[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                     
 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 118-35]

                                HEARING

                                   ON

                   NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

                          FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024

                                  AND

              OVERSIGHT OF PREVIOUSLY AUTHORIZED PROGRAMS

                               BEFORE THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                         FULL COMMITTEE HEARING

                                   ON

         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             APRIL 28, 2023


                                     
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                         ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
53-392          WASHINGTON : 2024






                                     
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                    One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                     MIKE ROGERS, Alabama, Chairman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ADAM SMITH, Washington
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               JOHN GARAMENDI, California
ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia, Vice    DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    Chair                            RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                SETH MOULTON, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          RO KHANNA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi             ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin            CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  JASON CROW, Colorado
DON BACON, Nebraska                  ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan               VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida               JARED F. GOLDEN, Maine
MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana              SARA JACOBS, California
LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
RONNY JACKSON, Texas                 PATRICK RYAN, New York
PAT FALLON, Texas                    JEFF JACKSON, North Carolina
CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida           GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
NANCY MACE, South Carolina           CHRISTOPHER R. DELUZIO, 
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota                  Pennsylvania
DALE W. STRONG, Alabama              JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
MORGAN LUTTRELL, Texas               DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
JENNIFER A. KIGGANS, Virginia        JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
NICK LaLOTA, New York                TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada
MARK ALFORD, Missouri                JIMMY PANETTA, California
CORY MILLS, Florida
RICHARD McCORMICK, Georgia

                      Chris Vieson, Staff Director
                 Ian Bennitt, Professional Staff Member
              Phil MacNaughton, Professional Staff Member
                    Owen McGeary, Research Assistant
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Rogers, Hon. Mike, a Representative from Alabama, Chairman, 
  Committee on Armed Services....................................     1
Smith, Hon. Adam, a Representative from Washington, Ranking 
  Member, Committee on Armed Services............................     2

                               WITNESSES

Berger, Gen David H., USM, Commandant............................     8
Del Toro, Carlos, Secretary of the Navy..........................     4
Gilday, ADM Michael, USN, Chief of Naval Operations..............     6

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Berger, Gen David H., USM, Commandant............................   120
Del Toro, Carlos, Secretary of the Navy..........................    63
Gilday, ADM Michael, USN, Chief of Naval Operations..............    97

Documents Submitted for the Record:

Davis' WRAL News Article on Camp Lejune Toxic Water Court Date...   160

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Mr. Davis....................................................   168
    Mr. Fallon...................................................   167
    Mr. Gaetz....................................................   167
    Mr. Gallagher................................................   167
    Mr. Veasey...................................................   171
    Mr. Wilson...................................................   167

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Mr. Bergman..................................................   225
    Mr. Fallon...................................................   235
    Mr. Finstad..................................................   249
    Mr. Gaetz....................................................   210
    Mr. Jackson..................................................   231
    Mr. Kim......................................................   209
    Mr. LaLota...................................................   249
    Mr. Lamborn..................................................   176
    Ms. Mace.....................................................   246
    Mrs. McClain.................................................   229
    Dr. McCormick................................................   250
    Mr. Rogers...................................................   175
    Mr. Scott....................................................   177
    Ms. Sherrill.................................................   211
    Mr. Waltz....................................................   227
         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY FISCAL YEAR 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

                              ----------                              

                          House of Representatives,
                               Committee on Armed Services,
                            Washington, DC, Friday, April 28, 2023.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in room 
2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Rogers (chairman 
of the committee) presiding.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
         ALABAMA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    The Chairman. The meeting will come to order.
    Today we complete our fiscal year 2024 budget and posture 
hearings with the Department of Navy.
    I want to thank the ranking member and all members for 
their cooperation, hard work, and dedication as we worked 
through 27 hearings in 13 legislative days.
    These hearings have helped provide the information we need 
to mark up the fiscal year 2024 NDAA [National Defense 
Authorization Act] next month.
    I also want to thank our witnesses for being here and for 
their service to our Nation.
    The President is requesting a 5 percent increase for the 
Navy and a 3 percent increase for the Marine Corps. 
Unfortunately, with today's record level of inflation, these 
increases don't go very far.
    We are seeing that very clearly in the request for 
shipbuilding. The President is seeking to build a paltry nine 
battle force ships in fiscal year 2024. At the same time, he 
wants to retire 11. Several of these ships have years of 
service life remaining. The retirements represent a loss of 
capability, especially for the Marine Corps.
    The President plans to slash the number of amphibs 
[amphibious combat vehicles] by 10 percent, leaving the fleet 
below the statutory minimum of 31. We put 31 into law because 
that is what the Marine Corps told us was the bare minimum they 
needed to successfully carry out their mission. Going below 
that number invites a tremendous amount of risk.
    That is clearly why General Berger included a new amphib in 
his number of the unfunded priority list this year. I think you 
will find support for that request from this committee.
    But even if we fund the amphib, the Navy still plans to 
reduce the number of battle force ships by 11 over the next 5 
years. Forget about the 500-ship Navy many say we need to 
counter China. At no point over the next 18 years does the size 
of the fleet even reach the statutory goal of 355.
    While this administration dithers, the CCP [Chinese 
Communist Party] is rapidly growing and modernizing its Navy. 
It already controls the largest Navy in the world. Our fleet of 
296 ships was eclipsed years ago by a Chinese fleet of over 
350.
    In 2 short years, the DOD [U.S. Department of Defense] 
predicts the CCP will control over 400 battle force ships. I 
don't understand how this administration can conclude reducing 
the size of our fleet will somehow deter China.
    Making matters worse is confusion surrounding the Navy's 
shipbuilding plan. It is not one plan, it is four plans, each 
of them with different force structures and total numbers of 
ships.
    Our shipyards can't plan, make investments, and properly 
operate with this uncertainty. It is the absolute worst signal 
to send to our adversaries, especially the CCP.
    Finally, I am also concerned about the strike fighter gap. 
It is not forecasted to close until 2031. But that assumes 
Congress grants the Navy relief from the statutory requirement 
to field an air wing for each deployed aircraft carrier. I 
would inform the Navy that it is highly unlikely we will grant 
that relief.
    The Navy should focus on mitigating the fighter gap in the 
short term by accelerating planned upgrades to existing 
fighters, especially the F-35s. They should also expedite the 
fielding of unmanned collaborative drones and pair them with 
our existing fleet to enhance capabilities.
    The point is, we should be modernizing and expanding our 
Naval capabilities. We absolutely should not be cutting them.
    Finally, I want to commend the Commandant on the progress 
he is making with the Force 2030 design. Preparing our marines 
to be successful in a conflict with the CCP is critically 
important. Force 2030 will do just that.
    I look forward to further updates on the progress he is 
making to transform the Marine Corps into a 21st century 
fighting force.
    Finally, this will likely be the last time Admiral Gilday 
and General Berger will testify before us in their current 
capacity.
    I want to thank both of you for your decades of service to 
our Nation and for your dedicated leadership to the Navy and 
the Marine Corps.
    With that, I yield to my friend, the ranking member, for 
any comments he may have.

STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM WASHINGTON, 
          RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

    Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to start by echoing your last comment and thanking 
General Berger and Admiral Gilday for their leadership in these 
current positions.
    It has not been an easy time to be in the positions that 
you are in. You have both done an outstanding job. We have 
always appreciated working with you.
    And I also want to echo the chairman's comments at the 
start about the posture hearings that we have gone through. It 
is always an interesting and challenging time. But I think it 
really helps inform this committee about the decisions that we 
have to make as we put together the NDAA for this year and as 
we work on the budget going forward.
    And I think the chairman has done a really good job of 
pulling those hearings together. We have learned a lot, had a 
lot of good solid debates, and I think it will put us in a good 
position to do a good bill again this year. I lose track. I 
think it is the 63rd consecutive year. It could be the 62nd, 
somewhere in there. It is over 60, let's put it that way.
    And it has only happened because of strong bipartisan 
support. And I appreciate the chairman's leadership in getting 
us started on doing that again this year.
    And I think he correctly points out the problem. We have 
this logical challenge here in terms of, here is what we would 
like to do, here is how much money we have. And you gentlemen 
have to somehow deal with what I referred to yesterday as our 
cognitive dissonance here in Congress.
    At the same time that we are beating you up for not 
spending enough money, the House majority is passing a bill to 
cut the overall amount of money that we spend on the 
discretionary budget, and you are just supposed to somehow 
figure that out.
    I used to have this analogy about 10 pounds of manure in a 
5-pound bag, but I have discovered that most people don't like 
that analogy. But I nonetheless think it is apt. And that is 
what you are trying to do and it is not easy.
    And one of the things that we could do here in Congress is 
just pick the number. We spend all of our time complaining 
about how we are not spending enough money, and then we spend 
all of our time complaining about how much we spend too much 
money. You have kind of got to pick a lane on that one or you 
are going to put people like the Department of Defense, like 
all of these fine gentlemen in front of us, in an absolutely 
impossible position.
    So you can't both vote to cut the discretionary budget and 
then complain at the DOD for not spending enough money. Well, 
that is not true. Actually, you can, but it is just not very 
consistent and certainly not very helpful when it comes to 
setting policy.
    I do believe that the challenge beyond that, even if we 
were clear on the money, is, as has been mentioned many times, 
you have to both modernize--because rapidly changing 
technology, whether you are talking about hypersonic missiles, 
different vulnerabilities, space, JADC2 [Joint All-Domain 
Command and Control] that we are working on.
    Modernization, I believe, is the most critical thing that 
we need to do to make sure that we have the Joint All-Domain 
Command and Control, that we have systems that can get us the 
information we need and be protected, so that every aspect of 
our warfighting machine is working and is able to deliver what 
it is supposed to deliver.
    But in modernizing, you also have to make sure that we have 
a force, right now, today, that can meet our national security 
needs. And that is where you get into the difficult balance of 
decommissioning ships now so that you could have the money to 
build that modernizing force.
    I won't get into an extended debate on that except to say 
that part of the challenge here, and I think the cruisers are a 
good example, is, yes, you have a ship, all right, but that 
ship spends the overwhelming majority of its time in dry dock, 
first of all. So you don't have a useful ship. And second of 
all, you have to spend an enormous amount of money just to keep 
that ship in dry dock.
    Yes, you have a ship. If you were to look at your little 
chart, you would say, well, we got one more. Is that actually 
helping us if it can't be in the fight and if you are having to 
spend a lot of money even while it can't be in the fight?
    Those are the decisions that we have to try to make, and I 
think the gentlemen before us have done a pretty good job of 
doing that.
    General Berger, I know several years ago you launched the 
effort to modernize the Marine Corps. I am sure you are aware 
not everybody liked that and you get a fair amount of criticism 
for it.
    But I think you made the right decisions. You showed 
leadership, and you put the Marine Corps where it needed to be 
to be an effective fighting force today for the world that we 
face. And I greatly appreciate your leadership on that.
    When it comes to the Navy, we are battling with the expense 
of building ships, but I also think that in the last couple of 
years we have started to make the right decisions about what 
the future of that Navy should look like.
    So I appreciate the leadership. I appreciate the difficult 
position that you all are put in. And look forward to working 
with you this year to get a good budget, to get the NDAA done.
    And I want to put one final point. We also need to pass 
appropriations bills. I have heard a lot of my colleagues 
talking about how we are just going to do a CR [Continuing 
Resolution] this year. That would be a complete and total 
disaster for the United States military, for the ability of 
this country to defend itself.
    I would also like to point out that the other 45 percent of 
the discretionary budget, it would also be a disaster for all 
of that as well.
    But sitting here on the Armed Services Committee, let's not 
kid ourselves about the impact that would have on what is 
supposed to be our paramount duty to defend this country if we 
passed a continuing resolution. It would be devastating.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the ranking member.
    I would now like to introduce our witnesses, the Honorable 
Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral Michael Gilday, 
Chief of Naval Operations, and General David Berger is the 
Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    Welcome to the witnesses.
    Secretary Del Toro, we will start with you. You are 
recognized.

 STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE CARLOS DEL TORO, SECRETARY OF THE 
                              NAVY

    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished 
members of this committee, it is an honor to appear before you 
today alongside General Berger and Admiral Gilday to discuss 
the posture of the Department of The Navy.
    Today, our Nation faces challenges in every region and 
domain we operate in, from the seabed to the stars. We do 
recognize the People's Republic of China as our pacing threat, 
executing a strategy that is aimed at upending international 
order.
    To preserve our way of life, the National Defense Strategy 
calls upon the Joint Force to deter aggression while being 
prepared to prevail in conflict. A strong Navy and a strong 
Marine Corps are the foundation upon which the successes of the 
Joint Force rests.
    The President's 2024 budget sends a strong signal to the 
American people of the value that President Biden and Secretary 
Austin place in maintaining a robust Navy and a Marine Corps 
team to confront the threats that we face today.
    This year's budget request supports our three enduring 
priorities. Those are strengthening our maritime dominance, 
building a culture of warfighting excellence, and enhancing our 
strategic partnerships around the globe.
    With your support over the past year, we have made major 
strides in modernizing our fleet and our force. And I know that 
we often talk about the negatives, but allow me to focus on the 
positive differences that we have made over the course of the 
last 2 years.
    2022 saw the first deployment to the aircraft carrier USS 
[United States Ship] Gerald R. Ford, providing the Navy with 
lessons learned that will benefit future Ford-class carriers.
    Construction of high-end surface combatants continues, 
including the first Constellation-class frigate, the USS 
Constellation, and the first of our Arleigh Burke-class Flight 
Three destroyers, the USS Jack Lucas, which brings significant 
advantage to sea.
    We continue progress on our first Columbia-class ballistic 
missile submarine, the USS District of Columbia, while 
preconstruction activities on the second Columbia SSBN 
[ballistic missile submarine], the USS Wisconsin, have also 
begun.
    On the innovation front, Task Force 59 in Bahrain continues 
to test a wide range of unmanned surface vessels, and we are 
looking forward to expanding this effort now to the Fourth 
Fleet as well.
    When we consider the composition of our fleet, we seek to 
strike a balance between readiness, modernization, and 
capacity, with an immediate emphasis on readiness to be able to 
fight today and tomorrow.
    This year, our divestment request includes three amphibious 
ships and at least two cruisers that are in tremendously poor 
material condition that offer very limited warfighting 
capability, regardless of how much more investments we put into 
those ships.
    Our decisions to divest or extend a ship's life are based 
on a hull-by-hull evaluation. For example, we recently 
announced the modernization of the destroyer Arleigh Burke DDG-
51 to keep it sailing through 2031, 5 years beyond its 
estimated service life. We hope to be able to continue that 
trend with other ships when possible.
    The USS Alexandria just came out of dry dock in San Diego 
as well too, with a 3-year extension. We hope to continue this 
trend on other Arleigh Burke destroyers and even on 
Ticonderoga-class cruisers, where we actually have the ability 
to extend them for perhaps one or two more deployments.
    We owe it to the American people to be responsible stewards 
of taxpayer dollars. Investing in platforms that have limited 
capability conflicts with that responsibility.
    Our Naval forces are more than just platforms and systems, 
however. Our sailors and our marines are our greatest strength. 
This year's budget request contains multiple investments to 
support them and their families with services, benefits, 
housing, and education, all that are critical to combat 
readiness.
    In addition to our commitments to our people, we are 
reinforcing our international relationships significantly, 
including those with our Ukrainian partners as they defend 
their sovereignty in response to Russia's illegal and 
unprovoked invasion.
    In the Indo-Pacific, we continue to play a leading role in 
the AUKUS [Australia-United Kingdom-United States] Security 
Partnership. Our Navy will be critical to this initiative's 
success as we support Australia's acquisition of conventionally 
armed, nuclear-powered, fast-attack submarines.
    We continue to hone our skills with allies and partners in 
the Arctic as well, ensuring we are prepared to operate in this 
challenging and very unforgiving critical environment for the 
future of our Nation's economy.
    Along with our partnerships abroad, we are committed to 
strengthening our relationships here at home. We value your 
support and recommit our leadership toward defueling and 
remediating the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility spills.
    We are committed to doing what it takes to address the 
concerns of servicemembers, their families, the people of 
Hawaii, and all other communities throughout the U.S. As I have 
said before, we build trust one day at a time, one action at a 
time.
    Finally, I am grateful for the trust that you have placed 
in me personally to lead this Department. I look forward to 
discussing how best to support our sailors, our marines, and 
their families in defense of our Nation, and I thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Secretary Del Toro can be found 
in the Appendix on page 63.]
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Admiral Gilday, you are up next.

   STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MICHAEL GILDAY, USN, CHIEF OF NAVAL 
                           OPERATIONS

    Admiral Gilday. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, 
distinguished members of the committee, good morning and thank 
you for the opportunity to appear today alongside Secretary Del 
Toro and General Berger.
    I would also like to thank my wife Linda, who is also here 
with me this morning.
    [Applause.]
    Admiral Gilday. Thank you.
    For more than three-quarters of a century, the United 
States Navy has been an anchor of world stability, deterring 
war, upholding international law, and assuring access to the 
seas.
    Today, our Navy's role has never been more expansive or 
more consequential. At this moment, we have about a hundred 
ships at sea, reassuring America's allies and partners that we 
stand watch alongside them and reminding the world that we seek 
to preserve peace, but we are prepared for any fight.
    We are America's away team, constantly present, in contact 
with allies, with partners, and potential adversaries every 
single day.
    Operating forward, defending the rules-based international 
order, our United States Navy flies and operates and we sail 
wherever international law allows so that others can too.
    Our fiscal year 2024 budget request remains consistent with 
our Navy's enduring priorities. We are prioritizing readiness 
first, with an emphasis on sailors who empower everything that 
we do.
    Next, we are modernizing our current fleet, 70 percent of 
which we will have a decade from now.
    And third, we are continuing to build capacity, ensuring we 
have lethal platforms to achieve warfighting advantage.
    It fully funds the Columbia-class submarine, ensuring the 
on-time delivery of the most survivable leg of our Nation's 
strategic deterrent. It keeps our fleet ready to fight tonight, 
dedicating the resources required to train and educate 
resilient sailors that can outthink, that can out-decide, and 
that can outfight any potential adversary.
    It funds private and public ship maintenance to 100 
percent, increasing capacity and retaining highly skilled 
labor, to get our ships back to sea faster, with full magazines 
and spare parts in their storerooms, to be prepared for any 
contingency.
    It invests in modernizing our fleet, procuring weapons with 
range and speed, along with integrated systems to improve fleet 
survivability, and a resilient cybersecure network 
infrastructure.
    It invests in capable capacity, building towards a larger 
distributed fleet, fielding a ready fleet today while 
modernizing for the future.
    Meanwhile, our competitors are also investing heavily in 
warfighting capabilities of their own. And the oceans we 
operate in are growing more lethal and more contested every 
day.
    This means that we can no longer afford to maintain ships 
designed for a bygone era, especially at the expense of 
readiness and modernization or at the expense of buying new 
ships that are relevant to tomorrow's fight.
    America cannot afford to field a hollow force. We have been 
there before and we have seen the tragic results. It is a 
mistake that we must never repeat.
    Ships, submarines, and aircraft are no doubt expensive 
instruments of national power, as are the cost of maintaining 
them. But history shows that without a powerful Navy, the price 
tag could be much higher.
    As we enter this critical decade, passing the budget on 
time is absolutely essential. We have no time to waste. 
Certainly, our adversaries are not slowing down.
    For the first time in history, the threat of a year-long 
continuing resolution seems like a real possibility.
    Let me be clear: A yearlong CR would be devastating for 
your Navy and for America's national security. It would set 
back delivery of Columbia-class submarines. It would delay 
construction of our attack submarines and our surface 
combatants. It would postpone the modernization of our most 
crucial weapon systems. It would adversely impact our sailors 
and their families, who we are trying so hard to retain. And it 
would be disastrous for our industrial base, America's arsenal, 
which depends upon steady, predictable funding to deliver the 
Naval forces that America needs.
    I urge Congress to pass a budget on time. Failing to do so 
would damage our maritime superiority at a time when command of 
the seas will determine the balance of power for the rest of 
this century.
    Thank you again for inviting me to testify this morning. 
Thank you for your enduring support for the United States Navy 
and the United States Marine Corps. And I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Gilday can be found in 
the Appendix on page 97.]
    The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.
    And, General Berger, you are up.

     STATEMENT OF GENERAL DAVID H. BERGER, USM, COMMANDANT

    General Berger. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, my 
wife, Donna, is also with me, and she has been beside me for 
more than 40 years, and she sent two of our sons into the 
Marine Corps. So it is sort of family business for us.
    [Applause.]
    General Berger. I am a little nervous, because she is 
sitting behind me where I can't see her right now.
    The Chairman. As you should be.
    General Berger. Three years ago, I appeared before you and 
described how change--rapid change--was required in order for 
the Marine Corps to meet our statutory requirements and the 
mandates of the National Defense Strategy.
    With the bipartisan help of this committee and the support 
of my civilian leadership in the Pentagon, I am here to tell 
you that, as the ranking and chair mentioned, force design for 
the Marine Corps is no longer a future endpoint, it is a 
reality today.
    A couple of examples.
    In INDOPACOM [U.S. Indo-Pacific Command], under Admiral 
Aquilino, Task Force 76.3, designed to put together advanced 
information webs, and they support maritime domain awareness 
that he, the COCOM [U.S. combatant commands], so desperately 
needs. And they took what they learned during experimentation 
and they put it right into application in an exercise in the 
Philippines, in Japan, right in China's backyard, which is 
where we ought to be.
    In Europe right now, as they were last year, Task Force 61. 
Using new technology and reorganized in a different way, they 
have created both air and maritime domain awareness for Sixth 
Fleet, working for the fleet commander, primarily focused on 
Russian air and naval capabilities. They are in Estonia right 
now, marines are in Estonia, doing the same thing. They will be 
there for the next 3 months.
    And in Central Command, under General Kurilla, Marine Corps 
MQ-9s, they are providing the ISR [intelligence surveillance 
reconnaissance] that he needs, the awareness over the key 
maritime terrain. And that is exactly what we should be doing.
    This week, there is a major exercise in the Philippines, 
Exercise Balikatan. Our new Marine Littoral Regiment out of 
Hawaii is in the Philippines and they are applying the new 
equipment and the new techniques that they have developed with 
the Philippine military and several other militaries right 
alongside our counterparts. I think that is what you expect.
    A couple of months ago, Japan announced when they came 
here, their senior leaders came to the U.S., that they would 
host the next Marine Littoral Regiment forward in the First 
Island Chain, and that is where they belong.
    In short, in other words, your marines are forward where it 
matters, and that is where you would expect them to be.
    3 years ago, I described how the Marine Corps would not 
just modernize quickly, but we would self-fund the changes we 
had to make. We had to get leaner, we had to get lighter, and 
we had to get more naval. And 3 years later, your marines are 
doing just that.
    The results are in the field now, because we are not 
waiting for 2030 or 2027 or even 2025. We have to be ready 
today.
    The major divestments that the Marine Corps made, they are 
the right ones and we are done. We are at our fighting weight 
right now.
    Now we have to sustain the modernization efforts while 
focusing on the quality of life issues that are most important 
to marines and sailors and their families.
    People, just as the Secretary and the CNO [Chief Naval 
Officer] mentioned, people, they are the real source of our 
competitive advantage as a Nation and as a Corps. And I ask for 
your help now to invest in their quality of life. We have to 
invest in where they live, where they work, where they eat, 
where they work out, all of that. They have earned it. We have 
to deliver.
    Restoring and modernizing our infrastructure is directly 
tied to recruiting, directly tied to retention. That is how we 
support families. That is readiness.
    So on behalf of all marines, I ask for your support now as 
we bring our facilities up to par with the marines and sailors 
who work from those platforms.
    I also ask for your support for the amphibious fleet. That 
is how this Nation projects power.
    The CNO and I agree on three key principles here.
    There is no difference between the two services. The 
absolute minimum operational requirement is 31 L-class ships.
    Second, block buys. They do two things. One, they save the 
taxpayer money. And second, they give the industry what the CNO 
calls headlights in front of them.
    And third, I think divesting without replacing, I think 
that is a dangerous approach, as several of you all have 
mentioned.
    Amphibious ships is how we respond to crisis. They are 
critical. That is how we evacuated citizens out of Lebanon. 
That is how we went into Afghanistan in 2001. And today, we are 
asking them to do all that plus deter, plus contribute to 
campaigning.
    Here is my concern. The first time this Nation can't 
respond to a crisis and one of our adversaries can, probably 
the last time we get asked.
    And I will just finish up by saying, in my last year as 
commandant, thank you. Thank you sincerely. Thank you for the 
support of your marines and your Marine Corps. And I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Berger can be found in 
the Appendix on page 120.]
    The Chairman. I thank all of our witnesses.
    And I wanted to advise the members, we are going to be 
called for a vote, a single vote, at about 10. So I am going to 
urge members just to roll through, go over there and vote and 
come back, and we will continue the hearing throughout that 
process.
    I recognize myself for questions.
    Admiral Gilday, you did a stellar job of explaining why a 
``Chinese resolution'' is not a good idea for Congress to pass 
by not getting their business done.
    General Berger, can you give me one shining example of what 
a continuing resolution, AKA a ``China resolution'', would mean 
to the Marine Corps?
    General Berger. A month ago, Chairman, the Chinese 
announced that they would increase their budget to 7.2 percent, 
7.3 percent from the year before. Last year, it was 7.1. So 
from my perspective, China is the strategic pacing challenge, 
but I am a military guy, so they are the threat.
    So over 2 years, they have increased their budget by 14.5 
percent. We would go to zero. We cannot keep pace. It is almost 
like right now, the NFL [National Football League] draft that 
is on the news, it is almost like we would pull ourselves out 
of the draft on purpose and everybody else would pick better 
players and have a better roster next year.
    We can't modernize, we can't take care of our people, just 
like the CNO said, unless we get a budget on time. We are tying 
our own hands.
    The Chairman. And I appreciate the fact all of you 
recognize that we have a real challenge in quality of life, and 
we are going to all get after it together.
    Secretary, give me an example of what you think a CR would 
mean to your operations as a whole.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Chairman. First and foremost, I 
will give one example on the capability of the Marine Corps. It 
would have a huge impact on all our personnel, on the training.
    My second enduring priority is about strengthening our 
warfighting excellence across the board. There are numerous 
examples where we would actually have to hold back on training 
of our pilots, of our surface warfare officers, our submarines, 
because we didn't have the necessary funds to move forward with 
their training, and the investments that we also want to make 
in the programs of their training to advance those technologies 
as well too.
    And then finally on the shipbuilding side, it would have a 
negative effect on Columbia. It would have a negative effect on 
just about every major platform that we have in the Department 
of the Navy.
    The Chairman. And I want everybody to know that if we get 
into a conflict in INDOPACOM, these folks in front of us are 
the tip of the spear. We cannot let them go without funding in 
a timely manner.
    General Berger, if we drop below the statutorily required 
31 amphibious ships, what does that do to your ability to meet 
operational requirements and project strength?
    General Berger. A couple of things.
    First, we would have gaps during the year when we would not 
have an at-sea capability for the combatant commander when 
something happened. We would not be deterring. We would not be 
in a position to respond.
    Here, places like Turkey or the last couple weeks in Sudan, 
I feel like I let down the combatant commander because General 
Langley needs options. He didn't have a sea-based option. That 
is how we reinforce embassies. That is how we evacuate them. 
That is how we deter.
    So, one, the crisis part. Two, the deterrence part.
    It opens up risks for the combatant commander. We have to 
have 31 at a minimum, nothing less.
    The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, how long is your strategic 
pause for amphibs planning to be?
    Secretary Del Toro. I hope it will be as short as it can 
possibly be. There is unquestionably a need for heavy lift when 
it comes to fulfilling the Marine Corps' responsibilities in 
INDOPACOM and in crisis situations around the world. I support 
the 31 amphibious requirement.
    The question we have is that we have some LSD platforms, 
for example, that cannot be made operationally available to 
fulfill the requirements that we need in the ARG/MEU 
combination. Therefore, we need to retire some of those LSDs 
[landing ship docks] so we can use those moneys more wisely in 
the investments of future LPDs [landing platform docks] in the 
future.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    I yield to the ranking member.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, one of things that comes up frequently is 
the survivability of Navy platforms. And I am interested in 
actually all of your answers on this. But as we are building 
aircraft carriers, destroyers, and all of that, there is a lot 
that goes into survivability.
    But can you reassure the committee that even in a China 
fight, even in a fight against a peer competitor with 
sophisticated missile technology, sophisticated jamming 
technology, that we are moving towards a modernization plan 
here that will enable our Navy to be survivable in that type of 
fight and how that plays out?
    And I guess the second piece of that: What is most 
important for us to invest in to make sure that that is the 
case?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, first let me state that we 
obviously in the construction of our Naval ships and all our 
platforms, for that matter, try to make them as survivable as 
possible in every way.
    I think if you look at the Ford aircraft carrier, for 
example, and the testing that was done on Ford with the 
explosions to test out its material ordnance proved that out, 
that the investments that we made, technologically speaking, in 
its hull, to strengthen its hull and all of the weapon systems 
on the aircraft carrier itself, truly paid off. And the CNO can 
talk about that more in detail. But that is a worthwhile 
investment.
    But we should also consider the fact that today, given the 
long ranges of weapon systems of our adversaries, we are going 
to operate in the high-threat area, in the weapons engagement 
zone. That extends out to the West Coast of the United States 
right now, for example.
    And so we have to continue to develop weapon systems that 
are going to be effective in masking themselves within that 
weapon engagement zone so that their ISR capabilities can't 
detect them.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Admiral Gilday.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, thanks for the question. I think it is 
an important one.
    I think maneuvers are really important. And the question 
is, how do you enable that? I think you have to leverage all 
domains, particularly--we can't talk about it in detail--but 
cyber and space.
    And so what the operational commander wants to do is to 
blind the adversary so that we can put ourselves in a position 
to maneuver in a position of advantage to deliver effects.
    You spoke to modernization. I will talk about a few 
investments that we are making that I think are worth doubling 
down on: High-powered microwave and directed energy. We already 
have lasers on board seven of our ships. We are slowly 
increasing that and need to pick up the pace.
    Electronic warfare systems. Advanced systems, in fact, in 
my unfunded list, I have added on there for both destroyers and 
for the carriers, because we know that that has an effect with 
respect to deception of the adversary.
    The extra power capacity that we are putting into frigates, 
that we put into the Ford carrier, allows us to back-fit with 
these modernized systems that will make us more survivable.
    And the last thing I would add is that the potential here 
with unmanned, particularly a medium unmanned vessel that you 
put a power source on and then you can outfit it with a high-
power microwave or directed energy, that is the way of the 
future for probably broader area survivability.
    Mr. Smith. Thank you.
    Just following up on the amphib question. So there are sort 
of two possibilities here. Because the basic reason you are not 
going to hit the 31 is you are--mothballing is the wrong word. 
You are shutting down a couple of them before you build the new 
ones.
    Is it the case that you are doing that because you just 
don't have enough money to keep them going and fund the things 
going forward, or is it the case that those ships are no longer 
worth the cost of keeping them going?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, let me give you a personal 
example. I visited the Germantown, which is in San Diego, and 
walked her decks. She has a crane. Her main crane on the 
Germantown has not operated in 6 years. We have even had the 
OEM [original equipment manufacturer] over to try to fix the 
crane, and we can't get it to work properly.
    She is the ship with the oldest, actually, wood deck, which 
is also deteriorating. It would cost approximately half a 
billion dollars to replace that deck, replace that crane. And 
the best that you could do is actually, perhaps if you are 
lucky, get one additional deployment out of her.
    I would much rather use those funds on a brand new LPD that 
could have capabilities that last out 20-plus years and be far 
more effective and provide a greater return on investment for 
the Congress and the American taxpayer.
    Mr. Smith. That certainly makes sense. And then what we 
have to do is to make sure that we provide you the funds to do 
that and make sure that we can build that new one and that we 
can deliver it on time, because that is where we really get 
into trouble here on all this, is as programs move to the 
right, as they say, and then it makes us fall further behind.
    So thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wilson. And thank you very much, Chairman Mike Rogers 
and Ranking Member Adam Smith. It is great to see the 
bipartisan support for our extraordinary persons who are here 
testifying today.
    And I appreciate so much your service to the country.
    I was grateful to have 31 years of Army service. Three of 
my sons joined the Army, and then one went astray and joined 
the Navy. And I am just really grateful that he is currently an 
orthopedic surgeon at Beaufort Naval Hospital gluing marines 
back together. And so we really appreciate his service.
    And then, of course, we appreciate Parris Island, which, of 
course, is an extraordinary location just north of Hilton Head. 
And so everybody needs to visit.
    And with that, General Berger, we appreciate 17,000 marines 
annually come through the Marine Corps Depot at Parris Island. 
It has been so inspiring to me to see young people talking to 
their family members, explaining at graduation I am the slug 
and human debris you sent here. They don't recognize them. So 
it is a positive transformation.
    Additionally, I am really grateful for the activation of 
Camp Blaz at Guam, the incredibly strategic territory of our 
country. It indicates, of course, the forward posture we have 
in the Indo-Pacific. And, again, the patriotic people of Guam 
are so supportive as they work for peace through strength.
    With that in mind, General, the Marine Corps has shifted 
their focus toward forward persistent presence throughout the 
Pacific to deter strategic attacks against America and our 
allies.
    And, of course, yesterday was extraordinary. We had the 
opportunity to have an address to Congress by His Excellency, 
Yoon Suk Yeol, the President of Korea. He cited the miracle of 
the Han River, where his devastated nation had an income after 
the Korean War of $67, and now it is over $30,000 per capita. 
And so how incredible, due to free market democracy and working 
with the United States.
    With that in mind, how are we, General, being prepared in 
the Indo-Pacific?
    General Berger. I think, as you would expect, the role of 
the Marine Corps and the Navy, as an expeditionary force 
forward, creates the depth that Admiral Aquilino needs.
    So, essentially, you want your marines forward persistently 
24/7 every day of the week. To do that, you have to have the 
amphibious ships and the training and the people and all to 
make that possible. And they are integrated into a whole 
combined force.
    Guam is the forward-most hub, as you said, critical to 
project power forward from. I think for the next 10 or 15 years 
you are going to see that grow in strategic importance to the 
U.S. and the importance to, as Admiral Aquilino says, to defend 
it.
    I would say for us, we have to work hard on the ability to 
distribute, which the CNO talks about all the time, and then 
the ability to sustain that force logistically, because we have 
protected lines for decades. Now it is going to be contested.
    So we have work to do, but I think the role of your Marine 
Corps--I know the role of your Marine Corps is forward all the 
time persistently.
    Mr. Wilson. Well, again, I appreciate so much. You are 
really giving opportunity to young people to serve. And I was 
grateful my late father-in-law was one of you. My late brother-
in-law was one of you. So we appreciate Marines.
    And, Mr. Secretary, the ability of the United States to 
maintain U.S. shipbuilding and repair is critical. And 
geopolitical issues have demonstrated how important it is.
    What are your industry concerns about ensuring the rapid 
production and replenishment of the U.S. Navy?
    Secretary Del Toro. There are multiple concerns, 
Congressman. It starts with the labor force. We need a really 
strong blue collar labor force in this country to actually 
support our shipbuilding interests across shipyards around the 
country.
    We obviously don't have enough of them. We have shut down 
too many in past years. But we got to rebuild those.
    So another concern I have is working with smaller 
shipyards, for example, so that they can actually come on board 
and do Department of Defense work and work as subcontractors to 
the larger shipyards so that we can increase productivity. So 
labor force across all shipyards, getting smaller shipyards to 
work with larger shipyards.
    The case in Austal, for example, that is now building steel 
to support our Columbia-class program at Electric Boat is a 
perfect example of that. I believe Austal is looking at hiring 
close to a thousand more people over the course of the next 
year.
    So we need more labor and we need more legal immigration. 
We need more work visa programs that can bring the types of 
folks to this country that allow us to work in the shipyards.
    That is my primary concern. Of course, I meet constantly 
with the CEOs [chief executive officers] of all the shipyards 
to understand how well they are moving with regards to their 
production rates. I believe on the destroyer side, we are 
getting a lot better now, to the point where we can build 1.8--
--
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 167.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, 
Mr. Courtney, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to join my colleagues again in congratulating 
Admiral Gilday and General Berger for your amazing service.
    I think it is worth noting that during your tenure you had 
to deal with a global pandemic, but the mission of your 
departments didn't come to an end or pause, and you were able 
to balance all the operational challenges and public health 
challenges so successfully. And I think that certainly should 
go down in the annals as sort of bonus points in terms of your 
service.
    You also served at a time in the last administration where 
there were five Secretaries of the Navy or Acting Secretaries 
of the Navy, which is a record, which hopefully this country 
will never experience again in terms of the instability of 
civilian control. And, again, I want to thank both of you for 
really being pillars of stability during that time period.
    Secretary Del Toro and Admiral Gilday, again, we had the 
honor of being at Navy Base Point Loma back in March when the 
AUKUS announcement was rolled out, the Optimal Pathway, three 
heads of government, three Navies together, with the USS 
Missouri in the backdrop, really announcing what I think David 
Ignatius called the most significant security agreement in 
decades, which is, again, to give our great ally Australia the 
undersea capability to again be part of an effort to deter in 
the Indo-Pacific region.
    Admiral Gilday, right after that announcement, the Minister 
for Defence Industry for Australia, Pat Conroy, announced that 
Australia will be investing $3 billion directly into the U.S. 
industrial base. I mean, this is Australia investment into the 
industrial base of the United States, which is, again, 
unprecedented and certainly shows the level of commitment of 
that nation to this undertaking.
    You and I were at the shipyard about a week and a half ago 
talking about the fact that integrating the industrial bases, 
which is key to successful execution of AUKUS, is going to 
require some work by Congress in terms of making sure that the 
restrictions in terms of foreign nationals being able to be 
even in the shipyards or also have access to different points. 
And we have to fix that in Congress.
    So I wonder if you can just sort of talk about, again, how 
that is really so instrumental and required for this alliance 
to work.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I think when I look across the three 
nations involved in AUKUS, particularly Australia and the 
United States, I think about manpower as the biggest challenge 
that we all have.
    And I think with respect to getting the Australian experts 
into our shipyards, into our submarines without any 
restrictions, this is a fellow Five Eye nation that we trust 
with our most sensitive intelligence, and they trust us with 
theirs.
    I think that we need to look at where the constraints are 
and I think bring those to the right level. That might be the 
Congress. It might be the White House. But to break those down 
so that we can truly make this Optimal Path a reality.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you.
    And another sort of issue that causes I guess some 
heartburn--with good intention--is that some people, in terms 
of the acquisition of three Virginias and possibly up to five, 
it may seem like a detraction or a diminishment in a zero-sum 
game in terms of our own undersea fleet.
    Can you talk about, again, the value of that type of 
transfer, which would be paid for, in terms of, again, our own 
undersea fleet and our own sort of strategic position?
    Admiral Gilday. The first thing, based on our--well, 
informed by our visit just a week ago up to Groton and Electric 
Boat, I have a high degree of confidence that industry is 
responding. They understand that they need to hit the 
accelerator with respect to their production rates.
    And whether it is Newport News Shipbuilding down in 
Virginia or up in Electric Boat in Connecticut, I think they 
both have that clear message.
    I do think that the forward deployment of submarines as a 
first step in Australia is a game-changer. And so the chairman 
in his opening comments mentioned deterrence, and deterrence is 
all about capability and intent. You bring it up to an 
exponential level when you leverage allies and partners in 
PRC's [People's Republic of China] backyard with the best 
capability in the world operating it in and around China.
    So I think there is so much there with respect to 
potential, not just for the United States but for all the 
nations that intend to sail and use the maritime commons around 
the PRC.
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Wittman, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Wittman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us.
    General Berger, Admiral Gilday, thank you also. And thank 
you both for your service to our Nation. What an incredible 
impact you have had.
    This will probably be the last time that you testify before 
us in your current positions, but we look forward to continued 
dialogue in the years to come. And, again, thank you.
    Secretary Del Toro, I want to begin with the scenario that 
we have before us, the request from the administration on 
building nine ships, retiring 11 ships; from last year's 
request, building eight ships, retiring 24 ships. The 30-year 
shipbuilding plan that gives a choice, where the Code says 355 
ships.
    All of these things to me are very frustrating. And, Mr. 
Secretary, I am not a mathematician, but I do not know any laws 
of math that allow you to do addition by subtraction.
    Here we are today, we are taking five cruisers out of the 
weapons inventory. And I say weapons inventory because each of 
them have 120 VLS [vertical launching system] tubes. So we are 
talking 600 VLS tubes. There is no replacement between now and 
2027, or, for that matter, even in the near term beyond.
    We see we have a 31-ship floor now in the Code for amphibs. 
Now we are going to retire three LSDs--early, by the way.
    With the Navy shrinking and shipbuilding capacity, as you 
spoke about, in a crisis mode, we see ourselves at a tipping 
point in the history of this Nation's Navy-Marine Corps team.
    And I appreciate the conversations that we have had. I look 
forward to working with you. I do think there are things that 
we can do together that help us get on the plus side of where 
our Navy needs to be. And we can talk about our ship 
capabilities, but capacity is, by itself, critically important. 
Quantity has a quality all its own.
    I would love for you to share with us what your plans are 
going forward, to make sure we get both sides of the equation 
right, to make sure we hit the gas pedal on the build side, but 
also make sure we do everything we can to make sure that the 
ships we have get to their expected service lives. We cannot 
afford anything less.
    And the maintenance side is also critical. And, Admiral 
Gilday, I appreciate you meeting with me at some of the 
maintenance yards. And I take your commitment too in the 
maintenance side being an all-hands-on-deck call. Thank you for 
doing that.
    Mr. Secretary, I would love to get your perspective on 
that.
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
your leadership on this position. And I do very much look 
forward to continuing to work with you very collaboratively on 
solutions that are going to get us to a better place.
    At any given time, the three of us are always concerned 
about readiness, modernization, and capacity, without question. 
We don't want a hollow force. We have put an enormous amount of 
investments in readiness.
    Over the course of the last 10 years, this Congress, 
previous Congresses, and previous administrations have all been 
focused on modernizing our Navy, because we have essentially 
inherited John Lehman's Navy.
    And the fact is that ships get old. And once they reach a 
certain point, even if they are below their ESLs [expected 
service lives] but they are not in the correct material 
condition to be able to continue to operate those ships, we 
cannot deploy those VLS cells, for example, if they are stuck 
in a maintenance pier and they can't be fired from ashore.
    So the real key to success is trying to get them 
operationally available to the fleet to fulfill the missions 
that they have to fulfill.
    So out of those five cruisers, for example, there is 
nothing more that I would love to do is to invest resources 
into three of those to actually extend them by one or two 
deployments. And I think that is achievable, as you and I have 
spoken about in the past.
    In the case of both the Vicksburg and the Cowpens, those 
ships will never see another deployment regardless of how much 
money we put into them.
    So I think it is a far better strategy to allocate the 
moneys that are dedicated to those ships and apply them to, 
say, the LSDs, for example, so that we can get the Tortuga out 
of its maintenance availability and operational again to 
support the Commandant.
    And I think those are the types of solutions that we could 
work together on in the future in this year's budget and next 
year's budget to get to a better place.
    Mr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you.
    General Berger, thank you so much for your vision, for 
looking in the future, for taking some bold moves to make sure 
the Marine Corps is in the right place. Force Design 2030 
pushes those issues, asks our Marine Corps to experiment to 
look at what the path is forward.
    Can you tell us, from your perspective, tell us the lessons 
learned, both the things you have learned that didn't work or 
the things that you are finding do work, and especially as we 
relate to these challenges in the Indo-Pacific?
    General Berger. First of all, I think if I had to do it all 
over again, I probably would have spoken more earlier on about 
the things in the Marine Corps that would not change, which is 
most of the Marine Corps.
    This is an evolution, and we have modernized the Marine 
Corps several times in our history when we sensed if we don't 
we will fall behind.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Garamendi, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    My good fortune was my tenure as chairman of the Readiness 
Committee coincided with the leadership that General Berger and 
Admiral Gilday had. I was very fortunate. We dealt with 
shipyards. We dealt with ship maintenance, training, housing, 
safety, depots, and on and on.
    I thank you, gentlemen, for being there all the time on all 
of these issues. There is much to be said. I have had the good 
fortune of working with you.
    I have also had the good fortune of working with Ms. 
Sherrill, who I will now yield the balance of my time to.
    Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, Mr. Garamendi.
    Gentlemen--and with this Department, it is always 
gentlemen--I have spent most of my life dreaming of being a 
Naval aviator, training to be a Naval aviator, flying in the 
Navy, or proud of my service as a Naval aviator. And this year 
marks the 50th anniversary of women in Naval aviation. And 
today is the 30th anniversary of Secretary Aspin's order that 
allowed women into combat aviation.
    So imagine how thrilled I was when I was a second-class 
midshipman or a junior at the Naval Academy to hear that order 
to know that in really the horrible aftermath of Tailhook and 
with the lifting of combat restrictions I would be headed to 
Pensacola to earn my wings in a new, more fair era.
    Sadly, we know that that hope has not become a reality. In 
fact, the stories I am now hearing out of Pensacola could just 
as easily have been stories coming out of the Tailhook 
Conference in Vegas in 1992. Women's flight suit zippers being 
pulled down. Calls of ``are you headed to your gynecologist 
appointment'' in the halls. Rides home being offered by flight 
instructors, only to have those women taken to that 
instructor's house and forcibly kissed before she escapes.
    But you know the worst part about it and the part that 
makes me see red and the part that truly speaks of the dearth 
of leadership in the Department of Navy and in our Marine Corps 
is when that woman, those women step forward to report these 
things they are shut down. Punitive measures are being taken 
against the women that report it, and their careers are ended; 
are being put in jeopardy.
    So is this the price that women are expected to pay to 
serve our Nation in our Marine Corps? Is the message after a 
shoddy command investigation that failed to even interview 
witnesses that the price of entering into aviation is hazing, 
harassment, and sexual assault?
    It should really come as no surprise today that we have a 
recruitment and retention disaster when it comes to women in 
Naval aviation. There is a significant gap between the number 
of women aviators and the number you would expect to see after 
three decades.
    And the problem is particularly acute in the Marine Corps. 
2021 statistics show that women made up just 9 percent of our 
United States Marine Corps, by far the lowest among the 
services.
    And I think it is safe to say that the USMC [United States 
Marine Corps] has a problem recruiting and retaining women. I 
think it is also safe to say that, with a 480-person tactical 
pilot shortfall, the USMC has a problem recruiting and 
retaining pilots.
    And the statistics just get worse. Zero four-star female 
general officers in the history of the Corps. Less than 15 
female general officers in the Corps ever.
    And I am sure you are aware there are significant problems 
with sexual harassment, sexual assault retaliation, and a toxic 
workplace climate in flight school in Pensacola, the training 
environment that sets the norms of conduct for all the rest of 
our Navy and Marine Corps fleet squadrons.
    It was recently brought to my attention that three Active 
Duty currently serving female USMC aviators in training have 
been retaliated against for reporting their military sexual 
trauma, all three in the last 2 years, and all three instigated 
or condoned by Navy and Marine Corps instructors. All three 
initially faced administrative separation not just from 
aviation, but from the Marine Corps.
    Now, after an overturned investigation, one has to restart 
an entire flight syllabus after two years in limbo.
    This should really come as no surprise because it is, in 
fact, well understood at NAS [Naval Air Station] Pensacola, 
where 81 percent of respondents strongly agreed or agreed with 
the statement, quote, ``In my unit, military members/employees 
who file a sexual harassment complaint would be blamed for 
causing problems.'' Eighty-one percent know that to be the 
case.
    So after almost 2 years of pain with investigations dogged 
with inconsistent testimony and a shoddy investigation, these 
young women are now facing separation for standing up to their 
sexual harassers. And this is just three women who have been 
brave enough to share their stories. I am sure there are many 
more who have been silenced or unable to come forward.
    So, gentlemen, my time is about to expire. I am sure we 
will continue to discuss this. I sincerely hope we have a 
better command investigation coming. And I look forward to 
hearing your responses to the questions I will submit for the 
record.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Gallagher, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gallagher. Last week in this room, the Indo-Pacific 
commander, Admiral Aquilino, told me that he was not concerned 
about the number of Long-Range Precision Fires prepositioned in 
the region.
    Just for the sake of congressional clarity, Secretary Del 
Toro, do you think we have sufficient stockpiles of Long-Range 
Precision Fires west of the International Date Line?
    Secretary Del Toro. No, we do not. We need more. And I am 
concerned about the fixed Long-Range Precision Fires that PRC 
has and is continuing to build in the region. And I am 
confident that Admiral Aquilino is as well too.
    Mr. Gallagher. I think we have a huge opportunity to fix 
this and start to rebuild our stockpiles. I hear you are less 
than 2 years away from having P-8s ready for LRASM [long range 
anti-ship missile], for example.
    But where are we with the missiles? What is the planned buy 
rate? What has been our average over the last 5 years? And how 
do we get the unit cost, not just for LRASM but for SM-6 and 
Maritime Strike Tomahawk, down.
    Secretary Del Toro. So just in last year's--in this year's 
Presidential budget, 2024, we have increased the amount of 
funding by 50 percent, putting in $250 million for 103 antiship 
missiles, Naval strike missiles themselves, which are needed 
across both the Marine Corps and the Navy.
    We are putting in $1.6 billion for the Standard Missile 6, 
125 of them; the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile, $1.2 
billion for 131 missiles; in the case of the LRASM, $1 billion 
for 118.
    Mr. Gallagher. What does that buy us, though? What is our 
target per year?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, what it buys us actually is it 
sends a very strong signal to industry as well too that they 
have to get their production rates up so that we can actually 
build these missiles faster.
    Mr. Gallagher. I think, at least for me, I think we need 
like a target. I think we have averaged about 40 a year over 
the last 5 years. There are claims that we can get that above 
200. I think we should test those claims.
    But as for getting there and getting the unit cost down, to 
me the solution is obvious. We have multiyear authority. We 
need multiyear appropriation.
    Admiral Gilday, it looked like you are chomping at the bit.
    Admiral Gilday. So, as the Secretary is mentioning, we have 
four multiyear contracts in this--proposed in this budget: 
Naval Standard Missile with the Marine Corps; SM-6 with the 
Marine Corps; LRASM and AMRAAM [advanced medium range air-to-
air missile] with the Air Force.
    Sir, I will get back to you on precise numbers, but what we 
are trying to do is absolutely maximize the production output 
of those factories, and we did it last year.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 167.]
    And in last year, the UPL that I submitted essentially was 
for extra weapons to maximize their production rate this year. 
That is what we were trying to do.
    In terms of savings for those four categories I talked 
about, 15 percent savings doing a bundle buy.
    Mr. Gallagher. Well, if we can't get the appropriation that 
we need, a multiyear appropriation, I just would suggest--I 
know we got a little bit, but it is well below the authorized 
number.
    I would suggest we put the relevant Members of Congress on 
your airplane, take them down to Troy, Alabama, take them to 
Huntsville, take them wherever they need to go to see. I mean, 
these companies should not be coming to us saying, ``Hey, we 
can do more.'' We should be testing the limits of what is 
possible.
    And if we can't do it now, in light of what is happening in 
Ukraine, we are never going to do it. You have to assume you 
are fighting with what is already in theater, just given the 
geography of the Indo-Pacific. And so now is the time. It is 
almost as if we need a war footing now when it comes to 
critical munitions in order to avoid the war. And that is what 
we want to partner with you all on.
    In the time that remains, when can we expect to see a 
Maritime Strike Tomahawk on surface ships? And what is your 
planned buy rate for that? I don't know if that is Admiral 
Gilday.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I don't have the planned buy rate at 
my fingertips. I don't want to give you the exact date. I would 
say very soon Maritime Strike Tomahawk in terms of integrating 
that capability.
    Mr. Gallagher. Will we have unmanned surface vessels with 
launch tubes ready this decade?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, we will.
    Mr. Gallagher. And then how do we--you can elaborate.
    Admiral Gilday. So right now, we will begin procuring our 
first large unmanned vessels in 2025. We have five, we are 
looking at five in the FYDP [Future Years Defense Program]. The 
intent is to outfit those with missile tubes. It will 
essentially give you a missile arsenal with missiles with range 
and speed.
    Mr. Gallagher. And then my colleagues mentioned our 
inability to even go in the right direction towards the goal of 
a 355-ship Navy. In order to do that, you got to build more 
frigates. I know I am a homer on this one. But, Admiral Gilday, 
give me your assessment of----
    Admiral Gilday. So right now, sir, we only have seven 
shipyards. And so just a touch of context. For 20 years, the 
Navy hasn't been a priority, for obvious reasons, for the 
ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have turned the tide 
now. Fifty-seven ships in construction, another 77 on contract. 
Again, we are trying to maximize the output of those 
facilities.
    I do think we are on a path with frigates of two a year up 
in Wisconsin and to open a second yard with hopefully two a 
year.
    Mr. Gallagher. So eventually four a year.
    Admiral Gilday. Four a year.
    Mr. Gallagher. And my time has expired.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    I would inform members that we have been called to the 
floor to vote. We have only one vote, so I would urge you to 
move over. We are going to keep the hearing rolling. If you 
have a question, you need to get up there and vote and get 
back.
    With that, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 
Norcross, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it.
    And to the witnesses for being here, particularly Admiral 
Gilday and General Berger, for your service. I have really 
appreciated working with you over the years.
    General Berger, I want to talk about the Humvees. We have 
seen the reports on the news of the turnovers and the loss of 
life. And the Army is very much getting at using the new 
technology to avoid those rollovers. I think the Marines have 
somewhere around 17,000 Humvees.
    Two-part question: How many of those would be eligible for 
the upgrade? And why haven't we started to upgrade those to 
avoid what we have seen, the reality of young men and women 
being killed?
    General Berger. Thanks, Congressman.
    About 2,000 of our Humvees would be the ones you are 
speaking of that we could upgrade. Though, in weighing the 
benefit of should we put the money into the Humvees to upgrade 
them, as old as they are, or should we buy new JLTVs [Joint 
Light Tactical Vehicles], it was an easy decision for us. So we 
are putting the money, instead of investing into the old 
Humvees--we are going to retire them and buy new, field new 
JLTVs. They are built from the ground up safer.
    Mr. Norcross. No question about it, and I agree with you. 
So does that mean those 2,000 will not be used until the new 
ones come on?
    General Berger. They will be fielded--they are still in the 
field right now, but they will be retired as we bring on the 
JLTVs.
    Mr. Norcross. So, I understand that. They will cross at a 
point that we can do it on some of those--because it will be 
years. And if they are actively being used for the small--and 
it is relatively small--investment, we believe it is absolutely 
worth it, or take them out. Because we have seen those young 
men and women being killed. And I urge you to look at that a 
little bit deeper.
    Admiral Gilday, we have heard the challenges we have in our 
industrial base. And that goes across the spectrum, from 
materials, critical materials, especially in munitions, but 
there are many parts that go into that. But we talk also about 
making sure that we have the required number of ships, 
submarines.
    We have heard the Secretary talk about labor being the 
number-one issue in supply chain. And I agree with that, 
because, quite frankly, it takes the longest to build. What is 
the Navy's plan to address that labor shortage, those blue-
collars that the Secretary talked about?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, in this decade, we have increased the 
manning at our public shipyards by 10,000 people, most of that 
in the trades.
    Industry is working to do the same thing. Representative 
Courtney and I, as you mentioned, we were just up in 
Connecticut, where they are looking to hire 4,000 this year 
based on the workload that they have. I was just up in Bath, 
Maine. They are looking at hiring--I was in Bath earlier this 
week--another 1,000 at Bath Iron Works.
    The money that the United States Government is putting into 
the industrial base in terms of workforce development, I think, 
is absolutely critical, and I would urge the Congress to 
continue to make those investments. Mr. Courtney talked about 
the fact that the Australians are helping us invest in that 
very thing.
    Mr. Norcross. Mr. Weber and I were down in Australia last 
year talking about the upcoming agreements, and their number-
one issue is labor also.
    It is imperative--when I say ``us,'' the parents of 
America--to make sure that we explain to our children that 
going to work with your hands and your head is just as 
important as getting a Ph.D. in physics. We need all of them. 
And the dignity of having a job and working for your country is 
paramount.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Admiral Gilday, the 30-year shipbuilding plan provided 
Congress with three options. Although all three of these have 
the same profile in the next 5 years, each is slightly 
different starting in 2029 and out.
    I don't believe that having three options in a report to 
Congress is helpful to either Congress or to the industry. What 
is your best military advice to this Congress on which of these 
options are required to allow you to meet the missions being 
placed on the Navy now and in the future?
    Because, to me, this is just like answering a question with 
a question or repeating back to me what I have already told 
you. We need more finality in that.
    And before you answer, I just want to recognize both the 
outstanding military spouses that are here in support of you. 
It is a family business, and we cannot do it--they serve just 
as much as those in uniform.
    And thank you all for your service.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. Thanks for those comments.
    My best military advice would be alternative number three: 
Alternative number three is not limited by funding; it is only 
limited by the capacity of the defense industrial base, which I 
think, over time, only increases with respect to efficiencies 
and their ability to produce more ships.
    Mr. Kelly. Thank you, Admiral.
    Mr. Secretary, the CNO and the Commandant of the Marine 
Corps both agree that the amphibious ship requirement is 31 
ships, as codified into law. I think we can all agree on the 
importance of having these strategic platforms in the 
inventory.
    Although the 30-year shipbuilding plan does not outline any 
procurement of LPDs, you have previously testified that you 
will revisit this in the 2025 budget submission. Can you tell 
me what the impact will be to the industrial base if we do not 
fund the LPD either this year or next year in the strategic 
policy that we are talking about that I don't think will 
happen?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to 
completely hypothetically predict what the impact will be, but, 
at a minimum, you could expect losses of jobs in the realm of 
1,500 to 2,000, for example, in one particular shipyard.
    So it is a negative impact, but, more importantly, I think 
it is important to provide consistency of messaging in terms of 
being able to do these multi-ship procurements.
    It is the unique way for the American taxpayer to save 
money as well, too. So, if we can get to a place where we are 
doing a multi-ship, multiyear procurement for three to five 
additional ships, it does save money, and it is a proven way to 
save money. We have seen it on Constellation-class frigates, we 
have seen it on destroyers, we have seen it on numerous other 
platforms.
    Mr. Kelly. Absolutely.
    And I just want to point out, it is not just the loss of 
jobs; it is the loss of that workforce that we are saying we 
don't have, and then we are doing away with the workforce, 
making their skills atrophy, and then coming back a year later 
to build this same thing and losing that skill, which costs us 
more and takes longer.
    Admiral Gilday, with the planned ship decommissioning this 
year, is the Navy able to maintain appropriate amphibious 
readiness to meet the Title 10 requirement of 31 operational 
amphibious warships?
    And when you are considering readiness, how do you define 
an amphibious warship as ready? And after you have answered, 
General Berger, I want your definition on readiness as well.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, we have different stages of readiness, 
all the way from 1 to 4.
    And so readiness levels 1 and 2 are our highest, and those 
are the ships that are considered ready to deploy. So they are 
manned, they are trained, they are equipped. They are certified 
for combat operations. We do that with our teammates in the 
Marine Corps, together, in terms of the certification exercise. 
And then we push them out the door.
    You know, with respect to numbers, no, I am not satisfied 
with where we are with respect to maintenance and readiness of 
the force. It does need to improve. That is why readiness 
remains our top priority, and maintenance--the proposed funding 
is at 100 percent.
    Mr. Kelly. And, General Berger, I am going to add a little 
to your--so, Commandant, you recently stated there has been a 
20-percent decline in Marines serving aboard ships since 2018, 
which you attribute to a lack of amphibious ships availability.
    Has amphibious ship readiness impacted the Marine Corps' 
ability to contribute forces across the world? As well as your 
definition, with the remainder of my time.
    General Berger. Sir, it has. Concisely, yes, it has 
affected--the readiness and availability has affected our 
availability to be on the water to respond, absolutely, yes.
    As far as the definition, we share the same definition 
because we are a naval force. A ready vessel is one that is 
manned, trained, equipped, material conditions ready to go, and 
the Marines are trained aboard that ship, because it operates 
as a system. That is an available ship.
    Mr. Kelly. And in my final comment in my last 20 seconds, I 
just want to say, when we talk about decommissioning ships, 
sometimes we get the product that we try to do. If we say 
something is going to be broke the entire time and make sure 
that it is broke, it is going to be just as broke. But we have 
to get the ships--when they are told to be seaworthy, we have 
to get them to sea, regardless of our personal view on whether 
it should or not.
    And I yield back.
    I now recognize my friend, Mr. Gallego.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Berger, you have outlined an ambitious plan in 
Force Design 2030. However, new threats are emerging each day 
that won't wait until 2030. We need to modernize and 
potentially deter adversaries.
    As we have seen in Russia's continued war of aggression 
against Ukraine and increasingly provocative behavior from the 
Chinese Communist Party toward Taiwan, how do you balance 
immediate needs and long-term planning? And how are you 
ensuring that we have a modern and lethal force to meet the 
immense challenges of today?
    General Berger. I thank the Congressman.
    First, I take probably a little bit different view on an 
either/or decision--in other words, you can either modernize or 
you can have a ready force. We are, both of us--all three of us 
are responsible to do both, as you accurately point out.
    We have to be ready today. The Marine Corps is America's 
crisis response force by statute. So that is not--that is not 
an option. That is not something I can not do. We are ready, 
very ready.
    But if we stay stagnant, if we don't change, if we don't 
stay in front of the threat, then 4 or 5, 6 years from now, if 
China, if Russia continues on the trajectory they are on, they 
will have advantages we can't tolerate.
    So we have to do both. And I am very comfortable that we 
are there, because the forces that are deploying right now, 
Congressman, aboard ship and Unit Deployment Program, they are 
very ready with what they have right now. But they are also 
leaning into the future, testing new concepts, testing new 
systems. They sense that if they don't move now we will be 
behind, and that is not acceptable.
    Mr. Gallego. Thank you, General.
    Admiral Gilday, your testimony highlights the incredible 
speed with which the CCP has increased its Navy, tripling in 
size in only two decades. This dynamic makes it all the more 
important that we maintain the technological and intellectual 
edge.
    How is the Navy ensuring that we maintain this advantage? 
And are there any particular gaps where we need to focus more 
intention? And how is the Navy prioritizing those areas?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, thanks for the question.
    Just briefly, in this budget proposal in front of Congress, 
in the undersea, we are investing in an upgrade to our 
Virginia-class submarines, the Block V's, 28 additional missile 
tubes. We are increasing the capability of our torpedoes, 
including our heavy-weight torpedoes. We are deploying unmanned 
vessels, unmanned robotics, out of torpedo tubes of our 
submarines. We are investing in advanced electronic warfare 
systems on our surface ships. We are investing in Standard 
Missile Six. We are putting hypersonics on the Zumwalt-class 
destroyers. And we are investing in Maritime Strike Tomahawk.
    For aviation, F-35s with a fifth-generation capability. Our 
fourth-generation F-18 Super Hornets, we are right now taking 
them through midlife modernization and bringing them from 6,000 
to 10,000 hours with an advanced combat system. We are 
investing in weapons with range and speed like LRASM. We are 
putting that weapon on P-8s. We are investing in MQ-25, the 
drone that will be able to do refueling and more.
    And so those are the modernization efforts that we have 
ongoing, not to keep pace with China but to stay in front of 
China, with a fleet 70 percent of which you will have in the 
water a decade from now.
    Mr. Gallego. And, Admiral, the goal is obviously 
deterrence, and that is obviously what we are always trying to 
do here. But is there a level of technology that is below what 
we have right now that is also--that we could create denial? 
You know, for example, are there things currently in our armory 
that we could be using or retrofitting right now to help, you 
know, deny China's invasion of Taiwan?
    And this could also go to Secretary Del Toro.
    Because, at the end of the day, if we stop China from 
invading Taiwan, it is over. And that doesn't necessarily mean 
we need the most sophisticated weaponry to do that; we just 
need the weaponry that can do the job.
    Is there something that we have in our armory right now 
that we should stock up on more that would actually do that?
    Admiral Gilday. So one of our requests is for additional 
mines.
    But, also, our first large undersea vessel is in the water 
right now off the coast of California in testing. That testing 
is going fairly well. There will be five more additional UUVs 
that follow that one.
    That platform has a clandestine mine-laying capability, and 
that will be a game-changer for us, to your point----
    Mr. Gallego. Yeah.
    Admiral Gilday. --about making an investment in something 
that will change the----
    Mr. Gallego. Secretary Del Toro.
    Secretary Del Toro. Just adding very quickly, Congressman, 
I think the investment that we make in counter-5 ISR as well, 
too, Operation Overmatch, which we can't talk about publicly, 
but that has significant impact on their ability to do what 
they wish to do on day one.
    Mr. Gallego. Excellent. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bacon.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
    We thank all three of you for being here. I just had to run 
and vote and come back, so I will catch my breath here real 
fast. But we thank you for your leadership.
    My first question is to Admiral Gilday.
    I work on a quality-of-life panel here. We are going to 
start up. It is a subcommittee that is going to start in June. 
We are focused on a lot of different areas to try and improve 
the quality of life.
    One of the things I hear about the Navy is that a 
significant number of our junior sailors who are not married 
have to stay on the ships when they are in port. And that is 
even in the midst of, like, maintenance and the loud noises 
that are going on just to repair a ship to get it ready to go 
back out to fleet. And the quality of life for those sailors 
are not good.
    First of all, what is your take on that? Am I hearing this 
correct? Two, do we need to be investing in more barracks at 
our ports?
    Admiral Gilday. To your last question, we are, with respect 
to barracks, significantly across the FYDP.
    If I could give the example of San Diego right now, we have 
three carriers in port. And so E-1 to E-3s, by law, are not 
allowed to have Basic Allowance for Housing if they are on sea 
duty. So they have to stay on the ship unless that ship is in 
maintenance.
    What we have done with those three ships is, to the maximum 
extent possible, we have put those sailors in the barracks. To 
ease the strain, we have taken E-4s that have less than 4 years 
of service and we have the ability to waive the requirement--
or, to waive the restriction for BAH [basic housing allowance] 
and to actually allow them to get a housing allowance to get 
them off the ship.
    So, based on the constraints that we have in the law and 
the available housing, we are trying to do the best we can to 
get people ashore.
    We have cut a deal with landlords in San Diego, as an 
example--and we are working this in other places--where they 
are giving our sailors below-market-price deals on their 
properties. We guarantee a steady throughput, so they won't be 
vacant. And they also waive the security deposit.
    So we are trying to get at that very piece, with respect to 
quality of life.
    Mr. Bacon. Just to follow up, I hear, like, in our 
facilities in Japan that it is some of the worst conditions for 
a lot of our sailors. Are you hearing the same thing?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would say that--and the Commandant 
spoke about this in his opening comments--it is an area that we 
have not put sufficient focus on for the last several years. 
And that is why you see significant increases in both our 
MILCON [military construction] and our restoration and 
modernization budgets, and it is reflected in our unfunded list 
as well. It is among the top priorities of the Secretary.
    Mr. Bacon. Thank you, Admiral.
    Secretary Del Toro, you know, we have had a requirement for 
355 ships for a while, but we are under 300, and that number is 
going down, the way I understand it.
    Do we have the right number, at 355? Should we be 
rethinking our strategy? It seems to me the strategy is right, 
but we are not funding or building towards that goal.
    Secretary Del Toro. So, Congressman, I do believe 355 is 
the right number. As you know, there is a battle force 
strategic assessment and requirements review going on right now 
that will be completed by June. I don't want to presume what 
the outcome of that will be, but I suspect it won't probably 
change much from the 355-ship number. And also, again, 150 
unmanned ships as well, too, which is really important for the 
future.
    The question is, modernizing the fleet now, getting rid of 
those ships that don't have the greatest capability for us to 
be able to deter against China and other adversaries around the 
world, so we can use those resources more intelligently and 
more valuably in the future to get even more ships for the 
future.
    Mr. Bacon. The image I am getting--and not just for the 
Navy; I see it in all of our services right now--we know we 
have to grow for the future, but we are all shrinking. And yet 
we know this vulnerability with China is imminent.
    And so it is--I just feel like, as the Armed Services 
Committee, I just think we need to sit back and just make sure 
we are funding you appropriately so we are not falling 
backwards.
    But, General Berger, I just have just 1 minute. If I could 
ask you, what is your number-one quality-of-life issue that we 
can help you out with in the Marines?
    General Berger. Overseas, I would say you are probably 
hearing the same thing as me: medical care. After that, family 
housing. After that, child development centers.
    Here in CONUS [the continental United States], more family 
housing and medical care and child development centers.
    All three of those are a pretty common refrain here in the 
U.S. and overseas, both. But medical care, huge right now.
    Mr. Bacon. Well, we appreciate those inputs.
    Thank you to all three. I look forward to tackling all 
these issues on the panel. Thank you.
    I yield.
    Mr. Kelly. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize the Representative from Hawaii, Ms. Tokuda.
    Ms. Tokuda. Tokuda. Thank you, sir.
    All right, Mr. Secretary, I definitely appreciate your 
affirmation and further commitment to Red Hill. I think we both 
agree this is something that will be a continuing earning in 
process--earning back trust every single day.
    On that note, there has been some concern among community 
members in Hawaii that the Navy's consideration of reuse 
options of Red Hill could pave the way for future fuel-related 
uses, even after the Joint Task Force Red Hill completes its 
defueling efforts.
    Recently, Assistant Secretary Berger stated that the Navy 
will not pursue any beneficial reuse options that would contain 
potential contaminants.
    Can we confirm and commit to this committee and the people 
of Hawaii that there is no future after defueling in which Red 
Hill will ever again be used for fuel-related options?
    Secretary Del Toro. For as long as I am Secretary, for as 
long as this administration is in power, Madam Congresswoman, I 
can tell you that there is absolutely zero intent to put fuels 
back into Red Hill.
    Ms. Tokuda. Thank you. I definitely appreciate that, 
Secretary.
    Red Hill was designed for fuel storage, though. We know it 
was definitely an engineering marvel and feat back in the 
1940s. So it retains all those properties necessary for fuel-
related operations, you know. And while we have your 
affirmation that would never take place on your watch, there 
still is a lot of anxiety that, even after defueling closure, 
and, yes, for the time being, no potential fuel-related 
operations, it is still basically one degree away from 
potential fuel storage over our aquifer going ahead into the 
future.
    And I know right now outreach efforts are underway to 
engage community and other individuals in the future of this 
facility and looking at different options, but has the Navy 
considered physical modifications to Red Hill that it could 
take as part of the closure process to completely eliminate the 
possibility that it could be used for fuel-related uses going 
forward?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, the intent is not to continue to 
maintain Red Hill in the future, once the fuel is out of there, 
in a manner which actually would still allow it to hold fuel in 
the tanks themselves. So, over the course of time, those tanks 
would deteriorate and you wouldn't be able to put fuel into 
them in any effective manner.
    And so, again, I overemphasize the fact that, on the part 
of the Department of the Navy and Department of Defense, there 
is absolutely zero intent to put fuel back into Red Hill.
    Ms. Tokuda. Okay. And then I definitely would just reaffirm 
that part of that earning trust back, one action, one day, 
every day, is to continue to reinforce that message and show 
through actions that we will never again have fuel hanging over 
our aquifers and impairing the drinking water of the people of 
Hawaii and our military servicemen and -women.
    Switching subjects a little bit, Joint Base Pearl Harbor-
Hickam Wastewater Treatment Plant has, as we both know, 
continued to spill and discharge untreated or partially treated 
wastewater for many, many years now. Most recently, on March 7, 
approximately 14,000 gallons of partially treated wastewater 
was released into our State waters.
    There is a long trail of problems with the wastewater 
treatment plant at Pearl. And after the State imposed a fine on 
the Navy last year, it sounds like these problems are being 
taken seriously through corrective actions, although details 
are hard to come by.
    You know, again, Mr. Secretary, looking at that earning of 
trust and looking at the actions being taken, what is the Navy 
doing to address the unacceptable state of Pearl Harbor's 
wastewater treatment plants and the impact that it has had on 
our State waters?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, Congresswoman, thank you for your 
support of this incredibly important issue, because it does 
have a negative impact on the health and welfare of the people 
of Hawaii, our servicemembers, and all other tourists that come 
to Hawaii, obviously. So it is very important to us.
    When I came in as Secretary of the Navy, probably less than 
1 percent of the budget was dedicated to infrastructure. Since 
I have been Secretary, those numbers have gone up 
significantly, actually. And I am committed, actually, to a 30-
year infrastructure plan that takes a look at the worst across 
the entire Department of the Navy, both in the Marine Corps and 
the Navy, to figure out exactly where it is that we need to 
start making greater investments in infrastructure today.
    We have begun that process, actually, by taking a look at 
the utilities in Hawaii--the electricity, the wastewater, the 
freshwater--across the basins in Hawaii, actually, to see where 
we can make greater investments to take care of them, because 
it is old infrastructure that hasn't been maintained properly 
over the course of years, and we need to have those investments 
now so that we can prevent these things from ever occurring 
again.
    Ms. Tokuda. Absolutely. Thank you very much. And I 
absolutely share your commitment and dedication to 
infrastructure repairs. We are in the middle of an ocean. 
Things tend to deteriorate a lot faster. The useful life is a 
lot shorter. But, as you know, we have tended to act well 
beyond those useful lives for many of our utilities and 
infrastructure facilities.
    I know I am about to run out of time, but we will put forth 
some questions. Obviously, my side of the island, Kaneohe 
Marine Corps Base, we do have some water reclamation facility 
compliance projects that I am very interested in, and 
appreciate all of your support for that from the Corps.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. [Presiding.] I thank the gentlelady.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Gaetz, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Secretary, you know that Pensacola is a Navy 
town, and I want to thank you for coming and spending time at 
our Naval museum.
    In so many of these hearings, I focus on the things that I 
am concerned about as downward pressure on our recruiting, but 
in my time with you, I would like to focus on something that is 
a really positive thing that can drive recruiting.
    So many of these Naval aviators I meet in my district, they 
were inspired by ``Top Gun'' or they went to a Blue Angels air 
show and they got that spark in them that got them to take that 
extra engineering class or physics class or aviation 
opportunity.
    And this museum that you have been to is a gem. We have 
recovered aircraft out of the depths of Lake Michigan. We put 
on displays about the greatest moments of heroism in our 
military.
    And my challenge right now is, I have, I think, the best 
Naval museum in the world, and I am having a hard time getting 
people to it, because the way my base is configured--our base 
is configured, folks are not able to have ingress and egress.
    And I know it sounds like a real small problem from a real 
small part of the country, but what I think is, if we could 
have leadership and focus from your office and others and we 
could get hundreds of thousands of people back onto the base, 
back into that museum, it is not going to solve all of our 
recruiting challenges, but it is one more spark that we can 
have out there, getting folks excited in a positive, productive 
way.
    Will you work with me on that so I can get better access to 
this great gem?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, I have been working with 
you and your staff and local politicians and the leadership of 
that museum, actually, to try to get the throughput for that 
museum open as quickly as possible.
    We have come up with some near-term solutions, but we are 
also focused on finding the long-term solutions that actually 
bring it back to maximum throughput for that museum, for all 
the reasons that you just stated, because it is an 
extraordinary museum.
    Mr. Gaetz. So you view--where I at times struggle with 
folks is seeing the museum not just as a morale and welfare 
tool but as a recruiting tool. Do you see it as a recruiting 
tool?
    Secretary Del Toro. I absolutely see it as a recruiting 
tool. I saw it from the first day that I stepped in it.
    And we have actually been very energized, and we have come 
up with some near-term solutions to increase the throughput 
that already paid off dividends, but we are also looking at the 
long-term solutions that are a little bit more costly to be 
able to provide a direct access to the outside world without 
having to have folks come in through the base itself.
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, thank you for casting it in that lens. 
Because if it is a matter of dollars and cents and I have to 
ask my colleagues to support such an endeavor in the NDAA, I 
will certainly cite your testimony that this isn't just a 
museum for the sake of recreation but it is a way to engage 
people in Naval aviation in a place that is the home of the 
Blue Angels, the cradle of Naval aviation.
    Secretary Del Toro. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, Admiral Gilday, I had another question. 
Hopefully this is easy. We can disclaim it. There is this 
entity called the Uniformed Services University, and they come 
up with a lot of ways to engage in medical treatment throughout 
the force. They do some stuff at Walter Reed.
    And a group of these physicians got together and they wrote 
a very strange and concerning report, entitled ``Caring for 
Military-Affiliated Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youths: A 
Call for Protections.''
    And, in this report, we got folks that are working at this 
university talking about gender-affirming care for 7-year-olds. 
And, in the report, it cites that 7-year-olds ought to be able 
to participate in the decisions about whether or not they get 
puberty blockers or any of this other kind of treatment.
    I don't expect to have the Navy own the report of a few 
people that wrote it of their own volition, but I am just 
hoping, with our time together, you can say that the Navy has 
no plans to adopt the recommendations in this report or to see 
things in this way.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, we have to follow the law. I am not 
familiar with that training, but I share your concern. I will 
commit to looking in----
    Mr. Gaetz. It is not training. Just so we are clear, it is 
not training. It is a report a group of DOD folks got together 
and wrote about what they would like to see. And they have 
made--I wouldn't be asking you about it but for the fact that 
they have made specific policy recommendations about gender-
affirming care for 7-year-olds.
    So I appreciate your answer, you have to follow the law. 
You don't believe there is any part of the law that requires 
you to have military physicians involved in giving puberty 
blockers to children, do you?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I would be surprised if there were. I 
just--I don't know the law in that area well. I am not trying 
to be evasive.
    Actually, that university is actually run by DHA [Defense 
Health Agency]. I will get back to you with DHA with a firm 
answer.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 167.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Yeah. And it just sort of goes one of two ways. 
If you guys can say to us in these hearings that you are not 
going to do this stuff, you are not going to move people 
because of this, you are not going to administer this care, 
that probably is sufficient for most of us. If it is something 
that is unclear, we will probably put in the NDAA prohibitions 
so that these recommendations are never adopted.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
Mr. Moulton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Moulton. General Berger, you proposed an ambitious, 
politically risky modernization plan that created a fair bit of 
concern. It included a lot of investments, a number of 
divestments in particular.
    As a Member of Congress on the House Armed Services 
Committee, I sat down with the critics, the chief critics, of 
this plan, and I listened to every one of their concerns. And I 
brought every one of those concerns to you and to the Marine 
Corps, and you and your officers answered every single one. 
Eight Members of Congress, after that, signed an op-ed in The 
Wall Street Journal fully supporting your modernization plan.
    Past commandants have talked about this; other services are 
starting to work on it themselves. But you and the Marine Corps 
continue to lead the way. And my advice to you, sitting here 
this morning--to borrow a Navy phrase, is, ``Damn the 
torpedoes. Damn the critics. Full speed ahead.''
    But it is worth also noting the one concern that all eight 
of us shared in that piece in The Wall Street Journal, and that 
is, to quote, ``The Marine Corps may not be moving fast 
enough.'' You are moving faster than all the services. You are 
leading the way for America. And yet we are not confident that 
you are moving as quickly as our adversaries. So I would 
encourage you to consider not just full speed but flank speed 
ahead as you continue this modernization.
    Mr. Secretary, will you continue to support the Commandant 
in Force Design 2030 and whatever comes next to modernize the 
Marine Corps to meet this Nation's chief adversaries?
    Secretary Del Toro. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Moulton. And, Admiral Gilday, will you continue to 
support Commandant Berger in what he needs to do to continue 
leading the way?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Moulton. General Berger, one area where I think the 
Marine Corps might be able to focus even more is on artificial 
intelligence.
    By some estimates, China is, as a percentage of their 
overall defense budget, spending 3-to-10 times as much on AI 
[artificial intelligence] as we are.
    Repeated reports to the Department of Defense have 
encouraged the Department to move faster in adopting AI, 
including the Future Defense Task Force, a bipartisan report 
from this committee a few years ago, but the services are 
lagging behind.
    I think this is a great opportunity for the Marine Corps to 
continue to lead. Would you be willing to get us a report by 
this September for what the Marine Corps is doing today to 
integrate AI and what you can do to accelerate that, to give 
that advantage to our Marines and warfighters in the near 
future?
    General Berger. Congressman, I can have that to you long 
before September. Absolutely, yes.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    Shifting topics a bit, part of Force Design 2030 is about 
retaining the best personnel, and that means keeping them in 
fighting shape.
    I teamed up with a fellow veteran in Congress a few years 
ago and passed the National Mental Health Hotline, 988, 
creating a three-digit mental health hotline, which should help 
reduce the number of suicides in America. It was implemented in 
July. It is already having a dramatic effect. Calls to 988 are 
up 50 percent. Texts to 988, representing younger Americans, 
are up 1,445 percent.
    But I have asked a lot of friends on Active Duty, and I am 
still not hearing about 988 being posted around our barracks, 
our bases, so our servicemembers know that number and can call 
it in a time of crisis and help you with a stronger force.
    So what I would like to hear is, will you be willing to get 
out by next Friday, May 5, a standard poster that can be sent 
electronically and easily duplicated to post around Marine 
Corps barracks all over the world so that Marines know this 
number?
    General Berger. We can do that.
    Mr. Moulton. Admiral Gilday, will you do the same so that 
it is on all our ships? Obviously, this is not something that 
will be used--I shouldn't say ``ships''--is on all our Naval 
bases in the United States?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Moulton. And, Mr. Secretary, will you commit to making 
sure that the other services not represented here today will do 
the same by Friday, May 5?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, Congressman, I am not going to 
commit to Friday, May 5. I know how tough the bureaucracy is in 
the Pentagon to get something printed by Friday, May 5. But----
    Mr. Moulton. Well, the gentlemen on your left and your 
right just said----
    Secretary Del Toro. --I will commit to doing this 
expeditiously, as quick as we possibly can, to get the poster 
made and get it distributed to where it needs to go.
    Mr. Moulton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
Indiana, Mr. Banks, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last fall, before the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General 
argued in favor of continuing to use race as a factor in 
university and service academy admissions.
    Secretary Del Toro, if the Supreme Court, as we expect, 
strikes down the use of racial preferences in universities and 
includes the service academies in this ruling, will the Navy 
stop its affirmative action practices for military academy 
admissions at the Naval Academy?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, the United States Naval 
Academy in Annapolis has used a whole multiple approach in 
picking its candidates to become midshipmen at the Naval 
Academy, and that is a methodology that has been successful for 
decades. And it takes into account race; it takes into account 
many other factors: whether you played sports, you know, what 
job you had, where you came from, what hardships you might have 
suffered through----
    Mr. Banks. Mr. Secretary, will you make a commitment to 
this committee----
    Secretary Del Toro. --and it has worked very effectively--
--
    Mr. Banks. --if the Supreme Court rules----
    Secretary Del Toro. --and we have no intent on changing 
that at all.
    Mr. Banks. --if the Supreme Court rules and says to stop 
using race as a part of the admissions standards at the 
military academies, will the Naval Academy abide by it?
    Secretary Del Toro. As a member of the executive, the 
Department of the Navy, and me as Secretary of the Navy, we 
will always follow the law.
    Mr. Banks. Have you had any discussions at all with the 
Naval Academy about what that transition plan might look like 
if that Supreme Court ruling happens----
    Secretary Del Toro. There is no----
    Mr. Banks. --to prepare for it?
    Secretary Del Toro. --need right now for me to have 
discussions on a transition plan for a law that hasn't been 
passed.
    Mr. Banks. So how quickly could you change those standards 
if the Supreme Court says to stop?
    Secretary Del Toro. As quickly as is reasonably possible to 
fulfill the law.
    Mr. Banks. But no planning at this point? No discussions or 
planning----
    Secretary Del Toro. I have no plans to change the whole-
person multiple approach that the Naval Academy has used for 
decades very successfully to create great leaders across the 
Marine Corps and the Navy, as the two that are sitting here 
before me now.
    Mr. Banks. Okay. Well, understood.
    This month, the Vice CNO, Lisa Franchetti, said that the 
Navy will likely miss its recruiting goals for this year by 
6,000 sailors, falling 16 percent short of its target.
    Admiral Gilday, how is the recruiting crisis harming the 
Navy's ability to fully man our deployed vessels?
    Admiral Gilday. It is going to have an impact, sir, in 
terms of our being able to man every billet at sea. What we are 
trying to do to mitigate that--well, first of all, we are very 
focused on recruiting in terms of attracting talent.
    But in terms of what we are going to have to do to mitigate 
that, we are trying to incentivize sea duty for those that have 
moved ashore, as we owe them that kind of shore duty, but to 
get them back to sea in leadership positions.
    And we have had a lot of success in doing that. We are 
trying to--right now, our manning at sea is over 90 percent.
    Mr. Banks. And you would agree that the falling short of 
recruitment puts more pressure on our sailors?
    Admiral Gilday. Absolutely. We can't afford to have gaps 
out there and to have people doing twice the work.
    Mr. Banks. You did tell me before, though, that, while 
recruitment is below our target, retention is strong in the 
United States Navy. Is that right?
    Admiral Gilday. It is.
    Mr. Banks. And what can we learn from that?
    Admiral Gilday. So, a few things. I think the work we have 
done to empower people, to allow them to have more choices in 
terms of where they are going to serve next--inside--it has to 
meet their professional development in terms of, you know, 
requirements. But for the system to be more transparent, to 
give sailors and their families the ability to plan ahead, I 
think we have given them that type of--we have empowered them 
to have greater leverage in making those decisions.
    Mr. Banks. Secretary Del Toro, last month in the Bahamas, 
you said that fighting climate change was one of your top 
priorities as the Secretary. This comes as the Biden 
administration proposes to further shrink our Navy and while 
China continues a massive expansion of our fleet.
    Where do you rank climate change among other priorities of 
yours as the Secretary? In the military, we know, when you make 
one thing a priority, you have to acknowledge that other things 
might be less of a priority. So where does climate change 
factor in to the priorities that you have as the Secretary of 
the Navy?
    Secretary Del Toro. As I said then, it is a top priority.
    And let me give you an example. When I was the commanding 
officer of the USS Bulkeley and I tied up to one of our new 
piers in Norfolk, it had a double-decker pier, actually. All 
the utilities were on the lower part of the double-decker pier. 
And now we have moved them up to the top----
    Mr. Banks. I appreciate the anecdote----
    Secretary Del Toro. --because of the rising sea levels.
    Mr. Banks. --Mr. Secretary. I appreciate the anecdote.
    Secretary Del Toro. Rising sea levels have an impact on our 
ships' ability----
    Mr. Banks. Sir, it is my time.
    Secretary Del Toro. --to be tied to dock.
    Mr. Banks. Where do you rank climate change with, say, 
recruiting? What is more important?
    Secretary Del Toro. They are all equally important. They 
all have an impact on our combat readiness.
    Mr. Banks. Or growing our fleet?
    Secretary Del Toro. Everything that I do as Secretary of 
the Navy----
    Mr. Banks. If you make climate change the top priority----
    Secretary Del Toro. --has an impact on the combat readiness 
of our fleet----
    Mr. Banks. --then recruitment is a lesser priority. So 
where does it----
    Secretary Del Toro. All right, sir. Do you want me to 
answer----
    Mr. Banks. --rank in your priorities as Secretary of the 
Navy?
    Secretary Del Toro. I stated what my priorities are: 
strengthen maritime dominance, strengthen our culture of 
warfighting excellence, and improve our relationships with our 
allies and partners around the world. And climate is included 
in all three of those.
    Mr. Banks. I yield back.
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 
Carbajal.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome to all the witnesses.
    Admiral Gilday and General Berger, thank you for your 
service. I wish you the best in your next endeavors. And 
certainly our country is better because of your service, so 
thank you.
    Today, I am going to focus on our most precious resource: 
our personnel. I want to start with a focus on the recruiting 
challenges our Department of Defense, the Navy and the Marine 
Corps are facing today.
    Secretary Del Toro, your testimony highlighted a demand for 
a more aggressive recruiting approach. How are you getting 
after it?
    And can you touch on any strategies and metrics? Because 
oftentimes we talk about a lot of programs, a lot of 
interesting concepts, but do we have metrics to measure how 
well we are doing?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Congressman. And we actually pay a 
hell of a lot of attention to our metrics and our data on how 
we recruit, obviously.
    You know, when I have traveled the country talking to 
recruiters both in the Marine Corps and the Navy, the number-
one complaint that they actually have is getting--regaining 
access to our high schools. Now, this is largely because high 
schools have been closed largely due to COVID. We haven't been 
able to actually talk to the instructors, the guidance 
counselors, the students themselves. So we have to regain that 
credibility with all our high schools, be able to get back in 
there and talk to our marketplace.
    We also need to recruit from the entire marketplace, right? 
So we need far more women in our Navy and our Marine Corps. I 
am looking for tough women to join both the Navy and the Marine 
Corps. And inspiring them in ways that proves to them that, 
despite what Ms. Sherrill said, actually, that there is 
actually hope for women that they will be able to advance to 
the highest ranks in both the Marine Corps and the Navy. And 
that is what this leadership team is dedicated to doing. And 
Admiral Franchetti is the perfect example of that as our 
current Vice Chief of Naval Operations, for example.
    So that is the message we want to send. It is a positive 
message: We need you. We need you to come join our service and 
serve in our Nation's national security.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Is there anything Congress can do to assist in boosting 
recruitment and retention other than badgering you about silly 
things?
    Secretary Del Toro. Continue to send a positive message to 
all Americans that service in the armed services is an 
honorable thing. Despite whether you are a Democrat, 
Republican, independent, where you may come from, this is about 
serving our country, this is about protecting the Constitution 
of the United States, and that there are many things that can 
be drawn--positive lessons, lifelong lessons, that can be drawn 
from a service in uniform.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    As we work to increase recruitment for our military, it is 
important the new recruits and servicemembers understand the 
life-changing potential opportunities the military presents. It 
most certainly helped me.
    As I looked at the DOD's 2021 demographic report, it shows 
an increase in minority group representation in the officer 
ranks from O-1 to O-6. However, all the general officer ranks 
show a decline across the board, with the Navy showing an 
unfortunate decrease of 4.2 percent.
    What are we doing to change that, to make sure that the 
demographics of our military represent the demographics of our 
country at all levels?
    For instance, the Marine Corps, one in every four Marines 
are from Hispanic descent. So, when it comes to wars, who do 
you think is at the front of the spear fighting these wars?
    So what are we doing to address this serious issue with 
metrics? And what is this telling young recruits and 
servicemembers, that we don't take enough action to correct 
that misrepresentation?
    Secretary Del Toro. So, from the top, let me say that we 
recognize this challenge. Our enlisted Corps needs to have 
individuals that they see like themselves so that they can 
continue to advance as well, too.
    We are putting in a lot of resources in trying to recruit 
more Hispanics, African-Americans, people of Asian backgrounds, 
everyone across America, people from all over the country, of 
all types, to come into our services so that we can actually 
build the banks that are necessary to eventually get people to 
rise to the general and the admiral levels as well, too.
    And we are taking a very close look at how we select folks 
and making sure that there is proper representation on those 
boards that will take into consideration everybody's 
capabilities, like a meritocracy actually should, in terms of 
making those selections.
    But there is positive news. When you take a look at the 
advancements from O-6 to O-7 in the last couple of years, for 
example, we see increasing numbers of minorities across the 
board that are actually being selected from O-5 to O-6 and O-6 
to O-7.
    So I think it is trending in the right direction, but I 
would allow the Commandant and the CNO to further comment.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, we have seen positive trends, O-1 to 
O-6, across every demographic in the last 5 years. I can give 
you specifics in all of those. He----
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Waltz.
    Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And as much as I respect my colleague, I don't think these 
conversations are silly at all. I think they are fundamental to 
the type of fighting force that we have. And when I continue to 
have cadets, military members, or family members calling me and 
reaching out with what I think is silly and things that divert 
them from their warfighting focus and a meritocracy that the 
military should be, it is incredibly concerning.
    I just received a call from a senior cadet who has decided 
not to join the Air Force because he was number one in his ROTC 
[Reserve Officers' Training Corps] program but he was told by 
his department that they have never had a woman at the top and 
so he was going to be number two, because they weren't meeting 
their diversity goals.
    So I think these conversations are actually fundamental in 
how we maintain the best fighting force. And I think, Black, 
White, Brown, man, woman, you name it, they need to see their 
leaders as the best that they absolutely can be, and they can 
transcend whatever background or whatever held them back 
through the United States military, which has been the 
tradition. And I hope that we can stay focused on that.
    In that regard, a lot of conversation on recruiting. I 
asked all of the senior enlisted leaders, which service 
actually is collecting data? Are they polling? Are they talking 
to influencers? Are they talking to folks who were initially 
interested but then said no? Only the Army has a system-wide 
polling program.
    Mr. Secretary, is that accurate? Because none of the senior 
enlisted leaders said, besides the Army, that they can point to 
data. We have narratives--COVID, wokeism, extremism, what have 
you. We have a lot of thoughts on narratives. Do you have data 
that you can send the committee?
    Secretary Del Toro. I am pretty confident we have data 
coming, particularly data coming into the recruiting commands 
themselves----
    Mr. Waltz. Have you seen polling?
    Secretary Del Toro. I personally have not looked at polling 
data, no.
    Mr. Waltz. So we are short. We have a huge impact on the 
force. But you are testifying today you haven't seen any type 
of polling data.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, I leave that to my chief 
recruiters both in the Navy and the Marine Corps----
    Mr. Waltz. I would think it would be a key priority for 
you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, I have had meetings where I meet 
with them once a month.
    Mr. Waltz. Okay.
    Secretary Del Toro. But I myself have not looked at the raw 
polling data coming out from the recruits themselves.
    Mr. Waltz. I would encourage--I would encourage that, 
obviously. But, also, if we could have a followup and if you 
could share that with us. Because we are putting measures in 
place, or authorizing measures--it needs to be based on data, 
not what we think is going on. Fair?
    Secretary Del Toro. No, it is fair. I mean, but I think 
there is a wide recognition that we are struggling to recruit 
across the board and we have to do better.
    Mr. Waltz. And we need to have empirical data to understand 
why.
    Admiral Gilday, if we can just talk about ASW for a minute, 
antisubmarine warfare--a key thing that, obviously, the PRC is 
investing in to get at our advantage. I know we have a 
significant advantage that they are trying to catch up with. 
The Chinese have surpassed us in numbers of submarines, not in 
capability but at least in numbers, coupled with the Russians.
    I am concerned that there are no additional procurements 
for P-8s. I understand there is a validated requirement for 138 
but we are going to sit at 128. If you could speak to that 
briefly.
    But, also, in my visits out there--I mean, the P-8 is a 
great platform, but it is burning through about 50 percent more 
sonobuoys than the P-3 did.
    I worry in general about our stocks forward, but I am 
particularly worried about our ASW capabilities. Can you speak 
to that, please?
    Admiral Gilday. Yeah, sir. On the numbers, the 128--so the 
initial--you are right, the initial requirement was up in the 
mid-130s. We dialed back to 128 just based on what we were 
seeing out there with respect to real-world missions or 
efficiencies with respect to sortie rates and also the results 
that we saw in war-game modeling ----
    Mr. Waltz. Has the requirement lowered?
    Admiral Gilday. It is. Right. So we came from 135 to 128.
    With respect to sonobuoy usage, so we have seen an increase 
in usage against certain types of submarines. I would, sir--I 
don't mean to be evasive--I would like the opportunity to go 
into more detail with you in terms of the different 
capabilities that we are----
    Mr. Waltz. We are breaking up the joint venture, right, or 
we are moving beyond that, and I am worried that we have a gap. 
And I would welcome a briefing on how we are going to address 
that gap moving forward, not only for our own fleet but for our 
allies that----
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Waltz. --we are also purchasing.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Maine, Mr. 
Golden, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And, gentlemen, thank you for being here today and for your 
service to the country.
    Admiral Gilday, as you know, getting the transition between 
the Flight III DDG-51 production and the start of the DDG(X) 
[Next-Generation Destroyer Program] program is going to be 
important for the large surface combatant industrial base. And 
Congress has taken steps to help this transition, including a 
requirement for land-based testing programs for DDG(X) 
components as well as last year's provision for a DDG(X) common 
design collaboration with the industry.
    According to a reporting requirement in a prior defense 
bill, the Navy projected an optimal overlap transition period 
for 3 years of additional DDG-51 procurement once the initial 
DDG(X) is funded. And this seems to match up with comments you 
have made before, such as last year at the Center for Strategic 
and International Studies.
    Is that still your position, Admiral?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. And I won't speak for the 
Secretary, but I know that our discussions have reflected that 
we need a sound transition plan for industry with overlap 
between Flight III DDGs and DDG(X). And that strategy is 
absolutely going to be informed by the two prime vendors, HII 
Ingalls and also Bath Iron Works.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you.
    Just a few days ago, China conducted exercises around 
Taiwan where it practiced blockading the island and precision 
strikes, and in response the Navy carried out a routine Taiwan 
Strait transit. And the Navy has also recently demonstrated 
freedom of navigation by sailing near manmade Chinese-
controlled islands in the South China Sea.
    What type of ship conducted these operations, Admiral?
    Admiral Gilday. Destroyer.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir.
    Mr. Golden. General Berger, what is the Marine Corps doing 
alongside the Navy to complement freedom-of-navigation 
operations to demonstrate to those in the South China Sea that 
Chinese assertions that the entire body is their sovereign 
territory is actually not the case and that freedom of 
navigation will be enforced?
    General Berger. As you pointed out--and I will use the 
amphib ships as an example. The Chinese Navy has 38 amphib 
ships, building more. They are exporting them. We have 31, and 
we are going downhill.
    What do we need to be doing forward? We need to be married 
with the Navy as a deterrent force. And that means evolving 
into, in addition to what we normally do in joint forcible 
entry, things like expeditionary advanced space operations, 
where we have Naval strike missiles that can assist, that can 
be a complementary capability to the ASW and surface capability 
that the Navy already has.
    So it is a team approach with the stand-in forces and 
embarked aboard amphibious ships, both anti-surface and anti-
subsurface--all of that.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you.
    Before the hearing started, you spoke to me a little bit 
about the importance of the Marine Corps mission at our 
embassies around the world. And I wanted to give you an 
opportunity to talk about the importance of that mission but 
also about some of the most recent actions taken by Marines 
abroad in service to the country.
    General Berger. Thank you, Congressman.
    He and I were talking about the Marine detachment that came 
out of Sudan a few days ago, and they got back to Quantico the 
day before yesterday. So Sergeant Major Black and I went down 
there and met with them.
    Like the rest of the diplomats, they flew out with a small 
backpack, and that is it. But amazing, when you listen to them. 
You ask them, how did the last 2 or 3 days go?
    You are a Marine. You would know where I am going with 
this.
    Just flat-out disciplined focus on the mission: destruction 
of classified materials, protection of the embassy. They manned 
two posts, continue to man them until the Ambassador went on 
the last aircraft. Brought down the American flag, folded it up 
as you would expect, handed it to the Ambassador.
    And through all this--all this is led by a staff sergeant. 
No officers. A staff sergeant. Because that is how well-
trained, how disciplined they are.
    You would be incredibly proud of them. And that is the case 
at every embassy that we provide a security detachment to. 
Small detachments, led by noncommissioned officers, staff 
noncommissioned officers, doing what you would expect Marines 
to do.
    Mr. Golden. Thank you. I appreciate that. And I am proud of 
them. I know you are too. And I know that we all are.
    So thank you for your time leading the Marine Corps as 
Commandant these past few years. I appreciate it very much. 
Semper Fi.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Fallon, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So, Secretary Del Toro and Admiral, you are both intimately 
familiar, I am sure, with the water contamination aboard the 
USS Nimitz?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Fallon. Okay.
    So, last December, I had a constituent reach out. Her son 
is a sailor on the Nimitz. And she was rightfully concerned, 
you know, about the jet fuel and her son being sick.
    And, of course, we want to be good Members of Congress. So 
she said that they were told not to make much of a fuss and 
don't bring it up, and they were even nervous about coming 
forward. So I just want to get to the truth. So I wanted to 
hear the Navy's side of the story.
    So, January 4, we reach out to the liaison and ask for a 
report back, and then it is--we get nothing. So 3 weeks go by, 
to January--what was the exact date--January 23. It was January 
4, nothing; January 23, nothing. Reached out again March 3, 
nothing. And now April 28, nothing.
    Can you all help me out with finding out what the Navy's 
perspective is and how you are going to handle this? Because I 
don't know what to tell this mom. And I hate to waste a minute 
of my valuable 5 minutes to talk about this, because it should 
have been done at a much lower level.
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, we will be happy to give 
you a full report on the conditions that took place there. I 
will tell you that the material conditions that were found at 
fault were all fixed, and there are no current issues at all on 
the Ike. But we will----
    Mr. Fallon. It would be great----
    Secretary Del Toro. --get back to you with the full detail.
    Mr. Fallon. Yeah, because, I mean, we are working in good 
faith here, but----
    Secretary Del Toro. Absolutely.
    Mr. Fallon. --I just--you know, crickets. And it is 
unfortunate.
    So, getting to recruiting, we have heard, now, three or 
four members talking about it. I think it is an absolute 
crisis. And I would encourage you, Mr. Secretary, to--I hate to 
use baseball analogies, but, you know, as a Red Sox fan, we 
didn't win the World Series for 86 years, and then we had 
leadership come in and take care of this, and they examined the 
data. They didn't delegate it down. The general manager and the 
president and the owners looked at this stuff. So I would 
really encourage you to be on the tip of the spear, because we 
have got to figure this out.
    And what specific plans do you have to increase recruiting 
so we can actually hit our levels?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, let me assure you, this is all 
hands on deck. I have been working on this for 18 months. I 
don't want to leave you with the suggestion that the data 
doesn't matter or we aren't looking at data. There are people 
in the Department of the Navy, both in the Marine Corps and the 
Navy, full task force, that are looking at everything that an 
actual potential candidate recruit does.
    We are also trying to be innovative about, what do we do 
differently that we haven't done in the past in order to be 
able to recruit more effectively, right?
    Mr. Fallon. And what specifically----
    Secretary Del Toro. So expanding the marketplace is one of 
those things that we----
    Mr. Fallon. But, okay, respectfully, specifically, what are 
we going to do?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, I will give you a perfect 
example. Just 2 days ago, I actually went to the St. John's 
College High School, for example, that is a high school that 
had not been specifically targeted for quite some time. I met 
with the cadet corps there. There was a cadet corps of 300, for 
example. We had an enormous amount of minority candidates and 
specifically Hispanics and people who had come from Africa that 
have a desire to join the Navy.
    So we're now linking our recruiting forces up with that 
school----
    Mr. Fallon. With that school.
    Secretary Del Toro. --specifically a cadet school, to 
actually recruit.
    Mr. Fallon. Can we do that, respectfully, with a thousand, 
several thousand high schools?
    Secretary Del Toro. That is exactly right. We are----
    Mr. Fallon. One isn't going to solve it.
    Secretary Del Toro. --looking to expand that model across 
the United States.
    We have also gotten additional funding from the Office of 
Secretary of Defense for our marketing perspective as well, 
too. I have actually even gone out to Hollywood, for example, 
to try to engage their support in doing PSAs [public service 
announcements] and reaching out to high schools and community 
colleges and others to sort of help expand the message as well.
    Mr. Fallon. And I think you have heard bipartisan concern, 
so----
    Secretary Del Toro. Absolutely.
    Mr. Fallon. And if I could ask General Berger, the one 
branch that has met the recruiting goals during this crisis has 
been the Marines. Can you enlighten us as to--and I know you 
are the smallest force, but what approaches are you taking to 
achieve these goals? Because I would love the Navy, Air Force, 
and Army to learn from the Marines.
    General Berger. It is a tough recruiting environment.
    Mr. Fallon. It is.
    General Berger. One of our sons is on recruiting duty right 
now. It is not easy. But the Marine Corps doesn't have a 
recruiting crisis because--probably two or three main reasons.
    One, people--high school, college--just like they always 
have, want to join something that is a challenge, something 
that allows them to push to another level, and they view the 
Marines as sort of an elite force that would be hard to get 
into. You cannot--you can't join the Marine Corps; you have to 
become a Marine. So part of it is the Marine Corps.
    Mr. Fallon. Well, it is more----
    General Berger. Part of it is the quality of the 
recruiters.
    Mr. Fallon. Yeah.
    General Berger. We hand-select everybody who goes out on 
recruiting duty. They go through tough training. They are our 
very best majors in 52 recruiting stations, the best majors we 
have.
    Mr. Fallon. Culture.
    General Berger. We put the best people out there.
    Mr. Fallon. Yeah.
    Mr. Fallon. And just with the few seconds I have left.
    I think China is the largest threat, Mr. Secretary, 
respectfully, and not climate change, considering that the 
United States footprint, carbon footprint, has been reduced by 
almost 20 percent over the last 20 years, and China is opening 
two coal plants, on average, a week, and their carbon footprint 
has increased by 300 percent.
    Secretary Del Toro. I agree with you. I never said climate 
change was the number one priority. I said climate change was a 
top priority. I have always consistently said that China is the 
number one----
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 167.]
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 
McClellan, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Secretary Del Toro, good to see you.
    Admiral Gilday and General Berger, thank you very much for 
your service.
    I really appreciate in your submitted remarks your focusing 
on quality of life issues, which are critical to recruitment 
and retention, and particularly your focus on meeting the 
mental health needs of our servicemembers and addressing 
suicide.
    And I want to talk a little more on the systemic mental 
health crisis within our Armed Services, and particularly at 
Naval facilities in Virginia, where at least five sailors 
assigned to the USS George Washington, which has been docked in 
Norfolk since 2017, have died by suicide in the last year. And 
I appreciate the briefing that was held for some of the Members 
of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees.
    Unfortunately, these sailors are not alone, and several 
sailors assigned to other ships undergoing refueling and 
complex overhaul at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Maintenance 
Center in Norfolk have died by suicide within the past 5 years.
    I know from many of our sailors this seems like an 
unrelenting tragedy, and I want to focus my questioning on this 
issue.
    So first, Secretary Del Toro, can you describe how acute 
the shortage of trained mental health professionals is across 
the Navy broadly and, more specifically, how acute is that 
shortage for Naval bases where ships are frequently undergoing 
refueling and complex overhaul?
    Secretary Del Toro. It is a significant challenge, 
Congresswoman. We have been trying to do everything else we 
can, trying to work with the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, particularly the Defense Health Agency, who often owns 
these professionals and assigns them to the locations where our 
sailors and our marines work globally.
    But we are trying to get to a better place. The Office of 
the Secretary of Defense is fully hyper-focused on this issue 
and trying to recruit as many as they can from the private 
sector.
    I believe the solution, quite frankly, is to train them 
intrinsically from within. We need to actually train far many 
more corpsmen, and we are moving in that direction. It may take 
a year or two to get the number of mental health technicians 
that we need.
    But it is tough to compete with the private sector as well 
too, where they are also extremely shorthanded as well.
    At the same time, we are also doing other things, like 
putting more chaplains on our ships, for example, and that has 
proven to be very, very effective. Where we have chaplains on 
our ships permanently stationed, on the average, we get 
anywhere from 30 to 40, actually, calls. Where we don't have 
them on the ships, it could be anywhere from zero to about five 
calls to chaplains if they are stationed off the ship.
    So a lot of it is helping with their life issues and not 
necessarily the most complicated of the mental health issues, 
but they are seeking life guidance.
    There have been far too many sailors and marines and 
servicemembers who we have lost due to suicide. We need to do a 
better job across the board, and we are committed to doing 
that.
    Mrs. McClellan. Thank you. And I would note, we have heard 
anecdotally from mental health professionals at the USS George 
Washington that they are overwhelmed with the needs of the 
sailors there. So the more that you can do to address this 
shortage, and particularly focusing on the ships that are 
undergoing retrofitting, the better.
    At this point, Secretary of the Navy I believe has 
concluded its investigations into the series of suicides on 
board the USS George Washington, the USS George H.W. Bush, and 
the USS Theodore Roosevelt investigation is still ongoing.
    In all of these investigations, is the Navy noticing a 
pattern of what particular causes are for these suicides that 
we should be aware of and seek to address, or is it a wide 
range of reasons?
    Secretary Del Toro. It is a wide range of reasons. And our 
responsibility is to address as many of those reasons as we 
possibly can with different approaches, which is what we are 
trying to do; mental health providers certainly, but also to 
make dramatic improvements in the quality of life.
    Especially for those ships that are in shipyards, it is 
hard duty, especially when you have so many young sailors 
there. They require, actually, a proper amount of oversight.
    To the CNO's point, having those ships properly manned with 
individuals who can provide that oversight as well too and help 
them through the problems that they face. We are making 
investments, very specifically at HII in three parking garages, 
for example, to try to relieve some of the stressors associated 
with that.
    We have moved many of the junior personnel off the ship 
unless they are on duty itself to try to ease with some of the 
stressors that come from living on board the ship as well too.
    But there are many other aspects, negative aspects related 
to suicide as well too that have to do with family 
relationships.
    And so we are taking an across-the-board approach to try to 
help, to give people hope, because that is what we have to give 
them, hope that they can get through the challenges that they 
face, whether it be a family challenge, whether it be a drug 
challenge, whether it be a performance challenge, or whether it 
be a stressor challenge.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 
McCormick, for 5 minutes.
    Dr. McCormick. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Gentlemen, it is an honor to be amongst your presence. I 
appreciate you being here today.
    I want to note that when I was in the service, it truly 
defined the rest of my life. I still identify as a marine in 
everything I do. Whether I be a physician or a Congressman or 
anything, I still think like a marine, like it or not.
    I will say when I first joined, it was P.X. Kelley was our 
commandant, God rest his soul. And then we had Al Gray. We had 
some legends.
    Actually, I had arguments with General Krulak on 
reorganization of the Marine Corps. When I was at ANGLICO, he 
cut our program significantly. And I remember having worries 
about the reorganization of the Marine Corps back when I was 
just a captain. And those conversations aren't quite the same 
as when you are a Congressman, that is for sure.
    I will say, as we have evolved, and the nice thing to see 
about the Marine Corps, it is still maintaining its recruiting 
standards, whether it be from our stellar reputation, our fine 
uniforms or the handsome men that wear them. It has been nice 
to see that continue.
    What I am worried about is as we continue in our mission. 
And you have seen that right now we have a humanitarian crisis 
in Sudan, for example. And we will continue to see that 
throughout the history of the world where we will have to go in 
and rescue people from bad places.
    Have we seen significant changes in the way we are 
reorganizing and how we are going to be able to do a mission in 
Sudan and other places when we have to go out and maintain that 
new stability for those cycles, especially with ship and 
personnel shortages?
    And as we shrink to accommodate with technology, with that 
deployment cycle that is very hard on families, but still the 
same deployment cycle with fewer people because we are more 
invested in technologies, how do we accommodate for that?
    General Berger. First of all, the Marine Expeditionary 
Unit, Amphibious Ready Groups that you remember, that is the 
best chance you have of responding to a crisis immediately. And 
there needs to be one in the Pacific and one in the 
Mediterranean, Africa, CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] area 12 
months a year.
    That is the most versatile tool that a combatant commander 
has, because it is sovereign territory. And you can solve a lot 
of problems coming from your own sovereign territory from the 
sea.
    The modernization of the Marine Corps is tailored. And I 
would say in like the Marine Littoral Regiments that are in the 
Indo-Pacific, they are focused on deterring a particular 
threat. The rest of the Marine Corps and them are very 
versatile and can handle the problems that we need to handle.
    I think the challenge is not being nearby when the problem 
happens, as you highlight. And you don't have 3 weeks to get 
there. The Nation needs something there in a week or 3 days.
    Dr. McCormick. Do you think we still have more to do in 
Sudan?
    General Berger. There are more Americans that are in Sudan, 
from what I understand, that want to get out. Right now, there 
are at least one or two convoys moving overland.
    So I don't know how many eventually will want to get out, 
but the numbers that we understand, there are still Americans 
in Sudan, some of them that want to get out, correct.
    Dr. McCormick. Okay. You mentioned that some forces are 
dedicated towards a specific mission. Some are more flexible, 
like the MAGTF [Marine Air-Ground Task Force] model.
    Percentage-wise, what do you think that the mission--how 
many people have a specific mission when you are talking about 
the way we have reorganized?
    General Berger. The two regiments that we are reorganizing, 
one in Hawaii, one in Japan, they are still very flexible, very 
adaptable, but they are tailor-made to be a forward-standing 
force. That represents all of probably a total of less than 
5,000 marines out of the whole operating force, which is 
100,000.
    Dr. McCormick. Got it.
    Final question. I know this is probably short, because I 
only have about a minute left. But there has been some 
controversy. Obviously, we have had some legends weigh in on 
this.
    And I don't know how much--I am just curious. How much 
interaction have you had with these former commandants and 
former generals who have their own distinct opinions, based on 
their unique experiences at that unique time? How much 
interaction have you had with them? Do you think that is going 
to continue to be a problem for future commandants as we 
develop this political climate of reorganization?
    General Berger. It varies between them. Some of them more 
frequently, as you might imagine, some less frequently.
    Probably the more recent former commandants, General 
Neller, General Dunford, I talk with very frequently. The 
farther back you go the less frequently, not because of 
anything other than probably time.
    Every redesign, every modernization document that we send 
out, every update on training, every update on talent 
management I send to all of them first before we ever release 
it, because I need their feedback.
    Dr. McCormick. Got it. Well, I have four seconds to say 
Semper Fidelis, Semper Fortis. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. I thank gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 
Mr. Davis, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Davis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member 
Smith.
    I want to start today, if I may, by extending a deep 
appreciation especially to the wives who are here today--Ms. 
Linda and Donna, thank you so much--and to obviously staff 
members who are grinding it out every day to help your members. 
Thank you for what you are doing.
    I was talking to one, and I said I knew a little bit more 
about the Air Force, and he forgave me today. But, for the 
record, I am going with the President to present the Commander-
in-Chief's Trophy to the Air Force today.
    But let me say, Admiral Gilday, General Berger, thank you 
so much sincerely for your service to this country and all that 
you continue to do. And to Mr. Secretary, thank you too.
    General Milley came to this committee and he shared these 
words as he spoke about losing men and women in combat. He said 
it was personal. And then it went on for me to express it is 
personal when we see our members go serve our country, come 
back, take their lives. I am glad of the work that we are doing 
there.
    And I am going to tell you one other thing that is personal 
today. It is when we inadvertently cause harm to our military 
families.
    So military families impacted by toxic water at Camp 
Lejeune desperately need some level of certainty about how to 
process these claims that they are bringing forward.
    And according to former U.S. District Court Judge of the 
Eastern District of North Carolina James Dever, he said, with 
the possibility of one million cases getting filed, it could 
take more than 1,000 years to resolve them without streamlining 
the process.
    Mr. Secretary, I am not sure if you plan on sticking around 
for a thousand years. But my question is, how can we--or can 
you give this committee just a sense of the timeline of how we 
can maybe get these claims processed?
    Secretary Del Toro. This is a very complicated issue. And 
let me begin by saying how important it is actually and how 
pleased I am that the Biden administration has actually worked 
to ensure that we meet the commitment of these military 
families who have been negatively impacted by the toxic water 
at Camp Lejeune.
    Having said that, there are an enormous number of cases 
that are now coming in. And we in the military services across 
the Department of Defense have to gear up to try to handle 
these cases on a far more expedited manner. It is going to take 
a lot of additional resources.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Secretary, if there is not a clear timeline, 
then my question is, how do we streamline the process?
    Secretary Del Toro. We will have to look at doing both, 
Congressman. We will have to look at doing both. But each case 
has to be investigated. Each case has to be looked at 
carefully. It is a matter of law. Regretfully, there are steps 
that we may not be able to cut out.
    Mr. Davis. Mr. Secretary, let me ask, have we used, for 
instance, data, a grid to group cases, have we given 
consideration of that, or settlement?
    Secretary Del Toro. General counsel is looking into all 
these issues, Congressman. And I am more than pleased to get 
back to you and work with your staff to come up with better 
ideas on how to do it more expeditiously as well.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 168.]
    Mr. Davis. Well, Mr. Secretary, some believe and have 
conveyed to me--been from North Carolina--that they believe the 
Navy has delayed, stonewalled, and even tried to cover up 
perhaps what has happened at Camp Lejeune over 34 years.
    What would you say to those families?
    Secretary Del Toro. I can't speak to the ills of the past, 
obviously, but I accept responsibility for what we do now. And 
you have my commitment that we will do now to try to expedite 
this process as quickly as I can to rebuild trust one action at 
a time, one day at a time.
    Mr. Davis. I would like to, Mr. Chair, enter this, it is an 
article from WRAL in my home State titled ``Camp Lejeune toxic 
water claims get first day in court,'' into the record.
    The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 160.]
    Mr. Davis. I just want to end on this note. This is a note 
from Master Sergeant Jerry Ensminger, who is retired now from 
the Marine Corps. He is talking about his daughter Janey who 
died in 1985 at the age of 9 of leukemia.
    ``I started this journey in August of 1997, and even then 
it was 14 years after Janey had been diagnosed and 13 years 
after she died that I hadn't heard anything about the water 
contamination at Camp Lejeune.''
    I would hope that we would do the right thing by just 
giving them their day towards justice and a fair process in a 
timely manner.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back on behalf of all these impacted.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, 
Ms. Jacobs, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jacobs. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you to all three of you for being here, and in 
particular General Berger and Admiral Gilday for your service 
and your long career.
    And also thank you, Admiral Gilday and Secretary Del Toro, 
for all of your work on making sure we address the housing 
issues while there have been three carriers in San Diego. I 
appreciate your creativity and the many conversations we have 
had over many meals on this topic. And I look forward to moving 
even further in this year's NDAA on that issue, and I will be 
continuing to track the situation closely on the ground in San 
Diego.
    As you know, while housing is a huge issue for us in San 
Diego, it is not the only quality of life issue. One of the 
things I hear a lot from sailors and marines in our region is 
about childcare. As of June, Navy Region Southwest had 4,000 
children on its wait list for Child Development Center slots.
    And just last month, Ranking Member Smith joined me in San 
Diego for a roundtable with parents and childcare providers at 
Naval Air Station North Island, where we heard a lot about 
these concerns.
    So first, General Berger, I know the Marine Corps has had 
some success here, including the $37.7 million construction 
project at Miramar. And I have to say I am a huge fan of 
Colonel Bedell and all of the work he is doing on quality of 
life issues there.
    How are you planning to address the remaining unmet wait 
list for childcare services at Marine Corps bases, particularly 
in the San Diego area?
    And then, Admiral Gilday, how are you planning to address 
your unmet wait list?
    General Berger. Congresswoman, like other people have 
said--you have mentioned it too--this is--we consider this a 
readiness issue. If you can't solve healthcare, then people are 
worried about other things other than the mission. This is 
directly tied to readiness.
    Our average wait time right now is about 100 days. That is 
not acceptable. A hundred days is too long.
    What do we need to do about it? In most cases, with the 
exception of Miramar, it is not that we don't have the 
building. It is that we don't have the childcare providers. We 
can't hire them.
    Now, I think our learning over the past 2 or 3 years, that 
is two problems. Pay. In other words, they could make the same 
salary or better outside the gate. Or it took me too long to 
apply. I applied. It took me 4 months. I had to get a job. 
Sorry, but I couldn't wait that long.
    We have got to cut down the application time. And we have 
brought up the pay now to be corresponding with outside the 
gate. But the wait time right now is a real challenge.
    Admiral Gilday. Ma'am, broadly, we have two childcare 
centers in construction right now, one of them is at Point 
Loma, and three additional in this proposed budget. Our wait 
list has gone from 8,000 last year down to 5,500 this year 
across the Navy.
    And one area that we are trying to put more focus on is a 
program called Military Childcare in Your Neighborhood, where 
we actually go out and we try to find additional spaces. So we 
have increased from 5,500 in 2023 up to, we hope, to beyond 
6,000 in 2024 in this budget.
    With respect to the comment that General Berger made about 
childcare workers, right now our staffing is about 80 percent. 
What we are trying to do to attract talent is to offer above 
market median wages, as much as $5 above that median.
    The last thing I would mention, we have gone out to a 
couple of colleges. One of them is NC State. The other is Utah 
Tech. And they are providing us additional surge help during 
the high occupancy, during the high usage months, particularly 
in the summer.
    General Berger. If I could add just one, this is kind of a 
shout-out thanks.
    Part of it, part of the challenge in staffing was people 
moving from one location to another and they had to start from 
scratch. The transferability part, huge.
    Also, the ability, the flexibility, like the CNO and I and 
the SECNAV [Secretary of the Navy] were talking about 
yesterday, where if you work in a Child Development Center and 
you have a child that you want cared there, you get half off. 
And if you have two of them, another 20 percent. Those are huge 
positives.
    Secretary Del Toro. If I can add just one last thing. We 
have increased the stipends for those who choose to go to 
outside daycare centers as well too, thanks to your support.
    Ms. Jacobs. Thank you.
    And also, General Berger, thanks for your help in 
addressing the issue at Pendleton where childcare workers 
weren't able to have their kids at the same childcare center. I 
know that has been huge.
    I would just say I am very supportive of increasing pay for 
our childcare workers. Anything I can do to help with that.
    We also know that that can sometimes increase costs, and I 
know DOD recently raised parent fees for on-base childcare. So 
I just urge you to also make sure you are taking into account 
and addressing the affordability for the families themselves 
while we are working to make sure we are getting childcare 
workers a living wage.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady's focus on that topic. 
As the panelists all know, this is a big deal for me, that we 
deal with the quality of life issue. And there is no more 
important aspect than this childcare problem.
    So with that, we will recognize another member of the 
California delegation, Mr. Khanna, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for your service to our Nation.
    General Berger, would it be fair to say that right now we 
have Naval superiority and could thwart any Chinese invasion in 
Taiwan or any Chinese blockade of Taiwan?
    General Berger. That is an accurate statement from my 
perspective, yes, sir.
    Mr. Khanna. Mr. Secretary, would you support that?
    Secretary Del Toro. I absolutely support that statement.
    Mr. Khanna. My second question is, what more do we need as 
China continues to put more money to build their Navy? Do we 
have sufficient long-range missiles to be able to shoot down 
Chinese ships if that were needed? And do you think we should 
be having more long-range missiles in that area? Any of you.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, the answer to that is no. And that is 
why we are trying to do multiyear procurement, essentially 
bundle buy across four significant missile systems in order to, 
A, maximize production lines in the U.S., but also give a 
steady demand signal to those vendors.
    I would say--it hasn't come up, I don't think, in this 
hearing yet--is that there are only two producers in the United 
States of rocket motors for these exquisite weapons. And so we 
are at a premium with respect to the capacity.
    Mr. Khanna. And, Admiral, I think that is an excellent 
point, because in World War II, in addition to the bravery of 
our men who scaled Normandy, we won because we outproduced 
Japan and Germany. We had double the production.
    And today, one of my concerns is the state of our defense 
industrial base, the fact that we are already stretched to get 
weapons to Ukraine. We need to do better in terms of building 
the defense capability, so that if there were ever an invasion 
we are capable of quickly mobilizing.
    Could any of you comment on the importance generally of 
building American manufacturing and a defense industrial base 
from a national security perspective?
    Secretary Del Toro. I think you are absolutely right, 
Congressman. I think this President's budget starts to send the 
right signal, especially when you take a look at the doubling 
of the amount of funds available for missile production.
    And the shipbuilding plan over the course of the next 10 
years, it sends a steady signal basically on what the 
requirements are matched to the max capacity that those 
shipyards can actually build.
    And hopefully in the future they will continue to make 
reinvestments in their own capabilities to build more ships 
faster across the board, more submarines faster across the 
board, so that we can continue to commit to those numbers in 
greater numbers, actually, those funds in greater numbers.
    Mr. Khanna. I am obviously biased. I represent Silicon 
Valley. But I believe that a lot of the work being done there 
on AI, on quantum, on advanced cyber is going to be critical 
for our national security, to prevent jamming of any of our 
communication systems, to be able to accurately identify and 
target.
    Could you help explain from your perspective, from a Navy 
perspective, what we can do to adopt the latest technology and 
why that is going to matter for our future national security?
    Secretary Del Toro. I think as you look across the 
Department of the Navy, we have a thousand projects alone that 
are committed through AI for future investments.
    We are standing up two Innovation Centers. The Marine Corps 
is standing up an Innovation Center in Newburgh, New York, and 
we are standing up an Innovation Center in Monterey, 
California, as well to further expand those investments, 
working closely with venture capitalists and others in Silicon 
Valley and across the country, quite frankly, to transition the 
innovative technologies that are developing at such a high pace 
in the private sector, to be able to more effectively integrate 
those into the military.
    Mr. Khanna. Well, I appreciate it.
    Chairman Gallagher on the subcommittee and I are very 
interested in helping work in a bipartisan way to even further 
improve the adoption of technology. And I know the chairman has 
expressed an interest in that. And I will look forward to 
working with you on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
    The chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Virginia, Mrs. 
Kiggans, for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    And thank you so much to our panel for being here today and 
with us.
    The average age of shipyard facilities and their supporting 
infrastructure is 60-plus years old, and the average age of dry 
docks is over 100 years old. Norfolk Naval Shipyard was ranked 
as the worst, 69th, in regard to facility condition at any Navy 
installation.
    And we had in our office yesterday great guys from Norfolk 
Naval Shipyard just talking to us not only about the condition 
of the dry docks--and I know what happened on the West Coast 
with those closures, and we are down to really one dry dock 
that can repair an aircraft carrier on the East Coast--but also 
the condition of their office spaces.
    They said they have charts that are red and green with 
different rooms. And they talked about the crumbling walls and 
the leaking ceilings. And, I mean, the conditions that they 
described that they are working really are unacceptable.
    And I am sure there was a lot of discussion today about the 
number of ships and the strategy that the Navy has. We are 
trying to keep old ships at sea for longer, and we have got to 
have our ship repair facilities there to do that. And we need 
the people that can repair these ships.
    They are competing with places like Huntington Ingalls for 
shipbuilding, which is great. We want to build ships too. But 
we can only offer this much money. They are offering more money 
other places. So prioritizing just our ship repair facilities 
is so important to me.
    So, in your opinions, are you confident that, God forbid we 
have some sort of conflict in the near future, are our 
capabilities to repair ships, not just the regular maintenance 
but there will be repairs needed if there was a conflict, do we 
have that capability right now? Or what are we doing to 
prioritize that?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, it is a priority. And we 
recognize the negligence that has taken place over the past 
decades, basically. And the SIOP [Shipyard Infrastructure 
Optimization Program] investments that we are now making in 
this President's budget alone, $2.8 billion. I just signed a 
$2.8 billion contract to upgrade the dry dock in Hawaii, for 
example. And in Norfolk, we are making great strides as well 
too.
    But more will be needed. We have $10 billion allotted over 
the FYDP actually to address the dry dock problems and the 
shipyard problems as well too.
    More will be needed over the future to get these 
capabilities to where they need to be in the future for us to 
be able to maintain all the many submarines and ships that we 
are building today.
    Mrs. Kiggans. And I just ask that you prioritize their pay. 
For example, they said they are offering $15 an hour at Norfolk 
Ship Repair, whereas Huntington Ingalls can offer $20. So they 
are not able to attract the people that they need to do that.
    And then quality of life issues. I know we have made some 
progress there for them, but continuing to work on that.
    Also just wanted to point out about the smaller ship repair 
industries. We look at the big ones, but I frequently hear from 
the smaller guys that are worried about them being awarded 
contracts too. And we are going to need everybody if needed. So 
just looking out for those small businesses too is very 
important in my district.
    Then I would be remiss if I didn't spend the last couple 
minutes talking about base housing. It is something that I am 
passionate about at NAS Oceana. My understanding is that this 
year's budget doesn't have any money that goes towards base 
housing at NAS Oceana. We have three condemned barracks.
    The first day I had my staff in D.C., I had them in my 
minivan that weekend driving around Oceana saying, look at the 
conditions that we are asking our single--these are our 
unaccompanied sailors--to live in. Think of any 4-year college 
and university you visit and the construction that goes on 
there, how beautiful those campuses are.
    I have a senior in high school and drove around for college 
tours and taking pictures of the construction. It is 
unbelievable how beautiful these campuses look.
    Think about what we ask those kids to do every night of the 
week in college and what we ask these guys to do every night of 
the week standing watch for our great Navy. So it is 
infuriating to me that we can't do better for them.
    And then sitting down with leadership and listening to 
their challenges of getting new living conditions and 
facilities for their sailors. We are charging those guys for 
WiFi at these barracks. We are moving them into crappy barracks 
and then we are charging them for WiFi.
    So what are you doing to prioritize living conditions?
    I can't wait to participate in the task force on readiness, 
recruitment, quality of life. But we have got to do better, 
because you know as well as I do all the ships and the aircraft 
don't go anywhere without great people behind it.
    Secretary Del Toro. I will be happy to coordinate those 
facts. But we are making investments in our unaccompanied 
housing in this President's budget.
    And if you just take a look at the efforts that are going 
on in Key West, which is horrible because Key West has suffered 
from the hurricane challenges that they have had, but we have 
had to actually take down two unaccompanied housing barracks 
there and we have had to work very aggressively to place those 
sailors in the community and other MWR facilities that we are 
actually building.
    But you are right. I mentioned earlier in the hearing today 
that when I came in as Secretary, about 1 percent of the budget 
was actually dedicated towards infrastructure.
    Those numbers have now gone up dramatically. Just in the 
last year alone, a 7.3 percent increase in FSRM money that 
allows us to take care of the worst of those scenarios.
    Mike, would you want to comment further on it?
    Admiral Gilday. Just real quick, ma'am.
    The money we are spending on infrastructure has gone from 
78 percent of the requirement to almost 90 percent of the 
requirement just in the last year and a half.
    I know that is still unsatisfactory and we have a long way 
to go. We are behind. We are trying to get after it and 
prioritizing exactly what needs to be fixed.
    The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Mrs. Kiggans. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I can't overstate how much that drives me 
nuts to hear things like she just described. I want you all to 
know it is our job to get you the money. You have got to tell 
us what you need to fix those problems. We should not have 
those problems at our installations.
    And if we don't give you the money, then shame on us. But 
you need to let us know what it takes to get after this in an 
expeditious way, not over a 10- or 15-year period of time.
    The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I wanted to ask you, Mr. Del Toro, about the two 
operational deployments for the CMV-22. They had really 
unparalleled success when it came to conducting a COD [carrier 
on board] mission, medical evaluation, Naval special warfare 
support, and search and rescue operations.
    And I was wondering if you could sort of enlighten us and 
let us know how the CMV-22 transformed fleet operations, and 
have they integrated well and improved the last mile of 
delivering critical spare parts to the fleet.
    Secretary Del Toro. They have, Congressman. I think it has 
been a tremendous success story.
    The concern I have, obviously, is with the combining gear 
beyond 800 hours that these particular plants have not 
experienced quite yet. But what happens when they do actually 
get up there in hours?
    And we are working with the manufacturer to try to come up 
with a permanent solution to that problem set. And they are 
looking at actually designing a new combining gear in order to 
be able to fix that.
    But operationally speaking, perhaps the CNO can expand on 
what I said.
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah, please.
    Secretary Del Toro. I am not aware of any problems that we 
have had.
    Admiral Gilday. I would just say we are very bullish on 
CMV-22. We ripped the Marine Corps off. It has been another 
example of one service leveraging what has been going right in 
another and at economies of scale buying these aircraft as 
quickly as we can to replace an airframe, as you know, sir, 
that was designed and built in the 1960s.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you. And I understand that the Navy is 
actually reassessing its concepts and operations for CMV-22, 
specifically concerning contested logistics scenarios.
    When do you anticipate completing that assessment? And can 
you share anything with the committee?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, if I could take that for the record, I 
will get back to you with an answer on that timing.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 171.]
    Mr. Veasey. Okay. Yeah. No, thank you very much.
    General Berger. Could I just add one extra thought?
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah, please.
    General Berger. When we--when the U.S. military evacuated 
the diplomats out of Sudan, V-22s.
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah.
    General Berger. It is the only aircraft that could do it. 
And 2 weeks ago, 3 weeks ago, we flew MV-22s from Hawaii to the 
Philippines. No other aircraft in the world does that. It is an 
incredible capability.
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah. Okay. No, thank you for sharing that.
    I want to move over and ask a question about mental health 
services to Secretary Del Toro.
    What is the Navy and the Marines doing when it comes to 
physical and mental health resources? And how are they 
leveraging that for retention efforts?
    And I also wanted for you to also think about an answer. 
One of the things that we have heard from military service 
people is privacy, because if someone has a mental health issue 
and they think that it is going to inhibit them from getting a 
clearance or a promotion for another job, they may not want to 
share that with someone on base.
    What are you doing in the area of mental health services?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, we increased funding 
approximately 39 percent over the last year on mental health 
services across the board. Also working very, very closely with 
DHA as well to try to get more mental health providers.
    Earlier in the hearing, I actually mentioned that, though 
that continues to be a challenge because mental health 
providers aren't out there in the private sector. So we have to 
grow more of our own by training our corpsmen actually to be 
mental health technicians. That may take a year or 2 or 3 in 
order for us to intrinsically grow more of those, making them 
available.
    We have also put more chaplains on ships, which from a 
family support, life support perspective, has helped 
tremendously in tackling perhaps not the most challenging 
mental health issues, but the many life stressors that are 
associated with that.
    We have put together actually a mental health playbook that 
has been distributed throughout all of the Navy for all our 
commanders and all our leadership to actually rely upon that 
actually points towards the resources that we have available 
and the teams that we have available, which we have also 
increased as well too.
    It is an all-hands-on-deck effort. And at the end of the 
day, it is providing hope to our sailors and marines that 
whatever challenge they have, whether it is a mental health 
challenge or a life challenge, that their Navy family, their 
Marine Corps family is there to provide them help and 
assistance along the way so that they do not feel as if they 
are disconnected from the environment in which they work and 
live in.
    Mr. Veasey. Yeah. Do you think that in regards to their 
privacy, like if someone had a mental health issue and, for 
instance, let's say that the person that they needed to meet 
with, that the provider was in their chain of command, do you 
think that sailors and marines feel like that they have enough 
privacy so they wouldn't miss out on the next promotion or miss 
out getting that next level of clearance?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, our number one priority is 
the safety of that sailor and marine. Life is too precious. We 
need them to do the right thing to take care of their safety 
and their life.
    And so we encourage them, whether it is under the Brandon 
Act, to go seek help on their own, for example, if they choose 
to do that. At the same time, we also need to have a 
responsibility to know what is going on with that sailor so 
that their military family can also try to help take care of 
them, right?
    So it is a dual-edged sword. You have to be very, very 
careful with that as well. If they are seeking out mental 
health help on their own and they never share any of that with 
their military family, then how can we help them get to a 
better place with perhaps some of the life stressors that they 
are going through as well too?
    The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Secretary Del Toro. We have to remove that issue 
altogether.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you.
    The Chairman. I want to once again thank Admiral and Mrs. 
Gilday and General and Mrs. Berger for your decades of service 
to our Nation. We cannot thank you enough for the sacrifices 
you have made to ensure that we remain a free, great Nation.
    So thank you very much. And I look forward to seeing each 
of you in the next chapters of your life, which I am sure are 
going to be awesome.
    Secretary Del Toro, on behalf of Representative Chris Smith 
of New Jersey, we are going to submit some questions for the 
record on the status of the investigation into the death of 
Seaman Mullen. And appreciate you responding to those when you 
receive them.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 175.]
    Secretary Del Toro. Absolutely.
    The Chairman. And with that, we are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]



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




                            A P P E N D I X

                             April 28, 2023

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

      



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


              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 28, 2023

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

      

      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.001
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.002
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.003
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.004
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.005
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.006
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.007
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.008
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.009
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.010
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.011
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.012
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.013
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.014
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.015
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.016
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.017
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.018
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.019
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.020
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.021
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.022
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.023
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.024
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.025
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.026
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.027
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.028
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.029
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.030
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.031
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.032
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.033
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.034
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.035
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.036
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.037
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.038
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.039
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.040
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.041
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.042
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.043
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.044
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.045
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.046
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.047
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.048
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.049
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.050
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.051
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.052
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.053
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.054
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.055
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.056
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.057
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.058
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.059
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.060
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.061
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.062
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.063
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.064
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.065
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.066
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.067
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.068
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.069
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.070
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.071
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.072
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.073
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.074
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.075
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.076
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.077
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.078
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.079
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.080
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.081
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.082
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.083
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.084
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.085
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.086
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.087
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.088
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.089
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.090
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.091
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.092
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.093
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.094
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.095
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.096
    

.eps?

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


                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             April 28, 2023

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

      
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.097
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.098
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.099
    
    .eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.100
    

.eps?

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


              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             April 28, 2023

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

      

              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

    Secretary Del Toro. There are multiple concerns, Congressman. It 
starts with the labor force. We need a really strong blue collar labor 
force in this country to actually support our shipbuilding interests 
across shipyards around the country. Furthermore, we don't have enough 
of shipyards in general. We have shut down too many in past years. 
Another concern I have is working with smaller shipyards, for example, 
so that they can actually come on board and do Department of Defense 
work and work as subcontractors to the larger shipyards so that we can 
increase productivity. So labor force across all shipyards, getting 
smaller shipyards to work with larger shipyards. The case in Austal, 
for example, that is now building steel to support our Columbia class 
program at Electric Boat is a perfect example of that. I believe Austal 
is looking at hiring close to one thousand more people in the near 
term. So we need more labor and we need more legal immigration. We need 
more work visa programs that can bring the types of folks to this 
country that allow us to work in the shipyards. That is my primary 
concern. Of course, I meet constantly with the CEOs of all the 
shipyards to understand how well they are moving with regards to their 
production rates. I believe on the destroyer side, we are getting a lot 
better now, to the point where we can build 1.8 per year between the 
two primary shipyards.  [See page 14.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GALLAGHER
    Admiral Gilday. Over the FYDP, the DON intends to procure the 
following quantities, with USMC procuring NSM, the Navy procuring SM-6, 
and the Navy joining the AF in procuring LRASM and AMRAAM:   [See page 
20.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.101

                                 .eps__
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ
    Admiral Gilday. This question is outside of the purview of the 
witness.  [See page 32.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    Secretary Del Toro. China is the number one priority. For the first 
time since the defeat of the Soviet Union, we have a strategic 
competitor with naval capabilities and capacities that rival and, in 
some areas, even surpass our own. It's not just the ships and the 
weapons that concern me. It's what Beijing does as it strives to 
achieve leverage over its competitors. It uses every advantage in a 
corrosive, extractive and dangerously irresponsible manner.  [See page 
43.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON
    Secretary Del Toro. Mr. Fallon, The U.S. Navy concluded its 
investigation into the potable water contamination incident aboard the 
USS Nimitz (CVN 68) on Oct. 26. We shared the results of this 
investigation with the Committee on 12 May 2023 and to your personal 
office on the same day. Regarding the USS Nimitz, here is the executive 
summary of the investigation: The investigation into the presence of 
jet propellant-5 (JP-5) aboard Nimitz found that JP-5 residue in the 
ship's bilges entered an unused potable water tank through a 
deteriorated gasket on top of the tank sometime between June 2020 and 
March 2021, during the ship's previous deployment. On Sept. 16, while 
the ship was operating off the coast of Southern California, Sailors 
aboard the ship reported a fuel-like smell and taste in the ship's 
potable water. Engineering personnel immediately secured access to the 
ship's potable water and commenced testing of their potable water 
tanks. Free bottled water was made available to the crew during this 
time. While in port at Naval Air Station North Island Sept. 17-Oct. 2, 
Nimitz was connected to City of San Diego water supply. On Oct. 1, test 
results indicated that 22 of 26 potable water tanks tested below the 
health action level for JP-5 in drinking water recommended by the Navy 
and Marine Corps Public Health Center--266 part per billion (ppb)--and 
the ship's potable water was determined to be safe. Nimitz returned to 
Bremerton, Wash. on Oct. 28 and the isolated tanks were thoroughly 
cleaned, repaired, inspected, and returned to service. Currently, all 
26 potable water tanks on board are providing safe water to the crew. 
Eleven Nimitz Sailors reported symptoms that may have been a result of 
JP-5 ingestion. Those Sailors were treated by the medical staff aboard 
the ship, their symptoms resolved, and all 11 Sailors were cleared to 
return to duty by Oct. 5, 2022.  [See page 43.]
                                 ______
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. DAVIS
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of the Navy (DON) is working 
with the Department of Justice (DOJ) to expedite the processing of 
claims under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), to include grouping 
injuries based on severity of injury and collecting evidence to 
substantiate injury and residence at Camp Lejeune during the period of 
time defined in the statute. DOJ is the ultimate decision authority 
with respect to settlement of cases under the CLJA because of what is 
referred to as the ``Aggregate Rule.'' If the aggregate amount of the 
prospective settlements of all related claims exceeds the amount the 
Department of Defense may adjudicate, which is $500,000, written 
approval from DOJ must be obtained prior to the settlement of any 
particular claim. Currently, the prospective settlement of claims 
submitted under the CLJA exceeds $500,000. Therefore, the DOJ is the 
ultimate decision authority on settlements under the CLJA. The DON 
continues to refine processes to effectively manage the information 
provided by claimants and evaluate claimants' eligibility for 
compensation under the CLJA. The DON will work closely with the DOJ to 
obtain approval for appropriate settlements as efficiently and 
expeditiously as possible. Please see attached: Delegation of 
Settlement Authority Under the Federal Tort Claims Act OSD005592-20 
RES.pdf  [See page 48.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.102

.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.103

                                 .eps__
                                 
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. VEASEY
    Admiral Gilday. In 2021, VRM-30 conducted the first CMV-22 
deployment, and had their first opportunity to collect operational 
data. Employing 3 aircraft, they executed 182 events at a 95% sortie 
completion rate, delivering over 267,000 lbs of cargo and 523 
passengers in support of Carrier Strike Group one (CSG-1) while 
utilizing seven forward logistics sites. Fleet Logistics Multi Mission 
Wing (VRM Wing), the type wing for the CMV-22B, is in the development 
process of their recommendation for adjustments to distribution, and 
force structure in the current and projected environments. This 
project, notionally referred to as a Concept of Employment (CONEMP), is 
expected to complete within the next 12 months. The Navy also 
recognizes a need to more broadly re-evaluate our Concept of Operation 
(CONOPS) for the CMV-22B given the aircraft capability and operating 
boundaries. The current CONOPS was written well before the first CMV-22 
was delivered and informed by its predecessor, the C-2A, a vastly 
different aircraft.  [See page 55.]

?

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


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             April 28, 2023

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

      

                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ROGERS

    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
Can you provide information on any policy changes or medical 
care and oversight improvements that the Navy has already 
implemented for Navy Seal training in response to Kyle Mullen's 
untimely and avoidable death?
    Secretary Del Toro. On May 25, 2023, Navy leaders, 
including Commander, Naval Ed. Training Command, RADM Pete 
Garvin, briefed professional staff of the HASC and SASC on the 
finding and recommendation of the NETC investigation into the 
circumstance surrounding the death of SN Mullen. This brief 
included information on policy changes and medical oversight 
improvements.
    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
Can you provide an update on the status of the NETC 
investigation and the timeframe in which you each will read, 
review and release the command report on the death of Seaman 
Mullen?
    Secretary Del Toro. The NETC completed its investigation on 
March 24, 2023 following briefs to SN Mullen's family and 
congressional briefs. The NETC released the investigation to 
the public on March 25, 2023.
    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
What accountability measures are available for those 
responsible for the systemic medical care shortfalls present at 
BUDS, such as those which led to Seaman Mullen's death?
    Secretary Del Toro. Accountability measures available 
include: administrative measures, non-judicial punishments, and 
courts-martial.
    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
Can you provide information on any policy changes or medical 
care and oversight improvements that the Navy has already 
implemented for Navy Seal training in response to Kyle Mullen's 
untimely and avoidable death?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
Can you provide an update on the status of the NETC 
investigation and the timeframe in which you each will read, 
review and release the command report on the death of Seaman 
Mullen?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Rogers. (On behalf of Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey) 
What accountability measures are available for those 
responsible for the systemic medical care shortfalls present at 
BUDS, such as those which led to Seaman Mullen's death?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LAMBORN

    Mr. Lamborn. The Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense 
Authorization Act required several reports on the development 
of a nuclear sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM-N). Can you 
please provide an update as to where these reports are in the 
process and an estimate for when they'll be delivered to 
Congress.
    Secretary Del Toro. The Nuclear-Capable Sea-Launched Cruise 
Missile (SLCM-N) spending plan was developed in accordance with 
Section 1642 of the National Defense Authorization Act (Public 
Law 117-263) for Fiscal Year 2023, and was completed and 
delivered to Congress on 14 April 2023, and was completed and 
delivered to Congress on 14 April 2023. The Administration 
strongly opposes continued funding for the nuclear sealaunched 
cruise missile (SLCM-N) and its associated warhead. The 
President's Nuclear Posture Review concluded that the SLCM-N, 
which would not be delivered before the 2030s, is unnecessary 
and potentially detrimental to other priorities. The United 
States has sufficient current and planned capabilities for 
deterring an adversary's limited nuclear use. DoD's 
conventional and strategic nuclear capabilities include the 
W76-2 low-yield submarine-launched ballistic missile warhead, 
the current air-launched cruise missile, its successor (the 
long-range standoff weapon), and F-35A dual-capable aircraft 
that can be equipped with updated B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs. 
Further investment in developing SLCM-N would divert resources 
and focus from higher modernization priorities for the U.S. 
nuclear enterprise and infrastructure, which is already 
stretched to capacity after decades of deferred investments. It 
would also impose operational challenges on the Navy.
    Mr. Lamborn. I am disappointed to see that the Navy 
recently issued a sole source contract notification on a 
federal contract for ejection seat upgrades. Will the Navy 
commit to issuing a solicitation for a full and open 
competition for its next generation ejection seat, or does it 
plan to continue to issue sole source awards absent a fully 
informed process? Assuming the Navy moves forward with a 
competitive selection process, how does the Navy plan to 
approach requirements around U.S.-based manufacturing for next 
generation ejection seats, rather than just final assembly?
    Secretary Del Toro. Navy Aircrew Common Ejection seats are 
integrated in F/A-18 series, EA-18 and T-45 aircraft. The Naval 
Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) provides engineering and logistic 
services to variants of ejection seats in the F-5 and F-16 
aircraft associated with Navy aggressor squadrons. The Navy 
recently issued a notification for a sole source contract to 
update the time limited components of ejection seats that were 
already procured in FY15. These seats were originally procured 
for legacy aircraft that were struck for cost savings. These 
Government owned seats will be updated for installation in the 
eight (8) F/A-18E aircraft that were authorized in the FY2023 
NDAA. These components consist of thermal batteries, drogue 
parachute and main parachute. There is only one vendor that can 
provide these supplies and services to satisfy these 
requirements. Currently, there is no requirement for a Next 
Generation Ejection Seat. The Navy will approach the 
requirements for any future competitive selection processes as 
it is required to by FAR 15.3 and comply with the Competition 
in Contracting Act.
                                ------                                


                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. SCOTT

    Mr. Scott. We have been building DDG-51 for decades, so we 
have a pretty good dataset for this class of warships and how 
we have maintained them in through the years. A quarter century 
ago in April 1998, DDG-58 through 63 were all in their third 
year after commissioning. How may CASREPS were each of these 
ships reporting in April 1998, and what was the average for 
these 6 ships? In 2023, sadly we only had one DDG, DDG-119, 
that was commissioned three years ago in 2020, so lets reach 
back to DDG-116, 117 and 118 who were the only commissioned DDG 
in 2018, 2019, & 2021. That gives us four DDG. What are the 
number of CASREPS those ships carrying in April of 2023, and 
what is the average of those four ships?
    Secretary Del Toro. [See attachment]
    Note 1--Source: Naval Vessel Register Note 2--Source: 
Defense Readiness Reporting System. These totals do not account 
for changes to or variations in equipment configuration, 
changes in reporting system or data repository, or attitudes 
and guidance concerning the submission of CASREPs from 1998 to 
2023.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.104

    .epsMr. Scott. We have reports throughout the fleet of 
hours upon hours of time being spent in person and in zoom 
calls by very senior leadership in coordination meetings 
concerning your ``Get Real Get Better'' project. Do you know 
how many cumulative work hours your Flag Officers and Master 
Chiefs have invested in this project over the last year? Is 
this even being tracked? How do you measure the effectiveness 
of this investment? What was broken that this program is trying 
to fix? Who and what broke it?
    Secretary Del Toro. Get Real Get Better is an initiative to 
advance our Navy culture. We use the term ``advance'' because 
we are keeping what we know works. Get Real Get Better is 
straightforward, proven leadership and problem-solving 
behaviors already practiced by our best leaders, and we are 
making it the standard. We are pursuing Get Real Get Better 
because, although we are a world class Navy, not all 
performance is world class. We have too much variability in 
performance, notable in: shipyard delays, force development 
failures, operational and safety incidents, and pay and 
personnel issues.
    Meanwhile, our pacing challenge is getting bigger and 
better. Get Real Get Better is not just theory. We are adopting 
measurable standards for these leadership and problem-solving 
behaviors. The standards are:
     LAlign on standards and goals
     LFind and embrace the ``red''
     LUse Navy problem-solving methods to get at root 
cause
     LFix or elevate barriers
     LEncourage learning through trust and respect
     LSpecify ownership Implementing Get Real Get 
Better is a multi-year process.
    Last fall, we trained leadership teams from echelon 1 
through echelon 5, which encompassed about four hours of 
training. This year, we are reinforcing this effort with 
monthly leadership team discussions, which are accomplished in 
less than one hour. Get Real Get Better is about building 
better leaders and problem-solvers toward one goal: warfighting 
advantage.
    Mr. Scott. Prior to World War Two, the Two-Ocean Navy, 
sponsored by Representative Carl Vinson of Georgia, ensured 
that the U.S. Navy was prepared to fight a peer-to-peer 
conflict across the Pacific. However, prior to that landmark 
piece of legislation, the U.S. passed the Merchant Marine Act 
of 1936 to ensure we had the ships to transport the Arsenal of 
Democracy, mobilize the nation's shipyards and maritime base, 
and provide ships to both the merchant marine and Navy as 
auxiliaries and landing ships. As Secretary of the Navy, what 
are you and the Navy doing to ensure that there is not just a 
Navy but a Merchant Marine, as required by 46 U.S. Code 
Sec. 50101?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Merchant Marine is vital to our 
national defense and an integral member of the Navy and Joint 
Force that supports military operations across the spectrum of 
strategic competition, crisis, and conflict. Military Sealift 
Command (MSC) serves as the Naval Component of U.S. 
Transportation Command and the Department of Defense maritime 
logistics provider for over 130 government and commercially-
owned and chartered vessels.
    MSC is also the largest employer of U.S. merchant mariners 
in the United States with more than 5,000 Civil Service 
Mariners who crew and operate government ships executing 
national security missions. The Navy partners with the Maritime 
Administration (MARAD) to resource the procurement and 
maintenance of the Ready Reserve Force (RRF), which provides 
10.6M sqft of rapid worldwide sealift deployment to transport 
equipment for the Joint Force. The RRF currently consists of 48 
government-owned vessels that are crewed and operated by U.S. 
merchant mariners.
    In addition, the Navy supports MARAD's Maritime Security 
Program (MSP) as part of a whole-of-government effort to 
generate cargo and requirements for U.S.-flagged vessels to 
transport cargoes during peacetime. The MSP maintains a fleet 
of commercially viable, militarily useful merchant ships active 
in international trade, while also providing DoD access to a 
global intermodal transportation network of terminals, 
facilities, logistic management services, and U.S. citizen 
merchant mariners. The Navy, along with other departments, 
generate cargo (government-impelled cargo) with a requirement 
to be shipped aboard U.S.-flagged vessels.
    The Navy continues to support the development, training, 
and/or credentialing of Sailors to pursue careers in the 
Merchant Marine. The Navy maintains the Strategic Sealift 
Officer Force, an all Navy Reserve program of 2,200 warfare 
qualified Navy officers with civilian mariner licenses/
credentials to support the activation, operation, and 
sustainment of US organic sealift fleet. To improve Sailor 
opportunities in the Merchant Marine, the Navy provides 
personalized analysis training and assessments to identify 
eligible mariner credentials and, through Navy Credentialing 
Opportunities Online, pays for the Transportation Worker 
Identification Card and U.S. Coast Guard licensing 
examinations.
    Mr. Scott. In recent testimony, Admiral Aquilino said ``In 
terms of Sealift, we have a distinct advantage over the PRC in 
both numbers and capabilities.'' Sealift experts disagree. Can 
you elaborate on Aquilino's comment?
    Secretary Del Toro. A conflict with the PRC will require 
the U.S. military to support forces with extremely robust 
logistics. The DoD sustains expeditionary forces with both 
organic and commercial contracted shipping assets. The PRC's 
assessed plan during conflict is to use modified civilian Roll-
on/Roll-Off (RORO) ships vice building a dedicated logistics 
fleet. The PRC does not have the organic capacity and 
capability that U.S. Sealift provides, giving the U.S. military 
an advantage in the movement of troops and logistic support.
    Office of Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program 
Evaluation (OSD CAPE) and United States Transportation Command 
(USTRANSCOM) Mobility Studies assessed the current validated 
capacity requirement for Strategic Sealift in wartime as 19.6M 
square feet (sqft). This requirement is met using three 
mechanisms: 1) Afloat Prepositioning Forces, 2) Surge Sealift, 
and 3) Commercial Sustainment.
    1) Afloat Prepositioning Forces provide 4.7M sqft of lift 
capacity via 15 government-owned and commercially-operated 
Roll-on/Roll-off ships (ROROs). Ten prepositioned ships remain 
in a fully operational status and are forward-deployed, while 5 
prepositioned ships remain in CONUS in a reduced operational 
status. These ships include USMC Maritime Prepositioning Force 
(MPF) and Army Afloat Prepositioning Ships. MPF Next Generation 
Ship requirements development is ongoing in support of the USMC 
Global Positioning Network concept and will support the 
delivery of a lead ship in FY32, aligning with the retirement 
of the oldest MPF ships. Recapitalization of the MPF will 
continue to support USMC equipment and material needs 
prepositioned in INDOPACOM.
    2) Organic Surge Sealift provides 10.6M sqft of lift 
capacity using 48 government owned and commercially operated 
ROROs. These ships are located in CONUS and are in a reduced 
operating status with a 5-day activation requirement. By the 
end of the FYDP, 71% of the Organic Surge Sealift vessels will 
reach the end of their service life. Readiness and reliability 
of the organic sealift force is being addressed with increased 
maintenance and repair budgets aligned with age of ships, 
extended service life of the most reliable ships, and an 
accelerated recapitalization Buy-Used program. To date, the 
Buy-Used program has purchased 1.1M sqft of younger, more 
reliable capacity. Congressional support for the authorization 
of additional used vessels will allow the Buy-Used program to 
continue to provide ready, reliable ships to close the capacity 
gap created by the retirement of ships.
    3) Commercial sustainment provides 3.7M sqft of lift 
capacity using 20 commercially-owned (US-flagged) and 
commercially-operated militarily useful ROROs. These ships 
commit capacity to the department under the Voluntary 
Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) program in exchange for 
preference to peacetime cargo. Participating ships are engaged 
in commercial trade at time of activation and, on average, 
provide an 18-day response time if activated. The VISA also 
provides assured access to heavy lift and containerships, 
critical to the transportation of bulk ammunition.
    4) Additional commercial contracted shipping assets are 
provided through the Voluntary Tanker Agreement (VTA). This 
partnership between the U.S. Government and the maritime 
industry provides DoD assured access to commercial state-of-
the-art sealift, tankers and intermodal equipment during 
national emergencies and wartime operations.
    5) The Navy is addressing the age and reliability of the 
current organic sealift fleet in order to provide sufficient 
capacity and capability to support current and future defense 
strategies. On-going recapitalization efforts of the organic 
sealift fleet through a combination of new construction and 
buy-used will provide sufficient capacity for the deployment 
and sustainment of decisive land forces. Rationale: The 
reference to service life extensions is outdated and we are no 
longer pursuing this COA. VISA and VTA should be deleted as 
they do not apply to the organic fleet.
    Mr. Scott. Who is responsible to foster, promote and 
develop the commercial shipyards building Navy ships? Who 
provides shipyard subsidies? Is that the job of the US Navy or 
the Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration? How 
often do you meet jointly with Secretary Pete Buttigieg and 
Commandant Ann Phillips to work on this issue?
    Secretary Del Toro. Health and competition in the 
shipbuilding industrial base and supply chain is vital to 
meeting our National Defense Strategy. With the help of 
Congress and working with local, state, and national 
organizations, the Navy and its commercial shipbuilders are 
identifying opportunities to generate resiliency and 
productivity in the shipbuilding industrial base. The Navy is 
taking steps to expand and strengthen our commercial 
shipbuilding partners through targeted industrial base 
investments in shipbuilder infrastructure, supply chain 
capability/capacity, scaling new technologies, addressing 
workforce trade skill gaps and constraints, and expanding 
productive capacity via strategic outsourcing of large-scale 
fabrication. In concert with the Navy's investments, the 
Department of Transportation's Maritime Administration (MARAD) 
manages the Small Shipyard Grant program that provides direct 
subsidies to support small shipyards for projects that make 
capital and related improvements or provide training for 
workers in shipbuilding, ship repair. In addition to direct 
subsidies, MARAD promotes the development of commercial 
shipyards through financing programs such as the Federal Ship 
Financing Program and the Capital Construction Fund. I, as 
Secretary of the Navy, foster a collaborative relationship with 
both the Secretary of Transportation and the Maritime 
Administrator, which includes joint engagements and 
collaborative working relationships across the three 
organizations.
    Mr. Scott. How important is the Ready Reserve Fleet to 
logistics during a peer level conflict in INDOPACOM. How has 
your office assisted Sec Buttigeig in improving the 40.7% 
combined vessel readiness level identified during the joint 
Turbo Activation exercise?
    Secretary Del Toro. 90% of unit equipment flowing to 
theater moves via organic and commercial sealift assets. The 
validated capacity for Surge Sealift for all conflicts is 10.6M 
square feet (SqFt) to meet delivery demand. Surge Sealift 
consists of vessels from Military Sealift Command (MSC) and the 
Maritime Administration's (MARAD) Ready Reserve Force (RRF). At 
the time of Turbo Activation (TA-19), the average age of the 
surge fleet was 47 years, readiness was 64% of available 
sealift capacity and mission success rate was 78%. The combined 
vessel readiness score, which measures reliability of ready 
ships, was 40.7%. In response to the declining readiness and 
reliability of the surge fleet, the Navy initiated a Sealift 
Performance to Plan (P2P) initiative. The Sealift P2P 
identified four levers to increase sealift readiness and 
reliability. The Navy acted on all four levers beginning in 
2021.
    1) Inactivated seven low-performing, high-cost vessels 
ahead of end of service-life.
    2) Increased maintenance and repair (M&R) funding to align 
with the increasing cost of maintenance as vessels age. PB22 
added over $500M in M&R funding over the FYDP.
    3) Transferred seven vessels from MSC to MARAD under the 
RRF to take advantage of efficiencies of the commercial 
maintenance model under a single reserve sealift manager.
    4) Accelerated the Buy-Used program to close the capacity 
gap created by the retirement of low-performing vessels and 
planned age-related retirements. The first two Buy-Used vessels 
are 25 years old and will be ready for tasking in June 2023.
    MARAD purchased another three 15-year old ships in February 
2023 with staggered delivery dates in March 2023, July 2023 and 
Sept 2023. The three ships, providing 600K sqft, will be ready 
for tasking by the end of FY24, approximately 8 months after 
delivery. The 2023 Appropriations Act included funding for the 
purchase of 300K sqft, or two used vessels. MARAD is conducting 
a global market survey for the next used vessels, with results 
available mid-summer and purchase anticipated Q4FY23 to Q1FY24, 
based on market response. Ships would be ready for tasking 8 
to10 months after delivery. PB24 requests funding for the 
remaining 300K sqft required to close the capacity gap created 
by the retired vessels. Average readiness since implementing 
P2P levers has increased to 72% of available sealift capacity 
and has been as high as 80%. Material readiness of the RRF 
continues to increase as a result of the improvements.
    However, ``fact-of-life'' issues, including competition for 
commercial dry-docks and extended timelines due to COVID-
related labor and material shortages, are impacting MARAD's 
ability to sustain these readiness levels. The Sealift P2P is 
conducting a follow-on study using historical RRF data, 
modeling and analysis to better predict readiness and 
reliability.
    Mr. Scott. NAVSEA has over 80,000 employees. MARAD has less 
than 1,000 yet the Department of Transportation is building the 
National Security Multi-Mission Vessel in Philly Shipyard close 
to budget and schedule. What lessons has the Navy learned from 
this project? How is such a small agency outperforming NAVSEA?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of Transportation 
Maritime Administration (MARAD) is using a commercial Vessel 
Construction Manager (VCM) to ensure commercial best practices 
are utilized in delivery of the NSMV. The Navy is utilizing a 
similar concept in recapitalization of the Ready Reserve Force 
(RRF) fleet through a Vessel Acquisition Manager (VAM) and an 
Integrated Program Office (IPO) that includes MARAD, U.S. 
Transportation Command, and the Navy. Partnering with a VAM and 
IPO to replace aging sealift vessels has enabled the program to 
leverage commercial best practices and recapitalize 960,000 
square feet of cargo space to date at a reduced cost and 
schedule.
    Lessons learned and best practices utilized by the VAM and 
VCM constructs are being applied to Navy shipbuilding programs. 
Philly Shipyard leadership shared their approach to designing 
and building the NSMV during visits by various Navy 
representatives earlier this year. The shipyard's approach 
involves maximizing the use of modular pre-package units to 
speed up the assembly phases of construction. This is a good 
practice that the Navy and a willing and able industry partner 
can implement where possible. Furthermore, the Navy has learned 
and benefited from experience in using Firm Fixed Price 
contracts to procure low-complexity ships and a stable design 
that leverages commercial designs. Philly Shipyard's approach 
to shipbuilding involves a significant percentage of pre-
assembled and kitted material supplied by non-U.S. sources. The 
Navy is required by law to buy American and leverage domestic 
material sources as much as possible. NAVSEA is responsible for 
designing, building, and maintaining the United States Navy's 
fleet of surface combatants, aircraft carriers, auxiliary and 
support ships, and submarines.
    This portfolio includes a wide range of vessels with 
different capabilities and specifications. Their projects 
typically involve significant technical complexity, stringent 
military requirements, strict acquisition policy and law, and 
larger budgets. NAVSEA, and other Navy acquisition entities 
strive to improve project management practices, foster 
innovation, and enhance collaboration with commercial and 
government organizations.
    Mr. Scott. How could smaller domestic yards and allied 
partners help the Navy rebuild its fleet and revitalize its 
industrial base?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Navy utilizes smaller domestic 
yards, based on vessel requirements, in a similar manner to 
larger shipyards to build and repair the Navy's fleet and 
revitalize the domestic industrial base. The Navy has also 
undertaken efforts to increase industrial base capacity through 
strategic outsourcing of critical components to smaller yards, 
such as non-nuclear submarine and carrier component work. In 
addition, small business boat and craft builders play a crucial 
role in any economy as they often form the backbone of local 
communities, create jobs, and promote innovation and diversity.
    Over the past five years, the Navy has awarded 
approximately $1.02 billion in build contracts to our small 
business ship, craft, and boatyards. Similarly, efforts to 
expand capacity and capability across the shipbuilding 
industrial base are reinvigorated by working with allies and 
international partners. These efforts build overall resiliency 
and complement existing industrial base efforts at the prime 
and sub-tier suppliers, to include capital and workforce 
investments. Current events have shown the genuine value in 
maintaining relationships among partners and allies. This 
approach to revitalizing the industrial base will leverage 
industries' pace of technology, allies, and partners' 
capabilities while exploring new concepts. The return on 
investment includes a more flexible hybrid fleet that can be 
scaled with our allies and partners to help fill gaps brought 
on from world conflicts, or industrial base challenges, at a 
more affordable cost.
    Mr. Scott. What lessons learned from the 1980s Ocean 
Venture exercises are applicable to Great Power Competition 
today? Do you support establishing standing South China Sea and 
Eastern Mediterranean task forces?
    Secretary Del Toro. In late 2016, realizing that long-term 
Great Power Competition was likely inevitable, senior leaders 
across the Department of the Navy (DoN) began a structured 
effort to study the lessons of the Cold War and apply the most 
applicable elements to the implementation of the National 
Defense Strategy. By early 2017, in coordination with then 
Deputy Secretary of Defense Work, the CNO and CMC established 
the Naval Strategy Panel (NSP)--a fully-informed, senior 
decision body to adapt and modernize cold war-informed 
strategies for use in the modern application of GPC. In 2021, 
this effort expanded to merge with other efforts ongoing in the 
Department to mitigate threats posed by our competitors. While 
an exact parallel to the 1980's Ocean Venture exercise series 
is no longer feasible within the DoN, due to Goldwater-Nichols 
reforms, the concepts, philosophies and structures that drove 
those strategies are being successfully applied within the NSP 
and we are actively working to synchronize those efforts with 
the other services, the combatant commands and the DoD writ 
large. Progress has been demonstrable and is accelerating. We 
would be happy to provide additional details at a higher level 
of classification.
    Mr. Scott. The requirement for RORO surge sealift capacity 
is 10.6 million square feet. The recent Turbo Activations have 
highlighted issues with readiness. What is the status of the 
seven ships identified to be ready by FY 2024? Why is the Navy 
not advocating for a building program similar to that developed 
in the 1990s that resulted in the 20 large medium speed ro/ros? 
Can the Navy provide a breakdown of the 51 RoRos identified in 
the FY 2024 surge sealift fleet, their age, and when were the 
last time they were activated and exercised?
    Admiral Gilday. 90% of unit equipment flowing to theater 
moves via organic and commercial sealift assets. The validated 
capacity for Surge Sealift for all conflicts is 10.6M square 
feet (sqft) to meet delivery demand. Surge Sealift consists of 
vessels from Military Sealift Command (MSC) and the Maritime 
Administration's (MARAD) Ready Reserve Force (RRF). Over 70% of 
the Ready Reserve Force (RRF) will reach expected service life 
over the next 10 years. Procuring used Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) 
vessels is the fastest and most cost-effective recapitalization 
approach to meet surge sealift requirements within an 
acceptable level of risk.
    Joint Staff validated Navy's decision; the FY22 
Appropriations Act provided additional funding for the program. 
Constructing new surge sealift vessels would significantly 
increase the time and cost of bringing surge sealift vessels 
online to replace ageing capacity; contract award to delivery 
of the first new ship would take approximately five (5) times 
longer and cost four (4) times more than the purchase and 
refurbishment of a used vessel. The Navy supports 
recapitalizing the Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF), which 
is prepositioned in full operating status. Navy and Marine 
Corps are developing capability requirements for a new 
construction program aligned to the MPF retirement schedule 
beginning in 2030. The Navy, along with MARAD, is receiving 
1.1M sqft of younger, more reliable capacity with the purchase 
of five used vessels. Collectively, the five purchased used 
ships provide 70K sqft/ship more than the baseline requirement 
of 150K sqft and meet the intent of the purchase of seven 
smaller ships. The first two used vessels are 25 years old and 
will be ready for tasking in Sep 2023. MARAD purchased three 
10-11year old ships in February 2023 with staggered delivery 
dates in April 2023, June 2023 and Sept 2023.
    The three ships are planned to be ready for tasking by the 
end of FY24 approximately eight months after delivery. The FY23 
Appropriations Act included funding for the purchase of 300K 
sqft, or two used vessels. MARAD is conducting a global market 
survey for the next used vessels, with results available Q4 
FY23 and purchase anticipated Q2FY24 based on market response. 
Ships would be ready for tasking 10 -18 months after delivery 
dependent on the age and material condition of the ship. PB24 
requests funding for an additional 300K sqft required to close 
the capacity gap created by retired vessels. The table below 
provides a breakdown of the FY24 RO/RO inventory, age and 
activation/exercise dates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.105

    .epsMr. Scott. In testimony before the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee you said icebreakers are not in the 
latest budget because they are not included in navy 
requirements. How does this effect NAVSEA's current mandate to 
assist the USCG in building icebreakers? How can military 
sealift command operate in arctic regions without icebreakers? 
Do the Navy requirements need to change?
    Admiral Gilday. Through the Coast Guard (USCG)-Navy 
Integrated Program Office, NAVSEA continues to assist the USCG 
by providing contracting and technical expertise. $300 million 
in Shipbuilding and Conversion Navy funding was appropriated in 
Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 and FY 2018 to fund detail design and 
long lead time materials for Polar Security Cutter (PSC) #1. 
Navy funding will also be used to acquire and support 
approximately $83 million in Navy Type Navy Owned equipment, 
which will ensure the PSC fleet's interoperability with the 
Navy and other Department of Defense platforms.
    USCG appropriations have provided sufficient funding for 
the remaining PSC program efforts to date, with $47.2 million 
appropriated in FY 2023. Military Sealift Command time-charters 
with US Flagged ships that are compliant with International 
Safety Management Polar Code, which allows them to operate in 
the arctic regions. When icebreaking capabilities are required 
for these vessels, arrangements are made through the US Coast 
Guard to coordinate US Coast Guard, Canadian Coast Guard, or 
NATO Ice Breaker services. Icebreaking for national defense is 
inherently a United States Coast Guard (USCG) mission, as 
agreed upon in a 1965 United States Navy and Department of 
Treasury (USCG's Department in 1965) Memorandum of Agreement 
and codified within United States Code (14 USCSec. 102), which 
states that the USCG shall ``develop, establish, maintain, and 
operate, with due regard to the requirements of national 
defense, aids to maritime navigation, ice breaking facilities, 
and rescue facilities for the promotion of safety on, under, 
and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction 
of the United States.''
    The Navy supports the Nation's need for icebreaking 
capability and surface presence in the polar regions and is 
assisting USCG efforts to recapitalize its polar icebreaking 
fleet. As stated in the Tri-Service Maritime Strategy, the 
USCG's polar icebreaker fleet modernization provides the 
capabilities to project national sovereignty, counter malign 
activities, uphold international norms, and enable 
interoperability with allies and partners in the polar regions.
    Mr. Scott. Everyone is focused on helping US shipyards 
succeed but they are corporate entities subject to the vagaries 
of financial markets, inflation and the codes of capital. Is 
the Navy working with Wall Street or the Department of Treasury 
to fully understand financial constraints our shipyards face? 
Are you working on finace opportunities? Are you working 
jointly with the SEC and FBI to understand how money from Wall 
Street might be used to support PLA Navy shipbuilding efforts?
    Admiral Gilday. Navy contracts are executed in accordance 
with the Federal Acquisition Regulations to ensure contractors 
are eligible to bid on contracts, as well as to ensure they 
meet the requirements set forth in the contracts. As such, the 
Department utilizes all the authorities provided by Congress. 
The Navy closely monitors the shipbuilding industrial base to 
ensure that they comply with all Federal regulations as 
specified in their contracts. Questions regarding potential 
funding of PLA Navy shipbuilding efforts from Wall Street would 
best be addressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission 
and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
    Mr. Scott. In several venues you have emphasized the 
importance of working jointly with allies. What efforts have 
been made to work with allied US Merchant Mariners aboard 
foreign ships, allied Merchant Marines including the Ukraine 
and Philippines, and allied shipyards in Japan and Korea? What 
opportunities for working jointly with shipbuilding and 
merchant marine allies need to be further explored?
    Admiral Gilday. Our alliances and partnerships remain our 
key strategic advantage. Working together, we strengthen our 
ability to prevail in conflict and further bolster integrated 
deterrence by demonstrating a united front against potential 
adversaries. The Navy operates forward alongside allies and 
partners in activities that strengthen our strategic 
partnerships and increase interoperability, information 
sharing, and capacity for resilient, integrated logistics. Navy 
vessels routinely conduct maintenance and voyage repairs in 
foreign shipyards, as allowed by U.S. law. Details on specific 
initiatives with the Merchant Marine are deferred to the U.S. 
Maritime Administration. Although we have a very close working 
relationship with the Maritime Administration, which oversees 
and manages the overall health of the U.S. Merchant Marine 
Force, the United States Navy does not directly interact with 
our allied partners' merchant marine industry, unless it is 
conducted indirectly through our partnerships with allied 
Navies. That said, we do work closely with our allies and 
partners to leverage their industrial base capacity at 
shipyards, when required, to carry out work on our ships that 
are forward deployed and home ported overseas, as well as 
emergent work for ships that are deployed, but home ported in 
the United States. We will continue to leverage our 
partnerships with our allied navies, as well as the use of 
their shipyards when required.
    Mr. Scott. The US Air Force consumes over 50% of DoD fuel, 
is the most restricted in terms of using alternative energy, 
and is projected to consume large amounts of heavy munitions in 
a peer level conflict. Yet the Pacific ocean is vast and they 
do not have the airlift capacity to move heavy cargo vast 
distances. How involved is the USAF in supporting military 
sealift command requirements?
    Admiral Gilday. Military Sealift Command (MSC) provides 
ocean transportation for the Department of Defense and other 
federal agencies during peacetime and war. United States 
Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) provides support to the ten 
other U.S. combatant commands by conducting global integrated 
mobility operations, including sealift movements through MSC. 
Movement requirements are analyzed by USTRANSCOM for 
transportation feasibility, including airlift and sealift, with 
inputs from Combatant Command planning conferences--a 
collaborative effort between USTRANSCOM planners and combatant 
command planners, including service component planners. The Air 
Force participates in these planning conferences through their 
service component of United States Indo-Pacific Command and 
other combatant commands. In addition, MSC operates and 
maintains two (2) Air Force container ships prepositioned with 
ammunition stocks. The Air Force provides financial resourcing 
in support of their mission requirements for sealift, with 
official MSC tasking originating from USTRANSCOM.
    Mr. Scott. Lieutenant Kyle Cregge, U.S. Navy, wrote an 
article in the April 2023 issue of PRoceedings entitled ``SWOs 
Need Higher Classification Training Pipelines.'' According to 
the author, ``At present, no policy or program exists to fully 
inform department heads before they assume their roles on 
board.'' What plans, if any, does the U.S. Navy have to 
maximize Surface Warfare Officer combat readiness with higher 
classification training pipelines?
    Admiral Gilday. Surface Warfare Officer (SWO) Department 
Head (DH) course provides SWO DHs the appropriate level of 
classification focused on establishing a baseline level of 
knowledge for all prospective DHs to effectively lead and 
manage their departments. The SWO DH course trains the 
fundamentals of how to lead a shipboard combat watch team as a 
Tactical Action Officer (TAO) utilizing tactics, techniques, 
and procedures while preparing for platform-specific follow-on 
training.
    Per the approved Training Project Plan dated March 2020, 
the DH school course uses fleet-oriented material and 
operational programs to provide background instruction in 
combat systems theory, basic engineering, and material 
readiness. The curriculum employs a ``theory-to-practice'' 
approach while still stressing an understanding of combat 
system operation and weapons employment.
    However, the TAO phase is focused on the fundamental level 
of knowledge of five major areas required for surface ship TAO 
qualification which are: Information Warfare, Integrated Air 
and Missile Defense, Surface Warfare, Undersea Warfare, and 
Amphibious Warfare. Students are also required to have a 
baseline level of knowledge of the capabilities and limitations 
of both the U.S. Navy and our adversaries. The Surface Combat 
Systems Training Command teaches the Aegis TAO class, the Ship 
Self-Defense System TAO course, the Combat Systems Officer and 
Prospective Executive and Commanding Officer Courses at the 
SECRET General Service level with specific briefs conducted at 
the Top Secret Level to address specific threats and system 
issues.
    The training systems used to conduct the performance phase 
of these courses are designed to employ surrogate targets that 
reflect general characteristics of higher classification 
threats which maintains the SECRET level of classification 
while optimizing student throughput. Significant investment in 
Surface Combat Systems training combined with advancements in 
our new ship baselines allowed the Surface Navy to field new 
high fidelity training systems through the Surface Training 
Advanced Virtual Environment--Combat System. These training 
systems provide more realistic surrogate targets with advanced 
missile models increasing training effectiveness. These new 
systems combined with specific threat briefs at higher 
classification levels are producing officers who are ready and 
prepared to fully employ their ships upon arrival in the fleet.
    Mr. Scott. Commanders Matt Wright and Jamie Powers, U.S. 
Navy, wrote an article in the April 2023 issue of Proceedings 
entitled, '' How to Build ASW Air Combat Elements.'' Should 
Expeditionary Strike Groups (ESGs) have an antisubmarine 
warfare mission? Would ESGs with ASW capability be an advantage 
to the U.S. in large scale combat operations against an enemy 
peer nation?
    Admiral Gilday. When the need for extra defense of the 
Amphibious Ready Group (ARG)/Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) 
arises due to operational circumstances, adding surface 
combatants to the ARG/MEU formation to form an Expeditionary 
Strike Group (ESG) will enhance the overall capabilities of 
that task group, particularly in the area of Anti-Submarine 
Warfare (ASW). To ensure the ESG is ready to execute ASW 
missions, ESG Staffs are required to train and prepare to lead 
ASW missions as a Primary Mission, assigned in the Navy's 
Required Operational Capability (ROC) and Projected Operating 
Environment (POE) instruction. During large scale combat 
operations against an enemy peer nation, ASW capabilities will 
be essential for every naval formation.
    Mr. Scott. Ms. Annabelle Hutchinson wrote an article int he 
April 2023 issue of PRoceedings entitled ``Naval Intelligence 
Must Keep Pace with Software Innovation: Continually acquiring 
the cutting-edge software that powers artificial intelligence 
and machine learning is a community imperative.'' Moreover, 
according to the author, ``If naval intelligence seeks to 
maintain superiority in the digital age, it has no choice but 
to innovate and adopt powerful new software, AI, and machine-
learning tools to meet that challenge.'' Do you agree with the 
author that naval intelligence ``has no choice but to innovate 
and adopt powerful new software, AI, and machine-learning tools 
to meet that challenge?''
    Admiral Gilday. In this era of digitally-intensive great 
power competition, I agree that the rigorous, focused, and 
disciplined adoption of advanced analytics, to include AI and 
machine-learning tools and tradecraft, is needed to secure 
decision advantage for the Navy and the Intelligence Community. 
Naval Intelligence will continue to work closely with other 
elements of the Navy, the Defense Intelligence Enterprise, and 
Intelligence Community to make deliberate and tangible progress 
in the adoption of new technologies.
    Mr. Scott. The Missile Defense Review prioritized 
solidifying the capability to counter small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (sUAS). In November of 2022, the Chinese military 
presented a light vehicle drone swarm launcher that can 
seemingly launch up to 18 drones. Over the last few years, we 
have seen greater accessibility, usage, and more rapid 
advancement in drone technology. Drones today are more durable, 
sustainable, and autonomous than ever before. What is your 
assessment of the current and future drone and drone swarm 
threat? What solutions are the Navy and Marine Corps currently 
working in the near and far term? Do you feel the Navy and 
Marine Corps are receiving adequate resourced to defeat the 
growing drone and drone swarm threat? What is the Navy's and 
Marine Corps' timeline to integrating and fielding these 
capabilities? How is the Army bringing solutions via emerging 
technology into theater to operationally test and gain critical 
feedback from the war fighter?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy recognizes the proliferation of 
unmanned systems and the potential for adversaries to exploit 
low cost, commercial technology to create a warfighting 
advantage over our existing systems. The greater accessibility, 
usage, and rapid development of these technologies presents 
unique challenges for the Navy to address the threat. 
Currently, the Navy Shore C-sUAS program is looking into 
technologies that increase the ability to detect sUAS swarms, 
and ``dark drones'' that have historically gone undetected due 
to rapid technology advancements. Navy Shore has the ability to 
react appropriately today for a swarm scenario at the majority 
of locations minimizing any potential impact. Our focus 
currently is on employing a variety of sensor technologies 
(Radio Frequency (RF), Electro Optical/Infrared (EO/IR), and 
radar) working in concert to give operators greater confidence 
in the ability to detect swarms. At sea, we are investing in 
upgrades to existing portable equipment as well as system 
integration for the shipboard combat systems suite to counter 
the sUAS threats. These efforts will be executed in line with 
Navy priorities to defeat the growing sUAS challenges. We are 
continuing to take the threat posed by sUAS seriously and are 
investing in systems to protect Navy ships at sea and in port. 
The standup of the Joint Counter small Unmanned Aircraft System 
Office (JCO) has created many opportunities for RDTE efforts, 
which is attempting to close the gap where Services are limited 
in readily available capabilities. It is imperative to work 
with the JCO to reduce wasted resourcing and time in pursuit of 
material solutions and procedural changes. Furthermore, via the 
JCO, the opportunity exists to eventually establish a truly 
Joint solution that can benefit all Services.
    Mr. Scott. The Navy's recently announced Force Design 2045 
Plan calls for a 373-ship fleet, of which 150 will be unmanned. 
How is the Navy leveraging commercial best practices including 
modeling and simulation to quickly develop, test, scale, and 
deploy a fleet with such a large share of unmanned vessels? 
What lessons has the Navy drawn from commercial industry? What 
mechanisms are currently set to adopt tested industry 
solutions?
    Admiral Gilday. 1. Force Design 2045 calls for the Navy of 
the 2040s and beyond to include more than 350 manned ships and 
about 150 large unmanned surface and subsurface platforms. The 
Navy has incorporated commercial best practices to rapidly 
design and mature unmanned platforms and systems. Some key 
examples include:The Navy has adopted industry's practice of 
applying a digitally based, modular open systems approach to 
ensure major systems and interfaces use recognized standards as 
broadly as possible. A prime example is the Navy's employment 
of an open Unmanned Maritime Autonomy Architecture (UMAA), 
developed in collaboration with industry.
    UMAA, which utilizes open interfaces and services, will 
allow more rapid integration of new or improved capabilities 
including from potential commercial sources. The Navy is 
investing in collaborative development environments such as the 
Rapid Autonomy Integration Lab (RAIL) where industry will apply 
digital engineering infrastructure, tools, and processes--like 
those found in commercial projects--to rapidly develop, test, 
certify, and deploy new and updated autonomous capabilities. 
The Navy has adopted modern industry software development best 
practices and has begun to collect the data necessary to fuel 
validated modeling and simulation tools to be collaboratively 
used with our industry partners. Collaboration with our 
laboratories, academia, and industry partners, in a balanced 
mix of pre-construction simulation and land/sea-based 
prototyping, will accelerate the ``build a little--test a 
little--learn a lot'' process for unmanned technologies, as 
well as provide feedback and lessons learned from experiments 
and exercises to accelerate the deployment of unmanned vessels.
    2. The Navy continues to incorporate feedback and lessons 
from Industry's commercial efforts. The Navy recently completed 
an Unmanned Systems Industry Day in March 2023 with 430 
companies participating, nearly half of whom were small 
businesses. Much of the feedback the Navy received focused on 
existing commercial industry capabilities and the perceived 
cost/schedule/performance risk associated with advancing 
commercial performance up to Navy requirements. There are 
specific considerations and military requirements that often 
impact direct transition of commercial systems for military 
purposes, but through open dialogue the Navy seeks to work with 
industry to maximize as many opportunities which may exist and 
minimize the impact of risk-driving technical requirements. One 
such example put into practice is the use of commercial vessel 
standards for large and medium unmanned surface vessels (USV). 
The Navy is working with the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) 
to leverage commercial best practices and standards, and take 
advantage of aspects in the unmanned space that enable a 
reduction in military standards.
    3. The Navy is using innovative methods to test industry 
hardware and software solutions. Some key examples include: The 
Navy successfully operationally employed tested industry 
solutions in the ongoing testing and experimentation that Task 
Force 59 is conducting with USVs. Task Force 59 was able to 
rapidly lease and learn from existing industry vessel 
platforms. The Navy is expanding this learning approach to the 
US Fourth Fleet.
    These initiatives support continued refinement of platform 
requirements, technical maturation, capabilities development, 
and procurement program planning. The Navy's future hybrid 
fleet will likely employ a mix of commercial-based solutions 
and technologies, and military-specific systems, depending on 
the operational environment and mission. In unmanned systems 
acquisition, the Navy also employs RAIL to test in-situ 
software reliability and integration across platform, payload, 
and mission software applications derived from commercial 
solutions. RAIL also employs modeling-and-simulation technology 
with software-in-the-loop testing to validate integration of 
various autonomous behaviors, sensors, and payloads.
    The Navy is using multiple USV prototype platforms, 
including commercially derived support vessel designs, as test 
beds for industry solutions. Other examples include the 
reliability testing of six different USV engine solutions at 
industry sites. The Navy utilized a commercial solutions 
opening (CSO) approach in collaboration with the Defense 
Innovation Unit (DIU) to test candidates for the next 
generation of expeditionary mine countermeasures small Unmanned 
Underwater Vehicle (UUV), designated Lionfish. Two industry 
UUV's were then tested by Fleet Explosive Ordnance Disposal 
(EOD) groups supported by the Navy program office. This 
approach was used to select the ultimate Lionfish protoype.
    Mr. Scott. While the Navy demonstrated its ability to 
rapidly advance innovation through the Task Force 59, more 
action is needed to scale the lessons learned across programs 
of record. How does the Navy assess the success and measurable 
impact of Task Force 59? How is the Navy incorporating these 
lessons learned to transition prototypes into programs of 
record that will field this technology to the warfighter?
    Admiral Gilday. TF-59 has introduced new opportunities for 
operationalizing commercial systems and creative use of 
service-based capability models to further accelerate the 
Navy's Unmanned Campaign Plan. These efforts have been 
foundational and they continue to inform our operations in 
these types of systems. They also contribute to a deliberate 
development plan across six Lines of Effort (LOE): 1) reliable 
Hull, Mechanical and Electrical (HM&E); 2) advanced networks 
and radios; 3) USV Integrated Combat System (ICS); 4) vessel 
control software; 5) sensory perception and autonomy; 6) 
platform and payload prototyping; demonstrating new 
capabilities to inform the requirements and programs by 
providing both learning and operational value today. The Navy 
is expanding the lessons into other operating areas and 
modifying the construct in ways that further integrate systems 
into more complex and rigorous naval activities while also 
driving to potential future programs of record. The next 
opportunity to combine the campaign objectives and TF-59 
lessons will be our efforts with the 4th Fleet area of 
responsibility, focusing on further integration and scaling 
operationalized efforts.
    Mr. Scott. The Navy's ``NavalX'' innovation cell is 
designed to accelerate the adoption of commercially proven 
technologies into the Navy through its ``tech bridge'' 
programs. What success stories can the Navy point to where a 
commercial technology was successfully adopted into a program 
of record? What actions are being taken to scale the success of 
NavalX across key technologies like autonomy?
    Admiral Gilday. NavalX focuses on identifying opportunities 
for commercial solutions to DoN problems as defined by the 
Chief of Naval Operations Navigation Plan 2022 and Marine Corps 
Force Design 2030 objectives. NavalX builds momentum through 
commercial partnerships resulting in an increased return on 
investment and more transitions to the Fleet and Programs of 
Record (PoR). To accomplish this, NavalX engages local business 
ecosystems through a network of 16 nationwide Tech Bridges. 
These Tech Bridges host and facilitate outreach events in the 
following commercial technology areas:
    1) Autonomy & Robotics, 2) Artificial Intelligence/Machine 
Learning, 3) Space, 4) Cyber, 5) Energy & Materials, 6) Health 
& Human Systems, and 7) Extended Reality. Additionally, NavalX 
aligns activity with the DON Technology Transfer, Small 
Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business 
Technology Transfer (STTR) programs. NavalX also collaborates 
with the Department of Defense (DoD) Office of Strategic 
Capital (OSC), Rapid Innovation Funding (RIF) office, Defense 
Innovation Unit, National Security Innovation Network, and 
AFWERX. Going forward, NavalX intends grow within the DoN by 
leveraging industry best practices to enable the rapid and 
affordable introduction of commercial capability to solve naval 
problems, first to the user and then scaling in partnership 
with PoRs. Specific examples of accelerating the adoption and 
transition of commercial technology include:
     LThe Palmetto Tech Bridge, representing South 
Carolina and Georgia, refined and developed the Network and 
Data-center Intelligent Assistant (NADIA) from technologies 
developed by their local business ecosystem. NADIA provides 
network administrators with an AI-based tool that will automate 
and assist root cause identification and corrective actions in 
response to network disruptions, degradation, and/or related 
system failures. The NADIA project transitioned in 2022 to the 
Naval Information Warfare Systems Command (NAVWAR), in support 
of the Program Executive Office Command, Control, 
Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (PEO C4I), Program 
Manager Warfare for Tactical Networks (PMW-160) as part of the 
Consolidated Afloat Network and Enterprise Services (CANES) 
PoR.
     LThe Southern Maryland Tech Bridge collaborated 
with the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIRSYSCOM) in support of 
the Program Executive Office for Unmanned Aviation and Strike 
Weapons (PEO U&W), Navy and Marine Corps Small Tactical 
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Program Office (PMA-263). 
Together they conducted a Marine Corps Tactical Resupply UAS 
Prize Challenge to demonstrate autonomous resupply in austere 
environments. Sixteen proposals were received--a majority from 
small and non-traditional companies--and six teams were 
selected to compete in a flying competition at the Yuma Proving 
Ground. As a result, PMA-263 selected and awarded a production 
contract with one of the companies in April 2023 with an 
expected initial operational capability in October 2023.
     LThe Pacific Northwest Tech Bridge, encompassing 
the Washington State and Oregon areas, incubated a university-
sourced research project that employed small unmanned, remote-
controlled water jet modules to clean the air exchanging 
condensers during routine ship maintenance at US Navy 
shipyards. The Pacific Northwest Tech Bridge helped secure 
funding and contracts to get prototypes built from two of the 
competing companies. These prototypes resulted in significant 
reduction in hazardous labor and rework. The project 
transitioned to NAVSEA, who issued a $100k contract through the 
Defense Logistics Agency to purchase three additional units for 
other shipyards that perform ship depot maintenance and 
overhaul.
     LThe Ventura Tech Bridge representing Central 
California, in cooperation with Midwest Tech Bridge centered 
around Crane, Indiana, transitioned anti-corrosion and signal 
blocking covers developed by Transhield (an Indiana company) 
for radars, weapon systems, and other topside equipment. Since 
its initial production in FY21/22, numerous ships have used it 
to reduce corrosion, decrease maintenance, and lower radar 
cross section on their critical topside equipment and weapons.
     LThe Southern Maryland Tech Bridge executed a FY22 
prize challenge for an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) performing a 
Maritime Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance, and 
Targeting (MISR-T) mission off a Guided Missile Destroyer 
(DDG). L3 Harris was the awardee and conducted a successful 
shipboard flight demonstration in the summer of 2022, resulting 
in continued maturation and development with the intent to 
explore transition into the operational force.
     LThe Southern California Tech Bridge, encompassing 
the greater San Diego area, executed a FY22 5G Prize Challenge 
to develop and transition a ``5G Living Laboratory'' for Marine 
Corps Air Station (MCAS) Miramar, CA. Awards were provided to 
vRotors (Mixed Reality Platform for Remote Drone Operation), 
Omnispace (5G Non-Terrestrial Network (NTN)), COMSovereign 
(Portable Network and Tethered Drone), and GenXComm (True Relay 
5G Mesh Node Relay).
    Mr. Scott. Are the 2022 National defense Strategy and the 
Joint Warfighting Concept non-executable fantasies without an 
increase in sealift?
    Admiral Gilday. Today, the National Defense Strategy (NDS) 
and Joint Warfighting Concept (JWC) rely both on mobility 
capabilities for global campaigning and collaboration with our 
allies and partners to bolster the strategy's cornerstone of 
integrated deterrence. At least 90% of unit equipment flowing 
to theater in conflict will be transported via organic and 
commercial sealift assets. The organic validated capacity for 
Surge Sealift for all conflicts is approximately 10 million 
square feet (sqft) to meet delivery demand.
    This capacity is provided by vessels operated by the Navy's 
Military Sealift Command and the Maritime Administration's 
Ready Reserve Force (RRF). By the end of the FYDP, a majority 
of the organic Surge Sealift vessels will reach the end of 
their service life. To address readiness and reliability of the 
organic sealift force, MSC and MARAD have increased maintenance 
and repair budgets to align with the age of ships, extended the 
service life of the most reliable ships, and accelerated 
recapitalization through the Buy-Used program. To date, the 
Buy-Used program has purchased 1.1M sqft of newer, more 
reliable capacity.
    Procuring used Roll-On/Roll-Off (RO/RO) vessels (``Buy-
Used'') is the fastest and most cost-effective recapitalization 
approach to meet surge sealift requirements within an 
acceptable level of risk. The Joint Staff validated Navy's 
decision to buy used vessels, and the FY22 Appropriations Act 
provided the additional funding for this program. The FY23 
Appropriations Act included funding for the purchase of 
approximately 300K sqft, or two used vessels. PB24 requests 
funding for approximately 300K sqft required to continue to 
close the capacity gap created by retiring vessels. 
Congressional support for the authorization of additional used 
vessels will allow the Buy-Used program to continue to provide 
ready, reliable ships at the rate required to close the 
capacity gap created by the retirement of ships.
    The Navy is addressing the age, reliability, and cost of 
the current organic Surge Sealift fleet in order to provide 
sufficient capacity and capability to support current and 
future defense strategies. On-going recapitalization efforts of 
the organic surge sealift fleet will provide sufficient 
capacity for the deployment and sustainment of decisive land 
forces.
    Mr. Scott. Does the U.S. Navy have enough public shipyards? 
Should the U.S. Navy increase the number of public shipyards?
    Admiral Gilday. Although having additional public shipyards 
would be helpful in meeting our ship maintenance and 
modernization requirements, the significant cost and time 
required to build an additional public shipyard make this 
option very difficult in the current fiscal environment. 
Alternatively, Navy is implementing several efforts to improve 
overall maintenance and modernization capabilities and 
capacity, including:
     LInvesting in and executing the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP) at all four of our 
current public shipyards to upgrade and repair dry docks, 
optimize workflow within the shipyards, and recapitalize 
industrial plant equipment which will substantially increase 
productivity and safety.
     LImproving availability planning and execution to 
optimize performance.
     LIncreased public shipyard workforce and providing 
innovative training to promote overall system capacity.
     LWorking with and leveraging the entire public/
private nuclear-certified industrial base to meet workload 
requirements and mitigate workload peaks within any given year. 
The capabilities and capacities of these private sector 
shipyard partners are integral to build and maintain the Navy's 
nuclear fleet.
     LIn addition to the four public shipyards, 
maintaining and modernizing two floating dry docks to support 
nuclear-powered submarines--one on the east coast and one on 
the west coast.
     LLeveraging Trident Refit Facility Kings Bay 
(TRFKB) and TRF Bangor to perform maintenance and repair work 
in support of all submarines. These critical investments and 
partnerships responsibly improve maintenance and modernization 
capacity separate from increasing the number of public 
shipyards.
    Mr. Scott. What is the status of updating the online 
Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships (DANFS)? How many 
ships are complete? How many need to be updated? How many need 
to be created? How much per year across the FYDP is needed to 
update DANFS?
    Admiral Gilday. BLUF: In September 2021, the House Armed 
Services Committee (HASC) declared DANFS ``severely out of 
date.'' HASC also directed SECNAV to brief HASC by March 2022 
on ``efforts to update the Dictionary of American Naval 
Fighting Ships'' to include ``at a minimum: (1) timeline; (2) 
scope of project; and (3) existing and proposed budget needed 
to update the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships 
within five years.'' CURRENT STATUS: There are 11,238 DANFS 
entries. Each entry represents the Navy's official history of a 
specific ship. Formerly published in hardback books, the 
entries are now available on the Naval History and Heritage 
Command (NHHC) website. 77% of these are complete; both new 
and/or updated. The other 23% require significant updates 
including 117 vessels which are missing entirely. BACKGROUND: 
One of the driving factors behind Navy's decision to establish 
NHHC was the need to address 60 years of systemic neglect of 
Navy's history and heritage assets. From 1991 until NHHC was 
stood up in 2008, work on DANFS had largely stopped. In 2013 
HASC made a request to Navy regarding the speed at which DANFS 
could be made current. WAY AHEAD: CNO Gilday directed a funding 
increase for NHHC across the Future Years Defense Program to 
ensure NHHC was mission capable. The DANFS restoration now has 
stable funding of $500K per annum in OPTAR and $264K in 
CIVPERS assigned to the project. This level of funding 
establishes a trajectory that allows NHHC to have an additional 
271 entries, approximately 6.6% of the total original backlog 
plus 48 ships scheduled to be decommissioned, completed by end 
of 2028 for a total of 80% complete. NHHC has completed 
analysis of DANFS completion; starting with the current funding 
profile, for consideration by Navy Leadership and the Program 
Objective Memorandum process.
    Mr. Scott. How many Cable Repair ships are needed by the 
United States for large scale combat operations against an 
enemy peer nation? Should the Navy or Tech Giants protect 
undersea cables? What strategies need to be developed jointly 
by the U.S. Navy and the private sector that mitigate potential 
disruptions?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy requirement is two cable repair 
ships to support the Integrated Undersea Surveillance System 
(IUSS). This cable ship requirement reflects peacetime needs 
and is independent of large scale combat operations as cable 
repair ships are non-combatant ships that operate only in 
benign conditions. US owned undersea cables are critical 
infrastructure for our government and economy, consequently 
their protection is a whole-of-government responsibility, not 
just Navy. The whole-of-government response to any crisis or 
war will by necessity have to include private sector service 
providers (``Tech Giants'') to manage any service disruptions 
within their undersea cables. In times of crisis or war, the 
Navy will execute its assigned roles to protect freedom of 
navigation, U.S. property, and commerce as part of the whole-
of-government response.
    Mr. Scott. What additional forward repair capacity is 
needed for large scale combat operations against enemy peer 
nations?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy continues to conduct studies, 
exercises, and wargames to analyze the repair structure, 
capacity, and organization required when performing combat 
operations against peer competitors. These analyses have 
identified gaps in our forward repair capacity, such as lack of 
processes and procedures, lack of subject matter experts, 
limited materiel, and limited optimal forward repair locations. 
Navy stakeholders are quantifying those gaps and beginning to 
provide options to close those gaps. Ongoing studies and 
exercises supporting battle damage assessment and repair are 
anticipated to complete by April 2024; providing solutions and 
required resources to enable expeditionary repair.
    Mr. Scott. Is the U.S. Navy optimized for sustained 
contested strike operations? What investments are still needed 
to enhance the U.S. Navy's ability for sustained contested 
strike operations?
    Admiral Gilday. It's our responsibility to field the most 
lethal, capable, ready force, not sometime in 2027, but today. 
In this budget request, we again prioritized readiness, but 
also request new investments over the Future Years Defense 
Program that will enhance weapons capability and capacity, 
enable us to close the kill chain faster than our adversaries, 
and create resilient command and control capabilities. The 
Navy's Aircraft Carrier Strike, Expeditionary Strike, and 
Surface Action Groups supported by our submarine force remain 
the Nation's most persistent, responsive, and sustainable 
forward capabilities for contested strike operations--around 
the globe, day in and day out. For the contested environment, 
we will continue to need manned, multi-mission platforms to be 
the core of our future fleet, but increasingly augmented by a 
host of manned, unmanned and optionally-manned platforms 
operating under, on, and above the seas. So, we look for 
Congress' support to continue funding the development of these 
next-generation platforms along with hypersonic weapons and 
long-range precision fires, cyber capabilities, integrated 
networks, AI, and resilient logistics. Only with stable and 
predictable funding can we innovate and modernize, sustain 
gains in readiness, and send a strong signal to our industrial 
base. Our PB24 request demonstrates our significant focus 
through industrial base modernization efforts (e.g. for 
submarines), weapons manufacturing multiyear contracts (e.g. 
Tomahawk, Standard Missile).
    Mr. Scott. Does the U.S. Navy have enough command ships for 
large scale combat operations against enemy peer nations?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, the U.S. Navy has enough command 
ships. Navy's most recent battle force structure analysis, 
completed in June 2023 and based on the tenents of the 2022 
National Defense Strategy and current defense planning 
scenarios, determined that two command ships are sufficient. 
The U.S. Navy currently operates two Blue Ridge-class 
Amphibious Command Ships (LCC): USS Blue Ridge (LCC 19), 
homeported in Yokosuka, Japan; and USS Mount Whitney (LCC 20) 
homeported in Gaeta, Italy. These ships provide Fleet and Joint 
Task force Commanders a deployable headquarters to command and 
control widely dispersed air, ground, and maritime forces. USS 
Mount Whitney is scheduled to be inactivated in Fiscal Year 
2026. USS Blue Ridge remains active until Fiscal Year 2039. 
Given this timeline, Navy is in the process of validating the 
operational capability needed for expeditionary maritime 
operations centers to perform command ship functions. Once 
validated, the Navy will determine a course of action to 
deliver expeditionary maritime operations center capability to 
support the Combatant Commanders and large scale combat 
operations.
    Mr. Scott. Does the U.S. Navy have any plans to invest in 
and repurpose riot-control technologies in maritime situations?
    Admiral Gilday. No, the Navy does not provide or intend to 
invest in any riot-control technologies for the maritime 
environment beyond the standard-issued oleoresin capsicum spray 
(tear gas) and collapsible batons for our shipboard Security 
Force personnel, and shipboard non-lethal effects such as 
acoustic hailing devices and laser dazzlers used to determine 
the hostile intent of vessels.
    Mr. Scott. What additional options are needed by the 
commanding officers of U.S. Navy ships to counter aggressive 
and unprofessional seamanship? How much does each of these 
options coast? How long will it take to field any such options?
    Admiral Gilday. Commanding Officers, and the units they are 
responsible for leading, receive training through the Fleet 
Commanders and Type Commanders to counter aggressive and 
unprofessional seamanship. Every ship and aircraft deployed to 
an area of responsibility where they expect to have 
interactions with other adversarial countries' navies, (i.e. 
Russian, China, Iran) are trained to follow tailored responses 
with pre-planned responses that are updated on a routine basis. 
We place a great amount of trust and confidence in our 
commanding officers, and rely on them to manage risk, make 
decisions, and communicate openly and honestly, especially in 
crisis. Deployed units are also manned with teams of Sailors 
who are specifically trained and certified to effectively and 
accurately document any and all aggressive and unprofessional 
interactions with vessels and aircraft of countries such as 
Russia and China. Furthermore, during the training cycles to 
certify units for deployment, they go through several training 
exercises that simulate interactions with aggressive and 
unprofessional seamanship. Those exercises ensure that our 
units are prepared and ready to react to any types of 
interactions, from routine to those that might be aggressive 
and unprofessional.
    Mr. Scott. Which office on the Navy Staff is responsible 
for fielding maritime autonomous systems to include 
bioengineered systems?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy is working as a team to deliver 
the Hybrid Fleet and has several distinct senior leaders 
driving the advancement and adoption of autonomous systems into 
our day-to-day operations. Currently, the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of the Navy for Research Development Test and 
Evaluation (DASN RDT&E) is the principal advisor and policy 
coordinator on all matters pertaining to Navy science, 
technology, advanced research, and development programs; system 
prototype programs; and management of science and engineering. 
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, 
and Acquisition (ASN RD&A) monitors and coordinates with senior 
Naval officials among the various warfare centers and labs, 
including the Naval Research Laboratory; the Office of Naval 
Research; the Naval systems commands; and others in the Naval 
enterprise to facilitate the advancement of autonomous systems 
into the fleet. We developed the Unmanned Campaign Framework 
and stood up the Unmanned Task Force to meet the mission of 
delivering the Hybrid Fleet. The strategic vision aligns 
efforts across the next three FYDPs and ensures all 
stakeholders work together across lines of effort. Our North 
Star is to introduce trusted, autonomous systems that are 
distributed and connected with manned systems and integral to 
all missions in all domains in support of Joint warfighting 
concepts with Service and mission partners. DASN RDT&E is 
working to accelerate the operationalization of mature systems 
with the support of PEO USC (the executive agent for autonomy 
in maritime systems), PEO U&W for air systems, and NAVWAR/the 
Project Overmatch team in the information warfare domains. 
Additionally, the exploration of bioengineered and bio-mimicry 
systems is currently the work of the Chief of Naval Research 
and Naval Research Labs.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support rebuilding in-house naval design 
capacity to Cold War levels? How many engineers are needed and 
how much would it cost?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, I support rebuilding in-house naval 
design capacity. The Navy has established a Task Force to 
reinvigorate in-house capabilities and to establish 
requirements to address the appropriate design capacity needed.
    Mr. Scott. What increased advanced educational 
opportunities are needed for the Navy's civilian engineers? Do 
you support expanding commercial industry's participation in 
concept design teams at the Navy's Center for Innovation in 
Ship Design to include nonmaritime industry?
    Admiral Gilday. Advanced education is an important enabler 
for the Department of the Navy (DON) engineering community, and 
employees are encouraged to pursue elective learning. The DON 
encourages these opportunities through programs such as the 
Acquisition Workforce Tuition Assistance Program (AWTAP). 
Additionally, the DON continues to explore and encourage 
advanced education to ensure that we keep pace with technology 
modernization. We are targeting learning areas to include data 
science and software innovation and using a variety of learning 
management offerings to support this effort. Collaboration with 
industry is a priority for the Navy. The Navy recently has 
adopted a collaborative Integrated Product & Process 
Development (IPPD)-type programmatic approach to great success. 
The Navy would welcome opportunities to expand on this 
collaboration, including from non-maritime industry.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support designating life-of-program 
System Command leads early in the material solution analysis 
phase to inform new design by incorporating commonality with 
legacy system parts and life cycle sustainment?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, I do support this approach and the 
Navy's System Commands are designated during the material 
solution analysis phase and continue to support programs 
throughout their full lifecycle. The Navy continues to make 
improvements to our processes through practices that drive 
sustainment requirements earlier into our adaptive acquisition 
framework pathways. Examples include lifecycle sustainment 
considerations during the analysis of alternatives to ensure we 
are selecting supportable capability. Additionally, we are 
applying data driven insights to our accountability and 
performance oversight practices that are improving our 
strategic long term decision making in cost, schedule, and 
performance, and helping us understand true and accurate 
impacts to our topline, such as total ownership cost for 
programs, in design decisions.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support applying authorities granted to 
the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund to the entirety of the 
Navy's shipbuilding budget?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy budgets for shipbuilding in the 
Shipbuilding and Conversion account, and moves some money into 
the National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund. The Navy would work 
with Congress if any additional authorities were needed for the 
shipbuilding budget.
    Mr. Scott. How can the U.S. Navy leverage the resources of 
the Navy Reserve and naval militias more effectively?
    Admiral Gilday. The mission of the Navy Reserve is to 
provide strategic depth and deliver operational capabilities to 
our Navy and Marine Corps team and Joint forces, from peace to 
war. Our vision for the Navy Reserve is to be a provider of 
choice for essential naval warfighting capabilities and 
expertise, strategically aligned with mission requirements and 
valued for its readiness, innovation, and agility to respond to 
any situation. Our Navy is carrying out this mission and 
working toward that vision.
    In the decade since the September 11, 2001 attacks on our 
nation, our Navy Reserve has answered the call. Going forward, 
we face a changing global security and economic environment, 
and we will ensure our Navy Reserve remains aligned with 
mission requirements. Because our Navy Reserve is ready, 
innovative and agile, we can assign capabilities and missions 
to our Reserve Component with confidence. Even as we reduce our 
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see a continued need and 
desire to keep our Navy Reserve engaged as a full partner in 
Navy's Total Force.
    We will work together to ensure Navy's Total Force, active 
and reserve, delivers the right capabilities to the Nation at 
the best value to the taxpayer. The 2022 National Defense 
Strategy (NDS) directs a refocus of military efforts to 
strengthen U.S. deterrence, with the People's Republic of China 
(PRC) as the pacing threat. This refocus on the Asia-Pacific 
area of operations demands that the Navy Reserve return to its 
roots of providing strategic depth to the Navy and Marine 
Corps.
    This will, in turn, require a renewed focus on improving 
warfighting readiness in order to prepare for the complexities 
of a potential high-end fight with a near-peer competitor. In 
2020, the Navy Reserve began a transformation to improve and 
modernize the way we organize, man, train, equip, and mobilize 
to generate the combat power and critical strategic depth the 
Navy requires to prevail in conflict. We have embraced the 
imperative to redesign the Reserve Force--structurally, 
procedurally, and operationally--to align with strategic 
priorities calibrated for a competitive security environment. 
With a singular focus on generating warfighting readiness, this 
generational transformation will provide the most capable force 
possible to our Navy's Numbered Fleets and deliver integrated 
all-domain naval power to the Joint Force in competition, 
crisis, and conflict.
    The Navy will continue to rely on the Navy Reserve to 
deliver modern capabilities through three employment models: 
readiness units that augment active Navy units with trained, 
warfighting- ready Reserve Sailors, individual Sailors with 
unique skills that enhance the Total Force, and stand-alone 
operational units that supplement active component 
capabilities. Militia forces such as the naval militias (e.g., 
New York, Ohio, Texas, etc.) and state defense forces (e.g., 
Virginia Defense Force, Georgia State Defense Force, Texas 
State Guard, etc.) are under the direction of the governors of 
their respective states and are most closely aligned with their 
National Guard counterparts.
    However, there is adequate opportunity for the naval 
militias and state defense forces to collaborate with Title 10 
forces. Specifically, the naval militias and U.S. Navy/Navy 
Reserve can coordinate on missions in which federal response is 
requested by the governors of the respective states, or in 
which a declaration of national emergency (DNE) is declared 
within the United States and its territories.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support the U.S. Navy ships having a 
common bridge navigation system across the fleet? Will the next 
generation of bridge navigation equipment be developed from the 
ground up with watchstanders in mind?
    Admiral Gilday. The US Navy is working to reduce variations 
in bridge navigation equipment across the fleet. A qualified 
bridge watchstander should be able to step foot on any bridge 
and know how to operate the navigation equipment. The next 
generation of bridge navigation equipment is being developed 
with the watchstanders in mind and also to standardize 
navigation equipment across the fleet.
    Mr. Scott. How many heavy-lift ships are required for large 
scale combat operations against an enemy peer nation? Can the 
U.S. Navy count on commercial heavy-lift ships to transport 
damaged ships during a war? How much will it cost to purchase 
heavy-lift ships on the open market?
    Admiral Gilday. The ship classification ``Heavy Lift'' is 
an overarching term for numerous ship types--most importantly 
1) Project Cargo Ships--A combination breakbulk/container 
vessel with cranes designed for lifting heavy and larger/odd 
size items on itself (locomotives, smaller ships/boats, large 
wind turbine blades, etc.) and 2) Float On/Float Off (FLO/FLO) 
(Semi-submersible)--Designed to ballast down to float on cargo 
(Floating oil rigs, very large Barges, and other large ships). 
The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has five dry cargo heavy-
lift (Project Cargo) ships in the Maritime Security Program.
    These ships are multi-purpose dry cargo ships that are 
equipped for carriage containers, strengthened for heavy cargo 
and equipped with multiple heavy lift shipboard cranes. While 
these five heavy-lift ships guarantee assured access during 
time of war, they are not capable of transporting damaged 
ships. There is currently no organic requirement for FLO/FLO 
capability within the Navy. The Navy does not have any FLO/FLO 
ships in inventory and relies on commercial heavy lift FLO/FLO 
ships to transport damaged or non-open ocean capable ships. The 
Navy would require continued support from commercial FLO/FLO 
ships in the event USN ships sustain heavy damage.
    The Navy charters one Heavy Lift FLO/FLO ship every two 
years on average. The Navy is conducting studies and exercises 
to determine requirements and long term solutions for damage 
assessment and repair. Heavy Lift requirements are part of the 
Battle Damage Assessment Repair studies to be completed at the 
end of this FY. The Navy is also analyzing a proposal to 
convert T-ESD-1 (MONTFORD POINT) into a heavy lift FLO/FLO 
ship. MONTFORD POINT is 10 years into a 40-year service life 
and has the heavy-lift hull form required. Estimates for the 
conversion are approximately $20M and would allow her to 
transport ships up to LPD-17 class ship tonnage (25,300 tons) 
(DDG FLT IIA--9,500 tons). The Navy has not conducted a market 
survey on purchasing heavy lift FLO/FLO ships, given our 
ability to charter from the commercial market in time of need, 
and the low demand signal.
    Mr. Scott. Half of the Ro/Ros in the prepositioning fleet 
were built in the 1980s and the two aviation logistics ships 
are nearly 60 years old and are reaching (if not have reached) 
the end of their service lives. What is the long-term plan for 
the Maritime Prepositioning Force and how does this fit into 
the overall shift in the Marine Corps strategy?
    General Berger. In support of Distributed Maritime 
Operations (DMO) the Marine Corps is in the early stages of 
planning and integrating a Marine Corps Global Positioning 
Network (MCGPN) of materiel prepositioned afloat and ashore. 
The MCGPN will support the deployment, employment, and 
sustainment of Fleet Marine Forces (FMF) during day-to-day 
campaigning, and in response to global crisis and 
contingencies. The current Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) 
is an element of, but not the totality of this globally 
responsive, regionally aligned MCGPN. Afloat and ashore 
prepositioning are complementary to each other, one is not a 
replacement for the other. The Marine Corps has identified the 
coming inactivation of select roll-on, roll-off (RO/RO) vessels 
as an opportunity to develop future afloat platform 
replacements to align with the MCGPN concept. In concert with 
the Navy, an analysis of alternatives (AoA) is scheduled to 
commence in FY24 that will help to define a right sized afloat 
platform. These new prepositioning ships will need to have 
greater access to unimproved and degraded ports, while 
providing the ability to embark, stow, maintain, and 
selectively offload operationally configured equipment and 
supplies. The Marine Corps requires a credible Maritime 
Prepositioning Force and we will work to prioritize the funding 
needed to support our prepositioning strategy.
    Mr. Scott. With the USMC's divestiture of heavy equipment 
and large preposition ships, would there be a benefit to 
prepositioning smaller/lighter equipment such as man-portable 
missile systems and at sea? Could these be prepositioned aboard 
smaller and faster vessels such as fast ferries?
    General Berger. The future operating environment requires a 
deep look at core methods of how the Service employs forces. At 
an enterprise level, the service's prepositioning program of 
record requires modernization. It lacks flexibility across the 
competition continuum, its Maritime Prepositioning Fleet (MPF) 
is aging and incurs long force closure times. Analysis supports 
transforming our current program into a Global Positioning 
Network or GPN. The GPN will integrate afloat/ashore 
capabilities to enable day-to-day campaigning, rapid response 
to crisis and contingency, and deterrence. Fully realized, the 
GPN will dynamically employ multiple ashore sites and a 
modernized MPF fleet responsive to the joint force commander. 
It will be regionally aligned yet globally employable and 
positioned astride key maritime terrain. We began this 
modernization with the funds provided in FY23 and will continue 
with additional resources, as requested in FY24. Current and 
requested programmed funding will support initial equipment 
maintenance, facility leasing, contracted labor, and varying 
level of consumable support. We intend to establish three GPN 
sites in the priority theater NLT FY27. Specific to the future 
concept of operations in the Pacific, expeditionary medicine 
advances underway will position critical trauma level care 
closer to the point of injury and enhance patient holding 
capacity. Examples of enhancement include the Emergency Fresh 
Whole Blood program that enables walking blood banks and direct 
transfusions, smaller and more capable expeditionary Damage 
Control Resuscitation and Damage Control Surgery equipment and 
advanced team training, to enable greater survivability. The 
ability to constantly sustain forces across the conflict 
spectrum is critical and will be accomplished through the 
Global Positioning Network, a combination of new ashore and 
legacy afloat prepositioned equipment and supply stocks. Near 
term investment will complete the realization of several 
initial Global Positioning Network ashore locations, deemed 
most essential, while the legacy afloat capabilities and 
capacity will be tailored to the needs of the future concept of 
operations.
    Mr. Scott. The Marine Corps is making great strides in 
working jointly with the Philippines Navy and Marine Corps but 
the largest component by far is the Philippine Merchant Marine 
(PMM). This organization has hundreds of thousands highly 
trained mariners operating in every port and ocean around the 
world. What is the Marine Corps doing to work jointly with the 
PMM?
    General Berger. Current US law authorizes the Marine Corps 
to train with the military forces of friendly foreign 
countries. With proper authority, we may engage in building 
capacity of the national security forces of a foreign country 
as well. We also are authorized to cooperate with governmental, 
non-military disaster relief organizations. As a result, the 
Marine Corps focuses its efforts with the Armed Forces of the 
Philippines as our security cooperation partner. However, if 
the Philippine Navy were to choose to include the PMM in 
security cooperation events, we would certainly be willing to 
interact with them consistent with U.S. law and DoD 
regulations.
    Mr. Scott. At the National Press Club on March 14, 2023, 
you said, ``What's not so cool to talk about: logistics. But if 
you were trying to counter the United States right now 
militarily, I think you would go after our logistics. We're not 
overconfident, but, frankly, since World War II, no one has 
challenged our logistics.'' In terms of sealift, what is needed 
to help you focus on this priority?
    General Berger. In recent years, we have identified 
logistics as the ``pacing function'' for operations. Among the 
seven warfighting functions, logistics most dictates the tempo 
of operations and the operational reach of a unit. No other 
warfighting function more profoundly affects our ability to 
persist in contested spaces. Within the context of a contested 
operating environment, which will be the case in a peer/near-
peer conflict, our ability to perform logistics and sustain 
operations, such that we maintain a competitive advantage, will 
be heavily dependent upon sealift. Sealift provides an 
amphibious force like the Marine Corps with the logistical 
capability required to operate in, contest, and control 
littoral key terrain and shape the maritime domain to meet our 
nation's objectives. To do this, we require:
     LNo less than (31) Amphibious or L-Class Ships. 
The following three class ships fall into this category: LPD, 
LHD, LHA. Achieving amphibious warfighting capability remains a 
top Marine Corps priority.
     LNo less than (35) Medium Landing Ships (LSM). We 
recognize these will take some time to field, so in the 
interim, the USMC is leasing (2) Stern Landing Vessels (SLV) 
for use as a functional prototype for the LSM.
     LBased on current Maritime Prepositioning Ships 
(MPS) inventory, no less than (12) MPS.
    This accounts for (9) forward deployed around the globe and 
(3) in maintenance at any given point in time. The minimum 
number of MPS required will likely increase once the design of 
the MPS NEXGEN is developed starting in FY24 to replace aging 
MPS. The requirement for 12 MPS is to support 2 Marine 
Expeditionary Brigades; specifically, 3 T-AKs, 2-AKRs, and 1 T-
AKE per MEB. From FY22-FY23, the Navy put 5 of our 12 MPS into 
a reduced operating status (ROS).
    In FY23, the Navy reduced and restructured Navy units that 
support Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) operations to no 
longer support the simultaneously offload of two Maritime 
Prepositioning Ships Squadrons (MPSRON). In FY25, the Navy 
plans to transfer 3 of the 5 MPS in a ROS status to United 
States Transportation Command and these MPS will no longer be a 
part of the Marine Corps Maritime Prepositioning Force program. 
In FY24, an analysis of alternatives (AoA) is scheduled to 
commence that will help to define a future afloat ship to 
replace aging MPS. These new prepositioning ships will need to 
have greater access to unimproved and degraded ports, while 
providing the ability to embark, stow, maintain, and 
selectively offload operationally configured equipment and 
supplies.
    The Marine Corps requires a credible Maritime 
Prepositioning Force and the funding to support our 
prepositioning strategy. Current and planned ashore 
prepositioning sites does not negate the requirement to embark 
materiel, move by ship, and disembark at the point of need. 
Therefore, MPS will remain the most effective means for 
prepositioning equipment and supplies. The above requirements 
reflect the absolute minimum number of type-model ships to 
provide combat-credible, stand-in forces capable of deterring 
and defeating our adversaries.
    The above requirements also reflect the absolute minimum 
number of type-model ships required to secure an essential 
capability of our national power--the expeditionary force in 
readiness, that this nation has consistently called upon to 
respond to crisis around the world. Our campaign of learning 
has taught us that an increased and robust logistics posture in 
the Pacific during campaigning will not only contribute to 
integrated deterrence but will also aide in the rapid 
transition required to support a future conflict. In doing so, 
we can lessen the burden the on strategic sealift required to 
close sustainment and forces from CONUS when the nation's 
strategic lift is most strained and contested in a multi-domain 
environment. Analysis has shown, if we are not in the First 
Island Chain when the battle begins, our chances of fighting 
our way into the fight will be significantly more contested.
    The global positioning network (GPN) is a key component in 
transforming our brittle supply chains of today into a more 
resilient supply web inside the First Island Chain. By 
integrating afloat and ashore supply nodes into the improved 
sustainment webs of the future, Stand in Force commanders will 
maintain multiple options to sustain and persist. A key 
component to establishing these webs are Multi-Capable 
Distribution Platforms that capitalize on manned and unmanned 
surface, subsurface, air, and ground platforms to close the 
distance to the forward edge of tactical needs.
    Mr. Scott. How can the U.S. Coast Guard be better 
integrated with the U.S. Marine Corps?
    General Berger. Advantage at Sea, the tri-service maritime 
strategy released in December 2020, provides guidance for the 
Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard throughout the competition 
continuum. The Marine Corps regional components leverage this 
strategy by integrating with the Coast Guard whenever possible 
to coordinate security cooperation efforts to build 
interoperability with allies and partners, increase collective 
deterrence, and secure access, basing, and overflight to 
support distributed operations. The Marine Forces Pacific's 
annual partnership with Coast Guard District 14 in Exercise Koa 
Moana highlights the success of the Marine Corps and Coast 
Guard working together. The Coast Guard seeks support from the 
Marine Corps in intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and 
intermediate force capabilities, complementing the Coast 
Guard's unique capabilities and authorities to improve allied 
and partner nation maritime security and maritime domain 
awareness. The Coast Guard is uniquely positioned to help 
vulnerable nations protect their exclusive economic zones from 
illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, as well as from 
other territorial integrity violations. Marine Corps support to 
the Coast Guard increases the Marine Corps access to vulnerable 
nations experiencing maritime security challenges without 
requiring a large military presence.
    Mr. Scott. Is a new expeditionary field kitchen needed by 
the Marine Corps? If so, how many? Will a new field kitchen be 
light, mobile, and easy to move by air, land, or sea?
    General Berger. A new Expeditionary Field Kitchen (EFK) is 
not needed at this time. The current configuration of the EFK 
allows it to be transported by air, land and sea. Additionally, 
the EFK complies with Department of Transportation, is rail 
transportable in the Continental United States (CONUS) and 
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries without 
restrictions and meets air transportability requirements for 
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR.) Where I see the EFK being 
deployed and employed are at those second island chains which 
will include a scalable field fielding site through the 
utilization of the tray ration heating systems (TRHS), 
enhanced, or tray ration heating system--improved (E-TRHS and 
TRHS-I) and expeditionary field kitchens (EFK) to sustain a 
larger size element.
    But to be efficient and effective in a contested 
Expeditionary Advanced Basing Operational (EABO) environment, 
the ideology of using large pieces of field food service 
equipment that feed a maximum of 750 and minimum of 250 
personnel with a massive logistical footprint is outdated. The 
legacy field food service equipment is not made to support 
small littoral units in an austere environment. Therefore, 
smaller and lighter pieces of field food service equipment will 
become the norm, while its intended usage will require less 
fuel and water consumption and become scalable when required.
    My strategic vision of Expeditionary Advanced Base 
Operations (EABO) and Stand-in Forces (SIF), concepts meet the 
2022 National Defense Strategy (NDS) intent and are theater 
agnostic, will utilize maritime operations with a limited 
logistical footprint to develop afloat and ashore capabilities. 
The plan for light, lethal, and distributed forces would be 
successful in other Combatant Commands (COCOMs), such as 
European Command (EUCOM) or Central Command (CENTCOM) -- and 
have shown to be successful. For example, Task Force 61/2 
executed a proof of concept during 2022 in which they provided 
6th Fleet Headquarters with real-time Maritime Domain Awareness 
(MDA).
    In that effort, Marine forces tested, refined, and 
validated concepts of employment for MDA and closing kill webs, 
while also conducting real-world, time sensitive 
reconnaissance-counter reconnaissance missions. These efforts 
continue to support 6th Fleet operations as nested within EUCOM 
and Africa Command (AFRICOM) priorities and have sense turned 
into a rotational force. Lastly, Marine Food Service 
Specialists are relied on to perform a myriad of functions 
which provide more in-depth skills and abilities to harvest, 
sustain and contract `forward' to ensure an optimal human 
weapon system while increasing lethality and preserving health, 
readiness, and resiliency for a competitive edge over the enemy 
within the nutritional fitness domain.
    These skills, knowledge and abilities achieve and sustain 
the peak physical and cognitive capabilities through human 
performance optimization to fight against inadequate daily 
caloric intake, which results in the loss of muscle mass, loss 
of bone density and an increased risk of fatigue, illness, 
injuries, and poor recovery in combat. The food service 
occupational field can provide support to the warfighter in a 
contested and distributed environment where Class I resupply 
resources are limited. This modernization of food service 
personnel coupled with scalable equipment will shift our 
concept of support to a field feeding platform that provides 
maximum flexibility to combatant commanders.
    Mr. Scott. Will forward provisioning of food supplies be 
part of an overall feeding plan to support expeditionary 
advanced base operations?
    General Berger. Yes, we have an established Class I War 
Reserve Materiel at locations throughout the globe that 
specifically meets our current operational requirements and 
we're in the process of making necessary changes to establish 
additional forward locations of stocks throughout the Pacific 
region. Stand-in Forces will need to capitalize on newly 
adapted systems, newly developed rations and or leverage 
contract/host nation feeding. For Stand-in Forces to be able to 
persist inside a contested area, Class I will need to be 
replenished via connectors (surface/air) from a mobile and 
maneuverable hub, either the Light Amphibious Warship or 
another navy class replenishment ship. Commanders will also be 
required to employ contract feeding from host nations where 
feasible and acceptable. The Marine Corps' feeding platform 
will continue to advance, adapt, and accommodate the mission to 
retain a logistical competitive edge.
    Mr. Scott. The Missile Defense Review prioritized 
solidifying the capability to counter small Unmanned Aircraft 
Systems (sUAS). In November of 2022, the Chinese military 
presented a light vehicle drone swarm launcher that can 
seemingly launch up to 18 drones. Over the last few years, we 
have seen greater accessibility, usage, and more rapid 
advancement in drone technology. Drones today are more durable, 
sustainable, and autonomous than ever before. What is your 
assessment of the current and future drone and drone swarm 
threat? What solutions are the Navy and Marine Corps currently 
working in the near and far term? Do you feel the Navy and 
Marine Corps are receiving adequate resourced to defeat the 
growing drone and drone swarm threat? What is the Navy's and 
Marine Corps' timeline to integrating and fielding these 
capabilities? How is the Army bringing solutions via emerging 
technology into theater to operationally test and gain critical 
feedback from the war fighter?
    General Berger. From intelligence reports to news articles, 
enemy drones have shown to be a significant threat on the 
battlefield; drone technology is maturing exponentially. The 
ease of procurement and operations of these systems is 
unprecedented. Moreover, drones will remain a considerable 
weapon on the battlefield and continue to evolve making them 
more dangerous to friendly forces.
    To counter the threat posed by drones, the Marine Corps is 
investing in multiple air defense programs: the Marine Air 
Defense Integrated System (MADIS), the Light-MADIS (L-MADIS), 
the Installation Counter Unmanned Aircraft System (I-CUAS), and 
the Medium-Range Intercept Capability (MRIC). The MADIS, L-
MADIS, and I-CUAS systems are all scheduled to begin fielding 
in FY24. Currently fielded are urgently needed variants of the 
L-MADIS and the I-CUAS systems. Future increments of these 
systems will have increased capabilities in terms of lethality, 
range, and type of weapons used (i.e., directed energy) 
providing commanders multiple options to defend critical assets 
and maneuver forces with a layered defense. L-MADIS is 100% 
funded.
    MRIC, primarily used for counter cruise missiles, will also 
be used for countering larger UAS at greater distances than 
traditional short range air defense systems. MRIC is currently 
funded for only a single protype platoon. Based on task 
organization (activations and changes) of Low Altitude Air 
Defense (LAAD) Batteries and the Marine Littoral Regiment's 
(MLR) Littoral Anti-Air Battalions (LAAB), the Marine Corps is 
receiving adequate funding for MADIS and L-MADIS. With full 
funding, the first of three MRIC batteries could be fielded in 
FY26. Capacity remains a significant challenge for the Marine 
Corps when defending itself from enemy drones, as the 
proliferation of drones on the battlefield and their 
maneuverability out pace air defense systems in terms of 
maneuverability and cost.
    Moreover, air defense systems are expensive due to advanced 
components that detect, track, identify, and defeat enemy 
drones. The Marine Corps stays actively engaged with the Joint 
Counter small Unmanned Aircraft System Office (JCO), sharing 
lessons learned from experimentation and procurement of Marine 
Corps programs. Similarly, the Marine Corps takes lessons 
learned and after actions from the JCO to inform decision about 
air defense systems within the Service.
    Mr. Scott. How many excess M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicles 
(ABV) does the U.S. Marine Corps still have in storage? Do you 
agree that, if provided to Ukraine, they would detonate Russian 
explosives from safe distances, clearing the way for follow-on 
Ukrainian combat formations to penetrate heavily mined areas of 
operation?
    General Berger. Through detailed operational planning, 
historical analysis, and a rigorous Campaign of Learning we 
made some hard decisions regarding engineering and breaching 
capabilities. The requirement for a globally responsive Marine 
Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF) remains imperative. More 
specifically, strategic guidance has driven us to focus on 
enabling the Naval Expeditionary Force to rapidly respond to 
crisis and persist in the distributed maritime operating 
environment of the Indo-Pacific region.
    This focus requires a force that is distributed but lethal, 
low signature, mobile, and sustainable in a forward 
environment. The equipment we field to our Marine forces needs 
to match those force attributes, and many of our legacy 
engineering and breaching capabilities were not appropriate to 
enable this responsiveness. Our legacy engineering and 
breaching capabilities were designed for land-centric campaigns 
with mechanized and motorized forces that we experienced in the 
Central Command (CENTCOM) area of operations over the past 30 
years.
    Breaching remains a critical capability to support 
maneuver, however with the decision to divest the M1A1 main 
battle tank, the Marine Corps also divested the Combat Engineer 
M1150 Assault Breacher Vehicle (ABV) as well as associated 
force structure. The ABV is built upon the M1A1 chassis which 
presents significant embarkation and debarkation challenges for 
amphibious and littoral operations. As with legacy bridging 
solutions, the ABV requires black-bottom shipping or Maritime 
Prepositioning Ships to get into the theater. This limitation 
restricts the ability to even get the ABV to many of the 
locations where we will be operating across the Indo-Pacific 
region or as a 911 Force in Readiness. With the divestment of 
tanks, this heavy breacher vehicle was no longer relevant to 
support maneuver. The Marine Corps does not have excess M1150 
Assault Breacher Vehicles (ABV) in storage.
    Mr. Scott. How many excess M198 Howitzers does the Marine 
Corps have in storage? How would it stack up with other Cold 
War-era artillery being used by Ukraine in the Russo-Ukraine 
war?
    General Berger. The Marine Corps does not have any M198 
howitzers in storage. The inventory was disposed of when the 
M777A2 howitzer replaced them. The M198 had the same range and 
effects as many of the 155mm howitzers in use by Ukraine, 
including the M777; however, it is significantly heavier than 
the M777 and would present a significant mobility challenge 
compared to the M777 or to the self-propelled howitzers that 
have been provided.
    Mr. Scott. 155mm Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional 
Munitions (DPICMs) possess a 155mm-class artillery shell that 
sprays grenade-like munitions with a shrapnel-like effect. 
These cover a larger area than traditional artillery shells, 
making them highly effective against fortified positions. Do 
you believe that DPICMs would help Ukraine penetrate Russian 
defenses and serve as an artillery force multiplier that could 
propel operational breakthroughs?
    General Berger. 155mm Dual-Purpose Improved Conventional 
Munitions (DPICMs) have proven to be more effective than High 
Explosive (HE) ammunition against certain targeting scenarios 
and in most types of terrain. DPICMs are more effective than HE 
munitions particularly when targeting personnel and equipment 
especially those that are gathered in dense formations. Based 
on the total area DPICM munitions can cover when compared to 
tradition 155mm HE rounds, the DPICM rounds could provide 
efficiencies in respect to the number of rounds needed to 
achieve desired battlefield effects. The use of DPICM munitions 
has the potential to result in residual unexploded ordinance. 
Our legacy DPICM dud rate (>1%) create maneuver and safety 
challenges that potentially place non-combatants at risk in 
areas if the DPICM munitions were to be employed.
    Mr. Scott. Do you support establishing a U.S. Marine Corps 
Baltic Sea Rotational Force similar to the Black Sea Rotational 
Force?
    General Berger. U.S. Marines from II Marine Expeditionary 
Force (II MEF), Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, have deployed to 
Europe as part of Marine Rotational Force-Europe. From January 
to September 2023, more than 1,300 Marines from II MEF and 
subordinate units are set to deploy throughout the European 
theater, training in more than 15 countries and supporting a 
variety of joint, multinational exercises.
    The United States has a longstanding relationship with NATO 
Allies and Partners in Europe on issues of defense and security 
cooperation. Since 2017, U.S. Marines have trained in Norway 
during Marine Rotational Force--Europe, strengthening bonds by 
working hand-in-hand with the Norwegian military. The success 
of the relationship with Norway has allowed an expansion of the 
MRF-E in 2023, enabling Marines to deploy across Europe to 
receive world-class cold-weather and mountain warfare training 
and participate in a host of valuable named exercises across 
the European theater.
    The training that takes place during MRF-E 23 is designed 
to strengthen the development of teams who understand the 
synergy of air, sea, and land power in joint multi-domain 
environments. The Marine Corps' rotational presence in Europe 
facilitates military exercises in the Nordic regions and 
throughout Europe that: supports NATO and U.S. European Command 
operational plans; increases interoperability with Allies and 
Partners; and improves the Marine Corps' cold-weather and 
mountain expertise, staying true to any clime and place.
    One of the most significant contributions the Stand In 
Force (SIF) makes to the Joint Force is the ability to sense 
and make sense of the environment by creating maritime domain 
awareness. Forces ``stand in'' during competition alongside 
partners and allies, are forward postured to respond during 
crisis, and are capable of seizing and defending key maritime 
terrain during conflict while maintaining critical target data 
and maritime domain awareness for the Joint Force to project 
fires into the battlespace.
    Task Force 61/2 demonstrated this capability in the 
European Command (EUCOM) area of operations with a Navy-Marine 
Corps integrated team. TF 61/2, led by a Marine General Officer 
with a task-organized staff was integrated into the U.S. 6th 
Fleet Headquarters in Naples, Italy, and executed a combined 
joint exercise, planned operations for various ARG/MEU teams in 
multiple locations throughout the theater, and improved 
Maritime Domain Awareness for the Fleet Commander and partners 
and allies. This proof of concept has now transitioned into a 
rotational headquarters that aligns forces under a Naval 
Amphibious Force Commander to orchestrate a wide range of 
integrated operations, from exercises to contingency planning.
                                ------                                


                     QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. KIM

    Mr. Kim. When was the initial command investigation of the 
death of SEAL candidate Kyle Mullen completed and endorsed?
    Secretary Del Toro. The NETC completed and endorsed its 
investigation on March 24, 2023 and released it to the public 
on March 25, 2023.
    Mr. Kim. When were you briefed on the initial investigation 
results? Have there been any further investigations since? If 
so, what is their status?
    Secretary Del Toro. The NETC completed its investigation on 
March 24, 2023. Additionally, the following investigations were 
completed: 1) NSW Line of Duty Investigation 2) NCIS Death 
Investigation 3) Naval Safety Center Command Safety 
Investigation 4) Bureau of Medicine and Surgery Quality 
Assurance Investigation
    Mr. Kim. When will the Navy brief the Mullen family on the 
final investigation results?
    Secretary Del Toro. The NETC completed its investigation on 
March 24, 2023. The Mullen family was briefed on March 25, 
2023.
    Mr. Kim. We know the DOD IG has initiated an evaluation of 
the medical care, policies, and procedures provided to SEAL 
candidates. Does the Navy support a full, independent Inspector 
General investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kyle 
Mullen's death?
    Secretary Del Toro. Inspector General of the Department of 
Defense is an independent and objective office within DoD. The 
Department of Navy fully supports the DOD IG's efforts.
    Mr. Kim. When was the initial command investigation of the 
death of SEAL candidate Kyle Mullen completed and endorsed?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Kim. When were you briefed on the initial investigation 
results? Have there been any further investigations since? If 
so, what is their status?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Kim. When will the Navy brief the Mullen family on the 
final investigation results?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Kim. We know the DOD IG has initiated an evaluation of 
the medical care, policies, and procedures provided to SEAL 
candidates. Does the Navy support a full, independent Inspector 
General investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kyle 
Mullen's death?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
                                ------                                


                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ

    Mr. Gaetz. Secretary Del Toro, could you please provide 
more details on your short-term and long-term plan to reopen 
the Naval Aviation Museum on Naval Air Station Pensacola to the 
public, including any specific strategies or actions that will 
be taken to ensure a safe and enjoyable visitor experience?
    Secretary Del Toro. In spring 2023, I approved an exception 
to policy providing guidelines that allow non-DOD affiliated 
visitors access to the National Naval Aviation Museum (NNAM). 
CURRENT STATUS: Non-DOD affiliated visitors who provide 
identification at the NAS Pensacola West Gate are allowed to 
proceed in their vehicles to the NNAM. Additional security 
personnel are stationed at key posts during museum open hours 
as a mitigation measure and to prevent non-DOD affiliated 
visitors from accessing other parts of the base. Through the 
first two weeks, the museum has seen visitation rates increase 
by 94%. Information for museum operating hours as well as the 
guidelines for base access are posted on the base website, 
museum website, and social media. LONG-TERM STATUS: The Navy is 
open to long-term solutions that would allow greater access to 
the NNAM without requiring an exception to DoD security policy. 
To date, these solutions have been prohibitively expensive. A 
technological solution using Real ID to allow expedited or real 
time vetting to access the base may be possible, but requires 
further study. The access and security measures afforded 
through the current exception to policy directive allows for 
the safe operation of the museum until a long term solution is 
implemented.
                                ------                                


                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHERRILL

    Ms. Sherrill. Please provide an update on your service's 
implementation and a current status of the FY2022 NDAA changes 
to MST policies.
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of the Navy (DON) is 
committed to implementing the military sexual trauma (MST) 
policies outlined in the National Defense Authorization Act. 
The DON stood up the Implementation Advisory Panel in January 
2022 to help DON, Navy, and Marine Corps track and assist with 
implementation of all Independent Review Commission 
recommendations, as approved by the Secretary of Defense, and 
NDAA requirements, to include those that outline changes to 
MST.
    In December 2022, DON issued an administrative message to 
emphasize that any Active Duty and Reserve Service Members that 
experience sexual assault, sexual harassment, were deployed 
overseas to hostile fire pay zones, or have other qualifying 
military service related trauma/experiences are eligible to 
receive confidential counseling services from the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA) without a TRICARE referral at Vet Centers 
in communities around the country. The Department of Defense 
continues its work with the VA to determine what additional 
care and services may be provided to Service members without a 
referral.
    Both the Navy and Marine Corps have taken additional 
actions within their services to implement these policies. In 
January 2022, the Navy published and widely disseminated 
standardized posters and marketing materials to Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response (SAPR) personnel and commands. Included 
in the materials is a fact sheet outlining VA resources for 
Service Members who have experienced sexual trauma. The Marine 
Corps released marketing materials referencing available MST 
services offered through the VA and directed commands to post 
conspicuously the information regarding these programs and 
resources. Both Navy and Marine Corps Sexual Assault Response 
Coordinators (SARCs) and SAPR Victim Advocates support the 
survivor through the lifecycle of their case, from initial 
reporting through final disposition or until the Service Member 
no longer wants their services.
    Support includes reviewing a Victim Reporting Preference 
Statement with the survivor at the initial intake, connecting 
them with medical and mental health resources, and facilitating 
contact with Veterans Health Administration (VHA) MST 
Coordinators and Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) MST 
Outreach Coordinators who can advise the survivor about non-
medical counseling available at VA Vet Centers and VA services, 
benefits and support options upon separation or retirement. 
Both services have distributed the revised DD Form 2910, 
``Victim Reporting Preference Statement'' (VRPS) to all SARCs 
and SAPR VAs providing services to Sailors and Marines.
    The revised DD Form 2910 includes information about VA MST-
related health care and benefits available, as well as links to 
find the names and contact information for the nearest VHA and 
VBA MST Coordinators. In January 2023, both Services completed 
manpower analysis on the SAPR workforce and submitted 
implementation plans to the Department of Defense Sexual 
Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO). Findings from 
these studies will highlight where SARC-specific military 
occupational specialties may be beneficial.
    The Navy and the Marine Corps have also each made progress 
incorporating MST program information in their Service-specific 
SAPR 40-hour Initial Victim Advocate Training and SARC Initial 
Training. The trainings provide SARCs and SAPR Victim Advocates 
methods to consult with MST Coordinators and outline available 
services and resources for survivors. Finally, the Navy and 
Marine Corps are steadfast in promoting participation in 
collaborative webinars to SARCs and SAPR VAs from the 
Department of Defense SAPRO and the VA. These include a virtual 
training for DoD SAPR personnel about sexual trauma services 
available from DoD and VA held in May 2023, and training on 
sexual trauma and the disability compensation claims process 
for DoD personnel.
    Ms. Sherrill. What concrete steps does your service take to 
reduce retaliation and reprisal of witnesses?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of the Navy (DON) has a 
responsibility to prevent retaliation and reprisal and hold 
leaders appropriately accountable when lives and careers are 
harmed as a result of victims or witnesses reporting a crime, 
participating in an investigation, or making other forms of 
protected communications. DON commands are inspected to ensure 
commanders foster a climate of dignity, respect, and inclusion 
for all that encourages the reporting of crimes without fear of 
retaliation, reprisal, ostracism, or maltreatment.
    5 U.S.C. Sec. 2302(b)(8) establishes whistleblower 
protections against reprisal for civilian employees. 
Specifically, the Federal statute ensures that no Federal 
employee who is authorized to take, direct others to take, 
recommend, or approve any personnel action takes, fails to 
take, or threatens to take any personnel action against an 
employee because of protected whistleblowing. The Department of 
Defense (DOD) Office of Inspector General (OIG) Whistleblower 
Reprisal Investigations (WRI) Directorate and the United States 
Office of Special Counsel (OSC) address allegations of 
whistleblower reprisal made by civilian employees. DON Hotline 
personnel assist civilian employees to file their whistleblower 
complaints with either OSC or DOD OIG.
    With oversight from DoD OIG WRI Directorate, the DON 
implements protections established by Title 10 for Military 
Whistleblower Protection. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 
5370.7E establishes the DON's policies and assigned 
responsibilities for military whistleblower protection. 
Specifically, the instruction ensures that no person will 
restrict or attempt to restrict Service Members from making 
lawful communications to a member of Congress or an Inspector 
General; preserves Service Members protections surrounding 
unfavorable and withheld favorable personnel actions that are 
connected to a protected communication; and ensures that DON 
personnel will not retaliate against a Service Member because 
the member reported a criminal offense.
    Commanders are required to publicize and display provisions 
of law and regulation that prohibit retaliation and reprisal, 
the procedures for filing complaints, and the rights of 
affected personnel. Victims of alleged retaliation or reprisal 
have various reporting options. The Navy and Marine Corps 
Hotline programs allow Sailors, Marines, and civilian personnel 
to confidentially and reliably report allegations of reprisal 
and retaliation. These Hotline complaints can be made 
anonymously. Military Whistleblower Reprisal complaints are 
addressed by an Inspector General.
    Witnesses and subjects are advised of the applicable Title 
5 and Title 10 whistleblower protections during an 
investigation. Allegations of non-reprisal retaliatory action 
are promptly investigated by the commander or other responsible 
management official (RMO). When necessary to avoid the 
appearance of a lack of impartiality or objectivity, these 
allegations are referred to the next higher commander or RMO. 
Upon conclusion of an investigation, commanders, or other RMOs, 
take appropriate action against those found to have engaged in 
retaliation or reprisal. Such action regarding Service Members 
may include punitive or administrative action for violating 
Article 92 (failure to obey order or regulation) or Article 132 
(retaliation). Actions regarding civilian employees range from 
informal counseling to removal.
    The Navy and Marine Corps Offices of Special Trial Counsel 
will be fully operationally capable by 27 December 2023. 
Thereafter, independent, specialized, and expert Special Trial 
Counsel will exercise prosecution authority over allegations of 
retaliation in violation of Article 132. In the court-martial 
and command investigation context commanders are provided 
training and resources to both recognize and act upon instances 
of retaliation and reprisal of witnesses. Specifically, 10 
U.S.C. Sec. 931b, obstructing justice and 10 U.S.C. Sec. 932, 
retaliation are two Uniform Code of Military Justice provisions 
that commanders may use to address instances of retaliation and 
reprisal towards witnesses when such conduct meets the elements 
of those offenses. I require commanders at every level to 
receive scenario based training so they can explain to their 
subordinates how to appropriately respond when a sexual assault 
allegation is reported.
    This training should also include discussions on how to 
eliminate retaliatory behavior. Both services have updated 
their policies and general military training curricula to 
include information on what retaliation is, how to prevent 
retaliation, and resources for those who have been retaliated 
against. HQ USMC conducts retaliation training with their 
leadership during Cornerstone twice a year. Department of the 
Navy is working with Navy and Navy Legal to develop additional 
retaliation training for their leadership.
    Ms. Sherrill. How are your service's sexual assault and 
sexual harassment victim advocates chosen? What information 
between them and a victim is considered privileged? What 
happens if privileged information is wrongly shared with 
command teams and leadership?
    Secretary Del Toro. Question: How are your service's sexual 
assault and sexual harassment victim advocates chosen? Answer: 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocates (SAPR 
VAs) consist of both collateral duty military positions and 
full-time civilian victim advocate positions, selected based on 
fulfilment of the evaluative criteria established for these 
positions. Because the Navy and Marine Corps are present 
worldwide in all corners of the earth, on shore, above and 
below the seas, both services use a combination of civilian and 
military personnel for these positions. Regardless of service 
or status, there are common individual qualities sought among 
candidates for victim advocate positions.
    These include the ability to: manage high stress 
situations, maintain confidentiality and exercise discretion, 
establish rapport, be an empathetic listener, work with all 
ranks, be approachable to individuals of varied backgrounds, 
and consistently exercise good judgement. Victim advocates 
should have strong communication skills with the ability to 
discuss and train sensitive Sexual Assault Prevention & 
Response (SAPR) topics, conduct training for unit personnel and 
work within established policies. Additional personnel 
requirements for SAPR VAs are detailed in DoD Instruction 
6495.03, the Department of Defense Sexual Assault Advocate 
Certification Program (D-SAACP).
    The DoN is currently working towards implementation of the 
Independent Review Commission (IRC) recommendation that VAs are 
resourced from outside the chain of command. Civilians must go 
through an application process, meet the positive education and 
experience requirements, interview, and complete all background 
investigations with favorable results prior to being selected 
for employment. Service members must be screened and approved 
by their Commanding Officers. There are certain specified 
disqualifying criteria (i.e. unfavorable service record, 
criminal convictions for sexual assault, child abuse or 
domestic violence, a requirement to register as a sex 
offender), which includes conflicts of interest (i.e. mandated 
reporter or direct supervisor) based on current roles and 
assignment.
    All victim advocates must undergo satisfactory background 
checks, complete 40 hours of Initial Victim Advocate training, 
and obtain a D-SAACP credential. All victim advocates complete 
the same required initial training, ongoing continuing 
education, and maintain the same D-SAACP Code of Professional 
Ethics in accordance with established Department of Defense 
guidance and service regulations to ensure a standardized and a 
professional response to victims of sexual assault. On 12 
January 2023, I signed interim policy authorizing victims of 
sexual harassment to also receive advocacy and support services 
from the Sexual Assault Response Coordinator and SAPR VAs. This 
interim policy addresses a key recommendation of the 
Independent Review Commission (IRC) on Sexual Assault in the 
Military, as approved by the Secretary of Defense.
    Additionally, this policy aligns with the Department of 
Navy's (DON's) ``No Wrong Door Policy,'' ensuring that a victim 
who contacts a helping professional from any DON victim care 
and support office must either receive services from that 
office, or with the victim's permission, be directly connected 
to the appropriate service provider. The DON continues to 
support the services with development and implementation of the 
approved IRC recommendations. Question: What information 
between them and a victim is considered privileged? Answer: The 
DON, Navy and Marine Corps adhere to Military Rules of Evidence 
(MRE) 514 that provides victims of sexual assault or other 
violent crimes with the right to refuse to disclose and prevent 
disclosure of confidential communications between the victim 
and a SAPR VA in military justice cases. All communications 
between a victim and their SAPR VA, which are not intended to 
be disclosed to a third party and made for the purpose of 
facilitating advice or supportive assistance, are considered 
privileged information. SAPR VAs across the DON must safeguard 
confidential communications pertaining to victims to prevent 
unauthorized reading, printing, retaining, copying, or 
dissemination of any correspondence.
    Additionally, SAPR VAs work diligently to ensure any 
communication regarding a victim is conducted on an official 
``need to know'' basis with the informed consent of the victim. 
Question: What happens if privileged information is wrongly 
shared with command teams and leadership? Answer: Victim 
Advocate personnel in Navy and Marine Corps are responsible for 
safeguarding confidential and privileged information shared by 
victims of sexual assault or sexual harassment during the 
reporting process and through provision of victim support 
services. All Navy SAPR VAs are accountable to the Sexual 
Assault Response Coordinator (SARC) while carrying out advocacy 
responsibilities.
    If a SARC or SAPR VA fails to maintain the privacy of 
victims before, during, or after the professional relationship, 
the commander, supervisor, or other appropriate authority may 
initiate investigative, adverse, or other administrative 
procedures. Information that sufficiently indicates DON 
personnel acted in conflict with applicable federal, DoD, or 
Navy privacy laws and regulations or violated the D-SAACP Code 
of Ethics could result in the suspension or revocation of the 
D-SAACP certification and inability to perform any SAPR-related 
duties. If confidential information is inappropriately shared 
by a Marine Corps VA or SARC, a Code of Ethics violation is 
reported to the first general officer in the chain of command 
and to Headquarters Marine Corps (SAPR). An investigation into 
the reported wrongdoing is opened, and the SAPR VA's D-SAACP 
credentials are suspended pending outcome of the investigation.
    They are not permitted to continue in the capacity of a 
victim advocate while pending an ongoing investigation. If the 
SAPR VA is a Marine, and the investigation is substantiated, 
the SAPR VA credentials are revoked, their appointment or 
assignment is terminated, and they are no longer permitted to 
be selected or appointed to the role of victim advocate. If the 
SAPR VA is a civilian employee, the investigation findings are 
relayed to human resources for appropriate action, to include 
termination of employment. All findings are reported and 
tracked by Headquarters Marine Corps SAPR and D-SAACP 
credentialing office.
    Ms. Sherrill. What is the process for your command climate 
survey? What percentage of personnel are required to complete 
it? How are irregular results flagged and reviewed? What 
actions are taken based on perceived negative command climate 
survey results?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of the Navy (DON), Navy, 
and Marine Corps administer Command Climate Assessments (CCAs) 
to conduct command or unit-level climate assessment. The CCAs 
are a tool for commanders designed to provide them with 
important information about the health and overall climate of 
their unit that enable them to make important decisions about 
their unit, and ultimately improve their command climate.
    CCAs will include consideration of multiple sources of 
information about risk and protective factors for a variety of 
harmful behaviors within the unit, such as administrative 
records, reports, interview data, focus group data, or other 
existing data, in addition to current and previous Defense 
Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS) and other survey results. 
As outlined in the Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 
6400.11 ``Integrated Primary Prevention Policy for Prevention 
Workforce and Leaders,'' Commanders of military units and 
civilian organizations must conduct a CCA within 90-days after 
assuming command; and annually thereafter. An important part of 
the CCA process is the DEOCS.
     LThe DEOCS contains over 100 questions that 
measure 10 protective factors and 9 risk factors to help unit 
and organization commanders and leaders better understand the 
current climate within and across units and organizations.
     LEach DEOCS administration may include up to 15 
custom questions (10 multiple choice and five short answer) 
beyond the core DEOCS survey questions.
    These questions are selected from a large bank of options. 
Navy and Marine Corps Commanders designate an on-the ground 
survey administrator or team to administer the DEOCS. Survey 
administrators request a new DEOCS by accessing the DEOCS web 
portal and providing the requisite information about the unit. 
For security, the system requires commanders to approve the 
request for any DEOCS for which they are identified as the 
commander. After a survey is registered by the unit 
administrator, the system will automatically send a 
notification to the commander identified in the registration 
that a survey has been registered on their behalf.
    Service members and civilians (respondents) will receive 
the notification to voluntarily participate in the DEOCS. 
Respondents take the survey online by accessing the DEOCS 
survey website. The website is mobile optimized and does not 
require a Common Access Card (CAC). If the survey close date is 
nearing and response rates are lower than desired, then the 
survey administrator can choose to extend the survey past its 
original end date. Conversely, if everybody has responded, then 
a survey administrator could close the survey early to receive 
results sooner. After a DEOCS closes, results are analyzed and 
summary metrics are provided to survey administrators, 
commanders, and commander's supervisors. Upon completion of any 
CCA activities, including the DEOCS, the unit leadership, 
survey administrative team, and integrated primary prevention 
staff analyze and interpret the data, identify strengths of the 
command, outline irregular results and areas of concern, and 
develop a Comprehensive Integrated Prevention Plan (CIPP) to 
include corrective actions describing how these aspects will be 
addressed.
    Actions following the results of the CCA often include 
focus groups, interviews, observations and reviewing command 
records and reports. These follow-on actions are meant to 
enhance the results of the CCA by providing additional data 
points to act as extra contextual information when considering 
CCA results. Following the CCA, commanders conduct an in-person 
debrief of their command climate assessment executive summary, 
results, and CIPP to address findings with their immediate 
superior. What percentage of personnel are required to complete 
it? All Service members and civilian employees in a command or 
organization must have the opportunity to participate in CCAs. 
In the case of the DEOCS, it functions as a census, such that 
all Service members/civilians of a unit/organization are 
required to be included in the DEOCS survey sample population.
    If the response rate is less than 30%, then the system will 
automatically extend the end date by one week. If in a week the 
response rate is still below 30%, then the system will 
automatically extend the end date one more time for a week. 
While CCAs, such as DEOCS, are voluntary, the DON, Navy and 
Marine Corps average between 40-50% participation. The higher 
the completion rate, the greater confidence Commanders can have 
in the health of their unit or organization and what areas need 
improvement. How are irregular results flagged and reviewed? 
What actions are taken based on perceived negative command 
climate survey results? Upon completion of the CCA, the unit 
leadership, survey administrative, and integrated primary 
prevention staff analyze and interpret the data, identify 
strengths of the command, outline irregular results and areas 
of concern, and develop a CIPP to include corrective actions 
describing how these aspects will be addressed. Irregular 
results that do not reach the threshold of scoring benchmarks 
will also be flagged.
    The CIPPs are not limited to irregular results and can 
address areas that are already meeting benchmarks. The 
Department of the Navy encourages leaders to take actions to 
address concerns and risk factors that are identified through 
the assessment. There is always room for improving command 
climate. Actions following the results of the CCAs often 
include focus groups, interviews, observations and reviewing 
command records and reports. These follow-on actions are meant 
to enhance the results of the CCAs by providing additional data 
points to act as extra contextual information when considering 
CCA results.
    Ms. Sherrill. How many women are currently serving as 
aviators? How many women are currently in your pilot pipeline? 
How many women typically enter flight school? How many women 
typically graduate from flight school? How many female aviators 
are O5 and above? How many women are general officers? How many 
female generals are serving in joint roles?
    Secretary Del Toro. How many women are currently serving as 
aviators? Answer: There are currently 1,523 female aviators 
serving on Active Duty within the aviation community. How many 
women are currently in your pilot pipeline? Answer: There are 
currently 314 student naval aviators and 139 student naval 
flight officers in the training pipeline. How many women 
typically enter flight school? Answer: From FY10 through April 
FY23, on average for the Marine Corps, approximately 17 women 
start flight school each year; ranging from 11 through 23 per 
any given year. For context, for the same timeframe, 
approximately 288 men start flight school each year; ranging 
from 253 to 364 per any given year. These numbers will 
fluctuate depending upon needs the service and other factors.
    How many women typically graduate from flight school? 
Answer: From FY10 through April FY23, on average for the Marine 
Corps, approximately 70% of women complete flight school each 
year. For context, for the same timeframe, approximately 78% 
men complete flight school each year. How many female aviators 
are O5 and above? Answer: There are 72 female aviators on 
Active Duty in the O5 or senior paygrade, based off the April 
30, 2023 aviation inventory file. How many women are general 
officers? Answer: There are three female aviation flag 
officers: one Vice Admiral, one Rear Admiral Upper Half 
nominated for Vice Admiral, and one Rear Admiral Lower Half 
(select). How many female generals are serving in joint roles? 
Answer: There is one female aviation flag officer serving in a 
joint role.
    Ms. Sherrill. How many women are currently serving as 
aviators? How many women are currently in your pilot pipeline? 
How many women typically enter flight school? How many women 
typically graduate from flight school? How many female aviators 
are O5 and above? How many women are general officers? How many 
female generals are serving in joint roles?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Sherrill. Please provide an update on your service's 
implementation and a current status of the FY2022 NDAA changes 
to MST policies.
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Sherrill. What concrete steps does your service take to 
reduce retaliation and reprisal of witnesses?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Sherrill. How are your service's sexual assault and 
sexual harassment victim advocates chosen? What information 
between them and a victim is considered privileged? What 
happens if privileged information is wrongly shared with 
command teams and leadership?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Sherrill. What is the process for your command climate 
survey? What percentage of personnel are required to complete 
it? How are irregular results flagged and reviewed? What 
actions are taken based on perceived negative command climate 
survey results?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Sherrill. How many women are currently serving as 
aviators? How many women are currently in your pilot pipeline? 
How many women typically enter flight school? How many women 
typically graduate from flight school? How many female aviators 
are O5 and above? How many women are general officers? How many 
female generals are serving in joint roles?
    General Berger. How many women are currently serving as 
aviators? There are currently 336 women serving as Naval 
Aviators, including Student Naval Aviators. For context, there 
are 4,623 men serving as Naval Aviators, including students. 
Females make up 9% of the total Marine Corps and 10% of the 
officer population. How many women are currently in your pilot 
pipeline? There are 152 women who are Student Naval Aviators. 
For context, there are 1,342 men who are Student Naval 
Aviators. How many women typically enter flight school? On 
average, 30 women begin flight school each year. For context, 
an average of 363 male Marines begin flight school each year. 
How many women typically graduate from flight school? On 
average, 18 female Marines graduate from flight school each 
year. For context, an average of 289 male Marines graduate 
flight school each year. How many female aviators are O5 and 
above? There are 16 female aviators in the grade of O5 or above 
in the Marine Corps, two of whom are in the grade of O6. For 
context, there are 583 male aviators in the grade of O5 or O6. 
How many women are general officers? There are five women 
serving as general officers in the Marine Corps. Two major 
generals, one active brigadier general, one reserve brigadier 
general, and one brigadier general (frocked). For context, 
there are 98 men serving as general officers between the active 
and reserve components. How many female generals are serving in 
joint roles? There are two female generals serving in joint 
roles--one of the major generals and a brigadier general. Our 
second major general is already joint qualified due to her 
previous service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense; 
additionally, our reserve brigadier general just completed 
duties in a joint billet OCONUS. I view assignments to joint 
roles as an investment in that officer, particularly general 
officers. After he or she has served in a joint role as a 
general officer, an officer is qualified to promote to 
Lieutenant General.
    Ms. Sherrill. Please provide an update on your service's 
implementation and a current status of the FY2022 NDAA changes 
to MST policies.
    General Berger. Marine Administrative Message 047/22, 
issued 14 Feb 2022, requires all Marine Corps Sexual Assault 
Prevention and Response (SAPR) programs to post information 
regarding the Department of Veterans Affairs Military Sexual 
Trauma (MST) services in high traffic locations. Sexual Assault 
Response Coordinators (SARC) and Sexual Assault Prevention and 
Response Victim Advocates (SAPR VA) support the survivor 
through the life cycle of their case from initial report 
through final disposition, or until the Marine no longer wants 
their services. They connect the survivor to medical and mental 
health resources, facilitating contact with MST Coordinators, 
who can advise the survivor on the Veterans Affairs healthcare 
options and Vet Centers for non-medical counseling. The SARC or 
SAPR VA review the Victim Reporting Preference Statement (DD 
Form 2910) with the survivor at initial intake, ensure they 
retain a copy, and refer them to the Veterans Affairs MST 
website to locate the MST Coordinator or MST Outreach 
Coordinator near them. The Marine Corps added information and 
discussion regarding the resources and services available 
through the VA MST program in the SAPR 40-hour training and 
SARC Initial training. The information and discussion include 
ways to consult with the MST Coordinator, share information 
about available services, and participate in staff training 
events in partnership. The Marine Corps disseminates all 
training webinars provided in collaboration with DoD SAPRO and 
VA to include MST Teleconference training series, VA trauma 
informed training, and disability compensation claims process 
training.
    Ms. Sherrill. What concrete steps does your service take to 
reduce retaliation and reprisal of witnesses?
    General Berger. The Marine Corps has a responsibility to 
prevent retaliation and reprisal. Commanders at all levels are 
held to a high standard, and among their many important 
responsibilities is to foster a climate of dignity, care, and 
concern for all that encourages the reporting of crimes without 
fear of retaliation, reprisal, ostracism, or maltreatment. More 
specifically, commanders must publicize within their commands 
provisions of law and regulation that prohibit retaliation and 
reprisal and the procedures for filing complaints of such. 
Within the Department of the Navy, the following conduct is 
prohibited by an order of the Secretary of the Navy:
    (1) restricting or attempting to restrict Service Members 
from making lawful communications to a member of Congress or an 
Inspector General;
    (2) taking or threatening to take an unfavorable personnel 
action, or withholding or threatening to withhold a favorable 
personnel action as a reprisal against any Service Member for 
making or preparing, or being perceived as making or preparing, 
a protected communication; and
    (3) retaliating against a Service Member because the member 
reported a criminal offense. Those subjected to retaliation or 
reprisal have options for reporting it. Notably, the Marine 
Corps Hotline Program allows Marines, Sailors, and civilian 
personnel to confidentially and reliably report violations of 
law, rule, or regulation; inefficiency, misconduct, 
impropriety, mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of 
authority, military whistleblower reprisal, or security 
violations within the Marine Corps.
    Hotline complaints can be anonymous and made in various 
ways. Reprisal complaints are forwarded to an Inspector 
General, while allegations of non-reprisal retaliatory action 
are promptly investigated by the commander or, when necessary 
to avoid the appearance of a lack of impartiality or 
objectivity, referred to the next higher commander. Commanders 
take appropriate action against those found to have engaged in 
retaliation or reprisal, which may include punitive or 
administrative action for violating Article 92 (failure to obey 
order or regulation) or Article 132 (retaliation). Further, the 
Marine Corps Office of Special Trial Counsel will be fully 
operationally capable by 27 December 2023, and it will begin to 
exercise prosecution authority over allegations of retaliation 
in violation of Article 132 that occur after that date.
    Ms. Sherrill. How are your service's sexual assault and 
sexual harassment victim advocates chosen? What information 
between them and a victim is considered privileged? What 
happens if privileged information is wrongly shared with 
command teams and leadership?
    General Berger. Sexual Harassment Victim Advocates: Equal 
Opportunity Advisors (EOA) assist and support victims of sexual 
harassment, advise commanders, and advocate for the service 
member throughout the reporting process. EOAs help ensure the 
safety of the service member, provide resources and referrals, 
assist in making an informal/formal complaint, and provide the 
required updates/notifications per MCO 5354.1F. The Military 
EOA is an occupational specialty (MOS) that is solicited 
annually via MARADMIN identifying billet vacancies. The Marine 
must meet the following criteria to apply:
     Lbe a Staff Sergeant through Master Gunnery 
Sergeant.
     Lnot have any adverse fitness reports in grade.
     Lnot have any history of prohibited activities and 
conduct or sexual assault allegations.
     Lmust have completed at least 24 months' time on 
station upon class graduation and execution of PCS orders.
     Lmust be able to extend or reenlist to meet 
minimum of 36 months obligated service from the date of 
graduation from EOA course.
    The Marine Corps conducts a board to consider qualified 
applicants to fill projected vacancies. Once the EOAs are 
selected they will attend the Defense Equal Opportunity 
Management Institute (DEOMI). This two-phase course entails a 
virtual portion lasting between 2 to 3 weeks, followed by an 
in-person, 8-week course at DEOMI, on Patrick AFB. To support 
the Independent Review Commission (IRC) requirements, the MEO 
Program is adding civilian EOAs at the general officer level. 
Applicants must meet the requirements listed within the 
position, follow the GS hiring process, and graduate from 
DEOMI. Sexual Assault Victim Advocates: Full-time Civilian 
Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocates (SAPR 
VAs) must go through the application process, meet the minimum 
qualifications, interview, and complete all background 
investigations with favorable results prior to being selected 
for employment.
    Upon hire, they must successfully complete the SAPR 40-hour 
Victim Advocate Course, obtain the Defense Sexual Assault 
Advocate Certification (D-SAACP), and be appointed by command. 
Marine SAPR VAs must hold the rank of Sergeant/E-5 or higher, 
complete all background check investigations with favorable 
results, pass the SAPR 40-hour Victim Advocate Course, obtain 
the Defense Sexual Assault Advocate Certification (D-SAACP), 
and be appointed. Commanders are provided with guidance on 
selecting and appointing a SAPR VA within the Commander's Smart 
Pack. The Commander's Smart Pack identifies character qualities 
a SAPR VA should exhibit and specifies immediate disqualifiers.
    Commanders are encouraged to interview potential Marines 
prior to beginning the background investigation process and 
required trainings. Certain military occupational specialties, 
and positions, cannot be selected as SAPR VAs because they 
create a conflict of interest, or the roles have competing 
priorities. These roles are Commanders, Executive Officers, 
Sergeant Majors, First Sergeants, Staff Judge Advocates, 
Inspector Generals, Equal Opportunity Advisors, Substance Abuse 
Control Officers (SACO), Uniformed (Deployment) Readiness 
Coordinators, Victim Witness Assistance Coordinators, and Drill 
Instructors. What information between them and a victim is 
considered privileged? All USMC SAPR VAs sign a Defense Sexual 
Assault Advocate Certification Code of Ethics stating they 
understand their confidentiality requirements and privileged 
communication protected under Military Rule of Evidence 514.
    All communications between a victim of sexual assault and 
their SAPR VA are considered privileged information. SAPR VAs 
must safeguard confidential communication pertaining to victims 
to prevent unauthorized reading, printing, retaining, copying, 
or dissemination of any correspondence. SAPR VAs work 
diligently to ensure any communication regarding a victim is 
conducted with official need to know, and with the informed 
consent of the victim. What happens if privileged information 
is wrongly shared with command teams and leadership? If 
confidential information is inappropriately shared, a Code of 
Ethics violation is reported to the first general officer in 
the chain of command, the Inspector General, and to 
Headquarters Marine Corps.
    An investigation into the reported wrongdoing is opened, 
and the SAPR VA's D-SAACP credentials are suspended for the 
ethical violation, placing them on suspension. They are not 
permitted to continue in the capacity of a victim advocate 
while an ongoing investigation of wrongdoing is underway. If 
the SAPR VA is a Marine, and the investigation is 
substantiated, their credentials are revoked, and they are no 
longer permitted to be selected or appointed to the role of 
victim advocate. If the SAPR VA is a civilian, the 
investigation findings are sent to human resources to determine 
the next steps, whether reassignment to another position, or 
termination of employment. All findings are reported and 
tracked by Headquarters Marine Corps SAPR and Department of 
Defense SAPRO. The Chief Victims' Legal Counsel of the Marine 
Corps (CVLC) selects Victims' Legal Counsel (VLC) in 
coordination with the Judge Advocate Division Plans and 
Innovation Branch (JPI) and command and legal leadership at the 
local installation to which the prospective VLC is assigned. 
Marine Corps policy requires prospective VLC to have at least 
six months of military justice experience as a trial or defense 
counsel and to have tried at least one contested court-martial.
    A candidate selected for VLC duty must successfully 
complete an interview with the CVLC and attend a VLC 
certification course approved by the Staff Judge Advocate to 
the Commandant. JAD and Victims' Legal Counsel Organization 
(VLCO) Headquarters ensure all prospective VLC are licensed 
attorneys in good standing with their state bar and conduct a 
sensitive screening process to ensure the candidate is suitable 
for duties as a VLC. Following successful completion of all 
screening and training requirements, and on recommendation of 
the CVLC, the Staff Judge Advocate to the Commandant of the 
Marine Corps certifies VLC as competent to practice and 
eligible for assignment to VLC duties. Once certified and 
assigned, Marine Corps VLC represent eligible victims of sex-
related offenses and domestic violence as required by 10 USC 
1044e and section 548 of the FY2020 National Defense 
Authorization Act (NDAA) (133 Stat. 1378), respectively.
    Marine Corps VLC may also represent victims of other 
crimes, including sexual harassment, if the CVLC approves an 
Exception to Policy (ETP) request from a potential client. 
Victims of sexual harassment are not statutorily entitled to 
VLC representation, and the Marine Corps is the only service 
that provides representation to victims of sexual harassment, 
even on an ETP basis. Pursuant to 10 USC 1044e(c), the 
relationship between a VLC and client is protected by the 
attorney-client privilege set forth in Military Rule of 
Evidence (MRE) 502.
    A broader scope of information related to the 
representation of a client is protected from disclosure by Rule 
1.6 of the professional responsibility rules governing Navy and 
Marine Corps judge advocates (JAGINST 5803.1E), which bars VLC 
from disclosing information related to representation unless 
disclosure is authorized by the client, furthers the purpose of 
the representation, or meets other specifically enumerated 
exceptions.
    There is no specific legal remedy available for wrongful 
disclosure of privileged material beyond the Privacy Act, 
Inspector General complaints, Congressional correspondence or, 
at trial by court-martial, the Military Rules of Evidence 
(MREs). MRE 510 provides for waiver of a privilege through 
voluntary disclosure ``under such circumstances that it would 
be inappropriate to allow the claim of privilege.'' MRE 511 
states that ``evidence of a statement or other disclosure of 
privileged matter is not admissible against the holder of the 
privilege if disclosure was compelled erroneously or was made 
without an opportunity for the holder of the privilege to claim 
the privilege.''
    Lastly, note 4 of the discussion guidance related to 
imputed disqualification of attorneys (Rule 1.10 of JAGINST 
5803.1E) notes: A covered attorney who mistakenly receives any 
such confidential or privileged materials should refrain from 
reviewing them (except for the limited purpose of ascertaining 
ownership or proper routing), notify the attorney to whom the 
material belongs that he or she has such material, and either 
follow instructions of the attorney with respect to the 
disposition of the materials or refrain from further reviewing 
or using the materials until a definitive resolution of the 
proper disposition of the materials is obtained from a court.
    Taken together, these rules should be interpreted to mean 
that privileged material which is erroneously disclosed retains 
its privileged character and any person receiving that 
information should notify the attorney and/or holder of the 
privilege, return the information, and make other notices 
necessary to appropriate disposition. However, this 
interpretation is strongest as applied to attorneys, and the 
safeguarding and return of privileged information related to 
other essential services (psychotherapists and victim 
advocates, for example) is far less certain. Further, none of 
these rules lays out a specific procedure or provides any 
remedy at law for spillage of privileged information.
    Because neither the MREs nor rules of professional 
responsibility provide a specific remedy for victims whose 
privileged information is wrongly disclosed, Marine Corps VLC 
often assist clients in filing Inspector General complaints and 
communicating with Congress pursuant to the VLC authority 
contained in 10 USC Sec. 1044e(b)(9). However, doing so cannot 
contain the damage to victims' rights under 10 USC 806b, the 
MREs governing privileged information, and the essential 
treatment and care those privileges protect.
    Ms. Sherrill. What is the process for your command climate 
survey? What percentage of personnel are required to complete 
it? How are irregular results flagged and reviewed? What 
actions are taken based on perceived negative command climate 
survey results?
    General Berger. What is the process for your command 
climate survey? Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 
6400.11 is the governing policy for Command Climate Assessments 
(CCA). Commanders of military units and civilian organizational 
leaders conduct a CCA within 90 days after assuming command or 
leadership of an organization and annually thereafter. During a 
Change of Command CCA, unit commanders and organizational 
leaders review the unit or organization's most recent annual 
CCA and assess the previous commander or leader's progress in 
implementing the relevant actions in the comprehensive 
Integrated Primary Prevention plan, as well as consider other 
sources of data about command climate and the risk and 
protective factors as determined by the Secretary of Defense.
    What percentage of personnel are required to complete it? 
All Service members and civilian employees (except for 
contractors) within a command are given the opportunity to 
voluntarily complete the organizational climate survey. The 
training environment is unique in that students are transitory 
and survey administration has not always included them in past 
command surveys. Training and Education Command is updating its 
policies and procedures to ensure that students are included in 
future DEOCS. When the DEOCS Annual Survey Window opens 1 Aug--
30 Nov, the Marine Corps emphasizes the process of 
administering the DEOCS, to ensure that all eligible members of 
a command, to include students, have the opportunity to 
complete the survey. How are irregular results flagged and 
reviewed? When DEOCS factors do not meet the scoring benchmarks 
specified by the Executive Director, Force Resiliency (EDFR), 
the comprehensive Integrated Primary Prevention (IPP) plan must 
outline how those factors will be addressed.
    Actions outlined in the comprehensive IPP plan need not be 
constrained to only areas that do not meet scoring benchmarks. 
Actions may address multiple DEOCS factors simultaneously. What 
actions are taken based on perceived negative command climate 
survey results? The designated Integrated Primary Prevention 
Workforce (IPPW) staff have CCA review sessions with unit 
commanders or organizational leaders to review the results of 
the CCA and collaborate on potential actions to improve or 
sustain their climate. These review sessions take place within 
60 calendar days of the close of the DEOCS or next drill period 
(for Annual CCAs) or within 120 calendar days after a commander 
or leader assumes command or office or next drill period (for 
Change in Command CCAs). Unit commanders or organizational 
leaders must share the current CCA results within 30 days for 
transparency and accountability with their unit or organization 
members, as well as their next higher level of command or 
leadership. The CCA results shared include DEOCS results (for 
Annual CCAs), insights from other data that was considered, and 
directed actions from the comprehensive integrated action plan.
    Ms. Sherrill. General Berger, during your most recent SASC 
hearing earlier this year, you stated that there has been an 
85% increase in the number of female aviators serving in the 
USMC over the past ten years. How many women are currently 
serving as USMC aviators, how many women served as aviators 10 
years ago, and what is the source of that statistic?
    General Berger. How many women are currently serving as 
USMC aviators? There are currently 336 women serving as Naval 
Aviators, including Student Naval Aviators. How many women 
served as aviators 10 years ago? There were 194 female aviators 
in 2013, including Student Naval Aviators. What is the source 
of that statistic? The source of those statistics is the Total 
Force Data Warehouse and the Defense Manpower Data Center. Data 
fluctuates over time based on accessions, school attrition, 
separations and retirements.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BERGMAN

    Mr. Bergman. I would like information on the length of time 
a pilot spends in the various stages of his or her first 
contract with the service. The timeline would start with the 
point the 2nd Lieutenant is commissioned and end when the 
pilot's initial contract is up and they are able to leave 
active service. Please include pertinent milestones in the 
timeline such as the point he or she reports to flight 
training, the point he or she receive their wings, the point 
they go through transition training to their type model series 
that they'll be operational capable, to the point they are 
deployable, etc. Include any other milestones you feel are 
relevant. The end state would be to identify the length of time 
for each major milestone to include how long this pilot fully 
trained and ready to fight until the first contract is up.
    Secretary Del Toro. The following information was gathered 
by the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Training Command and the U.S. 
Navy's Chief of Naval Air Training and is being reported for 
the QFR by Chief of Naval Air Training (CNATRA). The following 
table provides USMC pilot entitled Time-to-Train (TTT) and 
pertinent milestones from The Basic School (TBS) until 
completion of the Fleet Replacement Squadron (FRS) where the 
Officer has been trained in their Fleet aircraft. Additional 
training takes place at the Fleet Squadron before the Officer 
is considered available for deployment.
    [See attachment]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T3392.106
    
    .eps1. These are entitled TTTs. Each milestone includes 
time to transfer between milestones. 2. The time from 
Commission to TBS (Post-Commission) is not tracked by either 
USMC Training Command or CNATRA. Information must be requested 
from USMC Headquarters. 3. USMC Training Command's and CNATRA's 
mission concludes at the time an Officer graduates from the 
FRS. At this time, the Officer is available to a Fleet Squadron 
as a replacement pilot. Additional training occurs at the Fleet 
Squadron before an Officer is deployable. TTT at Fleet 
Squadron's must be requested from USMC Headquarters. 4. USMC 
currently has an eight (8) year contract with its pilot which 
starts at the day of graduation from Advanced Flight Training 
(winging).
                                ------                                


                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ

    Mr. Waltz. Can you please discuss how the plans for 
hypersonic Conventional Strike Program (CPS) production rate 
mesh with STRATCOM requirements? What would the impact of a 
full year CR be on CPS production plans?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Navy's Conventional Prompt Strike 
(CPS) and Army's Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) share a 
production line due to the common nature of the All Up Round 
(AUR). Based on the production schedule outlined in the 
President's Budget 2024 (PB24), the CPS and LRHW programs will 
deliver 61 tactical All Up Rounds (AURs) by 2027. These 
tactical deliveries include 40 AURs for the LRHW program and 21 
for the CPS program. This tactical AUR delivery profile coupled 
with test AUR requirements meets the maximum production 
capacity at the prime contractor. The details of the STRATCOM 
requirements are available at a higher classification level. 
The eight AUR+Cs included in the PB24 WPN request contribute to 
completing the first ZUMWALT loadout of 12 AUR+Cs. In the case 
of a full year Continuing Resolution, should the shift of 
funding from RDT&E to WPN for AUR+C procurement be considered a 
New Start, and without an anomaly in place, the missile 
procurements necessary to complete the full loadout of the 
first Zumwalt Class destroyer will be delayed a year. Note: 
Procuring eight AUR+Cs in PB24 accommodates the maximum 
production capacity at the prime contractor (including test 
assets and Army AUR procurements) while still delivering to the 
first ZUMWALT as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Waltz. Can you please discuss the benefits of the MACH 
TB (Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed) 
hypersonic program for rapidly onboarding new capabilities and 
improving affordability of the CPS program?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Multi-Service Advanced Capability 
Hypersonics Test Bed (MACH-TB) will enable U.S. hypersonic 
technology development and transition by providing an 
affordable, rapid hypersonic flight test capability for DoD 
programs, NASA, national labs, academia, and industry. 
Leveraging commercial launch providers that provide turnkey 
launch services, MACH-TB will increase the accessibility and 
reliability of DoD hypersonic flight tests and allow the 
Department to conduct hypersonic flight testing more often and 
more affordably.
    The use of non-traditional/commercial and surplus DoD 
launch vehicles ranging from expendable sounding rockets to 
reusable full-size launch vehicles, in both ground-launched and 
air-launched configurations, will provide a wide range of 
flight environments for stakeholders to develop and validate 
technologies prior to being integrated into weapon systems. 
MACH-TB will also develop a modular experimental glide body, 
which will enable the integration of advanced technologies into 
a full hypersonic glide body.
    Through MACH-TB, Navy Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) will 
leverage both sounding rockets and a full-scale booster with 
the experimental glide body to mature next-generation 
capabilities without incurring risk to the baseline CPS program 
or the cost of all up round demonstrations. These tests will 
evaluate next-generation capabilities such as alternate 
navigation, seekers, and lethality, while exploring additively 
manufactured materials as a capability to provide 
affordability. Additionally, CPS will use the MACH-TB 
experimental glide body to explore design margin, which might 
then be leveraged in favor of affordability. MACH-TB will 
enable CPS to test at a tempo and responsiveness previously 
unattainable.
    For example, the first MACH-TB test will demonstrate the 
mission planning and physical interfaces to integrate a DoD 
hypersonic vehicle with a commercial space launch provider and 
insert the vehicle into a relevant flight trajectory. It will 
be executed only weeks after planning was completed and an 
execution task contract was awarded on May 2nd. MACH-TB was 
initiated by the CPS program in 2022 and is managed by the Test 
Resource Management Center executing through the Naval Surface 
Warfare Center Crane.
    Mr. Waltz. Recently, the U.S. Department of Commerce has 
found that Chinese solar-equipment manufacturers were 
circumventing tariffs by sending components to Cambodia, 
Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam for assembly before exporting 
the finished products. I note that the U.S. sources 80% of its 
imported crystalline silicon solar modules from these four 
countries.
     LWhat safeguards are in place to ensure that the 
Department of the Navy isn't helping fund the Chinese Communist 
Party's industrial complex by purchasing photovoltaic cells and 
modules sourced from China?
     LWhat requirements do you place on contractors to 
ensure they don't procure these cells and modules for the 
Department of the Navy?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of the Navy (DON) is 
acutely aware of Chinese efforts to circumvent tariffs through 
activities such as supply chain modification, white labeling, 
and transshipments and actively works with government partners 
and industry to ensure the supply chain and components in DON 
platforms are free from product integrity, resilience, and 
assurance concerns. The DON utilizes all available means to 
limit the impact to DON programs, including performing due 
diligence and supplier health assessment reviews. The DON 
ensures that DON contracts and solicitations are compliant with 
applicable statutes and Executive Orders, the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, and the Defense Federal Acquisition 
Regulation Supplement, including those provisions that 
specifically address malign Chinese influence.
    Mr. Waltz. Can you please discuss how the plans for 
hypersonic Conventional Strike Program (CPS) production rate 
mesh with STRATCOM requirements? What would the impact of a 
full year CR be on CPS production plans?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Mr. Waltz. Can you please discuss the benefits of the MACH 
TB (Multi-Service Advanced Capability Hypersonic Test Bed) 
hypersonic program for rapidly onboarding new capabilities and 
improving affordability of the CPS program?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
                                ------                                


                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCCLAIN

    Mrs. McClain. Mr. Secretary, there is currently a fully-
supported DoD Program of Record called the Tactical Combat 
Training System--Increment II (TCTS-II) established to provide 
advanced training for the near-peer, high-end fight that 
improves training realism to ``train like you fight,'' in an 
NSA approved environment. This technology will protect our 
warfighting Tactics, Techniques and Procedures (TTPs) and will 
enable scalable training scenarios to include LVC. While this 
system is moving to full rate production and a key piece in 
your Operational Test and Training Initiative, incorporating 
the TCTS-II Combat Training System remains elusive for many 
reasons I'm concerned about, specifically on accelerated 
fielding given the broad DoD support.
    1.) Can you provide the Navy's roadmap, complete with 
dates, funding plan and capabilities achieved, to incorporate 
4th and 5th Gen aircraft training?
    2.) Will this roadmap also discuss a plan for a Navy and 
Air Force `Super Range' and CVN-based untethered ranges?
    Secretary Del Toro.1.) Can you provide the Navy's roadmap, 
complete with dates, funding plan and capabilities achieved, to 
incorporate 4th and 5th Gen aircraft training? Answer: Tactical 
Combat Training System Increment II (TCTS II) is a multi-phase 
effort to provide an advanced, near-peer training capability 
through encrypted Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) 
and a gateway for Live, Virtual, and Constructive (LVC) 
training integration. Phase I delivers a solution to the F/A-18 
E/F and EA-18G. Phase II will provide an F-35 solution. TCTS II 
Phase I achieved Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in Q1 
FY23.
    This phase will deliver 494 externally mounted pods through 
2031, with more than 50% delivered by 2026 to the Navy's three 
fleet concentration sites. Phase I will also provide TCTS II 
ground infrastructure to all Navy and Marine Corps tactical 
training ranges. TCTS II's role as a gateway for LVC training 
is dependent upon the Navy's Aviation LVC Live Aircraft 
Integration (ALLAI) program, which uses the TCTS II 
infrastructure to inject synthetic training entities, and 
provide a level of training that would otherwise not be 
obtainable due to cost, operational security, aircraft, or 
geographic range constraints. Similar to TCTS II, ALLAI is 
constructed with a Phase I for 4th generation aircraft and a 
Phase II for 5th generation aircraft. ALLAI Phase I funding 
began in 2023 and is scheduled to incrementally deliver LVC 
capabilities across the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
    Injecting synthetic entities into an aircraft's weapons 
system requires modifying the platform's code. Due to the 
complexities of developing a solution for the F-35 and the 
requirement for an integrated, non-pod solution, several 
courses of action are being investigated that will ultimately 
determine TCTS II and ALLAI Phase II funding requirements and 
timeline. 2.) Will this roadmap also discuss a plan for a Navy 
and Air Force `Super Range' and CVN-based untethered ranges? 
Answer: The Navy will leverage the interoperability of TCTS II 
to expand its training into both Air Force and Test and 
Evaluation ranges. Navy and Air Force aircraft carrying the 
TCTS II pods will seamlessly operate between ranges due to 
common TCTS II ground infrastructure. Additionally, the TCTS II 
roadmap includes funding to procure ship-based subsystems in 
2028 to create a CVN-based range capability.
    Mrs. McClain. Background: Increasing missile inventories in 
the Pacific is a priority--classified analysis shows total 
inventories across the entire Department sufficient to support 
only a very brief period of intense combat operations. The Navy 
FY24 budget request proposes a Multi-Year request for the 
Standard Missile Six (SM-6) program, with significant 
additional funding ($269M) to add capacity and drive 
inventories higher. SM-6 is the premier multi-mission missile 
for the fleet, and over the course of the FYDP, the Navy 
proposes to increase production from 100 to 200 to 300 missiles 
per year.
    However, two years of prior appropriations (FY22/23) for 
capacity (to increase production rates from 100 per year to 200 
per year) are largely sitting idle ($183M).
    The prime contractor (Raytheon) is also struggling to 
deliver on the current production contract, primarily due to a 
shortfall of rocket motors.
    Both issues should be addressed if Congress approves a 
multi-year, but the Navy budget request is silent on both 
issues.
    Questions: 1. I note that your budget request includes 
significant funding to add capacity for the Standard Missile- 
Six weapon system--I support fielding increased quantities of 
critical munitions like SM-6 and appreciate that inventories 
are critically low relative to warfighter requirements. The 
request proposes to increase annual production from 100 per 
year to 300 per year by the end of the FYDP.
    However, I understand that the Navy has yet to obligate two 
years of prior year funding for capacity, nearly $200M. I'm 
very concerned that we aren't moving with dispatch to 
accelerate when funding is already in hand. When will the Navy 
have that funding on contract to support the initial ramp to 
200 missiles per year?
    2. Deliveries on SM-6 are significantly late to contract, 
in part, due to supply chain constraints for rocket motors. 
What is the Navy plan, working with industry, to address these 
rocket motor shortfalls and drive to a higher production rate?
    3. The Department has signaled an intent to pursue 
additional missile Multi-Years in FY2025--I know the Navy is in 
the process of finalizing your budget request for next year. 
Without speaking to pre-decisional issues, could you inform the 
Committee how you are approaching future multi-years and 
additional production capacity for critical munitions?
    Admiral Gilday. Question/Request: I note that your budget 
request includes significant funding to add capacity for the 
Standard Missile- Six weapon system--I support fielding 
increased quantities of critical munitions like SM-6 and 
appreciate that inventories are critically low relative to 
warfighter requirements. The request proposes to increase 
annual production from 100 per year to 300 per year by the end 
of the FYDP. However, I understand that the Navy has yet to 
obligate two years of prior year funding for capacity, nearly 
$200M.
    I'm very concerned that we aren't moving with dispatch to 
accelerate when funding is already in hand. When will the Navy 
have that funding on contract to support the initial ramp to 
200 missiles per year? Answer: The Navy received a total of 
$183.6 Million ($105.0 Million in FY2022 and $78.7 Million in 
FY2023) to Increase Production Capacity (IPC). In December 
2022, approximately $94 Million of the FY2022 funds were 
obligated on contact; the balance of $10.8 Million were 
obligated on contract in May 2023. The full amount of the 
FY2023 IPC funds ($78.7 Million) were obligated on contract in 
May 2023. Question/Request: Deliveries on SM-6 are 
significantly late to contract, in part, due to supply chain 
constraints for rocket motors. What is the Navy plan, working 
with industry, to address these rocket motor shortfalls and 
drive to a higher production rate? Answer: Aerojet Rocketdyne 
(AJ), the SM-6 rocket motor manufacturer, has delivered 
sufficient rocket motors to support SM-6 deliveries.
    Since January 2023, AJ has delivered 54 Dual Thrust Rocket 
Motors (DTRM) which has alleviated the motor constraint on the 
Standard Missile Program. AJ has the production capacity to 
support the FY2019 to FY2023 MYP contract delivery rate. The 
Navy, RMD, and AJ have identified the required test equipment, 
tooling and facility modifications that will result in higher 
production rate for SM-6. The $183.6 Million of funds placed on 
contract between December 2022 and May 2023 is available for 
RMD and AJ to make these improvements. The Navy is executing a 
plan with RMD to get to a higher production rate by working 
through CAPEX investments. These efforts will complete in time 
to support the IPC as part of the FY2024 to FY2028 MYP. 
Question/Request: The Department has signaled an intent to 
pursue additional missile Multi-Years in FY2025--I know the 
Navy is in the process of finalizing your budget request for 
next year. Without speaking to pre-decisional issues, could you 
inform the Committee how you are approaching future multi-years 
and additional production capacity for critical munitions? 
Answer: The Department of the Navy (DON) is pursuing a multi-
year contract for both SM-6 and Naval Strike Missile (NSM) 
beginning in FY2024 through FY2028.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. JACKSON

    Mr. Jackson. The INDOPACOM AOR is a logistical nightmare 
due to distance and a lack of airfields.
    The Navy's role in any conflict is going to be central, and 
supplying our fleet is going to be a significant task.
    The Navy recognized that the C-2 Greyhound's ability to 
only land on aircraft carriers presented significant logistical 
limitations, given that the resupply to other ships had to be 
carried on by vertical lift assets possessing significantly 
less payload capacity.
    In response, the Navy fielded the CMV-22, which can match 
or out-payload the C-2, has comparable range, and can cut the 
aircraft carrier middleman out of the logistics chain by going 
straight to the ship in need of supply.
    With two operational deployments onboard Navy carriers, the 
CMV-22 has achieved unparalleled success conducting the carrier 
onboard delivery mission.
    Further the CMV-22 has proven a valuable asset in 
additional mission sets like medical evacuation, Naval Special 
Warfare support, and search and rescue operations.
    Admiral Gilday, given the significant logistical challenge 
facing the Navy in any INDOPACOM conflict, could you speak to 
how the CMV-22 has transformed fleet operations? Further, could 
you speak to how the CMV-22 provides your fleet with the most 
agile logistical options for resupply and how critical that 
will be in the Indo-Pacific?
    Admiral Gilday. The CMV-22B plays an important role as the 
``last tactical mile'' in the logistics chain to our Carrier 
Strike Groups. The 1,150 nm range and 6,000 lbs internal 
payload, combined with the versatility of a tilt-rotor, provide 
our operational commanders options for resupply in INDOPACOM. 
We are working on increasing the throughput and capacity for 
the aircraft with projects in work to increase and standardize 
cargo loading, among other efforts to capitalize on the unique 
opportunities afforded by the aircraft. The initial two CMV-22B 
deployments were successful despite being impacted by COVID 
restrictions. We see a great deal of potential in the aircraft, 
such as the MEDEVAC ability, and day/night operations and 
expect to wrap up a project sprint, the Concept of Employment 
(CONEMP), in the next 12 months. This will inform adjustments 
to resources, prioritization, and distribution. We are working 
a longer term evaluation of how we can better optimize the 
platform in a review of our Concept of Operations (CONOPS).
    Mr. Jackson. Nothing lasts forever, not even an excellent 
platform like the CMV- and MV-22.
    At some point, the Navy and Marine Corps will need another 
vertical lift option, but I think experience has taught us that 
the tilt-rotor concept is invaluable in terms of providing 
vertical lift with the added benefit of speed and range that 
comes from more traditional fixed wing platforms.
    While I know Services sometimes like designing new 
platforms from the ground up, this can be a costly and time-
intensive endeavor, and frankly we don't have the resources or 
time to start from scratch.
    You don't always have to reinvent the wheel, and the Army 
just recently selected the Bell V-280 as the backbone of its 
future vertical lift needs.
    Admiral Gilday and General Berger, have the Navy and Marine 
Corps started looked to the future in terms of what you will 
need for vertical lift options, where are you in the process if 
you have, and have either of your Services considered looking 
at the V-280 as a viable platform similar to how the CV, MV, 
and CMV-22 is currently being used across the Services?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy is nearing the end of the Analysis 
of Alternatives (AoA) process to replace its legacy fleet of 
MH-60's and MQ-8C's with Future Vertical Lift (Maritime 
Strike). Tiltrotor class of aircraft was studied as part of the 
AoA. Regarding the Bell V-280, while smaller and lighter than 
the CMV-22, that aircraft is both too large and too heavy to 
fit on Navy Surface Combatants, which constitute the bulk of 
the Navy's vertical lift requirements. However, the Navy is 
still engaged with the Army to understand lessons learned and 
to align on Open Systems Architectures and other cross service 
collaborations in order to reduce the fiscal burden of any path 
chosen.
    Mr. Jackson. In the military, rank matters, and when it 
comes to having your voice heard, the number of stars you wear 
makes a difference, for better or for worse.
    Both the Surgeon General of the Air Force and the Surgeon 
General of the Army are lieutenant general or three-star 
billets, while the Surgeon General of the Navy is a rear-
admiral upper, or a two-star billet.
    For the Army and the Air Force, when the service chiefs 
meet with their staff, the Surgeons General are peers with 
other staff members, but that's not the case in the Navy.
    Admiral Gilday, what is the Navy's rationale for 
maintaining its surgeon general as a two-star billet while your 
sister services rate the position as warranting a three-star 
billet, and do you think it creates a negative optic to our 
Sailors and Marines as far as medical being a priority?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy has had to make difficult choices 
both at the 1-Star, 2-Star level and, in this case, at the 3-
Star level in order to ensure there is adequate leadership in 
place to address emerging threats. We desire parity with the 
other Services, but note that the Army is authorized ten 3-
Stars and sixty-nine General Officers above our authorization 
while the Air Force has seven more 3-Stars and twenty-one 
General Officers. Navy is also the only Service without a 3-
Star identified as the Director of the Staff. The downgrade of 
the Surgeon General billet was necessitated by our current 
constraints and was by no means a reflection of a negative view 
of Navy Medicine or the position and responsibilities of the 
Surgeon General. The Naval Force changing its concepts to 
distributed and austere maritime missions requires Navy 
Medicine to invest and modernize to develop new capabilities 
and training. Therefore, Navy Medicine is at the critical 
juncture of pivoting from both Military Medical Treatment 
Facility-benefit delivery and operational support to a more 
focused operational mission. This focus maintains our 
requirement to provide health services at sea and ashore, as 
well as continued staffing in Defense Health Agency facilities, 
and necessitates significant oversight requirements from the 
Surgeon General.
    Mr. Jackson. The MV-22 is a workhorse for the Marine Corps 
in a number of roles, but as with everything in life, 
improvements can be made.
    One of those advancements is the nacelle improvement effort 
for the MV-22, which I know the Air Force successfully did with 
their fleet of CV-22 aircraft.
    In last year's NDAA, the House Armed Services Committee 
directed the Marines to review its nacelle improvement program.
    Further, it was this committee's assessment that the best 
method for conducting nacelle improvement was to perform the 
work at the original equipment manufacturer's final assembly 
facility.
    General Berger, can you provide us with an update on how 
the Marine Corps is executing nacelle improvement for the MV-
22, what percentage of the fleet has received the nacelle 
improvements, and how the Marine Corps intends to keep its MV-
22s in combat ready condition, especially as we continue to 
ramp up in INDOPACOM?
    General Berger. The Marine Corps MV-22 Program of Record 
(POR) is 360; pursuing the Nacelle Improvement (NI) solution 
taken by the Air Force would have resulted in completing 
upgrades to the Marine Corps MV-22s fleet in the FY2045-2050 
timeframe at the cost of over 2.5 billion dollars. Headquarters 
Marine Corps (HQMC) identified Tailored Nacelle Improvements 
(TNI) as a more efficient and effective approach. TNI focuses 
on the highest maintenance hour drivers within the nacelles--
primarily correcting wiring discrepancies. Compared to NI, TNI 
is estimated to produce approximately 60% of the NI end-state 
annual maintenance hour reduction, at three times the 
implementation speed (36 aircraft per year), at less than 10% 
of the cost. TNI will provide the Marine Corps with a 
significantly higher return and save the most significant 
number of overall maintenance man-hours for the fleet. TNI kit 
orders are planned to begin in FY25, to begin installations as 
the Air Force completes their NI program and are targeting 
completing at least 36 aircraft per year using multiple sites. 
The downtime per aircraft will be less than one month for 
incorporation. TNI incorporation, in conjunction with Common 
Capability Configuration Relevant (CCCR) and MV Inventory 
Management (MVIM) initiatives, will provide the Marine Corps 
MV-22 fleet with increasingly common aircraft configurations 
that will increase overall readiness and ensure squadrons are 
capable of delivering vital mobility capability to the Marine 
Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF), Joint Force, Joint Force 
Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC) and Combatant Commanders 
(COCOM) now and into the future.
    Mr. Jackson. Nothing lasts forever, not even an excellent 
platform like the CMV- and MV-22.
    At some point, the Navy and Marine Corps will need another 
vertical lift option, but I think experience has taught us that 
the tilt-rotor concept is invaluable in terms of providing 
vertical lift with the added benefit of speed and range that 
comes from more traditional fixed wing platforms.
    While I know Services sometimes like designing new 
platforms from the ground up, this can be a costly and time-
intensive endeavor, and frankly we don't have the resources or 
time to start from scratch.
    You don't always have to reinvent the wheel, and the Army 
just recently selected the Bell V-280 as the backbone of its 
future vertical lift needs.
    Admiral Gilday and General Berger, have the Navy and Marine 
Corps started looked to the future in terms of what you will 
need for vertical lift options, where are you in the process if 
you have, and have either of your Services considered looking 
at the V-280 as a viable platform similar to how the CV, MV, 
and CMV-22 is currently being used across the Services?
    General Berger. The Marine Corps began a holistic analysis 
of its vertical lift inventory in 2021 to inform requirements 
documents and to reconcile emerging vertical lift initiatives 
with common attributes. Today, Headquarters Marine Corps (HQMC) 
Combat Development & Integration (CD&I) and Aviation have 
drafted an Initial Capabilities Document (ICD) that is in 
staffing to address the Service's gaps in vertical lift. The 
ICD is planned for a Summer FY23 Marine Requirement Oversight 
Council (MROC) submittal.
    Additionally, the Marine Corps is committed to executing 
the CH-53K Program of Record (POR) to add lift capacity to our 
vertical lift inventory. The ICD is designed to address our 
future needs for vertical lift through the Vertical Take-off 
and Landing (VTOL) Family of Systems (FoS). Within the VTOL 
FoS, the Marine Corps is grouping future capabilities to 
address priority capabilities to support Logistics, Attack/
Strike, and future Assault Support. Logistics is the priority 
capability and will support the development of the Logistics 
Connector, such as the Unmanned Logistics System-Air Large 
(ULS-A Large) and logistics distribution to the Marine Air-
Ground Task Force (MAGTF).
    The whole of the VTOL FoS will provide a suite of materiel 
solutions capable of executing across diverse areas of 
operations and mission sets, providing the flexibility needed 
to meet and excel in the fight of 2030 and beyond. VTOL FoS 
seeks to reconcile various initiatives and fill joint kill-
chain gaps with an interdependent and cooperative perspective 
using systems approaches. The Marine Corps will continue to 
stay engaged with the Army's development of its Future Long-
Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program to identify areas for 
collaboration. Marine Aviation has developed an initial 
vertical lift roadmap to holistically manage our current 
platforms and future capabilities. The roadmap takes into 
consideration emerging technologies, such as FLRAA, as well as 
iterative capability development focused on peer threats.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FALLON

    Mr. Fallon. We have received information from Naval MWR 
facilities highlighting that there are ill-intended effects of 
broad policy decisions regarding Sec. 889. We have come to 
understand that Sec. 889 is being applied with a blanket policy 
that is not within the intended intent of the law.
    This law governed contracts with organizations made to 
provide telecommunications services. It does not require a 
blanket no-contract clause on contracts with organizations not 
providing telecommunications services, in this context: 
purchasing tickets to sporting events.
    We are requesting a response to the following: o What are 
your current policies regarding section 889 contracts? o What 
exemptions exist for Sec 889 waivers in the event of contracts 
with organizations NOT providing telecommunications services? o 
What steps is the Navy taking to align policy with 
Congressional intent regarding non-telecommunication related 
services? o Is this strictly a Navy interpretation, or is this 
Department of Defense-wide guidance for all services?
    Secretary Del Toro. Question 1: What are your current 
policies regarding section 889 contracts? Navy's procedures for 
non-appropriated funds acquisition follow the Department of 
Defense's (DoD) implementation of Section 889 contained in DoD 
Directive-type Memorandum DTM-22-002--``Nonappropriated Fund 
Procurement Implementation of Section 889 of the National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115-
232)'' May 31, 2022, Incorporating Change 1, April 28, 2023. 
Question 2: What exemptions exist for Sec 889 waivers in the 
event of contracts with organizations NOT providing 
telecommunications services? The DoD policy provides for the 
two limited and structured opportunities for waivers contained 
in Sec 889. Question 3: What steps is the Navy taking to align 
policy with Congressional intent regarding non-
telecommunication related services? Navy complies with the DoD 
policy contained in DTM-22-002. Question 4: Is this strictly a 
Navy interpretation, or is this Department of Defense-wide 
guidance for all services? This is Department of Defense-wide 
guidance. Please reference attached: DTM-22-002 NAF Sec 889
                  
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 



                    QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. MACE

    Ms. Mace. I am concerned about the military housing options 
at MCAS Beaufort. As you can imagine the cost of living in 
Beaufort is expensive, and the housing options are limited. 
Laurel Bay, the military housing community, however, has 
continued to have problems with maintaining enough livable 
housing for those Marines and Sailors stationed there. 
Specifically, there are 1,140 units and only 960 homes are 
occupied, the rest are either under some state of disrepair or 
unlivable for any number of reasons. Most of the repair issues 
at the houses are HVAC and roofing, causing both a shortage of 
quality homes for the marines and sailors, and old homes with 
subpar roofs and HVAC systems, leaving military families to 
face the elements in coastal South Carolina. When my office 
sent an inquiry into the Marine Corps, they confirmed what the 
Military Housing Office had stated, the Atlantic Marine Corps 
Communities LLC is responsible for all personnel, supervision, 
and execution of the maintenance program for all privatized 
family housing. And this maintenance backlog is caused by a 
variety of issues include it decreased BAH, increased material 
costs, and Hurricane Florence in 2018. What more can the Marine 
Corps and Congress do to ensure those who have volunteered to 
serve our country have adequate housing for themselves and 
their families?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Marine Corps recognizes that the 
environment in which our Marines live impact their quality of 
life, their ability to do their job, and our ability to recruit 
and retain the force. We are committed to ensuring that our on-
base housing meets life, health, and safety requirements and 
provides a quality living experience for military personnel and 
their families. Marine Corps leaders remain focused on 
improving the privatized housing experience for Marines and 
their families. A great deal of hard work has occurred since 
issues were raised in media reports and by Congress in February 
2019. Although a lot of the oversight process has improved, 
work remains. The long-term financial viability of each 
agreement, especially the Atlantic Marine Corps Communities, 
LLC (AMCC) agreement, remains a key focus area of the Marine 
Corps, particularly in the current market environment. In 
keeping with this commitment, the Marine Corps selected AMCC, 
specifically Laurel Bay, as a recipient of NDAA sec 606(A)(2) 
funds for CY2022. This will result in approximately $12M in 
additional revenue annually, which can be used to address 
challenges throughout the project.
    Ms. Mace. Secretary Del Toro, The GAO study released just 
two days ago shows a large gap in safety and implemented 
lessons learned from fires aboard Navy ships. The Navy reported 
more than $4 billion in estimated damages from fires onboard 
ships undergoing maintenance from May 2008 through December 
2022. The Navy also lost two ships to fires during this period, 
including the USS Bonhomme Richard. The GAO study found the 
Department of the Navy has no established collection data from 
lessons learned after these fires during maintenance. It is 
clear to me not studying and learning from our past accidents 
and mistakes is costly to the Navy at a time when we cannot 
afford to be reckless. Our Navy is one of our top assets as it 
relates to our greatest pacing competitor. GAO came out with 
many great recommendations in this study, and I'm wondering 
Secretary Del Toro, which of these the Department of the Navy 
is going to implement?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Navy has reviewed the analysis the 
GAO conducted and included in its report titled Navy Ship 
Fires--Ongoing Effort to Improved Safety Should be Enhanced. We 
concur with all three of their recommendations. The Navy is 
working with the GAO to establish our corrective action plans 
to implement appropriate changes. As you would expect, the Navy 
takes the loss of two capital ships very seriously. As the GAO 
identified, we have already implemented changes, such as the 
establishment of the Learning to Action Board, led by the Under 
Secretary and Vice Chief of Naval Operations, which regularly 
conducts oversight of fire safety improvements, as well as 
establishing a NAVSEA team of subject matter experts to improve 
fire safety while our ships are in an industrial environment. 
We view the GAO recommendations as means to continue to better 
improve the Navy's overall posture.
    Ms. Mace. I am concerned about the military housing options 
at MCAS Beaufort. As you can imagine the cost of living in 
Beaufort is expensive, and the housing options are limited. 
Laurel Bay, the military housing community, however, has 
continued to have problems with maintaining enough livable 
housing for those Marines and Sailors stationed there. 
Specifically, there are 1,140 units and only 960 homes are 
occupied, the rest are either under some state of disrepair or 
unlivable for any number of reasons. Most of the repair issues 
at the houses are HVAC and roofing, causing both a shortage of 
quality homes for the marines and sailors, and old homes with 
subpar roofs and HVAC systems, leaving military families to 
face the elements in coastal South Carolina. When my office 
sent an inquiry into the Marine Corps, they confirmed what the 
Military Housing Office had stated, the Atlantic Marine Corps 
Communities LLC is responsible for all personnel, supervision, 
and execution of the maintenance program for all privatized 
family housing. And this maintenance backlog is caused by a 
variety of issues include it decreased BAH, increased material 
costs, and Hurricane Florence in 2018. What more can the Marine 
Corps and Congress do to ensure those who have volunteered to 
serve our country have adequate housing for themselves and 
their families?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Ms. Mace. I am concerned about the military housing options 
at MCAS Beaufort. As you can imagine the cost of living in 
Beaufort is expensive, and the housing options are limited. 
Laurel Bay, the military housing community, however, has 
continued to have problems with maintaining enough livable 
housing for those Marines and Sailors stationed there. 
Specifically, there are 1,140 units and only 960 homes are 
occupied, the rest are either under some state of disrepair or 
unlivable for any number of reasons. Most of the repair issues 
at the houses are HVAC and roofing, causing both a shortage of 
quality homes for the marines and sailors, and old homes with 
subpar roofs and HVAC systems, leaving military families to 
face the elements in coastal South Carolina. When my office 
sent an inquiry into the Marine Corps, they confirmed what the 
Military Housing Office had stated, the Atlantic Marine Corps 
Communities LLC is responsible for all personnel, supervision, 
and execution of the maintenance program for all privatized 
family housing. And this maintenance backlog is caused by a 
variety of issues include it decreased BAH, increased material 
costs, and Hurricane Florence in 2018. What more can the Marine 
Corps and Congress do to ensure those who have volunteered to 
serve our country have adequate housing for themselves and 
their families?
    General Berger. Quality of life for our Marines and their 
families in terms of adequate family housing is critical to 
operational readiness and manpower retention, and we are 
working aggressively with our Public Private Venture (PPV) 
partners, such as the Atlantic Marine Corps Communities (AMCC) 
LLC, to improve the housing situation. This is particularly 
evident with the Laurel Bay Housing Area at MCAS Beaufort. 
Between 2015 to 2021, AMCC saw a declining trend in physical 
and economic occupancy in the Laurel Bay Housing Area based on 
several concurrent factors, to include a less-attractive on-
base family housing inventory, growth in private sector housing 
development, and historic low interest rates. This led AMCC to 
employ several large rent concessions to incentivize occupants 
to recapitalize the inventory and then fund the necessary 
repair and replacement of deteriorated appliances, HVAC 
components, and roofs.
    The compounding effect of low occupancy, large rent 
concessions, and increased operating expenses significantly 
decreased the ability for AMCC to maintain these family housing 
units. The long-term financial viability of agreement with our 
family housing PPV partners, including AMCC, remains a key 
focus area of the Marine Corps, especially in the current 
market environment. AMCC, the owner and operator of Laurel Bay 
homes, was selected as a recipient of NDAA sec 606(A)(2) funds 
for CY2022. This will result in approximately $12M in 
additional revenue annually, which can be used to directly 
address the challenges that our Marines and their families are 
experiencing at Laurel Bay. Additionally, we have increased the 
quantity of personnel within our base Military Housing Office 
(MHO). These personnel are the advocates for our Marines and 
their families on housing issues.
    They are separate from the partner housing company. For 
greater transparency of responsibilities between tenants, the 
housing partner, and the MHO, we have also implemented a 
``Tenant's Bill of Rights'' starting in 2020. This is similar 
to a contract with an off-base housing company or landlord. 
Tied to this Bill of Rights is the process for the Dispute 
Resolution Process (DRP). It serves as a means for our Marines 
to have concerns addressed in a timely manner by either the 
privatized housing company or their miliary chain of command, 
depending on the nature and scope of the disagreement. Each MHO 
has information readily available about the DRP. The MHO has 
counselors that focus on addressing issues, using formal and 
informal options. The DRP can address and resolve issues 
related to maintenance and repairs, rental payments, 
displacement rights, lease termination, inspections fees and 
charges, and other matters typically encountered in a tenant--
landlord arrangement. Every tenant is highly encouraged to use 
the DRP, since this provides visibility of tenant satisfaction 
and the responsiveness of our housing partners.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FINSTAD

    Mr. Finstad. As you know, the Navy assessed that 138 P-8A 
aircraft were a risk-informed warfighting requirement. However, 
despite this assessment, the FY24 budget requests no funding 
for aircraft procurement. Congress previously added nine 
aircraft in 2021, which increased the aircraft procurement to a 
total of 128 and the Navy has a validated requirement for 138. 
Can you touch on the Navy's assessment and the importance of 
this aircraft to meet the Navy's warfighting needs?
    Secretary Del Toro. The P-8A is the nation's only Airborne 
Wide-Area Anti-submarine Warfare asset; heavily involved in our 
nation's Maritime strategy and plays a significant role in all 
Joint Force Major Conflict Operations (MCO's) plans worldwide. 
The P-8A is entering the final phase of its spiral development 
with the incorporation of Increment Three, Block Two (INC3 
BLK2) upgrades to its ASW, ASuW, and ISR capabilities. The P-8A 
aircraft is a proven tactical and operational asset, with over 
110,000 hours of wide area ASW coverage that will continue to 
play an instrumental role in our Navy's overall Maritime 
Strategy for the next 40+ years. The Navy's warfighting 
requirement is 138 P-8A, with a current inventory of 118 of 128 
(128 delivered by Q2FY25). In today's fiscal environment, the 
Navy's FY24 budget request delivers combat-credible forces by 
focusing on three priorities: Readiness, Capabilities, and 
Capacity. For FY24, in the case of P-8A, the Navy must accept 
risk in capacity so that our current platforms are ready and 
able to deploy.
    Mr. Finstad. As you know, the Navy assessed that 138 P-8A 
aircraft were a risk-informed warfighting requirement. However, 
despite this assessment, the FY24 budget requests no funding 
for aircraft procurement. Congress previously added nine 
aircraft in 2021, which increased the aircraft procurement to a 
total of 128 and the Navy has a validated requirement for 138. 
Can you touch on the Navy's assessment and the importance of 
this aircraft to meet the Navy's warfighting needs?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
                                ------                                


                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LALOTA

    Mr. LaLota. Lieutenant Ridge Alkonis was deployed to Japan 
and in May of 2021, while returning from a family trip, fell 
ill while driving and struck two parked vehicles resulting in 
the death of two Japanese Nationals. The parties agree neither 
drugs nor alcohol were involved. Nevertheless, the Japanese 
Government arrested LT Alkonis, denied him access to counsel, 
denied him access to a translator, confined him pre-trial, 
deprived him of sleep, induced him to agree to personally pay 
$800,000 in restitution, coerced him to confess to the charges 
by reasonably believing that in exchange for doing so he would 
not be jailed further. To the contrary, he was later tried, 
convicted, and is now serving a three-year sentence in prison 
under conditions reserved for the worst criminals. What are you 
doing to bring Lt. Alkonis back to the U.S.? What if any 
conversations have you had with ADM Aquilino, the State 
Department or any of your colleagues on the current state of 
his case? What impact do you think this tragedy is having on 
mission accomplishment? Do you think some Sailors who would 
have sought orders to Japan are no longer doing so? What impact 
do you think this tragedy is having on troop welfare? Do you 
think some Sailors are spending less time off base in Japan 
and/or not bringing their families with them on their PCS 
orders to Japan?
    Secretary Del Toro. Q: What are you doing to bring Lt. 
Alkonis back to the U.S.?
    A: The Department of the Navy fully supports the Department 
of State and Department of Justice efforts to negotiate with 
the Government of Japan to have LT Alkonis transferred to US 
custody. I have to defer to the DoS and DoJ for details on the 
status of those negotiations.
    Q: What if any conversations have you had with ADM 
Aquilino, the State Department or any of your colleagues on the 
current state of his case?
    A: Members of the Department of the Navy and chain of 
command have been in contact with Mrs. Alkonis and continue to 
assist her and her family through this matter, to include 
facilitating information between the various agencies and our 
partners that have a stake in the process.
    Q: What impact do you think this tragedy is having on 
mission accomplishment?
    A: There has been no adverse impact to mission 
accomplishment as a result of LT Alkonis' case.
    Q: Do you think some Sailors who would have sought orders 
to Japan are no longer doing so?
    A: No, we have not seen a change in the number of Sailors 
applying for orders to Japan.
    Q: What impact do you think this tragedy is having on troop 
welfare?
    A: There has been no adverse impact to troop welfare. Most 
Sailors in Japan are not following this case and to the extent 
that some are, reactions are mixed. Some Sailors support LT 
Alkonis and believe he's wrongfully imprisoned; others believe 
justice was appropriately administered and that he is receiving 
special treatment because he is an officer (e.g. continued pay 
while confined).
    Q: Do you think some Sailors are spending less time off 
base in Japan and/or not bringing their families with them on 
their PCS orders to Japan?
    A: There has been no adverse impact to the lives of our 
Sailors and their families as a result of LT Alkonis' case nor 
have we seen any increased tensions between our Sailors and the 
local population. Our Sailors and their families continue to 
enjoy traveling throughout Japan and experiencing what the 
country has to offer.
                                ------                                


                  QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. MCCORMICK

    Dr. McCormick. Since coming to Congress, I've become aware 
of serious issues in the medical separation process, the 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), administered by 
the Defense Health Agency due to wounded warriors' lack of 
access to their branch chain of command. At the Medical 
Evaluation Board phase and elsewhere, wounded warriors are 
unable to seek relief after instances of negligence and 
malfeasance nor can they meaningfully appeal questionable or 
erroneous decisions through their chain of command. Given all 
of that, would you support returning authority for the morale, 
welfare, and determinations of fitness for active duty for 
servicemembers going through the medical separation process 
back to the service branches?
    Secretary Del Toro. The Department of Defense (DoD) and 
Department of Veteran Affairs jointly developed the Integrated 
Disability Evaluation System (IDES). However, the ultimate 
responsibility for determining a Sailor's or Marine's fitness 
for continued naval service, by statute, remains with the 
Secretary of the Navy. The IDES process was intentionally 
designed as a Service member centric DES and introduced several 
features to ensure advocacy in support of the Service member.
    As a result, the chain of command is a major stakeholder in 
the DES process. There is no existing policy preventing a 
Service member from accessing their chain of command at any 
time during the DES process. At the initiation of the DES 
process, each Service member is assigned DES legal counsel, per 
DoDI 1332.18, to advise them on their rights and elections. 
During the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Phase, the Service 
member is afforded several avenues of due process should there 
be questions raised to include a Rebuttal and/or an 
Independent/Impartial Medical Review prior to submission of the 
case to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) phase. The Service 
member is also accorded the opportunity to submit a personal 
impact statement and any other material evidence that enables 
the individual to contribute to the record of evidence that is 
considered by the PEB.
    The PEB adjudicating panel is composed of Navy medical 
officers, as well as line officers representing the Navy and 
Marine Corps as appropriate. Fitness for duty determinations, 
rendered by the informal PEB adjudicators, may be appealed. 
With the assistance of an appointed uniformed JAG attorney, the 
Service member may have their petition considered, as 
necessary, by requesting a Formal PEB (FPEB). Should they not 
accept the FPEB determination, they may then request an FPEB 
appeal. Following such appeal, they may still, through the 
assistance of their uniformed JAG attorney, avail themselves of 
two separate Secretarial level reviews. Section 1073c of Title 
10, United States Code gives the Defense Health Agency (DHA) 
the responsibility to manage the military medical treatment 
facilities (MTF). While DHA has management responsibilities of 
some DES staff, DHA does not have authority over the DES 
process.
    Meaning, DHA also does not have authority or control over 
Service members referred into the DES. In accordance with Title 
10, United States Code, the Secretaries of the Military 
Departments retain authority of the Service member and the DES 
process. The DHA plays a supporting role in the DES process as 
their healthcare providers provide the clinical expertise 
necessary, during the MEB phase, to assist the Services in 
providing a recommendation to the PEB so that they can make 
fitness determinations. Each Military Department has its own 
regulations regarding medical retention and DES processing in 
accordance with DoD policies and the respective needs of the 
Military Departments. The DoN has the authority to retain a 
Sailor or Marine on active duty subject to the needs of the 
Navy and Marine Corps and a personal request from the 
individual.
    Dr. McCormick. The 2022 NAVPLAN highlights recapitalizing 
the Navy's C-130 fleet by 2030 to meet the challenge of 
contested logistics in future conflicts. The aging C-130T 
fleet, operated by the Navy Reserve, is the Navy's only 
provider of intra-theater airlift. Unfortunately, the 
president's budget request does not include any budgeted KC-
130J aircraft for the Navy and there are no KC-130J aircraft in 
the FYDP. Is it still the intention of the Navy to complete C-
130 recapitalization by 2030 as stated in the 2022 NAVPLAN? If 
so, how is that possible with no budgeted planes in the FYDP 
and requesting one in the UPL? If not, what is the plan to 
combat contested logistics with limited intra-theater airlift?
    Admiral Gilday. The Navy's long-term plan is to transition 
the fleet from the C/KC-130T to KC-130J. The Navy is continuing 
to assess the intra-theater lift capabilities required to 
support contested logistics and determine the most affordable 
means to provide those capabilities by 2030. In the near-term, 
several ongoing sustainment and modernization efforts are 
funded with the intent of maintaining the current capability 
provided by the C/KC-130Ts.
    Dr. McCormick. Since coming to Congress, I've become aware 
of serious issues in the medical separation process, the 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), administered by 
the Defense Health Agency due to wounded warriors' lack of 
access to their branch chain of command. At the Medical 
Evaluation Board phase and elsewhere, wounded warriors are 
unable to seek relief after instances of negligence and 
malfeasance nor can they meaningfully appeal questionable or 
erroneous decisions through their chain of command. Given all 
of that, would you support returning authority for the morale, 
welfare, and determinations of fitness for active duty for 
servicemembers going through the medical separation process 
back to the service branches?
    Admiral Gilday. This question was asked of both Secretary 
Del Toro and Admiral Gilday and the more senior leader will 
provide the response. Please see Secretary Del Toro's response.
    Dr. McCormick. I noticed on the Marine Corps' unfunded 
priority list that you requested additional funding for DCGS 
Allsource SCI Workstations. Of course, we're talking about a 
system that you need a high-level clearance to even be in the 
room with, but can you give us an idea of why this item is your 
#5 unfunded request and how far this added funding would go in 
pursuing your mission set?
    General Berger. The Distributed Common Ground System--
Marine Corps (DCGS-MC) All Source Workstations upgrade is the 
#5 request on the Unfunded Priority List (UPL) because it is 
the Marine Corps' top Intelligence requirement above the FY24 
budget submission. The DCGS-MC All Source Suite provides the 
primary intelligence analytical toolset used by Fleet Marine 
Force at all echelons. The suite facilitates global 
collaboration with Marine and Joint analytical systems, enables 
Marines to conduct multi-discipline intelligence fusion, 
analysis, production, and dissemination of intelligence in 
support of the Find, Fix, Track, Target (F2T2) and Assess 
process by automating multiple intelligence functions and 
processes. Capabilities include advanced decision support tools 
that leverage data science and artificial intelligence for the 
Tactical, Naval, and Joint Force.
    Currently, the DCGS-MC All Source Workstations can only 
operate at the Secret Level (SIPR) and are not engineered for 
use/operations on the Joint Worldwide Intelligence 
Communication System (JWICS), thereby preventing the program 
from meeting the approved standing requirement to operate on 
JWICS. Additionally, the Sensitive Compartmented Information 
(SCI) Net program (JWICS) has transitioned its hardware to a 
thin-client architecture, which lacks the necessary analytical 
and processing capabilities to host DCGS All Source 
capabilities. Therefore, to operate DCGS All Source at the 
JWICS/SCI Level, the Marine Corps requires workstations that 
are JWICS/SCI compliant. The FY24 Unfunded Priority List (UPL) 
request of $5.1M, along with the funding requested in the 
President's Budget submission, will fully fund the Marine Corps 
DCGS-MC All Source requirement (546 workstations).
    The funding enables the Marine Corps to procure and field 
workstations (hardware and software) with all source computing 
power and geospatial tools necessary to process the depth/
breadth of SCI operational requirements for use on the JWICS 
security domain. Additionally, we believe the next war's 
decisions and primary synchronization of effects will take 
place at the SCI level. Today, advance battlespace awareness 
and long-range targeting technologies are proliferating at the 
JWICS/SCI level. These actions suggest the USMC's value 
proposition to the Joint Force must include a robust SCI 
architecture capability and capacity to integrate organic 
sensing with theater and national sensing, make sense of the 
same, as well as communicating the outputs for decision 
advantage and action. Simultaneously, this requirement helps 
support our current estimates for tactical SCI Facilities 
resident within the Marine Corps' Stand-in Forces.
    Dr. McCormick. I noticed how highly KC130J aircraft and 
initial spares procurement ranked very highly on your UPL. 
Could you also explain the added capability this expanded 
tanker fleet would give USMC? And why do you think the base 
budget did not meet USMC's need?
    General Berger. The procurement of these KC-130J aircraft 
directly supports the activation of the fourth Active Component 
squadron per Force Design (FD) and current strategic guidance 
to support the Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) Area of 
Responsibility (AOR), by increasing the number of KC-130J 
squadrons assigned to Marine Forces, Pacific from two to three. 
This fourth Active Component squadron will be collocated with 
two MV-22 squadrons operating from Marine Corps Base Hawaii, 
providing the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) with an 
organic state-of-the-art, multi-mission, tactical air-to-air 
refueling, and fixed-wing assault support asset to support 
missions around the globe. The Marine Corps is modernizing its 
logistics capabilities to operate from and alongside naval 
platforms and bases to sustain the naval forces in contested 
spaces. Vital assets such as the KC-130J, MV-22B, CH-53K, 
Medium Landing Ships (LSMs), and our Amphibious Warfare Ships 
are crucial capabilities that enable the Marine Corps to 
execute Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations (EABO), the 
Stand-in Force (SIF) and to sustain the distributed naval 
forces. The KC-130J aircraft and initial spares listed served 
as an accelerant to support the FD modernization efforts that 
have expanded, optimized and enhanced Marine Aviation's ability 
to provide vital capabilities to the MAGTF, Joint Force, Joint 
Force Maritime Component Commander (JFMCC) and Combatant 
Commanders (COCOM) now and into the future.
    Dr. McCormick. Since coming to Congress, I've become aware 
of serious issues in the medical separation process, the 
Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES), administered by 
the Defense Health Agency due to wounded warriors' lack of 
access to their branch chain of command. At the Medical 
Evaluation Board phase and elsewhere, wounded warriors are 
unable to seek relief after instances of negligence and 
malfeasance nor can they meaningfully appeal questionable or 
erroneous decisions through their chain of command. Given all 
of that, would you support returning authority for the morale, 
welfare, and determinations of fitness for active duty for 
servicemembers going through the medical separation process 
back to the service branches?
    General Berger. The Department of Defense and Department of 
Veteran Affairs jointly developed the Integrated Disability 
Evaluation System (IDES); however, the ultimate responsibility 
for determining a Marine's fitness for continued naval service, 
by statute, remains with the Secretary of the Navy. The IDES 
process was intentionally designed as a service member centric 
disability evaluation system and introduced several features to 
ensure advocacy in support of the member. During the Medical 
Evaluation Board phase, a regionally based disability 
evaluation system attorney is available to all referred 
Marines; an Independent Medical Board Review may be requested, 
and the member may appeal the decision of the medical 
evaluation board convening authority before their case is 
advanced. The member is also accorded the opportunity to submit 
a personal impact statement and any other material evidence 
that enables the individual to contribute to the record of 
evidence that is considered by the DON Physical Evaluation 
Board (PEB). The PEB adjudicating panel is composed of Navy 
medical officers, as well as line officers representing the 
Navy and Marine Corps. Fitness for duty determinations, 
rendered by the informal physical evaluation board 
adjudicators, may be appealed. With the assistance of an 
appointed uniformed JAG attorney, the Marine may have their 
petition considered, as necessary, by two separate Secretarial 
level reviews. The service has the authority to retain a Marine 
on active duty subject to the needs of the Marine Corps and a 
personal request from the individual. There are sufficient 
procedures and practices in place to ensure Marines are 
properly represented and provided opportunities to express 
their concerns with the DON Disability Evaluation System 
process.