[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]