[Senate Hearing 117-1000]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-1000
THE NOMINATIONS OF: HON. WILLIAM A.
LAPLANTE, JR. TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND
SUSTAINMENT; MR. ERIK K. RAVEN TO BE
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; MS. M.
TIA JOHNSON TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
ARMED FORCES AND DR. MARVIN L. ADAMS
TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE
PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 22, 2022
__________
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
63-566 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
=======================================================================
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
�JACK REED, Rhode Island, Chairman JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
�
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COTTON, Arkansas
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota
TIM KAINE, Virginia JONI ERNST, Iowa
ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia RICK SCOTT, Florida
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
MARK KELLY, Arizona TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama
�
�
� Elizabeth L. King, Staff Director
� John D. Wason, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
_________________________________________________________________
march 22, 2022
Page
The Nominations of: Hon. William A. LaPlante, Jr. to be Under 1
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment; Mr. Erik
K. Raven to be Under Secretary of the Navy; Ms. M. Tia Johnson
to be A Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces and Dr. Marvin L. Adams to be Deputy Administrator
for Defense Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members Statements
Reed, Senator Jack............................................... 1
Inhofe, Senator James M.......................................... 3
Witness Statements
LaPlante, Hon. William, Nominee to be Under Secretary of Defense 9
for Acquisition and Sustainment.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 42
Questions for the Record....................................... 76
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 86
Biographical Sketch............................................ 87
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 89
Signature Page................................................. 95
Raven, Erik, Nominee to be Under Secretary of the Navy........... 11
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 95
Questions for the Record....................................... 120
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 125
Biographical Sketch............................................ 126
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 128
Signature Page................................................. 134
Johnson, M. Tia, Nominee to be a Judge of the United States Court 13
of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 134
Questions for the Record....................................... 143
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 145
Biographical Sketch............................................ 146
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 151
Signature Page................................................. 157
Adams, Marvin Nominee to be Deputy Administrator for Defense 15
Programs, National Nuclear Security Administration.
Advance Policy Questions....................................... 157
Questions for the Record....................................... 169
Nomination Reference and Report................................ 173
Biographical Sketch............................................ 174
Committee on Armed Services Questionnaire...................... 175
Signature Page................................................. 190
(iii)
This hearing is printed to include all available
information
requested or required to be inserted for the
record.
(iv)
THE NOMINATIONS OF: HON. WILLIAM A. LAPLANTE, JR. TO BE UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT; MR. ERIK K. RAVEN TO BE
UNDER SECRETARY OF THE NAVY; MS. M. TIA JOHNSON TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES AND DR. MARVIN L.
ADAMS TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022
United States Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:29 a.m., in
room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Jack Reed
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Committee Members present: Senators Reed, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Kaine, King, Warren, Peters, Duckworth, Rosen,
Kelly, Inhofe, Wicker, Fischer, Cotton, Rounds, Ernst, Scott,
Hawley, and Tuberville.
Also Present: Senator Tester.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Chairman Reed. The Committee meets this morning to consider
the nominations of Dr. William LaPlante to be Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, Mr. Erik Raven to
be Under Secretary of the Navy, Mr. Tia Johnson to be a Judge
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, and
Dr. Marvin Adams to be Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.
On behalf of the Committee, I want to thank each of you for
your willingness to return to public service. I would also like
to welcome the guests and family members who are present today.
I am pleased to recognize Secretary Ash Carter, who will
introduce Dr. LaPlante. Senator Jon Tester, who will introduce
Mr. Raven.
Secretary Jeh Johnson, who will introduce Ms. Johnson.
Ambassador Linton Brooks, who will introduce Dr. Adams.
Additionally, Dr. LaPlante, I welcome your brother, John. Mr.
Raven, I welcome your wife, Ann. Ms. Johnson, I welcome your
husband Al, and commend him to his service in the United States
Army.
We are grateful to each of you for your support. Dr.
LaPlante, you are well qualified to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, or USD (A&S). You have
decades of technical expertise from your current role as
President and CEO of Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, as well
as your previous service as the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition during the Obama administration.
The USD(A&S) has a wide variety of duties, including
delivering timely cost effective capabilities for the armed
forces, supervising all elements of defense acquisition
enterprise and the defense industrial base, overseeing the
modernization of our nuclear forces, and serving as the
principal advisor to the Secretary on acquisition, sustainment,
and core logistics. If confirmed, streamlining and expediting
the acquisition process must be one of your highest priorities.
We need to field equipment to our warfighters quickly,
while also ensuring acquisitions remain on budget. Although
some progress has been made in recent years, the Defense
Department's acquisition process still remains on the
Government Accountability Office's high risk list. Similarly,
the Department must improve the operation and sustainment of
weapons systems over their life cycles, a course that is often
overlooked in the acquisition process. Dr. LaPlante, I would
like to know how you would plan to address these challenges
this morning.
Mr. Raven, you were nominated to the second highest
position in the Department of the Navy. Your experience on the
Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee will serve you well
in this role. If confirmed, you will face a number of critical
issues that confront the Department of the Navy.
The Navy and the Marine Corps have historically had to deal
with the day to day strains of deployment and high operating
tempos, with concerns about the readiness of our deployed and
non-deployed forces, the next Under Secretary's efforts in
managing improvements in the force and its supporting structure
will be crucial. In addition, the Navy is tested to meet
today's priorities, while also shifting investments to support
our long range strategic competition with China and Russia.
Mr. Raven, I look forward to your testimony on how we can
best balance these challenges. Ms. Johnson, you are nominated
to be a Judge in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Armed Forces. If confirmed, you would serve a 15 year term on
the court. You bring a distinguished career of service as an
Army judge advocate, National Security Council in the Obama
administration, and Professor of Law at Georgetown University.
The Court of Appeals of the Armed Forces is the Senior
Appellate Court with the exclusive jurisdiction over the
Uniform Code of Military Justice, sometimes regarded as the
Supreme Court of Military Law.
Ms. Johnson, based on your uniformed and civilian career
experiences, I would like to know what you view as a key
strengths and weaknesses of the military justice system,
including the fairness and effectiveness of the system. In
addition, the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization
Act implemented extensive changes to the UCMJ, including a
statute that would criminalize sexual harassment under some
circumstances.
I hope you will share your views on the Court of Appeals'
role in reviewing challenges and issues with the recent sexual
assault and sexual harassment statutes, including your view on
defendants' rights under the UCMJ. Dr. Adams, you are nominated
to be Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs for the
National Nuclear Security Administration or NNSA. You have had
a distinguished career at Texas A&M University, conducting
research on nuclear science, serving on numerous advisory
boards at the NNSA, and recently helping Los Alamos National
Laboratory develop its plutonium manufacturing operations.
If confirmed, you will assume an expansive range of duties.
You will oversee more than 50,000 contractors and NNSA Federal
employees with a budget of $16 billion, while simultaneously
meeting the Defense Department's construction and stockpile
requirements. Dr. Adams, I would like to know your views on how
to meet the Defense Department's requirements, while at the
same time preserving the core scientific capabilities at our
national laboratories.
Again, I would like to thank our nominees, and I look
forward to your testimonies. I understand that Senator Tester
has an engagement beginning shortly, so I would ask that he
delivers an introduction immediately following Senator Inhofe's
opening statement. Now let me turn to the ranking member.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Chairman Reed, and thanks to our
witnesses for being with us and their willingness to serve,
continue their service to the Nation. As Former Secretary of
Defense and CIA Director Bob Gates said recently, ``we have to
think about how we are going to deal with a hostile Russia as
long as Putin is around. We face a much longer term kind of
problem and challenge from the Chinese.'' I think these remarks
put Russia and China into the right context.
The 2018 National Defense Strategy book is one we refer to
many, many times over and over again, and it comes to light
again with this panel. I think that we are going to have to
continue the using it as the roadmap as we have for the last
several months. We continue to fall behind the Chinese even as
the threats worsen. We haven't seen resourcing the strategy
adequately and that was before we had all this inflation.
We need the sense of urgency to make bold smart decisions
at the Department of Defense, and that starts with senior
civilian leadership. We have got to take some risk. Congress is
an eager and willing partner, but you got to ask us, we want to
work with you. Dr. LaPlante, you have been nominated to be the
DOD's top acquisition job. It is a shame it took us a whole
year because you have got a lot of catching up to do. Congress
and the Pentagon working together have made huge strides in
acquisition, but the Chinese are still moving faster than we
are.
We are still not very good at supporting rapid innovation,
and we even struggle with the traditional acquisitions. Case in
point is the Ford-class carrier. We are unable to develop a
plan to resource it. We have seen half a dozen official
positions on what the future naval fleet should look like. All
larger than what we have today.
Mr. Raven, I hope you will help the Pentagon stop its
endless bickering and support the Navy stated requirements and
start building ships at scale. It is long overdue. Nuclear
modernization is another overdue bill for the military. Dr.
Adams, I hope you will tell us how you work to take care of
those bills, as we also consider how to the nuclear posture
must change in response to the Chinese and the Russian nuclear
advances.
Lastly, the Congress has made a lot of major changes in the
Uniform Code of Military Justice in recent years. The Executive
Branch is also trying to intimidate vaccine mandate and root
out the extremism in our armed forces.
Ms. Johnson, I would like to hear how you turn to the
Constitution first whenever considering the application of
these efforts and look forward to hear from each one of you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. I am going to
recognize Senator Tester, but also then recognize the other
individuals who are introducing the witnesses so that they may
leave at their discretion. Let's begin with Senator Tester.
Senator, please.
Senator Tester. Well, good morning, and I want to thank
you, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe, and my friends on
this Committee for allowing me to speak here this morning. It
is truly an honor to be introducing Erik Raven today at his
nomination hearing to be Under Secretary for the Navy. It is an
honor because there is no one more qualified or capable than
Erik is to serve the men and women of our Navy.
I know firsthand, because Erik is the Democratic Staff
Director for the Subcommittee on Defense of the Senate
Committee on Appropriations, and for the last year, I have
worked very, very closely with him in my role as chairman on
that committee. In that time, we have spoken every day,
something I know that Erik has enjoyed very much. Erik is a
true professional. He is dedicated. He is whip smart. He knows
the defense budget better than anybody. But that is only part
of what makes Erik qualified and deserving of being confirmed
for this position at the Department of Defense.
What makes Erik exceptional is that he deeply understands
the challenges and the threats we face. He has dedicated his
life to our military, our National Security, and to our
country. For the last 24 years, Erik has served as a staff
member for some of the giants of the Senate, Senator Dianne
Feinstein, Senator Ted Kennedy, Senator Robert Byrd, you may
have heard of them. Erik served as Senator Byrd's military and
foreign affairs adviser from 2000 to 2007, and as his
Legislative Director from 2006 to 2007.
He also served as a speech writer for Senator Byrd on
National Security matters. Some of you may not know this, but
my office in Hart is Senator Byrd's old office, and welcoming
Erik back into that office after I became SAC-D Chairman is a
fitting symmetry to the end of his Hill career before he sails
off to the Pentagon. But I am not the only SAC-D Chairman who
has benefited from Erik's wisdom and leadership.
For the past 15 years, 7 as a professional staff member,
and 8 as staff director, Erik has served Senators, the Senate,
and our Nation. As a Staff Director, he is the principal
advisor to the committee on budgetary matters relating to the
Department of Defense and the National Intelligence Community.
During his time on the Committee, Erik has been responsible
for the oversight of national intelligence programs, National
Security space programs, special operations procurement, Army
aviation, and Navy Research and development matters, as well as
staff lead on wartime intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance initiatives.
Erik is as credentialed as his experience. He has completed
a master's thesis on the origins of China's nuclear weapons
program at the London School of Economics and Political
Science, as well as an undergraduate honor thesis on the
International Narcotics Trade at Connecticut College. This dude
is a smart guy, and he has good people in his corner.
I want to recognize his wife Anne who is here today and
thank you Anne for sharing Erik with the Senate, and soon I
hope, with the Department of Defense. The gratitude our country
owes Erik for his service, we also owe to you. The bottom line
is this, Erik Raven will serve as Under Secretary for the Navy
honorably and well.
He is exceptionally qualified and deserving of this
Committee's favorable endorsement, and I am sure that the
distinguished Members of this Committee will agree after
getting a chance to question him. Erik, I just want to
congratulate you on your nomination, and get in there and give
them hell, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Tester. Secretary Carter,
please.
Mr. Carter. Is the microphone on? Yes. Chairman Reed,
Ranking Member Inhofe, all the Members of the Committee, thank
you for giving me the opportunity to describe to you the
qualities of Bill LaPlante, and the qualities that he will
bring to the job of Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment.
Thank you also for the opportunity of seeing you and in
person after all this time. It is a wonderful treat. I first
got to know Bill when I was on Don Rumsfeld's Defense Science
Board, must have been 20 years ago or so, and Bill came and
worked on one of the efforts that we were mounting at that
time, and I and everybody else was impressed with Bill's
engineering acumen, but also with his patriotism and his
dedication to the work of the Department.
In the years thereafter, Bill went to APL to MITRE to
Draper, some of our great institutions that serve the
Department of Defense and the wider community from a technology
point of view. Then he served, when I was Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and Deputy
Secretary of Defense before I became Secretary of Defense, as
Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, an
important job, and a few things to mention about that time that
are relevant today.
The first was, is that Bill was Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force for Acquisition at a time when we were still deeply
involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I mention that
only because it was very important to Bill then, and I observed
this, that he would do everything he could to make sure that
our troops, our warfighters and our NATO allies for that matter
as well, got everything they needed every day.
There wasn't the time to wait for the Pentagon paperwork
when things were flying, and Bill remembered that. His heart
was in it, and I admired his heart as well as his intellect,
and he knew, and this is important and in connection with what
Senator Inhofe said a moment ago, Bill knows how to make
agility work in the Department of Defense and not wait for the
Pentagon's paperwork to turn the crank.
We need that today because we need to work at the same pace
as technology if we are to continue to be able to dominate our
potential opponents, particularly China and Russia. In that
connection, yet another trait of Bill LaPlante, is that Bill
recognizes that the secret sauce of our superiority has been,
since Sputnik, the ability of the Department of Defense to work
closely with private enterprise and the private tech sector.
The tech sector is now bigger than it used to be. It is bigger
than our own tech sector, our Government tech sector, by a wide
margin. It is global.
The only way to stay the best, to stay is--I always like to
say Lyndon Johnson used to say the first us with the mostest is
to have the best bridges between the Government tech sector and
the commercial tech sector. Bill knows how to make that work.
He showed that at APL, at MITRE, and Draper, and in his job for
the Air Force.
Last thing I would say about Bill is, you know, the
Department of Defense works best when the Secretary of
Defense's Office works well with the military services, and
Bill having come out of the Air Force, one of the military
services, and worked very, very well with me when I was
Acquisition Executive and Deputy Secretary of Defense, has
shown that he can do that.
Since the time I was Under Secretary for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, furthermore, the--that job has been
divided into the Under Secretary for Acquisition and
Sustainment on the one hand and the Under Secretary for
Research and Engineering on the other. It is important also
that someone entering Bill's job be able to work across that
boundary as well, because the boundary between product and
research is the hardest boundary to bridge in technology
programs.
Bill's long standing relationship when she was Army
Acquisition Executive with Heidi Shyu, who is now the Under
Secretary for Research and Engineering, that bodes well, as
does Bill's acquaintance with the now Secretary and the now
Deputy Secretary, all of whom he worked with earlier. So
Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, you got
here a guy who is really very well qualified for this job. I
hope you give Bill your speediest and most favorable
consideration.
I think he will do a great job for us in a time when we
need somebody who knows how to act fast, whether it be in
connection with Ukraine and the resupply of the Ukrainian
forces, whether it be with respect to fortifying our own NATO
forces so that we can dominate any situation that Russia
creates there, and with respect to China, so that we can
continue to be in defense technology and defense in general,
the first is with a mostest on the whole planet.
All of that hinges in part on the job that Bill will
occupy, and he will do us proud in that regard. So thank you.
Thanks for the opportunity to be with you again.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your comments
and thank you also for your service to the Nation. Let me
recognize Secretary Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, members
of this Committee, I welcome the opportunity to come here to
testify in support of the nomination of retired Colonel Tia
Johnson to be a member of the Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces. I know Colonel Johnson to be an outstanding lawyer, an
outstanding public servant, and an outstanding American.
I have observed and work with her in five different jobs.
The record will reflect that she was and is a trailblazer. She
was the first black woman to reach the rank of full Colonel in
the Army JAG Corps, and if confirmed, she will be the first
black woman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
But there is more to the nominee than that.
Long before I became General Counsel of DOD or Secretary of
DHS, in private law practice, I was Chair of the Judiciary
Committee of the New York City Bar Association, which evaluates
all elected and appointed candidates for Federal, state, and
local judgeships in the city of New York. In three years, I
personally interviewed 500 people who were candidates for
judgeships, ranging from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd
Circuit to Housing Court Kings County.
I therefore think I know something about how to evaluate a
judge. In my experience, wisdom is the best attribute of a good
judge, and a wealth of life experiences is the best predictor
of wisdom. In my time in National Security, I don't think I
have encountered a military lawyer with a broader range of
experience than Colonel Johnson. Tia was an Active Duty soldier
for 30 years. As a young JAG, she built a considerable track
record as a first chair prosecutor in military justice.
I first met Colonel Johnson in 2009 when I was general
counsel of the Department of Defense, and she was Staff Judge
Advocate for U.S. Forces Korea, one of the most important legal
assignments in the whole U.S. military. Next, I worked with
Colonel Johnson when she came to the Pentagon, assigned to our
DOD Office of Legislative Affairs.
I was so impressed with Colonel Johnson in 2012, I hired
her as my own senior military aid, where she was exposed to
every conceivable legal issue the Department of Defense faces.
Tia then followed me to the Department of Homeland Security,
which she joined in 2014 as a Senior Adviser to the Director of
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Finally, on my recommendation, in 2015, Colonel Johnson was
appointed by the President to be Assistant Secretary of DHS for
Legislative Affairs. A big job. As you know, DHS has more than
a few Congressional committees of oversight. The task of
sitting in judgment of others is not an easy one.
Tia Johnson comes before you as a nominee rich in life
experiences and therefore well equipped to take on this
difficult task. I urge that she be confirmed. Thank you very
much.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Again,
thank you for your distinguished service to the country.
Ambassador Brooks, please.
Ambassador Brooks. Chairman Reed, and Senator Inhofe,
Members of this Committee, I am honored to introduce Dr. Marvin
Adams. I was privileged to be confirmed by this Committee twice
during the George W. Bush administration for jobs within NNSA.
I know how seriously this Committee takes its responsibilities.
In my view, Dr. Adams is the perfect candidate for this
important job at this crucial time.
First, Dr. Adams has superb technical background for
leading a complex technical organization like defense programs.
He understands stockpile stewardship as well as anyone I know.
When the country needs high quality, objective science and
technical advice, it often turns to the Jasons Advisory Group.
In his 15 years on that group, Dr. Adams has been involved
in over 20 major studies of nuclear weapons activities for both
DOD and NNSA, serving as director of most. Time and time again
when the country requires strong technical advice, it turns to
groups led by Dr. Adams. Second, the greatest near-term
challenge facing NNSA is to meet the Department of Defense
requirements for delivering nuclear weapons on schedule.
Dr. Adams is committed to a strong nuclear deterrent, and
he brings a unique perspective as an Adviser to the Commander
of the U.S. Strategic Command, who helps establish our national
requirements. Third, in the long term, NNSA must become more
flexible in responding to the rapidly changing international
environment in a world in which the United States must deal
with two near peer competitors. NNSA Administrator Hruby is
working on this but needs Dr. Adams to help.
NNSA is made up of dedicated career civil servants. I was
proud to lead them, and the Committee should be proud that
America produces such exceptional individuals. Over time,
however, they have become used to a system that values detailed
certainty over responsiveness.
Dr. Adams is exactly the right person to help bring defense
programs into conformity with the needs of today's world.
Finally, if Dr. Adams is confirmed, he will be leading a large,
complex organization. Leadership is not quite the same thing as
management. He will have strong support in the day to day
management responsibilities he is assuming, but only he can set
the vision and inspire his organization to evolve to meet
today's requirements.
Here, Dr. Adams will be superb. It is not an accident that
in the many studies he mentions, he is usually the one put in
charge. He is a natural leader. If I were technically qualified
and a little younger, I would work for him in a heartbeat.
Thank you for the opportunity to introduce such an
outstanding public servant. I am confident that if confirmed,
Marvin Adams will bring distinction to his new
responsibilities, and I urge the Committee and the Senate to
support his confirmation. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Ambassador Brooks, for your
comments and again for your service to the Nation. Deeply
appreciate it. Now let me recognize Dr. LaPlante for his
opening statement. Dr. LaPlante, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM LaPLANTE, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking
Member Inhofe, and distinguished Members of the Committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to be for you today and for
consideration of my nomination to be the Under Secretary for
Acquisition and Sustainment. I am honored by the trust and
confidence as well shown by President Biden and Secretary
Austin in me.
First, I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for
all the work you are doing and how important the work you do
every day is given of course the times we are in right now,
including the situation in Ukraine. The work the Committee has
done day in, day out, year in, year out for the past 61 years,
this bipartisan work is so important for the country and thank
you for what you do. I would also like a moment to thank some
of the many people who shaped my life and career without whom I
wouldn't be here today.
That list begins with my family, my brother Frank, and my
sister Cathy are here today, but my parents and siblings who
always impressed upon me the value imperative of public
service, including my wife Joanne, our kids Claire and
Caroline, who have been steadfast in their love, and many of
them are all watching this around the country right now today.
I have also benefited tremendously from the mentorship of
many in the National Security Committee, not the least of which
was Secretary Ash Carter, but also Secretary Frank Kendall, Dr.
John Hamre, Secretary Debbie James, Frank Miller, David Sched,
Lisa Destro, Dr. Paul Kaminski, and Dr. Craig Fields, just to
name a few.
The mission of delivering and sustaining timely, cost
effective, and uncompromised capabilities for the armed forces
is never more relevant than it is today. We see it every day in
the news. China is our pacing threat, but of course, we also
have increasingly belligerent and aggressive behavior by
Russia, as well as malign actors and other existential threats.
If confirmed, my service as the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Sustainment would be the culmination of
over 36 years in National Security technology in the nonprofit
community. I also served as Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition, as a member of the Defense Science
Board, and as a member of the Section 809 Commission, which was
chartered to reform and speed up acquisition.
Looking forward, the defense acquisition system must be
focused laser like on delivering capability that meets the
needs both current and future of the warfighter forces, at
speed, at scale. Our troops must have what they need to
confront and overcome a rapidly evolving challenges not just
the threat, but as Secretary Carter said, technology changing.
We will do this by transitioning emerging technologies, whether
it is quantum sensing, hypersonics, artificial intelligence,
autonomy, directed energy.
All of these kinds of technologies, when you get them into
our systems and out to our forces so that the troops have what
they need to confront and overcome the threat. We must improve
our ability to acquire software and do software intensive
systems. That is going to be the key to agility and speed in
the future. We must sustain our fielded weapons systems in a
cost effective manner.
We must strengthen the defense industrial base, including
our supply chains, and tap the innovation of the private sector
by lowering barriers to doing business with the DOD or the
Government for small businesses, nontraditional commercial
firms, or startups. We must empower and enable the dedicated
professionals who comprise the defense acquisition workforce.
If confirmed, I strive to accomplish these and other
priorities as determined by the Secretary of Defense and the
Deputies Secretary of Defense, and I will devote myself to this
critical mission. In all that I do, I pledge to work closely
and transparently with this Committee and with the Congress.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. LaPlante follows:]
Prepared Statement by William A. LaPlante, Jr.
Good morning, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
Distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear before you today and for your consideration of my nomination
to serve as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment. I am honored by the trust and confidence that President
Biden and Secretary Austin have placed in me.
I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for your decades of
bipartisan work for the Department of Defense. The situation in Ukraine
today demonstrates the importance and urgency of the work this
Committee has done--day-in and day-out for the past 61 years.
I also would like to take a moment to thank some of the many people
who have shaped my life and career, and without whom I would not be
sitting before you today. That list begins with my family--my parents
and siblings, who always impressed upon me the value and imperative of
public service. It includes my wife, Joanne, and my children Claire and
Caroline, who have been steadfast in their love and support. My wife,
daughters, and extended family are all watching today's hearing from
locations across the country.
I have also benefitted tremendously from the mentorship of many in
the national security arena for whom and with whom I have been
privileged to serve: Dr. Ash Carter, Secretary Frank Kendall, Secretary
Debbie James, Mr. Bob Work, Dr. John Hamre, Dr. Frank Miller, Ms. Lisa
Disbrow, Mr. David Shedd, Dr. Paul Kaminski, and Dr. Craig Fields, to
name but a few.
The mission of delivering and sustaining timely, cost-effective,
and uncompromised capabilities for the armed forces and the DOD has
never been more important than it is today. China, our pacing threat;
an increasingly authoritarian Russia focused on regional hegemony;
malign actors; and other existential threats pose grave risks to the
global order and threaten our way of life.
If confirmed, my service as the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Sustainment would be the culmination of more than 36
years in the national security and non-profit technology communities --
including as the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition,
member of the Defense Science Board, and as a member of the Section 809
Panel charged to reform the defense acquisition system.
Looking forward, the defense acquisition system must be focused--
laser-like--on delivering capability that meets the needs--both current
and future--of U.S. forces. Our troops must have what they need to
confront and overcome rapidly evolving challenges from a fast-moving
pacing threat and peer competitors.
We will do this by transitioning emerging technologies:
hypersonics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, directed energy, and
others, into programs of record and fielding them for operational use.
We must improve our ability to acquire software and software-
intensive systems.
We must sustain our fielded weapon systems in a cost-effective
manner.
We must strengthen the Defense Industrial Base and our supply
chains. We must tap the innovation of the private sector by lowering
barriers to doing business with DOD for small businesses, non-
traditional commercial firms, and startups.
We must empower and enable the dedicated professionals who comprise
the defense acquisition workforce.
If confirmed, I will strive to accomplish these and other
priorities, as determined by the Secretary of Defense and Deputy
Secretary of Defense.
I will devote myself to this critical mission.
In all that I do, I pledge to work closely and transparently with
this Committee, and with the Congress.
Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Dr. LaPlante. Mr.
Raven, please.
STATEMENT OF ERIK RAVEN, NOMINEE TO BE UNDER SECRETARY OF THE
NAVY
Mr. Raven. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
distinguished members of this Committee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you this morning. First, I wish just thank
President Biden, Secretary Austin, Deputy Secretary Hicks, and
Secretary Del Toro. I am honored to receive the nomination to
serve as Under Secretary of the Navy, and I am grateful for
this opportunity to continue to serve our Nation.
Senator Tester, thank you for those kind words of
introduction and all of your support. If confirmed to this
position, I look forward to continuing our conversations on
your plans to make Montana into a center of naval power.
Finally, to my wife, Anne, and our son, Edward, I could not be
here without your support.
We have tackled the ups and downs of my work in public
service together as a family, and as I hope to embark on this
new challenge, I am thankful for your willingness to take this
journey with me. Mr. Chairman, the partnership of the United
States Navy and the United States Marine Corps constitutes the
world's greatest naval military force.
Together, their exquisite capabilities deter aggression,
deepen our ties with allies and partners, and when necessary,
respond to crises around the globe. We are a maritime Nation,
and the capabilities of our naval forces are directly related
to the security, prosperity, and the future of the United
States.
If confirmed to be Under Secretary of the Navy, I would be
responsible for assisting the Secretary of the Navy in carrying
out his duty to recruit, train, and equip the Navy and Marine
Corps to meet the security challenges of our era. To carry out
these tasks, first and foremost, I would be an advocate for the
Department of the Navy, especially for the 620,000 sailors and
marines and the 220,000 civilians who serve side by side today.
I believe the people must be the top priority of the
Department of the Navy. This means recruiting the right talent
for the challenges that lay ahead. It means growing new
generations of leaders to secure and instill excellence at all
levels. It means ensuring fair treatment for all those who
serve. I also believe that modernization of the Navy and Marine
Corps is a strategic imperative.
I wish to leverage my 15 years of experience on the Senate
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to maximize the power of
every dollar that Congress provides. This means identifying the
capabilities that are needed, setting a plan for acquiring
them, and working with partners and industry to deliver them
efficiently.
The need to modernize applies not only to major platforms
and breakthrough technologies like hypersonic missiles and
artificial intelligence, it also applies to facilities and
infrastructure that generate readiness for Navy and Marine
Corps forces.
I appreciate the hard work and leadership of this Committee
across these many issues. You have worked to provide the
Department of the Navy with direction and tools to address
these challenges and have pushed the Department to show
results. If confirmed, I will work with this Committee in
partnership to achieve what is needed.
Mr. Chairman, I place great emphasis on partnerships. I
view the position of Under Secretary of the Navy as a means to
build key partnerships across many groups, servicemembers and
civilians, the Department and industry, bases and communities,
and of course, across the Joint Force.
This brings me back to where I began, the Navy and Marine
Corps together constitute the world's greatest naval force. I
would be honored to help lead the Department of the Navy to
continue this history of excellence. Again, thank you for this
opportunity to appear before the Committee, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raven follows:]
Prepared Statement by Erik Raven
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of
this Committee, it is my pleasure to appear before you this morning.
First, I wish to thank President Biden, Secretary Austin, Deputy
Secretary Hicks, and Secretary Del Toro. I am honored to receive the
nomination to serve as the Under Secretary of the Navy, and I am
grateful for this opportunity to continue to serve our Nation.
Senator Tester, thank you for those kind words of introduction, and
all of your support. If confirmed to this position, I look forward to
continuing our conversations on your plans to make Montana into a
center of naval power.
Finally, to my wife, Ann, and our son, Edward: I could not be here
without your support. We have tackled the ups and downs of my work in
public service together, as a family. As I hope to embark on this new
challenge, I am thankful for your willingness to take this journey with
me.
Mr. Chairman, the partnership of the United States Navy and the
United States Marine Corps constitutes the world's greatest naval
military force. Together, their exquisite capabilities deter
aggression, deepen our ties with allies and partners, and - when
necessary - respond to crises around the globe. We are a maritime
nation, and the capabilities of our naval forces are directly related
to the security, prosperity, and the future of the United States.
If confirmed to be Under Secretary of the Navy, I would be
responsible for assisting the Secretary of the Navy in carrying out his
duty to recruit, train, and equip the Navy and Marine Corps to meet the
security challenges of our era. To carry out these tasks, first and
foremost I would be an advocate for the Department of the Navy--
especially for the 620,000 sailors and marines and the 220,000
civilians who serve side-by-side today.
I believe that people must be the top priority for the Department
of the Navy. This means recruiting the right talent for the challenges
that lay ahead. It means growing new generations of leaders to secure
and instill excellence at all levels. It means ensuring fair treatment
for all who serve.
I also believe that modernization of the Navy and Marine Corps is a
strategic imperative. I wish to leverage my 15 years of experience on
the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to maximize the power of
every dollar that Congress provides. This means identifying the
capabilities that are needed, setting a plan for acquiring them, and
working with partners in industry to deliver them efficiently. The need
to modernize applies not only to major platforms and breakthrough
technologies like hypersonic missiles and artificial intelligence. It
also applies to the facilities and infrastructure that generate
readiness for Navy and Marine Corps forces.
I appreciate the hard work and leadership of this Committee across
these many issues. You have worked to provide the Department of the
Navy with the direction and tools to address their challenges, and have
pushed the Department to show results. If confirmed, I will work with
this Committee in partnership to achieve what is needed,
Mr. Chairman, I place great importance on partnerships. I view the
position of Under Secretary of the Navy as a means to build key
partnerships across many groups. Servicemembers and civilians; the
Department and industry; bases and communities; and of course, across
the joint force.
This brings me back to where I began: the Navy and Marine Corps,
together, constitute the world's greatest naval force. I would be
honored to help lead the Department of the Navy to continue this
history of excellence.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to appear before the
Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Raven. Ms. Johnson,
please.
STATEMENT OF M. TIA JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Chairman Reed, Ranking Member
Inhofe, distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for
inviting me here today to consider my nomination to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. I would also like to
thank Secretary Austin and the President for their expression
of confidence in me. If confirmed, I will do my best to live up
to their trust. Joining me today is my husband, Al Phillips.
I thank him for his enduring love and support. A career
Army Officer himself, his sacrifice did not end when he took
off his uniform. Instead, he selflessly shared me with the
Army. I was deployed within three months of being married and
ended up being gone 18 months. Little did we know that it would
be the first of many separations. Those experiences keep me
mindful of the service and sacrifice of our men and women in
uniform. They deserve nothing less than a military justice
system that is strong, fair, and full of integrity.
We both inherited a lifestyle of service. My in-laws were
educators who started their careers teaching in segregated
schools in the South, but they persevered. My father was a
Marine in World War II who fought and was injured in the
Pacific. Like many, he used his GI benefits to attend college
and graduate school.
As a child psychologist, he dedicated his life to advancing
the educational needs of special needs children. My mother, who
cannot be here with us today, is 94 years old. She went to
college as an adult, returning to the public schools as a
reading instructor. From them, I learned the importance of
honesty, hard work, perseverance, believing and working for
something larger than yourself. Secretary Johnson stated that I
possess wisdom.
I think that is just the result of those combined traits. I
carried all those traits and values with me through 32 years of
Government service, 30 of those in uniform. I served with
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the world in
garrison, contingency operations, and in combat zones, and
every day I saw how exceptional the members of the Armed Forces
are.
But as a Judge Advocate, I also advise Commanders regarding
servicemembers misconduct. These experiences reinforce the
importance of balancing the need for good order and discipline
with protecting the rights of servicemembers.
Congress also understood that need and in 1950 reformed the
military justice system by enacting the Uniform Code of
Military Justice to ensure the servicemembers enjoy, to the
extent possible given the unique nature of military service,
the same Constitutional and legal protections as civilians.
At the same time, they established the Court of Military
Appeals, now the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, as a
specialized, independent appellate court to review court-
martials and provide civilian oversight of the military justice
system.
The Supreme Court has validated the system Congress created
by noting that the military justice system's essential
character is judicial and that CAAF, sitting atop this system,
functions like other courts of appeals, both Federal and state.
I view this opportunity to serve on the court as the privilege
and honor of a lifetime.
If confirmed, I will continue the tradition of
professionalism and independence recognized by the U.S. Supreme
Court. I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement by M. Tia Johnson
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me here today to consider my
nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF).
I'd also like to thank Secretary Austin, and the president for their
expression of confidence in me. If confirmed, I will do my best to live
up to their trust.
Joining me today is my husband, Al Phillips. I thank him for his
enduring love and support. A career Army officer himself, his sacrifice
did not end when he took off his uniform. He selflessly shared me with
the Army. I was deployed within 3 months of being married and ended up
being gone for 18 months. Little did we know that it would be the first
of many separations. Those experiences keep me mindful of the service
and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform. They deserve nothing
less than a military justice system that is strong, fair, and full of
integrity.
We both inherited a lifestyle of service. My in-laws were educators
who started their careers teaching in segregated schools in the south.
My father was a Marine in World War II who fought and was injured in
the Pacific. Like many, he used his GI Benefits to attend college and
graduate school. As a child psychologist, he dedicated his life to
advancing the educational needs of special need children. My mother,
who is 94 years old, went to college as an adult, returning to the
public schools as a Reading Instructor. From them I learned the
importance of honesty, hard work, perseverance, and believing and
working for something larger than yourself.
I carried those values with me through 32 years of government
service, 30 of those in uniform. I served with soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines around the world, in garrison, contingency
operations and in combat zones. Every day, I saw how exceptional the
members of the Armed Forces are. But, as a Judge Advocate, I also
advised commanders regarding servicemember misconduct. These
experiences reinforced the importance of balancing the need for good
order and discipline with protecting the rights of servicemembers.
Congress also understood the need, and in 1950 reformed the
military justice system by enacting the Uniform Code of Military
Justice, to ensure that servicemembers enjoy - to the extent possible
given the unique nature of military service - the same constitutional
and legal protections as civilians. At the same time, they established
the Court of Military Appeals (now CAAF), as a specialized,
independent, appellate court to review courts-martials and provide
civilian oversight of the military justice system.
The Supreme Court has validated the system Congress created, by
noting ``the military justice system's essential character is
judicial,'' and that CAAF, sitting atop this system, functions like
other courts of appeals (both federal and state).
I view this opportunity to serve on the court as the privilege and
honor of a lifetime. If confirmed, I will continue the tradition of
professionalism and independence recognized by the Supreme Court.
I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Ms. Johnson. Dr. Adams,
please.
STATEMENT OF MARVIN ADAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR
FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS, NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe,
and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am honored to be
nominated for the role of Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs in the NNSA. This is a critical time for the
organization as it strives to deliver on important commitments,
while at the same time rebuilding infrastructure, restoring
lost capabilities, and developing the expertise and
technologies that will be needed for future challenges.
If confirmed, I will do my best to justify the confidence
that President Biden, Secretary Granholm, and Administrator
Hruby have placed in me through this nomination. I thank
Ambassador Brooks for his kind introduction. I have learned a
lot from Linton Brooks over the years and I continue to benefit
greatly from his mentoring. My wife, Jenny, is unable to be
here in Washington today.
She and many friends and family members are watching
remotely. I thank them in advance for the love, support, and
encouragement that I know will sustain me if I am confirmed
into this new role. I especially thank Jenny, my partner and
companion for the last 43 years of the roller coaster ride from
a small high school in rural Mississippi to the seat in front
of you, for accepting the sacrifices that we must make if we
take on this new service role upon confirmation.
I have been engaged in the U.S. nuclear weapons program
since I started my career at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in 1986, and 3 decades at Texas A&M University, I
have spent a substantial fraction of my time serving U.S.
National Security efforts with a focus on the nuclear
deterrent. For example, as a member of the Jason Defense
Advisory Group, I have participated in more than 20 in-depth
studies related to nuclear weapons issues, concerns, and
activities, including study sponsored by DOD, as well as NNSA.
I have been chosen as study leader for most of those. The
NNSA, the National Security Laboratories, the National
Academies, and other organizations have repeatedly called on me
for reviews and advice related to nuclear weapons. In the past
4 decades, much of my research has been funded by the stockpile
stewardship program or similar programs. The results of my
research have been applied to challenging stewardship problems.
In recent years, I have chaired the Los Alamos Mission
Committee, whose purview includes plutonium pit production in
addition to all other weapons activities. This is required
knowledge of weapons, design, and assessment activities,
warhead delivery schedules and mandates, activities that
coordinate with Pantex, Y-12, the Kansas City National Security
Campus, the Nevada National Security Site in Savannah River, as
well as coordination with Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory, is required
knowledge of the management of large capital projects,
knowledge of supply chain issues, the science and engineering
challenges of producing specialized components such as
plutonium pits, while meeting stringent requirements for
quality, safety, and security.
I viewed NNSA from the DOD perspective, for example, as a
member of the Stockpile Assessment Team, which is part of the
Strategic Advisory Group for STRATCOM. These and other
activities have led me to understand the broad portfolio of
activities and tasks needed to maintain and enable the safety,
reliability, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile.
I understand what it takes to build and maintain the unique
capabilities that defense programs must employ to design,
assess, transport, surveil, dismantle, and manufacture nuclear
warheads. I understand the importance of delivering on
commitments and meeting military requirements.
If I am confirmed, my top priorities will be to maintain
the safety, security, and effectiveness of the current
stockpile, as well as to deliver on commitments for stockpile
modernization. The latter requires development and deployment
of more agile infrastructure, including plutonium pit
manufacturing capabilities and construction of essential
infrastructure. While focusing on these priorities, I will also
work to develop and nurture the capabilities for future
challenges.
NNSA cannot meet these challenges by itself. I am grateful
for the support that Congress, passed Administrations, and the
current Administration have provided for rebuilding essential
capabilities and infrastructure. NNSA partnership with DOD is
critical given their joint responsibilities for the deterrent.
If confirmed, I commit to working cooperatively with this
Committee, other Congressional stakeholders, and DOD to ensure
that the Nation's nuclear deterrent continues to be safe,
secure, and effective. Thank you for your consideration of my
nomination. It is an honor to appear before this Committee, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement by Marvin L. Adams
Thank you, Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished
members of the Committee. I am honored to be nominated for the role of
Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs at the Department of Energy's
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This is a critical
time, as the organization strives to deliver on important commitments
while rebuilding infrastructure, restoring lost capabilities, and
developing the expertise and technologies needed to meet future
challenges. If confirmed, I will do my best to justify the confidence
that President Biden, Secretary Granholm, and Administrator Hruby have
placed in me through this nomination.
I thank Ambassador Brooks for his kind introduction. I have learned
a great deal from Ambassador Brooks as we have collaborated on various
efforts over the years, and I continue to benefit from his mentoring.
My wife, Jenny, is unable to be here in Washington today. She and
friends and family members are watching remotely. I thank them in
advance for the love, support, and encouragement that will sustain me
if I am confirmed for this role. I especially thank Jenny--my partner
and companion for 43 years of the roller-coaster ride from a small high
school in rural Mississippi to this seat in front of you--for accepting
the sacrifices we must make to serve the country in this new capacity.
I have been engaged in the U.S. nuclear weapons program since
starting my career at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL)
in 1986. In my 3 decades at Texas A&M University, I have spent a
substantial fraction of my time working in the service of U.S. national
security, with a focus on the nuclear deterrent. As a member of the
JASON Advisory Group, for example, I have participated in more than 20
in-depth studies of nuclear-weapons activities, issues, and concerns,
including studies sponsored by the Department of Defense as well as
NNSA. I was chosen as study leader for most of them. The NNSA, the
National Security Laboratories, the National Academies, and other
organizations have called on me repeatedly for in-depth reviews and
advice on matters related to nuclear weapons.
During the past 4 decades, much of my research has been funded by
the Stockpile Stewardship program, and results from my research have
been applied to challenging stewardship problems.
In recent years, I have chaired Los Alamos National Laboratory's
Mission Committee, whose purview includes plutonium pit production in
addition to all other weapons activities. This role has required
knowledge of NNSA's weapons design and assessment efforts; warhead
delivery schedules and mandates; the production complex; management of
large capital projects; supply-chain issues; detailed science and
engineering challenges of producing specialized components (such as
plutonium pits) while meeting stringent requirements for quality,
safety, and security; and more.
I have viewed NNSA from the Department of Defense perspective, for
example as a member of the STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group's
Stockpile Assessment Team.
These and other activities have led me to understand the broad
portfolio of activities and technologies needed to maintain and enhance
the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile. I understand what it takes to build and maintain the unique
capabilities that Defense Programs must employ to design, assess,
transport, surveil, dismantle, and produce nuclear warheads. I
understand the importance of delivering on commitments and meeting
military requirements.
If I am confirmed, my top priorities will be to maintain the
safety, security, and effectiveness of the warheads deployed in today's
stockpile and to deliver on commitments for stockpile modernization.
The latter priority requires development and deployment of a more agile
infrastructure, including plutonium pit-manufacturing capabilities, and
construction of essential infrastructure for secondaries, non-nuclear
components, and more. While focusing on these priorities, I will also
work to develop and nurture the capabilities that will be needed for
the challenges our nuclear-weapons enterprise will face in the future.
NNSA cannot meet the challenges facing the U.S. nuclear weapons
program alone. I am grateful for the support that Congress, past
Administrations, and the current Administration have provided for
rebuilding essential capabilities and infrastructure. NNSA partnership
with the Department of Defense is critical given their joint
responsibility for our Nation's nuclear deterrent. If confirmed, I
commit to working cooperatively with the SASC, other Congressional
stakeholders, and the Department of Defense to ensure that the nation's
nuclear deterrent continues to be safe, secure, and effective.
Thank you for your consideration of my nomination. It is an honor
to appear before this Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Dr. Adams. I have a series of
questions which are asked of all nominees. You may respond in
unison. Have you adhere to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Chairman Reed. Have you assumed any duties or take any
actions that would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
[All four witnesses answered in the negative.]
Chairman Reed. Exercising our legislative and oversight
responsibilities 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?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
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 requester
regarding the basis for any good faith delay, or denial in
providing such records?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
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
reporting to hearing questions for the record and responding to
them?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Chairman Reed. Will you cooperate in providing witnesses
and briefers in response to Congressional requests?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Chairman Reed. Will those witnesses and briefers be
protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings?
[All four witnesses answered in the affirmative.]
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. Dr. LaPlante, we are at
a historic turning point, and the question is, will this, and
will we emerge more secure or frankly less secure? Part of the
manifestation of that is the fight in Ukraine right now, which
has Russia against the very valiant Ukrainian people.
But there is a possibility of escalation that could be very
dangerous, where a situation where we have technological
improvements, we used to dominate technology. That is no longer
the case. Hypersonics, clearly China and indeed Russia have
advantages on us. Finally, we are about to emerge for the first
time in the history of the world in a trilateral nuclear
competition, no longer a bilateral, the Soviet Union and the
United States, no, it is China, Russia, and the United States.
With those thoughts, what are the first several practical
steps you intend to take to get us to address these issues?
Dr. LaPlante. Senator, first to start out with, of course,
you bring up the Ukraine and just the heartbreak you see every
day, the refugees and the human toll from this Russian
aggression. If confirmed, one of my first things to do on day
one would be to accelerate all equipment and capabilities to
both the Ukrainians as we agreed to, and also helping our NATO
partners and replenish our stockpiles.
The second priority I hope to begin with immediately is
accelerate getting into our mainstream weapons systems, these
new technologies that you talked about. We do have a lot of
initiatives over the last several years thanks to this
Committee using new authorities to rapidly contract and to do
prototypes.
I think that is very good. We have got to get those
capabilities rapidly into the weapons systems, and sometimes
bridge what they call the valley of death. So I pledge to work
with the program officers to make it their job to do continuous
upgrades of technology so we can get back into this race that
you talked about. Thank you.
Chairman Reed. Well, thank you very much, Dr. LaPlante. Mr.
Raven, we all talk about the number of ships, and that is an
interesting and admirable discussion, but if those ships can't
leave the ports because they need repairs and we have limited
shipyard capacity, we have a problem. In fact, in last year's
National Defense Authorization Act, we directed the Navy to
investigate options for increasing ship repair capacity. If you
are confirmed, can you give us assurances you will get right on
this and get it done?
Mr. Raven. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me also say that
the availability of ships is key to the future, the forward
presence of our Navy and Marine Corps forces that help deter
aggression. Making sure that those resources are available to
support deployments is a key word for an end goal.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson, you have
an extraordinary career, and I concur with Secretary Johnson in
his assessment. But can you give us a brief overview of the
strengths and weaknesses in the military justice system,
including the fairness and effectiveness of the system?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that the
greatest strength is it was just recently ratified by the
Supreme Court in the Ortiz v. United States, when they held
that the essential character of the military justice system is
judicial and that the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
operates on par with other courts of appeals, both Federal and
state. The legitimacy of the system is its greatest strength.
For individual rights, it is the Article 31 rights against
self-incrimination incrimination that vest earlier in the
military context than they do in the civilian. Similarly, the
rights to counsel which are not dependent upon indigency, but
you know everyone has the right to counsel under our system.
The--some of the weaknesses may be, you know, the
perception of people that the system is somehow stacked against
them, but that comes into the fairness and the equity of the
system, and that we must ensure that there is integrity in the
process at each stage everywhere along that line. Having the
Court of Appeals as a civilian oversight of that system helps
to ensure that.
Chairman Reed. Just very quickly, Ms. Johnson. You do
recognize the importance of the administrative system of
punishment under article 15 is a critical aspect of the
military justice system?
Ms. Johnson. Yes, chairman, I recognize that.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. Dr. Adams, very
quickly. You have this tension, DOD requirements and core
scientific capability. Sometimes they correspond, other times
they diverge. How will you try to reconcile those?
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing up that
tension. It is a real one. It is one that the Deputy
Administrator has to manage. I will exercise judgment on that.
We can't eat our seed corn while at the same--we have short
term needs that are very pressing, but we can't lose sight of a
long term picture either, and we have to continue to develop
those science and technology capabilities that will meet our
future challenges.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Doctor. Senator Inhofe,
please.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr.
Chairman, you put out something that we don't like, and that is
that--and I can say this since I think I am the oldest one in
this room, but I can remember when it was unquestionable that
we in the United States had the best of everything and we don't
anymore.
As you pointed out in your opening statement, this is
something that we regret but it is a reality. We know that our
munitions stocks are too low in priority theaters. We don't
have the capacity to produce enough munitions and ammo in the
timeframe that we have allotted. This is a key challenge of
both deterrence and protraction, warfighting scenarios. For
example, we are sending thousands of stingers to Ukraine, and
we don't even have the hot production line.
Dr. LaPlante, this is something that we unfortunately have
to recognize and be used to. Let me just ask you the first
question, do we need to make some one-time investments this
year so we can expand production of key munitions?
Dr. LaPlante. Thank you for the question, Mr. Senator. Yes,
we do. I believe, and Senator you said the words hot production
lines, I believe we need multiple hot production lines, whether
it is munitions, UASs, and the like. They by themselves are a
deterrent and we need to put much more focus on that across the
board.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Well, I thank you very much, and I
think I mentioned in my opening remarks the USS Gerald Ford. In
many ways, this is a classic example of what not to do. From
the beginning, this new carrier had unrealistic cost and
schedule estimates that failed to account for the risks
associated with the ship's construction.
At the same time, there is a well-founded sense of urgency
to develop and field new systems faster. Where do you think we
should be innovating faster and taking on more risk, and where
do we need to have more rigor in our analysis?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. I would say this, we learned
the lesson from both Ford, and we would like to think we
learned the lesson from F-35 that you have to have mature
technologies and you have to be thoughtful in the design and
you have to adhere to independent cost estimates right from the
beginning. It takes a little bit of time at the beginning,
saves a lot of trouble later. But to get innovation, what you
have to do is we have to build the up the modular open systems
like we did for the B-21.
Once you have the open system, then we can be upgrading
with technology very fast. The technology that matures will
earn its way on and you have continuous upgrades that can be
done.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, that is--I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Raven, the Navy's budget, maintenance, and infrastructure,
and personnel levels are inadequate to maintain the current
fleet of approximately 295 ships, much less a fleet of at least
355 that we have been talking about, that the Congress has
challenges with.
Do you agree that based on the threats that we face as a
Nation, the Navy needs to grow in both capacity and capability?
Mr. Raven. Senator, thank you for that question. If
confirmed to this position, let me first say that you can count
on me to be an advocate for Navy Marine Corps capabilities. In
terms of----
Senator Inhofe. I am fully aware of that.
Mr. Raven. If you look at warfighting capabilities across
the Joint Force, I think there are several pillars that all
have to work together. That is modernization, that is
sustainment, that is manpower, that is readiness.
All of these have to come together to make that combat
credible force that would deter our adversaries. So if
confirmed, I look forward to getting to the bottom of each of
those pillars of readiness and working with this Committee to
address them.
Senator Inhofe. That is good, What I would like to ask you
to do is just take the next two or three days and in--for the
record, not this morning, but for the record, what specific
steps would you support to grow the fleet in terms of
capability, capacity, and maintenance, and personnel? Not this
morning, but in the next two or three days.
Mr. Raven. Happy to, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. Let me recognize
Senator King, please. Excuse me, Senator Warren has just
arrived. Are you ready, Senator Warren? Is that a maybe?
Senator Warren.
Senator Warren. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
want to thank all the nominees for being here today. Dr. Adams,
if I can, I would like to start with you. You are nominated to
oversee nuclear weapons program for NNSA, which puts you in
charge of projects that are complex and dangerous and also
very, very, very expensive.
I have been a critic of some of NNSA's work because of the
agency's record of waste and mismanagement that has cost
taxpayers billions of dollars over the years. So I want to ask
you about one of these pricey projects that isn't going very
well. We are modernizing our nuclear weapons program, and that
includes producing new plutonium pits, which make radioactive
raw material that we need for nuclear weapons.
In 2015, Congress set a requirement to produce 80 pits per
year by 2030, a big increase from our previous level of no more
than 20 pits a year that we had been able to produce. Dr.
Adams, will we reach 80 pits per year by 2030?
Dr. Adams. Thank you for that important question, Senator.
The current estimates by NNSA are that we will not reach 80
pits per year by 2030.
Senator Warren. Yes. So, I understand, these are complex
projects, and the original estimates may have been off, but I
am deeply concerned that we are not even sure how much
increased pit production is going to cost us. The estimated
budget for this work at just one pit production site doubled
over the course of just a couple of months.
We have thrown money at this problem, but the head of
Strategic Command recently told this Committee, ``even
unlimited money'' will not get us to 80 pits a year. Dr. Adams,
do you agree with Strategic Command that the problem facing pit
production can't be solved by just throwing more money at it?
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Senator. I agree that we can't get to
2030 just by throwing more money at it, to 80 by 2030, by just
throwing more money at it.
Senator Warren. Okay. Well, it is clear to me there are a
lot of reasons that pit production isn't meeting the goals,
including that the goals may not be sustainable, but lack of
funding is not one of the problems.
Admiral Richards is a big supporter of more pit production,
so if even he says more money won't fix this, then obviously we
need to rethink our approach. So Dr. Adams, if confirmed, will
you review the current pit production plan and advise this
Committee on what would be a more sustainable and achievable
path?
Dr. Adams. I certainly will, Senator.
Senator Warren. Now, I am glad to hear that, because I
think that sticking to the current plan just defies common
sense. It is unfathomable to me that NNSA would not reconsider
the plan, and I hope that you will give this issue a serious
look, if you are confirmed. It is no secret that I think that
our nuclear weapons policy is dangerous and unsustainable.
But even those who want these weapons to occupy a more
prominent role in our National Security should be able to agree
that continuing to waste billions of dollars in pursuit of an
unachievable goal makes us not more safe, it makes us less
safe. So I hope that the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review gives
the President real options to reduce nuclear weapons spending,
including a path to scale back NNSA's modernization plans.
We are going to spend more than $630 billion over the next
10 years, and that spending is only going to rise if we double
down on plans that we know will not succeed. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Warren. Senator Cotton,
please.
Senator Cotton. Thank you all. Congratulations on your
nomination. Mr. LaPlante, I would like to say that I am worried
about the continued over classification, you might even say
hyper classification, at the Department of Defense. It seems
like a majority of new programs get special access program
classification, which makes oversight by the committees and our
staffs harder.
The classified program budget lines in the most recent
omnibus bill were over 20 percent of the procurement budget,
and once we get these great capabilities, there is often not a
great way to test or train on them. I am reminded what Bob
Gates, the Former Director of the CIA said, that he had
security clearances that he didn't know existed for programs he
couldn't remember ever being briefed on.
If confirmed, can you commit that you will only use the
Special Access Program classification for a truly exquisite
capability?
Dr. LaPlante. Senator--and I would be happy to follow up
with you, but absolutely, I commit to it, to reviewing that,
classification at all levels and whether things are over
classified. Absolutely.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I guess I am on this Committee
on the Intelligence Committee, and I try to do a good job of
staying on top of everything but sometimes I feel like Bob
Gates. Mr. Raven, earlier this year, several members of
Congress commissioned report about the culture of the United
States Navy, especially the surface Navy. Have you read the
report that we commissioned?
Mr. Raven. Yes, I have, Senator.
Senator Cotton. Do you have any thoughts on it?
Mr. Raven. Senator, I think the studies showed that
warfighting capability is the number one mission of the Navy
and Marine Corps. If confirmed, I intend to support that goal
of increasing Navy Marine Corps warfighting capabilities.
Senator Cotton. Thank you. I think this is mostly a Navy
culture and leadership problem, not just today's Navy, but
going back 20 years. Congress and this Committee has some
responsibility, I would say as well. But it is really something
that need to be driven inside the Navy.
I mean, the Navy has lost a capital warship on average once
a year for the last five years. It can explain why this is and
why that case happened and how this one is different. But in
the end, it is like Bill Parcells said, you are what your
record says you are. I think that the Navy has under invested
in surface warfare training for a couple of decades.
Trying to turn that around. I know Secretary--the Secretary
is trying to turn it around as well, but maybe can I get your
commitment to come report back to me after about 100 days or so
on what you are seeing, if you are confirmed, on the job?
Mr. Raven. Absolutely, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Cotton. Okay. Ms. Johnson, how many criminal cases
have you tried in your history as lawyer?
Ms. Johnson. Military justice and civilian cases combined,
it would be over 2,000.
Senator Cotton. Criminal cases?
Ms. Johnson. Yes.
Senator Cotton. Okay, thank you. If you are confirmed, do
you view your career in the military as an asset in the court's
primary role of providing civilian oversight to the military
justice system?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I do consider my
experience as an asset. One, it will aid in the understanding
of some of the issues and also understanding the processes. As
Secretary Johnson noted, you know, experience ties into wisdom.
I do think that 30 years of experience in uniform will be an
added benefit.
Senator Cotton. Let me ask you this because this is nothing
against you and your great years of experience as well. I do
have concerns about the direction the court has taken in recent
years. In 2014, the Congress allowed retirees to join the court
after a cooling off period. Going back to 1991, it had been
required that you couldn't be a retiree. Could serve, but not
have been a retiree.
I think the point of that was that this is civilian
oversight to the military justice system. If a lance corporal
or private sees a retired colonel or flag officer who made
their life in the military justice system, they may view them
as part of the system. Do you have a concern that if you are
confirmed, I believe a majority of the Active judges will be
retirees from the system, either active or reserves, and
whether or not litigants in front of your court are going to
perceive that they are going to get a fair shake?
Again, this is not about you in particular. You would be
one of three and there have been others in the past as well.
Just a concern I have about the direction of the court.
Ms. Johnson. Senator, I understand your concern, and I
think that as a retiree, when I, if confirmed, I am sitting on
the bench, I will be sitting there as a judge, judging the
facts before me, applying the law as applicable. But that if a
situation arose as we had last term in the Begani case, that
could cause a conflict, I like Judge Sparks would carefully
review that, and if I felt that I needed to recuse, I would in
fact recuse myself.
Senator Cotton. Well, thank you for that commitment, and I
do think it is important that we be mindful of it, and I think
it may be even something the Committee needs to review. It is
akin to the waivers we gave to Secretary Mattis and Secretary
Austin. I think those are ill advised. I voted for one,
Secretary Mattis.
I regret that. Not anything particular about him. I think
civilian oversight of the Department is very important, whether
it is at the Secretary level or at the Court of Appeals. Again,
nothing about your distinguished record of service. But I think
it is something the Committee needs to consider. Thank you.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Cotton. Senator Kelly,
please.
Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
all of our witnesses today. Dr. LaPlante, this question is--let
me start with you. In the face of growing and changing threats
from our adversaries, the Department of Defense continues to
struggle with rapidly adopting emerging technologies that can
transform the next generation of military capabilities.
It is clear to many of us that the edge in future warfare
will belong to nations that effectively modernize their
capabilities by harnessing disruptive technologies like AI,
cyber, quantum computing, and advanced microelectronics to
upgrade and adapt their way of fighting.
At the same time, we have budgetary overruns and
bureaucratic challenges. While I have supported bipartisan
efforts to develop new technologies, I also know that we can't
spend our way out of these challenges. We need to spend smarter
and find better ways to quickly advance development in the
fielding of these game changing technologies, around the
country, there are innovative ecosystems working to enhance our
capabilities.
Arizona is such a place. It is home to several of our
military's key testing and training ranges, which play a unique
and important role in supporting the Joint Force and supporting
aerospace and defense industry leaders that are developing
solutions that help us maintain an advantage on the
battlefield.
In the heart of it all, Arizona State University is
uniquely suited to translate new technologies to meet current
and future DOD challenges with its robust technical
capabilities and extensive innovation ecosystem, in partnership
with DOD industry and venture capital firms. So, Mr. or Dr.
LaPlante, I know that you have a solid background and
understanding of the industry and the emerging threats that we
face.
If confirmed to lead Acquisition and Sustainment, what will
you do to strengthen the support of these innovation
accelerators so these ecosystems can more rapidly transition
new technology into field, deployable solutions?
Dr. LaPlante. Thank you for the question, Senator. What you
talked about a regional ecosystem in Arizona, as you point out,
that is the future. There are several ecosystems all over the
country. I am actually on the board of a nonprofit of an
advanced manufacturing institute in Michigan that is
transforming how a new manufacturing and engineering techniques
are being used.
A lot of these regional associations, as you just pointed
out, have strong ties to academia. I think what I would do,
what I plan to do if confirmed, is really accelerate these
public, private partnerships that are happening around the
country and make sure that we are out there explaining our
problems to industry and academia, and also showing them, hey,
there is hope.
If we fund you, we are not just funding you for your
prototype, but you can have a line of business. If it is
successful, we get it into a production line. I think that last
piece is what has been missing.
Senator Kelly. Well, thank you. Mr. Raven, I am going to
transition to something that is kind of on the other end of the
spectrum with technology and is more about moving stuff. So I
am a graduate of the United States Merchant Marine Academy, and
I have been very concerned about the decline witnessed in our
Merchant Marine over the last 50 years even.
In fact, I am focused on our Merchant Marine because I
believe not doing so puts our military and our Nation at a
strategic disadvantage, particularly as our military pivots to
great power competition with China especially, a Nation that is
putting significant resources in the modernizing its fleet and
conducting a growing number of naval operations and maritime
activity in more distant waters.
So, Mr. Raven, what priority should the Navy be placing on
our military sea lift capabilities in light of the pivot to
great power competition?
Mr. Raven. Senator, those capabilities are key to our
warfighting capability. Being able to sustain forces that are
forward deployed, whether it is material fuel or other
capabilities is at the heart of that. I am encouraged by the
Navy's recent efforts to look at commercial vessels to leverage
that capability. But if confirmed, I pledge to take a top to
bottom look at those capabilities and consult back with you.
Senator Kelly. Well, I hope you work with our office,
because right now you say take a look at commercial vessels. So
the Chinese have a merchant fleet of about 5,500 ocean going
merchant ships. We have about 85, I think the number is.
So we are greatly outmatched, and a big conflict at sea
often results in some losses. It wouldn't be--it wouldn't take
much time before we are at a strategic disadvantage, and we are
not going to be able to resupply our troops. So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Kelly. Senator King,
please.
Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LaPlante, one
thing I want to emphasize, and I would like your views, unlike
in past practices in terms of procurement, everything we
procure, we must think of from the perspective of the cyber
risk. Part of your title is acquisition and sustainment, and
whatever we acquire isn't sustainable if it is subject to a
cyber-attack. Your views on that is a part of--an essential
part of the acquisition process.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator, I appreciate the question, and
you are absolutely right. In fact, there is a concept that was
introduced a few years ago. I was part of this work at MITRE
called Deliver on Compromise, where the whole premise is you
have got to deliver the parts and the capabilities
uncompromised, don't bake in cybersecurity later. Not cyber
secured forces is not a cyber ready force.
So what I plan to do, if confirmed, is check on the cyber
status across the major programs that we have, including red
teams, including making sure there is constant mitigation going
on to the cyber threat. It requires continuous education,
continuous engagement with industry.
Every day, the threat changes, and, but it is the cyber
resiliency of our weapon systems have to be able to fight
through cyber just like any other enemy effect.
Senator King. I appreciate that, and I like hearing the
term red teams. I think every product should be red teamed and
tested for cybersecurity before accepted into the fleet, if you
will. One of the things I have observed as we are talking
through these issues with military personnel is that speed is
of the essence.
Technology is developing so fast that we can't afford to
wait months and years and decades for the development of new
technologies. Technology often decides the outcome of the
battle, and I hope that that is an emphasis.
One thing that I have observed is that we tend to be risk
averse, and we say that, you know, we won't run a test unless
we are sure it is going to pass. Our adversaries have a
different philosophy. They test and test and test and fail and
fail and fail and learn every time and end up beating us in
terms of issues like hypersonics and other directed energy, for
example.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, I agree. A failed test is one where you
don't learn, and one has to continue to do testing, to your
point. We tested in 2010, 2011 a combined DARPA, Air Force
experiment to fly a hypersonic glide vehicle from Vandenberg
Air Force Base to Kwajalein.
The two tests, they both failed, and the United States
stopped hypersonic glide vehicle work. China and Russia just
kept going. So you have to test, you have to learn from the
tests, and should keep going.
Senator King. You have to accept failure as a test. That is
why it is called a test.
Dr. LaPlante. It is how you learn.
Senator King. You mentioned something that I think is very
important and that is modularity and acquisitions, particularly
of complex platforms, so that they can be upgraded quickly
without having to redesign the whole platform. The B-21, I
think, is an example of that. That I take it is going to be
part of your philosophy moving forward into acquisition.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator, it is. In fact, we have known
about modular systems for 20 to 30 years. We need to get them
into all of our new systems and put it in the RFP. You
mentioned to the B-21. That was designed with an open standard
right from the beginning, such that continuous technology can
be upgraded for the next decades to come. That should be in all
of our systems.
Senator King. Two other quick questions on acquisition. One
is, I believe we need to be more cognizant of the advantages of
off the shelf technology or technology has been developed
somewhere else in the world that we can adapt. We don't have to
start from scratch on everything. If Senator Tillis were here,
he would probably have his foot high spec for a handgun,
special handgun for the military, as opposed to the handguns
that are available.
Finally, I believe that an essential part of the
acquisition process today has to be the intellectual property
so that we can then additive manufacture the parts. My vision
is a 3D printer on every ship, every depot, every base so that
we don't have to wait for a valve from the OEM or from the
supply chain. We can print it on site and that's a readiness
question.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. We have too many places in the
system where the OEM has vendor lock and we are tied into that
OEM decades later when we could bring in competition, if we had
the intellectual property on the part, as you point out.
Senator King. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Well, thank you, Senator King, and I have--I
will take the opportunity to ask several questions. I am
informed that several of our colleagues are finishing up a
Commerce Committee hearing and will join us shortly. But Dr.
LaPlante, one of the current issues we have is the defense
industrial base. Several factors I have observed.
One is there has been a massive consolidation of the
defense industrial base so that several different competitors
no longer exist, and so, ideas aren't as forthcoming. That
affects price, in addition.
Also, when you get down to the subcontracting level, you
have issues of quality and also the perennial issue of cyber.
In undersea warfare, we have provided resources for the--that
industrial base to begin to look down at the subcontractors.
But can you just generally characterize what the challenges are
with the industrial base?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. To start with, as you pointed
out the consolidation, I think, Senator, we have all seen the
charts going back to the 90s where you had the Last Supper and
then all these defense companies, and it just went down to
where we are today. Now, why do we want--why is that not good?
Because we need competition. Why do we need competition?
Because that is how you drive innovation and speed.
So it is very, very important that we have a robust and
healthy industrial base. As far as the suppliers go, I think we
need to continue to put pressure on the primes to know their
supply chain, know it three or four tiers down.
One of the challenges there is a legal term called contract
privity, where sometimes the prime is not allowed to know maybe
third or fourth levels down. There are ways around that. There
are tools that you can use using open source software as well
as AI to really make the primes understand their subs and know
where their critical failures and critical point of failures
are.
Chairman Reed. Well, thank you very much. Mr. Raven, the
Navy is still striving, as so many elements and Department of
Defense, to achieve a clean audit opinion. Can you tell us how
you might be able to accelerate that process and get to the
clean audit?
Mr. Raven. Yes, Senator. Audibility is a very key
component, not only for accountability of how the Government
spends taxpayer funds, but also efficiency within an
organization. I understand that the Marine Corps is closing in
on a clean audit within the next couple of years.
I want to understand where they have made progress and also
take a closer look at where the Navy is and what obstacles
there are to achieving that clean audit. Again, I think the
Committee for its leadership and emphasizing the need to get to
a clean audit.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much. Ms. Johnson, one of the
issues that is perennial with respect to the Uniform Code of
Justice and the military justice system in general is the issue
of unlawful command influence. How well do you think the
military is doing in eliminating that? What would be the role
of your court in dealing with that issue?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, as you--I
totally understand your concern about that issue. We all should
be concerned about it. You know, as the Supreme Court has said,
the military justice system is protected by the Fifth Amendment
due process clause.
Those would be the type of analysis that we would have to
take if we saw unlawful command influence in a case.
Additionally, Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice prohibits unlawful command influence or gain
statutorily, we will be reviewing that. If confirmed, I
certainly would be sensitive to those issues and any other
issues with regards to potential interference.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, and let me just elaborate on a
question I asked previously. We focused a great deal of
attention on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, all of the
articles and the procedures.
But my memory of judicial proceedings is that the vast
majority of judicial actions taken within the military is an
administrative processes through Article 15 principally. One
concern is how these new changes with respect to the UCMJ might
affect the Article 15 process. You have any ideas or insights
in that regard?
Ms. Johnson. Well, Senator, certainly whenever new
legislation is passed, there is always--there will always be
issues with regards to its scope, its meaning, its
interpretation, even its Constitutionality.
So that likely could become a challenge with regards to how
they are--the new changes are implemented. So to that extent,
any challenges could well end up before the court, and so I
would be hesitant to comment on them particularly. But
certainly article 15 is an avenue that is used by Commanders.
One of the benefits of the article 15 is that as you are
familiar with the terminology, it often gives our
servicemembers an opportunity to, in the Army we would say,
soldier your way back. I would hope that Commanders would
continue to look at alternate means to address misconduct.
Chairman Reed. I think that is a very insightful comment
because filtering back, I think we have all seen it happen.
Sometimes it doesn't happen, but many times it does, and that
is good for the service and good for the individual soldier.
Dr. Adams, it has been raised before about the course that we
are looking at in terms of getting sufficient pit production.
This Administration is committed to rebuilding the half
finished mixed oxide or mock fuel plant at the Savannah
Riverside, in addition to operating the existing plant at Los
Alamos in order to achieve the 80 pits per year. The cost of
converting the plant to produce plutonium pits has increased
from the initial 2018 estimate of some $4.6 billion to December
2021 estimate of $8 to $11 billion.
That is a significant change. Why do you think this cost
increased and how will you help set requirements to contain
future costs? Also, how will you integrate these two
facilities? There is one concern I have heard is that there
will be a sort of a, if you will, a brain drain from Los Alamos
to Savannah, which might leave those institutions without them,
you know, critical mass of talent to get the job done. So could
you respond to those issues?
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for raising that
important issue and for giving me a chance to comment more
fully on that. So first of all, let me say that while I have
stated that I do not think we will be making 80 pits per year
by 2030 on our current path, I do firmly believe that if we
stay on our current path, we will make 80 pits per year with
more than 30 per year at Los Alamos and more than 50 per year
at Savannah River.
I just cannot tell you exactly when the Savannah River
production will come online. As far as the cost estimates at
Savannah River, the NNSA has gotten a lot better at its cost
estimates, once the facility in question has been designed
fairly thoroughly and the scope and size of the facility itself
and its supporting infrastructures are known. We are not there
yet with Savannah River.
So the question is why are early estimates--why are the
NNSA early estimates so low in general compared to the more
realistic estimates that come out later? This is a question
that I intend to pursue vigorously if I am confirmed. I have
had some conversations about this already. I believe there is a
way to make them better. It is difficult, let me say, to do a
cost estimate on a facility that hasn't been designed yet.
So, you know, I kind of cut people a little bit of slack
there. Nevertheless, we have got to do a lot better.
Chairman Reed. Could you comment on the potential for a
brain drain of moving people from Los Alamos? I mean, I could
see someone who has spent her career there and just for
personal reasons, even though the job still is challenging,
deciding he or she does not want to go from the deserts of New
Mexico to the coast of South Carolina.
Dr. Adams. Yes, thank you for reminding me of that
question, Senator. That was a concern that I had also early on.
What I have seen actually happen is a win, win situation that
is in progress right now and that Savannah River employees are
coming to Los Alamos to not only learn the business of pit
production, but also to help out at Los Alamos with pit
production.
In a closed session some time we could talk about some of
the specifics where the people from Savannah River have pitched
in and made a significant difference in a positive way at Los
Alamos.
Chairman Reed. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Adams. I have
been informed that we have eight colleagues that are on their
way from the Commerce Committee. At this point, I would call
the hearing to recess for a few minutes. Please stand in place.
As soon as the first of my colleagues arrive, we will reconvene
the hearing for additional questions. The Committee stands in
recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Reed. Let me call the hearing to order once again
after the recess and recognize Senator Scott.
Senator Scott. Thank you, Chair. Dr. LaPlante--first of
all, thank you for each of you been here. Dr. LaPlante, I have
been here about three years and my background is in business,
and one thing I have watched since I have been up here is, it
seems like what defense does is that they do a lot of research,
development, but you don't get it in to fruition.
If we did that in business, we would all go bankrupt, and
so what do you think you can do that is going to change that
where we don't just research everything and never develop it to
something that is going to help us defend the country?
Dr. LaPlante. Senator Scott, I appreciate the question. I
believe that industry and small business and innovators have to
see there is a chance they are going to get whatever they do in
research into a production line, and so we have to have the
metrics. If we don't get things into a production line, we are
not succeeding. That is what we have to do.
Senator Scott. So, a year from now, what do you going to
come back and say, hey, I changed this process, and this is why
it works better now.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. Two things, Senator. One would be to
make --to up the production lines of the production lines we
currently have to put munitions, UASs, just get them--higher
production. But the second is work on all the weapons systems
across the valley of death to make sure we are injecting
technology into the systems we have.
Because we have the program officers over here that have
the weapons systems with the technologists over here. We have
to make those--that pipeline go and make it a metric for
success.
Senator Scott. So what would you--so what is a private
company that you would say, they know how to take something
from research and development to actual use quickly that you
would use as a best practices?
Dr. LaPlante. Well, I think SpaceX is one. SpaceX is a
private company, but they also do business with the Government.
They are doing an agile software development processes to get
to a launch every two weeks on their critical launch
capability. That is a speed that is just unheard of, and so it
can be done. I think they have to see that.
The other pieces, I think that small businesses and
industry have to see that there is skin in the game, that they
have a viable line of business, if they are successful and
innovating. They don't just get a one off contract for a
prototype, but with SpaceX as an example, of just rapid
innovation.
Senator Scott. So are there any standards where the private
sector says, we spend this much on research and development
before things get to something that is going to be useful that
you would be able to apply?
Dr. LaPlante. Well, I think what I understand the private
sector does, and we saw this when we were doing agile software
study, was they do it incremental all the time. They will do
some research, come back in 90 days, two months, three months,
say, what do you got for it?
If it is not paying off within 6 months, they will stop and
go to something else. But so that is something the DOD does not
do, generally. We have got to move to those much more agile
approaches. So a lot of private business, they are
simultaneously having a lot of these R&D efforts going on at
the same time, but they will stop them immediately if it is not
paying off.
Senator Scott. You think you have the ability to do that?
Dr. LaPlante. In software, I think we do. What I don't know
about Senator, and I would like to find out should I be
confirmed, is if we can bring those agile approaches to more
hardware centric systems.
That if we are doing the research and we are doing tests
and say, no, we have got to stop that or do three at the same
time and do best of breed bake off within 6 months.
Senator Scott. Okay. Thank you. Dr. Adams, do you support
the monetization of U.S. nuclear deterrence, and do you have
any concerns with the current modernization schedule?
Dr. Adams. Thank you for that question, Senator. I do
support the current modernization efforts. I have concerns in
general about our ability to meet schedule. If confirmed, I
will dig into the details of that and see if there are looming
problems that would cause us to not meet schedule.
Senator Scott. Are you committed to make sure that the
annual budget request for defense programs will be sufficient
to support the DOD military requirements?
Dr. Adams. Yes, Senator.
Senator Scott. What if they weren't, what would you do?
What if you said we have to have this and the people above you
said, no, we are not going to do that? We just don't spend the
money like that. What would you do?
Dr. Adams. Well, I would certainly have the conversation
with Jill Hruby, and I have got a lot of confidence in her as
far as being receptive to that message.
Senator Scott. Alright. Thank you, Chair.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Peters,
please.
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. LaPlante, in
your opening statement and in your written testimony, you
identified the need to tap into the private sector's innovation
by lowering barriers to doing business with the Department of
Defense, particularly for small businesses.
In your view, to let the Committee know, what do you
believe is the proper balance between the untapped resources
such as small businesses, nontraditional commercial firms and
startups, and proven defense industries that can continue to
deliver world class systems for warfighters? We have a lot of
elements there. What is the proper balance?
Dr. LaPlante. Thank you for the question, Senator. I would
look at it this way, Senator, I think as I understand it, we
want the widest amount of competition possible. We want all of
those elements there. Any part of that portfolio you just
described whether small business, startups, or main defense
contractors that are getting out of the business is bad for us.
So the real question about the balance is we want competition.
We want competition not just for its own sake, but it will
drive better behavior.
We also have to make sure that frankly if you are a
traditional defense contractor and you are a prime that you
shouldn't get complacent. That if in fact there is a new
entrant, small business or startup that can do your job, you
will be competitive with them, and it is going to drive better
behavior. That is the way I would look at it.
Senator Peters. Mr. LaPlante, in my committee assignments,
I serve as chair of Homeland Security and Government Affairs, I
am a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee, and, of course, a member of the Armed Services
Committee. So I am frequently working on concepts that address
kind of the crossroads between industry, Department of Defense,
as well as general Government accountability.
In many instances, these concepts all intersect. In my
State of Michigan, as you know, there are significant
industrial capacity, and they are also continually engaging
with academic institutions to research and development new
materials new technologies systems, all of the things we need
for the future warfighter.
Given the significant role that Michigan plays in support
of defense acquisition and sustainment, I would like to invite
you to join me in Michigan to witness firsthand some of our
current operations and discuss how we can meet these needs.
So, my question to you is, if confirmed and after you have
a few months to settle into your position, if confirmed, will
you commit to visiting Michigan to see firsthand how
acquisition and sustainment needs and partners in the industry
could be beneficial?
Dr. LaPlante. Senator, absolutely.
Senator Peters. Right. Thank you, Mr. Raven, Mr. Putin's
unlawful and immoral invasion of Ukraine has reminded many in
Washington of the enduring need for the United States to
maintain and to deploy effective missile defense systems all
across the globe.
The Navy currently operates the Aegis Ashore site in
Romania and is constructing a site in Poland. There have been
some concerns within the Navy, though that the operating of a
land based version of the Aegis system consumes some valuable
personnel and funding resources that might be better spent
elsewhere in the Navy.
My question for you, Mr. Raven, do you believe there is a
right balance between maintaining an effective naval component
to missile defense while also ensuring the Navy has the
resources to perform its core missions every day?
Mr. Raven. Yes, Senator, and first, let me share my
thoughts for the people of Ukraine who are fighting for their
democracy against this unparalleled aggression against them. In
terms of those missile defense sites that you are referencing,
if confirmed, I intend to work closely with the Missile Defense
Agency to make sure that our allies are defended, but also go
deeper and understand the resourcing requirements for those
versus other Navy priorities.
Senator Peters. Alright, thank you. Also, Mr. Raven, to
continue with the theme of resource constraints on the Navy in
the midst of introducing a host of new platforms and
technologies to the fleet, these include the Constellation-
class frigates, which I would add very proudly are built by
Michigan workers in the shipyard the Marionette just across the
border in Wisconsin, as well as Ford-class carriers, unmanned
surface vessels, Columbia-class submarines.
Since you come from an appropriations background, I know
you realize, or I realize that you have extensive experience in
funding these programs. But if confirmed, how will you help
ensure that the Navy is able to efficiently and effectively
integrate these new platforms at an operational level?
Mr. Raven. Senator, thank you for that. In terms of the
integration of new capabilities, I think the Navy is looking at
a mix of both capacity and new capabilities to deliver those--
what is needed by our sailors. In terms of those new platforms,
I look forward to working closely with the CNO and others to
make sure that the capabilities of those exciting platforms are
delivered right.
Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator Wicker,
please.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Peters has
expressed a concern about the fleet, and I want to echo that in
questions for both Mr. Raven and Dr. LaPlante. The most recent
30 years shipbuilding plan submitted last year calls for a Navy
of between 321 and 372 ships. A December 2020 version of the
plan calls between 382 and 446 ships. The Navy's most recent
publicly released force structure assistance called for 355
ships, and as you know, that is the statutory requirement
passed by this Congress and signed into law by the President of
the United States.
Yet recent testimony from the Chief of Naval Operations
indicates the fleet cannot grow from its current roughly 297
ships without a larger budget. In the recently passed Fiscal
Year 2022 omnibus, Congress responded to a need shared on both
sides of the aisle for a larger fleet by committing the
resources necessary to move us in that direction. In a
bipartisan manner, we voted for $26.7 billion to procure 13
Navy ships.
This was $4.1 billion more than President Biden asked for
in his request. So, Mr. Raven and Dr. LaPlante, please respond
to this set of facts. What are your views on the most recent 30
year shipbuilding plan and the various analysis and
requirements for the size of the Navy? What mix of ships do you
believe should be emphasized? What are your plans to fund the
Navy, particularly shipbuilding? We will start with Mr. Raven
first and then go to Dr. LaPlante.
Mr. Raven. Alright. Thank you, Senator Wicker. In terms of
establishing a good shipbuilding plan for the Navy, I think
there is a couple of elements here. First of all, is, of
course, as you mentioned, the 30 year shipbuilding plan that is
the signal to industry of what to expect for future years so
industry can prepare to build those ships in the most effective
manner possible.
Let me also add that the authorities provided by this
Committee to make sure that industry can operate efficiently in
building those ships is a very critical tool.
Senator Wicker. Absolutely.
Mr. Raven. I would also add that the force structure
assessment that is ongoing and should be released shortly is
another key element of what the warfighting requirements will
be. I really look forward to reviewing both that force
structure assessment and the 30 year shipbuilding plan when it
comes out in the very near future.
Senator Wicker. Could you be a little more specific about
the very near future?
Mr. Raven. My understanding is that the Department of
Defense is planning to release those--I am afraid I can't be
more specific than the near future, but I understand it will be
soon.
Senator Wicker. Dr. LaPlante, what do you say to this, and
will you commit to working with the Navy and the Marine Corps
on their requirements and not simply letting OSD and OMB
determine the requirements for the services?
Dr. LaPlante. Absolutely. Force levels and all the force
level studies that were talked about, I will support them and
do whatever I can to make sure these requirements are met.
Again, thank you to the Committee for giving the authorities
for the ships that you just described, Senator.
Senator Wicker. Do you have any views about the question I
asked Mr. Raven? What mix or type of ships and the various
requirements for the size of the Navy?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. All I would say is that, I mean,
obviously we need more numbers. As has been said many times,
quantity has a quality all its own.
As far as the exact force structure, I am not current on
the current, you know, all plans to really be able to answer
that. My bias of my background is we want survivable, and we
want to strike. But I would really look forward, if confirmed,
to see the force structure that is being offered by the Navy
recommended.
Senator Wicker. Okay, and quickly. In the recently passed
2022 omnibus, Congress responded to needs by appropriating $625
million for shipyard infrastructure optimization plan. This was
$219 million above President Biden's budget. How will you work
to ensure that our Government's depots, ammunition plants, labs
and shipyards are sustained and modernized? Can you say whether
you support increased funding to these areas? Dr. LaPlante.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I believe our
infrastructure overall needs attention, whether it is the
shipyards and the like, and also the workforce for the
shipyards. Yes, I support increased funding.
As we know, as we see in Ukraine, sustainment and readiness
of the force is a top--has to be a top priority and we have to
fund these areas that is going to continue to give a ready
force for years to come.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Raven, shipyards, depots, military
infrastructure?
Mr. Raven. Senator, these facilities are key to generating
readiness. There has been much discussion about the shipyards,
and I agree that this is a once in a century bill that needs to
be addressed. I also would support looking at the other
facilities that help generate not only servicemember readiness,
but industrial readiness. So I would look forward to working
with you on those issues.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. Senator
Gillibrand, please.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Scientific
studies have demonstrated that exposure to PFAS in the
environment is linked to harmful health effects in both humans
and animals. Due to the presence of this harmful forever
chemical on DOD installations, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires the DOD to test the groundwater of all installations
by the end of 2023 for PFAS contamination.
For Mr. LaPlante, if confirmed, will you commit the DOD
will meet this NDAA deadline to complete groundwater testing
for PFAS contamination? Do you commit to sharing the test
results with nearby communities?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. I appreciate the question and I
understand the toll that this issue has had on many of the
local communities around our bases and the impact it has had on
families.
So yes, if confirmed, I am going to be diving into this
issue, finding out again what the survey of the problem is,
making sure we are transparent to the Committee and with the
local communities, and we can get on with mitigation plans. A
terribly important issue.
Senator Gillibrand. Excellent. Millions of servicemembers
likely drank water contaminated with PFAS for decades. If
confirmed, when will DOD alert veterans and servicemembers they
may have been drinking contaminated water?
Dr. LaPlante. Well, I don't--I think what--if confirmed, we
need to find out when the survey of all the facilities is done,
and as soon as that is done, we should notify people
immediately. I just I don't know of sitting here what that date
would be, but it can't be soon enough.
Senator Gillibrand. Please commit to working with me on
that issue.
Dr. LaPlante. Absolutely.
Senator Gillibrand. Many local communities are frustrated
by their interactions with the DOD concerning environmental
hazards caused by the use of PFAS. If confirmed, how do you
recommend that DOD communicate and engage with DOD communities?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. What I believe, Senator, is that if
confirmed, I am going to have to spend time and my staff doing
open town halls, doing a lot of engagement with the community,
doing a lot of listening, and try to treat transparent as
possible. This is such an important issue in the towns
surrounding our bases.
Senator Gillibrand. Yes, thank you. Ms. Johnson, in the
civilian justice system across the country, criminal charging
decisions are made by district attorneys that are experienced
prosecutors. Yet this is not the case in the military justice
system, where Military Commanders make the decisions whether to
charge servicemembers with serious crimes. Could you explain
why this is important for the military justice system to mirror
civilian justice systems?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. I am aware of
the concern that the Congress has had with regards to the role
of the Commander in the system, and that also the changes in
the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA has narrowed the number of crimes of
which Commanders are involved.
To the extent that those recent changes may come under
challenge, and if confirmed, I would be on the court, I would
have to decide on that. As a result of that, Senator
Gillibrand, under Canon 386, I cannot comment on that.
Senator Gillibrand. Under the UCMJ, Commanders select
individuals to sit on military juries. They usually selects
these officers and noncommissioned officers from a pool of
senior individuals that they may know and supervise. Could you
discuss how this type of bias affects the perception of the
military justice system among civilians?
Ms. Johnson. Senator, I am sorry. I didn't understand the
back end of that question, how it affects it among civilians?
Senator Gillibrand. No, what is the perception of the
civilian world to the military in that the Commander chooses
the jurors based on a pool of officers and noncommissioned
officers that they may know?
Ms. Johnson. Well, Senator, again, I--because Congress has
expressed concern about that, they have made changes with
regards to how panels are selected and the rights of the
accused with regards to expanding the pool of the selectees.
Again, because they are fairly recent changes, they are
likely to be challenged or they could be challenged, and to
that extent, if they bubbled up to CAAF, if confirmed, I would
have to rule on that. Again, Senator, I am not free to make
comments with regards to that.
Senator Gillibrand. In Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme
Court recently invalidated the practice of non-unanimous juries
for criminal cases. This decision, however, may not impact
servicemembers because they have been traditionally treated as
a separate class and currently subjected to a three-fourths
majority verdict for guilt. Without discussing any pending
cases, could you describe the importance of aligning
servicemembers' Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights with those in
their civilian counterparts?
Ms. Johnson. Thank you, Senator. Again, Constitutional
rights have been affirmed. Servicemembers do not lose their
Constitutional rights, their civil rights, and civil liberties
when they put on the uniform. The Supreme Court and CAAF and
its predecessor, COMA, has taken to account the uniqueness of
the military context.
So some Constitutional rights may not be as broad. As you
noted, Senator, several years ago, Congress changed the level,
the threshold for arriving at a conviction from two-thirds to
three-quarters. Again, we have seen those cases bubble through
the system, and so it would again be inappropriate for me to
comment on that.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Gillibrand. Let
me recognize Senator Blumenthal, please.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like
to follow up with a couple of questions on PFAS, Mr. LaPlante
that were just asked by Senator Gillibrand. You know this
potentially highly dangerous chemical has already infected
many, many service people. I understand that there would be a
study done by DOD of the human health impacts of PFAS by the
end of 2021. Has that report been completed?
Dr. LaPlante. Not that I am aware of, but I could be wrong.
Not that I am aware of.
Senator Blumenthal. I am going to ask that you commit to
determine whether it has been completed, and that you also
commit to release it to the Committee.
Dr. LaPlante. Absolutely. I commit to that Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. The President recently
released an Executive Order that directed Federal agencies to
buy products made without PFAS. I would like to know how you
will comply with this Executive Order, if confirmed, and what
steps you will take to ensure that DOD takes an enterprise wide
approach to PFAS, that is throughout the Department, as
recommended by the Pentagon's Inspector General.
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. So to comply with that
Executive Order, we would have to be doing, if confirmed,
inventory across the Department, at the enterprise level as you
said, on all the places where that--where products like that
are purchased and stop.
Then of course, we also have to have backup plans when we
don't purchase the product anymore. If there still needs to be
some firefighting capability, how do we come up with something
that is safe and usable? So that is what I would see as having
to be done, if confirmed.
Senator Blumenthal. Has that begun?
Dr. LaPlante. Pardon me, I am sorry?
Senator Blumenthal. Has that enterprise wide review been
started?
Dr. LaPlante. Of the Executive Order, I am not aware of it,
but it may be. I have not been in the discussions, in the
policy discussions.
Senator Blumenthal. There are safer alternatives, for
example, to firefighting foam that don't involve PFAS, correct?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. I am aware of at least several
candidates for that, and I think that would have to be
accelerated to address this issue.
Senator Blumenthal. Will you commit to accelerate it?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you on a separate topic The
CH-53K. You and Mr. Raven, I am sure, are both familiar with
the CH-53K, the most capable heavy lift helicopter in our
nation's history. It is a technological marvel. It lifts three
times the amount of weight that the Echo does. It is far more
survivable, faster, more easily maintained, and it is
significantly more valuable in combat than any of its
predecessors.
The program has been criticized because of its acquisition
timeline and because potentially it might increase the cost of
acquisition. The GAO, for example, in a report last March, took
issue with the integrated master schedule timeline. Let me ask
both of you briefly what you would do to make sure that we move
forward with that program as quickly and cost effectively as
possible.
Dr. LaPlante. I will take the first chance and then turn it
over to my colleague here. I think the first thing that needs
to be done, if it hasn't been done, is to do an independent
schedule estimate. GAO has a very good references and
validations for doing independent schedule estimating. So what
we should do, if it hasn't been done, is do an independent
schedule estimate and see how it can be sped up, either with
contractor incentives or other items.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Mr. Raven.
Mr. Raven. Senator, I would add that the CH-53K is one of
many systems that is really important to the Marine Corps and
their ability to move marines, move supplies, especially in
their concept for more distributed operations.
So I see a good future for this capability. If confirmed, I
would go forward and review the schedule for fielding this as
well as testing and make sure that marines have the
capabilities that they need to do their job.
Senator Blumenthal. I agree that it is an essential program
for the marines to do their job, and that is the DOD
assessment. I hope that you would pursue it as well and move
the program forward as expeditiously as possible. Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator
Duckworth, please.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and just a
point of pride, I have to say, while the CH-53K is a remarkable
aircraft, I wouldn't say that it is better than the Blackhawk,
so just wanted to put that out there. I would like to start by
focusing in on acquisition and sustainment and your role if
confirmed, Dr. LaPlante.
I think we are at a critical moment right now and need to
make sure we are learning the right lessons and capitalizing on
our strengths. For example, my personal interest in the Army's
future vertical lift program doesn't just come from my
background of flying Blackhawks or as chair of air land, but
also with a real interest and appreciation for how the Army has
been investing in its next generation of critical lift
programs.
I lived through the Comanche debacle as a young soldier,
and it is so refreshing to see what is happening with future
vertical lift. As different FEO components develop, I want to
make sure that we are learning from the program's successes so
that we can try to replicate those across other acquisition
programs and deliver necessary capabilities to our military on
time and on budget.
Our acquisition and maintenance need to be able to grow
more agile, more innovative, and if we can't get there quickly,
we may lose the opportunity to truly maintain our over match
against our adversaries. Our small and disadvantaged businesses
are drivers of agility and innovation, and as such, they must
play a larger role in our defense industrial base. Yet the
barrier to entry for these businesses is too high for many of
them to achieve success, and the small business industrial base
has shrunk over the past decade.
The Department's February report on the State of
competition in the defense industrial base cuts out the need to
remove these barriers and increase opportunities for small
businesses. In Illinois, we have one of the largest
concentration of tulle and dye manufacturers for the aerospace
industry, for example.
Dr. LaPlante, what role do you see small and disadvantaged
businesses playing in our defense industrial base? If
confirmed, how do you plan to address our recommendations in
this report and make sure that DOD is supporting small, women
owned, and other disadvantaged businesses?
Dr. LaPlante. Senator, I certainly appreciate the question.
I just State what I think you know, and this Committee knows,
is GAO says often 70 percent of the life cycle costs of a
weapons system are in the sustainment. Okay, the other piece of
it is we need these small business and these startups to be in
our industrial base. That is the ace in the whole of the
country, and the fact that the number of small business is
going down has to be reversed. Now what are those obstacles
that these reports point out?
My understanding, they typically point out things like cost
accounting standards, IP, intellectual property concerns, how
long it takes to get on contract. Another piece of it, which
maybe doesn't come up very much in public, but it should is
something called authority to operate.
If you get a network, even for critical unclassified
information, it may take a small business months to have the
Government come in and give them the authority to operate their
network, even if they are making parts. So all of these things
have to be driven collectively and work collectively so small
business can say they have confidence that it is going to get
better for them. If confirmed, that is what I am going to focus
on.
Senator Duckworth. I do think that a strong collaboration
between the Department and Congress to address a lot of these
hurdles is important. Would you commit to working with my
office, if confirmed, to take any necessary steps to fix these
issues?
Dr. LaPlante. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. Switching topics slightly, I
would like to quickly touch on the issue of defense contractors
are facing in the supply chain, which we have all seen exposed
through the past two years of the pandemic. Contractors and
suppliers have lived through delays and shortages of critical
components during COVID but operating in a contested
environment would present additional challenges we may not be
ready for.
In order to make sure our industrial base can scale to the
needs during a potential conflict, the Department needs to
understand these choke points and plan for them in advance. Dr.
LaPlante, if confirmed, what strategy would you use to identify
these present and future choke points, especially for contested
logistics environment?
What are some steps you would recommend taking to mitigate
these types of risk for both acquisition and sustainment?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, Senator. I would say to start with, we
as a country have to have more hot production lines, period.
Sometimes it means redundant production lines to deal with some
of these single point failures.
Second, is that on the good news side is there has been
developments in big data analytics using open source as well as
other sources of information and machine learning to actually
dove into some of these supply chain and find out critical
nodes that they didn't even know they had.
These are starting to come out there. Some of them are
quite good. What I intend to do is find the best of breed of
these, get Department to use them, and also make them available
to small businesses so they understand their critical node as
well as the primes.
Senator Duckworth. I think there is also an opportunity to
work with their arsenals as well. Rock Island Army arsenal, for
example. It is the last vertically integrated metals
manufacturing facility in the DOD, and I think they can play a
role in helping keep those hot production lines.
Dr. LaPlante. Absolutely.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Rosen,
please.
Senator Rosen. Oh, there it is. Sorry, my mic didn't come
on. Thank you, Chairman Reed, for holding this hearing. Thank
you to the nominees for testifying today and for your
willingness to serve. We appreciate you. I want to speak a
little bit about Fallon Naval Air Station and the land
withdrawal, because in Nevada, we are really proud to host the
Naval Air Station. It is home to TOPGUN and our nation's
premier carrier Airway, and it is our Navy SEAL Training
Center.
Mr. Raven, as you know, the Navy is seeking an expansion of
600,000 acres of Federal land, over 65,000 acres of non-Federal
land. It would expand the Fallon Training Range Complex to
about 900,000 acres. This proposal would impact local counties,
tribes, sportsmen, farmers, energy companies who currently
access and operate on these lands.
So it is why last year I invited Secretary Del Toro and
Acting Under Secretary Berger to come to Nevada and meet with
local stakeholders. I am grateful they did both travel to my
State to hear firsthand how this proposed expansion would
affect our local economies, recreation, wildlife, and of
course, cultural resources.
So Mr. Raven, as the Navy pursues modernization of the
range, can you commit, if confirmed, to continuing the Navy's
engagement with local, state, and tribal Governments? Can you
commit to working with me and the rest of the Nevada delegation
to craft a consensus based proposal that enhances our National
Security, we know we need to do that, but we have to address
two stakeholder concerns.
Mr. Raven. Senator, yes. I had the pleasure of visiting
Fallon just a few years ago and saw the outstanding
capabilities there. Of course, with future weapons systems
coming online in the near future, the ability of ranges are
essential to making sure our servicemembers are trained.
As you rightly point out, to make that happen requires
partnerships across Federal Government, State Government, local
Government, and tribal Governments, and I commit to working on
that with you.
Senator Rosen. Well, I am glad that you mentioned
partnerships because the Navy's legislative proposal last year
unfortunately did not incorporate any suggested changes or
feedback from local stakeholders or the Nevada delegation. So
if you are confirmed, will you ensure that the Navy submits an
improved legislative proposal and map which incorporates
stakeholder input?
Mr. Raven. Senator, I know this is a key issue within the
Department of the Navy, and if confirmed, I want to understand
what happened last year and what will happen in the future. But
I want to work with you on these issues. This partnership is
very important.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I want to move a little bit now
to Dr. Adams because I want to talk about the Nevada National
Security site and our infrastructure upgrades. We had an
opportunity to speak over Zoom last week. For those of you who
don't know, the Nevada National Security Site oversees the
nuclear stockpile stewardship program, principally at the U1a
facility.
It is an underground laboratory where scientists conduct
subcritical experiments that verify the reliability and the
effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile. U1a is undergoing major
construction. It is going to soon host the most capable weapons
radiographic system in the world.
However, the NNSA currently faces significant
infrastructure delays, including at the Nevada National
Security site. So Dr. Adams, if confirmed, how will you address
NNSA's infrastructure modernization challenges and delays,
particularly when it comes to upgrades at U1a, so they don't
impact the agency's ability to fulfill its mission of
performing these subcritical tests?
Dr. Adams. Thank you, Senator, for that question. First,
let me reaffirm the importance of that site. It is a national
treasure, and the enhanced capabilities for subcritical
experiments that you are referring to is absolutely vital to
our ability to answer some of the pressing stockpile questions
that we are going to have in the future.
As far as the schedule and cost issues, I am not privy to
exactly the details of what is going on there, but if I am
confirmed, I will certainly dove into that and try to
understand what is going on and mitigate any problems that are
there.
Senator Rosen. Thank you, and finally, for Dr. LaPlante,
the DOD innovation cycle, I would like to ask you about the
valley of death, where cutting edge military technologies die
before they can win a DOD contract to produce software or
equipment at scale.
If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to improve
the transition of successful prototypes to the point of
production and then rapidly field those technologies at scale
so we can leverage technology to better compete with our
adversaries?
Dr. LaPlante. Thank you for the question, Senator. All of
those prototypes that you described and those innovations, they
all should have a plan of, if successful, what weapon system
are they going to transition into? Then the other side of it,
the weapons system has to have a tech insertion plan to accept
it, and it has to be all part of it.
Also production and sustainment has to be thought of at the
very beginning of these innovations. Otherwise, it will just
fall into the valley of death. So that is where I am committed
to really work hard on and also work with Ms. Heidi Shyu, who
has the R&E job. We are going to be joined at the hip to get
these technologies across the valley of death and get them to
our warfighter.
Senator Rosen. Thank you.
Chairman Reed. Thank you, Senator Rosen. Let me thank the
nominees for their excellent testimony, and we will move, I
hope very rapidly, to a vote on your confirmation. Thank you
for your commitment to public service. With that, let me
adjourn the hearing. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee adjourned.]
[Prepared questions submitted to Honorable William A.
LaPlante, Jr. by Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with
answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties
Question. Section 133b of title 10, United States Code, describes
the duties and powers of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition
and Sustainment (USD(A&S)).
In your opinion, what are the most important roles of the USD(A&S)
in supporting the missions of the Department of Defense (DOD)?
Answer. As the Principal Staff Assistant and advisor to the
Secretary of Defense for all matters relating to acquisition and
sustainment in the Department of Defense, the USD(A&S) is responsible
for ensuring that secure and resilient capabilities are delivered to
our forces and allies quickly and cost effectively. The USD(A&S) must
maintain effective oversight of the Department's entire acquisition and
sustainment enterprise; establish policies and processes as appropriate
to drive innovation; sustain and modernize our weapons systems; improve
cost efficiency; empower a capable and agile acquisition workforce;
support a robust defense industrial base; build a resilient logistics
and mission support enterprise; address environment and energy
resilience challenges; and ensure servicemembers have safe and
resilient places to live and work.
Question. Do you believe the USD(A&S) has been provided appropriate
authority over the DOD acquisition and sustainment enterprise?
Answer. At this time, I believe the USD(A&S) has the appropriate
authority over the Department's acquisition and sustainment enterprise.
If confirmed, I will work with my staff and senior OSD leadership to
review these authorities and identify any recommended changes.
Question. What changes, if any, would you recommend to section 133b
of title 10, United States Code?
Answer. I do not have any specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed, I will work with my staff and senior OSD leadership to
identify any recommended changes.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to assess the
organizational structure, workforce, authorities, and availability of
resources to ensure that the Office of the USD(A&S) is able to
effectively execute its mission?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff and senior OSD
leadership to identify any recommended changes to A&S's organizational
structure, workforce, and resourcing.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
assign to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment (DUSD (A&S))?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prescribe duties to the DUSD(A&S) in
accordance with 10 U.S.C. Sec. 137a(b). I will work in close
partnership with the DUSD to maintain oversight and accountability for
the entire A&S portfolio, and expect the DUSD to provide the support
necessary to deliver secure and resilient capabilities to our forces
and allies.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would you
assign to the Assistant Secretaries and other officials (e.g.,
Executive Directors for International Cooperation and Special Programs)
who will report to you or the DUSD (A&S)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will prescribe duties to the Assistant
Secretaries and other direct reports within A&S in accordance with 10
U.S.C. Sec. 138(b), the A&S charter, and their individual
organizations' charters. I will work closely with them to maintain
oversight and accountability for their portfolios, and expect them to
provide the management and subject matter expertise necessary to
deliver secure and resilient capabilities to our forces and allies.
qualifications
Question. If confirmed, you would be responsible for managing the
defense acquisition system. Section 133b of title 10, United States
Code, requires the USD(A&S) to have ``an extensive system development,
engineering, production, or management background and experience with
managing complex programs.''
What background and experience do you have that qualify you for
this position?
Answer. I have over 36 years of experience in the national security
and non-profit technology communities, including as the Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, member of the Defense
Science Board, and as a member of the Section 809 Panel charged to
reform the defense acquisition system. I have a proven track record of
delivering material and conceptual innovations that enhance our
national security capabilities and efficiency, and will continue to do
so if confirmed as the USD(A&S). I also have significant executive
leadership experience - including budgeting, finance, talent
management, enterprise security, and driving culture change.
Question. If confirmed, how would you leverage the skills and
knowledge gained through your prior experiences to carry out the duties
of the USD(A&S)?
Answer. The duties of USD (A&S) require technical, programmatic,
financial, and talent management experience at an enterprise level. If
confirmed, my skills and knowledge will be directly applied to this
position on a daily basis.
priorities and challenges
Question. If confirmed, what are the top priorities you would plan
to focus on during your tenure as the USD(A&S)? What would be your
plans for achieving these priorities?
Answer. Our troops must have what they need to confront and
overcome rapidly evolving challenges from a fast-moving pacing threat
and peer competitors. As such, my top priority, if confirmed, would be
ensuring that the defense acquisition system has a laser-like focus on
delivering capabilities that meet the needs--both current and future--
of U.S. forces.
I would also focus on improving our ability to acquire software and
software-intensive systems, sustaining our fielded weapon systems in a
cost-effective manner, and strengthening the Defense Industrial Base
and our supply chains.
I would do this by transitioning emerging technologies--
hypersonics, artificial intelligence, autonomy, directed energy, and
others--into programs of record and fielding them for operational use;
tapping the innovation of the private sector by lowering barriers to
doing business with DOD for small businesses, commercial firms, non-
traditional defense contractors, and startups; and empowering and
enabling the dedicated professionals who comprise the defense
acquisition workforce.
Question. In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges facing
the DOD's acquisition and sustainment communities?
Answer. I believe the greatest challenge facing these communities
is the rapidly evolving threat environment and the constant changes in
acquisition and sustainment priorities that result. Russia's invasion
of Ukraine only a few weeks ago has provided a stark reminder that the
threat environment can change at any time, and the DOD's acquisition
and sustainment communities must be postured to deliver the
capabilities needed to confront and overcome rapidly evolving
challenges from a fast-moving pacing threat and peer competitors.
Technology is also changing fast, and our warfighters must have access
at scale to the best technology to do their job.
At the same time, we face an enduring strategic challenge from
China that comprehensively stresses the Defense Acquisition System and
on which we can never lose focus.
Question. What would be your plans for addressing these challenges,
if confirmed?
Answer. The key to addressing these challenges is an innovative,
empowered workforce, backed by an acquisition system that empowers
decision-making authorities and program managers, institutionalizes
critical thinking, and employs shorter, iterative product delivery
cycles. Close cooperation with the Office of the Undersecretary of
Defense for Research & Engineering (OUSD(R&E)) will also be critical to
ensuring we can bring leading edge capabilities to the field as quickly
as possible.
I understand the Department continues to implement a number of
acquisition reforms that will ensure the Defense Acquisition System is
capable of keeping pace with a dynamic threat landscape. This includes
the Adaptive Acquisition Framework, which provides an adaptable,
flexible, and responsive policy foundation which encourages greater
flexibility and empowers common-sense decision making, while also
maintaining discipline and the employment of sound business practice.
If confirmed, I will continue to prioritize innovation and look for
additional opportunities to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the Defense Acquisition System and improve collaboration with
OUSD(R&E).
Question. By what metrics will you measure your progress towards
achieving these priorities and addressing these challenges?
Answer. Data that is robust, readily accessible, and measured
against sound metrics is critical to understanding Defense Acquisition
System performance and making informed acquisition and sustainment
decisions. I understand there is a Department-wide effort to develop
enterprise-wide business health metrics system that integrates data
from a wide variety of sources across the Department and performs
advanced analytics on that data. If confirmed, I will review this
effort and work to identify metrics and tools that support delivery of
timely, cost-effective, and uncompromised capabilities to the
warfighter.
implementation of acquisition reforms
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the
Department continues its progress in implementing congressionally-
mandated and Department-driven reforms to the acquisition system?
Answer. If confirm, I will prioritize innovation and timely
fielding of needed capabilities to address key challenges, leveraging
Congressionally-provided authorities and responsibilities to do so, and
promoting additional Department-driven reforms as appropriate.
Question. Are there any congressionally-mandated or Department-
driven reforms that you would recommend be modified or suspended? If
so, why?
Answer. I do not have specific recommendations at this time. There
will always be ways to improve processes as complicated as acquisition,
and I understand the Department has implemented a number of changes to
Acquisition recently. If confirmed, I will examine how these changes
are being implemented and seek opportunities to improve upon them.
Question. If confirmed, what additional acquisition reforms, if
any, would you recommend?
Answer. I do not have specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed, I will assess where we are and work with leadership
throughout the Department, Congress, and our industry partners to
ensure that ongoing efforts are effectively implementing the reforms
directed by Congress.
Question. In your view, of the congressionally-mandated or
Department-driven reforms, which specifically have been the most
successful and impactful acquisition reform initiatives of the past
decade?
Answer. The expansion of Other Transaction Authorities has provided
a key tool for adopting new business models and working with non-
traditional providers. Similarly, the mid-tier acquisition path
(Section 804) has also provided flexibility to move faster and get to
operational capabilities. If confirmed, I look forward to reviewing the
additional impacts that acquisition reform has had on the Defense
Acquisition System since 2017. I will work with my staff to develop a
data-driven understanding of the impact of the changes, especially the
Adaptive Acquisition Framework, in the last few years.
You served as a commissioner on the Advisory Panel on Streamlining
and Codifying Acquisition Regulations (Section 809 Panel), which made
nearly 100 recommendations for ``transforming'' the defense acquisition
system to enable consistent, timely, and cost-effective acquisition of
the goods and services the DOD needs in order to carry out its national
security mission. The majority of the Panel's recommendations have not
been implemented. Nevertheless, in 2019, you advocated for taking a
``breather'' from further reforms to the defense acquisition system.
Question. Do you still hold this position?
Answer. The Section 809 Panel concluded its mandate and published
its final report in July 2019. If confirmed, I look forward to
understanding the impact made by instituting the Adaptive Acquisition
Framework and determining in a data driven way the changes that have
been made to the Defense Acquisition System. After I fully understand
the impact of the changes from the last four years, I will determine if
additional changes are need to the Defense Acquisition System.
Question. If so, please elaborate, and if not, explain why your
viewpoint has changed, and what additional reforms to the defense
acquisition system, particularly stemming from the Section 809 Panel,
you view as especially important.
Answer. I continue to support the Section 809 Panel's core
recommendations, particularly its support for acquiring innovative
commercial technologies and approaching the market in a way that allows
commercial capabilities to complement our defense-unique capabilities
by solving many problems for which they are suited. I also support
portfolio management approaches to acquisition as outlined by the
Section 809 panel.
key relationships
Question. Recent National Defense Authorization Acts have directed
significant changes to the assignment of responsibilities within the
defense acquisition system. For example, the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2017 split the former Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics (USD(AT&L)) into the USD(A&S) and the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering (USD(R&E)).
In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of having
two separate organizations: one to manage acquisition and sustainment,
and one to manage research and engineering?
Answer. I believe having two separate organizations allows each to
focus on its respective area of expertise. While the transition area
between these portfolios can introduce challenges as we transition
emerging technologies from research and development programs into
fielded capabilities, these can be overcome through close collaboration
between A&S and R&E.
Question. If confirmed as the USD(A&S), how would you envision your
relationship with the USD(R&E)?
Answer. A&S and R&E can complement each other and must be close
partners to keep pace with technological advancements and deliver
timely, cost-effective, and uncompromised capabilities for the Armed
Forces. If confirmed, I will focus on building strong relationships and
trust between the two organizations to bridge any seams that may be
present.
Question. In recent years, considerable authority and
responsibility for acquisition activities have been given to the
Services through: (1) the Secretary's delegation of Milestone Decision
Authority for most acquisition programs to the Service Acquisition
Executives (SAEs) and (2) Congress' emphasis on the Service Chiefs'
role in requirements development, resourcing discussions, and tradeoff
decisions for major defense acquisition programs.
In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
delegating more responsibility for managing acquisition programs to the
Services and away from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD)?
Answer. It is my understanding that delegating much of the program
management has led OSD to focus on implementing reform efforts and
improving the Defense Acquisition System. If confirmed, I will fully
review the advantages and disadvantages of the delegation of authority
and responsibility to the Services and make recommendations as
appropriate to Congress.
Question. If confirmed as the USD(A&S), how would you envision your
relationship with the SAEs and the Service Chiefs? Are there any
programs for which Milestone
Decision Authority should be moved to the OSD-level or, conversely,
returned to the SAEs?
Answer. It is my understanding that the role of OSD, consistent
with Title 10 authorities, is to provide oversight and advice to the
Secretary of Defense of the appropriate resource and capability balance
between the different Military Departments, Military Components, and
Agencies. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Military
Departments and Military Services while working to optimize the
capabilities available to the entire Department. I do not have any
specific recommendations at this time on moving programs. If confirmed,
I will conduct a review of the Department's acquisition programs to
determine if any require changes to their Milestone Decision Authority.
Question. What do you believe should be the respective roles and
responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense, USD(A&S), and the SAEs in
ensuring acquisition programs deliver promised capabilities to the end
user on time and on budget?
Answer. I believe the role of the Secretary of Defense, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment and the Service
Acquisition Executives is to operate in combination, consistent with
their statutory responsibilities, to ensure the effective operation of
the Defense Acquisition System.
Question. What further steps do you believe are necessary to align
authority and accountability in the acquisition system, if any?
Answer. I believe that aligning authority and accountability is a
critical endeavor and a continuous process. I can't make any
recommendations at this time but, if confirmed, I will make assessment
of the authorities and accountability a high priority.
Question. In your view, who should provide independent oversight
within the acquisition system, and specifically, who should ensure that
acquisition strategies are based on prudent technical risk, subsystem
technology maturation prototyping when necessary, and realistic cost
estimating while allowing for sufficient time in the program schedule
to accomplish these tasks?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that decision authority is
maintained at the proper level to account for program complexity,
dollar value, and technological maturity. The relevant entities
identified in statute and policy must be the Department's honest
brokers.
I think many challenges lie in understanding the interdependencies
between programs and the ramifications to other defense acquisition
programs. If confirmed, I will focus on these program inter-
dependencies and cross-portfolio risks ensuring that decisions are made
at the appropriate level in the Department.
Question. The acquisition of information technology, ranging from
embedded software in weapons systems to cybersecurity tools to the
procurement of commercial cloud computing services, is an increasingly
important challenge for defense acquisition programs.
If confirmed, what role will you have in developing acquisition
strategies for information technology systems and services and how is
that role different, in your view, from that of the Chief Information
Officer and other Department officials?
Answer. I look forward to working with CIO and the newly-
established Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Officer (CDAO) on
information technology systems and services acquisition strategies. The
USD(A&S) provides the acquisition oversight and guidance necessary to
ensure those systems and services are effectively and efficiently
developed and meet user requirements. I will work with the proper
Component Acquisition Executives to ensure they are implementing sound
acquisition strategies.
Question. If confirmed, what responsibilities related to policies
for and oversight of the acquisition of information technology systems
and services should be delegated to the Chief Information Officer or
other Department officials, as opposed to the USD(A&S)?
Answer. I will work with CIO and CDAO to support the Service/
Component Acquisition Executives (SAEs/CAEs). Having properly supported
SAEs/CAEs is critical to successfully implementing acquisition
programs. I will also review related policies with CIO, CDAO and other
Department officials to understand the needed roles and
responsibilities.
managing the performance of the defense acquisition system
Question. Many of the Department's major defense acquisition
programs have established overly optimistic cost, schedule, and
performance goals that they have subsequently struggled to achieve,
resulting in cost growth, performance shortfalls, and schedule delays.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to address cost growth,
schedule delays, and performance shortfalls on the Department's major
warfighting and business system programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff and the Service and
Component Acquisition Executives to address cost growth, schedule
delays and performance shortfalls on major programs. I will emphasize
rigorous independent cost and schedule estimates, updated at each
critical program milestone. I will also work with the Joint Staff and
CAPE to understand how to better synchronize the JCIDS and PPBE
processes with the Defense Acquisition System to address these
concerns. I believe setting realistic cost, schedule and technical
baselines is key to address these issues. I will focus on the early
phases of program and technology development; in my experience, risk
that is not retired early ends up driving costs later. We should also
examine and learn lessons from the many programs that do better than
originally planned.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
estimate lifecycle costs for its programs and activities? If
applicable, what specific changes would you make or propose to make to
improve this ability?
Answer. Estimating and managing sustainment costs is a significant
challenge. If confirmed, I will work closely with the CAPE cost
assessment group and the Service Acquisition Executives to understand
the status of the Department's current lifecycle costing capabilities.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
assess and appropriately manage programs based on the programs'
technical maturity?
Answer. In general, my understanding is that our evaluations of
technical risk are good. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
USD(R&E) and Service Acquisition Executives to understand the
Department's ability to access technical risk for programs.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's ability to
assess a program's health over its lifetime, with respect to the
necessary industrial base and availability of the supply chain?
Answer. Our greatest risks develop when the broader economy moves
on to newer technologies but our defense systems continue to depend on
outdated technologies with diminishing manufacturing sources or sources
of supply. If confirmed, I will work closely with the newly-established
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy to assess a
program's health over its lifetime, with respect to the defense
industrial base and supply chain risk management.
Question. Traditionally, acquisition programs are managed on a
program-by-program basis. In your view, what are the advantages and
disadvantages of moving toward a more portfolio-based management
approach?
Answer. As a member of the 809 Panel, I recommended a review of
moving to a portfolio-based management approach. If confirmed, I will
work with USD(R&E), the SAEs and CAPE to review the advantages and
disadvantages of moving toward a more portfolio-based management
approach.
Question. In your view, what are the strengths and weaknesses of
the current Adaptive Acquisition Framework?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead a data driven review of the
advantages and disadvantages of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework.
Question. If confirmed, do you plan to make major changes to DOD's
Adaptive Acquisition Framework? If so, please explain.
Answer. At the end of my review, I will recommend ways to improve
the performance of the Defense Acquisition System.
acquisition data
Question. In order to implement a risk-based approach for managing
acquisition programs, many experts believe that DOD needs to adopt
modern tools and methods for collecting and analyzing large amounts of
acquisition data.
In your opinion, does the Department have sufficient and timely
data to assess the full range of risks facing acquisition programs,
including risks pertaining to development and sustainment costs,
schedule, performance, integration, supply chains, and technical
maturity, among others?
Answer. If confirmed, one of my initial priorities will be to
assess the status of relevant data, its availability and accessibility,
as well as our tools and human capital to use that data to inform
decision-making. I will build on progress made to date to make data
accessible and usable at all levels of the Department. I will focus my
efforts to work with other leadership in the Department and Executive
Branch, Congress, and Industry to address any shortcomings identified.
Question. What specific steps would you take, if confirmed, to
ensure the acquisition enterprise is collecting the appropriate
authoritative data, including data from industry partners and other DOD
organizations, to effectively model risk, and use appropriate
indicators of program and portfolio health?
Answer. The Department has been taking steps to ensure availability
of authoritative data for a number of years and I will continue scaling
these efforts. I intend on leveraging my previous experiences along
with current efforts across the Department to scale while preserving
transparency to Congress and ensuring effective use of data throughout
the Department. As such, I will evaluate current data collection to
ensure alignment with industry best practices. Accurate, timely,
clearly understood and authoritative data is absolutely essential to
transparently understanding the status of how we're performing and
where we should seek to improve.
controlled unclassified information
Question. The Committee has seen an increased use of the new
``Controlled Unclassified Information'' (CUI) designation to reports
and information submitted as part of NDAA mandates and has heard
repeatedly from representatives of the Government Accountability Office
that the services and OSD are increasingly using the label. The
Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation for the first
time this year has issued a CUI and non-CUI version of its important
annual report, for example. The Committee is concerned the designation
could be abused to limit the public dissemination of critical cost,
schedule and performance information.
If confirmed, what steps will you take with your service
counterparts, DOD Public Affairs and DOD information security officials
to review the size and scope of CUI and other unclassified but not
publicly releasable markings (e.g., For Official Use Only) to ensure
that the use of such designations is appropriately limited?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the policies and guidance for
use of CUI and other classifications to ensure they are being utilized
appropriately.
software and it acquisition
Question. Software has become one of the most critical components
of DOD systems, but recent studies by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO), the Defense Innovation Board, and the Defense Science
Board, among others, show the Department's software development
practices have not kept up with leading industry practices. While DOD
has taken significant steps in the last few years, such as establishing
a software acquisition pathway emphasizing rapid delivery and user
engagement, programs have yet to consistently incorporate leading
software development practices.
What do you believe are the major barriers to DOD fully adopting
modern software development approaches, and what additional steps, if
confirmed, would you take to drive their adoption throughout DOD?
Answer. While DOD has made considerable progress in adopting modern
software practices over the last few years, there is still much work to
be done in transforming our processes, tools, culture, and workforce.
If confirmed, I will work with OSD, Joint Staff, the Services and
others to further build on DOD's initial momentum, and modernize
enterprise processes, strategies, tools, and culture for rapid digital
capability delivery. I would partner with key organizations to further
tailor DOD interoperability, test and evaluation, contracting, and
requirements processes for software. I would champion investments in
DOD's workforce to hire more software experts and develop DOD's
workforce with modern training and career fields for software
development and acquisition. As software is central to every DOD
mission and system, we must ensure our policies, processes, and culture
support speed and agility in development.
Question. What is your assessment of the current capabilities of
the Defense Industrial Base (DIB) to properly execute agile software
development?
Answer. The Section 809 Panel, on which I served, identified many
recommendations needed to move the DOD and its industrial base toward a
more streamlined and agile acquisition system in sync with the
information age. I understand many of the firms in the DIB are growing
their agile software development capabilities and practices, yet we
still see many struggles with software approaches integrated into major
hardware development. There are barriers preventing widespread adoption
of business models and best practices common in the tech industry. If
confirmed, I would seek to promote leading private-sector industry
practices throughout DOD where delivery of capability is done
iteratively and collaboratively with the government, which can reduce
cycle times and be more responsive to changing technologies,
operations, and threats. This is particularly true for software, which
is central to every major DOD mission and weapon system.
iterative development approaches
Question. What is your opinion on the merits of DOD incorporating
iterative development approaches centered on fielding minimum viable
capabilities?
Answer. Best practices in software development focus on rapidly
fielding a minimum viable capability to get into the hands of users to
accelerate learning, capture feedback, and use the insights to shape
requirements, design, and strategies. The Defense Science Board Study
on Software and Acquisition, which I co-chaired, made many
recommendations I support. Similarly, the Defense Innovation Board's
Software Acquisition and Practices (SWAP) study came to many of the
same conclusions. The Section 809 Panel, on which I served, likewise
articulated ``the need for speed'' in acquisition, ``without forgetting
integrity, competition, transparency, and delivering lethality.''
Iterative development can reduce cycle times and be more responsive to
changing technologies, operations, and threats. If confirmed, I would
seek to promote the DOD's use of this leading industry practice.
Question. To what extent do you believe DOD has broadly implemented
commercial best practice agile development approaches adequately for
software and hardware systems?
Answer. I understand the DOD has made significant progress over the
last several years to enable more modern software development and
acquisition practices, policies, pilots, and training, with strong
Congressional support. I also understand DOD has taken important steps
such as issuing the new Software Acquisition Pathway which is purpose-
built to implement best commercial agile approaches and enable modern
software practices for both applications and embedded software. DOD is
still in the early stages of effectively implementing agile and modern
software approaches with progress in software intensive systems that
can be leveraged for application to more of our hardware systems. If
confirmed, software acquisition will be a high priority.
advanced technology adoption
Question. The rapid pace at which our adversaries are fielding
technological advancements demands the Department establish an
acquisition system that can deliver capabilities that are responsive to
new threats and emerging technological opportunities.
In your view, do the current policies and practices of the defense
acquisition system sufficiently encourage and support the adoption of
disruptive technologies in the Department's acquisition programs? If
not, what changes would you recommend in support of these initiatives?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure we meet the imperative to offer
a range of options to the programs such as applying new technologies
and concepts. I believe we have improved flexibility in the Defense
Acquisition System, but must continue to evolve to become more agile
and leverage these innovative technologies. I will also leverage the
recent legislation which authorized the establishment of an Acquisition
Innovation Research Center to research, model and pilot innovative
practices for adoption by the Department. In terms of changes, I have
no specific recommendations at this time, but I know how important it
is to leverage leading-edge commercial capabilities to the military
faster and more cost-effectively, and if confirmed I will be looking at
those options as well as any others recommended by the staff of the
office of the USD(A&S).
Question. What do you believe are the specific technologies that
will be critical to defeating a near-peer competitor?
Answer. The Department has many opportunities to leverage current
and emerging technologies to ensure military superiority. If confirmed,
I will work the Services, the Combatant Commanders, and USD(R&E) to
ensure we are successful in converting those technologies into
warfighting capabilities. I support Undersecretary Heidi Shyu's recent
Technology Priorities memo, signed by the Secretary recently that
outlined 14 technologies across 3 major areas including hypersonics,
directed energy weapons, and integrated sensor and cyber resiliency. If
confirmed, I will place special attention on ensuring we can attract
commercial industry partners in those areas, like AI, autonomy, and
advanced computing so that the Department can obtain the most cutting-
edge technology at the most affordable price.
Question. In your opinion, how should the Department define and
manage concepts like risk and failure so that program managers can try
new technologies and acquisition practices, derive lessons learned and
establish a common understanding of best practices, and more quickly
drive technological advancement in ongoing acquisition programs and
into current fielded capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will encourage acquisition decision makers
at all levels to balance risk and reward when crafting technology
development and fielding strategies. To achieve the desired outcomes
and innovation, I believe that some failure will need to be accepted as
part of the learning and discovery process. This learning will occur
throughout the program lifecycle but with the appropriate application
of prototyping and experimentation, major issues should be identified
as early as possible. Embracing the concept of iterative development
whereby a basic capability is delivered and improved over time will
also reduce the number of risks a program has to manage, increase
technology insertion opportunities, increase user feedback, and enable
accelerated fielding.
Question. What do you view as the major barriers to entry for new
companies that want to do business with DOD? How would you address
these barriers, if confirmed?
Answer. I believe transparency between industry and government is
critical to deliver the capabilities we need at costs we can afford.
Technical exchanges and continuous interactions will help us inform
industry to focus their investments. Non-traditional companies struggle
with long timelines from DOD budgeting and contracting, concerns about
intellectual property, and a vast amount of certifications (e.g., cost
accounting systems, cybersecurity). If confirmed, I will continue to
encourage engagements with industry, work with the Services to simplify
requirements, stress use of novel contracting strategies such as
commercial solutions opening, and work to ensure we can provide the
required capabilities at the best cost possible.
Question. DOD continues to struggle with the transition of new
technologies into existing programs of record. The USD(R&E) enterprise
has primary responsibility for development of new advanced
technologies, but the Acquisition and Sustainment enterprise must also
do its part to address transition of technology development programs
into procurement and fielding.
What impediments to technology transition do you see within the
Department?
Answer. Technology transition continues to be a critical issue
across the DOD. We must aggressively exploit new commercial and
government technologies, integrate them into our programs, and deliver
to operations. DOD needs the ability to rapidly invest in new
technologies and products and must rethink our technology and business
approaches to do so. From my view, there are a few key impediments that
make collaboration and alignment of emerging technology to current
needs difficult: budgeting timelines with the PPBE process, outmoded
requirements systems preventing programs from moving rapidly, and
complex decision-making processes.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase the
rate and frequency at which proven technologies developed by DOD,
defense industry, or the commercial sector are transitioned into
programs of record?
Answer. DOD should build and deliver capabilities in iterations
similar to industry to reduce cycle times and be more responsive to
changing technologies, operations, and threats. This is particularly
true for software which is central to every major DOD mission and
weapon system. We must continue to employ modular, open systems
approaches as well as commercial as-a-service models, and invest in
foundational enterprise infrastructure that allow rapid insertion of
emerging technologies. We must organize around capability or mission
area portfolios that rapidly harnesses a wide-array of commercial and
defense solutions and enable rapid insertion of emerging technology. If
confirmed I will work with my counterpart in USD(R&E) to align
acquisition programs with advances in the technology sector.
other transactions authority (ota)
Question. In your opinion, what adjustments, if any, to OTA
authorities, cost share arrangements, and limited competition features
are appropriate to consider?
Answer. At this time, I do not have any recommendations about
whether any statutory adjustments to this authority are warranted;
however, I understand that Section 824 of the Fiscal Year 2022 National
Defense Authorization Act requires the Department to provide a report
to the Congress by the end of the year to address this matter. If
confirmed, I look forward to engage stakeholders who use this authority
to understand what adjustments, if any, might be appropriate.
Question. What steps will you take to promote the appropriate use
of OTAs to encourage the participation of new and non-traditional
defense contractors in the defense industrial base?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with DOD Components to
understand how they are effectively using this authority now to attract
new entrants and non-traditional defense contractors. I will promote
appropriate use of OTAs by ensuring the Department has provided the
workforce with the necessary guidance and training.
Question. What do you see as the benefits and downsides of using
OTA consortium agreements?
Answer. I understand that when used appropriately, OTA consortium
agreements enable access to a wider range of entities that might not
otherwise participate in the Department's research and development and
prototyping pursuits to accelerate innovative technology into
capabilities for DOD. To the extent agreements with consortium
management firms mitigate real or perceived barriers to entry and
broker administrative management of participants for a given issue
area, they are a beneficial form of OTA. However, I also understand the
need for transparency in using OTA authority and concerns that using
consortium agreements limit reporting and accounting of individual
transactions. If confirmed, I will investigate, and if necessary,
address these concerns.
earned value management
Question. The earned value management system (EVMS) is used to
assess the cost, schedule, and technical performance of major
capability acquisitions for proactive course correction. However, the
Section 809 Panel reported that EVM does not measure product quality
and concluded, ``EVM has been required on most large software programs
but has not prevented cost, schedule, or performance issues.'' In 2009
DOD reported to the Committee that ``a program could perform ahead of
schedule and under cost according to EVM metrics but deliver a
capability that is unusable by the customer'' and stated the program
manager should ensure that the EVM process measures the quality and
technical maturity of technical work products instead of just the
quantity of work performed.
If confirmed, what steps would you take, if any, to require
contractors to report valid measures of cost, schedule, and technical
performance for all acquisition pathways?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work across the Department and with
the industrial base--current and emerging--to validate, improve, or
establish appropriate metrics across the acquisition pathways. I have
no specific recommendations at this time. I plan to continue open
communications to ensure transparency and allow individual programs to
continually improve and tailor approaches to best meet the warfighter
need.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take, if any, to
require contractors that employ the DOD Digital Engineering (DE)
Strategy to maintain valid information in the digital authoritative
data source that is sufficient for program managers to make informed
and timely decisions to manage cost, schedule, performance, and risk?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to engage with our industry
partners and Service representatives to better understand how they are
currently employing DE and how we can work in partnership to better
collaborate within and outside of the Department. Today, many of our
contractors are independently employing Digital Engineering as they are
developing systems. A combination of strong data, tool and modeling
standards and environments, training of our Acquisition Corps, and
proper contract and data rights guidance are foundational to enabling
successful adoption of DE to feed the right cost, schedule, performance
and risk data to our acquisition decision makers.
planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (ppbe)
Question. The Department's acquisition process is closely linked
with its PPBE process, and acquisition programs can move only as nimbly
as the budget processes that fund them. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 establishes a commission to
examine and make recommendations for PPBE reform.
In your view, what changes are needed to the PPBE process to ensure
it can effectively support ongoing acquisition reforms, including by
improving timeliness, reducing bureaucracy, and increasing flexibility?
Answer. The PPBE process requires years of planning before finally
getting funds appropriated, which is not conducive to the kind of
responsiveness and agility necessary to counter adversaries who do not
have to operate under similar constraints.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with the PPBE Commission
and stakeholders across the Department and in Congress to examine the
system issues and develop proposals to address these challenges.
Question. What steps can the Department take under the current PPBE
construct to ensure acquisition programs are appropriately resourced in
a timely manner?
Answer. I think there are pathfinder initiatives that may offer
benefits at the margin, but it is not clear that these approaches
address the issue holistically and at scale. If confirmed, I will work
with CAPE, the Comptroller, and Congress to identify solutions that
support the acquisition system.
One of the major obstacles to successfully bringing emerging
technologies into the Department's acquisition system is the so-called
``valley of death,'' partially caused by the gap in funding between the
development of a new technology and its transition into a program of
record.
Question. What changes are needed to the PPBE and other processes
to help bridge the ``valley of death''?
Answer. The Defense budget development and appropriation process
can make it difficult to fund an unproven technology as an acquisition
program. If confirmed, I will continually assess our processes to
ensure transparency and security while balancing the imperative for
speed. I would advocate re-evaluating our decision processes to ensure
we are event driven vice calendar driven, responsive to change, and
incentivizing innovation.
Question. To what extent should the role of the government's
systems engineering commands (e.g., Naval Warfare Centers and the Air
Force Research Laboratory), as the government's technical experts in
particular technology areas, be enhanced or otherwise modified to help
emerging technologies bridge the ``valley of death''?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work diligently with my USD(R&E)
counterpart in ensuring the warfighter's prioritized capability gaps
are appropriately communicated and aligned with the efforts of our
laboratories and industry partners, to include small businesses and
venture capitalists. Organizations such as Warfare Centers and Research
Labs provide great opportunities to engage with non-traditional
companies and create long lasting partnerships and talent pipelines.
Question. In your experience, to what extent have military
departments and defense agencies had different results in transitioning
technology developed ``in-house'' versus technology developed by
others, such as DARPA, the Strategic Capabilities Office, or the
commercial sector?
Answer. The Military Departments inherently have a greater
opportunity to transition technology developed ``in-house'' since they
have processes in place to align the investment of science and
technology funds with their individual priorities. This is what was
called years ago, ``requirement pull''. DAPRA, SCO and others have the
ability to look at needs differently and bring ``technology push'' to
the table to look at emerging technologies. Both requirement pull and
technology push can address changes in threat technologies that are
unplanned. The transition of these technologies relies on the needs of
the individual services as represented by their requirements and
resource offices. Aligning the requirements, resource and development
communities is critical to reversing the erosion of technical
advantage.
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Act (GNA) of 1986 was enacted just
prior to the explosion in information technology. The GNA successfully
instilled a ``joint'' culture in the Department's warfighting
operations, but the PPBE, requirements, and systems acquisition
processes remained service-centric. Today's information technology
could enable interoperability between ground, maritime, air, space, and
cyber systems to proliferate options to detect, locate, identify, track
and guide weapons to targets. However, systematically constructing
``kill chains'' across domains, systems, and services and managing such
joint operations may be very difficult given that the ``man, train, and
equip'' role is performed by the separate military departments and a
small number of defense agencies. Currently, DARPA is struggling to
determine how it can ``transition'' its Assault Breaker II initiative,
since the interconnectedness it is working on transcends any one
military service or department.
Do you agree? Why or why not?
Answer. I understand that the Joint Staff has been working to focus
on overarching joint requirements rather than individual system
specifications.
Question. If so, what are some ways in which the Department can
address these problems?
Answer. I believe a portfolio management approach can help us focus
on key kill chains and other mission threads. If confirmed, I will work
to take a portfolio management approach to assist with transition and
identify critical technology areas for investment.
Question. As there are few options other than the military
departments, Special Operations Command, and Cyber Command to field and
maintain systems, do you believe consideration should be given to
creating joint acquisition and sustainment capabilities? Please explain
your answer.
Answer. If confirmed I would work with the organizations with Title
10 responsibilities to man, train and equip to understand the benefits
and the disadvantages of creating joint acquisition and sustainment
capabilities. I would review past Department efforts in creating joint
efforts to understand the utility of applying those concepts to future
efforts.
requirements
Question. The Joint Capabilities and Integration Development System
(JCIDS) process was established nearly twenty years ago with the
intention of addressing overlap and duplication in the Military
Services' acquisition programs.
With respect to driving the acquisition system to deliver
capabilities that meet the national security needs of the nation, to
what extent is the current requirements system effective, and what do
you see as the primary shortfalls?
Answer. I believe the Department needs to aggressively modernize
its requirements system to enable greater speed, flexibility, and
interoperability in a digital age. Instead of programs defining and
locking down system requirements up front via a years-long process, I
believe the Department should draw lessons from highly successful and
innovative companies to foster practices that enable innovation, rapid
tech insertion, and product delivery in response to conditions of
uncertainty. We must rapidly exploit leading commercial technologies
and solutions and adapt our way of fighting. Insights from prototypes,
experiments, challenges, and pilots should continuously shape
requirements and designs with Active user engagements. We cannot
predict what operations, threats, and technologies will look like
decades from now, so our requirements approach must be dynamic and
allow rapid iterative technology insertion. Decisions on how to invest
must be data-driven based on programmatic, threat and capability gap
information.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose to reform the
process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff, the Service and
Component Acquisition Executives, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, and CAPE to understand how to better synchronize the JCIDS
and PPBE with the Defense Acquisition System (DAS).
Question. The requirements process has often been incapable of
developing requirements that consider technological advances made by
DOD's own research programs. In recent years, DOD has also undertaken a
number of initiatives to improve the Department's connectivity with
commercial technology companies.
Answer. If confirmed, what changes would you suggest to ensure that
emerging technologies from within DOD, defense industry, and the
commercial sector are better accounted for and leveraged within the
requirements process?
Answer. I would work closely with the Joint Staff to understand the
impact of the Joint Warfighting Concept on the requirements process. I
think it is critical to understand the capabilities needed by the
warfighter and then let the acquisition process determine how to meet
those capability needs.
Question. Many requirements are established with technical goals
that are unachievable at any reasonable cost or schedule.
What changes would you recommend to the requirements development
process to support the development of requirements that are technically
feasible at reasonable costs and schedules?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Joint Staff, services,
USD(R&E), and CAPE to ensure we well understand the technical risk of
meeting stated requirements before starting any major programs. I look
forward to exploring how the use of Middle-Tier Acquisition efforts can
reduce these risks.
Question. The USD(A&S) is not a member of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council, but does advise the Secretary of Defense how to
acquire capabilities and what capabilities should be acquired.
In your opinion, should the requirements process for new
capabilities continue to be exclusively the province of the military
departments, and military officers of the Joint Staff and the combatant
commands?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Joint
Staff and fully understanding their implementation of the Joint
Warfighting Concept. I believe USD(A&S) and USD(R&E) have an important
advisory role to the JROC and look forward to working with them in the
development of future capability needs.
Question. If confirmed, in what circumstances or fora would you
consider it appropriate to recommend that the Secretary invest in a
capability you consider of high importance, for which there is either
no formal requirement or no military department is funding a solution
to a requirement?
Answer. It is my understanding that, in special circumstances, the
Secretaries of the Military Departments or the Secretary of Defense may
establish requirements after consulting with the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. This can sometimes include providing a capability for
an ally or partner or other another government agency.
modularity and interoperability
Question. Section 805 of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) established requirements for implementing
Modular Open Systems Approaches (MOSA) for all major systems
acquisitions in DOD and for rights in interface data for the critically
important objectives of improving interoperability and increasing
potential competition throughout the life cycle of the system. This
section further required the use of widely supported and consensus-
based standards for system interfaces. Since enactment of section 805,
DARPA has developed and transitioned technology that should
revolutionize interoperability, under the STICHES program (System of
Systems Technology Integration Tool Chain for Heterogeneous Electronic
Systems). STITCHES enables auto-generation of software to achieve
interoperability across any interface that has been properly
characterized and defined, including when neither system or subsystem
has been built to a common standard. STITCHES achieves this
interoperability with less performance degradation than with a common
standard. Accordingly, Congress enacted section 804 of the Fiscal Year
2021 NDAA to require that all DOD programs characterize system
interfaces and that these interface specifications be available in
multiple databases for rapid integrations.
What is your judgment of the progress that DOD and the Defense
Industrial Base has made in implementing the MOSA mandate?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department is working to
implement modular open systems approaches through updating DOD
instructions and regulations, developing capability reference
architectures and repositories for modular systems interfaces, working
with industry, and developing workforce training for acquisition
professionals. While progress has been made, the ``MOSA mandate'' is a
complex mix of technical, business, and legal aspects with more to be
done for full implementation and industry acceptance.
Question. Are you familiar with DARPA's technical achievement in
the STITCHES program?
Answer. It is my understanding that DARPA recently transitioned the
program to the Air Force and that there are a number of use cases for
this innovative tool across the Department to create greater
interoperability. If confirmed, I look forward to learning more about
how the Air Force is supporting that effort.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to assisting in fulfilling
the requirements of section 804 with respect to defining interfaces and
making them accessible in databases?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will work to ensure the Department
meets the section 804 statutory requirements to define modular system
interfaces and make them accessible for authorized use.
test and evaluation
Question. The objective of test and evaluation activities is to
ensure that system performance meets specifications and requirements,
and that deployed capabilities are operationally effective against
threats.
In your opinion, what is the appropriate role of developmental,
operational, and live-fire testing in the acquisition process?
Answer. Realistic testing is critical to the acquisition process.
If confirmed, I will work with my staff, the Service and Component
Acquisition Executives, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
and the DDR&E, Advanced Capabilities to understand the role of testing
in the acquisition process.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
acquisition programs efficiently address issues and deficiencies
identified through test and evaluation?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff, the Service and
Component Acquisition Executives, the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation and the DDR&E, Advanced Capabilities to address issues and
deficiencies that arise in testing.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe DOD
should procure weapon systems that have not demonstrated, through test
and evaluation, to be operationally effective, suitable, and
survivable?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my staff, the Service and
Component Acquisition Executives, the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation and the DDR&E, Advanced Capabilities to appropriately manage
risks in programs where field in urgent and when new capabilities
provide essential functions that current systems cannot provide.
Question. If confirmed, under what circumstances would you support
programs accepting more risk upfront (e.g., flight test failures) to
attempt to accelerate fielding schedules for a potential conflict with
China?
Answer. Some test failures are an inevitable element of realistic
testing and we learn from these events. Accelerating capability
requires discipline in managing these risks and rapidly implementing
corrections.
Question. In recent years, the Department's test and evaluation
community has sought to integrate aspects of developmental and
operational testing and conduct such testing early in the acquisition
process.
In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages of
increasing the integration among the developmental, acquisition, and
testing communities?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has moved to
integrated testing, an approach emphasized via DOD's newly published
Test and Evaluation policy. I believe that across the Department there
has been much investigation and investment in new techniques and
automation, including development and test automation. However, if
these efforts are stove-piped, they will constrain the pace of the
integration effort. I believe the Department must work to bridge our
engineering organizations and our test and certification entities to
ensure they work together; standardize data collection so that test and
certification entities can conduct their processes early and often; and
reskill our workforce and automate our processes to allow us to operate
within our adversaries' decision processes.
Question. What other reforms would you recommend to improve the
timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness of the test and evaluation
process to more quickly correct technical deficiencies in weapon
systems?
Answer. I have no immediate recommendations but, if confirmed, will
actively monitor the effectiveness of our current policies to ensure
they facilitate the desired outcomes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with USD(R&E), the
developmental test and modeling and simulation community, the Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation, and the Military Services to ensure
the Department has the testing infrastructure, workforce, and other
resources it needs to support the test and evaluation needs of current
and future acquisition programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work across all these organizations to
unify our mission of delivering capability to the warfighter. Through
acquisition, I will ensure critical decision data is freely accessible
and transparent through the development, deployment and sustainment; as
well as ensure test and operations equities are embedded in the
development process. I will work to ensure that acquisitions are
structured to allow capabilities to be fielded quickly with realistic
and relevant testing and adapted readily to meet changing technology,
missions, and threats.
defense industrial base (dib)
Question. Over the past several years, there have been increasing
concerns in Congress, industry, and the Department over the health of
the DIB and its ability to reliably meet current and future defense
needs.
If confirmed, what do you assess to be the most significant
challenges facing the DIB and how would you propose to address them?
Answer. As I understand it, the most significant challenges facing
the DIB stem from steady de-industrialization of the economy over the
last 50 years, China's well-resourced efforts to undermine a rules-
based international order, and the complexity of managing global supply
chains. Additionally, unpredictable budgets and erratic DIB investments
weaken the DOD-industrial base relationship and prompt limited DIB
interest in DOD as a customer.
If confirmed, I will work with Congress to assess challenges and
opportunities within the DIB, promote capabilities through targeted
investment and small business support, protect against adversarial
capital and cyber intrusions, and partner with international partners
and allies.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure the DIB has the
appropriate scientific, technical, and manufacturing workforces to
support current and future needs of DOD?
Answer. If confirmed, I would focus on maintaining a defense
industrial workforce that is robust and balanced across both
traditional and, in partnership with R&E, next-generation scientific,
technical, and industrial skills. This includes a continued emphasis in
critical STEM education and technological innovation underpinning the
DIB's scientific and engineering workforce, as well as focused efforts
in ensuring the health of the nation's industrial trade skills which
are key to producing and sustaining our weapon systems.
Question. What steps will you take to ensure that the DIB has the
appropriate manufacturing and production infrastructure to support
current and future needs of DOD?
Answer. I believe the Defense Production Act, Industrial Base
Analysis and Sustainment, and other authorities are key to DOD efforts
to support the DIB. If confirmed, I will continue to leverage these
authorities as effective tools to continue DOD's strong partnership
with industry and explore what modifications to the authorities and
what other tools may be required.
Question. What steps should the Department take--on its own or as
part of a ``whole-of-government'' approach--to increase domestic
industrial capacity and reduce reliance on suppliers in China and on
other adversaries?
Answer. I believe the United States must develop a whole-of-nation
approach to incentivize commercial industry to on-shore and ally-shore
their supply chains. We must work to build resilience into our supply
chains, support innovative small businesses, and expand domestic
manufacturing capacity. If confirmed, I will review how A&S and its
authorities can be used to support these efforts within and external to
the Department, with an emphasis on productivity and competitiveness. I
will also work with R&E to transition manufacturing innovations and
reduce dependence on foreign sources.
Question. The Biden administration has made domestic sourcing a key
portion of its policy agenda. If confirmed, you would oversee the
beginning of a significant push to increase DOD's procurement of
American-made goods, products, and materials.
Do you see any associated challenges or opportunities? Please
elaborate.
Answer. I strongly support the DOD's and other Federal agencies'
efforts to better leverage authorities, such a ``Buy America,'' to
encourage increased domestic and allied production of critical items
and raw materials.
Question. In your opinion, what role should domestic sourcing
requirements play in efforts to manage the DIB, support domestic
companies, and ensure trusted and reliable supplies of goods and
services?
Answer. I believe domestic sourcing requirements can be leveraged
to promote domestic and allied industrial capabilities and reduce U.S.
dependence on competitor nations.
Question. In your view, what steps should the Department take to
ensure that companies are able to find needed financing and resources
from trusted sources?
Answer. In my view, we need to facilitate better access to vetted
financing and resources for DIB companies, particularly small- and
medium-sized DIB companies. We must also effectively utilize our
authorities to prevent the transfer of sensitive U.S. technology and
information to foreign adversaries.
Question. What actions should the Department take to address the
threat of ``adversarial capital'' from China and other sources that
seek to gain undue influence over the DIB?
Answer. I believe Chinese and other adversarial investments in U.S.
infrastructure, data, and emerging technologies are a significant
concern. I understand that the Department works closely with
interagency partners and international allies to combat these efforts
and develop a common understanding of these threats. If confirmed, I
will review these efforts and provide any recommendations on additional
actions or authorities as appropriate. Existing authorities under the
Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and
export and technology controls are our major tools for technology
protections.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate role for the
Department with respect to proposed and ongoing private sector merger
and acquisition activities of DOD contractors?
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD's role with respect to
merger and acquisition activities of DOD contractors is to assess their
anti-competitive implications on the Defense Industrial Base and their
ultimate impacts on national security.
Question. What are your views on defense industry mergers and
acquisitions in terms of Pentagon guidance to industry?
Answer. Generally speaking, I believe this should be a subject of
on-going dialogue between the Pentagon and the defense industry as we
implement our acquisition policies and ensure effective competition.
Question. How can the Department better leverage suppliers in the
national technology and industrial base (NTIB) and among other allies
and partners?
Answer. I understand the United States is strengthening its NTIB
through exploring opportunities to pursue joint action against supply
chain vulnerabilities, especially for critical materials and rare earth
elements. If confirmed, I will also work with NTIB partners to enhance
our combined capabilities and ensure that we are protecting our mutual
interests from adversarial practices and threats, alongside our allies
and partners.
Question. The NDAA for fiscal year 2021 established an Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy, responsible for
overseeing the Department's efforts to manage and support the DIB.
In your view, what should be the key priorities and activities of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Industrial Base Policy?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the ASD(Industrial Base
Policy) to determine what the key priorities and activities of the
office should be. This would include continual assessment of the
strengths and weaknesses of the defense industrial base to identify
risks, and then determining the best authorities available to mitigate
those risks.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure the office of this new
Assistant Secretary is adequately resourced (in terms of personnel,
budget, and authority) and provided with the high-level support
necessary to perform its duties and responsibilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the relevant
DOD components and the Congressional Defense Committees to determine
the appropriate resource and support requirements to support the
OASD(IBP)'s mission.
Question. What steps would you take to assess the health of the
current and future defense industrial base?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with the Office of the ASD(IBP),
other relevant DOD components to assess the health of the current and
future DIB, building upon the efforts of the Executive Order 14017
report.
defense industrial base cybersecurity
Question. Section 1648 of the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA requires the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive framework to enhance
cybersecurity for the DIB.
What is your understanding of the challenges of enhancing
cybersecurity of the DIB?
Answer. In my view, the loss of intellectual property and sensitive
information from all U.S. industrial sectors, including that due to
theft and other malicious cyber activity, threatens economic and
national security. It is imperative that we share information with the
DIB so that critical national security information is protected. At the
same time, we must hold also industry accountable for doing what is
required to protect this information. If confirmed, I will work with
the CIO's office to enhance the cybersecurity of the DIB.
Question. If confirmed, how would you balance the needs of
improving cybersecurity with the burden of compliance on small and
medium sized businesses?
Answer. The Department must work with small businesses and help
with the information resources necessary for them to meet cybersecurity
standards. However, it is my understanding that this activity was
transitioned to the Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO). If
confirmed, I will work with the CIO's office to enhance the
cybersecurity of the DIB.
Question. In the last few years, the focus of the Acquisition &
Sustainment model has been on one element of the framework: the
Cybersecurity Maturity Model certification (CMMC).
If confirmed, are there any changes you would make or recommend to
the CMMC efforts beyond those already mandated by the Deputy Secretary?
Answer. It is my understanding that the CMMC program was
transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer. If
confirmed, I will support their efforts and work with the CIO to
determine if any changes or recommendations are necessary.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to increase
efforts to strengthen other (non-CMMC) aspects of the framework
required in Section 1648 of the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA?
Answer. It is my understanding that, if confirmed, I will be
responsible for the cybersecurity of DOD weapon systems. If confirmed,
I will work closely with the CIO and facilitate robust industry
engagement--especially with small businesses--to address cybersecurity
concerns.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role of DOD in the
CMMC effort?
Answer. It is my understanding that the CMMC program was
transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer. As such, I
respectfully defer this question to the DOD CIO.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the CMMC
Advisory Board (CMMC-AB)?
Answer. It is my understanding that the CMMC program was
transferred to the Office of the Chief Information Officer. As such, I
respectfully defer this question to the DOD CIO.
covid-19 progress payments relief payments
Question. The Pentagon has continued issuing accelerated payments
to defense contractors to insulate the impact of COVID-19 on their
defense workforce and on program delays, with $5.3 billion expedited
through June. Under the Defense Department program that began in March
2020, large companies have been paid as much as 90% of incurred costs,
up from the usual 80% paid as progress goals are met. For small
businesses, the figure climbs to 95%, up from 90%.
If confirmed, how will you assess whether these payments are still
needed and for how long?
Answer. If confirmed, I will lead the Department's efforts to
consider the operational and economic effects of COVID-19 that
necessitated the increased progress payment rates. I expect Defense
Pricing and Contracting, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and
Defense Finance and Accounting Services to assess the conditions and
advise me on the continued need for increased progress payment rates. I
will ensure the Department provides industry advance notice of any
changes to the current payment structure.
Question. Should Congress be concerned that contractors may be
using the funding to pay for dividends and share buybacks?
Answer. I understand there have been substantive increases in share
buybacks amongst the top DOD contractors recently. As a condition for
receiving progress payments, contractors must have already incurred
costs associated with DOD contracts. If confirmed, I will examine this
matter more closely to ensure the objectives of increased progress
payments are being achieved.
defense production act (dpa)
Question. Since 2020, the Defense Production Act (DPA) has been
successfully leveraged during the pandemic to provide vital COVID
response materials, including through Operation Warp Speed,
accelerating vaccine development and the delivery of other COVID-
related medical supplies.
What is your understanding of how DOD has leveraged DPA
authorities, including as an interagency funding mechanism, during the
pandemic?
Answer. It is my understanding that the DPA Title III authorities
were leveraged to increase domestic production capacity for necessary
health resources and to sustain defense industrial base capabilities
during the pandemic.
Question. What are your views on DOD's recent use of traditional
(non-COVID) uses of DPA Title III authorities to support the defense
industrial base?
Answer. I understand that the DPA Title III authorities allowing
the Department to develop different approaches to sustain, expand, and
modernize the DIB. If confirmed, my goal would be to continue to use
the DPA to make key investments to strength the DIB and improve
resiliency of our supply chains.
Question. What are your views on the DPA loan and loan guarantee
programs? If confirmed, would you advocate expanding this program, and
if so, for COVID relief only, or for more traditional uses as well? How
would you monitor the effectiveness of the loan program?
Answer. It is my understanding that Title III of the Defense
Production Act offers a wide array of authorities to sustain, expand,
and modernize the industrial base. To date, the Defense Production Act
Program has largely focused on grants, contracts, and purchases.
If confirmed, I will evaluate the loan authorities to determine its
applicability to the DIB's challenges, particularly where a loan
program could mitigate the DIB's reliance on foreign adversary capital.
Question. Do you have any recommendations to improve the
effectiveness of how DOD employs DPA Title III authorities?
Answer. Currently, I don't have any specific recommendations. If
confirmed, I will work with leadership throughout the Department,
Congress, and industry to identify and implement improvements on how
DOD employs DPA Title III authorities.
organic industrial base
Question. In your opinion, what role does the organic industrial
base play in modernization efforts and in the sustainment of
warfighting capabilities?
Answer. The organic industrial base plays a vital role in the
modernization and sustainment of our warfighting capabilities. It is
the nation's insurance policy to safeguard readiness and provides a
ready and controlled source of technical competency for responding to
contingencies, and for sustaining and modernizing capabilities to
address warfighting requirements.
Question. What is your assessment of the status of the facilities
and workforce in DOD depots, logistics centers, arsenals, and other
elements of the organic industrial base?
Answer. Both facilities and workforce for the organic industrial
base are in need of deliberate reinvestment after nearly 2 decades of
persistent conflict. If confirmed, I will work to build mechanisms and
improvement processes to modernize and optimize the facilities,
workforce, and other key elements of our OIB.
Question. What role should the organic industrial base play in the
sustainment of software in defense systems?
Answer. The OIB is essential to sustaining current and future
software intensive weapon systems, along with the capabilities provided
by the private sector. If confirmed, I will work with the Services to
focus on improving OIB efficient and effective software sustainment
operations that are timely, effective, and affordable.
Question. What role should the organic industrial base play in the
sustainment of dual use and commercial technologies used by DOD?
Answer. DOD's organic industrial base must work collaboratively
with industry to ensure that these technologies can continue to support
the Department's requirements. While there are existing mechanisms to
encourage this cooperation, including cooperative agreements and
technology transfer authorization, if confirmed, I would work with
senior leaders in the DOD sustainment communities and industry to seek
opportunities to enhance these relationships.
Question. What role, if any, does USD(A&S) have in ensuring that
the facilities and equipment at the military depots are modern,
operable, and effective?
Answer. I understand the Military Services regularly update their
depot maintenance strategic plans and are actively working on
Infrastructure Optimization Plans (IOPs) to make targeted improvements
to the Organic Industrial Base. If confirmed, I will continue the
process of evaluating the Military Services' plans against their
current and future logistics and depot maintenance requirements. I will
work with Congress to ensure the Military Services' depot maintenance
strategic plans are properly aligned and resourced with the National
Defense Strategy readiness priorities and meet applicable statutory
depot maintenance requirements.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to strengthen the
Department's organic industrial base?
Answer. Both facilities and workforce for the organic industrial
base (OIB) are in need of deliberate reinvestment after nearly 2
decades of persistent conflict. If confirmed, I will work with Congress
to build mechanisms and improvement processes, and resource the
modernization and optimization of our OIB facilities and workforce,
together with other key elements of our OIB.
sustainment
Question. DOD has committed to rebuild its readiness to conduct
large-scale combat operations against near-peer competitors such as
China and Russia. The readiness of critical weapon systems relies on
the quantity and timeliness of sustainment. However, sustainment
challenges continue to impede readiness across the warfighting domains
and military services.
What is your assessment of the sustainment challenges facing the
Department's naval vessel, ground vehicle, and aviation fleets, and
what actions would you take to improve mission capable rates for these
fleets?
Answer. The combination of aging fleets of weapon systems combined
with high operational tempo over the last twenty years and the impact
of unpredictable defense budgets has undermined the near-term readiness
of DOD weapon systems. In addition, an aging infrastructure combined
with decades of underfunding of military construction and Facilities,
Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) has created a bow
wave of installation sustainability issues. If confirmed, I will work
with each of the Services to understand and advocate for funding to
support sustainment.
Question. What is your assessment of the sustainment challenges
facing the F-35 program and what steps should the Department take to
mitigate or resolve those challenges to improve sustainment outcomes
and availability of the aircraft?
Answer. The F-35 is the premier, multi-mission fifth generation
strike fighter for three U.S. Services, seven international partners,
and a growing number of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) customers. My
understanding is that there are clear sustainment challenges facing the
F-35 program in terms of both readiness and affordability. Addressing
these challenges is critical to the continued success of the F-35
program. If confirmed, one of my top priorities will be to address the
root causes of those challenges to ensure a capable, affordable weapon
system that meets warfighter readiness requirements.
Question. In your view, what are the most viable options for the
Department to reduce F-35 sustainment costs?
Answer. At this time, I do not have the access to the information
necessary to evaluate the various options for F-35 sustainment. If
confirmed, I commit to working with the Military Departments, the Joint
Program Office, and industry partners to evaluate and implement viable
options to reduce sustainment costs for the F-35 enterprise.
Question. In your opinion, what steps should DOD take to ensure our
ability to execute the current and expected volume of ship maintenance
and modernization?
Answer. I understand the Navy is working multiple initiatives to
improve both our public and private maintenance performance. If
confirmed, I will get insights and recommendations from the Navy on the
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan (SIOP), as well as
information from our private industry partners about what opportunities
there are to improve maintenance and modernization programs.
Understanding the constraints in the supply chain, workforce, capacity
and capability of the nation's ship repair infrastructure is critical
to planning effective improvements.
Question. In your view, what are the biggest challenges in
sustainment of software systems and embedded software in other systems?
Answer. I believe increasing costs, access to software source code,
early focus on designing for sustainment, and investment into
modernizing software laboratories are critical issues in the software
community. If confirmed, I will work across the DOD software
sustainment community to provide rigorous oversight, improve policies,
and promote sharing of best practices in order to provide solutions to
the software sustainment challenge areas.
Question. In your view, what are the biggest challenges in the
sustainment of commercial technologies that are fielded to warfighters?
Answer. Many of the existing processes within the DOD were not
developed for the pace of commercial technology advancement we are
seeing in the 21st century. Recent acquisition reforms begin to address
this, but other structural challenges remain within the USD(A&S) area
of responsibility, including changes to the Planning, Programming,
Budgeting and Execution (PPBE) process, and enabling the workforce to
adapt quicker to exploit these technologies.
improving planning for sustainment
Question. The GAO has reported that operation & sustainment (O&S)
costs account for about 70 percent of a system's total lifecycle costs,
and that O&S costs are largely pre-determined by decisions made during
the acquisition process, such as decisions about requirements, system
design, and technical data. Given this, it is critically important that
programs effectively consider and plan for the sustainment of a system
early in the acquisition process.
In your opinion, how well are the Department's acquisition programs
planning for sustainment?
Answer. I believe this is an area where the Department needs to
make additional progress. If confirmed, I will work with the Services
and Defense Agencies to ensure we instill comprehensive sustainment
planning for new programs and that we continuously assess and refine
sustainment planning for existing programs at all stages in their
lifecycle.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
acquisition programs are planning for sustainment early and often
during the acquisition process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure sustainment planning is an
integral aspect in weapon system development. Given that sustainment
represents the bulk of the cost of a weapon system, I believe the
Department needs to do careful planning up front to ensure sustainment
requirements are designed into weapon systems delivery readiness at
best cost.
Question. When faced with cost and schedule pressures during the
acquisition process, some programs have reduced or deferred activities
that would have improved long-term sustainment outcomes, in order to
save money and time in the near-term.
If confirmed, how will you ensure acquisition programs make upfront
investments that could help keep sustainment costs down and improve
readiness, such as conducting reliability testing, designing for
maintenance, and negotiating for technical data rights, among others?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Services and Defense
Agencies to ensure acquisition program offices perform sustainment
analysis as part of weapon system design and development. This includes
necessary reliability investments, maintenance analysis, and government
access to data rights needed for sustainment planning and system
maintenance.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure lifecycle operation and
support costs have appropriate visibility, as a key performance
parameter or equivalent consideration, in DOD's acquisition system and
budget presentations to Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Services and Defense
Agencies to ensure acquisition program offices perform sustainment
analysis as part of weapon system design and development. This includes
necessary reliability investments, maintenance analysis, and government
access to data rights needed for sustainment planning and system
maintenance.
Question. In your opinion, what opportunities exist to increase
coordination and communication between the Department's acquisition and
sustainment communities, to help ensure sustainment is adequately
considered during the acquisition process?
Answer. The Department has the benefit of past and continuing
investments across the acquisition and sustainment workforce. Because
of this, DOD has two highly professional communities that are more than
capable of working together to arrive at mutually beneficial
strategies. If confirmed, I will work with both the acquisition and
sustainment communities to ensure they are sharing data and are making
data driven decisions as a team.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure the
Department's Major Defense Acquisition Programs and large Middle Tier
Acquisition Programs effectively plan for sustainment?
Answer. Regardless of the acquisition pathway, sustainment must
always be an integral part of weapon system design, development, and
fielding. If confirmed, I will work with the Services and Defense
Agencies to ensure program offices are held accountable for sustainment
outcomes under all acquisition pathways.
facilities sustainment
Question. In fiscal year 2020, DOD reported a deferred facilities
maintenance backlog of $137 billion, which equates to about 12 years of
facility sustainment funding at fiscal year 2020 levels.
If confirmed, what approach will you take to address this backlog
and to ensure that facility sustainment funding is sufficiently
prioritized and funded? Please specify aspects of the approach such as
increased funding, elimination of excess infrastructure, and
infrastructure in failing condition.
Answer. If confirmed, I will review and assess the Department's
approach for prioritizing and funding investments in our built
infrastructure. I will work with organizations across DOD to strike a
balance between increasing funding and reducing unneeded infrastructure
to ensure investments enhance military readiness.
Question. DOD's facility sustainment funding primarily focuses on
mission-critical facilities. Given the chronic underfunding of facility
sustainment, lower-priority facilities, such as unaccompanied housing
(barracks) and childcare centers, have experienced increased
deterioration to the point where they need more costly repairs to
prevent their failure.
What actions, if any, will you take to fund facilities that have
been treated as lower priority, such as unaccompanied housing and
childcare centers--but that are facilities that contribute directly to
servicemembers' and their families' quality of life--to assure their
continued availability?
Answer. I am committed to ensuring that DOD appropriately invests
in facilities that directly impact the quality of life for
servicemembers and their families, which is critical to ensure
readiness including the Department's ability to recruit and retain the
force. If confirmed, I will review and assess the Department's approach
for prioritizing and funding investments in our built infrastructure. I
will work with organizations across DOD to strike a balance between
increasing funding and reducing unneeded infrastructure to ensure
facility investments enhance military readiness.
contracting for services
Question. In fiscal year 2019, the Department obligated about $190
billion on services acquisitions, which accounted for nearly half of
the Department's total contract obligations. The GAO has identified a
number of shortcomings with the Department's management of services
contracts and has placed this oversight challenge on its High Risk list
since 2001.
What is your assessment of the Department's ability to manage its
services contracts?
Answer. Service contracts present different challenges from weapon
systems contracts and require different management mechanisms. It is my
understanding that the Department has established policies and
procedures in place, grounded in statute and regulation, to help
decision makers at all organizational levels of the Department make
determinations regarding the management of services contracts. If
confirmed, I will work with the Services and Component Acquisition
Executives to ensure that the acquisition of contracted services is
made in a manner that ensures a balances of effectiveness and
efficiency while meeting unique needs of the mission.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to improve the
Department's ability to strategically assess and manage its
requirements for services contracts?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to strategically improve the
requirements process for service contracts by infusing their decisions
with improved data to inform their tradeoff decisions. This assessment
will require working closely with the Services to leverage review
processes they may already have in place.
Question. What steps would you take, if confirmed, to improve the
quality of data collected on services contracts and the analysis
performed on such data, so as to better understand and control spending
on service contracts and improve management of these activities?
Answer. I believe the Department should continually improve its
ability to collect, disseminate, analyze, and use data in this new
digital age to support decision makers. If confirmed, I will work with
the empowered leaders who own the mission that the service contracts
support and who make key requirements and funding tradeoff decisions to
understand what data they will need to control their spending and
evaluate the success of the resulting tradeoffs. I expect the data that
they will need will come not only from Department-wide repositories of
awarded contract documents, but also from their own systems for
services requirements, financial management, contract writing, and
contract management.
Question. What do you believe is the most important factor in
determining whether a service role should be performed by government or
contractor personnel, i.e., cost, flexibility, efficiency, ability to
meet mission, or some combination thereof?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with my counterparts in the
personnel community to ensure that the acquisition of contracted
services is made in a manner that ensures a balanced and cost effective
mix of labor. For work that is not considered inherently governmental
or sensitive, I believe each of the elements identified should be
considered in combination when making decisions regarding the sourcing
of work.
acquiring commercial technology
Question. Since the end of the Cold War, Congress and successive
leaders in DOD have recognized that the technological superiority and
modernization that is critical to national security increasingly takes
place in the commercial sector, and that in many technical areas, the
pace of commercial technological advance is much quicker than that of
the government.
In your view, does DOD adequately consider commercially available
solutions to meet its requirements?
Answer. I believe the Department could do better to consider
commercial solutions to shape requirements. Traditionally, requirements
are documented up front often with a bias of legacy systems with
increased performance. DOD needs to increase its understanding of the
commercial technology landscape before defining requirements.
Question. In your opinion, are there new ways to reward and
incentivize the acquisition workforce and programs to choose commercial
solutions, if available?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to place greater emphasis on DOD
business processes while also encouraging greater use of proven and
less risky commercial solutions. I believe an understanding of the
workforce's challenges is essential to managing these kinds of efforts
and will work with Department leadership to support a culture that
provides the necessary resources to encourage innovation to improve
decision making as well as incentivize and encourage modern business
approaches.
Question. In your view, how should the USD(A&S) work with the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to promote the
acquisition of commercial technologies?
Answer. I believe there should be a close partnership between
USD(A&S), the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and their
counterparts in the Services to modernize DOD's requirements system. We
need a system that integrates operational needs ``requirements pull''
with commercial solutions ``tech push,'' informed by experimentation,
via a collaborative, iterative approach to exploit new technologies and
adapt our ways of fighting.
Question. Do you believe that current bid protest processes are
adequate to enable commercial firms to protest DOD acquisition
decisions that may be inconsistent with the statutory preference for
commercial products?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the bid protest processes and
consider recommendations to improve existing processes and gain
efficiencies where possible.
Question. Do you believe the Department is making the best use of
both Part 12 and Part 15 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations in
developing acquisition strategies for programs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look for opportunities to do more to
increase competition, including competition from commercial sources,
non-traditional Defense contractors, small businesses and other
historically underserved communities. Using the most appropriate
procurement tools for a given acquisition, including FAR Parts 12 and
15, ensures the Department is getting the best value for the taxpayers'
money.
Question. Federal acquisition regulations and statutes establish a
clear preference for commercial capabilities, products, and services
wherever commercial solutions are able to reasonably meet DOD's needs
at reasonable cost. Faithfully pursuing this preference is all the more
important today when commercial technological innovations could play a
pivotal role in great power competition. Section 807 of the Fiscal Year
2022 National Defense Authorization Act requires the USD(A&S) and the
Chairman of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to jointly assess
the impediments and incentives for pursuing commercial capabilities,
products, and services wherever commercial solutions are able to
reasonably meet DOD's needs at reasonable cost.
If confirmed, based on your experience, how do you believe DOD
could improve its adoption of commercial solutions?
Answer. I am aware of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA Section 807
requirement for the Department to assess impediments and incentives to
improving the acquisition of commercial products and services. I look
forward to engaging as required as the review progresses. I am also
familiar with the significant amount of thought that the Section 809
Panel put into this area of acquisition. In this time of strategic
competition, the Department will certainly benefit from improvements to
how we find, acquire, and employ commercial products and services.
Question. In your view, can improvements be made without mandates
and additional processes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess our process and identify what
changes, if any, are necessary.
intellectual property
Question. Do you believe that DOD has implemented intellectual
property (IP) best practices sufficiently to ensure that the government
has appropriate access to IP and technical data in order to give a
proper return on investments in federal research and development (R&D),
retain the ability to re-compete programs to control costs, and
exercise better control over program sustainment costs?
Answer. I believe IP must be a higher strategic priority,
considered earlier and more often in planning, and more focused on
longer-term needs. I believe this will be key to make sustainment more
affordable and to ensure DOD can take full advantage of industry's
faster pace in technology innovation.
Question. If confirmed, what adjustments would you make to DOD's
practices in negotiating IP and technical data rights for programs in
order to improve DOD's ability to develop, procure, and sustain new
systems and technologies affordably?
Answer. If confirmed, my initial focus in this area will be to
better understand the practical obstacles that DOD program personnel
are facing related to IP. I anticipate the need to improve our training
for the DOD acquisition workforce and contracting officers to take
greater advantage of agile tools and techniques such as negotiating
specialized licenses, and fully implementing modular open systems
approaches in DOD programs. If confirmed, I will bring my insights from
Air Force acquisitions to make the acquisitions system more flexible
for traditional and nontraditional contractors and technology
innovators to affordably develop, procure and sustain new and existing
systems and technologies.
reform of the protest process
Question. To what extent do you think that the time required to
settle protests warrants reform in order to protect the interests of
both industry and the government?
Answer. I understand the Department previously submitted reports to
the Congress on protest timeframes along with recommendations for
change. If confirmed, I will review the regulatory and policy
approaches along with the recommendations to determine what changes, if
any, are necessary.
Question. Do you have any recommendations on how to improve the
protest process?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the previously submitted
recommendations and determine if there are any additional
recommendations that would improve the protest process.
small business
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase the
participation of small businesses in the defense technology and
industrial base?
Answer. Small businesses are a critical component of the Defense
Industrial Base and a source of significant innovation, which is
critical to the development, fielding, and sustainment of operational
capabilities. If confirmed, I will work to increase the participation
of small businesses in the defense technology and industrial base. I
will collaborate with others in the department to apply those
opportunities more holistically alongside other small business
activities.
Question. In your view, what are the biggest barriers that prevent
small businesses from becoming prime contractors for the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make it a high priority to understand
and create solutions to the biggest barriers that prevent small
businesses from participating fully with DOD.
Question. Do you believe the Department is using all available
authorities to provide small businesses the opportunity to subcontract
with existing prime contractors in order to ensure that programs of
record have access to the most advanced and effective technologies?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the broader acquisition
community to better understand and create avenues for small businesses
to subcontract and to ensure that we are leveraging the small business
community to the maximum extent possible.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
small businesses that provide goods and services to the Defense
Logistics Agency are monitored and supported when facing financial
pressures that challenge their viability?
Answer. Small businesses face financial challenges for any number
of reasons, and the Department should support businesses facing those
financial pressures when appropriate to maintain a healthy industrial
base. As I understand it, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) has an
Office of Small Business Programs that maintains ongoing dialogue with
industry associations and small businesses to mitigate financial
pressures, including COVID-19 impacts. If confirmed, I will continue
working with DLA to assess and evaluate options that will minimize
financial impacts to small businesses, while balancing the readiness
and cash flow needs of the Department.
Question. What do you see as the benefits of diversifying the
defense industrial base through more engagement with small and
disadvantaged businesses?
Answer. Small and disadvantaged businesses are a critical part of
the Defense Industrial Base. These businesses are a source of new and
innovative technologies and capabilities that provide significant
operational capabilities, when fielded. These businesses are also a
source of competition that help drive down cost and increase innovation
and efficiency and speed capability deliveries to the warfighter.
Question. What recommendations do you have to improve the
Department's use of the Small Business Innovation Research programs in
order to develop and field new, advanced capabilities?
Answer. The Small Business Innovation Research program is a key
tool in the development and fielding of new technologies and
capabilities for the DOD. One of the most significant challenges that
the Department has faced is transitioning these new technologies to
fielded systems. If confirmed, I will work with the Under Secretary of
Defense for Research and Engineering to identify opportunities to more
closely tie SBIR with other small business programs and bridge the gap
between emerging technologies and fielded systems.
acquisition workforce education and training
Question. A well-trained and empowered acquisition workforce is a
critical enabler in the implementation of acquisition reform and in the
management of acquisition programs.
What is your assessment of the Department's acquisition workforce,
both in terms of its capacity and capability? Does the Department have
enough acquisition professionals with the right skills?
Answer. Overall, I believe the Defense Acquisition Workforce has
great talent and capacity. Since 2008, the Department has made a
significant effort to rebuild the acquisition workforce and to
modernize its implementation of the Defense Acquisition Workforce
Improvement Act. If confirmed, I will assess the results of these
efforts. I will also look at the specialty knowledge and skill areas
that the Department requires to deliver the latest in capabilities to
the warfighter. We will need to study how we can make the best use of
existing expertise across the workforce in addition to how we are
recruiting, developing, and retaining top talent.
If confirmed, I will assess targeted capacity and skill needs to
ensure the Department has enough professionals in the acquisition
workforce, with the appropriate skills, to deliver overmatch
capabilities to the warfighter.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure the
acquisition workforce is fully trained on new acquisition authorities
and best practices, so that it can make informed decisions about when
and how to use the different acquisition pathways and tools available
to it?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Department's
Acquisition Executives, functional leaders, and the Defense Acquisition
University to ensure the workforce is provided with an agile learning
environment that meets the needs of today's workforce, including how to
use different acquisition pathways and tools.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to empower
program managers to execute acquisition programs and hold them
accountable for how their decisions contributed to program performance,
including over the life of a system?
Answer. Fundamentally, program managers are accountable for cost,
schedule, and performance of their programs. I believe program managers
will be successful if they are empowered to execute their programs
using all of the currently available legal and policy authorities as
well as functional support. I will also exercise robust oversight to
hold program managers accountable for program performance.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department's training,
education, certification, and credentialing programs for the
acquisition workforce?
Answer. In order to deliver necessary capability to the warfighter,
the Defense Acquisition Workforce must be able to adapt to a variety of
new and rapidly evolving threats. This requires training and learning
in new and emerging areas and across one's career, not just in the
first few years on the job. It is my understanding that DAU, the
Services, and Components have been collaborating to better meet the
training needs of the workforce and, if confirmed, I will review such
efforts to make sure we have effective planning and investments.
Question. If confirmed, what role would you play in ensuring that
there is an adequate supply of technical talent available for the
Department and industry partners to meet the challenges of the future?
Answer. I believe the most important resource of any organization
is its people. For acquisition and sustainment, the workforce is
significantly STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics)
oriented. Strengthening the pipeline of STEM talent is a national need
and must be a top priority as we revitalize the national security
workforce. If confirmed, I will assess the existing pipeline of STEM
talent and work across the Department and with industry to identify how
we can accelerate and grow such efforts.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
improve the effectiveness of the Defense Acquisition University?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate each aspect of the Defense
Acquisition University's current transformation initiative and ensure
its supporting activities are aligned to strategic workforce readiness
needs. It is my understanding that DAU has endeavored transform the way
it develops and delivers training and to build stronger relationships
with the Services and Components. The capabilities of our workforce are
critical to our success, and if confirmed, review the steps being taken
to improve these capabilities.
Question. What specific steps would you take to assess and ensure
that the Defense Acquisition Workforce Development Account (DAWDA) is
adequately resourced to meet the needs of the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I would review the process in place to assess
acquisition workforce requirements and ensure planned budget levels are
requested to meet requirements. I would also ensure DAWDA resources are
prioritized and allocated to the greatest need(s).
Question. How would you engage with the Acquisition Innovation
Research Center (AIRC) to perform research on acquisition issues of
interest, and to engage a future workforce for defense acquisition?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with the AIRC to understand how
it supports and enables the A&S mission.
assistant secretary of defense for energy, installations and
environment
Question. The Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA recently reestablished the
position of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Energy,
Installations, and Environment.
If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to expedite the
reestablishment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense as
an effective organization and address persistent understaffing in the
domains of privatized housing, PFAS, energy, resiliency, and the
remainder of the environmental portfolio?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department recently
finalized the reestablishment of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Energy, Installations & Environment (EI&E), in
accordance with Section 904 the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense
Authorization Act. If confirmed, I will review EI&E resources and
staffing and ensure the Office is postured to carry out the priorities
within its portfolio.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to improve
the incorporation of the energy Key Performance Parameter (KPP) and
incorporation of operational energy and sustainability into maintenance
requirements and the acquisition system, which should also save money
over the lifecycle of a weapons platform?
Answer. The energy key performance parameter is a significant tool
for improving the supportability and lethality of Department
capabilities in contested operating environments. If confirmed, I will
work with my staff and the Services to ensure sustainability, energy
supportability and demand reduction are integral to acquisition and
sustainment decision-making for new and current platforms.
Question. What is your understanding of the role of the Department
as compared to that of other agencies with regard to environmental
research and regulations?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD conducts research
along with other Federal agencies to improve DOD's environmental
performance, increase the adoption of sustainable alternatives, reduce
costs, and enhance and sustain mission capabilities. I will also ensure
the Department continues to support the needs of the warfighter, be a
good steward of the environment, preserve our Nation's resources and
respect Federally recognized Tribes. This includes managing
environmental compliance, emerging chemicals of concern, clean-up
efforts, and conservation of natural and cultural resources.
microelectronics
Question. Over the last few decades, Taiwan, South Korea, and the
People's Republic of China have implemented large-scale national
industrial policies to build microelectronics manufacturing facilities.
In contrast, the availability of large-scale state-of-the-art
microelectronics manufacturing foundries in the United States has been
steadily declining. DOD has a diverse set of requirements and needs for
the domestic production of measurably secure state-of-the-art, state-
of-the-practice, and legacy integrated circuits in low volumes to meet
its needs.
What is your assessment of the Department's microelectronics needs,
to include both legacy, state-of-the-practice, and state-of-the-art?
Answer. As I understand it, DOD is hampered by lack of access to
assured sources for leading edge microelectronics technologies. DOD
requires quantifiably secure access to microelectronics that meets all
its requirements, especially for trust and assurance. The Department
develops new systems that require state-of-the-art microelectronics,
but also needs to acquire and sustain our existing systems - most of
which use legacy and state-of-the-practice microelectronics - as well
as modernizing systems in the field. If confirmed, I will continue
DOD's effort to secure assured sources of microelectronics components
for current and future weapons systems.
Question. In your view, what role should the Department play in
working with the interagency and industry to increase domestic
production of dual use microelectronics?
Answer. While DOD is the largest U.S. government buyer of
microelectronics, it is a small part of the overall U.S. market demand.
As such, I believe collaborating with the other affected agencies and
industry is critical to both establish and sustain domestic production
of microelectronics.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you plan to take to
support increased domestic production of dual use microelectronics?
Answer. DOD needs to leverage commercial microelectronics
technology and production wherever possible to be able to help ensure
future capacity for microelectronics that meet DOD requirements. The
CHIPS Act is an important priority, as it will help re-energize
domestic commercial microelectronics production. If confirmed, I would
prioritize that DOD leverage the resources provided by the CHIPS Act
and the commercial industrial base.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to partner with
the USD(R&E) on this issue?
Answer. I believe the USD(R&E) is a critical partner to A&S on this
strategy. Their focus is on developing and demonstrating new
technologies that will provide the best future capabilities for the
warfighter. If confirmed, I will partner with them by providing input
into the requirements for those new approaches and faster transition
pathways to programs of record.
weapon systems cybersecurity
Question. The GAO reported in March 2021:
The Department of Defense has struggled to ensure its weapons
systems can withstand cyberattacks. Since we last reported, DOD has
taken some positive steps toward that goal, like conducting more cyber
testing.
But we found that DOD programs aren't always incorporating
cybersecurity requirements into contract language. Contractors are only
responsible for meeting the terms written in a contract. Some contracts
we reviewed had no cybersecurity requirements when they were awarded,
with vague requirements added later.
What is your assessment of the Department's posture towards weapons
systems cybersecurity?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with SAEs and CAEs to assess the
cybersecurity posture of the DOD weapon systems that they are
responsible for. For those programs where I am the MDA, I will assess
the cybersecurity posture of programs during program reviews.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to improve the
cybersecurity of the Department's weapon systems?
Answer. I firmly believe that cyber hardening DOD weapon systems
and DOD critical infrastructure is a warfighting imperative required to
support the National Defense Strategy.
If confirmed, I will work SAEs and CAEs to assess the cybersecurity
posture of our highest priority weapon systems. Based on that status of
the cybersecurity posture identified, I will work with DOD Senior
leaders to identify and prioritize funding for mitigating cyber
vulnerabilities for our highest priority weapon systems and the
missions they support, in alignment with the Congressionally mandated
Strategic Cybersecurity program and related NDAAs.
space
Question. As part of the creation of the Space Force, the Fiscal
Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act created a Service
Acquisition Executive (SAE) for Space to consolidate space acquisition
functions in the Air Force. The Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense
Authorization Act subsequently expanded the role of the SAE to oversee
space acquisition across the ``space systems and programs of the armed
forces in support of the Chief of Space Operations.'' This was part of
a series of reforms to empower the SAE for Space and the Chief of Space
Operations as the Space Force achieves institutionalization of its
Title 10 status.
If confirmed, will you support the SAE for Space per the duties
included in the Fiscal Year 2020 and Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense
Authorization Acts?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will work with the Department of the
Air Force's Service Acquisition Executive for Space programs and the
other Service Acquisition Executives in accordance with the Fiscal Year
2020 and Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Acts to
strengthen, enable, and synchronize space related acquisition efforts
for the armed force.
Question. The USD(A&S) co-chairs the Council on Oversight of
Defense Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Enterprise. The major
activities of the Council have been to coordinate the Military GPS User
Equipment (MGUE) across the Department of Defense, given the
increasingly contested electromagnetic spectrum within which DOD
systems must operate.
If confirmed, what do you see as the major issue(s) with acquiring
and coordinating the installation of MGUE components across the myriad
number of DOD systems that rely on GPS signals, to include
synchronization with the GPS satellites?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other tri-chair
members of the PNT Oversight Council. Together with the USD(R&E) and
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will continue to address
the issue of ensuring access to trusted and assured microelectronics in
order to field advanced MGUE systems to support America's soldiers,
sailors, airmen, marines and guardians.
Question. The Committee is deeply concerned about vulnerabilities
in the GPS system that could prove to be devastating in a conflict with
near-peer competitors and the lack of urgency and resolve within the
Department for addressing the problem. The M-Code modernization effort
will close only some of the PNT vulnerabilities, and also will not be
completed for a long time. Section 1611 of the Fiscal Year 2021
National Defense Authorization Act established a mandate for fielding
alternative resilient PNT capabilities for the most critical
operational components within two years, but the Department does not
appear to be on track to achieve that.
If confirmed, will you commit to studying carefully the problems in
the GPS system, the limitations of the M-Code modernization, potential
methods of closing those vulnerabilities, and alternative methods for
achieving resilient PNT?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I commit to carefully studying the
problems, limitations, vulnerabilities and alternatives to achieve
resilient a Position, Navigation and Timing architecture. I will work
closely with the other tri-chair members of the PNT Oversight Council.
Together with the USD(R&E) and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, we will address these challenges and opportunities in order to
field resilient PNT systems to support America's soldiers, sailors,
airmen, marines and guardians.
Question. If confirmed, will you advocate alternate sources of PNT
for DOD systems and if so, how?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work closely with the other tri-
chair members of the Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT)
Oversight Council. Together with the USD(R&E) and Vice Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, we will identify, assess, and leverage alternate
sources of PNT via partnerships with allies, industry, and academia as
well as through DOD-internal research, development, and acquisition
efforts.
electronic warfare
Question. The Department recently moved oversight of
Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations from the Joint Staff to the Chief
Information Officer as the Senior Designated Official. The USD(A&S) co-
chairs the Electronic Warfare EXCOM (EW EXCOM), which was created in
2015 (Electronic Warfare Executive Committee Charter) and is part of
DOD Directive 3222.04 to oversee DOD acquisition-related investments
and synchronization amongst the services of the multitude of EW related
systems for the Joint Force.
Please explain your views on the following issues:
The role of the EW EXCOM?
Answer. As the Air Force SAE I attended EW EXCOMs to help
facilitate synchronization and integration of EW by sharing tactics,
techniques across the department. If confirmed I look forward to
getting an update on the activities of the EW EXCOM and the way
forward.
Question. The responsibilities of the USD(A&S) with respect to EW
acquisition and the current state of acquisition coordination across
DOD?
Answer. EW was treated as a portfolio area with the standup of the
EW EXCOM. If confirmed, I will review the status of the EW portfolio
and how we are coordinating EW across the Department.
Question. Whether the CIO office has the requisite knowledge or
experience to serve as the Senior Designated Official for Electronic
Warfare/EMSO?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the CIO and other
stakeholders to understand the abilities of the CIO to undertake the
role of Senior Designated Official for EMSO.
Question. How the EXCOM will coordinate its activities, with the
recent shift of Electromagnetic Spectrum Operations oversight from the
Joint Staff to the CIO?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the EW EXCOM to understand
the shift of oversight of EMSO from Joint Staff to the CIO.
Question. The EW EXCOM's advisory role for future investment as it
relates to decisions by the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the
Deputy's Management Action Group (DMAG)?
Answer. In my past involvement with the EW EXCOM, they made
recommendations on issue papers for the budget review process. If
confirmed, I will work with the EW EXCOM to understand their current
role in the budget review process.
nuclear modernization
Question. The USD(A&S) has oversight responsibilities of the
recapitalization of the nuclear triad, which is rapidly aging out. The
B-2 and B-1 bombers are being replaced by the B-21 bomber. The Air
Launched Cruise Missile is being replaced by the Long Range Stand-Off
Weapon (LRSO). The Minuteman III is being replaced by the Ground Based
Strategic Deterrent. The Ohio-class ballistic missile submarine is
being replaced by the Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. The
B-21, GBSD, LRSO and Columbia-class submarines are Major Defense
Acquisition Programs that will have to operate well into the 2070s.
These are in addition to efforts to sustain, recapitalize in the near
term, and design a Next Generation Nuclear Command, Control and
Communications (NC3) system.
What is your understanding of the state of U.S. nuclear forces,
global nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) architecture,
and the supporting weapons sustainment and production capabilities
within the National Nuclear Security Administration?
Answer. The Nation's nuclear platforms, delivery systems, Nuclear
Command, Control, and Communications, warheads, and infrastructure have
been extended far beyond their original service lives and are
undergoing recapitalization, refurbishment, and replacement. The on-
time replacement of our aging nuclear forces and associated systems is
critical. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that our nuclear
modernization programs continue to provide a safe, secure, and
effective strategic deterrent for the future.
Question. Do you agree with the assessment of the past four
Secretaries of Defense that nuclear deterrence is DOD's highest
priority mission and that modernizing our Nation's nuclear forces is a
critical national security priority?
Answer. Yes, I agree with the past four Secretaries of Defense that
nuclear deterrence is DOD's highest priority mission and that
modernizing our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national security
priority.
Question. Do you support and intend to advocate for the
modernization of all aspects of the U.S. nuclear deterrent,
particularly the B-21, LRSO, GBSD and Columbia-class programs?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support and advocate for
modernization of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Question. Please describe what you see as the major acquisition
issues with each of the above.
Answer. Nuclear deterrence is DOD's highest priority mission and
modernizing our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national security
priority. I understand the importance of maintaining our fielded
nuclear systems while simultaneously modernizing each leg of the
nuclear triad. If confirmed, I will take immediate action to review
each of our modernization programs and understand any associated
acquisition challenges, and I will work with leadership throughout the
Department, Congress, and our industry partners to ensure our
modernization programs deliver the capabilities needed on time to meet
the dynamic security environment.
Question. Do you support sustaining, recapitalizing, and designing
the Next Generation NC3 systems?
Answer. Yes, if confirmed, I will support sustainment,
recapitalization and design of the Next Generation NC3 systems. A
reliable and modern NC3 is an essential to ensuring a safe, secure and
effective nuclear deterrent.
Question. Please describe what you see as the major acquisition
issues with each element.
Answer. Nuclear deterrence is DOD's highest priority mission and
modernizing our Nation's nuclear forces is a critical national security
priority. I understand the importance of maintaining our existing NC3
capability while simultaneously delivering a reliable and modern NC3
enterprise - sometimes called ``NC3 Next''. If confirmed, I will take
immediate action to review and understand the acquisition challenges
and opportunities associated with NC3 modernization programs, and I
will work with leadership throughout the Department, Congress, and our
industry partners to provide robust and survivable Next Generation NC3
systems to ensure a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent.
Question. The nuclear enterprise functions through collaboration
among the Navy, the Air Force, the Joint Staff, the Offices of the
Under Secretaries of Defense for Policy, Acquisition and Sustainment,
and Research and Engineering, the NNSA headquarters, and the NNSA
national laboratories and production plants.
Do you believe that the current system adequately connects military
requirements to acquisitions and procurement to technical expertise and
production?
Answer. Yes. However, if confirmed, I will review this process more
comprehensively and recommend improvements as appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, do you have any recommendations for
improving the functions of the complex?
Answer. Coordinating the efforts of the defense nuclear enterprise
is a critical and highly complex task. If confirmed, I will review the
system and recommend improvements as appropriate.
nuclear weapons council
Question. Section 179 of title 10, designates the USD(A&S) as the
Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council.
What is your understanding of this role?
Answer. My understanding of the role of Chair of the Nuclear
Weapons Council is to ensure the Council fulfills the requirements set
forth if Section 179 of Title 10 and ultimately to ensure that the
Departments of Defense and Energy are postured to ensure a safe,
secure, reliable, and effective nuclear stockpile.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
the duties and responsibilities of the Nuclear Weapons Council are
effectively executed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Nuclear Weapons
Council is focused on the most critical issues facing the enterprise
and will work with the Staff Director to enable timely, data-driven
decisions.
Question. What is your understanding of the modifications to the
role of the Nuclear Weapons Council (with respect to performance
requirements and budget) that were enacted in section 1632 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021?
Answer. I understand that section 1632 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 provided a clarified role for
the Nuclear Weapons Council in establishing and validating performance
requirements for nuclear warhead programs as well as a process by which
the Secretary of Energy and the Nuclear Weapons Council communicate and
cooperate to align resources and to certify the adequacy of the
National Nuclear Security Administration's annual budget request.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
effective implementation of these modifications?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work with fellow members of the
Nuclear Weapons Council, the Secretary of Energy, and the White House
Office of Management and Budget to ensure that current processes and
procedures meet the intent of this provision.
Question. Are there any changes that you would recommend to the
membership, organization, structure, or responsibilities of the Nuclear
Weapons Council?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to understand the current
operations and procedures of the Nuclear Weapons Council and offer
recommendations as appropriate or necessary.
Question. What do you see as the primary challenges that the
Nuclear Weapons Council will face over the next four years, and if
confirmed, what steps will you take as Chair to address these
challenges?
Answer. The planned modernization of almost every element of the
nuclear enterprise will be the primary challenge for the Nuclear
Weapons Council over the next four years. In particular, the Council
must ensure the close coordination of these efforts within DOD and with
DoE. If confirmed, I will work with all stakeholders to understand and
address these challenges, ensuring that the U.S. is prepared to address
an evolving security environment.
Question. In addition to the Department of Defense programs for
modernizing U.S. nuclear forces and the NC3 system, the Nuclear Weapons
Council has laid out a schedule for modernization of the nuclear
weapons stockpile and the supporting National Nuclear Security
Administration infrastructure.
Do you agree that modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile
and supporting National Nuclear Security Administration infrastructure
is a critical national security priority and should be addressed in a
timely manner?
Answer. Yes, the nuclear weapons stockpile must be underpinned by
responsive and resilient production capabilities and infrastructure.
Question. Do you support and intend to advocate for all aspects of
the Nuclear Weapons Council's modernization plan for the U.S. nuclear
weapons stockpile and supporting National Nuclear Security
Administration infrastructure?
Answer. Yes, the nuclear weapons stockpile must be underpinned by
responsive and resilient production capabilities and infrastructure. If
confirmed, I will review plans for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile
and the supporting NNSA infrastructure, and ensure they are postured to
deliver the capabilities the nation needs.
Question. In your opinion, are the multiple components of the DOD
and NNSA nuclear modernization plans appropriately sequenced and scoped
in order to meet the operational needs of the commander of U.S.
Strategic Command?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Commander of
U.S. Strategic Command to understand the linkages between challenges
facing the scope and schedule of the modernization programs and how
those challenges translate to operational risk. I will be prepared to
offer recommendations as appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to leverage the USD(A&S)'s
various roles within the nuclear enterprise (Milestone Decision
Authority for various programs, Chair of the NWC, NC3 Capability
Portfolio Manager) to ensure the health of the specialized industrial
base needed to produce certain components currently being modernized?
Answer. If confirmed, I will leverage the important roles of the
USD(A&S) in stewarding all aspects of the nuclear enterprise and
ensuring that the specialized and fragile industrial base is robust and
prepared to support the modernization of the nuclear deterrent.
Question. Do you support the Stockpile Stewardship Program, and
have you reviewed the elements of this program as conducted by the
NNSA?
Answer. I support the Stockpile Stewardship Program as a
significant and successful endeavor of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to ensure a safe, secure, reliable, and effective
nuclear stockpile. If confirmed, I will further review the program to
understand its many facets.
Question. In your view, are there any additional capabilities that
the Stockpile Stewardship Program should develop?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to
understand the capabilities of the Stockpile Stewardship Program and to
work with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration on any additional capabilities that may support the
program.
Question. If the technical conclusions and data from the Stockpile
Stewardship Program could no longer confidently support the annual
certification of the stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable, what
would your recommendation be?
Answer. I understand that a core function of the Nuclear Weapons
Council is to provide an annual assessment of the safety, reliability,
and military effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile, underpinned by
independent assessments of the national security laboratory leaders and
the Commander, U.S. Strategic Command. If technical conclusions and
data could not support this certification, I would work closely with
the laboratory leaders, the Commander, the Members of the Council, and
the Secretaries of Defense and Energy to understand the issues and
provide the President with a recommendation to remedy.
Question. Major construction efforts are underway at the NNSA
laboratories and plants to support the re-establishment of a U.S.
plutonium pit production capability at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and the Savannah River Pit Production Facility, as well as
the Uranium Processing Facility at the Y-12 Plant to produce uranium
components.
Please explain your understanding of each of these construction
projects and your views on each relative to statutory and DOD
requirements.
Answer. I understand that the NNSA is focused on re-establishing
critical production capabilities required to support nuclear stockpile
modernization, specifically plutonium and uranium capabilities. I
understand that the DOD and Nuclear Weapons Council play an important
statutory role in ensuring these capabilities are delivered on the
timelines necessary to support the deterrent. If confirmed, I will work
the NNSA Administrator on the challenges and requirements associated
with these projects.
Question. The Nuclear Weapons Council works with the United Kingdom
through what is known as the ``U.S. - U.K. Mutual Defense Agreement.''
Please explain your understanding of the importance of this
agreement and its effects on DOD policies and programs.
Answer. The United Kingdom remains the most important ally of the
U.S., and the ``U.S.-UK Mutual Defense Agreement'' underpins our
relationship vis-`-vis our independent nuclear deterrent forces. If
confirmed, I am committed to understanding the facets of the agreement
and to continuing to fulfill our obligations in support of the UK.
Question. What are your views on the W93 weapon program?
Answer. I understand that the Congress has approved the W93 as a
new program of record in support of the US Navy's operational
requirements. I also understand that this program plays an important
role in support of the United Kingdom's separate but parallel
Replacement Warhead Programme. If confirmed, I will prioritize gaining
a comprehensive understanding of all programs associated with the
modernization of our nuclear stockpile, particularly the W93.
assistant secretary of defense for nuclear, chemical, and biological
defense programs
Question. Section 138 of title 10, United States Code, states that
the ASD(NCB) may communicate views on issues directly to the Secretary
of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the
approval or concurrence of any other official within the Department.
What is your understanding of how this access relates to the
placement of the Office of the ASD(NCB) as a subordinate officer to the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, and the
role of the USD(A&S) as Chair of the Nuclear Weapons Council?
Answer. I understand that statute requires the ASD(NCB) to advise
DOD's senior-most leaders on the very serious--and very technical--
matters pertaining to the programs under the ASD(NCB)'s purview. If
confirmed, I am committed to enabling this direct access. Additionally,
through the ASD(NCB)'s role as the NWC Staff Director, I am confident
that the statutory requirements for the ASD(NCB) and the NWC Chair best
enable DOD's senior leadership to receive timely advice and accurate
information on the nuclear enterprise and deterrent.
Question. What is your understanding of why this direct access is
necessary?
Answer. My understanding of the need for this direct access to
DOD's senior-most leaders rests in the very technical nature of many
issues facing the nuclear stockpile and the continuous collaboration
between the ASD(NCB) and the NNSA leadership.
Question. What is your understanding of how this process has
functioned in the past?
Answer. It is my understanding that the ASD(NCB) has always had the
required access to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of
Defense on all issues under its purview, working with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.
defense threat reduction agency
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
the Office of the USD(A&S) and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
(DTRA)?
Answer. It is my understanding that DTRA reports to the USD(A&S)
through the office of the ASD(NCB).
Question. If confirmed, what would be your priorities for DTRA?
Answer. I expect DTRA to serve as the Department's principal
advisor on the relationship between tactical, operational, and
strategic CWMD and emerging threats assessments, concepts, gaps, and
solutions.
climate change
Question. President Biden has declared that climate change is an
essential element of national security and foreign policy. Secretary
Austin has stated that DOD will include the security implications of
climate change in risk analyses, strategy development and planning
guidance. If confirmed, you would sit on the Secretary's Climate
Working Group and would oversee the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Energy, Installations and Environment. Thus, you would have a major
role in implementing the President's vision and the Secretary's
guidance.
What is your understanding of the ways that climate change poses a
risk to national security and the Department's responsibility to
prepare for its impacts?
Answer. It is my understanding the Department has identified
climate change as a critical national security issue and threat
multiplier. Climate change can amplify operational demands upon the
force, degrade installations and infrastructure, increase health risks
to Department servicemembers, and require modifications to much of the
military's existing and planned equipment. The Department's Climate
Adaptation Plan discusses these risks and the Department's strategy to
adapt to changing climate, mitigate climate change, and improve climate
resilience. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department works to
adapt its operations and infrastructure to improve resilience and
support national priorities.
Question. How do you believe the Department should be incorporating
climate change into its risk analyses, strategy development, and
planning guidance?
Answer. I believe that the Department should be incorporating
climate change into all of its processes, including operations,
planning activities, business processes, and resource allocation
decisions. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department uses the
best available science and actionable information to estimate
reasonably foreseeable future conditions facing the Department and the
Nation.
Question. How do readiness and budget concerns factor into these
assessments?
Answer. In my assessment, climate preparedness is essential to
readiness. We cannot be ready if our training ranges and infrastructure
are adversely affected. Likewise, our military forces must be agile,
flexible and trained and equipped to operate effectively under changing
climatic conditions, even in the most extreme cases. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that the Department trains and equips a climate-
resilient force.
Question. What steps do you think the Department can feasibly take
to leverage its procurement power to accelerate its response to
climate-related challenges?
Answer. In my assessment, the Department must increase its
awareness of the effects of climate on supply chains, particularly
those related to materiel, energy supplies, and transportation
acquisition choices. To mitigate climate change, the Department should
seek to procure from supply sources that can provide an acceptable
product or service that meets the Department's requirements with lower
overall net greenhouse gas emissions. For those markets and products
where the Department's purchases represent a significant portion of the
overall market, the Department should seek to leverage its purchasing
requirements to accelerate innovation.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to take steps
to ensure that the acquisition workforce understands the urgency in
addressing the climate crisis?
Answer. I understand from reading the Department's Climate
Adaptation Plan, that key to all climate adaptation actions, including
acquisitions, is to preserve the Department's operational capability
over time and under all conditions. If confirmed, I would focus the
acquisition workforce on understanding the long-term implications of
any procurement decisions in a world altered by climate change.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that measures taken to
address climate change do not create additional risk to the supply
chain, particularly with respect to China and Russia?
Answer. A truly resilient supply chain is one that protects against
all risks, whether from climate change or from excessive dependency on
unreliable, or even hostile countries for key components or critical
minerals. I am aware of a range of Government-wide efforts to
strengthen the resilience of U.S. supply chains, in response to the
Executive Order on Securing America's Supply Chain (EO 14017). If
confirmed, I am committed to working with other agencies, Congress, and
industry to ensure we can meet the challenges of climate change without
creating dependencies on unreliable suppliers.
Question. In a June 2020 report (GAO-20-511) the GAO determined
that DOD has not routinely assessed climate-related risks faced by its
contractors as part of its acquisition and supply processes, and that
current DOD processes in general do not systematically identify and
consider climate-related risks to materiel acquisition and supply or
the acquisition of weapon systems. The GAO made a number of
recommendations that DOD could implement to remedy this deficiency, and
all recommendations from this report remain open and unresolved. One of
those recommendations was that the USD(A&S) should update, as
appropriate, relevant DOD guidance related to acquisition and supply
processes to incorporate provisions of DOD Directive 4715.21 pertaining
to those processes.
If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to implement that
GAO recommendation?
Answer. Climate is a significant influence on national security,
and the Department's policies must reflect the need for climate
adaptation and mitigation. I am not familiar with the latest status of
the Department's response to this GAO report. If confirmed, I will
review the Department's approach to acquisition and supply processes
related to climate risk and work to provide a full response to GAO and
a review of whether DOD guidance should be updated.
Question. In your view, what further steps remain to be taken to
address other vulnerabilities related to climate change?
Answer. Given the frequency and intensity with which climate-
related global disruptions impact all components of the supply chain,
if confirmed, I would take steps to be sure that the Department has
fully explored the potential for climate-related financial risk to the
materiel acquisition and supply or the acquisition of weapon systems.
military installation resilience
Question. One of the principal responsibilities of the USD(A&S) is
to develop and update policies, programs, and guidance, and oversee
compliance within the Department to ensure resilience against the
current and projected impacts of extreme weather on military
installations--both in the United States and overseas. In the Fiscal
Year 2020 NDAA, Congress amended section 2864 of title 10, United
States Code, to require that Installation Master Plans include a
component addressing the weather resilience of both the installation
and of key supporting civilian infrastructure. Notwithstanding
Congress' mandate, there does not seem to be any sense of urgency
within the Department to comply, even at those installations identified
as most vulnerable to impacts of extreme weather.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to increase the pace of the
required revisions of Installation Master Plans to include this
resilience component?
Answer. It is my understanding that several Unified Facilities
Criteria have been updated since 2020 to direct all installations to
develop comprehensive installation resilience plans that incorporate
climate resilience analysis and ensure mission sustainment over the
intended lifespan of their infrastructure and assets.
In addition, I understand each of the Military Department has
published a planning handbook or guidebook supporting adaptation
planning that supplements the Unified Facilities Criteria. To me, the
sense of urgency is apparent in the Department's 2021 report
``Highlights and Examples for the Department of Defense Climate
Adaptation Plan.'' This report provides examples of the Department's
past successes and ongoing initiatives to address climate change
considerations in the Department's plans, strategies, operations, and
infrastructure both inside and outside the fence line.
If confirmed, I look for opportunities to increase the pace of
these actions and ensure that all plans include a component addressing
the resilience of both the installation and of key supporting civilian
infrastructure to climate change and extreme weather.
Question. What steps would you take to ensure that this component
of such Master Plans addresses both the resilience of the installation
and the resilience of the key supporting civilian infrastructure?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make installation resilience a
priority and emphasize a comprehensive approach to installation
resilience that includes climate change considerations.
Question. DOD has developed and is using a number of tools, such as
the Defense Climate Action Tool (DCAT), to assess the vulnerabilities
of military installations to the current and projected impacts of an
always changing climate.
In your view, are the outcomes of the assessments generated by
these tools adequately factored into the development of actions and
measures to reduce vulnerabilities of both military installations and
of key supporting civilian infrastructure located outside of the
installations to an always changing climate?
Answer. While I am not personally familiar with the specific
capabilities of the DCAT, it is my position that tools like the DCAT
are essential for evaluating the climate exposure to installations,
identifying where additional investment in more detailed information
are necessary, and for use in prioritizing climate change adaptation
actions on and off installations.
Question. In your view, what should be the next steps in the
development of these kinds of assessment tools through either R&D, like
the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and
Environmental Security Technology Certification Program, or through
existing program authorities, like Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration, Defense Access Roads?
Answer. If confirmed, I would support continued efforts by
Department to expand the use of existing R&D and program authorities to
improve on existing climate assessment tools and to ensure that such
tools are appropriately utilized.
Question. What do you believe is the appropriate role of the
Department, as compared to that of other federal and local agencies, in
addressing infrastructure needs outside of military installations?
Answer. The Department's readiness and installation resiliency is
intrinsically tied to the functioning and responsiveness of local
infrastructure. I believe the Department must: 1) work with state and
local officials, in varying collaborations with Federal agencies and
the private sector, to plan outside-the-fenceline infrastructure
improvements; 2) capitalize on local expertise and experience; 3)
promote improvements that are responsive to both the local community's
and the Department's needs; and 4) continue to leverage tools,
including the Defense Community Infrastructure Program and the
Readiness and Environmental Protection Integration Program, that can
help facilitate the delivery of mutually-beneficial built and natural
infrastructure solutions If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department remains a leader in promoting infrastructure that supports
installation resilience, military value, and military quality of life.
congressional reporting
Question. Selected Acquisition Reports need to be replaced with a
modernized reporting requirement that can be tailored to different
acquisition strategies and pathways.
If confirmed, what are your suggestions for the format, content,
and tailoring of future Congressional reporting on acquisition
programs?
Answer. It is my understanding that the long term goal for the
Department is to provide automated acquisition program dashboards. The
Department is currently building this capability beginning with the
Major Capability Acquisition and Middle Tier of Acquisition pathways;
other pathways will follow as metrics are developed. OSD CAPE is
currently researching improvements to the Selected Acquisition Reports;
however, legally required content in Selected Acquisition Reports
remains the same for at least the next two years. If confirmed, I will
review these plans and make adjustments as appropriate.
Question. The Nunn-McCurdy process, as established by section 2433
of title 10, United States Code, has not been revisited since Congress
and the Department began implementing significant acquisition reforms
five years ago.
Given recent acquisition reforms, do you believe the Nunn-McCurdy
process is still an appropriate and effective mechanism for reporting
to Congress on troubled acquisition programs? Please explain.
Answer. The Nunn-McCurdy process remains a significant metric and
an important process for Major Defense Acquisition Program reporting
and accountability. If confirmed, I will review the process and
recommend changes as appropriate.
Question. Do you perceive a need for changes to the Nunn-McCurdy
process, such as expanding its scope beyond major defense acquisition
programs or adjusting the thresholds for significant and critical
breaches?
Answer. I believe the thresholds for significant and critical
breaches are appropriate and do not think a change is needed. If
confirmed, I will review the process and determine if any changes might
be appropriate.
Question. If confirmed, what principles would guide your thinking
on whether to recommend terminating a program that has experienced
significant or critical cost growth under Nunn-McCurdy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will use the principals of the Nunn-McCurdy
law itself along with data driven analyses to inform my recommendation.
Decisions have to be informed based on balancing the need for the
warfighter capability against further cost growth issues. Programs that
experience significant or critical cost breaches must present a
credible plan to meet performance requirements at acceptable cost
levels.
sexual harassment
Question. In responding to the 2018 DOD Civilian Employee Workplace
and Gender Relations survey, approximately 17.7 percent of female and
5.8 percent of male DOD respondents 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 and gender discrimination in the Office of the USD(A&S)?
Answer. I believe that any organization must have zero tolerance
for sexual harassment or gender discrimination, and I understand that
the Office of the USD(A&S) is aligned with the Secretary Austin's and
Deputy Secretary Hicks' emphasis on eliminating sexual harassment and
gender discrimination. I fully support these priorities and, if
confirmed, will ensure that all employees are treated with equity and
respect.
Question. In your view, is the civilian workforce harassment
prevention and response training for civilian employees in the Office
of the USD(A&S) adequate and effective?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate the effectiveness of OUSD
(A&S) training and response efforts to maintain a work environment free
of harassment, work with subject matter experts to review programs and
policies for responding to incidents and complaints, and enhance them
as appropriate. reporting these crimes and, subsequently, victim care.
Question. In your view, does the Office of the USD(A&S) program for
response to complaints of harassment or discrimination provide
appropriate care and services to civilian employee victims?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review recent command climate surveys,
work with OUSD(A&S) senior leaders to address any concerns raised in
those surveys, ensure appropriate care is provided to victims, and
resource outreach programs and educational material to get the message
to the workforce that harassment and discrimination among our workforce
will not be tolerated.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
receive or otherwise become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment
or discrimination from an employee of the Office of the USD(A&S)?
Answer. I believe that any organization must have zero tolerance
for sexual harassment or gender discrimination. If I am confirmed and I
receive a complaint from an employee, I would take immediate action to
ensure that their complaint is appropriately investigated and
addressed. I would ensure that this employee is treated fairly and with
respect throughout this process.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Office of the USD(A&S) and the Senate Armed Services
Committee in particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. My priority will be ensuring that OUSD(A&S) has a strong
relationship with all of the congressional defense committees,
including the SASC. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize regular
engagement, and consult with committee professional staff members and
the Department's legislative affairs professionals to understand their
views of the state of the relationship and where improvements can be
made.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Office of the USD(A&S)?
Answer. I believe that frequent, honest, and transparent
communication is the foundation to any relationship. If confirmed, I
will strive to maintain an open dialogue with the congressional defense
committees and ensure that I and my staff are available to engage with
Members and staff as appropriate.
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 the following
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 the following 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 the following
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
the following 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 the following 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 the following 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 the following with a simple yes or no.
Answer. Yes.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
pfas
1. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, as you may know, the grounds of
the former Pease Air Force Base in New Hampshire were contaminated from
years of using fluorinated firefighting foam, also referred to as AFFF.
The impact of that contamination not only on the firefighters but also
the surrounding community has been life altering. We now have state-of-
the-art water treatment in the area to provide safe drinking water, but
it has been a long road for the community. How will the Department of
Defense (DOD) improve communications and engagement with DOD
communities?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be transparent in its efforts to
address PFAS. If confirmed, I will require the Department to share
information and data regularly and through a variety a means, including
direct public outreach.
2. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, in the Fiscal Year 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), I secured language that required the
development of a PFAS [per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances]-free
firefighting foam and the retirement of AFFF foam. Unfortunately,
according to a March 2020 PFAS Task Force report, the Department had
not yet found a PFAS free firefighting foam that met military
standards. If confirmed, will you commit that DOD will meet the NDAA
deadline to end the use of PFAS in firefighting foam and will you
commit to ensuring proper and responsible disposal of legacy foam?
Dr. LaPlante. I understand the Department is committed to finding a
PFAS-free alternative to AFFF. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department continues aggressively pursuing PFAS-free firefighting
alternatives, as it works to meet the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) deadlines. I will also ensure that DOD
disposes of legacy foam in accordance with all applicable laws and
regulations.
3. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 National
Defense Authorization Act contained a historic increase in funding for
PFAS testing and remediation. It is my hope that we will finally see an
appropriations agreement in the coming weeks that provides the funding
to follow through on these initiatives. If confirmed, how will you
ensure that those funds are used effectively and efficiently to assist
the many defense communities impacted by PFAS?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that all PFAS
clean up funds provided to the Department are used in the most
effective, timely, and transparent manner possible. To do this, I will
commit to applying the best available science, data, and technology to
address highest risks first, in defense communities impacted with PFAS.
4. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, DOD has previously testified that
the agency would release its study of the human health impacts of PFAS
by the end of 2021. If confirmed, will you commit to release the
report?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, if confirmed I will work with the Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure this
report is completed and released.
5. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to produce a progress report on the 50 sites with the most
PFAS contamination. DOD has already missed the deadline for this
report. When will DOD release its report on the 50 most contaminated
sites?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must share information about our
installations impacted with PFAS in a timely manner. If confirmed, I
will look into the status of the progress report and ensure it is
provided.
6. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to test the groundwater of all DOD installations by the
end of 2023 for PFAS contamination. If confirmed, will you commit that
DOD will meet this NDAA deadline to test groundwater at all DOD
installations?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be committed to addressing its
PFAS releases. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department works
expeditiously to meet all PFAS-related NDAA deadlines, including those
in Section 341 of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA.
7. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, do you commit to sharing the test
results with nearby communities?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes.
8. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to produce a schedule for PFAS cleanup efforts by October.
If confirmed, will you commit that DOD will meet this NDAA deadline to
produce a schedule for PFAS cleanups?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be transparent in its efforts to
address PFAS, including providing information about its cleanup
progress. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department works
expeditiously to meet all NDAA deadlines, including this reporting
requirement.
9. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, the President recently issued an
executive order directing Federal agencies to buy products that are
made without PFAS. If confirmed, how will you comply with this
executive order?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work expeditiously to comply
with this executive order, to include working with my staff to
understand how the Department and other Federal agencies are able to
determine the PFAS content of purchased available products.
10. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, what steps will you take to
ensure that DOD takes an enterprise-wide approach to PFAS, as
recommended by DOD's Inspector General?
Dr. LaPlante. An enterprise-wide approach is critical to ensuring
that efforts are coordinated and resources are properly prioritized. If
confirmed, I will oversee the DOD PFAS Task Force and ensure the
Department takes an enterprise-wide approach to PFAS.
11. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, will you commit to public
reporting on the purchase of items made without PFAS?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will look into opportunities for
public reporting as the Department works to implement Section 333 of
the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA, concerning the purchase of PFAS-free
products.
installations
12. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, how do you view tools like
energy savings performance contracts to boost energy efficiency at
installations?
Dr. LaPlante. It is my understanding that the Department has the
largest performance contracting portfolio in the federal government and
that it uses performance contracting to increase installation energy
resilience by enhancing energy efficiency, reducing energy demand, and
improving energy production. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that
DOD continues to use these contracts where they enhance DOD mission
readiness, mission assurance, and ultimately DOD's warfighting
capability.
13. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, what steps should DOD take to
make our installations more resilient to the potential impacts of
climate change and extreme weather?
Dr. LaPlante. DOD is already feeling the effects of climate change:
more extreme heat, more heavy precipitation, increased drought, rising
sea levels, and more. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's
efforts to make its installations and equipment more resilient to the
impacts of climate change and extreme weather, to include identifying
and deploying appropriate climate adaptation and risk reduction methods
and technologies.
small business innovation research and small business technology
transfer programs
14. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, in your nomination hearing, you
talked about the importance of leveraging small businesses to grow and
strengthen the defense industrial base. The Small Business Innovation
Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs
are critical programs supporting that effort, providing $2 billion in
defense funding for early-stage research and development (R&D) funding
to small businesses. According to a 2018 report on national economic
impact, the DOD SBIR and STTR programs have achieved a 22-to-1 return
on investment in small business R&D over the last 23 years and
generated $347 billion in total economic output nationwide.
Dr. LaPlante. As you know, SBIR and STTR represent merit-based
contracting vehicles that provide important research and next-
generation technology to DOD. A small business recently won a Navy
contract worth $300 million to update Mk 54 light torpedoes using
technology originally developed through SBIR, and the Air Force's SBIR
program has been credited with saving the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
program over $500 million.
SBIR and STTR are set to expire on September 30, 2022. What, in
your view, would be the impact to the small business defense industrial
base, and to the DOD's innovative ecosystem if these programs were to
lapse?
From my past experience, any lapse in the SBIR and STTR programs
would cause the Department to lose a key tool needed for innovation and
cost savings and to support small businesses, which may not otherwise
be able to provide those capabilities to the force. If confirmed, I
will work with the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering, who oversees the SBIR and STTR programs, to ensure that
this critical piece of the DOD innovation ecosystem remains a valued
part of the Department.
15. Senator Shaheen. Dr. LaPlante, there have been some suggestions
that Congress should put a cap on the number of SBIR/STTR awards that
DOD can give to a particular company per year. How would such proposals
impact the DOD's ability to fund the best research and technology?
Dr. LaPlante. SBIR and STTR are critical tools to develop and field
new and innovative capabilities. If confirmed, I will work with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to understand
the impact of these proposals on the Department's ability to leverage
these programs to transition emerging technologies to fielded systems
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
question on nominees' fitness to serve
16. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, since you became a legal adult,
have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed
any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Dr. LaPlante. No.
17. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, have you ever faced discipline,
or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Dr. LaPlante. No.
acquisition reform in department of defense
18. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, during the acquisitions process,
there is a disconnect between what the combatant commanders (COCOMS)
identify as a need and what the Services procure. Last year, I
supported a pilot program within the Strategic Capabilities Office
focused on closing significant capabilities gaps through an alternative
process to try to address this exact issue. If confirmed, in what ways
will you support efforts like this pilot program to move more
acquisition authority to combatant commands?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with Joint Staff and the
Services to better understand the connection between how the COCOMs
identify needs and how those requirements are provided to the
acquisition community. As part of that review, I will look for
opportunities to improve the process as appropriate, to include the
potential for providing more acquisition authority to the combatant
commands.
I also look forward to understanding the Strategic Capabilities
Office pilot program and how that program compares to recommendations I
made as part of the Section 809 panel.
19. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, do you have other recommendations
on how we can improve the ability for COCOMs to acquire the tools they
operationally need in a timelier manner?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with the COCOMs, Joint
Staff, and the Services to understand the process for turning COCOM
operational needs into capability in a timelier manner. Based on the
recommendations from my time on the Section 809 panel, I will review
the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), the
Defense Acquisition System and the Planning, Programming, Budgeting,
and Execution (PPBE) system to understand how we can better align those
processes to quickly provide capability to the Warfighter. Section 804
mid-tier acquisition authorities also offer a means to streamlining the
upfront requirements process to speed acquisition. If confirmed I
intend to assess the use of these authorities and their effectiveness
in speeding delivery to the warfighter.
20. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, if confirmed, how will you be
involved in the commission directed by last year's National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) to examine the Department's outdated planning,
programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process, in order to
outline the different shortcomings of the system and inject agility and
responsiveness into the system?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work through Department
representation to provide my views to the PPBE commission on how to
improve the PPBE process.
21. Senator Hirono. Dr. LaPlante, if confirmed, how will you ensure
that the Department is leveraging the utility and innovation provided
by U.S. small businesses in augmenting the Defense Industrial Base?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department maximizes the capabilities of small businesses as part of
the Defense Industrial Base. Leveraging our small businesses will
reduce barriers to participation, facilitate transition of innovation
to fielded or developing programs, and support continued participation
in defense procurement. If confirmed, I will work with the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to accomplish those
goals.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Elizabeth Warren
post-employment restrictions
22. Senator Warren. Dr. LaPlante, I have introduced legislation and
called for new laws to prevent contractors from hiring senior
government officials who leave Federal service for a period of years to
help improve public trust in our leaders. This is particularly
important for someone in the Pentagon's top acquisition role. If
confirmed, do you pledge not to seek employment or compensation,
including as a result of board service, from any major defense
contractor for 4 years?
Dr. LaPlante. 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 Acquisition and Sustainment
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.
post-employment lobbying
23. Senator Warren. Dr. LaPlante, do you also pledge not to engage
in lobbying activities or behind-the-scenes lobbying activities on
behalf of a major defense contractor for 4 years after you leave public
service?
Dr. LaPlante. 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 communicating back to the
Federal Government on behalf of any future employer, as well as behind-
the-scenes lobbying activities on behalf of any future employer. 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 Acquisition and
Sustainment 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 Mark Kelly
pfas
24. Senator Kelly. Dr. LaPlante, in Arizona, groundwater is the
secondary source of drinking water for many communities. With worsening
drought conditions on the Colorado River, groundwater may become a
primary source of drinking water for more Arizona communities. The
Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) requires the
Department of Defense (DOD) to produce a schedule for PFAS cleanup
efforts by October of this year. How will that schedule account for the
unique needs of communities which are experiencing prolonged drought
conditions?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with my staff to understand
how drought communities are prioritized under the federal cleanup law.
25. Senator Kelly. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA requires
DOD to test the groundwater of all DOD installations by the end of 2023
for PFAS contamination. If confirmed, will you commit that DOD will
meet this NDAA deadline to test groundwater at all DOD installations?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be committed to addressing its
PFAS releases. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department works
expeditiously to meet all PFAS-related NDAA deadlines, including those
in Section 341 of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA.
26. Senator Kelly. Dr. LaPlante, will you commit to ensuring that
communities experiencing drought conditions are prioritized when
completing groundwater testing?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with my staff to understand
how drought communities are prioritized under the federal cleanup law.
27. Senator Kelly. Dr. LaPlante, what are your thoughts on how the
Department can improve engagement and communication with communities
experiencing prolonged drought conditions?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues
its efforts to expand PFAS-related public outreach, including to
communities experiencing prolonged drought conditions.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
contract finance
28. Senator Inhofe. Dr. LaPlante, one of the major efforts now
underway within the Acquisition and Sustainment organization is a study
of DOD's contract finance practices. This is a matter of great
importance to industry, since cash flow and flexibility drives
innovation, supports the proper management of the workforce, underpins
capital investment, and attracts investment from the securities
markets. If confirmed, can you assure us that industry will have an
opportunity to help frame the scope of this study, and that industry
perspectives will be considered as DOD determines how contract
financing can best be used to strengthen the defense industrial base?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, if confirmed I will engage industry for data and
other inputs to inform potential policy recommendations related to the
work of this study.
inflation
29. Senator Inhofe. Dr. LaPlante, inflation is now a significant
factor across the U.S. economy, including in the aerospace and defense
supply chain; this increases risk. What are your views regarding how
the Government and industry can appropriately share the risk posed by
inflation in defense contracts?
Dr. LaPlante. I believe the Government must thoughtfully weigh how
it shares risk in all contracts. One potential method of addressing
risk with inflation is through the use of Economic Price Adjustment
(EPA) clauses. If confirmed, I will ask DOD program managers and
contracting officers to consider this tool and use it if appropriate.
30. Senator Inhofe. Dr. LaPlante, today's acquisition workforce has
very little experience managing inflation in the contracting process,
and lacks guidance and authority to use available tools to
appropriately share risk with industry. If confirmed, what steps will
you take to you sure that contracting officers have the authority,
tools, and encouragement to properly manage inflation?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will ensure our acquisition
professionals have the guidance, authority, and tools to appropriately
manage risk of inflation. I will lead cross-sharing of information
amongst the Service Acquisition Executives, driving a consistent
approach across the Department to appropriately share risk with
industry.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Thom Tillis
national security supply chain issues
31. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, what are the short- and long-term
national security concerns that stem from foreign adversaries having
control of mineral supply chains and processing/production capabilities
that create alloys and metals for the aerospace and defense industry?
Dr. LaPlante. Reliance on overseas localities for vital minerals
and materials exposes essential civilian and military supply chains to
short and long-term risks with regards to material availability and
price volatility. In the long-term, this geographic concentration may
result in the U.S. not having access to the quantities of minerals and
materials required for aerospace and defense industries.
32. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, what steps is the Department of
Defense taking to secure the national security supply chain with
respect to minerals and production crucial to the aerospace and defense
industry?
Dr. LaPlante. My understanding is that the Department of Defense is
taking active steps to mitigate supply chain risk for critical
materials. This includes investment through the Defense Production Act
and Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment programs and acquisitions
by the National Defense Stockpile program. If confirmed, I look forward
to expanding on these efforts to further strengthen our access to
strategic and critical materials.
33. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, given that China controls roughly
85 percent of the world's tantalum metal supply, what steps has the
Department of Defense taken to increase the domestic processing of
tantalite and the resulting tantalum metal supply?
Dr. LaPlante. It is my understanding that the Department of Defense
is prohibited from purchasing tantalum metal from the People's Republic
of China pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4871. If confirmed, I will continue to
uphold this requirement to source sensitive materials from allies and
partners. I will continue to look at options to increase the domestic
resiliency of the tantalum supply chain, as well as other strategic and
critical material supply chains.
34. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, what incentives and assistance is
the Department of Defense offering industrial stakeholders to develop
domestic solutions to national security supply chain issues?
Dr. LaPlante. Supply chain resilience is not just a whole-of-
government requirement, but is a whole-of-economy one that is only
possible through close and continuing collaboration with our industry
partners. As I understand it, DOD invests significant funding in U.S.
suppliers to build out production and manufacturing capacity, as well
as to develop the workforce needed to sustain and grow these
capabilities. Beyond investments, I believe the DOD can also work more
collaboratively with industry, making it easier and more appealing for
industrial stakeholders to develop solutions to defense supply chain
challenges. If confirmed, I look forward to working with the Department
to work more collaboratively with industry.
body armor
35. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, Congress has repeatedly expressed
concern with the weight and fit of body armor. The Committee wrote in
the report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense
Authorization Act that `` . . . ill-fitting personal protective
equipment is a leading cause of injury among female servicemembers,
which anthropomorphic design and prototyping of such equipment can help
address.'' The same report also included the following: ``The committee
notes that using a Warm Isostatic Press (WIP), vice uni-axial presses
currently in use, may have the potential to reduce the weight of body
armor by nearly 30 percent at the same ballistic protection level and
permit manufacture of compound body armor shapes for differing human
profiles. The Report directed that the Secretary of the Army to
``conduct an assessment of the utility and potential strategy for
establishing a domestic WIP capability for the purpose of producing
lighter weight, higher protection, lower profile body armor and
lightweight aviation armor components.'' The Report required a briefing
to the Committee by March 1, 2022. The briefing has not yet occurred.
Dr. LaPlante. If you are confirmed will you make development of
better fitting personal protective equipment, particularly body armor,
a priority?
Our troops must have the right equipment to be effective on the
battlefield, including properly-fitting personal protective equipment.
If confirmed, I will work with the Army to ensure that development of
suitable personal protective equipment is prioritized.
36. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, will you also look at the
domestic industrial base and determine if industry has the equipment
including warm isostatic press to manufacture the lightest and best
fitting body armor?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with the appropriate
elements of industry to review manufacturing processes for body armor
and look for opportunities to improve them.
37. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, in the last several years, the
body armor industrial base has greatly contracted, with many of the
largest companies exiting the military body armor business entirely.
The hard body armor industrial base has been adversely impacted by
acquisition plans that do not provide a predictable flow of orders. The
problem is exacerbated by the Defense Logistics Agency reliance on
``full-opportunity to compete'' which is a euphemism for ``lowest price
technically acceptable'' (LPTA) contracting.
Dr. LaPlante. As an example of the uneven flow of orders, the
contracts for the Army's Vital Torso Protection (VTP) are scheduled to
end in March of 2023. The Army has not yet released the follow-on
contract. Since historically it has taken at least 20 months from
release of a request for proposal to acceptance of a first article,
industry is once again looking at a break in production. The impact of
the starts and stops is not just on the prime contractors but also on
the supply chain where in some cases there is only one or two remaining
suppliers.
The Committee expressed concern that the Department of Defense is
using ``fair-opportunity to compete'' procurements to circumvent the
restriction on the use of LPTA contracting for body armor in Senate
Report 117-39, the report to accompany the Fiscal Year 2022 National
Defense Authorization Act. The report required a briefing by the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment to the Committee
by January 31, 2022. The briefing has not yet occurred.
Do you agree that the Department of Defense needs to coordinate the
acquisition planning for body armor so that the industrial base does
not go through rapid contractions and expansions and programs lapse
only to restart in a year?
I agree that the industrial base needs less variability and more
predictability in ordering patterns to maintain a ``warm'' base,
particularly in our most fragile supply chains. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that the Department takes steps to alleviate and lessen
the impacts of fluctuations in demand on such vendors, specifically by
specifying methods and processes to track and reduce fluctuations in
demand and implementing policies to encourage predictable demand
requirements.
38. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, do you agree that items such as
body armor, where a failure could result in the loss of life, should
not be purchased using LPTA contracting?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, I agree.
39. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, upon confirmation will you get
back with me on both issues as well as ensure that the overdue briefing
is provided to the Committee?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, if confirmed, I will review these issues with
subject matter experts in A&S and the Army to ensure these briefings
are provided and provide any follow-up to you.
pfas
40. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to produce a progress report on the 50 sites with the most
PFAS [per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances] contamination. DOD has
already missed the deadline for this report. When will DOD release its
report on the 50 most contaminated sites?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must share information about our
installations impacted with PFAS in a timely manner. If confirmed, I
will look into the status of the report and ensure it is provided and
released.
41. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to test the groundwater of all DOD installations by the
end of 2023 for PFAS contamination. If confirmed, will you commit that
DOD will meet this NDAA deadline to test groundwater at all DOD
installations?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be committed to addressing its
PFAS releases. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department works
expeditiously to meet all PFAS-related NDAA deadlines, including those
in Section 341 of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA.
42. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, do you commit to sharing the test
results with nearby communities?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes.
43. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires DOD to produce a schedule for PFAS cleanup efforts by October.
If confirmed, will you commit that DOD will meet this NDAA deadline to
produce a schedule for PFAS cleanups?
Dr. LaPlante. The Department must be transparent in its efforts to
address PFAS, including providing information about its cleanup
progress. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department works
expeditiously to meet all NDAA deadlines, including this reporting
requirement.
44. Senator Tillis. Dr. LaPlante, DOD has previously testified that
the agency would release its study of the human health impacts of PFAS
by the end of 2021. If confirmed, will you commit to release the
report?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes, if confirmed I will work with the Office of the
Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure this
report is completed and released.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
size of u.s. navy
45. Senator Sullivan. Dr. LaPlante, how would you balance the need
to implement new technology and platforms for a future fight with the
necessity for combat power today?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I will work with my staff to understand
the impact of the Adaptive Acquisition Framework pathways on how we can
balance the need to provide capability and warfighting readiness today
while working in the longer term to accelerate new innovations to the
warfighter.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
acquisition and sustainment
46. Senator Blackburn. Dr. LaPlante, if confirmed, how would you
prioritize the delivery of emerging technologies and warfighting
capabilities during periods of continuing resolutions?
Dr. LaPlante. I am aware that continuing resolutions have
significant effects on the acquisition system, delaying contracts and
limiting work on emerging technologies. If confirmed, I will work with
the Service Acquisition Executives to understand the impact of
continuing resolutions on their delivery of capabilities.
47. Senator Blackburn. Dr. LaPlante, if confirmed, what innovative
approaches will you take to bolster cooperation with international
partners?
Dr. LaPlante. I believe that working with Allies and Partners is
the key to achieving integrated deterrence and retaining our
technological edge over our strategic competitors. If confirmed, I will
engage frequently with Allies and Partners to identify multilateral and
bilateral cooperation on emerging technologies, supply chain matters,
and interoperability.
48. Senator Blackburn. Dr. LaPlante, if confirmed, how do you plan
to balance priorities outlined in President Biden's Executive Order
14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home with the priorities of
strategic capabilities and integrated deterrence?
Dr. LaPlante. In my view, the Administration's climate agenda and
the Department's warfighting agenda are in alignment. The President's
priorities of clean energy and energy efficiency are essential actions
required to build the energy resilience of DOD's installations and
operational forces. DOD is the largest energy consumer in the world--we
need to address energy resilience and affordability with urgency, to
make the Joint Force more resilient while also addressing climate
change. If confirmed, I recognize that one of my most significant
challenges will be to maintain and build strategic capabilities and
integrated deterrence, and I will balance sustainability and climate
priorities with mission requirements to meet national security concerns
as well as Executive Order 14008 requirements.
49. Senator Blackburn. Dr. LaPlante, what is your understanding of
Executive Order 14008 and its role in strengthening cooperation with
international partners?
Dr. LaPlante. Executive Order 14008 makes it clear that climate
change is a destabilizing force across the world, which is creating new
impacts to the operational environment. It is clear to me the
Department must work within the whole-of-government, and in
coordination with allies and partners to address the impacts of climate
change across the DOD mission space. Given the current trajectory, the
demands and impact of climate change emphasized in EO 14008 will only
increase, requiring our allies and partners to confront instability in
societies strained by drought and the resulting water and food
insecurity, new challenges in places like the Arctic, and demands for
humanitarian assistance worldwide.
Collaboration is critical to achieve meaningful progress on climate
adaptation, mitigation, and DOD resilience. I am aware that
OUSD(Policy) plays a major role in continued cooperation with our
allies and partners around the security implications of climate change.
If confirmed, I will diligently collaborate with OUSD(Policy) on
climate change priorities to strengthen cooperation with international
partners.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Josh Hawley
chinese printed circuit boards
50. Senator Hawley. Dr. LaPlante, last year's NDAA included my
``Strengthening Protections Against Chinese Printed Circuit Boards
Act'', which requires DOD to phase out and ultimately end the use of
Chinese printed circuit boards in our critical defense systems. Do I
have your commitment to ensure the timely and effective implementation
of this requirement, if you're confirmed?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Department's
leadership and my colleagues for the timely and effective
implementation of this requirement.
chinese threat to taiwan
51. Senator Hawley. Dr. LaPlante, former commander of U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command, Admiral Philip Davidson, testified that China may try
to invade Taiwan in the late 2020s. The current commander of U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command has also testified that China may seek to invade Taiwan
much sooner than is often anticipated. Other officials have testified
further that they agree with these warnings, including Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Sasha Baker. Do you agree that the
threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is something we need to be
worried about in this decade, not just in the 2030s or afterward?
Dr. LaPlante. Yes. China is our pacing threat, and the Department
must be postured and resourced to deter or defeat Chinese aggression
now and in the future, including any threats toward Taiwan.
critical munitions
52. Senator Hawley. Dr. LaPlante, the RAND Corporation and others
have argued that the United States is short on--and needs to quickly
grow its stockpiles of--many of the critical munitions we would need to
defeat a Chinese invasion against Taiwan, including Long-Range Anti-
Ship Missiles. Do you commit, if you are confirmed, to prioritizing
rapid acquisition of these kinds of critical munitions--particularly
Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles--given how important they are for
deterring China?
Dr. LaPlante. These munitions are critically important to the China
scenarios. If confirmed, I will work with the Joint Staff, Director of
Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, and the Services to understand
the current state of our critical munitions inventory and how we can
accelerate acquisition of these weapons.
defense industrial base
53. Senator Hawley. Dr. LaPlante, how has consolidation in the
defense industrial base, including the U.S. technology sector, impacted
the Department's ability to promote industrial innovation and secure
the capabilities it needs in a timely and cost-effective manner?
Dr. LaPlante. Competition improves cost and performance and fosters
greater innovation for the products and services needed to support
national defense. When consolidation weakens competition, it reduces
pressures and incentives on firms to innovate to outpace their
competitors and results in higher costs to taxpayers. The Department
relies on the benefits of competition, especially in the U.S.
technology sector, to maintain its edge over near peer competitors,
including with speed to fielding. A vibrant, diverse defense and
technical innovation base is critical to DOD's success.
54. Senator Hawley. Dr. LaPlante, what do you think DOD needs to do
in order to push back on this kind of consolidation?
Dr. LaPlante. If confirmed, I would work in close cooperation with
the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to ensure
that the antitrust agencies are aware of any risks that a merger among
U.S. defense suppliers may pose to our national security as a result of
reduced competition in the industrial base. Further, if confirmed I
would commit to continue collaborating with Congressional leaders and
our government partners to explore new ways to guard against excessive
consolidation in the defense industrial base.
______
[The nomination reference of Honorable William A. LaPlante,
Jr. follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Honorable William A. LaPlante,
Jr., 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
William A. LaPlante, Jr. 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]
______
[The nomination of Honorable William A. LaPlante, Jr. was
reported to the Senate by Chairman Reed on April 5, 2022, with
the recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The
nomination was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2022.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Mr. Erik Raven by Chairman
Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and responsibilities
Question. What is your understanding of the current duties and
functions of the Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The U.S. Code states that the Under Secretary shall perform
such duties and exercise such powers as the Secretary of the Navy may
prescribe. By regulation, the Under Secretary is the deputy and
principal assistant to the Secretary in managing the Department of the
Navy. The Under Secretary also serves as the Chief Operating Officer of
the Department. In accordance with section 904(b) of the Fiscal Year
2008 NDAA, the Under Secretary serves as the Department's Chief
Management Officer. As the Chief Management Officer, the Under
Secretary is required to perform the duties set forth in 10 U.S. Code
Sec. 2222, including establishing and implementing measures to control
and reduce costs; issuing guidance related to the planning,
programming, and control of investments in covered defense business
systems; and serving as the appropriate official for defense business
systems unless otherwise directed. Additionally, the Under Secretary
oversees intelligence activities, intelligence policy, intelligence
related activities, special access programs, Department of the Navy
critical infrastructure, and sensitive activities within the Department
of the Navy.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that render
you highly qualified to perform these duties and responsibilities?
Answer. Since 2007, my primary duty as clerk on the Senate Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee has been to review nearly all annual
spending requested for the Department of Defense and intelligence
community. These reviews culminated in my making recommendations to
Subcommittee Chairmen and Vice Chairmen on how to better allocate funds
to programs that address top national security needs, and how to reform
programs that are under-performing, in a defense budget of more than
$740 billion of annual spending. This work also allowed me to work
closely with many leaders and organizations throughout the Department
of the Navy, the Department of Defense, and others.
If confirmed, I intend to use the knowledge I have gained on the
programs and processes in the Department of the Navy to capitalize on
the strengths of the Navy and Marine Corps, and to accelerate reforms
where needed.
Question. Do you believe there are any steps you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties and responsibilities of the
Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work diligently to further my
understanding of the Department of the Navy through close collaboration
and consultation with military and civilian leaders of the Department.
I will work with the Secretary of the Navy to ensure I am fully aligned
with his priorities and vision for the Department of the Navy.
Question. What recommendations, if any, do you have for changes in
the duties and functions of the Under Secretary of the Navy, as set
forth in section 8015 of title 10, United States Code, or in Department
of Defense regulations pertaining to functions of the Under Secretary
of the Navy?
Answer. After review of the statutes and regulations, I do not
currently recommend any changes. If confirmed, I will review these
statutes and regulations within the context of the current challenges
of the Department of the Navy and propose any changes that I may
identify as meriting attention through the appropriate channels.
Question. If confirmed to be the Under Secretary of the Navy, what
role do you envision for yourself with respect to the Assistant
Secretaries of the Navy and the Navy General Counsel?
Answer. If confirmed, I will develop a close and collaborative
relationship with the Assistant Secretaries and the Department of the
Navy General Counsel. I will ensure there is a synergy of efforts in
support of the missions and priorities established by the Secretary of
the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, what duties and responsibilities would be
appropriate for the Secretary of the Navy to assign to you?
Answer. If confirmed, I expect the Secretary of the Navy to assign
me duties that I can execute by leveraging my strengths and experiences
that will assist him with advancing his priorities and vision for the
Department of the Navy.
major challenges and priorities
Question. In your view, what are the major challenges that will
confront the next Under Secretary of the Navy?
Answer. The President's Interim National Security Strategic
Guidance describes our key national security challenge as the changing
distribution of power across the globe, which impacts our ability to
influence global events and outcomes. This creates two military
challenges--1) developing and fielding capabilities that can influence,
disrupt, and deter our adversaries and 2) strengthening existing and
building new alliances and partnerships to form a united front against
those who threaten our fundamental interests or seek to disrupt the
rules-based international order. The major challenge for the Under
Secretary of the Navy is to advance the Secretary's Title 10
authorities to man, train, and equip a force to deter and defeat any
adversary while taking care of our sailors, marines, and civilians,
within the existing budget.
Question. If confirmed, what plans do you have for addressing these
challenges?
Answer. The Department of the Navy must address a more assertive
China and an aggressive Russia by accelerating prototyping,
experimentation, and acquisition and mastering the data and technology
space. Naval Forces must develop capabilities that limit our
adversary's ability to maneuver in the battle or competition space, and
these capabilities need to be shared, networked, and strengthened
through our allies and partners. Our relationships with China and
Russia will remain enduring challenges. If confirmed, I will support
the Secretary and work with our Navy and Marine Corps leaders to
address specific challenges in the near, mid, and long term horizons.
civilian control of the military
Question. If confirmed, specifically what would you do to ensure
that your tenure as Under Secretary of the Navy epitomizes the
fundamental requirement for civilian control of the Armed Forces
embedded in the U.S. Constitution and U.S. law?
Answer. Our founding fathers ensured that civilian control of the
military was permanently embedded in the Constitution. I believe
Department of the Navy personnel respect this foundational
constitutional principle. If confirmed, I will work with Navy and
Marine Corps leaders to ensure the responsibilities and authority of
senior civilian leadership continue to be emphasized, clearly
articulated, and understood.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure your inclusion in the
discussion, debate, and resolution of U.S. defense and national
security issues?
Answer. I believe the Deputy Secretary of Defense's governance
structure for executive decision processes, such as the Deputy's
Management Action Group and Deputy's Workforce Council, provide for
discussion and resolution of many U.S. defense and national security
issues at the level of the Under Secretary of the Navy. Well-
established relationships, coordination, and vetting processes between
the Services, Department of Navy, and Office of the Secretary of
Defense provide for timely incorporation and resolution of naval
perspectives in the development of strategic guidance.
duties and responsibilities as chief management officer (cmo)
Question. What is your understanding of the duties and
responsibilities of the Under Secretary in the capacity as CMO of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. My understanding is the duties and responsibilities of the
Under Secretary as the CMO of the Department of the Navy are those
authorized by Congress and prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy. The
Under Secretary is responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for the
functioning and efficiency of the Department. Section 904(b) of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, Public Law
110-181, directs that the Under Secretary be designated as having
primary management responsibility for business operations of the
Department of the Navy, as well as effective and efficient
organizations of those business operations. In the performance of such
duties, the Under Secretary of the Navy is known as the ``Chief
Management Officer.'' Therefore, I understand that, if confirmed, my
duties shall be to manage the business operations of the Department of
the Navy effectively and efficiently.
Question. Please provide an example of a situation in which you
took action to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the business
operations of a large organization and describe the outcomes of your
actions.
Answer. During my tenure as professional staff member and clerk of
the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I have worked to ensure
the effectiveness of taxpayer funds provided to the Department of
Defense and intelligence community, and to maximize efficiencies and
value. Since 2007, I have recommended or implemented proposals to
eliminate several hundred billion dollars of unneeded spending or
underperforming programs, and to redirect those funds to higher
priority programs. This work has resulted in an approximately 20
percent increase in the number of battle force ships provided by
Congress from fiscal years 2015 to 2021, as compared to the number of
ships requested in the President's budget.
In addition, in 2019, I proposed the creation of a pilot program
for improving the maintenance of Navy ships in the Pacific at private
shipyards. This pilot program seeks to increase the transparency and
flexibility of ship depot maintenance efforts. The pilot program was
enacted in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2020, and has
been embraced by Navy leadership, as shown by the Navy's formal request
to continue the program in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2021,
and to expand the program to the Atlantic fleet in the President's
Budget for fiscal year 2022.
Question. Do you believe that the CMO has the resources and
authority needed to carry out the business transformation of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. It is my understanding the CMO has the necessary
authorities and the resources to carry out the business transformation
of the Department of the Navy. In my opinion, transformation begins
with identifying current performance and then driving reform and
improvement. If confirmed, you have my commitment to fully assess the
business transformation activities within the Department and notify
Congress of any additional authorities or resources that may be
required to make the Department's business practices more efficient and
effective.
Question. If confirmed, on which specific business operations would
you focus your improvement efforts and why?
Answer. If confirmed, I will actively support the Secretary of the
Navy's Strategic Guidance to modernize business systems to enhance
performance and affordability. This includes action to enforce business
systems modernization on an accelerated and integrated path that is
sufficiently resourced and supported. I am committed to data-driven
decision-making to achieve savings while consistently working to become
more effective and more efficient as a core element of the Department
of the Navy's operations. I will also foster a culture that encourages
innovation, solves problems, and achieves results to get the most out
of every dollar and I will use my position to hold senior leaders
accountable for performance improvement.
Question. What performance goals and measures would you establish
for evaluating increases in the overall efficiency and effectiveness of
each business operation you cite?
Answer. Inefficiencies and poor effectiveness in the execution of
the Department of the Navy's business operations risks the
misallocation of critical resources and may delay necessary logistics
and maintenance support to operational forces. I would look at business
operations across the Department to ensure the Department effectively
and efficiently utilizes modernized business process and systems. Areas
such as supply chain visibility and forecasting, contract execution,
and information security are areas where business reform can improve
effectiveness and reduce the amount of time needed to repair ships and
aircraft, while ensuring costs are reasonable and appropriate. If
confirmed, I look forward to understanding the full scope of the
Department's business operations to develop realistic and stretch
performance goals and measures.
Question. How will you work to improve the quality and quantity of
Navy management personnel and expertise?
Answer. If confirmed, I will collaborate with Department of the
Navy leaders to ensure there are processes and procedures in place to
recruit, train, and retain world-class management personnel at all
levels of the military and civilian workforce. I will evaluate training
and development programs and ensure the Department provides the funding
and support required to build a diverse cadre of managers who are
prepared to execute the Department's missions.
Question. How will you make use of advanced business practices and
technologies, and leverage the capabilities of Navy laboratories and
research universities and business and public administration schools to
improve Navy management capabilities?
Answer. One of the ways I will make use of advanced business
practices and technologies is by reinforcing to all senior leaders
within the Department of the Navy that every acquisition, every
contracting action, and every hiring action has a business practice
behind it. The business of the Department is to man, train, organize,
and equip Navy and Marine Corps forces for global operations. In order
to achieve this, the Department must fully leverage business best
practices, Navy laboratories, and universities to help senior leaders
make evidence-informed decisions. I believe the Department must embrace
a culture of continuous learning and improvement. If confirmed, I am
committed to implementing best practices to ensure the Department is
implementing sound business practices and is effectively utilizing
applied research to improve the management of the Navy, while directly
supporting our warfighters.
defense capabilities
Question. In your view, are the Navy and Marine Corps current end
strengths sufficient to meet current national security objectives and
execute the associated operational plans?
Answer. I am aware that the Navy and Marine Corps are continuing to
transform their forces, but I lack sufficient information on current
operational plans and Navy and Marine Corps requirements to make a
fully informed assessment. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps to ensure the resources the Department
of the Navy requests in the annual budget process are optimized to
maximize current and future warfighting readiness across the entire
naval force structure to meet our national defense objectives.
Question. If not, what end strengths do you believe are necessary?
Please explain your answer.
Answer. Without knowledge of current operational plans, I do not
possess adequate information to provide a recommendation on necessary
end strengths at this time. I do know Navy and Marine Corps have
recently changed strategies for managing end strength. The Navy has
transitioned from a growth strategy to a sustainment strategy. The
Marine Corps is continuing efforts to re-design the force and optimize
end strength reductions to fund equipment and capability modernization,
with focus on alignment as a maritime force. If confirmed, I look
forward to working closely with the Secretary of the Navy and the
leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps to achieve the right end
strength for peak warfighting readiness.
Question. If confirmed, how would you propose achieving those
levels with a focus on continuing to recruit and retain high quality
candidates?
Answer. As Secretary Del Toro states in his strategic guidance, the
Department of the Navy's people provide the foundational strength that
give the Navy and Marine Corps a competitive warfighting advantage. We
know that, in addition to compensation, job satisfaction, and quality
of life matter for recruiting and retention. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Secretary of the Navy and Department of the Navy
leaders to further innovate both monetary and non-monetary incentives
to meet recruiting and retention goals, while balancing current and
future fiscal constraints.
Question. What is your opinion on the necessity to modernize Navy
and Marine Corps weapons systems in light of current and emerging
threats?
Answer. I agree with the Secretary of the Navy's Strategic Guidance
that innovation and modernization is an enduring priority for the Navy
and Marine Corps in order to maintain maritime dominance in defense of
our nation. From artificial intelligence and cyber weapons, to unmanned
platforms, to directed energy and hypersonic weapons, we are on the
cusp of technological breakthroughs that will define future conflict.
We must prioritize capabilities that create advantage relative to the
pacing threats. If confirmed, I look forward to assisting the Secretary
in the execution of his Strategic Guidance.
Question. What do you believe are the most critical capabilities
the Department of the Navy needs to prioritize over the next 10 years?
Answer. I believe the Department of the Navy must expand
capabilities for distributed operations and modernize the expeditionary
posture to sustain dominance at sea. My key priorities include the
modernization of the Sea Based Strategic Deterrent; developing
resilient and persistent command, control, communications, computers,
cyber, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems;
increasing the capabilities and capacity of logistics forces; improving
combat capabilities such as long-range fires; and the development of
unmanned technologies. Critical to all these priorities is the need to
rapidly develop and field technologies by streamlining the acquisition
process, while at the same time making sure taxpayer dollars are used
effectively.
Question. If confirmed, how will you contribute to keeping Navy and
Marine Corps acquisition costs under control and ensuring the
Department successfully fields the capabilities for which the U.S.
taxpayers are paying?
Answer. In my view, acquisition costs must be estimated and managed
with the same discipline as traditional requirements. Properly defining
operational and technical requirements, performing to stable
acquisition and budget plans, leveraging investments, and procuring at
efficient rates can all lower cost and schedule risk. If confirmed, I
will review acquisition policies and practices to identify
opportunities for improvement and will work to strengthen the culture
of cost consciousness in the Department.
Question. Emerging anti-access and area denial capabilities of
certain countries and the prospect that these capabilities may limit
the U.S. Navy's freedom of movement and action in certain regions are
growing concerns.
To what extent are anti-access and area denial capabilities a
concern?
Answer. Anti-access and area denial (A2AD) capabilities are a
significant concern as they force a different approach to conducting
naval operations. The Navy and Marine Corps will need to deliver
precision fires and ISR capabilities that are resistant to A2AD
technologies from inside and outside the A2AD zone. Both services must
be able to penetrate, sustain, and create desired effects within an
A2AD area.
If confirmed, I will support innovative Navy and Marine Corps
concepts and capabilities that will enhance the ability of our Naval
force to maintain access and maneuver through the global commons,
project power, and defeat an adversary trying to deny us freedom of
action.
Question. What do you believe the Navy and Marine Corps need to be
doing now and in the next few years to ensure continued access to all
strategically important segments of the maritime domain?
Answer. First, we need robust security partnerships and
collaboration with our partners and allies to maintain access across
the maritime domain. I believe we are stronger as a team, and fostering
this collaboration is an essential component of providing shared
security. In addition, the Department of the Navy must continue to
modernize and adapt to a changing security environment. Finally, our
warfighting concepts must continue to evolve. I support the
Commandant's vision and his efforts to adapt to future operating
environments, replace legacy platforms with new capabilities better
suited to future challenges, and ensure we retain the ability to
outmaneuver our adversaries. The Navy's fleet needs to have the proper
mix of both manned and unmanned platforms to provide greater
geographical distribution with increased integration. If confirmed, I
will work with the Services and with Congress to ensure the Department
of the Navy continues to shape, modernize, and prepare our Naval forces
to meet global challenges.
Question. In his Force Design 2030, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps stated unequivocally, ``I assess that the current force is
unsuited to future requirements in size, capacity, and specific
capability.''
Do you agree with the Commandant's assessment and his plans for
reshaping the Marine Corps? Why or why not?
Answer. I support the Commandant's vision and his efforts to
transform the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps' transformational Force
Design 2030 is a signature effort to adapt to future operating
environments, and ensure we retain the ability to outmaneuver our
adversaries. Force Design 2030 aligns with Secretary Austin's
objectives for the Department, as well as to the Interim National
Security Strategic Guidance. If confirmed, I look forward to working
with the Marine Corps and Congress to advance this effort.
Question. What reform and modernization efforts do you consider
most critical in support of the future Marine Corps?
Answer. I believe that the most critical reform and modernization
effort for the future Marine Corps is to increase warfighting
capability through long-range fires, coupled with the necessary command
and control, air and maritime lift, and logistics support to enhance
the Marine Corps' capabilities for mutli-domain and distributed
operations. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary, Commandant,
and Chief of Naval Operations to support these modernization programs.
indo-pacific region
Question. In your view, what are the key areas in which the Navy
and Marine Corps 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. An increasingly assertive China continues to develop
sophisticated military capabilities to include surface, air, and
undersea platforms, while demonstrating aggressive behavior that flouts
the rules-based order and threatens regional stability and security.
The Department of the Navy must invest in modernization of systems and
deployment of capabilities focused on the needs of the Indo-Pacific
region, while building cooperative alliances and partnerships to
leverage capabilities and influence. The Department of the Navy must be
funded to provide a balance of capacity and capability to confront near
term as well as mid-to-long term threats.
If confirmed, I will fully support the efforts of Secretaries
Austin and Del Toro to modernize Naval Capabilities and work with our
allies and partners to meet the challenges posed by China with a
combat-credible Navy and Marine Corps team.
Question. How would you assess the threat to Navy and Marine Corps
forces and facilities from Chinese missile, naval, and air forces?
Answer. China has steadily developed complex military capabilities,
including the world's largest missile force. In my previous capacity on
the Senate Appropriations Committee, I have seen positive steps taken
by the maritime services to address the growing threat in the Pacific
through increased investments and posture adjustments. If confirmed, I
will leverage my experience to ensure the Department of the Navy
supports implementation of the 2022 Missile Defense Review and other
strategic guidance for the protection of critical assets in the Indo-
Pacific region and security of the American people.
Question. In your assessment, have Navy and Marine Corps
investments, posture shifts and/or new operational concepts
sufficiently addressed this threat?
Answer. I am not able to assess of the totality of Service
investments, posture shifts, and/or new operational concepts against
the threat. In my current position, I have reviewed and support the
guidance that Secretaries Austin and Del Toro are providing on the
China threat. If confirmed, I will work with Secretary Del Toro, the
Services, and Congress to further advance efforts to address the threat
posed by China.
Question. In your assessment, what are the priority investments the
Navy and Marine Corps could make that would help implement the NDS and
improve the military balance in the Indo-Pacific?
Answer. Cooperation with regional allies and partners, while
conducting routine and robust forward operations in the Indo-Pacific
sends a powerful message to our adversaries. Investments in warfighting
capabilities, along with the supporting infrastructure to sustain
training and forward operations, in the Indo-Pacific, are key drivers
for implementation of the defense strategy in the Indo-Pacific.
My experience on the Appropriations Committee has made it clear
that increased investment in critical capabilities requires a
deliberate approach to developing the capability and capacity necessary
to meet the threat across all domains and time horizons. If confirmed,
I will work with the Services and Congress to ensure investments
optimize implementation of the 2022 NDS priorities in the Indo-Pacific.
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 combat-credible forces, forward-deployed with
allies and partners, and sustained for enduring operations are critical
to any successful campaign against China--whether to deter, or if
necessary, defeat. If I am confirmed, I will want to ensure the nation
has a Naval logistics force capable of enabling and supporting joint
operations across the Indo-Pacific.
europe
Question. What do you believe are the key areas in which the Navy
and Marine Corps 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. Russia's unprovoked assault on Ukraine illustrates its
complete disregard for international rules of order. The Department of
Navy must be an active contributor to integrated deterrence within DOD,
the U.S. Government, and with our allies and partners. I support
investments in advanced capabilities, a focus on development and
readiness of combat credible forces, and deepening the already strong
relationships with our European allies and partners.
If confirmed, I will work with Secretaries Austin and Del Toro to
ensure the Department of the Navy has appropriate forces and
infrastructure along with required advanced capabilities. Advanced
capabilities fielded alongside the contributions of our allies and
partners provide an operational depth that multiplies our ability to
deter and influence.
Question. The U.S. European Command Commander and various other DOD
officials have consistently called for two additional destroyers to be
forward-stationed at Rota, Spain. Do you agree with them?
Answer. Strengthening our combat deterrence against Russia and
enabling NATO forces to operate more effectively are two of the Global
Posture Review outcomes. I believe the addition of two additional
forward-stationed destroyers in Rota is consistent with these outcomes;
however, the basing decision is under Secretary Austin's authority and
requires the endorsement of our NATO ally, the Government of Spain.
Question. In your view, are there investments the Navy and Marine
Corps 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. I am very aware of the efforts our competitors are making
to leverage space and cyber to gain advantages at a level below the
threshold of war. As we have seen in the assault on Ukraine, Russia has
also attempted to capitalize on social media and disinformation. Many
of these ``gray-zone'' tactics will require a whole-of-government
approaches to counter both state sponsored and non-state sponsored
actors. In order to compete in this new era of hybrid warfare, I
believe the Department must invest in robust cyber resiliency programs,
the cyber workforce, and the general education of the Department's
entire workforce. If confirmed, I look forward to better understanding
areas the Department must improve to meet current and future threats.
Question. The Marine Corps is transforming into a more littoral
centric force, shedding heavier formations and focusing on INDOPACOM.
What role do you see for the Marine Corps in the Indo-Pacific and
European theaters?
Answer. The inherent strengths of Force Design 2030 with its
purpose to deploy marines at the time and place of our choosing with
expanded long-range fires, lighter and more mobile infantry, unmanned
systems, maritime mobility and resilience, and mobile air defense and
counter-precision guided missile systems, are a key Joint Force enabler
applicable to both the Indo-Pacific and European theaters. If
confirmed, I will support the necessary investments and force structure
modifications in order to move at speed to create the naval
expeditionary force of the future.
training/readiness
Question. How would you assess the current readiness of the Navy
and Marine Corps--across the domains of materiel and equipment,
personnel, and training--to execute the 2018 NDS and Combatant
Commanders' operational plans?
Answer. I believe the Navy and Marine Corps team is ready to
execute its missions, deter conflict, and if necessary, fight and win
against any challenger regardless of domain. Readiness is challenged by
yearly continuing resolutions that create shortfalls in Operations and
Maintenance and Military Personnel funding, and create inefficiencies
in acquisition accounts. With congressional support, I believe that the
Navy and Marine Corps can continue to make steady progress in further
improving readiness, while modernizing and transforming the force to
execute the defense strategy.
Question. In your view, what are the priority missions for which
current and future Navy and Marine Corps forces should be trained and
ready in the context of day-to-day activities, as well as for
contingencies?
Answer. The Navy and Marine Corps play an active role within the
Joint Force in responding to a wide range of rapidly changing threats
to global security. The priority warfighting mission remains
maintaining the nation's advantage at sea, which requires generating
integrated all-domain naval power, strengthening alliances and
partnerships, controlling the seas to deny the objectives of our
adversaries, and modernizing the future force. In addition, the Navy
and Marine Corps need to be trained and ready to support global crisis
response missions, to include humanitarian and pandemic response,
enhancing leadership and diversity within our force, and protecting
economic trade across free and open seas.
Question. What is your assessment of the risk the Navy and Marine
Corps have accepted regarding their readiness to execute operational
plans in furtherance of the 2018 NDS?
Answer. I am not yet able to assess of the level of risk the Navy
and Marine Corps have accepted regarding their readiness to execute
operational plans in furtherance of the 2018 NDS. If confirmed, I will
work to reduce the level of risk through effective investment
prioritization and seek congressional support for the procurement and
fielding of modern capabilities that will contribute effectively to
operational plan execution and the implementation of carefully crafted
plans to retire older, less effective platforms that heavily consume
readiness investments.
Question. If confirmed, how would you oversee compliance by the
Navy and Marine Corps with readiness goals and timelines?
Answer. I support the use of data analytics to improve performance,
costs, and accountability and implement an outcome-driven culture.
Compliance with readiness goals and timelines will require data-driven
decision-making processes and systems. If confirmed, I will support
Secretary Del Toro's commitment to get the most out of every dollar to
include reducing maintenance costs and improving on-time maintenance
completion.
Question. If confirmed, how would you prioritize maintaining
readiness in the near term, with modernizing the Navy and Marine Corps
to ensure future readiness?
Answer. I believe investments need to be balanced across both near-
term and future force requirements. We must keep pace with our
adversaries and invest in key capabilities for the future, while
maintaining a force that can respond to current threats. If confirmed,
I will seek risk analysis and assessments to make strategy-driven,
data-informed decisions on where risk can be managed and accepted and
where we need to invest in cutting-edge technologies.
mandatory vaccination for covid-19
Question. What is your view of the Secretary of Defense's
requirement that all servicemembers be vaccinated for COVID-19 unless
they meet established exemption criteria?
Answer. I fully support the Secretary of Defense's policy requiring
all servicemembers to be fully vaccinated unless they meet established
exemption criteria. If confirmed, I will work with Navy and Marine
Corps leadership to ensure all non-exempt sailors and marines are
vaccinated to protect the Force against COVID-19.
Question. In your view, should sailors and marines who decline to
be vaccinated be separated, even if they have skills and experience
that the Navy and Marine Corps need?
Answer. I fully support the Secretary of Defense's policy requiring
all servicemembers to be fully vaccinated unless they meet established
exemption criteria. If confirmed, I will work with Department of the
Navy leadership to understand if Navy and Marine Corps separation
policies have affected manning in critical skills while continuing work
to achieve a fully vaccinated force.
Question. To date, there have been no religious exemptions approved
for sailors and only six such exemptions approved for marines. In your
view, why have so few religious accommodation requests been granted?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act requires all requests for exemption to be reviewed on
an individual basis. Information concerning how requests for
accommodation are processed or individually determined has not been
shared with me. Given the expeditionary mission of the Services and the
fact that sailors and marines must serve in confined areas (e.g., ships
and submarines) for extended periods of time, I understand why the
Services would be concerned about sailors and marines serving in close
quarters with unvaccinated teammates. If confirmed, I'll work to ensure
that current law and policy within this area are consistently applied
to all requests by sailors and marines.
Question. As of March 2022, the Navy estimates that approximately
4,500 active component and 3,200 Ready Reserve servicemembers remain
unvaccinated. What impact would the discharge of sailors and marines
who remain unvaccinated have on Navy and Marine Corps readiness?
Answer. I do not have enough information to assess the impact
discharge of unvaccinated sailors and marines has on readiness. If
confirmed, I will consult with Department leadership to understand what
impact the discharge of sailors and marines who remain unvaccinated may
have on readiness.
operational energy
Question. If confirmed, how would you lead the Navy and Marine
Corps in harnessing innovations in operational energy and linking them
with emerging joint operational concepts in order to reduce contested
logistics vulnerabilities for warfighters?
Answer. As I understand it, the Navy and Marine Corps operational
energy investments are focused on increasing lethality, range, and
persistence of naval platforms by advancing energy solutions to enable
distributed maritime operations. These solutions include technologies
to increase weapons capabilities, methods to reduce logistics demand of
our forward deployed naval forces, and platforms that distribute energy
to the warfighter.
Question. In what specific areas, if any, do you believe the Navy
and Marine Corps need to improve the incorporation of energy
considerations and alternative energy resources into the strategic
planning processes?
Answer. I believe the Navy and Marine Corps need to fully integrate
energy planning and energy risk assessments associated with their Title
10 war games. They must also ensure their components and warfighting
commands fully define the energy requirements to the extent needed to
integrate explicit energy and logistics risk assessments into their
planning. Such assessments are critical to understanding their ability
to succeed at their missions.
Question. How can Department of the Navy acquisition systems better
address requirements related to the use of energy in military platforms
to decrease risks to warfighters?
Answer. It is my understanding the Navy and Marine Corps are
currently working to improve energy performance, storage, distribution,
and controls to both reduce costs and better support fielding and
sustainment of advanced weapon systems and sensors. If confirmed, I
will prioritize a continued focus on hybridizing platforms and energy
management in Department of the Navy acquisition programs.
Question. In your view, should energy supportability that reduces
contested logistics vulnerabilities be a key performance parameter in
the requirements process?
Answer. I believe the energy key performance parameter (eKPP)
already requires an operational energy supportability analysis. If
confirmed, I will support the use of eKPP and ensure Navy and Marine
Corps leadership conduct supportability analyses that incorporate
contested logistics scenarios.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you prioritize energy
resilience, including acquiring and deploying sustainable and renewable
energy assets, to support mission critical functions, and address known
vulnerabilities?
Answer. Energy resilience and mission assurance are two sides of
the same coin. The Department cannot achieve one without the other.
From what I understand, the Navy and Marine Corps select the
appropriate energy source to meet the needs of the mission. In many
cases, that includes renewable energy sources. The Department's
Installation Energy Plans (IEPs) inform the governance process for
mitigating the installations' most critical energy security
vulnerabilities. If confirmed, I will focus on addressing the most
critical energy security gaps laid out in the IEPs through efforts that
enhance the Department's sustainability and deploy renewable energy
solutions that work towards accomplishing the President's goals.
environment
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that the Department of
the Navy complies with environmental protection laws, regulations, and
guidance from the Environmental Protection Agency?
Answer. If confirmed, I will verify that Department of the Navy
environmental policy is aligned with current environmental protection
laws, regulations, and guidance from the Environmental Protection
Agency. I will ensure the Department's environmental practitioners and
military personnel have the necessary resources and training to ensure
compliance with the latest standards.
Question. What are your ideas, if any, for improving collaboration
with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to
find cooperative ways to ensure military readiness while protecting the
environment on and around Department of the Navy installations?
Answer. I am aware the Department of the Navy works closely with
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to identify collaboration
opportunities in support of both agencies' missions. I believe both
agencies work to preserve undeveloped lands adjacent to military
installations and ranges and have a long history of partnering to
conserve and protect military readiness and important environmental
resources. If confirmed, I will ensure we continue to push innovative
solutions such as initiatives under the Readiness and Environmental
Protection Integration (REPI) and Recovery and Sustainment Partnership
Initiative (RASP) and Sentinel Landscapes program, and to seek new
authorities, where appropriate, to help streamline collaboration
opportunities.
Question. If confirmed, how would you further efforts to address
PFAS contamination at Department of the Navy installations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would meet with the Department of the
Navy's environmental program leadership to assess strategies,
successes, and challenges to date and take action to remove barriers to
support investigation and remediation efforts across the portfolio.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your approach to addressing
the health concerns of servicemembers and their families regarding
alleged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants on U.S. military
installations and in the context of performing military duties?
Answer. The health, safety, and well-being of our sailors, marines,
and their families are our most important mission. If confirmed, I will
make sure that any identified health concerns are acted upon and
mitigated with a sense of urgency.
readiness and resource impacts from extreme weather
Question. How would you assess the readiness and resource impacts
on the Department of the Navy from recent extreme weather events?
Answer. Many Department of the Navy facilities lie in flood or
hurricane prone areas. Others are subject to drought or extreme heat.
All indications are that these conditions will persist. I am aware that
more recently constructed facilities perform better under extreme
weather and environmental conditions than those that were built many
years ago. If confirmed, I will work with the Department's senior
leaders to ensure mission assurance programs identify and address risks
to Department of the Navy installations from extreme weather, storm
surge, and sea-level rise.
Question. Based on these readiness and resource impacts, do you
believe it necessary to use more resilient designs in Department of the
Navy infrastructure?
Answer. As I understand it, the Department of the Navy does
incorporate resilience in its planning, design and construction in its
master planning process, and annual assessments. If confirmed, I will
work to ensure that the Department of the Navy continues to include
resilience in the planning process, and in all infrastructure
decisions.
Question. How can the Department of the Navy better use existing
authorities on extreme weather mitigation granted by Congress in the
last few National Defense Authorization Acts?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy has
been working with Congress to leverage Title 10 authorities to increase
installation energy security and energy-efficient operations. The
President has deemed that climate change is a national security matter,
and I agree. If confirmed, I will continue to foster the collaborative
effort between the Department of the Navy and Congress to achieve this
Administration's goals for both energy and climate change.
audit
Question. In your view, what is the benefit to Department of the
Navy missions in achieving a clean audit opinion?
Answer. While there are a multitude of benefits to the Department
of the Navy in achieving a clean audit opinion--accountability,
transparency, stronger controls, process efficiencies, and quality of
financial information, to name a few--the true benefit of audit is
ingraining audit rigor into the Department's business DNA,
understanding and improving Navy and Marine Corps business processes,
and implementing internal controls to safeguard resources and increase
transparency of how resources are used across the enterprise. I believe
audit supports financial excellence, which maximizes spending power and
contributes to the lethality and readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps
and, strengthens Congressional and public confidence in Department of
the Navy resource requests.
Question. If confirmed, what specific actions will you take or
direct to help the Department of the Navy achieve a clean audit opinion
in the most efficient manner?
Answer. If confirmed, I want to understand the critical path to a
clean audit opinion that supports operational mission requirements. I
would also direct audit remediation to focus on large dollar value,
mission critical assets, and an ability to track and validate the
resources provided to the Department. In addition, I would examine how
sustainable and affordable change supports the mission and helps the
Department leverage every dollar toward the readiness of our sailors
and marines. I understand the Marine Corps is making a push for an
audit opinion in two years, and if confirmed, I will ensure the Marine
Corps will have every resource available to achieve its goal, applying
the lessons learned to the Navy.
Question. Do you support the Department of the Navy investing
significant resources including personnel, investments in IT
modernization, and funding for audit activities and audit remediation
activities in order to support the Department of the Navy achieving a
clean audit opinion in a timely fashion?
Answer. Yes, I strongly support investing significant resources
into audit remediation where it makes sense and is needed to achieve
and sustain a clean audit opinion. As I understand it, there are long-
standing personnel, system, control, process, and policy issues that
hinder a clean audit, but they are all problems that stand on their
own. It makes sense to galvanize these issues under the overarching
goals of audit as a management tool. If confirmed, I would ensure audit
remediation investments make sense, add value, and help sustain a clean
audit opinion.
Question. If confirmed, how will you hold Department of the Navy
leaders accountable and responsible to prioritize, support, and manage
Department of the Navy audit activities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would hold leaders accountable and
responsible for audit activities by ensuring every senior civilian and
military leader is evaluated against clear audit objectives. I would
assess progress throughout the year through various audit governance
forums. I would measure progress against the audit roadmap and
scorecard metrics, of which I understand the Department of the Navy has
a robust inventory. Additionally, setting a strong tone-at-the-top at
the beginning of my tenure is critical to driving accountability and
challenging senior leaders to continue prioritizing audit and to tackle
audit remediation head on.
navy and marine corps-related defense industrial base
Question. How would you describe the state of the industrial base
that supports Navy and Marine Corps programs?
Answer. Health and competition in the shipbuilding industrial base
and supply chain is a critical national security requirement and vital
to meeting our National Defense Strategy. While today's domestic
shipbuilding supply chains are highly capable, global competitive
pressure continues to erode many of the industries the Navy relies on,
and results in fragile market spaces and an increased number of single
and sole source suppliers. I am aware that throughout the COVID-19
pandemic, the Navy has diligently worked with industry to balance
worker safety, economic wellness, and National Defense imperatives to
ensure the industrial base is sustained and able to emerge stronger.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take related to the
industrial base?
Answer. If confirmed, I will promote best practices from industry
and government in our acquisition processes, work with the Secretary of
the Navy to protect our intellectual property and data, and maximize
the use of the American workforce to build and sustain our forces in
support of President Biden's Executive Order on Ensuring the Future is
Made in All of America by All of America's Workers, and the Build Back
Better initiatives.
Question. In your view, how should Navy and Marine Corps
acquisition leaders consider impacts on the industrial base when
addressing requirements for recapitalization or modernization of major
defense weapons systems and munitions?
Answer. A healthy and productive industrial base is a key national
strategic asset for the Department of the Navy and is critical to
building strength and capacity. The Department must manage the risk
associated with maintaining a healthy industrial base while expanding
industrial partnerships and providing predictable workload to
suppliers.
Question. If confirmed, how should the Navy and Marine Corps use
procurement investments to support the maintenance and growth of the
domestic industrial base in sectors critical for Department of the Navy
readiness and modernization plans?
Answer. It is my understanding that Congress has provided
additional funding to support the domestic industrial base targeted to
the surface combatant supplier base and the submarine industrial base.
This funding has enabled the Department to integrate efforts across the
industrial base and make targeted investments to increase efficiency,
capability, and capacity. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary
of the Navy and Congress to maximize the use of existing authorities
and to identify additional opportunities to support our industrial base
partners.
Question. In your opinion, how should the Department of the Navy
use its research and manufacturing investment activities to support the
maintenance and growth of the domestic industrial base in sectors
critical for Department of the Navy readiness and modernization
activities?
Answer. Research and development of new materials, manufacturing
processes, and capabilities is an important component of supporting the
domestic industrial base. If confirmed, I intend to review the
Department of the Navy's investments in these areas, and evaluate the
impact of other investments, such as from the Defense Production Act
Title III program, for strengthening the industrial base in sectors
which are key to Navy and Marine Corps programs.
navy shipbuilding
Question. The most recent pronouncement on the Navy force structure
goals for the Navy fleet was announced by former Secretary Esper in
December 2020. His vision was to have 382 to 446 battle force ships,
augmented by 119 to 242 unmanned vessels (surface and undersea
vessels). The previous Force Structure Assessment had set a goal of
having 355 battle force ships, but made no estimate about requirements
for unmanned vessels. The Navy's current battle force contains roughly
300 ships, and would not have achieved a force level goal of 355 ships
until 2031 at the earliest, even under the shipbuilding projections of
the previous Administration.
The current Administration has not specified a force goal for the
Navy, although we expect the Chief of Naval Operations to set a new
goal in June 2022 pursuant to section 1017 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.
If confirmed, will you support the Chief of Naval Operations in
meeting the June 2022 statutory requirement for providing Congress with
an updated battle force ship assessment and requirement?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy is currently
conducting a force structure assessment based on the new National
Defense Strategy. If confirmed, I will support the Chief of Naval
Operations' (CNO) efforts to complete an updated Naval Force Structure
Assessment as expeditiously as possible.
Question. If confirmed, what shipbuilding options or alternatives
would you recommend evaluating to meet the Chief of Naval Operations
and Commandant of the Marine Corps' requirements as soon as
practicable?
Answer. I assure you of my commitment to building a modernized
naval force with sufficient size and capability to campaign
effectively, deter aggression, and, if required, win decisively in
combat. At the same time, I believe that we should build only those
ships that we can afford to sustain in the future in terms of manning,
training, operations, and future modernization. If confirmed, I will
consult with the Secretary of the Navy, the CNO, and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps to find the right balance of investments in readiness,
capability, and capacity.
Question. Section 1025 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2018 established ``the policy of the United States to
have available, as soon as practicable, not fewer than 355 battle force
ships, comprised of the optimal mix of platforms, with funding subject
to the availability of appropriations or other funds.''
Do you support this policy?
Answer. I am committed to building a modernized naval force with
sufficient size and capability to campaign effectively, deter
aggression, and, if required, win decisively in combat. The 355-ship
goal was based on the Navy's 2016 Force Structure Assessment. The Navy
continuously reviews the numbers of ships--and the capabilities they
require--to meet the evolving demands of the National Defense Strategy.
If confirmed, I look forward to seeing the results of the ongoing force
structure assessment to meet the demands of the 2022 National Defense
Strategy.
Question. The Navy has begun acquiring replacements for Ohio-class
ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs). The new Columbia-class boats are
projected to have an acquisition cost of $10 billion per ship. The Navy
has stated publicly that it could not afford to buy both the new SSBNs
and maintain other required procurements under expected Defense
Department budget top lines.
In your view, what steps will be necessary to enable the Navy to
modernize and expand the rest of the fleet, while also procuring the
Columbia-class SSBNs?
Answer. I support the Columbia-class SSBN as the Navy's number one
acquisition priority and most survivable leg of the nuclear triad.
Continuing to fully fund the program will be essential to ensure on
time delivery, so that the nation's sea based strategic deterrent
requirements continue to be met as the Ohio-class is retired. To
minimize the impact to the rest of the fleet, I believe in continuing
to prioritize efforts to reduce cost and schedule risk, increase the
capacity of the submarine industrial base, and improve affordability.
Question. In the 1970s and 1980s, the United States procured the
current Ohio-class SSBN submarines within the Navy's shipbuilding (SCN)
account. In 2015, Congress created a special fund, the National Sea-
Based Deterrence Fund (NSBDF), for procurement of Columbia-class SSBNs.
What is your view on how the program costs of the Columbia-class
SSBNs should be funded--solely from Navy resources, from a combination
of Navy and other-than-Navy (e.g., OMB and other Defense) sources, or
with a different approach? Please explain.
Answer. I understand that the Navy has budgeted for the Columbia-
class program in the Shipbuilding and Conversion account, and executed
funds from the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. I support this
approach to funding and execution of this important program, as it
maximizes transparency and provides valuable authorities to control
costs. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Navy and
Congress to determine the best approach for funding the Columbia-class
program and ensure the proper acquisition authorities are used to make
this critical program more affordable.
aircraft carriers
Question. When the construction contract was signed in 2008, the
planned delivery date of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) was September
2015 at a cost of $10.5 billion. Delivery of the ship was accepted by
the Navy, despite major construction work still on-going, in May 2017
at a cost of $12.9 billion. The ship finished major construction in
December 2021 with the completion of the final advanced weapons
elevator at an overall cost of $13.3 billion.
What is your understanding of the reasons behind the CVN-78
delivery delay and cost overrun?
Answer. CVN-78 (Ford) incorporated many advances in technology such
as a new reactor plant, propulsion system, electric plant,
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System, Advanced Arresting Gear, new
elevators, machinery control, and integrated warfare systems. It is my
understanding that these advances will provide unparalleled lethality
to the Fleet and support significant life cycle cost reductions. The
incorporation of these advanced technologies on one ship has created
challenges, which resulted in the concurrent development of some of
these technologies during ship construction.
Question. What lessons should the Navy learn from the CVN-78
experience?
Answer. If confirmed, I will evaluate acquisition programs to
ensure steps are being taken to strike the right balance between
introducing new technology and leveraging proven capabilities. Using a
system engineering approach and harnessing prototypes at land-based
sites where it makes sense are approaches to reducing the risk of
introducing new technologies.
frigates
Question. What is your understanding of the frigate (FFG-62)
program and how it will differ from Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)?
Answer. The FFG 62 program is the evolution of Small Surface
Combatants with increased lethality, survivability, and improved
capability to support the National Defense Strategy across the full
range of military operations. Unlike the Littoral Combat Ship's modular
capabilities, that was designed to operate primarily in the littoral
regions of the world, it is my understanding that FFG 62 is designed
for operation in littoral and blue water environments and is planned to
operate independently or integrated with a Task Force to conduct
offensive and defensive surface, anti-submarine, and air warfare.
Question. What is your understanding of the current FFG-62
acquisition strategy?
Answer. I understand that the FFG 62 program is based on a parent
design to include U.S. sourced components, and that the Navy has
undertaken a number of risk reduction efforts to increase the
confidence that all ships in the class will achieve the required
capability upon delivery, on budget, and on schedule.
Question. In your view, what steps should the Navy be taking in the
FFG-62 program to avoid the problems that have been and are being
experienced in the LCS program?
Answer. I understand Navy is reducing risk in the FFG 62 program by
using a proven hull form, utilizing program of record systems, and
engineering plant land-based testing. If confirmed, I will review these
risk reduction efforts to ensure the FFG 62 avoids issues experienced
in the LCS program and delivers on time and on budget.
navy aviation
Question. What is your assessment of the most important challenges
facing Navy aviation?
Answer. Naval Aviation faces challenges similar to those
confronting the Department as a whole --how to balance readiness while
modernizing an aging fleet and evolving the Air Wing of the Future in
order to meet next-generation security challenges.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to meet those
challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Naval Aviation
Enterprise (NAE) to continue readiness improvement efforts to meet
aircraft mission capable targets and expand the use of industry best
practices. I will also work with the NAE to modernize the fleet using
the right balance of service life modifications, capability upgrades,
and new procurement.
Question. Does the Navy have a sufficient number of strike-fighter
aircraft?
Answer. My understanding is that the Fiscal Year 2022 President's
Budget included sufficient resources and levers to drive execution-year
strike fighter shortfall to zero for all deploying squadrons. To
maintain a sufficient amount of strike-fighter aircraft, this requires
ongoing F-35C production and F/A-18E/Fs service life extensions,
capability improvements, and readiness enhancements.
Question. If not, if confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure
they do?
Answer. As stated above, reaching the sufficient number of strike
fighter aircraft requires stable resourcing and the use of multiple
levers to ensure targets continue to be met.
Question. What is your understanding of the physiological episodes
that the naval aviation community has been confronting and the plans to
address such episodes?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department has undertaken a
comprehensive effort to evaluate the causes of and mitigate the
occurrences of Physiological Episodes (PEs). While these efforts have
reduced the incidence of PEs by more than 80 percent since the peak in
2017, these efforts must remain Naval Aviation's number one safety
priority. Ongoing modifications to the aircraft, improved maintenance
practices, and improved aircrew interface will enhance aircraft
performance and continue to reduce the rate of PEs.
marine corps aviation
Question. What is your assessment of the most important challenges
facing Marine Corps aviation?
Answer. The most important challenges facing Marine Corps aviation
are the same as those facing Naval Aviation, as well as those facing
the entire Department. First and foremost, the Department must continue
to modernize our aircraft and systems while adapting aviation
employment to ensure that we maintain our competitive edge against all
adversaries. Second, the Department must maintain the steadily growing
readiness rates achieved to this point across our current fleet.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to meet those
challenges?
Answer. I will work diligently to protect our research and
development funding as well as our readiness account funding, while
collaborating with the Navy/Marine Corps team to ensure our force
employment is sustainable and effective.
Question. Is Marine Corps aviation readiness at an acceptable
level?
Answer. It is my understanding that forward-deployed forces are
frequently deploying with the highest readiness rates across the fleet.
This is indicative of readiness actions that are being taken by the
Department, as well as the resources provided by Congress. However, I
also understand that there are areas that need to be improved when it
comes to units at home in a training environment. The ongoing work that
the Department of the Navy has undertaken has achieved significant
results, but much must still be done. If confirmed, I am committed to
working with the Commandant of the Marine Corps and the Chief of Naval
Operations to further enhance aviation readiness to ensure the pilots
and aircrews have enough ready aircraft for operational and training
employment.
Question. If not, if confirmed, what steps would you take to
improve aviation readiness?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary and work with
Congress to protect readiness accounts and to support investments in
assets and personnel that will restore readiness of the current fleet
and the future readiness of aircraft to be purchased through the Marine
Corps' aviation modernization programs.
f-35 joint strike fighter
Question. What is your assessment of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
program?
Answer. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a dominant, multirole,
fifth-generation aircraft capable of projecting U.S. power and
deterring potential adversaries. I am also aware that the F-35 is
costly and presents unique challenges in areas such as development,
testing, fielding, and sustainment. It is my understanding that the
program continues to mature, and that the Department of Defense is
reviewing the management structure for F-35 sustainment and acquisition
functions.
Question. If confirmed, what changes would you seek to implement in
the program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the Navy's
review of the F-35 program and efforts to deliver this transformational
capability to front-line forces as soon as possible.
carrier air wing
Question. Do you believe the Navy's carrier air wing is designed to
provide the capability we expect it to provide in order to contribute
to the carrier strike group?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy maximizes carrier air
wing lethality through a mix of 4th and 5th generation fighters. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the aviation enterprise to
usher in the Air Wing of the Future with the Next Generation Air
Dominance Family of Systems, including the use of breakthrough
technologies such as manned-unmanned teaming, machine learning, and AI-
enabled autonomy.
Question. Specifically, will the projected air wing have sufficient
available strike range, available payload, electronic warfare
capability, and command and control capability? Why or why not?
Answer. My understanding is that the Next Generation Air Dominance
Family of Systems is being specifically designed to meet the challenges
of increasing adversary capabilities. If confirmed, I intend to further
examine the capabilities of current and next-generation platforms to
better assess how the Air Wing of the Future will meet these
warfighting requirements.
Question. If not, if confirmed, what steps would you take to
address any gaps?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the naval aviation enterprise
is focused on the optimization of legacy platforms and tactics to allow
investment in the capabilities required for the Air Wing of the Future
to deliver game-changing lethality and survivability.
uncrewed systems
Question. What is your assessment of the appropriate role uncrewed
systems should play in Naval and Marine Corps operations?
Answer. I am committed to fully assessing the potential for
uncrewed systems for the Navy and Marine Corps. I believe that
distributed maritime operations and expeditionary advance base
operations concepts could greatly benefit from manned/uncrewed teaming.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to achieve that
vision?
Answer. Lessons learned from past uncrewed programs demonstrate the
importance of collaboration between all stakeholders to ensure
warfighting requirements, technical requirements, industry, and
acquisition processes are aligned appropriately. If confirmed, I will
support an enterprise approach that focuses on resolving technical,
testing, and integration issues while prioritizing reliability and
maintainability in earlier program stages.
Question. What is your assessment of the Navy and Marine Corps
manned/unmanned teaming with respect to aviation?
Answer. While I do not have specific details regarding the Navy's
plans for manned/unmanned aviation team, I believe these capabilities
have significant potential. In the area of strike-fighter aviation, I
believe unmanned assets will act as a force multiplier by increasing
range, weapons capabilities, ISR enhancements, and distribution of the
strike force in contested environments. If confirmed, I will work to
grow such capabilities to address warfighting threats.
Question. If confirmed, what changes would you make to the programs
to ensure affordability en masse?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's 2021 Unmanned Campaign
Framework identified opportunities to improve development and
affordability of Navy and Marine Corps unmanned programs. Moving to a
capability-centered approach and implementing concepts such as ``Test,
Prove, and Scale'' will reduce risk and identify performance
requirements by standardizing autonomy, command and control, payload
interfaces, and networks. If confirmed, I will continue to evaluate
such constructs drive additional affordability for unmanned programs.
Question. What is your assessment of the Navy's plans to team
manned and unmanned vessels that could result in operating significant
numbers of unmanned vessels in future naval operations?
Answer. I believe manned and unmanned vessels will act as a force
multiplier in contested environments. If confirmed, I will work to
continue to assess and grow such capabilities to address warfighting
threats. The Navy and Marine Corps must continue to advance unmanned
systems to ensure the naval forces have the necessary capabilities to
keep pace with the future threats. It is my understanding that the
Department is taking deliberate steps to develop and mature key
unmanned systems and enabling technologies. If confirmed, I am
committed to ensuring that the Department carefully assesses, develops,
fields, and sustains the required unmanned capabilities to ensure
success in any future conflict.
munitions
Question. Munitions inventories, particularly those of precision
guided munitions, have declined significantly due to high operational
usage, insufficient procurement, and a requirements system that does
not adequately account for the ongoing need to transfer munitions to
our allies and operations short of major combat, such as in recent
operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.
If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that the
Department of the Navy has sufficient inventories of munitions to meet
our combatant commanders' needs?
Answer. If confirmed, I will engage with the necessary
stakeholders, including the Secretary of Defense's staff, the Chief of
Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and Combatant
Commanders to ensure all warfighting requirements and capability gaps
regarding weapons and munitions are understood and properly resourced.
Question. What changes in budgeting and acquisition processes would
you recommend to facilitate faster Navy and Marine Corps munitions
replenishment rates?
Answer. I do not have enough information to make recommendations at
this time. If confirmed, I will review the budgeting and acquisition
processes to ensure Navy munitions replenishment rates are sufficient
to meet the needs of the warfighter.
cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missiles
Question. In your view, how serious is the cruise, ballistic and
hypersonic missile threat to the Navy and Marine Corps?
Answer. As our adversaries accelerate their military modernization
programs and develop advanced capabilities, the cruise, ballistic, and
hypersonic missile threat to the Navy and Marine Corps becomes ever
more serious, putting our naval forces at risk at ranges that could
limit our maritime operations in defense of our national interests.
Question. What is your understanding of the Navy and Marine Corps'
cruise, ballistic and hypersonic missile defense strategy?
Answer. While I have not been briefed on the results, it is my
understanding the Navy has conducted detailed analyses to develop a
missile defense strategy, and is investing in near, mid, and long term
capabilities to counter the emerging threat.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to ensure that
the Navy and Marine Corps are adequately addressing this threat?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Secretary of the Navy in a
thorough review of the current strategy and investments to ensure the
Navy and Marine Corps is adequately addressing the threat.
science, technology and innovation
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the role
that science and technology programs have played and will play in
developing capabilities for current and future Navy and Marine Corps
systems?
Answer. Science and technology (S&T) is a critical building block
for warfighting capabilities. As we face rapid change in the global
security environment, Navy and Marine Corps S&T programs play a vital
role in developing capabilities to maintain and expand our
technological advantage.
Question. If confirmed, how will you ensure that successful Navy
and Marine Corps science and technology programs will transition to
operational warfighting capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to strengthen collaboration
between the science and technology community and the program managers
who transition the technologies to operational warfighting
capabilities. In addition, I will work with leaders in the Department
to foster partnerships between government, academia, and industry to
increase the speed of technology transition to the Fleet.
Question. How would you improve efforts the Navy and Marine Corps
are making to identify new technologies developed commercially by the
private sector and apply them to military and national security
purposes?
Answer. It is my understanding the Department is building networks
of innovation organizations, consisting of private industry, academia,
small business, and other government entities, to increase
collaboration and innovation, and accelerate solutions to the
warfighter. I believe initiatives and networks such as these are
critical in identifying new technologies to the warfighter. If
confirmed, I look forward to examining these efforts to identify
additional opportunities for collaboration.
Question. How will you work to increase investments in research
infrastructure through Department of the Navy MILCON investments to
match growing investments in China in research infrastructure in areas
such as quantum science, hypersonics, and advanced materials?
Answer. If confirmed, I will examine the MILCON investments needed
to improve research infrastructure at our Naval Labs and Warfare and
Systems Center. Additionally, I will work with stakeholders across the
Department to develop a plan to ensure our research infrastructure
supports accelerated development of cutting-edge technology in support
of our warfighters.
test and evaluation (t&e) efforts
Question. What is your assessment of the Department of the Navy's
test and evaluation capabilities, including the test and evaluation
workforce and infrastructure?
Answer. The Department's test and evaluation capabilities are
critical in delivering new technologies that have been proven ready for
Fleet deployment. If confirmed, I will assess these capabilities,
including the test and evaluation workforce and infrastructure, to
ensure we are adequately resourced and fully capable of supporting the
development and test and evaluation of new technologies.
Question. In which areas, if any, do you feel the Department of the
Navy should be developing new test and evaluation capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support continued investments in the
modernization of legacy test capabilities to ensure they are ready and
adequate to support customer requirements. The Navy must continue to
make investments in areas such as modeling and simulation, engineering,
and test capabilities. Collecting performance data earlier in the
acquisition process can produce a more efficient and effective approach
to test and evaluation. In my view, I expect cybersecurity, directed
energy, and autonomy will drive future Navy test capability
investments.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to accelerate
the development of these new capabilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary to support
continued investments in the modernization of legacy test capabilities
to ensure they are ready and adequate to support evolving requirements.
Question. What are your views on the appropriate roles of OSD
developmental and operational testing organizations with respect to the
testing of Navy and Marine Corps systems?
Answer. From my experience, test and evaluation (T&E) plays a
critical role in delivering proven technologies ready for Fleet
deployment. While Service-led developmental and operational testing
performs much of this work, oversight from the Office of the Secretary
of Defense test organizations helps ensure warfighter needs are
assessed properly and programs are held accountable. This is more
important than ever to support the rapid acquisition and fielding of
new technologies and systems for our warfighters, and to integrate
operational realism into developmental testing phases.
information technology programs
Question. What major improvements would you like to see made in the
Navy and Marine Corps' development and deployment of major information
technology (IT) systems?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy has
implemented a road map in its Information Superiority Vision and is
already taking steps to modify acquisition practices to fully leverage
leading edge technologies. If confirmed, I intend to review ongoing
efforts to consolidate cloud brokers, develop acquisition teams, and
leverage agile development methodologies and partners. If confirmed, I
look forward to working closely with the Department's Chief Information
Officer to assess and implement the Department's Information
Superiority Vision.
Question. If confirmed, how will you encourage process and cultural
change in organizations so that they maximize the benefits that new
enterprise IT systems can offer in terms of cost savings and
efficiency?
Answer. Culture change begins with leadership. As Secretary Del
Toro highlighted in his Strategic Guidance, leaders in every functional
unit and discipline must take action to enforce business systems
modernization on an accelerated and integrated path that is
sufficiently resourced and supported. If confirmed, I will do my part
to ensure leaders are held accountable for contributing to a culture
that breaks down barriers and aggressively pursues the best IT systems
for our sailors, marines, and civilian workforce.
Question. What is the appropriate relationship between the
Department of the Navy's efforts to implement enterprise IT programs
and supporting computing services and infrastructure to support
Department of the Navy missions and efforts being undertaken by the
Defense Information Systems Agency?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy and
Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) have a very close working
relationship today, and if confirmed I will seek to maintain and
strengthen that relationship tomorrow. I believe that the Department
must adopt and share best practices across the entire information
enterprise. There should not be any pride of authorship on enterprise
services that satisfy common needs, but neither should the drive for
enterprise services limit or compromise mission execution.
Question. How will you ensure that appropriate business process
reengineering is undertaken and accomplished before initiating new
business systems and IT program development and deployment?
Answer. I intend to work to improve the effectiveness of our
business process reengineering efforts. The Department of the Navy must
coordinate organizational change management efforts, policy updates,
and reviews of lessons learned. It also must become an integral part of
the continuous engineering and update of business capabilities and
systems, not a one-time or one-off activity. If confirmed, I would
support ongoing efforts.
Question. What role will the Department of the Navy's research and
testing enterprise play in the development and deployment of Navy and
Marine Corps business IT systems?
Answer. The Department of the Navy's research enterprise already
conducts cutting edge research that benefits Navy and Marine Corps IT
business systems. It is my understanding that the Office of Naval
Research has sponsored research that reduces the complexity and
increases the security of commercial software underpinning new business
systems. If confirmed, I will continue to leverage the Navy's R&D
community by sharing requirements, evaluating their solutions, piloting
capabilities, providing feedback, and transitioning the best solutions
to operations.
investment in infrastructure
Question. Witnesses appearing before this Committee in the past
have testified that the military services under-invest in both the
maintenance and recapitalization of facilities and infrastructure
compared to private industry standards. Decades of under-investment in
Defense Department installations have led to substantial backlogs of
facility maintenance activities, created substandard living and working
conditions, and made it harder to take advantage of new technologies
that could increase productivity. These challenges have been
exacerbated by current budget pressures.
What is your view of Navy and Marine Corps infrastructure
investment?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Navy has routinely
funded facilities sustainment below the Department of Defense's model.
If confirmed, I look to better understand the challenges that the Navy
and Marine Corps have balancing investments for current and future
infrastructure to meet the department's urgent readiness needs, future
force requirements, and business reforms.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
increase resources to reduce the backlog and improve Navy and Marine
Corps facilities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would assess the Department's aging
infrastructure and where it makes sense, look for opportunities to
consolidate and reduce our footprint. The last two years of pandemic-
driven remote work has provided an opportunity to reimagine
infrastructure requirements and potentially reduce off-installation
leasing requirements. I believe that t a fresh examination of the
Department's infrastructure needs could potentially reduce total
ownership costs. If confirmed, I would work closely with the Chief of
Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps to develop and
fund modern, resilient, and sustainable facilities that meet our
warfighter needs.
united nations convention on the law of the sea
Question. Officials of the Department of Defense, including
previous Secretaries of the Navy, have advocated for accession to the
Law of the Sea Convention.
Do you support U.S. accession to the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea?
Answer. It is my understanding that the United States Navy could
benefit from accession to the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea should the Administration and Senate decide to ratify the
treaty, since it enshrines freedoms of navigation and overflight that
are vital to our national security interests. If confirmed, I will
strive to protect these vital national security interests.
Question. How would you respond to critics of the Convention who
assert that accession is not in the national security interests of the
United States?
Answer. As the Convention's navigation and overflight provisions
are already reflective of customary international law, it is my
understanding that acceding to the Convention would serve to strengthen
the ability of our Naval assets to avail themselves of the rights and
freedoms provided by other States under the Convention and challenge
activities by our adversaries that are inconsistent with the
Convention's legal framework.
Question. In your view, what impact, if any, would U.S. accession
to the Law of the Sea Convention have on ongoing and emerging maritime
disputes, such as in the South China Sea and in the Arctic?
Answer. If the United States were to accede to the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea, I believe objections to unlawful
maritime claims, such as those made by our adversaries in the Arctic
and the South China Sea, would be more effective.
extremism
Question. What is your view of the prevalence of extremism within
the armed forces?
Answer. I believe the vast majority of sailors and marines serve
with honor and integrity respecting the oath that they took to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States. A small number of
individuals engaging in extremist activities can pose significant
challenges to safety, unit cohesion, and trust in the military. If
confirmed, I will support efforts already underway across the
Department of the Navy to counter extremist activity and promote a
culture of respect, trust, and professionalism.
Question. If confirmed, what would you recommend the Secretary of
the Navy do to eliminate extremism within the ranks?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Department of the Navy's
efforts already underway to counter extremist activity. Even a small
number of individuals engaging in extremist activities may have a
disproportionate impact on public safety and trust in the military.
Focusing on activities instead of beliefs counters extremism and avoids
infringing on constitutionally protected liberties. Leadership plays a
significant role in preventing extremism, particularly in the creation
and sustainment of command climates grounded in professionalism and
respect. Department leadership must discourage extremist activity and
hold those engaged in such activity accountable.
diversity and inclusion
Question. In general, what is your assessment of the diversity of
the Department of the Navy military and civilian workforces?
Answer. While the Department has made progress in advancing a
culture that fully supports diversity, equity, and inclusion, I
understand that under-representation remains among senior military and
civilian leadership ranks across the enterprise. I also understand that
the Department is building the capability to identify under-
representation in its military and civilian occupational series. If
confirmed, I look forward to continuing efforts with Navy and Marine
Corps leadership to develop lawful data-informed solutions to ensure we
have the most capable and diverse Department possible.
If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to increase diversity
and inclusion within the Department of the Navy writ large?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to advance efforts to increase
diversity and inclusion within the Department of the Navy. I will work
closely with services and leaders across the Department of the Navy to
continuously assess the efficacy and rate of diversity, equity, and
inclusion (DE&I) capabilities and progress and to leverage
authoritative data and other indicators to identify opportunities to
advance and lawfully implement DE&I efforts.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you take actions to
ensure that the Navy and Marine Corps, at all levels, especially within
the senior officer ranks, reflect the broad diversity of those eligible
to serve?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to emphasize and strengthen
the Department of the Navy's commitment to improving diversity, equity,
and inclusion and the responsibility of leadership to instill these
ideals. I would work closely with leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps
to continue to assess under-representation. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure these efforts are lawfully advanced and that equal
opportunity is provided to all members of the Department of the Navy.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to increase
diversity and inclusion in the Department of the Navy's civilian
workforce, especially at the senior General Schedule and Senior
Executive Service levels?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with leaders across Department of
the Navy to continue development of strategies to optimize talent
management systems to improve diversity in the senior civilian ranks.
Notwithstanding the ability to hire from external sources, I believe a
focus on internal development programs would also provide an effective
pool of leadership talent from which to fill these important positions.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you seek to increase
geographical diversity in the Navy and Marine Corps--promoting the
accession or enlistment of persons from areas of the country and local
communities that are currently underrepresented in the armed forces?
Answer. I recognize the importance of generating interest in the
military as an employer of choice for today's youth and how valuable
geographical diversity is to the Department of the Navy. I am also
aware of Service initiatives applying various tools and approaches to
increase diversity within their ranks. If confirmed, I will work to
foster partnerships with community leaders and other influencers and
assess marketing and outreach mechanisms to ensure we recruit diverse
talent from all postal codes.
gender integrated training in the marine corps
Question. The Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA requires the Marine Corps to
gender integrate basic training at Parris Island within five years, and
at San Diego within eight years.
In your view, can the Marine Corps fully execute the gender
integrated basic training mandate, on the timeline prescribed by the
NDAA, while maintaining the readiness and lethality of the Corps?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Marine Corps is committed
to getting every aspect of gender integrated entry level training right
to create a more lethal and diverse force, and is on track to meet the
timelines associated with the recruit training gender integration
requirements of the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Commandant to ensure the integration plan remains on
track and complies with the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA requirements.
Question. What lessons have been learned from the integration
progress and effort to date?
Answer. I am aware both Marine Corps Recruit Depots (MCRDs Parris
Island and San Diego) have integrated their Regimental, Battalion,
Company, and Support Instructor Staffs and the previously gender-
segregated 4th Recruit Training Battalion at MCRD Parris Island now has
male recruits and drill instructors. If confirmed, I look forward to
understanding the Marine Corps' lessons learned from both recruit
depots' experiences and seeking opportunities to apply best practices.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. In your view, to what extent are Department of the Navy
policies, programs, and training regarding the prevention of and
response to sexual assault in the Navy and Marine Corps adequate and
effective?
Answer. Sexual assault and other harmful behaviors must never be
tolerated. Offenders must be held accountable and marines, sailors, and
civilians who experience sexual harassment and/or sexual assault should
have access to the support they need. I understand that both Services
within the Department are unyielding in their pursuit to reduce the
prevalence of these behaviors and ensuring comprehensive care to those
who seek help. It is my understanding that the Department of the Navy
is implementing the approved policy changes recommended by the
Independent Review Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military, as
well as implementing changes mandated by the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA. It
is also my understanding that the Department's commitment to sexual
harassment and sexual assault prevention is comprehensive and includes
a heavy focus on strengthening healthy relationships skills across the
career cycle to increase respect, trust, communication, esprit de
corps, and accountability. There is more to be done and, if confirmed,
I will prioritize these programs, ensuring they have the support and
resources they need to succeed and ensuring we hold leaders accountable
for fostering healthy climates and recognizing and addressing issues
early and before they escalate. I will focus on promoting healthy and
positive environments, in which servicemembers and civilians have the
opportunity to thrive and ensure there is appropriate accountability
for those who cause harm.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you take actions to
increase focus on the prevention of sexual assaults in the Navy and
Marine Corps?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the Department's efforts to
address risk factors related to sexual assault to include everyday
disrespects, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and other
negative behaviors that set the conditions for sexual assault to occur.
I will leverage data to identify areas where there is high risk and
will ensure we have the appropriate resources aligned to support
changes and hold leaders accountable. I will focus on innovative and
evidenced-informed prevention programs that hold the most promise for
working in the unique context of the military. The Independent Review
Commission on Sexual Assault in the Military recommended dedicated
prevention personnel, and I support that recommendation. I will
increase emphasis on addressing emerging problematic behaviors before
they escalate. I will continue to prioritize leadership and
professional development, promoting the skill-building and
proficiencies to foster positive behaviors at all ranks. I will also
continue to create policies that support those who come forward and/or
need help and ensure accountability for perpetrators of sexual assault.
Question. What is your assessment of the Department of the Navy's
implementation of protections against retaliation--most notably social
ostracism and reputation damage--against sailors and marines who report
sexual assault?
Answer. Retaliation and reprisal are detrimental actions that
negatively impact the well-being of our people. In addition to the
significant harm the individual victim experiences, there is also a
loss of trust within the unit and a substantial degradation to its
overall mission readiness. The Department of the Navy has a
responsibility to prevent retaliation and reprisal and hold leaders
accountable when victims' lives and careers are harmed because they
reported sexual assault or harassment. I understand that the Department
of the Navy has recently placed greater emphasis on identifying
instances of retaliation and reprisal. If confirmed, I intend to
continue these efforts and identify other ways to train and educate our
total force on how to identify and report instances of retaliation and
reprisal so that we can better protect victims' rights and hold leaders
accountable when they fail to do so.
Question. The recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2022 makes significant changes to how the military will
investigate and prosecute certain offenses, including sexual assault.
What is your understanding of these changes and your role, if
confirmed, in implementing these reforms?
Answer. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022
directs the Secretaries of the Military Departments to create Offices
of Special Trial Counsel within each Military Service. These offices
will be led by a Flag/General Officer Judge Advocate who will report
directly to the Secretary without intervening authority. The
specialized and expert Judge Advocates who staff this independent
office will be responsible for the investigation and prosecution of
certain covered offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to
include sexual assault, domestic violence, murder, and other serious
crimes. Among other responsibilities, these special trial counsel will
have the exclusive authority to refer charges alleging these covered
offenses to trial by special or general courts-martial. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that the Department of the Navy's Offices of
Special Trial Counsel within the United States Navy and United States
Marine Corps are staffed and equipped to begin their work upon the
statute's effective date in December 2023.
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently found
that the timing, amount, and mix of legal training provided to
commanders may not be meeting the commanders' needs.
In your view, do military and civilian leaders within the Navy and
the Marine Corps 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?
Answer. Sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other destructive
behaviors undermine unit cohesion and individual readiness. We cannot
tolerate these actions within the Department of the Navy. I
wholeheartedly support efforts to finally eliminate this destructive
scourge.
While I am aware of the GAO report and its findings, as a nominee I
have not had the opportunity to thoroughly review the training,
authorities, and resources provided to Department of the Navy
commanders and civilian leaders to hold subordinate commanders and
supervisors accountable for the prevention of and response to sexual
assault and retaliation. If confirmed, however, you have my commitment
that I will be personally involved on this critical issue.
Question. If not, what additional training, authorities, or
resources do you believe are needed, and why?
Answer. As a nominee, I have not had the opportunity to thoroughly
review the training, authorities, and resources provided to Department
of the Navy commanders and civilian leaders. If confirmed, however, I
will ensure that each of these are examined with an eye toward
improvement. If that examination identifies that our leaders need
additional training, authorities, or resources to hold subordinates
accountable for the prevention of and response to sexual assault and
retaliation, I commit to exploring every feasible avenue to do so.
Question. If confirmed, to what extent would you take action to
improve legal training for commanders?
Answer. The commander is responsible for all that occurs within his
or her unit and is critical to its ability to execute its assigned
mission. Among other things, commanders are charged with enforcing
standards to shape a culture of excellence. To ensure their success--
and mission accomplishment--the Department of the Navy must provide all
commanders with the tools they need. If confirmed, I will study the
training provided commanders by the Department of the Navy, including
training of legal topics, to identify areas in which it might be
improved. If that study identifies training gaps, I will work to
improve training for the sake of our commanders and the larger
Department of the Navy community.
child abuse and domestic violence in military families
Question. Recent press reports indicate that the number of
incidents of child abuse and domestic violence in military families has
increased.
What is your understanding of the extent of the problem with child
abuse in the Navy and Marine Corps, and if confirmed, what actions will
you take to address it?
Answer. Understanding the unique pressures of the military
lifestyle, to include the impact of deployment and extended family
separations, is vital to addressing these issues. Child abuse has no
place in the Navy and Marine Corps. If confirmed, I will work with Navy
and Marine Corps leadership to ensure sailors, marines, and their
families have access to resources and skill development in order to
cope and adjust to military life stressors.
Question. What is your understanding of the extent of the problem
with domestic violence in the Navy and Marine Corps, and if confirmed,
what actions will you take to address it?
Answer. Domestic violence has no place in the Navy and Marine
Corps. The unique pressures of the military lifestyle, coupled with the
youthful demographics of the Services, call for early and frequent
engagement by command leadership. If confirmed, I will work with Navy
and Marine Corps leadership to ensure sailors, marines, and their
families have access to resources and skill development that help them
to recognize and cope positively with military life stressors.
suicide prevention:
Question. The number of suicides in each of the Services continues
to concern the Committee. Over the past few years, five sailors
assigned to the USS George H.W. Bush committed suicide.
What actions has the Navy taken to address suicides in the wake of
the Bush suicides, and what lessons have been learned?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Navy conducted a
comprehensive review of the Bush suicides. I have not reviewed the
report and cannot comment on the individual findings or initiatives. It
is my understanding that the Navy and Marine Corps have launched year-
long campaigns designed to decrease access to lethal means, eliminate
stigma related to help-seeking behaviors, and increase the availability
of resources for those seeking support.
If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the wellness of all
sailors, marines, and civilians and continue to support the
Department's current efforts to reduce unnecessary stressors, encourage
individuals to ask for support when they need it, eliminate stigma
associated with help-seeking, and reduce barriers to accessing care.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to prevent
suicides within the Navy and Marine Corps, including within the Navy
and Marine Corps reserve components, and within the families of sailors
and marines across all Components?
Answer. The loss of any sailor, marine, or civilian to suicide is
one too many. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the wellness of
all sailors, marines, and civilians and continue to support the
Department's current efforts to encourage individuals to ask for
support when they need it, eliminate stigma associated with help-
seeking, and reduce barriers to accessing care. I will ensure the
Department's efforts align with the President's National Strategy on
Reducing Military and Veteran Suicide to address upstream risk and
protective factors long before suicide is a consideration. In addition
to prioritizing suicide prevention strategies that are evidence-based
and grounded in data, if confirmed, I will address the health of our
unit climates and hold leaders accountable for setting unit conditions
that promote trust, connectedness, esprit de corps, healthy
communication, and the safety and well-being of our sailors and
marines. I will also listen to the valuable insights of our sailors,
marines, their leaders, and the family members who are often the first
to notice suicidal ideations or behaviors in our servicemembers. I will
listen to our providers who care for our servicemembers and their
families and will ensure that resources are available to servicemember
when and where they are needed.
Question. If confirmed, what would you do to enhance the reporting
and tracking of suicide among family members and dependents of sailors
and marines across all Components?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the reporting and tracking
tools used by the Navy and Marine Corps and work with the Services to
enhance our use of military and civilian data and ensure we have the
appropriate talent to leverage existing data and advance our suicide
prevention efforts. Further, if confirmed, I will collaborate with key
stakeholders across the Department of Defense and other federal
agencies such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as thought
leaders in academia, gleaning best practices, identifying trends, and
sharing resources. Collaboration across organizations, industries, and
disciplines is critical for approaching these challenges with the novel
and diverse perspectives needed to continue to advance suicide
prevention approaches.
family readiness and support
Question. What do you consider to be the most important family
readiness issues for servicemembers and their families?
Answer. Family readiness is a key component to ensure
servicemembers can deploy far from home and know that support programs
and resources are in place for their families during these absences.
Military families serve alongside their sailors and marines, and I
believe that family readiness is inherently tied to unit readiness and
our ability to achieve the National Defense Strategy mission. If
confirmed, I will be devoted to programs that support military spouses
and families, such as employment initiatives, child care, personal
financial readiness, and other life skills development.
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. The shortage of accessible, high-quality childcare is a
national issue that I believe could impact the readiness and retention
of sailors and marines. It is my understanding the Navy and Marine
Corps are exploring a variety of efforts and initiatives to address the
high demand for childcare, to include expanding fee assistance,
renovating older facilities, and nurturing community partnerships that
may expand capacity. I understand some installations are collaborating
with local municipalities as well as local and national agencies to
expand daycare. If confirmed, I will examine these efforts and explore
other innovative ways to address this critical issue.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that sailors and
marines with family members with special needs are assigned to duty
stations where services are available to address those needs?
Answer. I understand the importance of providing families with the
necessary resources to thrive. The Exceptional Family Member Program is
one such program that supports sailors and marines who have military
dependents with special needs. It is extremely important that sailors
and marines are assigned to locations where the required medical
services and educational support are available for dependents with
special needs. If confirmed, I will work with Navy and Marine Corps
leaders to ensure this program is poised to best support sailors,
marines, and their families.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure outreach to those
military families with special needs dependents, so they can obtain the
support they need?
Answer. Commanding Officers and Senior Enlisted Advisors enable
sailors and marines to access resources and support for special needs
dependents. Understanding barriers and challenges that military
families face in accessing support is essential when considering how we
are best postured to overcome them. If confirmed, I will work with Navy
and Marine Corps leaders to understand these challenges and potential
solutions to ensure our military families with special needs dependents
have the support they deserve.
senior military and civilian accountability
Question. While representative of a small number of individuals in
the Department of Defense, reports of abuses of rank and authority by
senior military and civilian leaders and failures to perform up to
accepted standards are frequently received. Whistleblowers and victims
of such abuses often report that they felt that no one would pay
attention to or believe their complaints. Accusations of unduly lenient
treatment of senior officers and senior officials against whom
accusations have been substantiated are also frequently heard.
What are your views regarding the appropriate standard of
accountability for senior civilian and military leaders of the
Department of the Navy?
Answer. If confirmed, I will support the Department of the Navy's
emphasis on meeting high standards of personal and professional conduct
and character development. The Department of the Navy's most important
assets are its personnel. If leaders conduct themselves in a way that
demeans, abuses, and strips people of their dignity, the ability of any
organization to perform its mission will quickly erode. The success of
the Department to meet its mission depends on senior leadership to
model positive professional and personal behavior, consistent with its
core values of honor, courage, and commitment. If confirmed, I will
emphasize accountability across the board, including for senior
military and civilian leaders.
Question. If confirmed, what steps would you take to ensure that
senior leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps are held accountable for
their actions and performance?
Answer. Accountability for results and personal conduct are the
foundation of all successful organizations. If confirmed, I will
clearly articulate my vision and expectations for senior leaders, in
alignment with the Secretary's vision. I will not tolerate abuse of
authority and rank. Such actions are counter to the Department of the
Navy's core values of upon which the foundation of trust and leadership
is built. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring every allegation of
misconduct involving senior leadership is thoroughly investigated. If
confirmed, I will be firmly committed to holding senior leaders
accountable for their actions and performance as warranted.
management and development of the senior executive service
Question. The transformation of the armed forces has brought with
it an increasing realization of the importance of efficient and
forward-thinking management of senior executives.
What is your vision for the management and development of the Navy
and Marine Corps senior executive workforce, especially in the
critically important areas of acquisition, financial management, and
the scientific and technical fields?
Answer. The management and continuous development of the senior
executive cadre is critical to the Department of the Navy's mission. I
believe that the Department of the Navy must invest in the development
of its workforce. If confirmed, I will work with the leaders of the
Navy and Marine Corps to modernize the talent management process and
develop training opportunities and tools in support of continuous
learning.
Question. Do you believe that the Department of the Navy has the
number of senior executives it needs, with the proper skills, to manage
the Department into the future?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary and ASN(M&RA)
to examine the current Senior Executive Service end-strength and its
alignment to the Departmental goals and objectives. I will look at
recruitment, selection, and development programs, focusing on selecting
leaders who possess expert leadership and technical skills as wells as
strong business acumen to lead with competence and compassion and
deliver results. I will also examine the diversity of the Department's
Senior Executive Service cadre to identify and mitigate barriers to
underrepresented groups being appointed to these important, highest-
level leadership positions.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Department of the Navy and the Senate Armed Services
Committee in particular, and with Congress in general?
Answer. In general, it is my view that the Department of the Navy
has established a good relationship with Members of Congress and their
staffs, to include oversight committees such as the Senate Armed
Services Committee. However, in my former capacity as the majority
clerk for the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I recognized
that there were certainly opportunities where that relationship could
be enhanced. If confirmed, I am committed to further strengthening this
relationship based on transparency, trust, and accountability.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a
productive and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and
the Department of the Navy?
Answer. I believe that transparency, trust, and accountability are
foundational principals in ensuring the Department of the Navy and
Congress have a productive and mutually beneficial relationship. As
someone who was directly a part of this relationship in my previous
capacity, I fully understood the importance of developing and
sustaining a mutually supporting and beneficial relationships to ensure
the security of our Nation. Accordingly, if confirmed, you have my
personal commitment to building upon these principals and working
closely with the Members of Congress and their staffs.
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 Jeanne Shaheen
small business innovation research and small business technology
transfer programs
1. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Raven, revitalizing our shipyards must be a
foremost priority. The Fiscal Year 2022 Omnibus includes $475 million
in funds for the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Plan (SIOP)
multi-mission dry dock project at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in New
Hampshire. That represents a $225 million increase for the Portsmouth
project over the Navy's budget request due to inaccurate cost
estimates. How confident are you in the current cost estimates and what
is your plan to keep SIOP within budget and on schedule?
Mr. Raven. The Navy's four public shipyards are key elements of our
national defense. The Navy has stood up a Program Executive Office to
holistically manage shipyard infrastructure projects, while maintaining
support to the Fleet, and ensuring close coordination between the Navy
and industry partners. It is my understanding that the Shipyard
Infrastructure Optimization Program is using lessons learned from the
Portsmouth multi-mission dry dock project to inform future planning,
design, and construction efforts for other SIOP projects. If confirmed,
I intend to work with Department leaders to ensure the program stays
within budget and on schedule.
2. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Raven, how detrimental to the Navy's
readiness would any delays to the SIOP multi-mission dry dock project
at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard be?
Mr. Raven. I certainly share your views about the need to ensure
SIOP projects, such as the multi-mission dry dock project at Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard, be completed without delay. Modernized maintenance
facilities at the public Naval Shipyards are essential to support
platforms such as the Virginia-class submarine and the Ford-class
carrier, and are a critical component of the Navy's readiness
capabilities. It is my understanding that the Navy has committed the
required funding in fiscal year 2023 and across the Future Years
Defense Plan. If confirmed, I assure you of my commitment to keeping
SIOP projects on time and on budget to avoid any detrimental impacts to
Navy readiness.
f-35
3. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Raven, Russia's recent invasion into
Ukraine and China's repeated incursions into Taiwan's air defense
identification zone are poignant reminders that maintaining air
dominance is critical in any near-peer conflict. However, it has been
reported that the Department of the Navy will request 12 fewer F-35s
than expected. Moreover, the F-35 program is critical economic driver
for many States -with the program supporting over 1,800 suppliers that
provide more than 254,000 direct and indirect jobs. How is the cut in
F-35 production for fiscal year 2023 consistent with the priorities in
the 2018 National Defense Strategy and how important is it for the Navy
to consider downstream impacts of this decision on the defense
industrial base?
Mr. Raven. I understand the F-35 provides advanced capabilities for
the Navy and Marine Corps and the importance of providing
predictability to our critical industrial base. Although I was recently
made aware of the Department's F-35 procurement plan in the Fiscal Year
2023 President's Budget, I have not yet been briefed on the new
National Defense Strategy. If confirmed, I look forward to gaining a
better understanding of how the new defense strategy shaped the
decisions in the Fiscal Year 2023 President's Budget.
audit
4. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Raven, the Department of the Navy has yet
to successfully pass an audit. Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas
Harker testified in 2020 that 2027 was the target timeline to fully
provide a clean audit for the Department of the Navy. In your opinion,
do you think the 2027 timeline is reasonable?
Mr. Raven. It is my understanding that the Marine Corps is
currently in the first year of a two-year audit cycle targeting an
opinion in fiscal year 2023 and that the Navy recently revised its
remediation strategy based on fiscal year 2021 audit results. If
confirmed, I am committed to looking closely at the new strategy to
determine if the target date can be met or exceeded.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
question on nominees' fitness to serve
5. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, since you became a legal adult, have
you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any
verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Mr. Raven. No.
6. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, have you ever faced discipline, or
entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Mr. Raven. No.
shipyard infrastructure optimization program
7. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, if confirmed, how will you prioritize
the Navy's Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) to
ensure our four public shipyards are appropriately funded, modernized,
and maintained to meet operational demands?
Mr. Raven. I am aware that the President's Fiscal Year 2023 budget
submission strongly supports SIOP funding. If confirmed, I will work
with leaders in the Department to ensure the Navy's public shipyards
are positioned to execute the complex maintenance availabilities
required to meet the Navy's operational demands.
8. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, if confirmed, how will you explore
the options of integrating private shipyards into the fleet's
maintenance practices to augment the aging public shipyards?
Mr. Raven. If confirmed, I will work with our Navy leaders to
explore options to further integrate private yards into submarine
maintenance planning efforts. I will support ongoing efforts to improve
fast attack submarine (SSN) material availability that include a 15-
Year SSN Maintenance Plan outlining approaches to optimize submarine
repair. Continuing these efforts, the Navy will be in a better position
to evaluate different scopes of work, periods of performance, and
intervals between availabilities at each private shipyard capable of
performing such work.
fleet size and composition
9. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral
Michael Gilday recently stated that based on a series of exercises over
the last year it was his analysis that the United States needs a
``bigger, more capable Navy,'' estimating the need to be ``a naval
force of over 500 ships''. When describing the force structure
assessment, he said that the study led by the Office of the Secretary
of Defense was important because it represented the Navy and Marine
Corps' perspective. The size and composition of the fleet is a
requirement that seems to change vastly from year to year. If
confirmed, how do you plan to establish and communicate the actual
requirement for fleet size and composition?
Mr. Raven. It is important that the size and composition of the
Navy fleet be updated regularly to address changes in the security
environment, defense strategy, operational concepts, and expected
future capabilities that impact force structure - while also taking
into account the Naval Forces' contribution to the Joint Force. If
confirmed, I will support and comply with the Navy Battle Force Ship
Assessment and Requirement reporting requirement directed in the Fiscal
Year 2022 NDAA.
10. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, a series of studies on the
amphibious ship requirement have identified a need for at least 30
amphibious ships to support Marine Corps operations yet in last year's
budget, yet the Navy chose not to exercise congressionally authorized
block buy authority, which was projected to save $722 million across
the four ships. If confirmed, how do you intend to budget for and fund
the amphibious ship requirement identified by the Commandant of the
Marine Corps and exercise the block buy authority authorized by
Congress?
Mr. Raven. It is my understanding that the Navy and Marine Corps
are undertaking an Amphibious Fleet Requirement Study to provide
recommendations on the optimal size and composition of the future
amphibious warship fleet. When complete, the results of this study will
inform future shipbuilding plans and decisions to exercise the block
buy authority authorized by Congress. If confirmed, I will carefully
review the findings on amphibious fleet requirements and advocate for
validated requirements to support our warfighters. You have my
commitment to review this matter within the context of the threat
environment and the requirement for a modernized amphibious fleet to
support the Joint Force, as required to support the National Defense
Strategy.
11. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, unmanned systems are central to the
Navy's view of the future fleet and are projected to comprise roughly
20 percent of it. If confirmed, how will you plan to integrate unmanned
systems into the Navy's 30-year shipbuilding plan, ensure autonomous
systems are maintained, and develop an adequate concept of operation
for employment?
Mr. Raven. I understand the Department is on a path to field a full
spectrum of unmanned capabilities with the proper mix of integrated
manned and unmanned platforms to provide greater geographical
distribution, increase fires, and take advantage of emerging
technologies. Unmanned assets are envisioned to act as a force
multiplier by increasing range; weapons capabilities; intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance enhancements; and distribution of the
strike force in contested environments. It is also my understanding
that the Navy is committed to fully testing concepts of operations and
employment of these platforms to ensure they are sustainable,
supportable, and meet the required warfighting capabilities. If
confirmed, I will continue to support the Department's deliberate
approach through the use of land-based testing and at sea prototyping
to ensure these new capabilities are ready to join the fleet.
accountability
12. Senator Hirono. Mr. Raven, over the last few years, there have
been several very concerning incidents in the Navy, including the
burning of the USS Bonhomme Richard, the grounding of the USS
Connecticut in the South China Sea, and the contamination of the Navy's
water system from a fuel leak at Red Hill Bulk Fuel Facility in Hawaii.
All three of these preventable incidents led to billions of dollars in
lost taxpayer money and serious concerns about safety in the Navy. If
confirmed, how to you intend to prevent these types of serious
incidents and how to you intend to hold accountable those responsible
for these types of failures?
Mr. Raven. If confirmed, I will work with Navy leadership to ensure
the Department has the capability to self-assess, self-correct, and
effectively apply lessons learned in a manner that results in systemic
change. Accountability is a key component to ensuring the high
standards set to ensure mission readiness are achieved. If confirmed, I
am committed to ensuring the Department remains devoted to holding
ourselves accountable for how we lead our people and how we do our jobs
on behalf of the American people.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
supporting navy fleet growth
13. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Raven, what specific actions, including
investments, do you believe are necessary to grow and support our Navy
fleet in terms of capability, capacity, maintenance, personnel, and
shore infrastructure?
Mr. Raven. I support Secretary Del Toro's Strategic Guidance and
the enduring priorities to maintain maritime dominance by expanding
forward presence, enhancing warfighting readiness, innovating and
modernizing the force to address current and future operational
requirements. I believe we must also strengthen strategic partnerships
by building trust and collaboration, enhance performance and
affordability, and strengthening alliances and partnerships. If
confirmed, ensuring our sailors, marines, and civilians have the
necessary resources, training, education, and support necessary to
carry out their assigned missions or tasks will be one of my top
priorities.
Supporting and growing the Navy fleet requires a balanced approach
that starts with establishing stable requirements, to ensure the Navy
pursues the capabilities in greatest need for deterrent and warfighting
effects. I believe the next step should be to mature new technologies,
including ship designs, so that industry can efficiently produce the
needed weapons and platforms. Finally, the Navy must program and budget
for the personnel and facilities that support readiness throughout the
life-cycle of the Navy's weapons platforms. Inadequately balancing
these steps to growing fleet capabilities jeopardizes warfighting
capabilities and taxpayer funds, and if confirmed, I intend to
carefully manage each of these issues.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Dan Sullivan
size of u.s. navy
14. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Raven, speaking at the WEST 2022
conference on February 18, 2022, Chief of Naval Operations Admiral
Michael Gilday laid out his vision for a 500-ship Navy. In the past 3
years, the Navy and DOD have struggled to produce a common vision for
how many ships of what type the Navy needs. What is your assessment of
the current requirements for the size of our Navy?
Mr. Raven. Although I am aware of the ongoing force structure
assessment that the Navy is conducting, I have not yet been provided
access to the studies. I believe the Navy must be sized appropriately
to support the Joint Force and to deter and, if required, defeat
strategic competitors. If confirmed, I am committed to working closely
with the Administration and Congress to ensure that the Navy and Marine
Corps team is sized appropriately to carry out assigned missions in
support of the National Defense Strategy.
15. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Raven, do you believe the Navy and Marine
Corps have done an adequate job defining their ship requirements
against operational requirements?
Mr. Raven. The Department of the Navy must maintain the ability to
win as part of the Joint Force and to adapt to an evolving security
environment. It is my understanding the Department of the Navy is
taking a comprehensive approach to this challenge, relying not solely
on any one new technology or solution and pursuing a more capable fleet
integrated with unmanned technologies. It is also maturing operational
concepts such as Distributed Maritime Operations and Advanced
Expeditionary Base operations, and realigning force posture and
priorities to better align to the new security environment. If
confirmed, I am committed to exploring all elements of our
comprehensive approach to defining requirements to meet new security
challenges.
16. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Raven, would you agree with the idea that
the principal domain of competition with the People's Republic of China
(PRC) is maritime and that the Department of the Navy should
correspondingly receive a larger share of the U.S. defense budget than
it did during the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Mr. Raven. I agree with Secretary Austin's commitment to match
resources to strategy, strategy to policies, and policies to the will
of the American people. The Department of the Navy must invest in
modernization of systems and deployment of capabilities focused on the
needs of the Indo-Pacific region, while building cooperative alliances
and partnerships to leverage capabilities and influence. The Department
of the Navy must be funded to provide a balance of capacity and
capability to confront near term as well as mid-to-long term threats.
If confirmed, I will fully support the efforts of Secretaries Austin
and Del Toro to modernize Naval Capabilities and work with our allies
and partners to meet the challenges posed by China with a combat-
credible Navy and Marine Corps team.
extremism
17. Senator Sullivan. Mr. Raven, from April until December of 2021,
the Department of Defense's Countering Extremist Activity Working Group
found 100 instances of extremist behavior in a force of over 1.2
million, or an incident rate of .005 percent. Do you believe that such
an incident rate merits additional DOD focus beyond that which
commanders would normally be expected to exercise to maintain good
order and discipline?
Mr. Raven. Even a small number of individuals engaging in extremist
activities can pose a considerable challenge to safety, unit cohesion,
and trust in the military. Although the vast majority of servicemembers
serve their country honorably, I believe threats posed by extremist
behavior should remain a focus for the DOD. If confirmed, I would
continue to encourage leaders at all levels to set the tone for a
healthy climate and culture where destructive behaviors, including
engaging in extremist activities, are never tolerated.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
naval strategic guidance
18. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Raven, what challenges currently exist
within the Navy's ``One Navy-Marine Corps Team'' strategy?
Mr. Raven. The Secretary's Enduring Priorities in his strategic
guidance are well aligned and prioritized. I agree the Department must
maintain maritime dominance in defense of our Nation by expanding
forward presence, enhancing warfighting readiness, innovating and
modernizing, and fighting climate change. We also must empower our
people, eliminate harmful behaviors, leverage education as a
warfighting enabler, cultivate talent and teamwork, and take care of
our people. The Department of Navy must strengthen our strategic
partnerships - both within the U.S. Government and externally with our
Allies and partners. We must also modernize business systems to enhance
performance and affordability. If confirmed, I will support actions to
address these enduring priorities.
19. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Raven, how does the Navy's strategic
guidance address China's gray-zone tactics and malign activities in the
Indo-Pacific?
Mr. Raven. The 2020 Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, Advantage at
Sea, acknowledges that the maritime domain is particularly vulnerable
to malign behavior and that unaddressed attempts at incremental gains
from malign activities can accumulate into long-term advantages for our
adversaries. Our rivals are exploiting new avenues to advance their
interests, including weaponizing social media and the law, infiltrating
global supply chains, and using space and cyber as warfighting domains.
This strategy contends that we must compete in these spaces to succeed
in competition, deter escalation to crisis and set conditions for
victory in the event of conflict. If confirmed, I expect to review
efforts under the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy that refute the false
narratives of our rivals and demonstrate the United States' commitment
to protecting the rules-based order.
chinese threat to taiwan
20. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Raven, former commander of U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command, Admiral Philip Davidson, testified that China may try
to invade Taiwan in the late 2020s. The current commander of U.S. Indo-
Pacific Command has also testified that China may seek to invade Taiwan
much sooner than is often anticipated. Other officials have testified
further that they agree with these warnings, including Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Sasha Baker. Do you agree that the
threat of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is something we need to be
worried about in this decade, not just in the 2030s or afterward?
Mr. Raven. I am familiar with Admiral Davidson's testimony and
believe it aligns with Secretary Del Toro's strategic guidance
establishing the Department of the Navy's top priority to develop
concepts of operations and capabilities that bolster deterrence and
expand U.S. warfighting advantages vis-a-vis the People's Republic of
China. The belligerent and unlawful aggression by Russia against the
democratic nation of Ukraine that aggression can occur elsewhere in the
world, when not expected. If confirmed, my obligation will be to ensure
our Fleet and Fleet Marine Forces are organized, trained, equipped, and
employed in support of this priority, and we are able to campaign and
win now and in the future.
critical munitions
21. Senator Blackburn. Mr. Raven, the RAND Corporation and others
have argued that the United States is short on - and needs to quickly
grow its stockpiles of - many of the critical munitions we would need
to defeat a Chinese invasion against Taiwan, including Long-Range Anti-
Ship Missiles. Do you commit, if you are confirmed, to prioritizing
rapid acquisition of these kinds of critical munitions - particularly
Long-Range Anti-Ship Missiles - given how important they are for
deterring China?
Mr. Raven. I believe it is essential that we keep pace or exceed
the capabilities with our most capable competitors. Although I do not
have specific knowledge of the details related to the stockpiles of
critical munitions, I understand that this is a priority for the
Department. If confirmed, I am committed to reviewing in detail the
Department's capabilities in this area and would support prioritizing
these types of weapon systems in order to maintain a competitive edge.
______
[The nomination reference of Mr. Erik K. Raven follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Mr. Erik K. Raven, 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 Mr. Erik K.
Raven 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]
______
[The nomination of Mr. Erik K. Raven was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Reed on April 5, 2022, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2022.]
------
[Prepared questions submitted to Ms. M. Tia Johnson by
Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. Subchapter XII of chapter 47 of title 10, United States
Code, establishes the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed
Forces (USCAAF) and provides for its organization and administration.
What is your understanding of the duties and functions of USCAAF
and its judges?
Answer. As the Supreme Court has observed, ``CAAF is a permanent
`court of record' created by Congress; it stands at the acme of a
firmly entrenched judicial system that exercises broad jurisdiction
with established rules and procedures; and its own decisions are final
(except if we review and reverse them).'' Ortiz v. United States, 1138
S. Ct. 2165, 2100 (2018). Because USCAAF is an Article I court, its
duties and functions are governed by statute. The most relevant
statutes are Articles, 48, 67, 73, and 141 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) (10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 848, 867, 873, and 941).
The Court's most significant duties are to review cases in which a
Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed a death sentence, to review cases
that a Judge Advocate General has certified to the Court, to review
petitions for grant of review, and to review cases in which it chooses
to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction. The Court provides civilian
judicial review in those cases listed above.
Question. What background and experience do you possess that
qualify you to perform these duties?
Answer. My service in the Executive Branch (both in uniform and as
a civilian), as well as in academia has prepared me to perform the
duties of a CAAF judge.
Even before Active Duty, while in law school, I had the privilege
of working for Judge A. Leon Higginbotham of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit on his research team gaining invaluable insight
into the appellate decision-making process.
Most significantly, I spent thirty years on Active Duty as a judge
advocate. In my early years, I amassed significant litigation
experience. During my first and second tours, I served as a prosecutor,
trying cases before courts-martial, as well as in U.S. Magistrate and
District Court. I also have significant civil litigation experience,
having tried dozens of labor-employment cases before multiple federal
entities (the Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Federal Labor Relations Authority, and the U.S.
Army Civilian Appellate Review Agency). Once administrative remedies
were exhausted, these cases were also tried in U.S. District Court.
I also have experience handling complex civil litigation. During my
first tour, I represented the command in the ``school litigation''
case. This involved nationwide challenges to the U.S. Impact Aid
Program and was being litigated in multiple U.S. District Courts. Our
case was ultimately settled after the USG prevailed in a similar
challenge in the 4th Circuit.
Both the criminal prosecutions and civil litigation covered the
full-range of pre-through-post trial practice.
Outside of litigation, I also served as the senior lawyer in
multiple commands. As a Staff Judge Advocate, I was responsible for the
administration of military justice. This includes providing logistical
and other support to all involved in courts-martial (judges, defense,
and trial counsels), as well as performing the statutory requirements
contained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, specifically
providing pre-and-post trial advice to the General Court-Martial
Convening Authority, pursuant to Articles 34 and 60.
Lastly, I have seven years of J.D./LL.M teaching experience, having
been on the faculty of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School
(now TJAGCLS), where I also taught at UVA Law School. I just completed
five years on faculty at Georgetown Univ. Law Center. I have taught
courses in National Security Law, the Law of Armed Conflict, and
Congressional Oversight. My time in academia has honed my research and
writing skills, and because I had prepared to teach Legislation this
semester, it has also deepened my understanding of judicial
philosophies and statutory interpretation.
Question. Cases on the USCAAF docket address a broad range of legal
issues, including constitutional law, criminal law, evidence, criminal
procedure, ethics, administrative law, and national security law.
What background and experience do you have in each of these
domains?
Answer. Throughout my combined legal experiences, I have addressed
complex issues falling within each of these areas. By education and
experience, I am an international/national security law specialist. I
earned a LL.M from the U.S. Army Judge Advocate Generals' School in
Military Law with a specialty in International/Operational Law. I was
subsequently awarded the Skill Identifier of ``3N.'' I then earned an
LL.M in International/National Security Law from the University of VA
School of Law. I have advised on national security issues at the
tactical, operational, and strategic level.
At Georgetown, I previously served as the Director, National
Security Law LL.M Program. My duties included a curriculum review and
reviewing proposed course additions. My own courses fall within the
Constitutional Law and Governance (J.D.) and National Security Law
(LL.M) areas. My scholarship has also been in these areas, particularly
focusing on statutory analysis.
Administrative Law. As a career judge advocate, I started my career
doing administrative law. I focused on labor/employment law, but I also
handled regulatory matters. Administrative Law is a functional area
that one continues to practice, particularly as a senior judge advocate
in leadership positions (see below).
Criminal Procedure/Evidence. I served as a prosecutor twice, trying
criminal cases in both the military and civilian context. In the
military context, this required familiarity with the Rules for Courts-
Martial and the Military Rules of Evidence. In the civilian context,
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of
Evidence.
Ethics. Judge Advocates are expected to be the standard-bearers for
ethics and their integrity should be impeccable. From a practice
perspective, in the military, ethics falls within the functional area
of Administrative Law. Notably, as a Senior Supervisory Judge Advocate
(position as either a Staff Judge Advocate or Senior Legal Advisor to a
command), I was responsible for the professional conduct and fitness of
all military and civilian lawyers, as well as support personnel who
were subject to the professional responsibility disciplinary authority
of The Judge Advocate General pursuant to RCM 109, MCM (this is similar
to, but more expansive to the Supervisory Attorney responsibilities
under Rule 5.1, ABA Rules of Professional Conduct). Also, in these
capacities, I was responsible for administering portions of the Ethics
in Government Act of 1978.
Question. What background and experience do you have in the
application and judicial construction of the Uniform Code of Military
Justice?
Answer. Every aspect of my career has required me to interpret and
apply statutes. Having served as a Trial Counsel twice and a Staff
Judge Advocate multiple times, I have specific experience applying both
the black letter law of the UCMJ, as well as decisions from the
appellate courts. As a National Security Law specialist, I've focused
on the interplay among the coordinate branches of government, which
includes a focus on statutory interpretation.
Question. Do you believe that there are actions you need to take to
enhance your ability to perform the duties of a USCAAF judge?
Answer. As explained above, my combined experiences as a career
judge advocate, and seven years in academia have prepared me well to
serve as a CAAF judge. After I was nominated, I took steps to
concretely prepare myself, which included attending multiple programs
on military justice, and ordering one of the seminal casebooks on the
subject, Eugene Fidell's ``Military Justice: Cases and Materials,''
along with the Teacher's Manual. Further, I attended former Chief Judge
Effron's Georgetown Law course on ``Judicial Review of Military Justice
Proceedings: Current Issues and Constitutional Perspectives.''
Combined, these have updated me on USCAAF jurisprudence and would
prepare me to sit on the court, if confirmed.
If confirmed, I will continue to seek out formal training
opportunities, and work to quickly understand the current rules of the
court. I will continue to take every opportunity to learn from current
and former judges of CAAF.
relationships
Question. What is the role of each of the following officials or
organizations with respect to the military justice system and, if
confirmed, what would your relationship be with each?
The Secretary of Defense
Answer. The Secretary of Defense exercises numerous roles with
respect to the military justice system. For example, section 532 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, Pub. L. No.
117-81 (2021), requires the Secretary of Defense to establish policies
governing the special trial counsel who will prosecute certain
prescribed offenses. Section 539E of that same act requires the
Secretary of Defense to designate the Chair and Vice Chair of the
Military Sentencing Parameters and Criteria Board and gives the
Secretary the discretionary authority to appoint a non-voting member of
that board. Section 547 of the same act requires the Secretary of
Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to
develop a plan to establish a single document management system for use
by each Armed Force to collect and present information on matters
within the military justice system, including information collected and
maintained for purposes of article 140a of the UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sec.
940a. Those and other responsibilities prescribed by the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 are in addition to the
Secretary's already extensive roles in the military justice system.
Those include the Secretary's status as a court-martial convening
authority, the Secretary's responsibility in consultation with the
Secretary of Homeland Security to issue non-binding disposition
guidance, and the Secretary's role in appointing seven of the thirteen
members of the Military Justice Review Panel as well as designating
that panel's chair. The Secretary also has a formally prescribed role
in forwarding a court-martial case with a finally approved death
sentence to the President. See Rule for Courts-Martial 1204(c)(2)(B),
Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2019 ed.) (MCM).
USCAAF is located in the Department of Defense for administrative
purposes only. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 941. While the Secretary of Defense and
the Secretary's subordinates provide administrative support to USCAAF,
the Court is substantively independent of the Secretary and the rest of
the Department of Defense.
Question. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense
Answer. The General Counsel of the Department of Defense is, by
statute and regulation, the chief legal officer of the Department of
Defense. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 140; DOD Directive 5145.01, section 3, General
Counsel of the Department of Defense (GC DOD) (Dec. 2. 2013). The
General Counsel plays an extensive role in the development of
substantive military law through oversight of the Joint Service
Committee on Military Justice, which operates under the cognizance of
the General Counsel. That Committee conducts an annual review of the
military justice system and proposes any appropriate changes to the
UCMJ and MCM. Any such proposals are transmitted to and considered by
the General Counsel. See generally DOD Instruction 5500.17, Role and
Responsibilities of the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice
(JSC) (February 21, 2018). Additionally, the General Counsel plays an
important role in determining when a request should be made to the
Office of the Solicitor General to seek Supreme Court review of a
decision by USCAAF. See generally DOD Instruction 5030.7, Coordination
of Significant Litigation and Other Matters Involving the Department of
Justice (Aug. 22, 1988).
The General Counsel has no direct relationship with USCAAF other
than carrying out the Department of Defense's statutory obligation to
provide administrative support to the Court. USCAAF is substantively
independent of the General Counsel and the rest of the Department of
Defense.
Question. The Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments
and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps
Answer. The Judge Advocates General of the Military Departments, as
well as the Judge Advocate General of the Coast Guard, play a role in
shaping USCAAF's docket. By statute, following review by a Court of
Criminal Appeals, the applicable Judge Advocate General--after
appropriate notification to the other Judge Advocates General and the
Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps--may order a
case sent to USCAAF. Where that occurs, USCAAF must review the record
in the case. See generally 10 U.S.C. Sec. 867(a)(2). The Judge
Advocates General also provide the military appellate counsel who
represent the government and the defense before USCAAF. See generally
10 U.S.C. Sec. 870(a). In some instances, the Judge Advocates General
are responsible for forwarding petitions for new trial to USCAAF. See
generally 10 U.S.C. Sec. 873.
Those authorities represent only a small portion the roles of the
Judge Advocates General and Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of
the Marine Corps in the military justice system. For example, each
Judge Advocate General issues rules of professional conduct governing
trial judges, appellate judges, and counsel in proceedings under the
UCMJ and MCM. Each Judge Advocate General also operates a professional
disciplinary system. The Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge
Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps are statutorily required
to make inspections in the field in supervision of the administration
of military justice. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 806(a). The Judge Advocates
General are responsible for designating military trial and appellate
judges. The Judge Advocates General also themselves serve as appellate
authorities for some court-martial cases under Article 69, UCMJ. The
Judge Advocates General and the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant
of the Marine Corps each make one appointment to the Military Justice
Review Panel. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 946(b)(2)(C).
Question. The Chief Judge of the USCAAF
Answer. By statute, the Chief Judge of USCAAF ``shall have
precedence and preside at any session that he attends.'' 10 U.S.C.
Sec. 143(b). The Chief Judge also fulfills a number of additional
responsibilities, one of the most important of which is taking steps to
fill the USCAAF bench when there is a vacancy or a judge in regular
service has recused himself or herself. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 942. The Chief
Judge also makes a recommendation to the Secretary of Defense
concerning appointment of members of the Military Justice Review Panel.
10 U.S.C. Sec. 946(b)(3)(C). If confirmed, I anticipate having a
collegial relationship with the current Chief Judge and his successors.
In deliberating and voting on cases, like all USCAAF judges, if
confirmed I would exercise independent judgment.
Question. Other judges on the USCAAF
Answer. I am confident that, if confirmed, I would establish
collegial relationship with all of the USCAAF judges. I am familiar
with their jurisprudence and have great respect for their views.
Nevertheless, if confirmed I would exercise independent judgment in
reaching my own conclusions and would not hesitate to respectfully
disagree with my colleagues as necessary.
Question. The military courts of criminal appeals
Answer. USCAAF exercises mandatory appellate jurisdiction over some
cases decided by the Courts of Criminal Appeals and exercises
discretionary appellate jurisdiction over the remainder. Under the
doctrine of vertical stare decisis, USCAAF's precedent is binding on
the Courts of Criminal Appeals.
Question. The Military Justice Review Panel
Answer. USCAAF's Chief Judge makes a non-binding recommendation to
the Secretary of Defense regarding appointments to the Military Justice
Review Panel. If confirmed, I will carefully review any reports issued
by the Military Justice Review Panel.
legal issues
Question. What do you anticipate would be among the most
significant legal issues you could be called upon to address, if
confirmed to be a USCAAF judge?
Answer. USCAAF's docket is comprised of criminal cases, often
involving punitive discharges, terms of confinement and, sometimes,
death sentences. Under Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges, it would be inappropriate for me to identify and comment on
specific issues because they might come before me if I am fortunate
enough to be confirmed. The Code of Conduct's guidance applies to both
``judges and nominees for judicial office.'' Canon 1, Commentary.
Question. In your view, what have been the effects on the military
justice system writ large of the multiple successive changes to the
punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and military
rules of evidence and procedure enacted over the past 10 years?
Answer. I am familiar with the substantial UCMJ amendments that
have been enacted over the past decade, including most significantly
those included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2022 and the Military Justice Act of 2016, as well as the
extensive changes incorporated in the 2019 edition of the MCM. Issues
will certainly come before USCAAF concerning those changes to the UCMJ
and the MCM, as well as further MCM changes to implement the military
justice reforms enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2022. Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges precludes me from commenting on those changes because issues
involving them might come before me if I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed.
Question. What challenges, if any, do you anticipate the military
services and the Department of Defense will encounter in implementing
the changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice enacted in the
Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA?
Answer. I understand that the most significant military justice
reforms enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2022 will apply to offenses that occur after December 27, 2023,
and that Act's sentencing reform will apply in cases in which all
findings of guilty are for offenses that occur after that same date.
Questions concerning implementation of those provisions are certain to
arise before USCAAF. Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges precludes me from commenting on such implementation challenges
because issues involving them might come before me if I am fortunate
enough to be confirmed.
Question. What are the legal risks that could arise if the military
services and the Department of Defense are not given adequate time to
implement the changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice enacted
in the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA?
Answer. For the same reason as those noted in my response to
question 15, Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges
precludes me from commenting on the effect of the time period over
which the recently enacted military justice reforms will be implemented
because issues involving them might come before me if I am fortunate
enough to be confirmed.
Question. Certain USCAAF decisions are subject to direct review by
the Supreme Court of the United States. Other cases under the Uniform
Code of Military Justice may obtain collateral review by the Supreme
Court.
In your view, should servicemember access to Supreme Court review
be expanded?
Answer. The scope of the Supreme Court's statutory certiorari
jurisdiction is a policy matter committed to Congress and the President
in their respective constitutionally prescribed roles in the lawmaking
process. I am aware that, currently, USCAAF plays a large role in
determining which military justice cases will become eligible for
Supreme Court review through its exercise of discretionary
jurisdiction; cases over which USCAAF declines to exercise
discretionary jurisdiction are not eligible for Supreme Court review.
See Article 67, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 867a; 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1259.
Because the scope of servicemembers' access to the Supreme Court is, in
part, a function of USCAAF's exercise of its judicial discretion, it
would be inappropriate for me to comment on that matter.
Question. The scope of review by military service courts of
criminal appeals differs significantly from the review accorded by
civilian federal appellate courts. Article 66 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice provides that the military service courts of criminal
appeals may ``affirm only such findings of guilty, and the sentence or
such part or amount of the sentence, as the court finds correct in law
and fact and determines, on the basis of the entire record, should be
approved. In considering the record, the court may weigh the evidence,
judge the credibility of witnesses, and determine controverted
questions of fact, recognizing that the trial court saw and heard the
witnesses.''
In your view, what is the value, if any, in retaining in the
service courts of criminal appeals the requirement to conduct such a
``factual sufficiency'' review?
Answer. Congress amended the factual sufficiency standard quoted
above in section 542(b) of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. No. 116-283
(2021). That amendment applies with respect to cases in which every
finding of guilty entered in the entry of judgment is for an offense
occurring on or after January 1, 2021. Because issues involving that
amended scope will likely come before USCAAF, it would be inappropriate
for me to comment on it.
jurisdiction of the uscaaf
19Question. . In your view, has the USCAAF fulfilled the
expectations that led Congress to establish the Court in 1951?
Answer. Congress intended what it originally named the Court of
Military Appeals to enhance the legitimacy of the military justice
system in the wake of World War II, when the operation of the military
justice system was widely viewed as problematic. See, e.g., H.R. Rep.
No. 81-491, at 6 (1949). Congress considered it particularly
significant that it was creating a court consisting of civilian judges
atop the court-martial and board of review structure. The Supreme
Court's 2018 decision in Ortiz v. United States, 138 U.S. 2165 (2018),
suggests that Congress's goal for the Court of Military Appeals (now
USCAAF) has been fulfilled. In Ortiz, the Supreme Court emphasized that
the essential character of the court-martial system is judicial and
that the system operates much like state judicial systems. That is a
markedly different conception of the military justice system than
existed upon the enactment in 1950 of the legislation creating the
Court of Military Appeals.
Question. In your view, should the role, responsibilities, or
jurisdiction of the USCAAF be changed or clarified in any way?
Answer. Because USCAAF is an Article I court, its role,
responsibilities, and jurisdiction are governed by statute. Revision of
the existing statutory framework is a matter left to Congress and the
President in the exercise of their respective constitutionally
prescribed roles in the statutory enactment process.
decisions of the uscaaf
Question. Please describe three decisions rendered by the USCAAF in
the past 10 years that, in your view, have been among most significant.
Answer. One of the most significant USCAAF decision from the last
decade was LRM v. Kastenberg, 72 M.J. 364 (C.A.A.F. 2013). That
decision helped to establish the legal parameters of Special Victims'
Counsels' representation of their clients during court-martial
proceedings. It thereby influenced the subsequent development of the
military services' Special Victims' Counsel/Victims' Legal Counsel
programs.
Another significant USCAAF decision was last term's ruling in
United States v. Begani, 81 M.J. 273 (C.A.A.F.), cert. denied, 142 S.
Ct. 711 (2021). Begani was a major constitutional ruling upholding the
susceptibility of members of the Fleet Reserve (essentially a retired
status for enlisted members of the U.S. Navy with 20 or more but less
than 30 years of Active Duty service) to court-martial jurisdiction. A
similar issue is currently pending before the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Larrabee v. Del
Toro, 19-00654.
United States v. Briggs, 78 M.J. 289 (C.A.A.F. 2019), rev'd, 141 S.
Ct. 467 (2020), is a third significant case. Briggs concerned the
statute of limitations governing rape cases during a certain period.
Briggs followed USCAAF's earlier ruling in United States v. Mangahas,
77 M.J. 220 (C.A.A.F. 2018), in narrowly construing the statute of
limitations, thereby reversing Lieutenant Colonel Briggs' rape
conviction. Upon petition by the Solicitor General, the Supreme Court
granted review and reversed USCAAF's ruling. The legal question in that
case is not only important in its own right--a point that the Supreme
Court itself emphasized, (141 S. Ct. at 469), but also serves as an
important reminder that USCAAF decisions are subject to further review
at the highest level of the United States' judicial system.
Question. What is your view of the principle of stare decisis in
terms of prior decisions of the USCAAF?
Answer. The USCAAF applies the principle of horizontal stare
decisis similarly to other federal appellate courts. Horizontal stare
decisis is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as: ``The doctrine that a
court, esp. an appellate court, must adhere to its own prior decisions,
unless it finds compelling reasons to overrule itself.'' (There is an
additional component of the horizontal stare decisis doctrine in the
Article III federal courts of appeals distinguishing between en banc
decisions and panel decisions; that portion of the doctrine is
inapplicable to USCAAF, which always sits en banc.) Under USCAAF's case
law, adherence to precedent is preferred to promote the evenhanded,
predictable, and consistent development of the law. See, e.g., United
States v. Andrews, 77 M.J. 393, 399 (C.A.A.F. 2018). A party asking the
USCAAF to overturn precedent must present a ``special justification''
for precedent to be overturned. United States v. Blanks, 77 M.J. 239,
242 (C.A.A.F. 2018). But applying stare decisis ``is not an inexorable
command.'' Id. The USCAAF has identified the following factors to be
considered when deciding whether to overturn its own case law: (1)
whether the prior decision is unworkable or poorly reasoned; (2) any
intervening events; (3) the reasonable expectations of servicemembers;
and (4) the risk of undermining public confidence in the law. Id.
Question. What is your view of the hierarchy of sources of law that
must be applied by the USCAAF in addressing rules of evidence and
procedure in the administration of the military justice system, given
the prescription of article 36 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
Answer. The same hierarchy of authority that generally applies
throughout the federal civilian legal system also applies in the
military justice system. The Constitution is atop the system and is the
primary source of authority. Below the Constitution are statutes and
treaties. Whether statutes and treaties are on the same rung of the
hierarchy or whether statutes are above treaties is the subject of
disagreement. See, e.g., Vasan Kesavan, The Three Tiers of Federal Law,
100 NW. U.L. REV. 1479 (2006); Igartua v. Trump, 868 F.3d 24, 25 (1st
Cir. 2017) (Torruella, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en
banc). Below statutes and treaties are presidentially prescribed
regulations, such as the Rules for Courts-Martial and the Military
Rules of Evidence. Below such presidentially prescribed regulations are
regulations issued by relevant Cabinet-level officials, such as the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Below
those are regulations prescribed by subordinates of those officials,
including the Secretaries of the Military Departments. Regulations
prescribed by lower-level subordinates assume the same role in the
legal hierarchy that their proponents assume in the chain-of-command.
Question. In your view, what is the appropriate standard for
determining when the USCAAF should apply a Rule for Courts-Martial or
Military Rule of Evidence that is different from the rule generally
applied in the trial of criminal cases in Federal district courts?
Answer. Without regard to any case that may come before the USCAAF
if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, a Rule for Courts-Martial or
Military Rule of Evidence prescribed by the President is applicable
unless inconsistent with a superior source of authority--the
Constitution, a statute, or a treaty. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the
Supreme Court assumed that ``complete deference is owed'' to the
President's determination of whether it is practicable to adhere to a
particular procedural or evidentiary rule that applies in federal
civilian trials. 548 U.S. 557, 623 (2006).
military justice system
Question. In your view, what are the major strengths and weaknesses
of the military justice system?
Answer. One of the major strengths of the military justice system
is its provision of counsel to those involved in the system. For
example, the military justice system makes counsel available free of
charge and regardless of indigence to every accused at a special or
general court-martial, as well as before the military justice system's
appellate courts. Counsel are also provided to many victims of alleged
offenses under the military services' Special Victims' Counsel/Victims'
Legal Counsel programs. From my experience in the system, I know that
the uniformed personnel in the military justice system are
overwhelmingly highly motivated attorneys who are committed to
executing their roles in the system to the best of their abilities.
Historically, one of the weaknesses in the system has been the
relatively brief period of time most of those highly motivated
attorneys have served in particular military justice billets. I am
aware that Congress took steps in the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2022 to address that concern. Another historic
weakness of the military justice system has been the perception by some
that the system is vulnerable to being ``stacked'' to promote a desired
outcome. Again, reforms to the system enacted by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 may help to address that
perceived weakness.
Question. In your opinion, does the military justice system afford
a fair and just system for military personnel accused of violations of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
Answer. Both individual and systemic challenges to the fairness and
justness of the court-martial system to military personnel accused of
UCMJ offenses are currently under litigation at both the trial and
appellate levels. It would, therefore, be inappropriate for me to
express an opinion concerning those matters.
Question. In your view, does the military justice system
appropriately address the rights of victims of offenses prosecuted in
courts-martial?
Answer. I am aware that the military justice system has made great
strides in protecting victims' rights over the past decade,
particularly with the enactment of Article 6b, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. Sec.
806b--the military's victims' rights statute--and the development of
the military services' Special Victims' Counsel/Victims' Legal Counsel
programs. I am also aware that section 541 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 further expanded victims' rights
in the system. Whether additional protections should be provided is a
matter committed to Congress and the President in their respective
roles in the establishment of the military justice system's framework.
Question. What is your view of the relationship between the rights
of servicemembers and the disciplinary role of commanders?
Answer. Commanders are responsible for maintaining good order and
discipline in their units. They have many tools at their disposal. But
once a case enters the special or general court-martial realm, the
essence of the case is, as the Supreme Court has emphasized,
``judicial.'' United States v. Ortiz, 138 S. Ct. 2165, 2174 (2018).
Courts-martial operate ``as instruments of military justice.'' Id. at
2175. As the ``Powell Report'' noted in 1960:
Once a case is before a court-martial, it should be realized by
all concerned that the sole concern is to accomplish justice
under the law. This does not mean as determined by the
commander referring a case or by anyone not duly constituted to
fulfill a judicial role. It is not proper to say that a
military court-martial has a dual function as an instrument of
discipline and as an instrument of justice. It is an instrument
of justice and in fulfilling this function it will promote
discipline.
Committee on the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Good Order and
Discipline in the Army, Report to Honorable Wilber M. Brucker 12 (18
January 1960).
Question. What is your view of the role of the Combatant Commander
in the administration of military justice, particularly with regard to
offenses that occur in the context of a military deployment or
contingency operation?
Answer. I understand that Combatant Commanders typically have
court-martial convening authority comparable to that of other
commanders of comparable grades. I also understand that Combatant
Commanders often allow their subordinate service component commanders
to exercise military justice authority over members of their respective
military services. Such matters are committed to the discretion of
Combatant Commanders.
Question. Recent reports by the Government Accountability Office
and by private organizations have raised significant questions about
racial disparity in the military justice system.
What are your views on racial disparity in State and Federal
criminal justice systems, other than the military justice system?
Answer. I am deeply concerned by reports of racial disparity in the
State, Federal, and military justice systems. Though the law is almost
always facially neutral, disparities can appear in the application of
the law, disadvantaging some groups and denying them constitutional
rights. Racial disparities in any criminal justice system should be
studied carefully to identify their causes and address them.
Question. What are your views on racial disparity in the military
justice system?
I am deeply concerned by reports of racial disparity in the State,
Federal, and military justice systems. Though the law is almost always
facially neutral, disparities can appear in the application of the law,
disadvantaging some groups and denying them constitutional rights. As
in any other criminal justice system, racial disparities in the
military justice system should be carefully studied to identify their
causes and address them.
What role do you believe the USCAAF will have in addressing racial
disparity in the military justice system?
Answer. USCAAF does not have a role in addressing racial disparity
per se. On the other hand, USCAAF does have a role in addressing racial
discrimination. As the Court has stated, ``Racial discrimination is
anathema to the military justice system. It ought not - and it will not
- be tolerated in any form.'' United States v. Witham, 47 M.J. 297, 303
(C.A.A.F. 2007) (quoting United States v. Greene, 36 M.J. 274, 282
(C.M.A. 1993) (Wiss, J., concurring)).
Question. In your view, are there other changes to the military
justice system called for in light of changes in U.S. criminal
jurisprudence?
Answer. I understand that litigants in cases before the USCAAF
often make arguments that a jurisprudential development in the Article
III courts should be applied to the military justice system and that
numerous such arguments are currently pending before military trial-
level and appellate courts. Therefore, under Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code
of Conduct for Federal Judges, it would be inappropriate for me to
discuss particular issues in U.S. criminal jurisprudence, as such
issues might come before me if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed.
capital cases in the armed forces
Question. The ability of the military justice system to provide the
qualified personnel and resources necessary to capably defend and
prosecute death penalty cases and meet the constitutional requirements
associated with such cases has come under scrutiny.
What is your understanding of the constitutional requirements for
the defense of a capital case?
Answer. The Supreme Court has held that the Sixth Amendment
guarantees defendants in criminal cases a right to ``effective
assistance of counsel.'' Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686
(1984). Counsel is constitutionally ineffective if ``counsel's conduct
so undermine[s] the proper functioning of the adversarial process that
[a] trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.'' Id.
The Supreme Court has said that the ``same principle applies to a
capital sentencing proceeding.'' Id. USCAAF has applied that standard
in its own capital jurisprudence. E.g., United States v. Murphy, 50
M.J. 4, 8 (C.A.A.F. 1998).
Question. Based on your review of military jurisprudence regarding
death penalty cases since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Furman v.
Georgia, what are the issues or errors that have most frequently
resulted in the reversal or commutation of military death sentences on
appeal?
Answer. I understand that after Furman v. Georgia was decided,
seven military death sentences were set aside on appeal based on a
determination that the military death penalty system under which those
sentences were imposed was not compliant with Furman. See generally
United States v. Matthews, 16 M.J. 354 (C.M.A. 1983). I also understand
that since the current military death system was promulgated in 1984,
ten military death sentences have been reversed on appeal (Walker,
Kreutzer, Murphy, Thomas, Dock, Curtis, Simoy, Quintanilla, Parker, and
Witt) and one has been presidentially commuted (Loving). In four of the
ten cases that were reversed on appeal, the reversal was based in whole
or in part on ineffective assistance of counsel (Kreutzer, Murphy,
Curtis, and Witt). Two were reversed due to the military judge's
erroneous instruction on how the court-martial members were to vote
during their sentencing deliberations (Thomas and Simoy).
Question. What do you consider to be the essential elements in
preparing court-martial practitioners to perform the prosecution and
defense functions in capital cases?
Answer. Experience and specialized training are necessary to
prepare military justice practitioners for any form of complex
litigation. That is especially true in a capital context.
command influence
Question. The problem of command influence, including instances
involving judge advocates as well as commanders, is a constant threat
to the military justice system.
What is your view as to the role, if any, of the USCAAF in
addressing this problem?
Answer. Article 37 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
prohibits unlawful command influence. 10 U.S.C. Sec. 837. Rule for
Courts-Martial 103 provides additional guidance concerning unlawful
command influence. The Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause is another
source of legal authority that must be applied in an unlawful command
influence context. It is the role of a USCAAF judge to faithfully and
objectively apply those sources of law.
objectivity
Question. Is there any reason that you might not be able to remain
objective in your role as a USCAAF judge, if confirmed?
Answer. A judge must always be vigilant to guard against allowing
anything to impinge on the judge's objectivity or appearance of
objectivity. Where that is not possible, it is appropriate for the
judge to recuse himself or herself from a particular case. I am aware
of no current challenge to my objectivity. Judges on USCAAF do
periodically recuse themselves from specific cases for reasons specific
to those cases. If I were confirmed, I would carefully assess on a
case-by-case basis whether there is any reason why it would not be
appropriate for me to sit on an individual case. For example, in a case
raising categorical issues about military retirees, it may be
appropriate for me, as an active component retiree, to recuse myself if
I were fortunate enough to be confirmed.
______
[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
military justice reform
1. Senator Shaheen. Ms. Johnson, military justice has traditionally
been executed through a commanding officer's authority and discretion
to discipline subordinates. In your opinion, is it necessary to reform
the system to establish a fixed set of rules to pursue judicial
standards and even-handed justice across the Navy?
Ms. Johnson. Differences in various Military Services'
implementation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice potentially
implicate legal issues that could come before the United States Court
of Appeals for the Armed Forces. If my nomination were to be confirmed,
I could be called to resolve cases involving such legal issues.
Therefore, under Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for Federal
Judges, it would be inappropriate for me to address the issue. The Code
of Conduct's guidance applies to both ``judges and nominees for
judicial office.'' Canon 1, Commentary.
extremism in the military
2. Senator Shaheen. Ms. Johnson, under the new DOD policy,
``liking'' extremist content could result in military punishment. The
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) has been criticized as being
too vague in its prohibition of extremist activities. Do you believe
there should be changes to the UCMJ to clarify the definition of
extremist activities?
Ms. Johnson. Application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to
alleged extremist activities implicates legal issues that could come
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. If my
nomination were to be confirmed, I could be called to resolve cases
involving such legal issues. Therefore, under Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code
of Conduct for Federal Judges, it would be inappropriate for me to
address the issue.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
question on nominees' fitness to serve
3. Senator Hirono. Ms. Johnson, since you became a legal adult,
have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed
any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Ms. Johnson. No
4. Senator Hirono. Ms. Johnson, have you ever faced discipline, or
entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Ms. Johnson. No
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
court case backlog
5. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, what is the current U.S. Armed
Forces Court of Appeals court case backlog?
Ms. Johnson. I am aware that the Court issues an annual statistical
summary at the end of each of its Court Terms. The most recent was
issued at the end of the October 2020 Term, which concluded on
September 30, 2021. On that date, 24 cases were pending on the Court's
master docket (cases which the Court is in the process of reviewing
substantively). Seven of those cases remained in the briefing stage, 12
were awaiting oral argument, and five were pending decision. Another 49
cases were pending on the Court's petition docket (cases in which the
Court is deciding whether to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction).
Of those, 12 were in the briefing stage, 30 were undergoing staff
review, and seven were pending final action. Finally, one case was
pending on the Court's miscellaneous docket (which consists primarily
of cases in which the Court is asked to grant extraordinary relief).
6. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, what is your proposal to ensure
that the current case backlog is adequately decreased?
Ms. Johnson. The timely disposition of cases is an essential
attribute of any criminal justice system. If confirmed, I would work
with my colleagues to ensure that cases that come before the Court are
resolved in a timely manner.
7. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, if confirmed, how do you plan to
ensure that the current case backlog does not rise to an unmanageable
number?
Ms. Johnson. If confirmed, I would work with my colleagues to
ensure that cases that come before the Court are resolved in a timely
manner.
trump-russia investigation
8. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, has your assessment of the
former Administration's involvement with Russia changed since you
participated in the Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law
panel entitled ``Unpacking the Trump-Russia Investigations''?
Ms. Johnson. My understanding of the former Administration's
involvement with Russia has been impacted by investigative reports
issued and indictments filed since the October 17, 2017 Georgetown
Center on National Security and the Law panel, which I moderated.
9. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, why did you choose to parallel
the Trump-Russia Investigations to another Saturday Night Massacre?
Ms. Johnson. Per the transcript, \1\ the reference to the
``Saturday Night Massacre'' was first made by a panelist. As Moderator,
seeking to understand the panelist's descriptions of the origin of the
Special Counsel statutes and their relationship to Trump-era
investigations, I followed up. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Transcript, Unpacking the Trump-Russia Investigation, October
17, 2017
\2\ 28 USC Sec. 595
10. Senator Blackburn. Ms. Johnson, can you speak more to the
comments you made surrounding House Oversight Committee members doing
an incredible job during the investigation into the former
Administration?
Ms. Johnson. Per the transcript, I complimented then-Ranking Member
of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Elijah Cummings
on doing an ``incredible job'' based on his use of all available
oversight tools to obtain information from the Administration on issues
like security clearances and financial disclosure forms.
______
[The nomination reference of Ms. M. Tia Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Ms. M. Tia Johnson, 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. M. Tia
Johnson 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. M. Tia Johnson was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Reed on April 5, 2022, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on December 15, 2022.]
______
[Prepared questions submitted to Dr. Marvin L. Adams by
Chairman Reed prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
duties and qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you possess that
qualify you to perform the duties of the Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA)?
Answer. I have been engaged in the U.S. nuclear weapons program
since starting my career at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
(LLNL) in 1986. Since I became a nuclear-engineering professor at Texas
A&M University in 1992, I have encountered diverse opportunities to
serve U.S. national security, and I have learned from each activity. As
a member of the JASON Advisory Group for the last 15 years, I
participated in more than 20 in-depth studies of nuclear-weapons
activities, issues, and concerns, including studies sponsored by the
Department of Defense (DOD) as well as NNSA, serving as study leader
for most of them. As an individual ``outside'' expert, I have performed
in-depth reviews for NNSA of several major stockpile-stewardship
efforts executed by NNSA's three national-security laboratories. I have
served on numerous review and advisory bodies related to weapons work
at those laboratories, and on several National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine studies related to nuclear weapons.
During the past 4 decades, most of my technical effort has focused
on improving the fidelity of computational results and combining
computational, experimental, and theoretical results to predict the
behavior of complex systems, with quantified uncertainties. This is a
cornerstone capability of stockpile stewardship. As a member of the
Predictive Science Panel since 2004, including three years as Chair, I
have helped scientists and engineers at the Lawrence Livermore and Los
Alamos National Laboratories address difficult stewardship challenges.
I have played a similar role for Sandia National Laboratories through
participation in their Predictive Engineering Sciences Panel and the
External Review Panel for their hostile-environment simulation project.
Many students whose research I directed have become employees of the
NNSA laboratories, and most of them work in support of the nuclear
weapons stockpile.
In recent years, I have chaired the Mission Committee at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, whose purview includes plutonium pit
production in addition to other weapons activities. This role has
deepened my knowledge of NNSA's weapons design and assessment efforts,
warhead delivery schedules and mandates, and the production enterprise.
I have learned a great deal about topics ranging from the management of
large capital projects to supply-chain issues to the detailed science
and engineering challenges of producing specialized components (such as
plutonium pits) while meeting stringent requirements for quality,
safety, and security.
I have viewed NNSA from the DOD perspective, for example as a
member of the STRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group's Stockpile Assessment
Team.
These and other activities have led me to appreciate the importance
of delivering on all elements of Defense Programs--science, weapons,
and infrastructure. I understand the broad portfolio of activities and
technologies needed to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability,
and effectiveness of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. I understand
what it takes to steward the unique capabilities that Defense Programs
must employ to design, assess, transport, surveil, dismantle, and
produce nuclear warheads, meeting military requirements now and into
the future.
Question. Do you believe that there are any steps that you need to
take to enhance your expertise to perform the duties of the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs?
Answer. While I believe I have the expertise to perform the duties
of the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs, I also believe I have
a responsibility to continuously improve. I have sought and received
counsel from current and former leaders in the nuclear weapons
enterprise regarding all aspects of Defense Programs, and I will
continue this, if confirmed.
major challenges and priorities
Question. What are the major challenges confronting the next Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs of NNSA?
Answer. An immediate challenge is to execute current programs
within planned costs and schedules. This includes producing the B61-12
and W88 Alt 370 warheads; making timely progress on the W80-4, W87-1,
and W93/Mk7 programs; and executing numerous infrastructure projects,
including those that will enable pit production at the two chosen
sites. A long-standing challenge is to improve responsiveness, an
example of which would be to reduce the time required to execute major
warhead programs.
Question. If confirmed, how would you address these challenges?
Answer. Regarding execution of a challenging workload, if
confirmed: I will partner with the NNSA Associate Principal Deputy
Administrator in his efforts to improve productivity across the
enterprise (for example, by simplifying processes that consume
workforce time). I will learn what the NNSA labs, plants, and sites are
doing to address their workforce issues, monitor their progress, and
partner with them to devise and implement innovative workforce
initiatives to address any gaps between progress and needs.
Regarding pit production, if confirmed, I will gain a detailed
understanding of the critical path producing at least 80 pits per year,
work with experts to develop options for reducing timelines, and pursue
options that show promise. Recognizing that schedule uncertainties are
inevitable, I will partner with the DOD to devise plans that can
accommodate schedule variations within likely bounds. (The related
topic of pit lifetime is addressed below.)
Regarding responsiveness (a goal that has been stated for many
years but has remained elusive), if confirmed, I will begin by
understanding what has been and is being done to reduce costs and
timelines (including in the Stockpile Responsiveness Program). I will
seek root causes of previous cost and schedule overruns with the goal
of helping current and future programs avoid such overruns.
Question. If confirmed, what would be your main priorities for the
Office of Defense Programs?
Answer. If confirmed, my top priorities will be to maintain the
safety, security, and effectiveness of the warheads deployed in today's
stockpile and to deliver on commitments for stockpile modernization.
The latter requires development and deployment of a more agile
infrastructure, including plutonium pit manufacturing capabilities, and
construction of essential infrastructure for secondaries, non-nuclear
components, and more. While focusing on these priorities, I will also
work to develop and nurture the capabilities that will be needed for
the challenges our nuclear weapons enterprise will face in the future.
relations with congress
Question. What are your views on the state of the relationship
between the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs and the Senate
Armed Services Committee, in particular, and with Congress, in general?
Answer. I understand that the Office of Defense Programs has a
strong relationship with the Committee and Congress, in general. If
confirmed, I will continue to build upon this relationship.
If confirmed, what actions would you take to sustain a productive
and mutually beneficial relationship between Congress and the Deputy
Administrator for Defense Programs?
I believe that maintaining open lines of communication with
Congress is integral to maintaining a productive and mutually
beneficial relationship. If confirmed, I will be proactive in sharing
timely updates, responsive to requests for information, and will seek
feedback from Congress on Defense Programs' efforts.
nuclear posture review implementation
Question. The Department of Defense is expected to release its
fiscal year 2023 budget request concurrently with an updated National
Defense Strategy. A key element of this strategy will be a Nuclear
Posture Review (NPR), for which the NNSA will be responsible for
fulfilling the stockpile requirements set forth by the Department of
Defense.
If confirmed, will you work with the Department of Defense to
implement all of the recommendations of the NPR to the best of the
ability of NNSA and inform Congress in a timely fashion of any
shortfalls that you anticipate in meeting these requirements?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that NNSA works with DOD to
implement NPR recommendations to the best of NNSA's ability, and I will
keep Congress informed in a timely manner of any issues.
relationship with the department of defense
Question. If confirmed, you will support the Administrator of NNSA
as a member of the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) and serve as co-chair
of the NWC Standing and Safety Committee. The Council establishes NNSA
goals and ensures NNSA activities are aligned with DOD military
requirements for nuclear forces, which form the basis of the core
mission of NNSA. Given the breadth of the nuclear modernization effort
currently being undertaken, the Department of Defense is, in a sense,
NNSA's primary customer.
How would you assess the relationship between NNSA and the
Department of Defense at senior levels?
Answer. It is my understanding that NNSA and DOD have a strong
relationship and remain in close coordination for all modernization
efforts. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we retain this strong
relationship.
Specifically, how would you assess the relationship between the
office you have been nominated to lead and the office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Programs,
the closest equivalent in the Department of Defense?
It is my understanding that the Office of Defense Programs has a
strong working relationship with the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs. If
confirmed, I will make every effort to keep this relationship strong
and keep the two offices closely coordinated.
Question. Do you believe that NNSA is adequately responsive to the
requirements set by the Department of Defense?
Answer. Yes, to the best of my knowledge, I believe NNSA is
adequately responsive. If confirmed, I will work to support continued
responsiveness to DOD requirements.
As a result of concern about the relationship between the NNSA and
the Department of Defense in meeting stockpile requirements, section
1632(b) of the Fiscal Year 2021 National Defense Authorization Act set
a detailed schedule of interactions between the NNSA and the NWC to
ensure the NNSA weapons budget meets DOD requirements.
Question. If confirmed, will you execute to the best of your
ability the requirements of section 1632(b)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will execute these requirements to the best
of my ability.
defense programs
Question. The Stockpile Stewardship Program has supported the
annual nuclear weapons certification effort for approximately the last
20 years.
In your view, do you believe that we currently have the
capabilities to ensure that the stockpile is safe, secure, and
effective without nuclear weapons testing?
Answer. Yes, I am confident we can continue to maintain a safe,
secure, and effective U.S. nuclear stockpile without additional
explosive nuclear weapons testing. For over 20 years, the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship Program has given the Directors of the National
Security Laboratories and the Commander of U.S. Strategic Command the
confidence to state this in writing every year. Continued investments
in stockpile stewardship capabilities will be critical to maintaining
this confidence into the future.
Question. The NWC has laid out a schedule for approximately the
next 20 years that includes the completion of four life extension
programs (LEPs), a new Navy warhead, as well as multiple refurbishment
programs, and the maintenance of the existing stockpile. The 2018 NPR
directed NNSA to develop a ``roadmap that sizes production capacity to
modernization and hedging requirements,'' to at least partially help
manage this list of programs.
In your view, do you have any concerns with this schedule?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the schedule and work to
mitigate any concerns to meet DOD requirements.
Question. If confirmed, do you commit to an ongoing and open
dialogue with Congress on the progress and content of the roadmap
directed by the 2018 NPR, as well as any changes that may result from
the 2022 NPR?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The 2018 NPR also noted the need for increased
flexibility, including measures to ``reduce the time required to
design, develop, and initially produce a warhead, from a decision to
enter full-scale development.''
If confirmed, what measures would you recommend in order to reduce
this timeline, both for currently planned life extension programs and
for future programs?
Successful execution and delivery of such programs will rely on a
strong foundation that includes workforce, infrastructure, and
scientific capabilities. If confirmed, I will work closely with the
subject matter experts at NNSA and the labs, plants, and sites to
develop clear and attainable recommendations to reduce this timeline
where possible. Support from Congress, and timely, stable, and
predictable funding are critical to the success of these efforts.
Question. Congress authorized the Stockpile Responsiveness Program
(SRP) in section 3112 of the Fiscal Year 2016 NDAA. The purpose of the
program is to exercise design and engineering skills in support of the
nuclear weapons mission. On August 31, 2021, the Defense Program
Advisory Committee (DPAC), released a report entitled ``Independent
Report on Stockpile Responsiveness Program''.
Have you reviewed section 3112 of the 2016 NDAA, and if so, do you
agree with the five objectives of the SRP outlined in section 3112?
Answer. Yes, I have reviewed Section 3112 of the 2016 NDAA and
agree with the objectives established in law for the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program.
Question. Have you reviewed DPAC report, and if so, do you agree
with the report's findings?
Answer. I have reviewed the DPAC report and, if confirmed, I will
review the Stockpile Responsiveness Program and form opinions about the
findings of the DPAC report once my review is complete.
Question. Do you agree with the report's cover letter, and in
particular the statement that ``more emphasis is needed on back-end
activities of warhead production, engineering and manufacture''?
Answer. I have read the cover letter and, if confirmed, I will
review the Stockpile Responsiveness Program and form opinions about the
cover letter once my review is complete.
Question. If confirmed, would you support the Stockpile
Responsiveness Program and make full use of the authorities it provides
NNSA?
Answer. Yes.
stockpile modernization
Question. The National Nuclear Security Administration and the
Department of Defense are currently undertaking the most expansive
recapitalization of U.S. nuclear forces and supporting infrastructure
in forty years in order to ensure the continued viability of the
Nation's nuclear deterrent.
Do you support full funding and timely execution of all aspects of
the ongoing nuclear modernization plan and, if confirmed, will you
advocate for such efforts to continue?
Answer. Yes, and, if confirmed, yes.
Question. Please explain your views and the programmatic risks with
the following stockpile programs in meeting DOD requirements and
timelines.
B61-12
B83
W87-1
W80-4
W88
W93
Answer. As with any program of this size, there are always
technical and funding risks. If confirmed, I will work with the subject
matter experts involved to identify and mitigate these risks to the
extent possible. Support from Congress, and timely, stable, and
predictable funding are critical to the success of these programs.
advanced computing
Question. Since the Manhattan project, the Department of Energy
(DOE) and the NNSA have been world leaders in advanced computing.
Section 3172 of the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA required the NNSA to enter
into an agreement with the National Academies of Science on the future
of computing beyond exascale. Section 3138 of the Fiscal Year 2022 NDAA
requires the NNSA to submit a ten year roadmap on advanced computing.
Have you reviewed sections 3172 and 3138?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is your assessment of advanced computing beyond
exascale relevant to NNSA stockpile needs?
Answer. Advanced computing is a key element of stockpile
stewardship. It enables innovative solutions to complex problems across
the field of nuclear security. I am supportive of the agreement with
the National Academies of Science. If confirmed, I look forward to
reviewing their findings to help inform the best path forward for NNSA
in utilizing advanced computing for stockpile needs.
materials under extreme conditions
Question. The understanding of materials at extreme conditions is
essential to the understanding of weapon performance. Specifically,
there are several efforts related to plutonium that are underway to
understand its behavior under extreme pressures and temperatures as
well as understanding the aging mechanisms of plutonium and its
behavior under static and dynamic conditions.
What are your views of the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical
Experiments and the U1a complex enhancement project, 17-D-640? If
confirmed, what results do you expect it to provide for stockpile
performance?
Answer. I believe the Enhanced Capabilities for Subcritical
Experiments is a priority for stockpile stewardship. This new set of
capabilities, enabled by the U1a complex enhancement project, will
enable scientists and engineers to address important stockpile
questions that cannot be addressed today.
Question. The NNSA has developed a long-term multi-laboratory
roadmap on plutonium aging.
If confirmed, will you review this roadmap?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure it delivers a meaningful
understanding of plutonium aging both under static and dynamic
conditions for stockpile assessments and modernization?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will personally engage on this roadmap
and press our subject matter experts to ensure that it delivers the
most useful understanding of plutonium (and pit) aging, under static
and dynamic conditions, to inform stockpile assessments and
modernization.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to periodically inform
Congress on its progress?
Answer. Yes.
inertial confinement fusion
Question. Section 3137 of the Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA requires the
NNSA to enter into an arrangement to assess the future of High Energy
Density Physics program and assess the current and future directions of
this program.
Have you reviewed this section?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you and the National Academies brief
the congressional defense committees on its findings?
Answer. Yes.
strategic grade radiation hardened electronics
Question. The NNSA is a leader in the production of high-
performance strategic grade radiation hardened electronics.
Please describe the current status of facilities to produce
hardened electronics and plans for future upgrades to these facilities.
Answer. In my current role, I am not privy to the status of these
facilities. If confirmed, I will review and assess the state of these
facilities.
defense programs budget
Question. The 2018 NPR noted the presence of ``significant
infrastructure funding shortfalls [at NNSA] over the next five years''
that will need to be addressed in order to meet the needs of the
nuclear enterprise. The fiscal year 2021 enacted budget was 18 percent
higher than the fiscal year 2020 budget to help address this shortfall,
principally in facilities and production modernization. The fiscal year
2022 request was essentially flat and decreased funding for
infrastructure and stockpile research, technology and engineering in
order to maintain production modernization and stockpile management.
If confirmed, will you commit to advocating for sufficient funding
to address the infrastructure sustainment and modernization needs of
the Nuclear Security Enterprise?
Answer. If confirmed, I will advocate for meeting the most pressing
needs of the nuclear deterrent, including infrastructure sustainment
and modernization.
Question. Section 179(f)(1) of title 10, United States Code (USC),
requires an annual certification to the Senate Armed Services Committee
by the NWC for the budget submission for the NNSA. The certification
letter for the fiscal year 2022 budget is dated July 23, 2021. Pursuant
to section 179(f)(5), a separate letter was sent to the Armed Services
Committee on August 9, 2021 by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Staff
describing the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command's separate views
on the adequacy of the budget request, which were attached.
Have you reviewed the fiscal year 2022 NWC certification letter and
the letter submitted by the Vice Chairman of the Joint Staff containing
the Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command's views?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree with the warnings included in the NWC's
certification letter?
Answer. I agree that recapitalization of our nuclear infrastructure
is of the utmost importance, and that it requires stable and
predictable funding to ensure there is no increased programmatic risk.
If confirmed, I will closely coordinate with DOD to ensure that
military requirements are met.
In particular, do you agree with the NWC's statement that ``All NWC
members believe that--for fiscal year 2022 only--the DOE/NNSA budget
request for Weapons Activities meets nuclear stockpile and stockpile
stewardship requirements and contains minimally sufficient immediate
investment to ensure a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent.
However, NWC members also believe that this budget injects risk into
the longer-term schedule required to ensure modernization of the U.S.
nuclear deterrent.''
In my current position, I am unable to determine the sufficiency of
the Weapons Activities budget nor am I privy to the decisions in
formulating it. If confirmed, I commit to thoroughly reviewing the
budget to ensure Defense Programs is sufficiently resourced to meet
mission requirements.
Question. If confirmed, what do you believe are the specific areas
in NNSA's Office of Defense Programs that will need to be supported at
higher levels in the out-years?
Answer. If confirmed, I will assess the Weapons Activities
portfolio and budget to determine whether higher levels of support are
needed in the out-years.
personnel
Question. As of July 2019, the NNSA projected approximately 260
personnel will be defense programs employees under your direct
responsibility. However, this does not include approximately 40-50,000
employees of the operating plants and laboratories responsible for
executing the funding for defense programs, which for fiscal year 2021
totaled $19.7 billion.
What management experience do you have for the federal employees
you will directly oversee?
Answer. While I have not managed federal employees in my previous
positions, I have managed multi-level teams engaged in complex
technical tasks; I have helped develop management and operations
structures and strategies for NNSA laboratories; and I have actively
participated in oversight of management and operations at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, in addition to many other leadership roles.
Question. What management experience do you have to oversee and
execute a multi-billion dollar budget spread across three design
laboratories, four production plants, multiple simultaneous large
capital projects, and the Nevada National Security Site where stockpile
experiments are conducted?
Answer. While I have not been responsible for executing multi-
billion-dollar budgets in my previous positions, I served as Chair of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory Mission Committee, responsible for
overseeing more than two billion dollars per year in mission execution,
including design programs, pit and detonator production programs,
multiple simultaneous large capital projects, and experimental and
construction efforts at the Nevada National Security Site.
Question. If confirmed, do you believe that the Office of Defense
Programs has the appropriate number of civilian employees to perform
its mission?
Answer. Having ample, stable staffing is critical to the success of
all NNSA's mission functions. If confirmed, I will assess the strength
and readiness of the workforce within the Office of Defense Programs
and work with the Administrator to achieve the staffing levels required
to accomplish the mission.
Question. If not, what would be the appropriate size of the
civilian staff and what would the additional personnel be able to
accomplish that NNSA is not able to accomplish today? Which components
would you recommend growing?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work with the Administrator to ensure
the Office of Defense Programs is resourced appropriately to accomplish
its vital national security mission.
Question. What do you believe are the biggest challenges to
recruiting, training, and retaining civilian and contractor personnel
in this area?
Answer. Defense Programs has a vital national security mission and
sustaining workforce capabilities and expertise required to execute
this mission is critical to success. While I am not able to speak to
NNSA's current personnel challenges, I am certainly aware of challenges
both in recruiting and retention of personnel in the current job
market, especially in highly technical vocations. If confirmed, I will
work to bring in new talent and retain experienced personnel to
continue to deliver on Defense Programs' mission.
Question. If confirmed, what specific steps would you take to
retain critical nuclear weapons expertise among both the NNSA federal
civilian and the contractor workforce?
Answer. If confirmed, I will look to continue leveraging NNSA's
strong partnership with its management and operating contractors, their
parent companies, NNSA's strong academic alliances, and other key
partners to support workforce recruitment and retention initiatives.
facilities and infrastructure
Question. More than half of NNSA's infrastructure is over 40 years
old, and some facilities date back to the Manhattan Project. As former
Administrator Frank Klotz said in 2017, ``If not appropriately
addressed, the age and condition of NNSA's infrastructure will put
NNSA's missions, safety of its workers, the public, and the environment
at risk.'' Section 3111 of the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA directed NNSA to
establish the Infrastructure Modernization Initiative to reduce the
backlog of deferred maintenance and repair needs by at least 30% by
2025. This goal was amended by Section 3116 of the Fiscal Year 2022
NDAA to achieve 45% by 2030.
Have you reviewed sections 3111 and 3116?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Associate
Administrator for Safety, Infrastructure, and Operations in order to
prioritize infrastructure requiring maintenance within the Office of
Defense Programs' portfolio?
Answer. If confirmed, I will rely on the Associate Administrator to
provide advice and recommendations on the prioritization of
infrastructure maintenance within the Weapons Activities portfolio. I
will also coordinate with them to ensure that Defense Programs needs
are understood.
Question. While you will not be responsible for constructing
facilities to meet Defense Program needs, if confirmed, you will be
responsible for setting facility requirements to meet Department of
Defense stockpile needs through the NWC. A thorough understanding of
how these requirements translate into facility cost and schedule is
essential. If requirements are unrealistic or unstable this will
translate into cost and schedule overruns and ultimately the
credibility of the stockpile program. Projects such as the Modern Pit
Facility, Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement - Nuclear
Facility, Uranium Processing Facility, and Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication
Facility are all examples of past NNSA efforts plagued by cost
overruns, schedule delays, and on certain occasion, cancellation.
In your opinion, to what extent did unrealistic requirements
contribute to failures in these projects?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to thoroughly review the instances
outlined to determine the factors that contributed to issues with these
projects. I will ensure that NNSA and DOD remain in close coordination
so that all requirements are supported by necessary parties.
Question. To what extent do you believe a lack of funding
prioritization may have contributed to inefficiencies in these
projects?
Answer. I believe stable and predictable funding is critical to the
success of any project, and I believe NNSA prioritized funding for
these projects in their requests. If confirmed, I will thoroughly
review what factors contributed to issues with these projects and apply
the lessons learned to avoid such issues in the future.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to ensuring the Committee
is promptly informed of significant concerns with the feasibility of
achieving major facility requirements, including overviews of likely
required resources or statutory/regulatory changes that would be needed
to achieve such requirements?
Answer. Yes.
Question. DOE Order 413 ``Program and Project Management of Capital
Assets'' governs the acquisition of capital assets exceeding a Total
Project Cost of $50 million. Most, if not all, Defense Program
facilities are covered under DOE Order 413.
Have you reviewed DOE Order 413?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Please describe the critical decision points under DOE
Order 413 and what you believe the predominant risks are associated
with each decision point as they pertain to correctly determining a
cost and schedule for high hazard defense program facilities.
Answer. The Order provides DOE and NNSA with program and project
management direction for the acquisition of capital assets, with the
following Critical Decision (CD) points:
CD-0, Approve Mission Need: Documents that a mission need
has been identified, requiring material investment.
CD-1, Approve Alternative Selection and Cost Range:
Determines the selected alternative and approach optimized to meet the
mission need. The cost range at CD-1 allows for uncertainty.
CD-2/3, Approve Performance Baseline and Start of
Construction: NNSA approves a combined CD-2 and CD-3. CD-2 approves
preliminary design and sets the project's baseline cost and schedule.
CD-3 authorizes the release of funds to start construction.
CD-4, Approve Start of Operations and Project Completion:
Allows for formal closeout of the project.
If confirmed, I will assess each of the major decision points under
DOE Order 413.3B and work to ensure appropriate cost and schedule
decisions are made.
Question. In 2014 the Government Accountability Office published
``Analysis of Alternatives Could Be Improved by Incorporating Best
Practices'', GAO 15-137.
Have you reviewed this report?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your view, what are the major findings and
recommendations?
Answer. This report found that NNSA does not follow all of GAO's
best practices for Analysis of Alternatives (AOA) and that the Office
of Acquisition and Project Management should update its project
management order requirements to incorporate best practices for
conducting an AOA.
Question. In your view, what is the significance of section 3112 of
the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act and how it
pertains to GAO 15-37?
Answer. Section 3112 calls for the Administrator to ensure that any
cost estimate used in an AOA for a project carried out using funds
authorized by a DOE national security authorization is designed to
fully satisfy the requirements outlined in the mission needs statement
approved at CD-0 in the acquisition process, as set forth in DOE Order
413.3B. This relates to the GAO recommendation to use project
management best practices for NNSA AOAs. If confirmed, I will look into
this requirement more carefully to see how congressional requirements
will align with NNSA's current practices and GAO recommendations.
Question. The following Defense Programs capital asset projects are
currently covered by DOE Order 413. What is your assessment of each
project based on DOE Order 413 and where you see major programmatic
risks?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to working with subject matter
experts to learn the details of the status and risks for each project.
Stable and predictable funding is key to future milestones for all NNSA
major construction projects.
Question. Uranium Processing Facility, Project 06-D-141
Answer. Construction of the UPF project continues. My understanding
is that four of the seven subprojects have been completed, and that the
remaining buildings are under construction and are expected to be
complete in fiscal year 2026. As with most large projects there are
always technical and funding risks. If confirmed, I will work with the
subject matter experts involved to identify and mitigate these risks to
the maximum extent possible.
Question. Lithium facility, Project 18-D-690
Answer. The Lithium Processing Facility (LPF) project achieved CD-
1, which approves alternative selection and cost range, in fiscal year
2020. My understanding is that construction is scheduled to begin in
fiscal year 2026.
Question. High Explosives Synthesis Formulation and Pit Production,
Project 21-D-510
Answer. The High Explosives Synthesis Formulation and Pit
Production project achieved CD-1, which approves alternative selection
and cost range, in fiscal year 2021 and is under design. My
understanding is that construction is scheduled to begin in fiscal year
2024.
Question. Tritium Finishing Facility, Project 18-D-650
Answer. The Tritium Finishing Facility (TFF) project achieved CD-1
in fiscal year 2020.
Question. The following efforts are underway to re-establish or
expand production capabilities to meet Defense Program needs. Some
efforts have been restarted after being dormant for 30 or more years,
while others are overextended in capacity. Please describe what you
understand are the major programmatic risks and what specifically can
be done to overcome these risks.
Plutonium pit production
Lithium processing
Depleted Uranium processing
High explosives fabrication for upcoming weapons modernization
efforts
Expansion of the Kansas City production plant
Re-establishment of a weapons effect and survivability
infrastructure
Answer. As with most large projects there are always technical and
funding risks. If confirmed, I will work with the subject matter
experts involved to identify and mitigate these risks to the maximal
extent possible.
office of cost and program evaluation
Question. After a series of program failures, section 3221 of the
Fiscal Year 2014 NDAA created the Office of Cost and Program Evaluation
(50 U.S.C. 2411). The director of the office ``shall be the principal
advisor to the Administrator, the Deputy Secretary of Energy, and the
Secretary of Energy with respect to cost estimation and program
evaluation for the Administration''.
Have you reviewed 50 U.S.C. 2411?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure your staff cooperates fully
with the office in carrying out its duties consistent with section 1652
of the Fiscal Year 2018 NDAA?
Answer. Yes.
nnsa site offices
Question. While you will have programmatic responsibility for
carrying out the NNSA's responsibility to meet DOD requirements, the
NNSA Site Offices are responsible for day-to-day operations of the NNSA
sites and ensuring that their operations are carried out in a safe and
secure manner while assessing the performance of their Management and
Operating contractors.
If confirmed, please describe how you will work with the site
offices to meet your DOD programmatic requirements.
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that I have several touchpoints
with the sites and work closely with Field Office Managers to remain
aligned on priorities and daily operations to meet DOD programmatic
requirements.
Question. If confirmed, will you promptly report any issues with
respect to the Site Offices that you believe will encumber your ability
to meet your DOD requirements?
Answer. Yes.
plutonium strategy
Question. Four consecutive Administrations have validated the need
to reestablish plutonium pit production to ensure the long-term
viability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Currently, 50 USC
2538a requires the Secretary of Energy to ensure the Nuclear Security
Enterprise is capable of producing not less than 80 war reserve quality
plutonium pits by 2030.
Do you support the reestablishment of U.S. plutonium pit production
capabilities, consistent with U.S. law and Department of Defense
requirements?
Answer. Yes.
Question. NNSA has selected two sites for plutonium pit production:
Los Alamos will produce approximately 30 pits per year and the Savannah
River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) at the Savannah River Site
will produce up to 50 pits per year, for a projected two-site total of
not less than 80 pits per year.
Do you support the two site solution for reestablishing U.S.
plutonium pit production capabilities?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What are your views on the Los Alamos site and its
capabilities to achieve its pits per year production target to support
the demands of the ongoing stockpile program?
Answer. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is NNSA's plutonium
center of excellence and has produced plutonium pits in the past. If
confirmed, I commit to reviewing the plan to achieve pit production in
detail.
Question. In your view, what challenges must NNSA overcome to
ensure SRPPF achieves its pits-per-year production target to support
the requirements of the ongoing stockpile modernization program?
Answer. Restoring the Nation's ability to produce pits is a
complex, unique challenge. A combination of sustained, reliable funding
and outstanding project management is required to ensure the entire
portfolio of pit production activities can meet this challenge. If
confirmed, I commit to reviewing these efforts, seeking ways to reduce
cost and schedule, and assessing the degree to which NNSA has the
resources it needs to execute.
Question. Section 3120(e) of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA contains
detailed certification procedures for the NWC to ensure that the
reestablishment of U.S. pit production capabilities are meeting
programmatic milestones established by 50 U.S.C. 2538a. In accordance
with these statutory procedures, on March 31, 2021, the NWC certified
to the Senate Armed Services Committee that the NNSA was on track to
meet the 2030 timeline for producing no less than 80 war reserve pits
per year.
Subsequently, on August 31, 2021, pursuant to section 3114(b) of
the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA, the Secretary of Energy informed the Senate
Armed Services Committee that based on the Critical Decision 1 (CD-1)
funding profile of $3.9 billion, Los Alamos was on track to meet a
requirement of 30 pits per year by the 2026-2027 timeframe.
However, on November 30, 2021, the Secretary of Energy notified the
Senate Armed Services Committee that ``manufacturing 30 War Reserve
(WR) pits per year (ppy) during 2026 at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory (LANL) in Los Alamos, NM, is achievable, but manufacturing
50 WR ppy during 2030 at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in Aiken, SC, is
not achievable. As a result, manufacturing the 80 WR ppy during 2030 as
required by 50 U.S. Code 2538a will not be achievable.'' This analysis
was based on the CD-1 cost and schedule range for converting the former
Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) plant after the NWC letter of March 31, 2021.
On December 23, 2021 the Secretary of Energy informed the Committee
that the CD-1 cost range was $6.9 billion to $11.0 billion with an 85
percent estimate of $10.2 billion to achieve CD-4 in the fiscal year
2032-2035 timeframe. However, this does not include additional time to
produce WR qualified pits. The CD-1 cost and schedule for converting
the MOX plant exceeded the Analysis of Alternatives to produce 50 ppy,
which was based on a preliminary Engineering Assessment from April 20,
2018, which showed a mean probability cost of $4.6 billion to achieve
CD-4 in the 2026-2030 timeframe. The Senate Armed Services Committee
was briefed on this Engineering Assessment in May of 2018 (``Plutonium
Pit Production Engineering Assessment Results,'' May 2018) to help
justify converting the MOX plant for pit production.
Have you reviewed the following documents and statutes? If not, do
you plan to review these documents if you are confirmed?
Answer. Yes, I have reviewed the below documents and statutes.
50 U.S.C. 2538a (2014, as amended)
Section 3120 of the Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA
Section 3114 of the Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA
The redacted FOIA version of the April 20, 2018 Engineering
Assessment
The May 2018 briefing to the Senate Armed Services Committee
The March 31, 2021 NWC letter to the Senate Armed Services
Committee
The November 30, 2021 Secretary of Energy letter to the Senate
Armed Services Committee
The December 23, 2021 Secretary of Energy letter to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on the CD-1 Independent Cost Estimate for
converting the SRS MOX plant to pit production
Question. What are the principal risks to achieving CD-4 for the
SRPPF based on the November 30, 2021 and December 23, 2021 Secretary of
Energy letters?
Answer. The risks associated with completing SRPPF on time are
common to many of NNSA's large construction projects - these include
ensuring stable and predictable annual funding and providing sufficient
staff to support design and construction activities. Supply chain
issues are also a challenge to overcome within the industry. If
confirmed, I look forward to reviewing these efforts and risks in much
greater detail with the subject matter experts.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to monitor the
risks in meeting the Critical Decisions (CD) 1-4 under DOE Order 413
for completing the SRPPF?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the subject matter
experts to identify each risk, monitor closely, and mitigate as needed.
Question. Will you commit to promptly informing Congress at first
sign that these risks may pose further schedule delays and cost
increases?
Answer. If confirmed, yes.
uranium strategy and tritium production
Question. The U.S. government currently requires low-enriched
uranium (LEU) in order to produce tritium, as well as for research and
isotope production reactor fuel. The Department of Energy (DOE) has
maintained as policy that only unobligated LEU can be used for national
security purposes, meaning that neither the uranium nor the technology
used to enrich it carries an ``obligation'' from a foreign country
requiring that the material be used for only non-weapons purposes.
Since USEC ceased enrichment operations in 2013, the DOE has relied
upon down blending recycled high-enriched uranium (HEU) to meet
requirements for unobligated LEU, but the available supply of recycled
HEU for down blending is finite. The United States does not currently
have an indigenous uranium enrichment capability.
Do you believe NNSA should build a future capability to address LEU
for tritium production only, or for all national security purposes?
Answer. If confirmed, I will carefully consider the most effective
ways to ensure steady, reliable access to key strategic nuclear
materials, including tritium and LEU. These materials are vital for the
long-term sustainment of the U.S. nuclear deterrent.
Question. The NNSA is the lead U.S. agency for establishing
requirements under the Mutual Defense Agreement between the United
States and the United Kingdom to share research and material in support
of each other's nuclear deterrent. In section 3138 of the Fiscal Year
2020 NDAA, the Department of Energy was directed to ``determine whether
the Agreement [between the United States of America and the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland] for Cooperation on the
Uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes, signed at
Washington, July 3, 1958 (9 UST 1028), between the United States and
the United Kingdom, permits the United States to obtain low-enriched
uranium for the purposes of producing tritium in the United States.''
If confirmed, will you review the response to this section and
report back to the Senate Armed Services Committee of your assessment?
Answer. Yes.
Question. The 2018 NPR noted that tritium production is now
``insufficient to meet the forthcoming U.S. nuclear force sustainment
demands,'' and added that ``a marked increase in the planned production
of tritium in the next few years'' will be required in order to prevent
the atrophy of our nuclear capabilities below requirements.
In your opinion, is NNSA's current tritium strategy, in terms of
quantity and schedule, sufficient to support such a marked increase?
Answer. As a member of the JASON Advisory Panel, I co-led an in-
depth study of this question in 2018, and thus I am familiar with the
tritium strategy. In my opinion, I believe the tritium strategy can
support this increase. If confirmed, I will thoroughly review the
current tritium production schedule, along with risks of interruptions
and plans for mitigating interruption, and I will assess this against
stockpile needs.
Question. Do you believe NNSA should be investigating alternative
tritium production methods besides the current program of providing
material for the Tennessee Valley Authority to irradiate in the Watts
Bar reactors?
Answer. If confirmed, I will thoroughly review options to ensure
steady, reliable access to key strategic nuclear materials, including
tritium.
regulation and oversight
Question. Staff at NNSA's national laboratories have stated that
they are overburdened by regulation and oversight, both internal and
external, and that this contributes to the challenges in staying under
cost and on schedule for major projects.
Do you believe that environmental, safety, and construction
regulations are properly applied to NNSA projects and operations?
Answer. NNSA's vital missions depend upon a framework of
environmental, safety, and construction regulations to protect its
workforce, the communities in which NNSA's labs, plants and sites are
located, and the environment. Integrating such regulations into
operations and project plans can prevent costly compensatory actions.
The framework of DOE requirements and directives has been
established and refined over decades of practical experience with
inherently hazardous work. This framework provides an excellent
foundation which can be built upon by incorporating best practices as
appropriate. At the same time, I look forward to working with the
Associate Principal Deputy Administrator to see if the implementation
of environmental, safety, and construction regulations can be improved
such that protections are enhanced while workforce productivity is
increased.
Question. In your opinion as someone who has spent most of his
career at the laboratories, do these regulations serve the labs and the
country well?
Answer. Governance and oversight are necessary to ensure safe
operations and mission success. NNSA has a strong safety record and has
made meaningful enhancements to the governance and management of its
labs, plants, and sites. This type of continuous improvement is vital
to the continued health and success of any organization. I believe
further improvements could simultaneously improve environmental
protection, personnel safety, and workforce productivity, and, if
confirmed, I will challenge the organization to find such improvements.
Question. Do you believe the labs are subject to the appropriate
level of oversight from NNSA, DOE, the Defense Nuclear Facilities
Safety Board, GAO, and/or Congress?
Answer. Organizations such as the GAO and DNFSB provide different
views and perspectives that are invaluable to achieving NNSA's mission.
A cooperative team, working together towards successful mission
accomplishment, ultimately provides the labs the appropriate level of
oversight. If confirmed, I will work with the Administrator and others
to assess the appropriate level of oversight.
Question. If confirmed, are there any changes in regulatory or
oversight structures based on your experience that you would recommend?
Answer. I believe NNSA should balance governance and oversight with
risk and changes. This is vital to NNSA's continued success. If
confirmed, I will collaborate with my peers across the nuclear security
enterprise to identify and consider changes as appropriate.
notification of congress
Question. If confirmed, will you work with the Administrator of
NNSA to notify Congress promptly of any significant issues in the
safety, security or reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. Yes.
sexual harassment
Question. What is your assessment of the current climate regarding
sexual harassment and gender discrimination in the NNSA?
Answer. Sexual harassment and gender discrimination should never be
tolerated in any workplace. I have been pleased to learn that NNSA is
taking proactive steps to assess the work environment and address any
issues that may be occurring and not being reported.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you take were you to
receive or become aware of a complaint of sexual harassment or
discrimination from an employee of the DOE, NNSA, or a component
thereof?
Answer. If confirmed, I will be committed to creating a workplace
that provides a safe and welcoming environment for the workforce. If I
receive or became aware of a complaint of sexual harassment or
discrimination, I will immediately contact our Office of Human
Resources to ensure that the complaint is reviewed and that the
cognizant office begins the process of investigation. If the
investigation revealed inappropriate conduct, appropriate disciplinary
action would be initiated, up to and including removal from federal
service.
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 Jeanne Shaheen
plutonium pits
1. Senator Shaheen. Dr. Adams, the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) is supposed to create the capacity to produce 80
new plutonium pits per year by fiscal year 2030. However, NNSA
acknowledges this is unlikely to happen until fiscal years 2032-2035
and external studies suggest that even that timeline may be optimistic.
What is your level of confidence in NNSA's ability to produce pits on a
schedule to meet the modernization needs of our nuclear forces and, if
the NNSA is not on schedule, what steps can we take to increase pit
production to the required levels?
Dr. Adams. Restoring the Nation's ability to produce pits is a
complex and unique challenge that simply must be met. I have high
confidence that if the program continues to execute the two-site
solution, NNSA will deliver at least 30 pits per year well before 2030
and at least 80 pits per year starting not long after 2030 and
continuing for the foreseeable future. If confirmed, I will review the
pit-production plans and work with the appropriate experts to find ways
to shorten the timeline and generate improved estimates of cost and
schedule. I will work in partnership with the Department of Defense
(DOD) to develop plans that maintain our nuclear deterrent under the
full range of possible pit-delivery schedules. I am confident that this
can be done.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
question on nominees' fitness to serve
2. Senator Hirono. Dr. Adams, since you became a legal adult, have
you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors, or committed any
verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Dr. Adams. No.
3. Senator Hirono. Dr. Adams, have you ever faced discipline, or
entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
Dr. Adams. No.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
nuclear modernization program management
4. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, the United States is facing an
unprecedented challenge from not one, but two nuclear peer adversaries,
even as our own capabilities for supporting our deterrent are near
their lowest ebb, and the complex modernization and recapitalization
plans for addressing these deficiencies are, in the words of the
Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, ``at least 10 years behind where
we need to be''. Can you explain to this Committee how your experiences
in academia have prepared you to manage this complex, multi-billion
dollar, once-in-a-generation effort to rebuild the U.S. nuclear weapons
stockpile and restore the capabilities required to maintain our status
as a nuclear weapons state?
Dr. Adams. If confirmed, leading the Office of Defense Programs to
success will require that I establish the right priorities, guide the
organization in the right direction, and inspire tens of thousands of
professionals to achieve more, and more quickly, than has historically
been the case. This in turn will require broad and deep knowledge of
what it takes to succeed--in both the short and long terms--and the
ability to make sound decisions after absorbing large quantities of
information and hearing diverse opinions. I believe that I have that
knowledge and those abilities.
I spent the first five years of my career in the nuclear weapons
program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. During my
subsequent 3 decades in academia, I have worked on national security
issues, with emphasis on the U.S. nuclear deterrent, to an extent and
at a level that are far outside the norm in academia. The major
contributor to my development of the requisite knowledge and abilities
has been execution of many different roles, outside of my academic
experience teaching nuclear engineering and performing research related
to stockpile stewardship, in service of the nuclear deterrent over the
course of the past 3 decades. I will highlight three examples.
(1) In recent years, I have chaired Los Alamos National
Laboratory's (LANL's) Mission Committee, whose purview includes the
lab's weapons activities including plutonium pit production. This role
has required intricate knowledge of NNSA's weapons design and
assessment efforts; warhead delivery programs (including the B61-12,
the W88 Alt 370, and the W76-2); the production complex and its
interfaces with the design labs; management of large capital projects,
including those being executed to enable LANL to manufacture at least
30 pits per year and those being executed to enable Enhanced
Capabilities for Subcritical Experiments in Nevada; supply-chain
issues; the science and engineering challenges of producing one-of-a-
kind components (such as plutonium pits) while meeting stringent
requirements for quality, safety, and security; and much more. In this
role I have had oversight responsibility for efforts totaling more than
$2 billion per year and involving thousands of employees at LANL, and
responsibility for advising LANL's leadership on how to improve these
efforts.
(2) I have served since 2017 on the U.S. Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) Commander's Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment
Team (SAG/SAT). (I am the only ``academic'' ever chosen for this body.)
In this role I have advised the STRATCOM Commander on many aspects of
the nuclear warheads in the stockpile. This has required detailed study
of the health of the warheads at any given time; assessment of what
problems might be on the horizon, how likely they are, and what options
would be available to address them; assessment of the likelihood that
NNSA would deliver each element in the program of record on schedule,
including assessment of the likelihood of achieving 80 pits per year
during 2030; and much more.
(3) As a member of the JASON Advisory Group for more than 15 years,
I have participated in more than 20 in-depth studies of nuclear-weapons
activities, issues, and concerns, including studies sponsored by the
DOD as well as NNSA. I was chosen as study leader for most of them.
5. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
noted the need for increased flexibility, and measures to ``reduce the
time required to design, develop, and initially produce a warhead, from
a decision to enter full-scale development,'' an initiative your
predecessor and the current National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) Administrator have both supported. If confirmed, what measures
would you consider in order to reduce this timeline, both for currently
planned weapons programs and for future efforts?
Dr. Adams. If confirmed, I will work closely with subject matter
experts at NNSA and the labs, plants, and sites to develop clear and
attainable recommendations to reduce this timeline where possible.
nuclear modernization program resourcing
6. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, NNSA is required by law to provide to
Congress a list of unfunded priorities, similar to the process for DOD
combatant commands. However, unlike the combatant commands, NNSA's
unfunded priorities are rarely provided in a manner timely enough to
inform Congressional development of the upcoming fiscal year's budget.
If confirmed, will you commit to working with the Administrator for
Nuclear Security to ensure that NNSA's unfunded priorities list is
provided to the Congress with sufficient time to adequately inform
their deliberations?
Dr. Adams. Yes.
7. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, the NNSA is part of the Department of
Energy, yet it is funded with defense dollars out of the defense
topline, and its primary mission is to sustain the nuclear weapons
stockpile to meet the requirements of the Department of Defense. Many
have described DOD as NNSA's primary customer, and while the
relationship between the two organizations has been quite strained at
times, it is said to have been on the upswing over the past several
years. If confirmed, what steps would you take in continuing to improve
this relationship?
Dr. Adams. It is my understanding the NNSA and DOD have a strong
relationship and remain in close coordination for all modernization
efforts. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that we retain this strong
relationship, and I believe that my previous roles in support of the
DOD nuclear-weapons effort will help with this.
plutonium pit production
8. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, as the head of Defense Programs for
the National Nuclear Security Administration, you would be directly
responsible for managing the programs we need to recapitalize U.S.
weapons sustainment, as well as the production infrastructure that
supports the nuclear weapons stockpile. NNSA recently announced that it
does not believe that it can meet the statutory requirement for
producing 80 plutonium pits per year by 2030. This seems unacceptable
given the growth we're seeing in China's and Russia's nuclear
stockpiles. If confirmed, will you commit to providing this Committee
with a complete explanation of what it would take to comply with this
statutory requirement?
Dr. Adams. Yes.
infrastructure modernization
9. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review notes
that over half of NNSA's infrastructure is over 40 years old. A quarter
dates back to the Manhattan Project--more than 70 years old. Several
successive Administrations have promised investment in infrastructure,
and yet we've seen the backlog of deferred maintenance grow. In the
meantime, we have buildings that are literally crumbling, putting
people and equipment at risk. How will you work to ensure that we
actually follow through and bring NNSA's infrastructure into the 21st
century?
Dr. Adams. I agree that recapitalization of our nuclear
infrastructure is of the utmost importance. If confirmed, I commit to
implementing plans to maintain and recapitalize nuclear security
enterprise infrastructure, identifying needs that are not yet in the
plans, and working with Congress to ensure the necessary resources are
available to achieve the capability and capacity required to sustain
and modernize the stockpile.
10. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, many of the NNSA laboratories and
plants have struggled to recruit and retain personnel since the end of
the Cold War. At some of facilities, almost half the workforce will be
eligible to retire in the next few years. This issue is equally
prevalent among the NNSA's Federal workforce. Do you believe NNSA has
sufficient Federal staff to accomplish its mission? If not, which areas
or specialties would you recommend growing?
Dr. Adams. The Office of Defense Programs has a vital national
security mission, and ensuring it has the right workforce to sustain
the capabilities and expertise required to execute this mission is
critical to NNSA's success. While I am not able to speak to NNSA's
specific personnel challenges in my current capacity, I am certainly
aware of recruitment and retention challenges in hiring those with the
knowledge, skills, and abilities to execute this mission. If confirmed,
I will assess the strength and readiness of the workforce and will
ensure that the Office of Defense Programs has the resources required
to accomplish its mission.
11. Senator Inhofe. Dr. Adams, if confirmed, what would you do to
help the labs and plants recruit top talent of all kinds, and recruit
top talent to NNSA Federal staff?
Dr. Adams. If confirmed, I would look to continue to leverage
NNSA's strong partnership with its management and operating
contractors, their parent companies, strong academic alliances, and
other key partners to support workforce recruitment and retention
initiatives. The facilities and programs that perform leading-edge
science at the laboratories are key to recruiting and retaining top
talent in a competitive job market, in addition to being essential for
stockpile stewardship, so I will work to ensure that these stay
healthy.
__________
Questions Submitted by Senator Marsha Blackburn
nuclear stockpile annual assessment
12. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, if confirmed, what would be your
immediate first step to address the National Nuclear Security
Administration's (NNSA) aging infrastructure?
Dr. Adams. If confirmed, I will advocate for meeting the most
pressing needs of the nuclear deterrent, including modernization of
infrastructure. One of my first actions will be to travel to each of
NNSA's labs, plants, and sites to meet with personnel on the ground to
make a first-hand assessment, including the identification of any gaps
in our infrastructure plans.
13. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, if confirmed, what would be your
immediate first step to address NNSA's maintenance backlog?
Dr. Adams. If confirmed, I commit to reviewing the resources
available to address NNSA's maintenance backlog and the plans for
applying them. Additionally, one of my first actions will be to travel
to each of NNSA's labs, plants, and sites to meet with personnel on the
ground to make a first-hand assessment, including the identification of
any gaps in our maintenance plans.
14. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, how is the modernization of
infrastructure a readiness concern?
Dr. Adams. Rebuilding and modernizing NNSA infrastructure is
critical both for delivering on today's requirements and for developing
the needed readiness to respond to changes in a timely manner.
15. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, how is the modernization of
infrastructure a recruiting concern?
Dr. Adams. NNSA's ability to execute its mission depends on its
ability to recruit and retain a world-class workforce. Rebuilding and
modernizing NNSA's crumbling infrastructure is essential if NNSA is to
attract skilled workers, who are also being recruited by other
organizations with modern facilities.
16. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, how is the modernization of
infrastructure a retention concern?
Dr. Adams. NNSA's ability to execute its mission depends on its
ability to recruit and retain a world-class workforce. Rebuilding and
modernizing NNSA's crumbling infrastructure is essential if NNSA is to
retain its highly skilled, experienced workers--in whom a great deal
has been invested and on whom a great deal depends--for these people
are being recruited by other organizations with modern facilities.
17. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, what concerns do you have
regarding the modernization schedule for the key secondaries group of
capabilities including enriched uranium, depleted uranium, and lithium?
Dr. Adams. My understanding is that for the planned projects
associated with capabilities for secondaries, there are not major
programmatic risks beyond the need for stable and predictable funding.
As with most large projects, there are always technical and funding
risks that will arise, and at present there are supply-chain issues
that could affect cost and schedule. If confirmed, I am committed to
working with the subject matter experts within the nuclear security
enterprise, the Department of Defense, and Congress to ensure the
necessary resources are available to provide for this modernization and
mitigate these risks.
18. Senator Blackburn. Dr. Adams, what is your understanding of the
state of the supporting weapons sustainment and production capabilities
within the NNSA?
Dr. Adams. My understanding is that the NNSA workforce has the
knowledge and skills required to sustain and produce warheads, but NNSA
is in a race to replace old infrastructure before it becomes unusable,
while still using it to meet challenging requirements. Recapitalization
of our nuclear infrastructure is of the utmost importance, and it
requires sustained and stable investment to ensure NNSA retains the
capability to sustain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear stockpile.
If confirmed, I am committed to advocating for these resources and
ensuring those resources effectively expended to sustain this vital
mission.
______
[The nomination reference of Dr. Marvin L. Adams follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
[The biographical sketch of Dr. Marvin L. Adams, 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 Dr. Marvin L.
Adams 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]
______
[The nomination of Dr. Marvin L. Adams was reported to the
Senate by Chairman Reed on April 5, 2022, with the
recommendation that the nomination be confirmed. The nomination
was confirmed by the Senate on April 6, 2022.]
[all]