by section 139a of title 10 and DOD
    regulations, are critical to the effective management and resource
    prioritization within the Department. Although I do not have any
    recommendations for changes at this time, if confirmed, I look forward
    to working with Department leadership and the Congressional Defense
    Committees to ensure the Director of CAPE continues to have the
    authorities and resources necessary to effectively execute the
    organization's mission.
                                 qualifications
        Question. What background and experience do you have that you
    believe qualify you for this position?
        Answer. As Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and Plans to then-
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, working closely with the Director
    of CAPE and the Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, I supported
    the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on every critical programmatic
    decision made during that three year period. After leaving government,
    I went to the Center for a New American Security where my researched
    focused on the core functions of CAPE, developing recommendations for
    using the Department's programming process to align the size and shape
    of the Joint Force with the defense strategy.
        Question. Specifically, what background and experience do you have
    in the acquisition of major weapons systems?
        Answer. As Deputy Chief of Staff for Programs and Plans to then-
    Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work, I worked very closely with the
    Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to support
    the Secretary and Deputy Secretary on the most difficult acquisition
    challenges facing the Department. During my time as Director of the
    Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, I did
    significant research on the history of defense acquisition reform
    efforts and developed ideas and recommendations for future reform
    efforts.
        Question. What leadership and management experience do you possess
    that you would apply to your service as Director, CAPE, if confirmed?
        Answer. For the first three months of the Biden Administration, I
    performed the duties of the Director, CAPE, leading the organization
    through a challenging transition. Prior to that, I was Director of the
    Defense Program at the Center for a New American Security, where I
    successfully led my team through a period of substantial growth despite
    the COVID-19 pandemic.
                        major challenges and priorities
        Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish?
        Answer. If confirmed as Director of CAPE, my top priority would be
    supporting the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary in making the most
    difficult programmatic decisions they face using rigorous independent
    analysis. I would also continue to build CAPE's cost analysis
    capability, focusing on sustainment costs and emerging technologies.
    Last but not least, I would work to build the Department's joint
    analytic capability, ensuring that future DOD leaders have the best
    information possible when making difficult choices.
        Question. In your view, what are the major challenges you would
    confront if confirmed as Director of CAPE?
        Answer. In my view, the biggest challenge facing any Director of
    CAPE is effectively prioritizing the organization's relatively small,
    but extremely talented workforce against the full range of difficult
    analytic problems facing the Department. Doing so requires a relentless
    focus on the highest priority challenges facing the Secretary and
    Deputy Secretary of Defense.
        Question. If confirmed, what management actions and timelines would
    you establish to address each of these challenges?
        Answer. Effective prioritization of CAPE's bandwidth will require
    relentless focus on the highest priority challenges facing the
    Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. If confirmed, I look forward
    to working with the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and the Congress to
    make sure CAPE has the resources, workforce, and expertise it needs to
    fulfill its mission.
        Question. Do you believe the CAPE office would benefit from
    periodic outside expert reviews of CAPE's capabilities, processes, and
    decisions? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Any organization could benefit from outside expert review,
    but the purpose and objectives of such a review should be very clearly
    defined from the outset, otherwise the result can be the generation of
    solutions in search of problems. In my experience, outside expert
    review is most useful during times of significant institutional turmoil
    or change. If confirmed, I would be open to soliciting an outside
    expert review of CAPE tailored to specific objectives, should
    circumstances warrant it. More broadly, I welcome the views of outside
    experts on a wide range of specific issues facing CAPE, and if
    confirmed, intend to solicit those views as a routine practice in the
    course of CAPE's work.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you plan to rebuild in OSD the
    analytical capability and expertise that has been lost--as documented
    in the assessment and recommendations of the National Defense Strategy
    Commission?
        Answer. If confirmed, rebuilding the Department's joint analytic
    capability would be a high priority for me. DOD has significant
    analytic talent, capacity, and capability. However, there are gaps,
    especially at the joint and defense-wide level. My priority, if
    confirmed, would be to work with core stakeholders in the analytic
    community to resolve known gaps in joint analysis and better integrate
    quantitative analysis with war-gaming, experimentation, and exercises.
    I also believe that more work is needed on data collection, knowledge
    management, and modeling. If confirmed, I would work with the
    Department's leadership to advance analytic capability that directly
    supports senior leader decision making.
        Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to balance the Director of
    CAPE's competing roles of representing independent and realistic
    analyses and supporting the President's Budget priorities at the same
    time?
        Answer. One of CAPE's primary responsibilities is ensuring that
    decisions on the President's Budget priorities are underpinned by
    independent and rigorous analyses. If executed correctly, the two
    should not be in conflict. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that
    this is the case.
        Question. To what extent should CAPE be involved in policy or
    political judgments, in your view?
        Answer. CAPE's mission is to provide independent, unbiased,
    rigorous analysis to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense.
    CAPE does not make policy decisions, but its independent analysis can
    be used by policy makers to inform their decisions.
        Question. Do you believe the functions assigned to CAPE on the
    dissolution of the DOD Chief Management Officer position are
    appropriate for performance by CAPE?
        Answer. As I understand it, Deputy Secretary Hicks is still
    reviewing the previous Administration's recommendations for the
    dissolution of the CMO organization. If confirmed, I look forward to
    supporting the Deputy Secretary in those deliberations. In my view,
    there are functions previously performed by CMO that could be
    appropriately reassigned to CAPE.
        Question. In your view, does CAPE have an adequate number of
    appropriately skilled personnel to perform these functions?
        Answer. I believe that the Deputy Secretary's review will allow for
    the transfer of personnel and resources to support any new functions
    assigned to CAPE.
        Question. In your view, does the Director of CAPE have a role to
    play in promoting civilian control over the military?
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. If so, how do you view that role?
        Answer. The Director of CAPE is responsible for providing
    independent analysis to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense,
    giving the senior-most civilian leadership of the Department unbiased
    information on which to base their decisions. In doing so, CAPE
    supports the Secretary of Defense in meaningfully reviewing and making
    decisions on Service resource requests, ensuring that the Future Years
    Defense Program is aligned with his and the President's priorities and
    the defense strategy.
                            relations with congress
        Question. For years, CAPE made available its independent analyses,
    recommendations, and analysts to Congressional members and staff to
    help Congress understand the choices and tradeoffs being made by the
    DOD.
        What are your views on the state of the relationship between the
    Director of CAPE and the Senate Armed Services Committee in particular,
    and with the Congress in general?
        Answer. If confirmed, my intent is for CAPE to have a transparent,
    direct, and responsive relationship with Congress. I will ensure that
    the CAPE staff understands that timely and accurate communication with
    the oversight committees is critical to me and my vision for CAPE.
        Question. Should the Director of CAPE be authorized to have more
    direct and independent communications with the Congress, similar to the
    Director of Operational Test and Evaluation?
        Answer. I believe that CAPE presently has sufficient authority to
    communicate with Congress, but if this Committee or others are not
    receiving what they need from CAPE, I would welcome a conversation
    about how to ensure that CAPE can provide any necessary information, if
    confirmed.
        Question. How do you plan to balance your concurrent but competing
    roles of representing independent and realistic analyses and supporting
    the President's Budget priorities?
        Answer. One of CAPE's primary responsibilities is ensuring that
    decisions on the President's Budget priorities are underpinned by
    independent and rigorous analyses. If executed correctly, the two
    should not be in conflict. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that
    this is the case.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
    productive and mutually beneficial relationship with the Congress?
        Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to an open and transparent
    relationship with Congress and would deliver timely responses to
    requests for information. I would also be open to receiving feedback on
    how CAPE can better support Congress's oversight of the Department.
       the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (ppbe) process
        Question. In 1961, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
    created the framework of the current PPBE process. As the core decision
    making process by which the Department of Defense (DOD) decides how and
    on what it spends its money, the PPBE process operates to connect
    strategic objectives with resources. While the process has undergone
    some changes in the intervening decades, it remains essentially intact.
        Do you believe the PPBE process needs to be reformed? If so, how?
        Answer. Every process has room for improvement. The current PPBE
    process has many merits; it is inclusive of stakeholders across the
    defense enterprise; it is comprehensive in its scope; and it creates
    multiple opportunities to inject rigorous analysis into the decision-
    making process. However, I do believe that there are changes that the
    Department and Congress can make to build more flexibility and agility
    into an already robust process. If confirmed, I look forward to working
    with the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, and the defense oversight
    committees to define and implement appropriate and necessary updates.
        Question. What changes would you recommend, if any, to the PPBE
    process with a view to improving resourcing decisions within DOD to
    help the Department take advantage of emerging technologies or address
    emerging threats?
        Answer. I believe the PPBE process needs to become more agile to
    accommodate the dynamic technological and threat environments facing
    the Department. There are multiple ways to build additional agility
    into the process, some within the control of the Department, while
    others will require close cooperation with Congress to implement. If
    confirmed, I look forward to working with other DOD leaders, and the
    defense oversight committees to define and implement solutions in this
    space.
        Question. In your view, is the PPBE process flexible enough to
    enable DOD to make programmatic changes within the annual budget cycle?
        Answer. I believe this is an area where the current PPBE process
    could be improved. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the
    Deputy Secretary, the Comptroller, and Congress to build additional
    flexibility into the process.
        Question. The current PPBE process is largely driven by bottom-up
    programming from the Military Departments. You have previously written
    in support of proposals to give the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy
    Secretary of Defense additional control over allocation of resources by
    reserving a certain amount of resources for their allocation at the end
    of the process. What do you view as the pros and cons of such
    proposals?
        Answer. A resource reserve provides the Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary with flexibility to respond to strategic shifts and emerging
    priorities by allocating resources later in the PPBE process; this
    comes at the cost of limiting programmatic options for the Military
    Departments earlier in the process. Because of this tension, it is
    important to strike the right balance between limiting options and
    providing flexibility. If confirmed, I am committed to working with the
    Deputy Secretary and other Department leaders to strike this balance
    and ensure the PPBE process is responsive and effective.
                           cost assessment practices
        Question. In your opinion, what factors cause differences in the
    cost estimates calculated by CAPE and the non-advocate cost assessment
    reflected in the service cost positions?
        Answer. Cost estimates prepared by different organizations should
    rarely produce identical results. Cost estimates necessarily require
    subject matter expertise which can lead to different assumptions,
    different evaluations of program risk, and different cost estimating
    relationships, which taken together affect the results of cost
    estimates. However, I would note that since the passage of WSARA in
    2009, there have been fewer than ten life cycle cost estimates where
    the difference between the CAPE independent cost estimate and the
    service cost position has exceeded 10%. In fact, the median difference
    between CAPE and service cost estimates has been 2.0% over that time
    period. The Department has increased collection of actual cost data
    from contractors, which has improved the realism and accuracy of all
    DOD cost estimates. If confirmed, I intend to continue to emphasize
    this in order to produce realistic cost estimates.
        Question. Some assert that the accuracy of cost estimates could be
    improved by estimating the range of costs, rather than a set cost
    estimate? What is your view of such proposals?
        Answer. I believe that representing a range of costs is appropriate
    in some cases, especially for programs in their early phases. For
    example, prior to Milestone A, a program's cost data may be of poor
    quality, the program may be poorly defined, or there may be ambiguity
    on assumptions which could affect the cost estimate. For cases like
    these, I would support including a range of costs in estimates.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to increase the
    fidelity and accuracy of independent cost estimates for major defense
    acquisition programs?
        Answer. There is opportunity to improve the fidelity and accuracy
    of independent cost estimate for major defense acquisition programs,
    especially in the area of operations and sustainment cost estimating.
    If confirmed, I would support CAPE's current efforts to improve its
    cost data collection systems, historical cost reporting systems, and
    continue development of the new Enterprise Visibility and Management
    and Oversight of Operating and Support Cost (EVAMOSC) database to be
    able to better track and assess O&S costs and improve cost estimation
    over a system's life cycle.
        Question. In your view, what more strategic data planning and
    collection is required across the Department to provide better
    independent cost estimates?
        Answer. It is my understanding that CAPE is continuing to make
    strides improving the collection, accessibility, and timeliness of cost
    data. Particularly with recent implementation of the FlexFile concept
    that provides government analysts access to data provided directly from
    contractor internal business systems in modern, machine-readable files.
    Additionally, CAPE continues to improve the Cost Assessment Data
    Enterprise (CADE) system, and updates internal DOD Instructions and
    Manuals as needed to ensure standardized reporting processes and
    consistent cost data collection across the newly available Adaptive
    Acquisition Framework (AAF) pathways. Despite these proactive steps to
    pre-emptively adapt many processes, I anticipate further requirements
    for change as the Services fully implement the AAF. If confirmed, I
    look forward to working with the Services and Defense-wide agencies to
    ensure we adapt data planning and data collection as necessary.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you resource and champion the
    CAPE and cost community workforce and the Cost Assessment Data
    Enterprise to ensure sufficient capacity and capability, continued
    partnership, unity of effort, and sharing of data across the cost and
    acquisition communities?
        Answer. Section 139a of title 10 gives the Director of CAPE the
    responsibility to lead the development of improved analytical skills,
    competencies, tools, and data in support of cost assessment. CAPE has a
    long history of successfully collaborating across the Department in the
    advancement of these goals. If confirmed, I would continue this work to
    advance the state of the art in each of these areas.
        Question. What major shortfalls do you perceive in the Department's
    ability to estimate program development, procurement, and life-cycle
    costs?
        Answer. I see opportunities where improvements in the collection of
    O&S cost data, expansion of the cost data collection for middle tier
    Acquisition programs, software costing, and additional education and
    training of the cost assessment workforce could improve the
    Department's ability to estimate program costs. If confirmed, I look
    forward to pursuing improvements in each of these areas.
        Question. What steps would you take to address these shortfalls, if
    confirmed?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would support the continued development and
    expansion of the Enterprise Visibility and Management and Oversight of
    Operating and Support Cost (EVAMOSC) to capture O&S costs. I would also
    focus on updating education and training related to new acquisition
    pathways and new data and analytic capabilities. I would explore
    approaches to estimating software costs that are better suited to the
    structure of those programs. Finally, I would consider whether the
    Department should levy more traditional cost estimating approaches for
    middle-tier acquisition programs.
        Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would to take to
    implement the direction from Congress in the Joint Explanatory
    Statement accompanying the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) to the Director, CAPE, the Defense Digital
    Service, and the directors of developmental test and operational test
    and evaluation, to incorporate lessons learned from the implementation
    of sections 873 and 874 of the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA, and sections 215
    and 869 of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA in the development of guidance and
    oversight procedures for managing, estimating, and assessing software
    programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure CAPE continues to
    identify new sources of data to determine meaningful, informative cost
    estimating relationships for assessing software programs. I would also
    ensure that meaningful cost estimates are produced as early as possible
    to inform milestone decision authority decision making, working with
    the acquisition community to develop a process to permit meaningful and
    timely input. I would also examine whether CAPE's current approach to
    developing software cost estimates is suited to the structure of those
    programs.
        Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you ensure CAPE uses
    improved metrics and cost estimation assumptions in a recognition that
    software must be continually maintained and developed to meet
    warfighter and DOD institutional needs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I commit to looking at whether CAPE's current
    approach to estimating software costs is suited to the structure of
    those programs. I would also ensure that CAPE continues to work with
    USD(A&S) and the Service Cost Agencies to identify, develop, and
    implement improved metrics and cost estimation assumptions for
    evaluating software programs.
                               program evaluation
        Question. The Director of CAPE is responsible for the review,
    analysis, and evaluation of programs for executing approved strategies
    and policies, and for assessments of alternative plans, programs, and
    policies with respect to the acquisition programs of the Department of
    Defense.
        What is your view of the significance of independent review,
    analysis, and evaluation of programs, and assessments of alternative
    programs, to the effective management of the Department of Defense?
        Answer. Effective management of the Department entails ensuring
    programs align with strategy and are cost-effective. Independent
    reviews play key roles in this process. CAPE's analyses of program
    alternatives provide Department leadership with independent comparative
    assessments of performance, cost, and schedule risks to help inform
    acquisition decisions. CAPE's independent cost estimates further refine
    Department understanding of cost and schedule risks to help inform
    program resourcing decisions.
        Question. Do you see the need for any changes or improvements to
    the organization, process, or methodology used by the Department for
    such review, analysis, and assessments?
        Answer. Every process and organization has room for improvement. If
    confirmed, I am committed to continual evaluation of CAPE and its
    processes, making adjustments where warranted.
        Question. In your view, does the Director of CAPE have the
    staffing, authority, access to information, and resources needed to
    carry out this function?
        Answer. I believe CAPE currently has the necessary authorities to
    execute its functions. I also believe that CAPE generally has access to
    the data it needs, however, there is certainly room for improvement in
    the way the Department collects and manages data. Improvement in this
    space consistent with the Deputy Secretary's Five Data Decrees would
    make it easier and more efficient for CAPE to meet its analytic
    objectives. If confirmed, I am committed to assessing these needs, and
    advocating for any additional resources necessary to ensure CAPE
    continues to effectively accomplish its missions.
        Question. In your view, how should the Director of CAPE interact
    with service acquisition executives, program executive officers,
    program managers, and other program officials in preparing independent
    evaluations of major defense acquisition programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I am committed to closely collaborating with
    Service Acquisition Executives and their staffs in a fully transparent
    manner. Collaboration and transparency are important to building
    lasting partnerships that ensure independent assessments are based on
    common datasets and include the equities and perspectives of all
    stakeholders.
        Question. What role should the Director of CAPE play in assessing
    and evaluating management, business, and organizational functions,
    initiatives, and activities within the Defense Department?
        Answer. CAPE has long played a key role in providing independent
    analyses and assessments of Departmental reform initiatives. If
    confirmed, I am committed to working with the Deputy Secretary of
    Defense and other Department leaders to ensure CAPE continues to
    provide independent evaluations of Departmental reform efforts.
        Question. If confirmed, what safeguards will you put in place to
    ensure CAPE does not advocate policy or pre-judge a policy decision
    more properly in the purview of other DOD officials?
        Answer. CAPE fulfills a critical independent evaluator role in the
    Department. CAPE makes no decisions; rather it provides independent
    analysis and alternatives to the Department's decision makers for their
    consideration. In this role, CAPE informs Department acquisition and
    resourcing deliberations by examining multiple alternatives and
    ensuring the costs, benefits, risks, and perspectives of all
    stakeholders are fully articulated for each option. If confirmed, I am
    committed to ensuring CAPE continues to function as a non-advocate
    provider of independent analysis while collaborating closely with all
    stakeholders.
                              technology maturity
        Question. The Navy spent approximately $1 billion on 10 Remote
    Multi-Mission Vehicles (RMMVs), semi-submersible Unmanned Surface
    Vehicles (USVs), prior to cancelling the program in 2016, primarily due
    to unacceptable reliability.
        What is your understanding of the RMMV program?
        Answer. My understanding is that RMMV was a component of the Mine
    Countermeasure (MCM) module for the Littoral Combat Ship. It is my
    understanding that Navy cancelled this program after encountering
    multiple significant issues with both reliability and performance.
        Question. What lessons learned should DOD take from the RMMV
    program, in your view?
        Answer. Although I have limited familiarity with the reasons for
    this program's cancellation, I believe DOD should ensure proposed
    investments are grounded in analysis complete with assessments of
    operational utility, cost-benefit, and technological risk.
    Additionally, robust analysis should not end at program initiation. DOD
    should continually assess programs to ensure performance, cost, and
    schedule goals are met for continued return on investment.
        Question. Based on the RMMV experience, do you believe that
    critical, but unproven subsystems for large unmanned vessels should be
    prototyped and proven prior to procurement of an entire large unmanned
    system? Please explain your answer.
        Answer. Prototyping and land-based testing can be critical
    components of a successful acquisition program. With regards to large
    unmanned vessels, I am committed to a rigorous Analysis of Alternatives
    to ensure the operational and technological risks associated with those
    systems are well understood prior to full-rate production.
        The committee understands that, based primarily on an CAPE-led
    analysis, the Navy's Fiscal Year 2020 budget request included
    procurement of 10 Large Unmanned Surface Vessels (LUSVs) in the Future
    Years Defense Program at a cost of approximately $3.1 billion. Although
    LUSVs may have performed well in analysis, they do not currently exist
    as envisioned. LUSVs evolved from conceptual analysis to a large budget
    plus-up for production without a rigorous technology risk assessment or
    engineering development plan to guide development. The Committee
    understands that Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) USVs, intended to
    provide risk reduction for the Navy LUSV program, have demonstrated
    less than one week of continuous operation, as compared to the minimum
    Navy requirement of 30 days, and are approximately 25 percent of the
    size by tonnage of a Navy LUSV. These key shortfalls mean SCO USV
    lessons learned will have limited applicability to the Navy LUSV
    program.
        Question. How should CAPE analysis and recommendations inform
    budget requests regarding new capabilities that do not exist?
        Answer. I believe that CAPE plays a critical role in helping the
    Department strike the right balance between the imperative to deliver
    advanced capabilities to the warfighter in a timely manner and the
    desire to reduce technological risk in new programs. I cannot speak to
    the decisions behind the fiscal year 2020 budget request, but if
    confirmed I intend to ensure that CAPE analyses seek this balance.
        Question. How important is it, in your view, for the Department to
    mature its technologies with research and development funds before
    these technologies are incorporated into product development programs?
        Answer. I believe maturation of new technologies is critical to the
    success of programs. Targeted and robust R&D funding, combined with
    rigorous prototyping and experimentation, can reduce risk before
    technologies are incorporated into programs.
        Question. What role do you see for the Director of CAPE in ensuring
    that key components and technologies to be incorporated into major
    acquisition programs meet the Department's technological maturity
    goals?
        Answer. Technology maturity of components is a key factor in major
    acquisition programs. If confirmed, I will work with the Under
    Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for
    Research and Engineering, the Director of Operational Test and
    Evaluation, the Services and others to ensure that technology
    components have a robust prototyping, testing, and experimentation
    plan. If programs are unable to reach an adequate level of maturity,
    changes can be made as part of the acquisition or annual Program Budget
    Review processes.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you approach the task of ensuring
    that any CAPE recommendation is technologically mature and technically
    sound, or reflects a plan to achieve this level of knowledge, prior to
    including the program to which it applies in a budget request?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that CAPE works with Under
    Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment, the Under Secretary for
    Research and Engineering, the Director of Operational Test and
    Evaluation, the Services and others to ensure that promising
    technologies have robust prototyping, testing, and experimentation
    plans. If programs are unable to reach an adequate level of maturity,
    changes can be made as part of the acquisition or annual Program Review
    processes.
        Question. When CAPE identifies a new, promising concept that may
    entail new platforms or capabilities, how should the Department ensure
    there is a rigorous engineering-based process to transition the concept
    into a DOD acquisition program?
        Answer. New, promising concepts, regardless of their origin, can be
    assessed through Analyses of Alternatives (AOA), requirements
    documents, and work conducted by relevant program offices. CAPE works
    closely with other OSD components and the Services throughout the AOA
    process to ensure promising technologies have a robust prototyping,
    testing, and experimentation plan as concepts are transitioned into a
    DOD acquisition program. CAPE writes AOA guidance, co-chairs priority
    reviews, and determines analytic sufficiency.
        Question. What do you envision as the most effective relationship
    between the Director of CAPE and the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)) in regard to obtaining technology
    readiness assessments and other engineering-based knowledge to inform
    CAPE recommendations on concept development, new acquisitions (e.g.,
    LUSVs), or changes to existing acquisitions?
        Answer. I envision a transparent and collaborative relationship
    between CAPE and R&E to assess technology readiness and other
    engineering-based knowledge for concept development, new acquisitions,
    or changes to existing acquisitions. This would include assessments
    throughout the Program Review and acquisition processes in addition to
    more informal and frequent exchanges.
        Question. If confirmed, what changes to the Director of CAPE-
    USD(R&E) relationship or other Director of CAPE relationships would you
    consider to improve the technical foundation of concept development,
    new acquisitions, or changes to existing acquisitions recommended by
    CAPE?
        Answer. In conducting its independent analyses, CAPE must work very
    closely with organizations across the DOD enterprise, including
    USD(R&E). If confirmed, I intend to work openly and transparently with
    other OSD components, the Services, the Joint Staff, and Combatant
    Commands to ensure that CAPE's analysis is fully informed by the
    expertise resident in all of these organizations.
        Question. Section 8669b of title 10, U.S. Code, established a
    Senior Technical Authority for each class of naval vessels.
        What is your understanding of the requirements of section 8669b?
        Answer. The establishment of an independent Senior Technical
    Authority represents an important step to establish, monitor, and
    approve technical standards for each class of naval vessel to ensure
    their timely production, and to monitor systems engineering,
    technology, and ship integration risks.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you work with Senior Technical
    Authorities to ensure they are able both to comply fully with their
    statutory duties for naval vessels and to inform CAPE analysis of the
    technical aspects of naval vessels?
        Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy to ensure that the
    CAPE staff is well-connected with the Senior Technical Authorities and
    has all the necessary information to provide Department leadership
    independent assessments of naval programs.
                              acquisition process
        Question. What is your understanding of the role of the Director of
    CAPE in the acquisition process?
        Answer. CAPE's role is to provide acquisition support on cost
    analysis and analysis of alternatives (AOA). CAPE prepares independent
    cost estimates of major weapons systems as well as leadership and
    support of the broader DOD cost community, ensuring that acquisition
    decisions are informed by realistic cost estimates. CAPE also provides
    guidance for and assessments of AOAs, ensuring that decision makers
    consider trade-offs among effectiveness, suitability, and life-cycle
    costs (or total ownership costs, if applicable) of alternatives that
    satisfy established capability needs among a comprehensive set of
    potential materiel solutions. CAPE's expertise in cost analysis ensures
    that acquisition decisions are based on a realistic understanding of
    the resources available, and that the Department remains a good steward
    of taxpayers' dollars while providing critical capabilities to
    warfighters.
        Question. What is your view of the significance of sound, unbiased
    cost estimating throughout the acquisition process?
        Answer. Credible schedule forecasts and cost estimates are
    essential to managing successful acquisition programs. Realistic cost
    and schedule estimates are foundational to having a predictable program
    that delivers as promised and has the necessary resources to fully
    implement the acquisition program.
        Question. What is your understanding of the role of the Director of
    CAPE in the requirements development and resource-allocation processes?
        Answer. In my view, the Director of CAPE plays key roles in both
    processes. CAPE participates as an advisor in the Joint Requirements
    Oversight Council process run by the Joint Staff to develop
    requirements. The Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief
    Financial Officer and the Director of CAPE share the leadership of
    resource allocation processes that lead to the annual President's
    Budget submission and the Future Years Defense Program.
        Question. Do you see the need for any additional processes or
    mechanisms to ensure coordination between the budget, acquisition, and
    requirements systems of the Department of Defense and to ensure that
    appropriate trade-offs are made between cost, schedule, and performance
    requirements early in the acquisition process?
        Answer. I believe the current processes and authorities are
    sufficient, if paired with very close coordination among OSD
    components, the Joint Staff, and the Services. If confirmed, I intend
    to pursue an intensely collaborative approach to ensure that decision
    makers are supported by rigorous analysis when considering these trade-
    offs.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that CAPE provides
    analytical options for decision makers so that they can make informed,
    data driven choices on acquisition programs?
        Answer. Supporting DOD's decision makers with data-driven analyses
    and options is the core business of CAPE. If confirmed, I would
    continue CAPE's long tradition of rigorous independent analysis while
    also continuously seeking to improve upon it by looking for ways to
    improve access to and quality of data, seeking out new analytic
    approaches, methodologies, and models, and applying CAPE's analytic
    talent to the Secretary's highest priorities.
        Question. What role do you see for the Director of CAPE in
    controlling cost growth on the Department's major defense acquisition
    programs?
        Answer. CAPE's role is both prepare independent cost estimates and
    to provide leadership across DOD's cost community, ensuring that
    acquisition decisions are informed by realistic estimates of a
    program's total cost. To this end, CAPE expanding and improving its
    ability to estimate sustainment cost, building a new sustainment cost
    database (EVAMOSC) which will be available to the cost community across
    DOD.
        Question. What role do you see for the Director of CAPE in
    performing CAPE functions for middle tier acquisition programs and
    other adaptive acquisition pathway efforts?
        Answer. It is my understanding that CAPE participates in the Middle
    Tier Acquisition governance board to assist in steering and providing
    oversight of Middle Tier Authorities for acquisition programs. CAPE
    also prepares and approves cost data collection plans for Middle Tier
    Prototyping and Fielding programs. In addition, CAPE has updated
    internal DOD Instructions and Manuals to align its processes with each
    of the acquisition pathways for consistency with proper timelines and
    requirements. If confirmed, I would work closely with Departmental
    leadership to ensure that middle tier acquisition programs and the use
    of other adaptive acquisition pathways meet the need to innovate
    rapidly, but in a way that continues to make the best use of taxpayer
    dollars.
                     financial management and auditability
        Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the
    Department of Defense's efforts to achieve a clean financial statement
    audit?
        Answer. The Department's audit effort is led by the Under Secretary
    of Defense (Comptroller) Chief Financial Officer. My understanding is
    that DOD has made considerable progress in auditability over the past
    several years, but still has much work to do before all components can
    achieve a clean audit opinion.
        Question. Especially for the purposes of cost control and program
    evaluation, how would the Department of Defense benefit during the
    process of undertaking full financial statement audits, and what
    further benefits would accrue once the Department is able to achieve
    and maintain a clean financial statement audit?
        Answer. The ability to produce quality analysis is wholly dependent
    on availability and accessibility of quality data. Any initiative in
    the Department to improve data collection and consolidation will
    benefit CAPE and the DOD analytic community, and the process of working
    towards a clean financial statement audit should improve both the
    quality and accessibility of financial data across DOD.
        Question. If the Department of Defense improves its internal
    controls and achieves a clean audit, do you expect the Department would
    also improve its ability to control acquisition costs and estimate
    costs of development, procurement, and sustainment of systems and
    services? Why or why not?
        Answer. I expect the high fidelity data associated with a clean
    audit would improve the Department's ability to estimate and manage
    costs across the acquisition lifecycle. Better data on actual incurred
    costs will enable better management on programs in real time and should
    improve the data sets available for estimating costs on new programs in
    the future.
        Question. In your view, what impediments hinder the Department's
    ability to achieve a clean audit and if confirmed, how would you lead
    CAPE in helping to address these impediments?
        Answer. A clean audit opinion for the DOD is difficult due to the
    sheer size and complexity of the organization. There are many factors
    that complicate a DOD audit, not all of which can be resolved by simply
    increasing resources dedicated to the process. However, if confirmed I
    would work closely with the DOD Comptroller to evaluate any resource
    requests necessary to enable audits are thoroughly considered during
    the annual Program Budget Review process.
        Question. In your view, how can CAPE's efforts to improve data
    collection and analysis contribute to broader efforts to improve
    financial management in the Department of Defense?
        Answer. CAPE's data collection and distribution efforts, such as
    Cost Assessment Data Enterprise (CADE), improve the accessibility and
    usability of high quality data for financial, programmatic, and
    operational analysis across the Department.
                                      data
        Question. What is your assessment of the Defense Department's
    ability to efficiently collect data on its systems and processes to
    inform analysis and decision making?
        Answer. My view is that the Department has made considerable
    progress in this area over the past several years, though much work
    remains to be done. I believe the Department has a robust approach
    underway to address financial and cost data. Those efforts need to be
    sustained and expanded to address other critical factors the
    Department's leaders need when making important decisions. Operational,
    personnel, readiness, and force development all deserve additional
    attention to ensure efficient data collection. If confirmed, I am
    committed to working with the Chief Data Officer to improve data
    collection, accessibility, and use in decision making in accordance
    with the Deputy Secretary's Five Data Decrees.
        Question. If confirmed, what initiatives will you undertake to
    improve the Department's use of data in its processes?
        Answer. CAPE collects and uses data to support its core mission of
    producing independent cost, program, and strategic analyses. If
    confirmed, I am committed to reinforcing CAPE's focus on data driven
    analysis. I would also want to partner with the Chief Data Officer and
    other stakeholders to set priorities for data reform efforts, revise
    data policies, and identify necessary resources to ensure data is
    managed as a strategic resource.
        Question. What are the barriers that prevent the Department from
    collecting the data it needs to analyze and improve its processes and
    programs?
        Answer. There are technical, policy, and cultural barriers that
    prevent DOD from fully maximizing the utility of its data. In my
    experience, a few examples include limitations of legacy IT systems,
    complications due to classification and need-to-know requirements, and
    cultural resistance to change.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to help the
    Department overcome these barriers?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Chief Data
    Officer and other stakeholders to prioritize data reform efforts,
    revise and enforce data policies, and identify investments needed to
    ensure data is available to people, processes, and platforms.
        Question. In your view, what areas of DOD operations and management
    would benefit from improvements in the use of data, with a view to
    improving the Department's mission execution or management processes?
        Answer. I believe the regular use of data to underpin operational
    and management decisions at the Department level is critical. There
    have been significant efforts to improve the use of data for such
    decisions, which is encouraging. Budget transparency, personnel
    management, strategy implementation, force management, and acquisition
    program management are all areas that I believe could benefit from
    continued progress in this area.
        Improved data and software infrastructure for better decision
    making and analyses and warfighting is a major priority for Congress.
    The Director of CAPE is the leader of the Department's cost and program
    analysis community.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize improved strategic
    data collection and improved software infrastructure in both the cost
    and program analysis communities, and in the conduct of strategic
    reviews of the Services' investments?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would look to build on the success of
    CAPE's CADE database, which has improved the accuracy of cost estimates
    not just within CAPE, but across the DOD cost community. I would
    continue to support development of CAPE's new sustainment cost
    database, EVAMOSC. More broadly, I would work with DOD's Chief Data
    Officer to improve data collection, accessibility, and use across the
    Department in accordance with the Deputy Secretary's Five Data Decrees.
                                   workforce
        Question. If confirmed, how would you view your role as the
    Director of CAPE in leading and spearheading improvements in and
    development of the cost and program analytical community across the
    Department?
        Answer. If confirmed as the Director of CAPE, I would continue to
    build the analytical skills and cost competencies of the Department's
    analytical workforce to advance data driven decision support, with
    particular focus on the education and training of the analytical and
    cost assessment workforces.
        Question. Does CAPE currently have the resident capacity and
    capability in its workforce to adequately meet all assigned mission
    tasks, while providing personnel with adequate professional development
    opportunities?
        Answer. CAPE's workforce is incredibly talented, but the
    organization's ability to provide in-depth decision support to the
    Department's senior-most leadership is limited by the organizations
    current manning. If confirmed, I would support a sustainable and
    executable growth path for CAPE.
        Question. In your view, does DOD as a whole have sufficient
    capability and capacity in its cost and program analytical workforce?
        Answer. DOD has significant analytic talent, capacity, and
    capability, much of it resident in the Services, but there are gaps,
    especially at the joint and defense-wide level.
        Question. Where might the Department improve in this area, in your
    view?
        Answer. In my view, the Department could better integrate
    quantitative analysis with war-gaming, experimentation, and exercises.
    I also believe that more work is needed on data collection, knowledge
    management, and modeling. If confirmed, I would work with the
    Department's leadership to advance analytic capability that directly
    supports strategic decision making.
        Question. The Joint Staff has repeatedly indicated that it does not
    possess the analytical capacity or capability to carry out certain
    tasks assigned to it. In your view, is it an appropriate use of CAPE
    resources to devote workforce time to meet those Joint Staff
    shortfalls?
        Answer. It is my understanding that CAPE's workforce is already
    stressed to execute the tasks assigned to it, and does not at present
    have excess capacity. I also do not believe CAPE is, or should be, the
    only organization capable of providing analytically rigorous decision
    support to DOD's most senior leaders. If confirmed, I would direct
    CAPE's finite analytic resources towards the Secretary and Deputy
    Secretary's highest priorities.
        Question. If confirmed, what would be your priorities for
    improvement in the quality and expertise of the cost and program
    analytical community?
        Answer. CAPE is a leader of the analytical and cost community,
    working with all of DOD's analytic organizations to identify analytic
    priorities, coordinate work plans, improve tools, improve data
    availability, and manage knowledge. Together, the analytic community
    has identified opportunities to improve the analytic institution in
    areas such as security, knowledge management, and availability of data
    and tools in new domains such as cyber. If confirmed, my priority will
    be improving education and training, data collection and accessibility,
    and ensuring the community has access to more powerful analytic tools.
        Question. What is your assessment of the diversity of the CAPE
    workforce? If confirmed, what specific efforts would you undertake to
    diversify CAPE's workforce and what benefit would you hope to derive
    from each such effort?
        Answer. CAPE has improved the diversity of its workforce in recent
    years, but work remains to be done in this area. Creating a diverse
    workforce takes constant attention and if confirmed, I would be
    committed to supporting diversity in the CAPE organization. I would
    prioritize two areas: first, recruitment to ensure diversity across the
    organization and second, providing a supportive and inclusive
    environment where all employees have the opportunity to gain
    experience, grow, and be rewarded based on merit. It is my belief that
    the organization will benefit from the creativity and alternative views
    that come from a workforce comprised of people with diverse backgrounds
    and perspectives.
                               space acquisition
        Question. According to a study by the Government Accountability
    Office (GAO), fragmented leadership has undermined the Department of
    Defense's ability to deliver space capabilities to the warfighter on
    time and on budget. Fractured decision-making and many layers of
    bureaucracy have been long-time sources of concern in this regard.
        Do you believe the Department's existing space acquisition
    structure is sufficient?
        Answer. The Department's space acquisition structure incorporates
    many of the same checks and balances as acquisitions in other
    capability areas. The recent Adaptive Acquisition Framework reforms
    provide options to streamline some of these layers of bureaucracy where
    appropriate. The use of this Framework is still evolving and, if
    confirmed, I would work with other Department leaders to evaluate
    improvements to DOD's space acquisition structure.
        Question. What is your opinion on the congressionally directed
    changes in this structure since the stand-up of the U.S. Space Force?
        Answer. The consolidation and elevation of space acquisition
    responsibilities in the Space Force places a needed spotlight on these
    critical and complex capabilities. If confirmed, I look forward to
    working with acquisition and programming officials of the Space Force.
        Question. What additional changes are necessary and appropriate, in
    your view?
        Answer. With the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, the Department has
    a wider range of options for executing space acquisition programs.
    Within this range of options, the Department should seek the right
    balance between speed and oversight. If confirmed, I would work with
    the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and
    Sustainment and the U.S. Space Force to identify what acquisition
    practices are unnecessary barriers and may be slowing the process, and
    which provide a valuable assessment of technical, cost, and/or schedule
    risks.
        Question. When would you expect the Space Alternative Acquisition
    Report to be transmitted to Congress?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Force is the lead for
    this report. If confirmed, I will ensure that CAPE does what it needs
    to do to support timely delivery to Congress.
        Question. In your view, how might CAPE studies and assessments
    support more competition in the launch of Department of Defense
    payloads?
        Answer. It is my understanding that the Space Force's National
    Security Space Launch program office maintains a portfolio of launch
    options to ensure the Department can cost effectively procure launches
    for its mission-critical payloads while also encouraging the
    development of a range of smaller, new providers. As the launch market
    matures, CAPE studies may have a role in assessing the technical
    maturity of new entrants, estimating the range of payloads that may be
    good candidates for expanded launch competition, or validating expected
    cost savings from new contracts.
           department of defense information technology (it) programs
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to promote
    changes in Department of Defense efforts to improve the development and
    deployment of major IT systems and IT service acquisition programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work with DOD Chief Information
    Officer, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment,
    and the Services, to assess best practices and incorporate them into
    the DOD acquisition process for IT systems and services.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you endeavor to shape DOD efforts
    to undertake business process reengineering before initiating new
    business systems, and IT program development and deployment?
        Answer. Business process reengineering is a critical foundation of
    any new business and IT system. It is my understanding that the Office
    of the Under Secretary of Dense for Acquisition and Sustainment has
    established business process reengineering as a required component of
    the Business Capability Acquisition Cycle process. The execution of
    these efforts rely on a firm understanding of business requirements,
    creative thinking, and a willingness to embrace change. If confirmed, I
    would work with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
    Sustainment and other Department leaders to ensure business process
    reengineering is an integral part of assessing any new business system.
        Question. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will assess the
    development and deployment of defense business IT systems and report
    back to this Committee on the findings and recommendations resulting
    from your assessment?
        Answer. If confirmed, I commit to working with other Department
    leaders to assess the development and deployment of defense business IT
    systems and report findings and recommendations to Department
    leadership, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional
    Defense Committees, as appropriate.
        Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
    business IT systems developed or deployed by DOD are sufficiently
    aligned with best commercial business practices?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work to increase awareness within the
    Department of recommended commercial practices, and consider critical
    tradeoffs between commercially available solutions and DOD unique
    requirements. While some best practices are most effectively enforced
    through contract language, CAPE can play a critical role in guiding
    DOD's IT programs toward better practices and outcomes through
    effective program oversight and reporting requirements.
                                industrial base
        Question. In your view, how should CAPE factor the health and
    viability of the industrial base when developing cost estimates?
        Answer. A healthy industrial base is essential to U.S. national
    security, and in order to produce accurate cost estimates, CAPE
    analysts must have a thorough understanding of the defense industrial
    base.
                             science and technology
        Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the role
    that Department of Defense science and technology programs and
    organizations have played and will play in developing capabilities for
    current and future defense systems?
        Answer. DOD S&T programs and organizations have and will continue
    to play a central role in developing current and future defense
    capabilities. Nearly every revolutionary advance in U.S. military
    capability has origins in the DOD S&T programs that fund research in
    federal, academic, and industrial laboratories. The key role of S&T
    investment is to develop the next generation of emerging and disruptive
    technology that will enable the rapid delivery of superior capabilities
    to the warfighter.
        Question. If confirmed, what metrics would you use to judge the
    value of the DOD level of investment in science and technology
    programs?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the S&T
    investment is both adequate in meeting the Department's mid- and long-
    term strategic goals, and balanced between a robust basic research
    program, applied research, and advanced technology development. CAPE
    would continue analyzing the value of DOD S&T investment levels through
    metrics such as cost effectiveness, technological risk, potential
    operational benefit, and impact in developing the U.S. Science,
    Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) workforce for defense and
    national security.
        Question. What role can research and technology programs that
    develop new methodologies or capabilities in areas like cost analysis,
    data analytics, and operations research play in developing new tools,
    techniques, and processes for use by the Director of CAPE?
        Answer. Programs that develop new and more effective ways of
    conducting cost assessments and operations research play the role of
    key enablers for CAPE's mission to provide timely, insightful, and
    impartial analysis. If confirmed, I would ensure that the CAPE team has
    access to the latest analytical tools and techniques to help DOD
    leadership make smarter, timely decisions in an increasingly complex
    national security environment.
        Question. Are there any specific programs on which DOD should focus
    in this regard?
        Answer. From what I understand, the Department writ large, and CAPE
    in particular, are pushing forward with a number of initiatives to
    improve the quality of data, the ease of collection, the analysis of
    that data, and the visualization for senior leadership. If confirmed, I
    would work closely with other organizations including DOD's Chief Data
    Officer to push the Department forward in this area consistent with the
    Deputy Secretary's Five Data Decrees. CAPE also continuously develops
    new analytic approaches and models, and if confirmed, I would seek to
    continue this practice and ensure that CAPE's innovations in this area
    are shared across the Department.
        Question. Should the Office of Cost Assessment and Program
    Evaluation dedicate greater resources to assessing future enabling
    capabilities (e.g., cyber forces and capabilities, artificial
    intelligence warfighting applications, biotechnology)? Please explain
    your answer.
        Answer. If confirmed, I would evaluate CAPE's priorities and
    distribution of resources for assessing future enabling capabilities.
    CAPE's people are its most valuable asset in providing insightful
    analysis for decision support. Taking guidance from the Secretary and
    Deputy Secretary and working with the CAPE leadership team, if
    confirmed I would determine if it is necessary to reallocate limited
    resources to meet the goals and future direction of the Department,
    including key enabling capabilities, or advocate for additional
    resources to fully address these issues.
        Question. Do extant Office of Cost Assessment and Program
    Evaluation operations research capabilities and methods lend themselves
    to these kinds of analyses?
        Answer. Yes, I believe so. CAPE has a strong track record of
    analyzing future enabling capabilities across the organization. If
    confirmed, I would examine the use of current tools to address these
    issues, identify any gaps, and develop new capabilities and methods as
    necessary.
        Question. If confirmed, how would you plan to build and maintain a
    team of experts and the methodological toolkits to effectively assess
    the rapidly evolving emerging technologies that will be critical to the
    future warfighter?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would work to maintain the culture of CAPE,
    which is characterized by a desire to rapidly acquire new knowledge
    across emerging technological fields. CAPE's highly talented workforce
    is capable of assessing new technologies and their potential impacts on
    future operations. I would continue CAPE's tradition of hiring talented
    professionals who have demonstrated analytical ability and expertise
    across many different emerging technical fields.
        Question. How can advanced commercial- and government-developed
    data collection, management, and analytics techniques and systems be
    used to support the activities of the Director of CAPE?
        Answer. CAPE's core competencies in cost assessment and program
    evaluation depend on advanced data collection and analytical
    techniques. A combination of strong analytical talent and data
    management systems are fundamental to CAPE's ability to quickly and
    effectively answer critical questions needed to shape and implement the
    Secretary of Defense's priorities and direction.
                                     cyber
        Question. Offensive cyber operations offer the potential to disrupt
    adversary command and control, deter adversary senior leadership, and
    nullify adversary kinetic operations; our own cybersecurity
    vulnerabilities could allow adversary cyber forces to achieve the same
    effects.
        How does the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
    assess whether broad mission areas like cyber demand more or less
    investment?
        Answer. It is my understanding, that in general, CAPE provides
    analysis and options to balance performance and risk within individual
    mission areas (e.g. cyber) and across multiple mission areas (e.g. non-
    kinetic and kinetic approaches) in the context of supporting
    warfighting objectives.
        Question. Does the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation
    have a role in assessing the costs and benefits of major policy and
    regulatory measures--for example, the Cybersecurity Model Maturity
    Certification program?
        Answer. As I understand it, CAPE supports this kind of decision
    when directed by the Secretary of Deputy Secretary.
        Question. If the office does not currently have a role in these
    types of assessments, should it?
        Answer. If confirmed, I plan to learn more about these processes
    and determine if and how CAPE could add value.
        Question. In your view, does the office have the relevant expertise
    and technical capability to execute such assessments?
        Answer. CAPE personnel have a broad range of expertise and deep
    technical ability. With those attributes, CAPE personnel are able to
    collaborate with subject matter experts to leverage additional
    expertise and provide independent technical assessments.
                             command climate survey
        Question. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will administer a
    command climate survey to the Office of Cost Assessment and Program
    Evaluation?
        Answer. My understanding is that CAPE leadership, as a matter of
    long standing practice, routinely surveys the CAPE workforce on the
    organization's climate. If confirmed, I will continue this practice.
        Question. Will you commit that, if confirmed, you will brief the
    Senate Armed Services Committee on the results of the command climate
    survey you administer and any actions you plan to take in response to
    those results?
        Answer. If confirmed, I would be happy to share the results of any
    command climate survey that I may administer and brief the committee on
    any follow up actions that I may take.
                               sexual harassment
        Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
    and Gender Relations survey, 17.7 percent of female and 5.8 percent of
    male DOD employees indicated that they had experienced sexual
    harassment and/or gender discrimination by ``someone at work'' in the
    12 months prior to completing the survey.
        What is your assessment of the current climate regarding sexual
    harassment, gender discrimination, and other harassment in the Office
    of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation?
        Answer. I am not presently aware of any issues involving harassment
    or discrimination within CAPE. If confirmed, I would immediately seek
    to validate this understanding, and act swiftly if there are issues of
    which I am not presently aware. Further, I would ensure that CAPE
    leadership and staff understand my commitment to maintaining an
    inclusive workplace that is welcoming and supportive of all team
    members.
        Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
    receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment,
    discrimination, or other harassment from an employee of the Office of
    Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation?
        Answer. If I were to be confirmed as the Director of CAPE and
    became aware of a complaint of discrimination or harassment of any
    kind, I would immediately notify the appropriate Human Resources and
    Equal Employment Opportunity offices and launch an independent inquiry
    into the complaint. I would take complaints of this nature very
    seriously, enforce accountability at all levels, leverage opportunities
    to train and educate leaders and the staff, and reiterate my stance
    that this kind of behavior has no place in the workplace or anywhere
    else. I would also ensure that CAPE has workplace policies and
    practices in place that promote respect, civility, and inclusion for
    all, leveraging the work of CAPE's existing Diversity and Inclusion
    Working Group.
                            congressional oversight
        Question. In order to exercise legislative and oversight
    responsibilities, it is important that this committee, its
    subcommittees, and other appropriate committees of Congress receive
    timely testimony, briefings, reports, records--including documents and
    electronic communications, and other information from the executive
    branch.
        Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on request,
    to appear and testify before this committee, its subcommittees, and
    other appropriate committees of Congress? Please answer with a simple
    yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    provide this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees
    of Congress, and their respective staffs such witnesses and briefers,
    briefings, reports, records--including documents and electronic
    communications, and other information, as may be requested of you, and
    to do so in a timely manner? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    consult with this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate
    committees of Congress, and their respective staffs, regarding your
    basis for any delay or denial in providing testimony, briefings,
    reports, records--including documents and electronic communications,
    and other information requested of you? Please answer with a simple yes
    or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    keep this committee, its subcommittees, other appropriate committees of
    Congress, and their respective staffs apprised of new information that
    materially impacts the accuracy of testimony, briefings, reports,
    records--including documents and electronic communications, and other
    information you or your organization previously provided? Please answer
    with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, and on
    request, to provide this committee and its subcommittees with records
    and other information within their oversight jurisdiction, even absent
    a formal Committee request? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    respond timely to letters to, and/or inquiries and other requests of
    you or your organization from individual Senators who are members of
    this committee? Please answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
        Question. Do you agree, without qualification, if confirmed, to
    ensure that you and other members of your organization protect from
    retaliation any military member, federal employee, or contractor
    employee who testifies before, or communicates with this committee, its
    subcommittees, and any other appropriate committee of Congress? Please
    answer with a simple yes or no.
        Answer. Yes.
                                     ______

        [Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
                   balancing the needs of oversight and speed
        1. Senator Reed. Ms. Blume, in your respective positions, you will
    be responsible for development and accurately estimating costs, as well
    as oversight of programs. These activities require data and analysis,
    and take time. The activities also are part of a process, which needs
    to move faster. How will you balance these competing needs?
        Ms. Blume. Striking this balance is absolutely critical to ensuring
    U.S. military preeminence in the coming decades. DOD must field new
    capabilities on relevant timelines, but failure to exercise appropriate
    oversight in the process could result in delays, wasted resources, and
    failed programs. The use of new acquisition processes holds the promise
    of quicker and lower cost acquisition efforts that would benefit the
    Department, but they do require changes in Department processes. CAPE
    has already updated its instructions and manuals to align processes
    with the relatively shorter time horizons associated with many of the
    new acquisition pathways.
        Additionally, CAPE is continuing to make investments in important
    data systems which help to speed data collection and cost estimating
    for the entire DOD cost analysis community. The Cost Assessment Data
    Enterprise (CADE) increases analyst productivity and effectiveness by
    collecting, organizing, and displaying data in an integrated web-based
    application, which improves data quality, reporting compliance, and
    provides a single, authoritative source for the data across the
    Department. CAPE also recently awarded a contract for the design,
    development, and operation of the Enterprise Visibility and Management
    and Oversight of Operating and Support Cost (EVAMOSC) system, which
    will enable the Department to better track and assess O&S costs to
    improve cost estimation over a system's life cycle.
        If confirmed, I will continue to support CAPE's investments in
    these important data systems and I look forward to working with A&S,
    the Services, and Defense-wide agencies to address any further
    requirements for changes to systems and policies as the Services fully
    implement the Adaptive Acquisition Framework and to ensure appropriate
    oversight.
                         acquisition program reporting
        2. Senator Reed. Ms. Blume, congressional oversight of acquisition
    programs has long relied on Selected Acquisition Reports, which provide
    consistent summary level cost, schedule, and performance data on DOD's
    costliest weapon programs. Given the Department's new Adaptive
    Acquisition Framework and the risks and requirements of the various
    pathways, in your opinion, what are the key elements of program
    performance that are needed to perform effective oversight on DOD's
    acquisition programs in each pathway?
        Ms. Blume. As users of the Selected Acquisition Reports, CAPE has a
    vested interest in the availability of SAR-like data. It is my
    understanding that CAPE has been supporting the A&S-led Data
    Implementation Group (DIG) to determine what data should be included in
    the dashboard that the Department is developing to replace the SARs.
        I also think that as the Department moves beyond SARs, it is
    important that we continue to collect, aggregate, and report data in
    way that allows us to evaluate the cost, schedule, and performance of
    the total system on a continuous basis. Even though a major system may
    be comprised of efforts in multiple pathways, with hardware and
    software being on different pathways for example, we must bring the
    information together in a way that allows the Department and Congress
    to evaluate the lifecycle cost of the complete system.
        If confirmed, I will continue to support the DIG to ensure that DOD
    develops a method to collect and report information to assess the cost,
    schedule, and performance of the total capability of major systems,
    regardless of the number of pathways they use, both for internal use
    and to support Congressional oversight.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
                                    radomes
        3. Senator Shaheen. Ms. Blume, the North Warning System is a joint
    United States and Canadian early-warning radar system for the
    atmospheric air defense of North America. It provides surveillance of
    airspace from potential incursions or attacks from across North
    America's polar region. Currently, the individual radars are protected
    from the harsh arctic environment with radomes that utilize technology
    more than 50 years old that delaminate and require regular replacement
    and repainting to maintain operations, which is very costly.
        Section 1651 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization
    Act (NDAA) requires a report to Congress that includes an assessment of
    the North Warning System, including the operational integrity of its
    infrastructure and of its current technology compared with technology
    deemed necessary, as well as a plan for mitigating vulnerabilities and
    modernizing the capabilities of the North Warning System.
        Early year this year the Air Force provided my staff with an update
    on the report and indicated that CAPE is taking the lead on this study.
    Will you commit to providing me with an update on CAPE's review of new
    technology to replace existing radomes and when the final report may be
    completed and submitted to this committee?
        Ms. Blume. Section 1651 of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense
    Authorization Act (NDAA) requires a report to Congress that includes an
    assessment of the North Warning System, including the operational
    integrity of its infrastructure and of its current technology compared
    with technology deemed necessary, as well as a plan for mitigating
    vulnerabilities and modernizing the capabilities of the North Warning
    System.
        Early year this year the Air Force provided my staff with an update
    on the report and indicated that CAPE is taking the lead on this study.
    Will you commit to providing me with an update on CAPE's review of new
    technology to replace existing radomes and when the final report may be
    completed and submitted to this committee?
        I am not familiar with CAPE's specific role on this report, but if
    confirmed I commit to working with other DOD components to provide an
    update on this critically important issue.
                                   __________
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
                         homeland defense radar--hawaii
        4. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, the 2019 Missile Defense Review
    identified the Homeland Defense Radar--Hawaii (HDR-H) as a requirement
    for detecting and discriminating against inbound missile threats from
    an increasingly capable North Korea. Congress appropriated $133 million
    for fiscal year 2021 to keep its development on track. Both Admiral
    Philip Davidson, at the time the Commander of U.S. Indo-Pacific Command
    (INDOPACOM), and General Paul LaCamera, who was just confirmed as the
    Commander, United States Forces Korea, have testified before this
    committee in the last 2 months that HDR-H would be an important part of
    the region's layered missile defense system to protect Hawaii and the
    continental United States (CONUS) from long-range missiles from North
    Korea. How do you square our military commanders' position on the
    importance of HDR-H with CAPE's [Cost Assessment Program Evaluation]
    assessment?
        Ms. Blume. Defending Hawaii is critically important, not only
    because of its military value, but more importantly because of the
    Americans who live there. The question is how best to do so. It is my
    understanding that the HDR-H was designed to work in tandem with
    another radar system, the Pacific Radar, to enhance the defense of
    Hawaii against projected North Korean ICBM threats. However, the
    Pacific Radar has been indefinitely delayed and there is no clear path
    to delivering the system. As a result, the DOD tasked CAPE with
    assessing the ability of HDR-H to enhance the defense of Hawaii in the
    absence of the Pacific Radar. It is my understanding that CAPE's study,
    delivered to Congress in September 2020, indicated that HDR-H alone
    could provide some limited benefits to the defense of Hawaii under
    certain conditions, as indicated by the Commanders. However, the system
    could not fulfill the original intent of the program, and its ability
    to enhance the defense of Hawaii would be significantly decreased
    without the corresponding capabilities of the Pacific Radar.

        5. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, since 2017, DOD has spent over $225
    million dollars on HDR-H. What is the Department's plan to ensure that
    there is detection protection for Hawaii just as there is for Alaska
    and CONUS from long-range missiles from North Korea?
        Ms. Blume. The Department continuously monitors the threat from
    North Korea and adjusts its defensive strategies accordingly to provide
    the best defense of the entire United States. Existing sensor systems
    are sufficient to enable the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD)
    system to provide defense of Hawaii against simple ICBM threats from
    North Korea, just like the rest of the U.S. As the threat continues to
    evolve, the Department may need to invest in other capabilities to
    ensure that Hawaii is provided with adequate protection.

        6. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, how does detection protection for
    Hawaii compare with Alaska and CONUS without HDR-H?
        Ms. Blume. It is my understanding that the Ground-Based Midcourse
    Defense system, as it exists today, is able to provide comparable
    levels of protection to Hawaii and the rest of the United States.
    Existing sensing capabilities are sufficient for countering the simple
    ICBM threats currently fielded by North Korea. Initial detection of
    launches is provided by satellite assets, and current ground-based
    sensors provide sufficient tracking data to enable successful
    engagement of a North Korean ICBM launched towards anywhere in the
    U.S., including Hawaii.

        7. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, how would detection protection for
    Hawaii compare with Alaska and CONUS with HDR-H?
        Ms. Blume. As the North Korean threat becomes increasingly complex,
    additional investments may be required to ensure that Hawaii is
    provided with comparable protection to the rest of the U.S. If
    confirmed, I commit to working transparently with Congress on how to
    best protect Hawaii from missile threats.
                  contract services transparency in the budget
        8. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, Congress had previously directed that
    the Department of Defense provide better transparency over contract
    services expenditures in its budget submission. (see title 10 U.S. Code
    sections 235, 2329 and 2330a). As early as a 2016 audit, the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) pointed out that CAPE was not including in
    its programming guidance direction for defense components to include
    their projections of requirements and expenditures for contract
    services over the Future Year Defense Program. (see GAO-16-119). In
    February of this year, the GAO pointed out that CAPE and the DOD
    Comptroller still had not provided satisfactory plans for addressing
    this problem. (GAO-21-267R). If confirmed, what steps will you take to
    ensure CAPE starts including in its programming guidance and program
    prioritization processes transparency relating to requirements the
    defense components plan to fulfill with contracted services?
        Ms. Blume. Transparency of requirements for contract services
    expenditures is an important element in ensuring the most effective use
    of taxpayers' dollars. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy
    Secretary, OSD, and Service leadership to ensure Congress has the
    appropriate visibility into contract services requirements. This effort
    will require participation from the entire acquisition community
    because oversight and assessment of contract services crosses the
    boundaries of many portfolios and areas of expertise.

        9. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, what steps will you take to ensure
    these requirements comply with limitations on privatization
    incorporated into the total force management policies required by title
    10 U.S. Code section 129a?
        Ms. Blume. If confirmed, I will consult with and incorporate the
    advice of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, the Under
    Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under
    Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure the appropriate guidelines
    and procedures are taken into account. I would ensure that any changes
    that might be considered will be examined from the perspective of
    achieving needed capabilities both at the best price and in the most
    appropriate fashion.

        10. Senator Hirono. Ms. Blume, the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
    her private capacity last year wrote in a March 2020 ``Foreign
    Affairs'' article entitled, ``Getting to Less: The Truth About Defense
    Spending,'' the following: ``Predictably, for example, even though
    Congress directed the Defense Department to cut $10 billion through
    administrative efficiencies between 2015 and 2019, the Pentagon failed
    to substantiate that it had achieved those savings. The reason those
    efforts rarely succeed is that they merely shift the work being done by
    civilian employees to others, such as military personnel or defense
    contractors.'' If confirmed as Director of CAPE, what steps will you
    take to avoid these types of accounting tricks on supposed savings in
    the future?
        Ms. Blume. If confirmed, I pledge to work with Department
    leadership to ensure future reform efforts are realistic and fully
    documented in order to enable more effective oversight. For example, I
    would work with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure
    that Components achieve directed efficiencies. On a case-by-case basis,
    CAPE could also work with Comptroller and others to assess whether it
    is more cost effective to do certain types of work with civilian
    employees, military personnel, or contractors.
                                   __________
                   Questions Submitted by Senator Gary Peters
                           transparency in contracts
        11. Senator Peters. Ms. Blume, Congress had previously requested
    that the Department of Defense provide better transparency over
    contract services expenditures in its budget submission. (see title 10
    U.S. Code sections 235, 2329 and 2330a). As early as a 2016 audit, the
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) pointed out that CAPE [Cost
    Assessment Program Evaluation] was not including in its programming
    guidance, direction for defense components to include their projections
    of requirements and expenditures for contract services over the Future
    Year Defense Program. (see GAO-16-119). In February of this year, the
    GAO pointed out that CAPE and the DOD Comptroller still had not
    provided satisfactory plans for addressing this problem. (GAO-21-267R).
    If confirmed, how will you ensure CAPE begins including in its
    programming guidance and program prioritization processes, transparency
    over requirements defense components plan to fulfill with contracted
    services?
        Ms. Blume. Transparency of requirements for contract services
    expenditures is an important element in ensuring the most effective use
    of taxpayers' dollars. If confirmed, I will work with the Deputy
    Secretary, OSD, and Service leadership to ensure Congress has the
    appropriate visibility into contract services requirements. This effort
    will require participation from the entire acquisition community
    because oversight and assessment of contract services crosses the
    boundaries of many portfolios and areas of expertise.

        12. Senator Peters. Ms. Blume, what steps will you take to ensure
    these requirements comply with limitations on privatization
    incorporated into the total force management policies required by title
    10 U.S. Code section 129a?
        Ms. Blume. I will consult with and incorporate the advice of the
    Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness, the Under Secretary of
    Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Under Secretary of
    Defense (Comptroller) to ensure the appropriate guidelines and
    procedures are taken into account. I would ensure that any changes that
    might be considered will be examined from the perspective of achieving
    needed capabilities both at the best price and in the most appropriate
    fashion.
                          administrative efficiencies
        13. Senator Peters. Ms. Blume, the Deputy Secretary of Defense in
    her private capacity last year wrote in a March 2020 ``Foreign
    Affairs'' article entitled, ``Getting to Less: The Truth About Defense
    Spending,'' the following: ``Predictably, for example, even though
    Congress directed the Defense Department to cut $10 billion through
    administrative efficiencies between 2015 and 2019, the Pentagon failed
    to substantiate that it had achieved those savings. The reason those
    efforts rarely succeed is that they merely shift the work being done by
    civilian employees to others, such as military personnel or defense
    contractors.'' How can we avoid encouraging such manipulations in the
    future?
        Ms. Blume. If confirmed, I pledge to work with Department
    leadership to ensure future reform efforts are realistic and fully
    documented in order to enable more effective oversight. For example, I
    would work with the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure
    that Components achieve directed efficiencies. On a case-by-case basis,
    CAPE could also work with Comptroller and others to assess whether it
    is more cost effective to do certain types of work with civilian
    employees, military personnel, or contractors.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Roger Wicker
                         commitment to a 355-ship navy
        14. Senator Wicker. Ms. Blume, in December 2016, the Navy released
    a force-structure goal that calls for achieving and maintaining a fleet
    of 355 ships of certain types and numbers. The 355-ship goal was made
    policy by section 1025 of the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense
    Authorization Act. The Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA passed the House by a vote
    of 344-81 and the Senate by a vote of 89-8.
        Since 2019, the Navy and DOD have been working to develop a new
    force-level goal to replace the current 355-ship force-level goal. The
    conclusion of this work and the release of its results to Congress have
    been delayed repeatedly since late-2019. The Future Naval Force Study
    conducted last year called for a number ``far above'' the Navy's 355
    ship target.
        The Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Michael Gilday, said on
    April 27, 2021, ``Recently I was asked by a member of Congress what my
    North Star is with respect to numbers right now . . . That's 355. I
    still think that's a really good target.''
        On May 25, 2021, you testified that you understand that 355 ships
    is in law but you stopped short of supporting that goal. Do you agree
    with Congress and the Navy that 355 ships are needed in today's fleet
    to deter and counter America's adversaries?
        Ms. Blume. I agree that a robust, highly capable and sustainable
    Navy is essential to U.S. national security and believe that the Biden
    administration is committed to ensuring U.S, maritime superiority for
    years to come through deliberate investment in shipbuilding,
    subsystems, weapons, manning, and sustainment.
        If confirmed, I am committed to fulfilling CAPE's mandate, which is
    to provide independent analysis to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary
    on this and many other topics. Given CAPE's statutory responsibilities,
    it would not be appropriate for me to pre-judge where this analysis may
    lead.
                                amphibious ships
        15. Senator Wicker. Ms. Blume, on May 25, 2021, you testified that
    ``a robust, and highly capable, and sustainable Navy is critical to
    U.S. national security.'' You added that multi-ship procurements can
    ``save the taxpayers money'' and ``provide badly needed stability for
    the defense industrial base.''
        The bundling strategy outlined by section 124 of the Fiscal Year
    2021 NDAA would make our Navy more capable, save the taxpayers an
    estimated $700 million, and provide stability for the defense
    industrial base. The most recent Future Years Defense Plan included
    LPDs 31, 32, and 33 as well as LHA 9. Does the Department of Defense
    still plan to procure all four of these ships?
        Ms. Blume. If confirmed, I am committed to understanding the
    details behind these programs as well as the cost implications of the
    multi-ship procurement. As with all ship classes, we will carefully
    evaluate the amphibious program requirements and will pursue the
    strategy that meets the long-term warfighting need in the most cost and
    operationally effective manner possible.

        16. Senator Wicker. Ms. Blume, if the Department of Defense still
    plans to procure all four of these ships, do you support doing so in a
    manner that saves $700 million and provides stability to the defense
    industrial base?
        Ms. Blume. As noted above, if confirmed I commit to understanding
    the current plan and the merits of this contracting approach. In
    general, I support measures that save the taxpayer money and provide
    the industrial base with the stability it needs to plan effectively.
                                   __________
                  Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
                             armed forces readiness
        17. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume, over several years this Committee
    has worked tirelessly to restore military readiness--across each of our
    services--to levels that would enable our success in a conflict. We've
    had some success, but there is STILL a lot of work to do. If you have
    not done so already, I recommend that every senior defense leader read
    T.R. Fehrenbach's ``This Kind of War'', which provides a cautionary
    tale of our Nation's failure to adequately fund and train our Armed
    Forces before the Korean War. The consequences were steep and American
    servicemembers paid with their lives. If confirmed, each of you--based
    on your positions--will invariably make decisions that directly or
    indirectly impact readiness. Accordingly, will you commit--if
    confirmed--to work with this committee and within the Department to
    ensure the readiness failures we endured in the Korean War do not
    happen again?
        Ms. Blume. Yes, I agree military readiness across each of our
    Services is critical to providing both credible deterrence and, if
    needed, the warfighting capability to succeed in conflict. If
    confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders, including Congress, to
    assess military readiness levels and ensure appropriate resourcing for
    readiness.
                             strategy driven budget
        18. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume, the National Defense Strategy
    Commission report, the two previous Senate-confirmed Secretaries of
    Defense, and the previous and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
    Staff have all stated the need for sustained 3 to 5 percent annual real
    growth to the Defense budget to implement the NDS, increase much-needed
    readiness, and advance long-overdue modernization. To further emphasize
    the need for consistent and increased funding, the NDS Commission
    report stated, ``America is very near the point of strategic
    insolvency, where its `means' are badly out of alignment with its
    `ends.''' This critical situation is negatively compounded by the Biden
    administration's proposal for a topline that does not keep pace with
    inflation. With these facts in mind, and understanding your ability to
    influence the budget will be limited to future year submissions, will
    each of you commit to advocating for a strategy-driven budget vice a
    budget-driven strategy?
        Ms. Blume. Yes, if confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders
    across the Department to ensure the national security and defense
    strategies drive the resourcing deliberations that result in our annual
    budget submissions.
                     great power competition in the arctic
        19. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume, given the National Defense
    Strategy's focus on great power competition and increased Russia and
    Chinese activity in the Arctic, would you agree that the Arctic is an
    emerging front-line for great power competition and rivalry? Please
    elaborate.
        Ms. Blume. I agree the Arctic is a vital region for the national
    security of the United States, and its importance will continue to
    increase as the environment becomes more operationally relevant for a
    longer portion of the year. Due to the likely increase in commercial
    traffic and presence of natural resources, I believe the Arctic has the
    potential for greater activity by our most capable rivals. If
    confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders, including Congress, to
    assess the capabilities and resources required to protect U.S.
    interests in the Arctic.

        20. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume in your personal opinion, what
    makes Alaska an important strategic region for the United States, and
    why would our adversaries want to limit our presence and power
    projection capabilities in the Arctic region? Please elaborate.
        Ms. Blume. Alaska is a vital strategic region of the United States
    because it is the gateway to both the Arctic and the Pacific. Alaska is
    a critical component of our ability to project power and defend the
    Homeland from capable rivals and a rogue nation.
                                missile defense
        21. Senator Sullivan. Ms. Blume, Secretary Lloyd Austin has stated,
    ``Defense of the Homeland is a key priority for DOD and missile defense
    is a central component of this mission.'' Deputy Secretary Kathleen
    Hicks agreed by saying, ``Defense of the Homeland is a top priority for
    DOD and the Homeland missile defense system is an essential component
    to that mission.'' Would you agree with the statements made by
    Secretary Austin and Deputy Secretary Hicks, and do you support robust
    funding for its modernization? Please elaborate on your views of
    missile defense and its contributions to our national security.
        Ms. Blume. I agree with Secretaries Austin and Hicks that Homeland
    defense is a key priority for the DOD. To maintain a strong Homeland
    defense, all elements of our Homeland missile defense system must be
    regularly assessed against the threat and updated to reflect changes in
    technologies and the threat environment. Homeland missile defense is
    one component of Homeland defense that has and will continue to play an
    important role in dealing with missile threats.
                                   __________
                Questions Submitted by Senator Tommy Tuberville
                          unified facilities criteria
        22. Senator Tuberville. Ms. Blume, the 2016 Unified Facilities
    Criteria (UFC) and 2019 update removed portable fire extinguishers from
    military installation requirements. Numerous studies have demonstrated
    that extinguishers increase safety and reduce costs of fire damage at a
    minimal cost to taxpayers. The Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA included language
    attempting to address this problem, but the Department did not comply.
    If confirmed, will you ensure our servicemembers have the same level of
    protection of all Americans and ensure extinguishers are in place
    across DOD--thus complying with the intent of this body in the Fiscal
    Year 2020 NDAA?
        Ms. Blume. Although CAPE does not oversee the Unified Facilities
    Criteria program, if confirmed, I will work with the appropriate
    Department stakeholders to ensure DOD building criteria protects our
    service members and is in compliance with all applicable laws in a cost
    effective manner.
                                     ______

        [The nomination reference of Ms. Susanna V. Blume follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The biographical sketch of Ms. Susanna V. Blume, which was
    transmitted to the Committee at the time the nomination was
    referred, follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The Committee on Armed Services requires all individuals
    nominated from civilian life by the President to positions
    requiring the advice and consent of the Senate to complete a
    form that details the biographical, financial, and other
    information of the nominee. The form executed by Ms. Susanna V.
    Blume in connection with her nomination follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The nominee responded to Parts B-F of the committee
    questionnaire. The text of the questionnaire is set forth in
    the Appendix to this volume. The nominee's answers to Parts B-F
    are contained in the Committee's executive files.]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    ------

        [The nomination of Ms. Susanna V. Blume was reported to the
    Senate by Chairman Reed on June 10, 2021, with the
    recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
    was confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 2021.]

                                     [all]