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


                DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                                FOR 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                                
                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              FIRST SESSION

                                __________
 
                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

                    KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky		BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota,
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma			C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas		MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama		HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas			DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida	        PETE AGUILAR, California
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio			 ED CASE, Hawaii
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  MIKE GARCIA, California

    NOTE: Under committee rules, Ms. Granger, as chairwoman of the full 
committee, and Ms. DeLauro, as ranking minority member of the full 
committee, are authorized to sit as members of all subcommittees.

     Johnnie Kaberle, Walter Hearne, Ariana Sarar, Jacquelynn Ripke,
   David Bortnick, Kiyalan Batmanglidj, Matthew Bower, William Adkins,
       Hayden Milberg, Nicolas Vance, John Forbes, Kyle McFarland,
                            and Maxwell Morgan
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                __________

                                  PART 1

                                                                    Page
                                                                   
  Ukraine...............................                              1
                                        
  Members' Day..........................                             53
                                        
  Department of Defense.................                             61
                                        
  United States Army....................                            143
                                        
  United States Air Force and Space Force...........                215
                                        
  United States Navy and Marine Corps...                            281
                                        

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT}

                                __________
                                
          Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations                              

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
54-191                        WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                     KAY GRANGER, Texas, Chairwoman


  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  TOM COLE, Oklahoma
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  CHRIS STEWART, Utah
  DAVID G. VALADAO, California
  DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
  JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan
  JOHN H. RUTHERFORD, Florida
  BEN CLINE, Virginia
  GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania
  MIKE GARCIA, California
  ASHLEY HINSON, Iowa
  TONY GONZALES, Texas
  JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
  MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
  MICHAEL GUEST, Mississippi
  RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana
  ANDREW S. CLYDE, Georgia
  JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
  JERRY L. CARL, Alabama
  STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
  C. SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona

  ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
  STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
  MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
  BARBARA LEE, California
  BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
  C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
  HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
  MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
  DEREK KILMER, Washington
  MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
  GRACE MENG, New York
  MARK POCAN, Wisconsin
  PETE AGUILAR, California
  LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
  BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
  NORMA J. TORRES, California
  ED CASE, Hawaii
  ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
  JOSH HARDER, California
  JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
  DAVID J. TRONE, Maryland
  LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
  SUSIE LEE, Nevada
  JOSEPH D. MORELLE, New York

              Anne Marie Chotvacs, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2024

                              ----------                              

                                        Tuesday, February 28, 2023.

                                UKRAINE

                               WITNESSES

HON. CELESTE WALLANDER, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR 
    INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL DOUGLAS SIMS, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS (J-3), JOINT 
    STAFF

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The subcommittee will come to order.
    It is good to be back in the chair again, but my friend, 
Ms. McCollum, and I have switched roles yet again. This is a 
better view actually.
    Today the committee will receive testimony on the war in 
Ukraine.
    First, I would like to welcome our two witnesses, Celeste 
Wallander, who serves as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
International Security Affairs, and Lieutenant General Douglas 
Sims, the Director for Operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    We look forward to your testimony.
    One year ago, the democratic nation of Ukraine was invaded 
by Russian forces without provocation. Over the past year, 
Russia has carried out brutal attacks on Ukrainian forces, as 
well as civilians, including women and children.
    First, I wish this never had come to this conflict. I think 
if it wasn't for our disastrous withdrawal in Afghanistan, if 
we had provided a more robust deterrent to Ukraine earlier, 
Putin may have made a different decision, and we may have had a 
completely different situation, maybe been able to avoid this 
conflict.
    Many predicted that Kyiv would fall in a matter of weeks if 
not days. Instead, under President Zelenskyy's leadership, the 
Ukrainian people rallied to defend their country.
    If left unchecked, this ruthless Russian aggression would 
have surely expanded beyond Ukraine. Leaders in Moldova and the 
Baltic states, thought they would have been next.
    Thankfully, the Western free world has stood beside Ukraine 
and supported the heroic efforts of their military. Their fight 
is a worthy fight by stopping the Russian march across Europe 
and degrading their military capability.
    Ukrainian forces are inflicting significant damage on one 
of the world's most evil regimes. The war has taken its toll on 
both sides, but at this point Russia has lost strategically, 
operationally, and tactically.
    With the support of the United States and our allies, 
Ukraine has ended Putin's dream of reuniting the old Soviet 
empire.
    This multinational response to the Russian aggression was 
no small feat, and it sends a message to President Xi and other 
authoritarian dictators that if they invade their neighbors 
they will pay a heavy price.
    That said, like all peace-loving people, Americans want to 
see this conflict come to an end. The Russians must understand 
that the West is united behind Ukraine and Russia must end this 
senseless conflict.
    Until then, this committee will ensure Ukraine has both the 
defensive and offensive capabilities they need. The battlefield 
is dynamic, and Ukraine must have what it needs immediately. 
That is why this hearing is so important.
    First, the subcommittee needs to hear what Ukraine's 
critical needs are and how we can expedite delivery of 
equipment.
    Second, through oversight of the use of tax dollars, it is 
both the constitutional responsibility and one of my top 
priorities as chair of the subcommittee. This subcommittee will 
not be writing blank checks in order to receive funding. There 
should be a plan and the details required to justify the need 
for funding. Any funding provided will be followed by rigorous 
oversight of the use of funds to ensure that they are used as 
Congress intended. American taxpayers deserve no less.
    Finally, we have all read rumors in the press which, if 
true, would be extremely problematic. This includes weapons not 
reaching Ukrainian soldiers or that they are being sold on the 
black market. I would like the witnesses to take this 
opportunity to set the record state and dispel any inaccurate 
reporting.
    Support for Ukraine is bipartisan, but it is not without 
limits and free from demands for transparency. This 
administration can and should do a much better job in showing 
the American people how funds are being spent. I look forward 
to ongoing conversations with the administration on this topic.
    With that, I would love to recognize the distinguished 
ranking member, recent chair, and my good friend, Ms. McCollum, 
for her opening statement.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I would also like to welcome our witnesses.
    There is no question this has been quite a year. We have 
witnessed the horrific actions by the Government of Russia, the 
heroic efforts of the Ukrainian people to defend their homes, 
the incredible efforts of the United States, NATO, EU partners 
to support Ukraine in their time of need, and some non-NATO 
allies who are looking, as Nordic nations, to become part of 
NATO.
    When this invasion began, no one thought Ukraine could 
withstand the overwhelming force that Russia threw against it, 
yet they continue to stand strong.
    I want to strongly commend the Biden administration for 
their efforts and for the Congress' bipartisan support that we 
have provided, and I hope this support will continue to be 
provided to the people of Ukraine.
    Our actions are more than just providing ammunition, 
equipment, and bilateral support to Ukraine. By taking a strong 
stand against Russian aggression in Ukraine now, we are saying 
loud and clear to Russia and to others: Attacks on burgeoning 
democracies are unacceptable.
    This global perspective last week was also recognized. The 
U.N. resolution calling on Russia to leave Ukraine passed with 
141 votes out of a total of 193 countries.
    Since taking office, the Biden administration has notified 
more than $33.5 billion in security assistance to Ukraine from 
a total of enacting funds of $62.9 billion. And that does not 
include the $26 billion in Presidential drawdown authority 
under the purview of the President.
    As we continue to see this important impact that the 
weapons, equipment, and tools that the United States and our 
allies provide, we see Ukraine be successful in their 
counteroffensive, especially last fall.
    Given the shear amount of equipment transfers, it would be 
helpful for the briefers to provide the committee with the 
methodology that the Department is using to ensure the 
equipment is provided to the appropriate Ukrainian units for 
their mission.
    It would also be helpful for you to share what you believe 
has been the most vital piece of military equipment provided 
from the United States to the Ukrainians and what you see as 
what will be vital going forward into 2023.
    Even with the support of the United States and our allies, 
Putin appears to be fully invested in tearing Ukraine apart. In 
his speech last week, it harkened back to the 21-year war by 
Peter the Great to win the Northern War. And that was not any 
event that we want to see repeated.
    Putin has decided to pardon prisoners by the thousands in 
exchange for military service. He has called upon hundreds of 
thousands of additional reservists.
    In light of Putin's continued escalation in Ukraine, I look 
forward to hearing from the briefers' perspective on what 
military and diplomatic tools remain for the United States and 
our allies to use where we could impact Putin's calculus.
    I would like to thank the chairman for holding this hearing 
and for the time to speak. And I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks.
    I now recognize the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for her opening remarks.

                     Opening Remarks of Ms. DeLauro

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert and 
Ranking Member McCollum, for hosting this important hearing.
    Thank you to our witnesses, Lieutenant General Douglas Sims 
and Assistant Secretary Celeste Wallander, for being here 
today.
    For the past year, Russia has waged an egregious, 
unprovoked war against the Ukrainian people, and during this 
time we have become witness to one of the worst humanitarian 
crises the world has seen in generations.
    As we continue to watch in horror, civilians, including 
children, people in hospitals, expectant mothers, are being 
targeted by Russia's unprovoked and utterly inhumane attacks.
    As the President and Vice President have stated, Russia is 
committing crimes against humanity. Entire towns and cities 
have been devastated by the attacks. Thousands of hospitals and 
schools have been bombed. Children have been abducted and 
relocated to Russia. Tens of thousands of civilians and 
fighters have been killed and injured as a result of the 
conflict. And over 13 million people have had to flee their 
homes.
    Despite this unimaginable anguish and destruction, the 
resolve of the Ukrainian people is strong. Ukraine remains free 
and determined to repel Russian aggression. And with American 
and international support, Russia has failed in its objective 
of conquering Ukraine and we have been successful in helping to 
defend global democracy.
    Over the past year, I was proud to lead this committee and 
the Congress in the passage of four supplemental bills, two 
appropriations packages, that include over $62.9 billion in 
security assistance. At the same time, the United States has 
led allies and partners who have committed an additional $50 
billion in security assistance to Ukraine.
    All of this funding has been instrumental in ensuring 
Ukraine's military strength, providing economic support, 
addressing the humanitarian toll of the war, and enforcing 
sanctions against Russia.
    I echo Ranking Member McCollum's remarks that we are 
gathered here today to learn more about how these resources 
have been used, what support has been the biggest impact, and 
what more can be done to continue this fight as Russia's 
tactics develop.
    The United States must continue to be a strong partner in 
the fight to protect global democracy, and I remain committed 
to ensuring Ukraine has the necessary resources to defend its 
independence. The safety and security of our world depend on 
it.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and to 
continue to work closely with you.
    Thank you again, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member 
McCollum. And I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Assistant Secretary Wallander, your full written testimony 
will be placed in the record. In the interest of time, I 
encourage you to summarize your statement in 5 minutes or less.
    You are recognized.

           Summary Statement of Assistant Secretary Wallander

    Ms. Wallander. Thank you.
    Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, members of the 
committee, it is an honor to appear before you today alongside 
Lieutenant General Sims to express the unwavering support of 
the United States for Ukraine's sovereignty and security in the 
face of Russia's unprovoked and brutal invasion. Thank you for 
holding this important hearing at this pivotal time for the 
security of Ukraine, of Europe, and of the world.
    As Secretary Austin said at the Halifax Security Forum this 
past November, our support for Ukraine's self-defense is an 
investment in our own security and prosperity.
    Russia has failed to achieve its objectives in Ukraine. Its 
military is paying tremendous costs. Ukraine remains united and 
determined to expel Russia's invading forces from its 
territory. We are seeing intense fighting in eastern Ukraine as 
Russia seeks points to exploit and Ukraine defends tenaciously.
    What happens in the coming months may prove decisive, and 
we are focused on providing Ukraine with the military 
capabilities it needs to defend its people and territory and 
prepare to advance in what we expect will be an effective 
counteroffensive. We are doing this in close cooperation with 
our allies and partners.
    First, we have focused on a layered, integrated approach to 
air defense to counter Russia's devastating attacks on 
Ukraine's population centers and civilian infrastructure. The 
Patriot systems from the United States, Germany, and the 
Netherlands will give Ukraine advanced long-range capability. 
These are complemented by medium- and short-range air defense 
capabilities, such as NASAMS and Avengers, that we have 
provided. And just last week, Italy and France announced that 
they will also provide Ukraine with the SAMP/T system.
    Second, to enhance Ukraine's ability to maneuver, the 
United States will provide Abrams main battle tanks, the best 
tanks in the world. The U.K. has committed Challenger tanks, 
and other European states will provide Leopard tanks.
    These main battle tanks are complemented by other vital 
armor capabilities, such as Bradleys and Strykers from the 
United States, Swedish CV90s, French AMX-10s, and German 
Marders.
    Third, we have expanded U.S.-led collective training to 
enable the Ukrainians to integrate fires and maneuver. Our 
training will complement the specialized training conducted by 
the United States, the European Union, and our allies.
    Finally, we continue to work with allies and partners to 
deliver a steady flow of artillery rounds and other ammunition 
so Ukraine can sustain its fight.
    Russia has discovered that the United States and our allies 
and partners are serious about supporting Ukraine for the long 
haul. Our assistance to Ukraine is possible thanks to 
bipartisan support from Congress.
    The Department of Defense appreciates the most recent 
additional supplemental appropriations act which provides 
Presidential drawdown authority, funding for the military 
services to replace items sent to Ukraine, and funding for the 
Ukraine Security Assistance Act, or USAI.
    Presidential drawdown allows us to get Ukraine critical 
capabilities quickly. USAI allows us to contract with industry 
for new and innovative solutions while building Ukraine's 
longer-term defense.
    We are also ramping up defense industrial base production 
of critical munitions and equipment, doubling or tripling 
capacity in many cases.
    Allies have bolstered global production as well. France and 
Australia recently announced that they will increase 155-
millimeter ammunition production to support Ukraine.
    And even as we focus on getting Ukraine what it needs, we 
have been ensuring accountability. We have adapted our 
accountability practices for the combat environment to address 
the risk of illicit diversion using mechanisms that go above 
and beyond our standard practices.
    The U.S. Government has not seen credible evidence of any 
diversion of U.S.-provided weapons outside of Ukraine. Instead, 
we see Ukraine's frontline units effectively employing security 
assistance every day on the battlefield.
    A year ago, Russia launched its brutal invasion to destroy 
Ukraine as a free and sovereign nation, threatening European 
security and transatlantic unity. Today, NATO is stronger, 
Europe is investing in its own security at record rates, and 
the incredible people and Armed Forces of Ukraine remain 
unbowed and unbroken.
    This war has demonstrated that aggression is not worth the 
price paid by the aggressor. That is a lesson that should 
reverberate around the world, including among autocratic 
leaders everywhere.
    We are determined to support Ukraine's fight against 
tyranny and oppression and, in doing so, to defend the United 
States' interests and values that are clearly at stake.
    Thank you for your support and for the opportunity to 
testify. And I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Next, I recognize Lieutenant General Sims for his 
testimony.
    General, you are recognized.

              Summary Statement of Lieutenant General Sims

    General Sims. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
distinguished members, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.
    I appreciate today's opportunity to join Assistant 
Secretary Wallander and update you on the U.S. military efforts 
to help the Ukrainian people in their combined fight against 
the Russian invasion.
    Today marks the 369th day since Russian forces invaded and 
began their illegal and unprovoked large-scale invasion of 
Ukraine.
    As we meet today, the current situation between Ukraine and 
Russia is generally static, with both sides employing heavy 
amounts of artillery, resulting in minimal changes of territory 
but significant numbers of casualties.
    In general, and as you've seen reported in open sources, 
the most active portion of the battlefield is around the town 
of Bakhmut.
    Over the past 2 months, the Russian Army, with assistance 
from private military contractor Wagner Group, has fought 
savagely to defeat Ukraine's defenses. Employing extreme 
amounts of artillery and waves of thousands of partially 
trained and mobilized soldiers and personnel contracted from 
prisons, the Russians have made incremental gains at great 
expense.
    Ultimately, the fighting has replicated the conditions the 
world last saw during the First World War.
    Key to changing this paradigm is creating Ukrainian Armed 
Forces capable of breaking this state of fighting. In this 
regard, the concentration of U.S. effort has been focused on 
combining equipment and munitions with people and training.
    The intent and efforts of the U.S. military are designed to 
generate combat-credible forces capable of combining fire and 
movement to achieve maneuver and increase the overall 
capabilities of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
    Importantly, this training effort is not solely the work of 
our U.S. Armed Forces, but a cohesive approach with our allies 
and partners. Collective training is ongoing throughout Europe 
and is dramatically increasing Ukrainian combined arms 
organizations.
    All told, since January, the U.S. military has trained 
another 1,000 Ukrainians, bringing the total trained by the 
United States to just over 4,000. As I speak, Ukrainians are 
training in multiple locations in Europe, working with U.S. 
servicemembers and military trainers from our allies and 
partners.
    Key to our ability to conduct collaborative training has 
been the recent increase in maneuver-related equipment. The 
U.S. provision of Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Strykers, and 
Paladin howitzers, combined with similar fighting vehicles and 
tank contributions from our partners, is notably increasing the 
capability of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.
    In addition, the U.S. continues to supply critical 
munitions and individual equipment, from howitzer ammunition to 
medical and cold weather gear.
    Finally, and critically important to Ukraine's ability to 
continue to defeat Russian efforts to destroy civilian 
infrastructure, the United States will soon complete training 
and equipping of Ukraine's first Patriot battery.
    As you know, our air defense experts are providing key 
training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. We are confident the 
Ukrainians will employ the Patriots with the same expertise 
they are demonstrating every day with their current air defense 
capabilities.
    Thank you for what this committee and this Congress have 
done and continue to do to provide oversight and resources in 
support of Ukraine as they continue the fight against the 
illegal and unprovoked large-scale invasion by Russia.
    While the Ukrainians bear the real burdens of this war, 
your support and that of the American people has had a profound 
effect on Ukraine's future.
    I thank you, and I look forward to today's questions and 
discussion.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And we will now begin our questions. Each member will have 
5 minutes for their questions and answers. When your timer 
turns yellow, you have 1 minute remaining. And, first, I will 
recognize myself.

                      UKRAINE SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    One comment beforehand. It was mentioned about the Abrams 
tanks coming to Ukraine. Maybe we can get an explanation in the 
near future on why we can't reconfigure existing Marine Corps 
tanks rather than acquiring new tanks that apparently the 
Secretary of the Army said if we are lucky we could deliver the 
tanks in a year and a half. That seems somewhat of a 
significant delay.
    But the first question I have is regarding the funding and 
monitoring that has been brought up. Since the Russian invasion 
a year ago, this committee has appropriated $45 billion in 
security assistance for Ukraine. The Department has notified 
all but $4.5 billion in Presidential drawdown authority and $7 
billion in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funding. Your 
obligations have lagged, however, with $35 billion remaining 
unobligated.
    Assistant Secretary Wallander, how long will your remaining 
funds last? Do you expect to submit another supplemental 
request before the end of the year, fiscal year 2023? And what 
measures does the Department have in place to ensure accurate 
use of monitoring of assistance that is being provided? Do you 
see any gaps in your capability and what you are doing to close 
those gaps?
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    On how long we expect the funds which you noted to remain 
enough to provide capabilities to the Ukrainians, at this point 
we believe that those funds are sufficient for current plans. 
However, we will continuously reassess the levels of 
requirements. Many of them are driven by week to week on the 
battlefield conditions.
    But currently we are looking at spending those allocated 
funds in order to provide Ukraine with the capabilities that 
they require through this fiscal year, although we will 
consider whether we would come to you and ask for additional 
funds.
    On the issue of the Abrams tanks, we do not--the Army 
currently does not have Abrams tanks available for redeploying 
or rediverting to Ukraine. And the Department of the Army is 
working in a very focused fashion to work on getting those 
potential delivery times of those tanks that would be available 
to shorten that time frame. But we don't have a revision to the 
timeline that you cited.
    On accountability, we have now delivered two reports to 
Congress on our procedures and processes for accountability. 
They extend in country now that we have a fully functioning 
Defense Attache's Office and Office of Defense Cooperation in 
Kyiv.
    We have provided capabilities to the Ukrainians to be able 
to electronically account for provision of capabilities, and 
the Ukrainians have been systematically and very appropriately 
providing with accounting for the movement and capabilities 
once they are in the country.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    I will now recognize the ranking member, Ms. McCollum.

     ACCOUNTABILITY OF U.S. MILITARY EQUIPMENT PROVIDED TO UKRAINE

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    So as has been pointed out in the opening statements and in 
your statements, the United States has provided considerable 
assistance to the Government of Ukraine, financial, 
humanitarian, and military, from ammunition to heavy vehicles 
to air defense systems. And they are using this to fend off the 
Russian attacks.
    And I would just for the record like to give a few 
examples.
    To date, we have provided 1,600 Stingers, 8,500 Javelins, 
and 298 tactical vehicles to tow weapons. And these items are 
making their way to the battlefield on a steady basis.
    And this support is provided through the Security 
Assistance Group-Ukraine, handles weapon shipments, personnel 
training, and other related tasks. This is a joint service 
command, and it will be manned by personnel from across the 
military services. This group will be responsible for ensuring 
that military equipment provided to Ukraine does not fall into 
Russian hands or get diverted from its primary purposes.
    As the chair asked you a question, could you maybe 
elaborate in a little more detail with the committee the 
activities of the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine? Or SAG-U, 
I guess, it is going to be referred to. I always like to say 
what it is before I go to the alphabet. Could you maybe talk 
about how that is to support U.S. efforts?
    And you mentioned electronic. Just for this committee, 
because we are getting asked a lot of questions, not to go too 
in the weeds or too granular, but a little more detail on how 
this will accounting is taking place.
    Ms. Wallander. Well, thank you.
    On the accounting, it combines old-fashioned lists of 
capabilities and equipments that are handed over to Ukrainians 
from the Security Assistance hubs to an updated approach to 
reading--without getting into too much detail--reading 
indicators that are connected to specific pieces of equipment 
that are handed over and accounting for them in that manner.
    So it is both old-fashioned and technologically enabled, 
and the United States military liaisons work closely with the 
Ukrainian Armed Forces in accounting for the handing over the 
equipment and the use of that equipment.
    The Ukrainian Armed Forces decide where they are going to 
then send specific equipment. That is not a decision of the 
U.S. military or other European countries. So that is 
coordinated but ultimately decided by Ukrainian forces 
themselves.
    On SAG-U, I am going to turn it over to Lieutenant General 
Sims for an explanation.
    General Sims. So, ma'am, let me talk--one comment on end-
use monitoring real quick.
    There is a real important distinction here with end-use 
monitoring. And, ultimately, as you have heard folks talk about 
trust but verify, we are working towards reasonable assurance 
with our Ukrainian partners.
    I would tell you, first of all, there have not been--we 
aren't receiving reports of things that are making their way to 
other places to start with.
    But, number two, the criticality of this being an 
existential thing for Ukraine, they would prefer to use a 
Stinger, a Javelin, as opposed to give it to someone else. That 
would be one comment on that.
    On the SAG-U, the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, so you 
will recall last year in the April-ish time frame--well, before 
that, 18th Airborne Corps arrived in Europe, and that three-
star command in the March-April time frame took over the effort 
in terms of the advise, assist, enable with equipment and in 
other ways, intelligence being one of those, that relationship 
beginning last spring.
    Over the course of the year, that 18th Airborne Corps, that 
three-star headquarters, has continued to grow in terms of its 
capability, its effectiveness and efficiency. It now is still a 
three-star headquarters. It is solely focused on the training, 
equipping, advising of our Ukrainian partners. And they are 
doing so across what we would call warfighting functions, so 
sustainment or logistics being one of those, in addition to 
intelligence or advice on maneuver.
    And so in that regard, sustainment-wise, it has become a 
huge connection to the Ukrainians in terms of not just 
providing them with equipment, but then providing them with the 
expertise in terms of how to maintain that equipment.
    Some of those are virtual connections. And I know many of 
the members have likely been forward in Jasionka, Poland. But 
in Jasionka, they have essentially a headquarters there where 
they are working in ways using--in a classified session, I 
would tell you a different way--but they are essentially 
communicating directly with the Ukrainians who are using that 
equipment on the ground. Those individuals are able to reach 
back and get immediate assistance from the SAG-U and from our 
partners who are linked into the SAG-U.
    I did a terrible job of explaining that, but----
    Ms. McCollum. No. And as you said, we are not in a 
classified situation.
    Thank you.
    General Sims. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Rogers.

                     INNOVATION OF THE BATTLEFIELD

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for 
convening this meeting on a matter of utmost importance in the 
world.
    Dr. Wallander, General Sims, thank you both for coming 
before the committee sharing your insights.
    Indeed, what Ukraine has done in the defense of their 
homeland is admirable beyond description, a cause we must 
continue to support. We have seen the Ukrainians fight far 
beyond expectations, in part due to the assistance we have 
provided to them.
    As you both stated, it is vital we continue our investment 
in Ukraine, as not only do their efforts weaken our global foe 
of Russia, but also aid in deterring other nations from 
attempting similar malign incursions, such as China.
    One aspect of this conflict, that is a particular interest 
of mine, is increased use of unmanned systems to inflict 
damage. We have seen some shear ingenuity out of our partners 
in Ukraine. Certainly this marks a new chapter in how we plan 
for future conflicts through both direct involvement and 
military aid.
    As this conflict has evolved, how have emerging 
technologies changed our priorities of aid? Have there been any 
particular lessons that we have learned along the way?
    Doctor.
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congressman.
    I fully agree with you in your characterization of the 
evolving nature of the battle and also the required technology 
and the innovation of the Ukrainians.
    We have also innovated in what we have provided. Beginning 
early in the conflict, we focused on providing Stingers and 
Javelins, and last summer we began to shift to providing UAV 
capabilities and counter-UAV capabilities exactly because we 
were seeing on the battlefield the kinds of developments that 
you have pointed to.
    At the same time, the Russians were suffering limitations 
in their own UAV capabilities. And, unfortunately, Russians 
innovate too, and one of the things that they have innovated in 
is they have grown closer in relations with Iran and are 
relying on Iranian UAVs and one-way attack drones.
    We have distributed around for all of you to see evidence 
of--of course, Iran and Russian deny this--but actual evidence 
of how Iran's provision of advanced UAV capabilities, both ISR 
and attack UAV capabilities, have been enabling Russia's--the 
constraints on Russian defense industry.
    But at the same time, we are ahead of that curve, and we 
are providing Ukraine with newer and more advanced counter-UAV 
capabilities as well, and the Ukrainians have been 
extraordinarily smart about adapting to that requirement as 
Russia uses those UAVs to attack critical infrastructure in 
civilian locations.
    Mr. Rogers. General Sims.
    General Sims. Sure. I think one thing that really strikes 
me, so in my initial description I kind of mentioned--and 
Bakhmut is an example--where we see this First World War kind 
of revisited.
    That is a place in which they, both sides, have not 
employed what we would call combined arms warfare. So we are 
talking about unmanned systems, everything from cyber, space, 
electronic warfare.
    We are learning lessons every day by the way that the 
Russians are conducting operations, the way that the Ukrainians 
are conducting operations. We are able to assist the Ukrainians 
in a number of areas as you would expect.
    But we are, quite honestly, learning from them I think as 
much as anybody else on the criticality of this combined arms 
effect and using all the domains of warfare. Things that don't 
cost very much money in some cases are proving very effective 
on the battlefield, these small hand-held drones is an example.
    And I know everybody on the committee has probably seen 
video of them. These drone platoons that the Ukrainians are 
employing have turned that small tiny drone into an 
extraordinarily effective weapon because of what it is tied 
back to in terms of its ability to reach back to an Archer.
    And so I think we are learning a number of lessons about 
things that may not cost a lot that may prove very effective on 
the next battlefield.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you both. Godspeed.
    I yield.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. DeLauro.

                    MAINTAINING SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    I have two questions. Dr. Wallander, for you first, and 
then one to both you and General Sims.
    Dr. Wallander, you said in your testimony at the close a 
very important statement: Our ability to provide Ukraine's 
forces with the capabilities they need rest on continued 
bipartisan support for this mission in the Congress.
    And I would add that it rests on continued bipartisan 
support through this committee. We have heard in some quarters 
that members have suggested that it may be time to end sending 
U.S. aid to Ukraine.
    So just on this point, how devastating would it be for 
Ukrainian forces if the U.S. did cut back on aid or cut it off? 
How quickly would Russian forces overtake the Ukrainian 
military if we did cut off aid? Can you estimate the time $9 
billion that we appropriated in security assistance will take 
to use? How quickly is more funding necessary to provide the 
Ukrainian military with the defense capabilities that they need 
to outlast the Russian forces?
    Second question to both of you. In recent weeks President 
Zelenskyy has pleaded with U.S. lawmakers and President Biden 
for additional funding and specific resources.
    So a question for the two of you. With respect to 
administering the funding provided in 2022 and 2023, which 
sorts of munitions are being prioritized? How quickly are they 
being deployed? Is there anything that we can do to speed up 
deployment of such munitions? And if there is to be an 
additional Ukraine supplemental, what other munitions would you 
prioritize getting to Ukraine first?
    Dr. Wallander.
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I think the most important thing to understand is that 
President Putin in the face of reality has not changed his 
strategic objectives in this war, and his strategic objective 
is to subjugate Ukraine.
    A sensible leader would have looked at the failures of his 
military, at the pain to his economy, and changed his war aims. 
We are not seeing that.
    So even if this summer results in a Ukrainian successful 
counteroffensive, even if there is a period of stalemate and 
rebuilding, the best prediction is Russia will use that period 
of rebuilding to get ready to reattack.
    So in addition to the current flow of capabilities for the 
hot war that we are seeing right now, we need to be thinking 
about providing Ukraine with a modern defense capability that 
will be an effective deterrent, that will be too great of a 
challenge for the Russian military to misperceive the next 
time.
    And so there is the near term, which has been generously 
supported by the American people with the supplemental that we 
have. And as I indicated, we feel confident that that will see 
us through this current battle.
    But there will be a requirement to think longer term as 
well in modernization--and not just the United States. We are 
working with European allies and partners and actually globally 
with countries to think about that.
    So I know that is probably not the answer everyone wants to 
hear. We would like to think that the Russian leadership would 
wake up and go home and leave Ukraine alone. But the 
indications are quite the opposite.
    With that, let me turn to General Sims because I think he 
can better answer the rest of your question.
    General Sims. Ma'am, thanks for the question.
    Before I kind of talk to how we might go forward, I would 
call attention--I was in the House Armed Services Committee 
earlier, and I made a similar comment, that the criticality of 
this fight is--I mean, we are literally 78 years into this 
international rules-based order that if we allow to fall in 
this case will have significant consequences for the world, I 
mean, from here on.
    And I am not--people will bring up China. I am not just 
talking about China. I am talking about the world. It should be 
understood, here we are 78 years after a pretty horrific World 
War, that we created a system in which we don't tolerate the 
invasion of another country in this situation.
    And so I think you are right to call attention to the 
bipartisan support. I would tell you, I think it is not just an 
American view. I think it is a world view. We are certainly 
seeing in NATO, as an example, the strength of that alliance is 
stronger now than it ever was, and I have a lot of time in 
Europe. It has never been like it is now. And that is largely 
because I think we all recognize that this is important work, 
and it is going to have large long-term impacts.
    On where we think we might go from here, I think what we 
are trying to do is work hard with our Ukrainian counterparts 
to make sure that we are providing them the key kit and 
equipment and munitions that are relevant to the fight that 
they are in. And right now that is air defense, artillery, and 
maneuver systems, fighting vehicles that will, we believe, 
combined with really effective training, be able to turn the 
tide for the Ukrainians.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    At some point I would love to confer with specific kinds of 
munitions that you think we might move forward and if you think 
we will need another supplemental.
    General Sims. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Cole.

                            TRAINING SUPPORT

    Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank both of our 
witnesses.
    Just quickly, actually, Fort Sill is in my district. I had 
the opportunity 2 weeks ago to visit with the Ukrainian forces 
that are there training. It is a pretty awesome sight. As one 
of my briefers told me before I went out to meet with them, he 
said, ``You have to remember, Congressman, these are people 
that have come immediately from combat that are training and 
are going back to their own home to be in combat again. You are 
not going to talk to anybody that hasn't lost a fellow soldier, 
that hasn't lost a friend, that hasn't lost a family member.''
    I talked with one individual who had lost both his parents 
and his wife in the last 11 months due to the Russian military 
activity.
    So they train with a purpose and ahead of schedule, and 
they are pretty awesome folks to meet. So I have no doubt about 
their resolve and intensity and no doubt about the quality of 
support.
    So I have two questions. One is a very parochial one. 
Again, we are very proud to host the mission. We think the 
United States Army is doing an outstanding job in training. And 
we are curious if there will be follow-on Paladin training 
missions there. So far we only know of this particular one.
    The second is probably a very unfair question, but it is 
not meant to be. And if you want to dodge around it, that is 
all right.
    But I totally agree with the idea that this is a fight you 
have to win. I don't have any equivocation about that. I think 
the consequences of losing here for the country and everything 
that both of you have stated in terms of the international 
order are horrific.
    What I do wonder about is how do we define winning. Is this 
expelling the Russians from what they have taken? Is this 
restoring Ukraine circa 2014 before Crimea? Is this envisioning 
the end of the Putin regime, which I guess is really his choice 
more than it is ours in some ways. Or do we end up someplace 
like we did in Korea; this lasts for a long time, has a lot of 
casualties, and you end up with sort of an armed peace in 
place, an armistice, as opposed to a settlement and significant 
long-term military commitment by both sides in terms of just 
protecting that frontier?
    So those are my two questions for now.
    General Sims. Sir, I will start with the first one, in 
terms of training in the United States.
    And, first of all, so 3 days ago we commemorated the year 
since the invasion. Today marks my year. I deployed with my 
division headquarters last year this time to Central Europe as 
a response to this. And while I was there, I had the chance to 
go to, as the training was nascent, to go and spend some time 
with the Ukrainians as they were training on some of our 
systems at the beginning. And I had the exact same experience.
    As an example, we were training the M113, and on the very 
first day of training the intent was for them to get a 
familiarization of the 113. We would kind of walk them around. 
Maybe we could get on the course to drive it.
    So I arrive 2 hours after they have started, and the first 
vehicle is in pieces. And I said, ``Guys, what is going on?''
    And they said, ``We got here and the Ukrainians were, like, 
`Hey, this is great. How do you take it apart?' ''
    And they had already taken the engine apart and were 
getting ready to put it back together.
    And as you mentioned, every one of them has a connection, a 
very personal connection to this, and they take it very 
seriously.
    We are examining every training site on a case by case. In 
this case, because of the expertise at Fort Sill, it made sense 
for us to bring the Ukrainians back to Fort Sill to execute.
    Up to now and with the systems we have now, we have that 
ability in Europe. And so it is actually helpful to the 
Ukrainians because they don't have to go all the way back to 
the United States. But we do case by case, sir.
    Mr. Cole. Okay. Very good.

                            DEFINING VICTORY

    Ms. Wallander. On your very good question about defining 
winning, I don't think that is an unfair question. It is an 
important question.
    It is a hard question to answer in part because it will 
depend on how the summer's fighting plays out. It will depend 
on how we are able to keep the international community tight 
and close on sanctions and on defense industrial restrictions 
to really cutting Russia's capabilities, not enough because 
they have this option of Iran, hopefully not China. So there 
are a lot of variables.
    But what I will say is our position is that this has to end 
in a strategic failure for Russia, that no aggressor looking at 
this across the world thinks, ``Oh, that is a good idea. I am 
going to get what I want and not pay any price.''
    And, second, we have to support Ukraine. We need to have a 
sense of what we think is a good outcome, but we owe it to 
ourselves and we owe it to the Ukrainians to support their 
definition of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security, 
and work with them, if there comes a moment when the Russian 
leadership is ready to negotiate, that it is a Ukrainian-led 
process, because they have earned it.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                         FUNDING PRIORITIZATION

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to just get a sense of the mid-term and long term if 
this--already this has gone on for a year. So what is your 
sense of how Congress should prioritize funding over the long 
haul to address some of the long-term capability gaps that 
exist still for the Ukrainians?
    Ms. Wallander. Well, I will give the bigger picture, but I 
will leave it to General Sims to talk about specific 
capabilities.
    But the balance--one of the most valuable things, in 
addition to your consistent and constant support, has been 
being willing to provide support both under PDA and USAI, 
because PDA has allowed us to pull from existing stocks for 
immediate battlefield needs, while USAI has allowed us to plan 
over, depending on the procurement timelines, 4 months or even 
years.
    So that balance of immediate capabilities and longer-term 
planning has been important from the start, but it becomes even 
more important as we think about assessing at the end of the 
summer where the battlefields stands, what it looks like, 
because we will need to be thinking about those longer-term 
investments in a modern Ukrainian military.
    But I will turn it over to General Sims to give you more on 
what that would look like.
    General Sims. Sir, there is--and I hate to use this cop-
out--but there is a bunch of stuff we could talk about in a 
classified setting I think that would give you a better view 
for where we think the future might go.
    I would tell you, as I mentioned earlier, the key to us 
right now is air defense, in particular with artillery and 
maneuver vehicles.
    The air defense piece is important. Back to the Bakhmut 
piece, because both sides have created air defenses in which 
they are unable to really employ their air, that limits that 
dimension of the fight. And so it has created the system or the 
process that they have right now.
    So air defense is going to be hugely important as we go 
forward.

                           END-USE MONITORING

    Mr. Kilmer. The other thing I wanted to ask about, and this 
gets at the chairman's opening remarks, the nature of what we 
are providing has changed over time. I am just curious what the 
evolution of end-use monitoring, how that has changed as the 
type of equipment we are providing has changed.
    Ms. Wallander. The evolution has been more in the realm of 
the fact that we have access now because when the embassy was 
closed we didn't have Americans in country. We didn't have a 
Defense Attache's Office. We didn't have an ODC.
    So now we have professionals who can work directly with the 
Ukrainian Armed Forces on the end-use monitoring. And then it 
was further enabled, in addition to sort of, like I suggested, 
an old-fashioned checklist where we started out, just like all 
of the provision of the capabilities, now to a more distributed 
capability enabled by technology.
    So I think it was less about the mix of capabilities and 
more about our access and our ability to train the Ukrainians 
how to do logistics, how to do accounting for the capabilities 
that we have provided and their ability to step up and provide 
that information.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I yield.

                         GROUND VEHICLE SUPPORT

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you both for being here.
    We are talking about tanks. Supposedly we are getting--oh, 
thank you. Supposedly we are getting U.K. tanks, Challengers, 
T-72, refurbished tanks from the U.S. and Netherlands, Czech 
Republic, Leopard tanks from Germany, Poland, Canada, Portugal, 
Spain, Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands, and Abrams tanks.
    I don't know a lot about this, but I know those tanks are 
all lighter than the Abrams tank, because I was over in Holland 
and visited one of our depots over there and they were 
explaining to me that the European soil was really too soft for 
the Abrams tank. So they had to take a lot of armor off the 
bottom of it so it wouldn't bog down.
    Now, we are in the frozen time right now and the Abrams is 
not there yet, is the way I understand it. Probably won't be 
there for a while. But if they get off--if the Abrams isn't 
available to fight in that domain and all of these other tanks, 
what about air support? Because tanks are most vulnerable from 
the sky. And right now we are not offering air support. Is 
anybody else offering air support?
    And we are, by the way, retiring 40 A-10s this year. And I 
don't know whether the A-10 is capable of protecting tanks 
without a cover above them or not. I don't know that answer. So 
I am asking you.
    General Sims. Sir, let me talk tanks for a second.
    The M1 Abrams was designed with the thought that--and this 
is Cold War time--that we would potentially fight on the 
European plains, essentially Fulda Gap, if you will. That tank 
was designed to fight and win in Europe. It has fought and won 
in a couple other places, but that was designed for Europe.
    It is a heavier tank, and certainly that will be something 
of concern, depending on what the environmental conditions are.
    So the timing of fighting in Ukraine, as you would guess, 
sir, is largely based on the environmental conditions. And so 
as the terrain is frozen, it offers opportunities for mobility. 
There is a period--in fact, it is beginning now--where it goes 
into significant mud. And you will recall the pictures last 
year of Soviet--or Russian tanks that were buried down to hull 
depth.
    We believe that they will be able to employ Abrams tanks, 
Leopards as well, with pretty good efficiency in that terrain. 
And, again, it is based on the environmental conditions.

                              AIR SUPPORT

    In terms of air support, sir, I am a huge fan of the A-10 
as an instrument. I like the A-10. That was always something I 
liked to hear buzzing above me.
    I would tell you that--and this goes to really any airplane 
right now that the Ukrainians would be able to employ. And the 
Ukrainians, as you know, have an Air Force of their own.
    The thing that is most formidable to the Ukrainians now are 
the Russian air defenses. And so they have gone--they have 
executed some close air support missions with their assets. To 
do so, they really have to prepare the battlefield a great deal 
with a number of different systems. It wouldn't be any 
different with A-10s or with F-16s.
    Until the conditions are set in that regard against the air 
defenses, those are very difficult--they are really just 
difficult systems to use.
    There are a bunch of other reasons, a bunch financial, that 
I will pass over to Ms. Wallander.
    Ms. Wallander. There was a question about how we decide 
what to provide the Ukrainians. Very simply, what we start with 
is their priority list of what their requirements are.
    The second step is SAG-U. You come validate that priority 
list, and we prioritize the money you appropriated and 
authorized for us to spend based on that two tiers, taking into 
account readiness impacts on the United States.
    And so while there is talk of F-16s being desirable--
everything is desirable--the Ukrainians have prioritized that, 
air defense capabilities, Patriots, NASAMS, SAMP/Ts, Hawks, 
those air defense capabilities, for the reasons that, as I 
understand it, General Sims laid out, and the armor to be able 
to conduct this offensive and the artillery so that they can 
keep fighting the Russians every day.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Case.

                          SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Some funding- and budget-related questions since this is 
Appropriations.
    First of all, just a really simple--I think it is a simple 
question. Are we expecting that further funding requests will 
come through on supplemental appropriation requests, or is 
anything now being built into the fiscal year 2024 base budget 
related to Ukraine, or do you know yet?
    Ms. Wallander. I know that there is work ongoing to build 
it into a base budget, yes. And we are not ruling out coming 
back to you and requesting a supplemental, but I don't have a 
specific plan or a figure for you at this time.
    Mr. Case. Do you know yet whether the range of requests 
related to fiscal year 2024 would be roughly comparable to what 
we have already committed, the $113 billion roughly?
    Because now, obviously, there is a lot of uncertainty in 
the answer to that question. But we have been through a pretty 
intense war for one year now at $113 billion. Now, that is not 
just defense related. It is humanitarian. It is other 
assistance.
    But I guess what I am trying to get a sense of is, well, 
how much bigger would the bill be? I assume it would be bigger 
because we are moving up kind of the scale of intensity of 
weapons, but not just intensity, but expense also, I think.
    And so I would expect, at least, that we would, as we 
continue, if we continue for another year--I hope we don't, but 
we have to at least anticipate that possibility--that we would 
see a higher bill for the next year.
    Do you have a sense of that? Have you calculated a range? 
Have you started to think in those terms inside of DOD?
    Ms. Wallander. Congressman, no, I don't have a sense of 
whether it would be higher continuity or reduced. I just know 
that we are planning for the kind of, like I said, effective 
deterrent force that Ukraine will need to be able to present 
too difficult of a task for the Russians.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Fair enough.
    I guess maybe it is a rhetorical question, because, I mean, 
certainly, I think, from budgeting for this all, you would want 
to have some pretty reasonable ranges as we go through so that 
we can be realistic and not just have to go to a supplemental 
every 3 months or 6 months or something like that.

                       ALLIED SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE

    And related to that, information at least that CRS has put 
out indicates that collective contribution from the rest of the 
world to our $113 billion is somewhere around $85 billion. So, 
obviously, that is not $113 billion. So we are carrying the 
cost of this.
    But are there, to your knowledge, discussions? And that $85 
billion, the EU countries are somewhere around $55 billion. 
These are also nonprofits--not nonprofits, but NGOs like the--
well, NGO is not even the right term for it, but World Bank, 
IMF, and then U.K. $7 billion, but still that seems to be low 
as a measure of collective GDP.
    And so are there ongoing discussions as to the increase in 
funding that is allocated by other countries to this effort as 
well?
    Ms. Wallander. Congressman, I would need to refer you to 
Treasury and to State on the broader funding for Ukraine that 
you refer to, humanitarian, economic reconstruction.
    On the DOD side, on the defense side, our numbers show that 
the United States has provided just over $30 billion in 
assistance, and European countries, members of the UDCG, have 
provided about $19 billion. So it comports about with your 
numbers.
    I will say that the United States is only eighth in the 
world in percentage of GDP in providing security assistance to 
Ukraine. Top of the list are Estonia and Latvia, who have each 
provided 1 percent of their GDP.
    Mr. Case. Yeah. And I recognize that, and that is to be 
valued. But there are other countries that are full partners in 
this that have much lower contributions of defense to GDP, some 
real allies of ours. Okay.
    Ms. Wallander. We work on that every month at the UDCG 
meetings, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Cool.

                            LESSONS LEARNED

    General, I am really happy you talked about China, because, 
to Mr. Cole's parochial, my parochial is the Indo-Pacific, 
being from Hawaii.
    Same basic question. Are you building into the base budget, 
the fiscal year 2024 base budget, any adjustments that relate 
to lessons learned from Ukraine that relate to adjustments in 
our basic defense strategy with respect to countries such as 
China? What lessons are being taken, and how are they being 
translated into a funding perspective?
    General Sims. So, sir, the first thing I would tell you is 
we are absolutely learning lessons from Ukraine that are 
driving our conversation about China.
    The expertise you are looking for on the Joint Staff on our 
budgeting is sadly not in this chair. But I am happy to circle 
back with you with an answer to your question.
    But I would tell you, as an example, 3 weeks ago I was in 
London at a, I will say, lessons learned conference, that is a 
broad statement, but a lessons learned conference on where we 
are right now in Russia-Ukraine. And I was 30 minutes into the 
first session when I realized I had brought the wrong people 
with me. The people that I should have brought from my shop are 
people that were focused on China, not people that were focused 
on Russia-Ukraine.
    And so in that regard the Department is looking very hard 
at the lessons that we learn from this fight to inform future 
decisions.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    On the issue that Mr. Case brings up on our allies, I think 
a lot of people are concerned with it. Especially Germany has 
not seemed to step up to the plate as much as they should, I 
would think, especially since they are right there in the 
neighborhood.
    Because Mr. Womack was in the chair, I am going to 
recognize him first.

                           INITIAL ASSESSMENT

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to the witnesses here today.
    General, quick question for you. A year ago today, the war 
was in--I don't know what day it was, but it was like day 4, 
day 5. And I guess, if you were Vladimir Putin, you thought it 
was probably about to end, just based on the basic load that 
Russian soldiers took into the territory and the operational 
guidance that they had. And I would guess that most everybody 
in this room probably thought that that might be closer to 
accurate than otherwise.
    And then here we are an entire year later and, doggone it, 
this thing is still raging. And good for the Ukrainians.
    Did that surprise you?
    General Sims. So I think it surprised everybody, quite 
honestly. I think it surprised everybody. I think not just 
talking in an intelligence picture, from the intelligence 
perspective, if you surround a good portion of a country with 
100,000-plus people and you--there were a lot of assumptions, I 
think, about the Russian military before this.
    I mean, I would tell you as someone who has spent some time 
studying them, I think we assumed that when the fight began 
that every individual would have a UAV over the top of them. It 
would be tied back to lethal fires that the Russians would 
deliver quickly and effectively. And it was going to be a tough 
slug--or a tough slog--for the Ukrainians.
    I think there were a number of factors that went into 
getting us to where we are today. One of them--and the number 
one is the Ukrainian people, certainly. And the leadership in 
Ukraine has been steadfast. I think also the leadership in the 
Western--in the West--has been steadfast.
    Not to sound like a sycophant, but the work of this 
committee, this Congress, has had a huge effect on where the 
Ukrainians are today. And the advice that we have been able 
with our partners to provide has led to where we are today.
    There are miles to go before we sleep, sir. We have plenty 
of work to do. But I would tell you that there are men and 
women in all--not just in this uniform and not just Ukrainian, 
but others back to skin in the game who are convinced that we 
are going to see this through.

                        INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION

    Mr. Womack. You know, I spent 30 years in uniform, and I am 
embarrassed to tell you that I was one of those guys that 
trained all my young military life to fight in the Fulda Gap 
against all those Russian assets. And let me add: before the 
Abrams tank, and that is really dating me.
    But when I see the pictures on television of all of these 
burned out tanks, Russian tanks that were lined up on that 
stretch of highway, the first thought that occurred to me was, 
``Man, don't you know an A-10 pilot would have just really 
loved that environment?''
    General Sims. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Womack. The second thought that occurred to me was 
there is a whole lot of Russian technology sitting there on the 
side of the road.
    And have we done a pretty good job of being able to 
capture--and was it worth it--to be able to capture the 
technology and what the Russian soldiers were fighting with in 
today's fight? Have we been able to capitalize on the 
technology that has been captured in this fight?
    General Sims. Sir, probably better for a different forum, 
and I am happy to bring a team over to talk to you about that.
    The short answer would be I think that we as a military are 
better off today than we were a year ago in all sorts of ways, 
and we are learning lessons from this fight that will serve us 
well.
    Quite honestly, I have said this out loud a couple of 
times, last year when the Ukrainians were fighting in 
Severodonetsk and Lysychansk, it is along a river--it was in 
the news for a long time--it was very similar to the way that 
this Bakhmut piece is fought where they were fighting for every 
inch. But they were in a retrograde, and they were backing up.
    And I mentioned that I think we will, in our academies, at 
our schools, I think we will study a bunch of Ukrainian tactics 
implemented over the course of this last year. It has taught 
the world a lot of lessons, certainly will teach us some.

                       STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

    Mr. Womack. Last question. Everybody here, my colleagues, 
know I am a big fan of the State Partnership Program, and we 
have been training, helping, and in California, the State 
Partnership Program with Ukraine.
    This may be a question for you, Madam Secretary.
    Do we need a State Partnership Program like this in Taiwan 
as we look at the gains that happen as a result of these 
relationships?
    Ms. Wallander. Congressman, I share your admiration for 
State Partnership Programs. I will take that question back to 
my colleagues who are responsible for working with Taiwan. It 
is a great idea. I don't know if it has been considered.
    But, clearly, the Ukrainian Armed Forces really did 
benefit, and we benefited. We got to know them really well 
because of the great work that the California National Guard 
did with Ukraine all those years.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    Yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you for recognizing California.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                      U.S. STOCKPILE REPLENISHMENT

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I appreciate my colleague from Arkansas noting the 
partnership in California. So I will skip that question.
    And, obviously, thankful to the Ukrainian people for their 
fight, the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative and the 
PDA, obviously, for the sustained and unwavering support, and 
the leadership that President Zelenskyy and President Biden 
have worked with the international community in order to 
further assistance deliveries.
    My question is about drawdowns and depleted stocks, and I 
would like both of you to answer. What actions are we taking to 
replenish these stocks? Assistant Secretary, you talked about 
some munitions in your testimony.
    But what is the--given the drawdown authority transfers, 
where are we looking at? What are the concerns that we have in 
the near term with respect to the industrial base and the 
challenges that we have ahead given the drawdowns?
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congressman.
    So let me highlight that, first, before we even have to 
worry about replenishing, any decision about providing a 
capability to Ukraine looks first, after the assessment of what 
is required, at what the implications for providing that 
capability from our stocks would be on our readiness. And there 
is a process of assessing whether a drawdown in a particular 
capability, whether that is ammunition, artillery, counter-UAS, 
radars, all across the capabilities, whether the reduction 
would implicate in a negative way any readiness concerns.
    And the services, all the services, play a role in every 
decision. So that is baked into our decisions about what to 
procure or drawdown for the Ukrainians.
    Secondly, your funding for PDA includes replenishment, so 
that is built in as part of the process as soon as there is a 
decision to drawdown from existing stocks to begin the process 
of working on replenishment. So it is not a sequential, it is a 
parallel process.
    And the third is, again, in large measure because of 
Congress' provision of more flexibility in procurement, we have 
been able, we, my colleagues in acquisition and sustainment 
have been able to work with industry to look at how to ramp up 
production capacity and timelines. And part of that has been 
being able to procure over multiple years, so that companies, 
we are seeing the effects of them being willing to invest in 
supply chains.
    So, for example, 155-millimeter production, which was at 
about 14,000 a month, is now already up to 15,000 a month, 
which I know doesn't sound too exciting. But by the end of the 
year, it should be up over 20,000 a month because of the 
investments that have been made, with a few years down the road 
the goal is 85,000 a month.
    So it really does make a difference that we have that 
timing horizon so that we can work with industry and they know 
that their investments will pay off with longer-term 
acquisition.
    Mr. Aguilar. General.
    General Sims. Sir, the first time I went to the Pentagon 
the North Koreans were shooting missile after missile and there 
was this view that something might happen on the peninsula. 
This is 6 years ago. And I was on the Army staff working for 
General Milley as the chief at the time.
    And the reading, the book that was essentially mandatory 
reading was a book called, I think it was ``Freedom's Forge.'' 
And essentially what it did was talk about the fact that our 
success in World War II was not because we started when we did 
but because we started years before that, and people like 
Kaiser working concrete and getting into shipbuilding from how 
we were doing our aircraft and tanks with assembly lines.
    I mentioned earlier that I think we in the military have 
learned a lot of lessons that will be beneficial to us in the 
future. I would like to think that as a country we are learning 
many of the same lessons.
    So as it relates to the defense industrial base--and this 
is out of my--this is not my bailiwick--but as it relates to 
the defense industrial base, that some of the things we are 
seeing now will prepare us in the future should--and I don't 
think we are going to get there, sir--but should they be 
necessary, we have those type of equipment and ammunition 
available to us. I am not sure we would have seen that had we 
not been trying to help Ukraine the way we are now.

                      MAINTENANCE AND SUSTAINMENT

    Mr. Aguilar. General, what can you tell me about the 
maintenance and sustainment of the Ukrainian forces in the kind 
of 2- to 5-year window, especially when it comes to industrial 
base and drawdowns?
    General Sims. Crazy wild.
    Mr. Aguilar. Is that an official military term?
    General Sims. Probably not, probably not.
    You know, sir, this is crazy. If you told me I was going to 
command a battalion, and in that battalion I would have had 
Bradley fighting vehicles, I would have Swedish CV90s, I would 
have artillery systems from Italy, I would tell you--my first 
question would be, ``How am I going to sustain that?''
    So we asked that same question. In fact, Secretary Austin 
and the Chairman are very concerned with the ability to sustain 
the force that the Ukrainians are being provided.
    What we have learned over the last year is that where there 
is a will, there are is a way. I will give you an example, and 
I don't think this is classified. I hope it is not.
    So last year in Poland, when the 777s were being handed 
off, there was a warrant officer 2, chief warrant officer 2, 
maintenance officer, and she mentioned to the Ukrainian that 
was leaving with an N777, she said, ``Hey, if you have any 
problems with it, call me.''
    Well, that has created this network of communications that 
is allowing the Ukrainians to sustain a number of their systems 
now. And it is really something. And I would encourage you, if 
you get a chance, to go forward to Poland and see that in 
person. It is pretty inspiring.
    And it is not just in Poland. That is the other piece. It 
is all over different places because of their ability to 
connect.
    I think if you apply that level of ingenuity and that level 
of effort against a problem, I think what we will see is that 
over time we will find wrinkles. We are going to find areas 
where when you don't have a common set of equipment, it becomes 
more difficult. But I think we will find where people overcome 
that with ingenuity and creativity, and then we are able to 
supplant that with some basic systems that may be more helpful 
in the long term.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, General.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know this is your first hearing 
in this forum. Congratulations. And look forward to working 
with you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Aguilar. Appreciate 
that.

                           MUNITION INVENTORY

    The next question is going to be with Mr. Stewart, then Mr. 
Cuellar, and then we will end with Mr. Garcia. We may have some 
time to do a second quick round.
    By the way, maybe for the committee's sake, if we can find 
out--I know we have expended a lot of 155 rounds, and you 
mentioned the level of production. I would like to know if our 
allies, for instance the South Koreans, have a significant 
inventory of 155 rounds. Are those compatible with our----
    General Sims. They are, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. Are they sending any of that over?
    General Sims. Sir, they are----
    Ms. Wallander. We are working on it.
    General Sims. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. On the short term, that would be helpful. For 
instance, I know that the inventory on Stingers is pretty low, 
but the Brits have the Starstreak Program, but I don't know if 
they are buying those up or not, because I know that production 
line is still hot. So I just bring that up, and if you could 
let me know, that would be great.
    General Sims. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Stewart.

                            U.S. OBJECTIVES

    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to the briefers, thank you both for being here, thanks 
to the many years of service to your country.
    I am going to express a view here that I may be in the 
minority, but I feel compelled to do it, for both of you, as 
well for others. And it is nothing radical, by the way. I am 
not going to rock the world with this.
    But I want you to know I am a defense hawk. I always have 
been. You see Air Force wings on my chest. These are my 
father's Air Force wings. He was a pilot in World War II. Five 
of my brothers served in the military. I did as well, 14 years 
in the Air Force. And I don't know how many nieces and nephews 
now have served and are currently serving, and some of them are 
currently deployed. And I am very proud of that.
    But there is a tone to this briefing and this--not really 
the briefing, but this situation we find ourselves that is 
distressing to me. And I think it is probably--or should be 
distressing to all of us in some ways, including some of your 
comments which I will address, and some of my colleagues as 
well, I think we share this.
    I want you to know as well I have always supported the 
appropriations for Ukraine. Mr. Garcia and I both sit on the 
Intelligence Committee. We saw this coming, and it was a 
remarkable work of intelligence that warned us of this. And it 
turned out the Ukrainians' willingness to fight changes things 
on the battlefield, and it is hard for us to measure this.
    But I need you to know so that you can take this to the 
administration and to other war planners, there is a growing 
concern in Congress about where this ends and how it ends.
    And, for example, Madam Secretary, when the President says, 
``We will support them for as long as it takes,'' my question 
is, as long as it takes to do what?
    Or, General, you have said that you want to go back to the 
Ukrainians and tell them, ``We will see this through.'' I would 
ask you, what does that mean, ``see this through''? Because I 
am afraid that our goals and Mr. Zelenskyy's goals may not be 
aligned. When he says, ``We will expel every Russian from 
eastern Ukraine and from Crimea,'' that simply may not be 
possible, not without broadening and expanding this war in a 
way that I think the American people would not support.
    And I think we have got to define this. What does it mean 
to see this through? What does it mean to say we will be here 
until the end?
    And the American people deserve an answer to that question. 
And, for heaven's sakes, if we haven't learned anything in the 
last 20 years, surely we can look at this situation and say: 
Can we apply some of the lessons there? Because for those who 
think we can predict and manage conflicts, whether it escalates 
quickly or slowly, we have surely shown that that is harder 
than we think, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan and Somalia 
and Libya and a number of others.
    And I would ask that question. What do you mean by--Madam 
Secretary, if you could answer for the President or the 
administration, what does he mean when he says, ``We will stay 
there for as long as it takes''? To do what?
    Ms. Wallander. Well, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I 
think that is right. That is a responsible approach. It is a 
very responsible question.
    The President has stated that his goals for this horrible 
war, the conflict, is that it is a strategic failure for 
Russia; that we have a Ukraine that is secure within its 
internationally recognized borders; that the NATO alliance 
stands firm; and actually I am listing it fourth, but it is 
number one, is that the American homeland is safe and secure 
and not struck by Russia.
    Within that, you are right, there are multiple ways to 
define that, and I don't have a clearer answer for you than 
that.
    Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate that.
    Ms. Wallander. But I will take that question back that you 
asked.

               EUROPEAN COMMITMENT TO SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    Mr. Stewart. And I didn't expect that you would. It would 
have been impossible for you to, frankly, for a number of 
reasons. But I do think we have to define that.
    And if I could in the concluding minute that we have, 
again, Madam Secretary, we talked with--Mr. Case, for example, 
brought up there is a disparity right now in the funding, which 
I think indicates a lack or a discrepancy in the sense of 
urgency about this.
    And for heaven's sakes, we think the numbers are something 
like $33 billion U.S. direct military aid, $19 billion to EU. 
Those numbers are fungible, as you know, and you can include a 
lot of other things.
    I think it is actually, the gap is actually much bigger 
than that, those numbers illustrate. But they should be 
entirely reversed. This is Europe's backyard. Europe should be 
the ones leading on this. And, once again, we find ourselves 
having to lead and when we should have--I think they should 
have.
    And so if you want a tool to try to persuade them, as I 
know you have tried to persuade them, as you indicated, tell 
them that there is caution in Congress for leading out on this 
in perpetuity without a sense that they are equally yoked with 
us on this. Maybe they are not ahead of us, but they should be 
equally yoked at least.
    And I think many of us wonder, well, how much more money 
are we going to give them while the EU is lagging behind?
    And my time is gone. I wish we could continue. But, again, 
thank you both, and I hope you understand my concerns that we 
have, while at the same time we are trying to support your 
efforts.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Cuellar.

                           ALL-DOMAIN WARFARE

    Mr. Cuellar.  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
    I want to thank both of you all.
    Every conflict we should always get lessons learned. Let me 
go over a couple of them and see what you think, and you can 
add on to those. And I want to talk about new concepts and new 
doctrines also from this war.
    I hope the U.S. military has learned several lessons from 
this fight, this war with Russia. One is the importance of 
hybrid warfare. I think it has demonstrated, this conflict has 
demonstrated the effectiveness of hybrid warfare tactics, 
combined with conventional military tactics, with 
unconventional tools like cyber attacks, propaganda, 
misinformation--or should I say disinformation campaigns, 
number one.
    Number 2, the need for better intelligence. I think this 
conflict highlighted the importance of having timely and 
accurate intelligence in responding to a crisis.
    Number 3--and I think this has been brought up by the 
members--the value of training and equipment.
    Number 4, the importance of partnerships. I feel also like 
Mr. Stewart. Sometimes I feel that Europe should be doing a 
little bit more since it is in their own backyard. But the 
importance of partnerships have shown--has been good, I think 
this collective defense capabilities, especially getting NATO 
countries to do a little bit more.
    On the new concepts and doctrines, I am referring more to 
the hybrid warfare. Could you elaborate a little bit more on 
the joint concept for integrated campaigning and the multi-
domain operations concept?
    General Sims. Yes, sir. First of all, thanks for the 
question.
    The J7 will be proud of me when I get back and talk to him. 
He spends a lot of time talking about that on the Joint Staff.
    So over the last, I would say, probably 4 to 5 years in 
particular, sir, we in the military have concentrated on all-
domain warfare, as you mentioned. The view that, particularly 
if you look at how the fight is occurring now, that even just 
the incorporation of air, as an example, would not necessarily 
change the state of play on the ground. You know, once you get 
air defense that is capable of standoff to prevent the air, now 
you have negated that, and you end up with this point to point.
    And so, as you mentioned, we are looking at cyber. We are 
looking at space. We are spending, as you all know as well as I 
do, an inordinate amount of time looking at ways that we 
increase our space capabilities. Those space capabilities, 
again, in a classified forum we certainly could talk a little 
bit more about that.
    But we are learning all sorts of lessons across those 
domains, as I was mentioning earlier, that I know will help us 
as we go forward.
    One comment I would make, and just to go back to 
Congressman Stewart's point--and, certainly, I am not going to 
justify spending levels for any of our partners. I absolutely 
understand the burden-sharing conversation.
    There are some things--and we had, in the House Armed 
Services Committee, a session where we talked a bit about this. 
There are some things that don't--that aren't monetized that I 
think our partners probably don't get credit for. There are 
things, there is skin in the game in places in which they are 
doing things that we just can't do based on a number of 
factors, and they probably aren't getting the credit for that.
    But I absolutely understand what you are saying, sir, and 
certainly back to you, Congressman.

                     OUTCOMES OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Cuellar. Real quickly. When you look at war strategy, 
the end game, to follow up on what Mr. Stewart said, the end 
game is very important. Either you have a very defined military 
strategy, knowing what you want to do, or you just keep going 
and keep going until something happens.
    I hope one of the lessons, when we look at Vietnam, for 
example, conventional warfare compared to guerilla warfare and 
different strategies and bringing in the populations and all of 
that. Any thought about the end game? And this might be above 
all of our pay scales. Any thought about the end game or 
lessons learned?
    General Sims. Sure. If any of my classmates at school hear 
that I am about to talk about Clausewitz, they are going to 
call foul.
    Mr. Cuellar. There you go. You can talk about Clausewitz. I 
would like to second that right now.
    General Sims. Sir, I think the big piece of this is what is 
the center of gravity for both sides here. And you could----
    Mr. Cuellar. What is the center of gravity for Russia? What 
is the center of gravity for the Ukrainians? I think that is 
the key.
    General Sims. Yes, sir. That is a really important point.
    I think--and I don't mean to go over here, sir--but I think 
the Russian population has a huge impact to what goes on in 
Russian.
    Now, that said, I am not sure that Mr. Putin cares much 
about the Russian population. And his ability, back to all-
domain warfare, to kind of work the information environment 
allows him greater flexibility with his population than we 
would certainly have with ours based on how transparent we try 
to be inside our country.
    And I am happy to talk offline as well, sir.
    Mr. Cuellar. All right. I am over my time.
    General Sims. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Garcia.

                        BATTLEFIELD REQUIREMENTS

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you to the witnesses for the testimony and the 
data. Appreciate it.
    I just want to touch on a few things and maybe end with a 
couple quick questions. But I do think we have gotten the ROI 
out of the first year. After one year the nation of Ukraine 
exists. The Ukrainian leadership and government are intact. I 
think Putin has been knocked down a few rungs. Whether that is 
internationally or domestically, we can have that discussion 
elsewhere.
    I think we have compelled Xi Jinping to maybe delay 
aspirations for annexing Taiwan in a similar fashion as a 
result of what he has witnessed coming out of Europe now with 
this.
    And so while I think we were reactive in the beginning and 
maybe slow to act, especially on the sanction side earlier on 
before the invasion, and we do have inefficiencies in this, and 
we are hopefully trying to realize that, we traded those things 
for speed in this first year to get arms and humanitarian aid 
to the Ukrainians who are fighting a defense of castle mission. 
I think that was a noble fight.
    My concern is moving forward, to echo Mr. Stewart's 
comments earlier, clarity over the next year is very valuable, 
not just for this body, but for the people that we represent, 
the American taxpayers. There is no Weinberger Doctrine. There 
is a Weinberger Doctrine for committing troops, but there is no 
Weinberger Doctrine for exit criteria, entering criteria for 
committing American taxpayer dollars in the form of weapons.
    And I always tell my constituents those Stinger missiles 
were meant for those Hind helicopters. Those Javelins were 
meant for those T-72 Russian tanks. They were going to turn 
into pumpkins and expire on the shelf in the next year or so. 
And so we had an opportunity to match those weapons to their 
targets without putting an American in harm's way. That is a 
win for us. And because of all the things I outlined before, I 
was willing to tolerate that.
    But when I start hearing Ukrainians talk about F-16s and 
coming here and lobbying us directly for F-16s, and when I 
start hearing Members of Congress and even in the 
administration talking about F-16s, there is no doubt that an 
F-16 would have ended the Battle of Gettysburg on day one with 
a couple of well-placed Paveways. But it is not going to change 
the fight in Ukraine, not with the integrated air defense 
systems and the S-400 systems that these guys are flying under. 
We know that is not going to happen.
    So my question is, is there a meaningful conversation where 
rather than just listening to what the Ukrainians are asking 
for, you are actually having a tactical and strategic dialogue 
with them and asking them what are they trying to achieve and 
then matching up a weapon system to it? I fear that we are 
being distracted by the silliness of asking for F-16s for 
things like this. In the meantime, we are not talking about 
counter-UAS capabilities, high-energy laser capabilities.
    And so that is question one. What is that too great of a 
defense that you were talking about, General? What is that 
system that actually is going to hopefully change the dynamic 
on the battlefield?
    Because what worries me is, if our message is we are 
staying in this until we win or whenever Ukraine is successful, 
China is going to scale in in support of Russia just as equally 
or more, and they can make it rain longer than we can tread 
water when it comes to support of Russia relative to our 
support of Ukraine.
    This is coming at a detriment of our ability to not only 
secure our own Nation's security, but also support of Taiwan, 
Southeast Asia, and the like, against the bigger bear in the 
form of China.
    So that is another consideration. I think we have to do a 
better job of messaging on this long term, especially the next 
year, next 2 years. Is this a 5-year problem? Is this a 10-year 
problem? I am sitting here in Approps. I sit on Intel. And I 
don't know if this is a 1-year problem, a 6-month problem, or a 
10-year problem. And it is tough for the American people to get 
behind something like that without definitive sell-off 
criteria.
    I would also suggest that, Madam Secretary, in your 
discussions with them, I know they are struggling, but the 
symbolic nature of opening up a formal FMS case and actually 
procuring weapons rather than asking for free weapons I think 
would go a long way with the American taxpayer. I know they are 
strained, I know they are trying to keep their arsenals intact, 
but that may be beneficial.
    So with that, I will yield back. But I think the question 
is, are there meaningful dialogues that get us to the right 
systems that will actually change the dynamic on the 
battlefield rather than just a prolonged, stagnant war on the 
ground, which is effectively World War II, Korea wars type 
infantry?
    And ``Go Navy'', General.
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congressman. Those are all great 
questions.
    And I will just say that--just touch on that and leave it 
to General Sims.
    You are exactly right that we have tried to focus SAG-U, 
EUCOM, Joint Staff has tried to focus Ukrainian discussions on 
what kinds of effects and what kinds of capabilities do they 
need, not what weapons platform, and that we have not, in fact, 
provided them with every weapons platform that has popped up.
    Mr. Garcia. Are they receptive to that when you have those 
conversations----
    Ms. Wallander. Yes, they have been.
    Mr. Garcia [continuing]. Or do they just look at you, like, 
and push back? Yeah. Okay.
    Ms. Wallander. It takes a little bit of relationship 
management, but yes. And I think that the credibility that the 
U.S. military has now goes a long way towards them accepting 
sort of the advice and the perspective. But just on--so there 
is that track record.
    The detriment, to our concerns about Asia, as I said, we 
are talking about global readiness levels.
    Mr. Garcia. Right.
    Ms. Wallander. So these decisions are made absolutely 
keeping in mind plans in Asia, not just plans in Europe.
    Mr. Garcia. They do detriment our ability on the global 
stage though.
    Ms. Wallander. Not to below acceptable readiness concerns 
at this point. And that is a constraint and sometimes that is a 
conversation we have to have with the Ukrainians as well.
    And just, finally, on FMS, the Ukrainians actually have 
done procurement themselves. They haven't done any big figure 
procurement from American companies. They don't have that scale 
of capability in their budget right now. But they have gone out 
and purchased some of their own capabilities.
    But it is a very good point, that we need to also 
transition them to start their own defense spending planning, 
as well as everything else we will do to support them.
    General Sims. Sir, the SAG-U we were talking about earlier 
was designed specifically to continue to kind of build these 
load-bearing relationships with our Ukrainian partners.
    So at the onset of hostilities last year, there were a 
number of relationships that had been created already, but, 
quite honestly, nothing in comparison to what we have right 
now.
    As recently as yesterday morning, General Milley had an 
extensive conversation with General Zaluzhnyy, who he talks to 
at times multiple times a week. And that engagement--Secretary 
Austin has the same with his counterpart--but it is replicated 
down the chain of command to the point where we have leaders 
who are dialoguing with Ukrainians in real time.
    So many of the reports that we get are coming from 
Ukrainian leaders who have come back either for training or for 
other events who we have now connected with who are providing a 
bunch of information to us.
    We talk about train, advise, assist, accompany, enable are 
kind of the advise and assist tenets. The only one of those 
that we are not doing right now is accompany. That is the only 
thing we aren't doing. But we are finding that our ability to 
do that kind of advising remotely is actually very, very 
possible.
    And then back to some of those--the skin in the game from 
others. There are other partners who are a forwarding country 
who we have a very close relationship with, and we are able to 
use those relationships to kind of increase our ability to 
advise with the Ukrainians.
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                        CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
having this really important committee.
    I think it is important that what Mr. Stewart said is 
understood it is not just from him. And I also have always been 
supportive. I am exceedingly supportive of making sure that 
Putin is defeated. But I think it is important that people 
understand that the American people need to understand what we 
are doing.
    And oversight is a huge priority, obviously, of this 
Congress. But it is not just defense funding. But a significant 
amount has been provided through the State and Foreign 
Operations bill, which is the subcommittee that I chair.
    I asked Secretary Blinken in a phone call to brief the 
subcommittee on oversight efforts, but he was not able to make 
himself available, not even for a private meeting, by the way, 
with the members of the subcommittee, which I think, frankly, 
is just a real wasted opportunity for the cause, for the 
administration, and for the country, because accountability and 
oversight is hugely important and transparency for the American 
people as much as possible. And I think the administration, 
frankly, is just missing that, has just totally blown it in 
that effort.

                     JUSTIFYING SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    I have two questions. One is--questions, quasi-comments. A 
lot of time was spent on our defense industrial base. The 
President's budget has not come out yet, but I am hoping, 
because one of the things that Congress has done--it has been 
real bipartisan--is, frankly, we have had to step up way above 
and beyond what the President has requested for our national 
defense.
    And I am hoping those days are over. I am hoping the 
President understands that this concept of just kind of totally 
grotesquely and grossly underfunding our defense and hoping 
that Congress will bail them out, those days have to be over. 
And we have seen the effects of underfunding to our industrial 
base.
    So, again, it is not really a question. It is a comment. 
And, again, I know that we may be beyond that because I am sure 
that budget is already done. But I just think it is important 
for us to get serious about this very important issue.
    And this is a question or potentially a comment and a 
question. It is hard for me, who is a defense hawk and I 
support the efforts of Ukraine, to go back to the American 
people and say we want you to put your hard-earned money, and 
yet they see that we don't, frankly, take it as seriously as we 
should.
    Why do I mention that? Because the strongest allies of 
Russia--let me just give you an example. Recently, Venezuela 
was given unilateral concessions by this administration. And 
yet here is a regime that is pro-Russia, that recently has met 
with the Russians. And what is the attitude of the United 
States? Unilateral concessions.
    So how serious are we? Seriously.
    This week, folks--you are going to love this--the 
administration has invited the Cubans to tour our seaports. 
This is a state sponsor of terrorism, who, by the way, is 
advocating for Russia. And yet, obviously, it is not that 
important because we are going to have them tour our seaports.
    So if we are going to be serious about this and it is going 
to be an all-in effort, it has to start from the top, and it 
has to start from the administration.
    And so I would just encourage you on the budget--again, it 
is probably late for that--making sure that we take our defense 
and our partners' defense, and that includes, obviously, 
Ukraine, but also Taiwan and others seriously. And that may be 
too late for that.
    But on this other issue of, in essence, on one hand saying 
that this is a huge priority and asking the taxpayer to foot 
the bill and on the other hand playing footsies with all the 
allies of Russia, including in this hemisphere, with all due 
respect, folks, that doesn't pass the straight-face test. And 
we are the ones who have to go to the American people, because 
I support helping Ukraine, and convince them that we are 
serious about this.
    So how can you--by the way, how can we justify that? In 
other words, explain to me how an ally of Russia that is a 
state sponsor of terrorism is now invited to tour our ports and 
the security in our ports. And yet we are supposed to tell the 
American people that we are serious? How do I do that? 
Seriously, how do I do that? And that is my question.
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congressman.
    I will have to take the specific instances that you raised 
for the record since I am--I am not dodging--I am not 
responsible for those countries.
    I will say that you have put your finger on a very 
important point, which is part of Russia being a strategic 
failure and part of the process of Putin learning that this was 
a bad idea is exactly not finding workarounds.
    We have focused on Iran. It is the reason for the 
presentation we provided you with. And we are now focusing on 
making sure the world knows also there is a concern with China 
possibly giving Russia a rescue option.
    But I absolutely agree with you that the more we can 
squeeze the Russian leadership and isolate it, the faster this 
will end.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And its allies, right, and its allies, and 
those who either help them or who supplant whatever it may be.
    And there we are also--again, this is coming from somebody 
who wants to be supportive. But I will tell you, the folks I 
represent look and they tell me you are doing this, but at the 
same time we are basically giving concessions to Russia's 
allies, we are not that serious.
    And so there is skepticism out there. And so we need your 
help to be able to speak to the American people in a way that 
is clear. And I will tell you, I think there the administration 
has failed.
    So I would ask for your help in making sure that if we are 
serious about this, then let's be serious about it. Let's 
explain it to the American people and let's show them that we 
are real and that we are not going to just play games. And 
right now I don't think that that message has been relayed 
adequately by the administration.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    By the way, for the record, two Iranian warships are 
visiting Brazil, and that is not a good thing to happen.
    With that, Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized.

                          RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Apologize I 
had to leave. I had three appropriation meetings concurrently 
scheduled.
    So I wanted to thank Dr. Wallander and General Sims. Thank 
you so very much for being here today.
    I co-chair a 90-member bipartisan Ukraine Caucus, and we 
have been hard fast at working toward victory for Ukraine, and 
also as a member of this very distinguished subcommittee.
    I have two questions, one dealing with some assessments 
that you might have, and, number two, hardware.
    Over the last year, what assessments can you share on 
Russia's changing capabilities and vulnerabilities?
    And then, secondly, in terms of hardware, could you share 
with us how F-16s could or should aid Ukraine's cause? And how 
do you make decisions on where pilots are trained on F-16s?
    And then on M1A1 or M1A2 tanks, which are made in Lima, 
Ohio--and, by the way, we fought a battle in this committee 
years ago--I think Ken and maybe Betty was here at the time--
there would never be another land war. We would never need any 
tanks. And we had to win a vote. And now we have them, and they 
are even better than they used to be.
    So I will never forget that bizarre moment in American 
history.
    But, anyway, do you have any timeline accurate on M1A2 or 
M1A1s on their delivery time?
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congresswoman Kaptur.
    And I have had the pleasure and honor on several occasions 
of briefing the Ukraine Caucus, and it is just wonderful to see 
you again. Thank you for all you have done all these years in 
keeping the focus on Ukraine.
    On Russia's capabilities and vulnerabilities, I won't go 
into the military space. I will make just a political, 
economic, and diplomatic point, which is that Russia's economy 
is in trouble. The Russian people, unfortunately, seem to be 
able to endure a whole lot of pain without rising up and 
pushing back against their leadership. So we shouldn't be naive 
to think that the Russian leadership will change anytime soon, 
but they are playing a losing game.
    Russia's future was being integrated, competitive, more 
European, and the Putin leadership has taken them in the other 
direction.
    And so this is about investing in Ukraine for the long run, 
not necessarily militarily, although I have made clear I think 
that is part of it, but investing in Ukraine's future as a 
European country, both politically and economically, as well as 
militarily.
    So Russia's main vulnerabilities are its own leadership and 
the failure of its leadership to make good decisions and sort 
of dealing with the consequences of its actions.
    I will just say on M1A1--on Abrams tanks, we don't have a 
timeline for you, other than what has been floated. I know 
that, as I suggested--maybe you weren't here at the time, Madam 
Congresswoman--but the Department of Army is seeing how we can 
compress the timeline.
    But it is a substantial capability, and substantial 
capabilities take a substantial amount of time to build. So I 
don't have an update for you on those.
    But I will turn over all the capabilities questions to 
General Sims.
    General Sims. Ma'am, I would note that a bunch of the 
capability assessment piece is something that we could probably 
talk about in a classified setting. It would be better to do 
that.
    I would highlight what Secretary Wallander said, however, 
and you are seeing this in all the reporting, open and 
otherwise.
    But the Russians are willing to send people essentially 
into a wood chipper. They are willing to, as opposed to using 
equipment or various techniques, they are willing to use human 
waves in order to absorb ammunition that is employed by the 
Ukrainians, and then follow those individuals up with other 
troops.
    And if you look at Bakhmut as an example, Bakhmut has been 
exactly that, where the Russians, in particular the Wagner 
Group for a while, employing conscripted prisoners who have--or 
contracted prisoners--have essentially pushed people forward. 
And as they absorb the impacts of the Ukrainian defenses, they 
move people behind that to seize the ground that they have 
essentially occupied by dying.
    You wonder how long any country could sustain that. And 
Russia is big, but in the last one, when they did the last 
mobilization, as you saw reported in the news, I want to say it 
was a million Russian men who tried to leave the country or 
left the country.
    If Russians keep coming back in coffins, you wonder how 
long a country is able to sustain that.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.

                            ECONOMIC IMPACT

    I heard an interesting number. Is my time gone?
    Mr. Calvert. You can put in the number.
    Ms. Kaptur. I was given a number the other day. The cost of 
Russia's set of acts on the world's economy totals about $2.8 
trillion, all of the different things that have happened, 
whether it is rising energy prices and businesses collapsing or 
whatever. The total amount of money that the allies and 
supporters of Ukraine have put in there is somewhere above $180 
billion.
    So the cost to the global economy because of Russia's acts, 
you would think some group at the U.N. would recognize that and 
make it more vocal. Just think of what this has caused around 
the world, and all the dislocation, all of the families, all 
the things that have happened, and the down draft on economies 
anywhere, the disruptions in the oil markets.
    And so it is a very big loss to the world versus what we 
have been able to put into Ukraine itself just to try to help 
her have a fair fight, a winning fight.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                      EUROPEAN SECURITY ASSISTANCE

    Mr. Calvert. Maybe real quickly, maybe we can ask a couple 
more questions.
    I have more of a comment. I think that the comments that 
Mr. Stewart has made, Mr. Garcia and others, Mario, are 
consistent that we are concerned that our support for Ukraine 
must be a shared responsibility in that sense of our allies, 
our partners.
    And I am not just picking on Germany. Germany is a 
substantial economy, the largest economy in Europe. And I think 
it is perceived, and I think rightfully so, that they have not 
stepped up to what they should do, especially because if any 
country should understand what the threat is to Europe, 
especially to Eastern Europe, it is Germany, especially since 
half of it was part of the Soviet Union at one time.
    So any encouragement that you can give to Germany and, of 
course, the rest of Europe to defend Ukraine's security and 
give them lethal assistance. I know a lot of countries are 
stepping up to give humanitarian assistance, but it is the 
lethal assistance they need immediately, especially with this 
so-called spring offensive coming up. That is important for us 
to do.

                              ABRAMS TANKS

    One thing too that is a point that we made, when the 
comment is made that it is going to take a year and a half to 
deliver Abrams tanks, that sends a message to the American 
public: Well, how long is this going to last? Because a year 
and a half from now is a substantial amount of time. And I 
found out in this town when people tell you it is a year and a 
half, it is usually longer.
    And I still haven't got a really good response about why we 
can't take the Marine Corps tanks that are being, obviously, no 
longer deployed, recondition those tanks--I know there are some 
things you have got to do to them--and send those to the fight 
much sooner.
    Maybe you can get back to me and explain that to me and to 
the rest of the committee why that can't happen, because it 
seems to me that if there is going to be a fight on this, they 
are going to need them sooner, not later.
    With that, Ms. McCollum.

                   DIPLOMATIC CONSIDERATIONS IN CUBA

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    I have a comment and then maybe just a brief question.
    My comment is to my colleague from Florida. I will talk to 
you later and learn more about what is going on. I said my 
colleague was to you--my comment was to you, my dear friend 
from Florida.
    My understanding, part of the Biden administration's 
engagement is because of the unprecedented, as you well know, 
humanitarian situation on the island, which is--I have been 
there. People are very challenged there.
    But right now to date--this number could even be larger--
78,000 Cubans have been apprehended at the U.S. border with 
Mexico.
    So one of the things that the administration is looking at 
doing is getting a dialogue going and allowing Cuban Americans 
to assist, maybe visit back people in Cuba, and then work to do 
a reinstatement of Cuban Family Reunification Parole Programs.
    So I am not going to engage in a debate on this right now 
on my time, but there are some other things--I think you raised 
a question, I would like to talk to you about it--but there are 
some other things I think that would be beneficial for many 
people in Cuba, and family reunification is something----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Five seconds?
    Ms. McCollum. I am sorry, I am not going to do that because 
you talk fast.

                        HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE

    And I do want to just take a second to ask. So the United 
States has said that we are going to provide assistance, and we 
have talked about that.
    But the other thing that has happened is Putin has also 
said his intent is to protect the people and our historical 
lands and all the things that he is saying about threats coming 
from Neo-Nazi regimes, kind of doubling down on all of this.
    And you pointed out that--and we will do this in a 
classified session maybe with the Intel Committee or with our 
committee--some of the things that--lessons learned, lessons 
that we are learning from some of the equipment that has been 
captured.
    But I am very concerned about what the spring could be 
like. We have seen bits and parts of it in some of the other 
battles that the Ukrainians have endured. And so trench warfare 
could be right around the corner again this spring.
    What kinds of things are we doing to also assist 
humanitarianly the troops? And I know that quite often in war--
I read a lot of history books--doctors just treat soldiers that 
have been injured.
    But what are some of the things--we had some people visit 
our offices, like, asking for ambulances and things like that. 
Can you maybe give us--military ambulances--can you maybe give 
us an update on some of the things that we are doing? Because 
they were driving around in regular cars being shot at trying 
to provide first aid.
    General Sims. Ma'am, that is a really good question. I am 
sorry I don't have an answer for you. But I will follow back up 
and come back to you with exactly that.
    Ms. McCollum. That is perfect. Thank you.
    Ms. Wallander. We have a list of countries that have 
provided medical vehicles, medical training, military medical. 
So we will get that to you, yes.
    Mr. Calvert. And maybe we could do a quick lightning round 
because I have got another meeting in a few minutes.
    So, Mr. Rogers.

                         RUSSIAN GROUND FORCES

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me quickly and briefly touch on the morale, esprit, 
whatever, of the Russian soldiers on the field. I mean, they 
are suffering horrendous losses. I have read, what, 106,000 
casualties, supposedly.
    Have you seen any evidence of a deterioration of their 
attitude?
    General Sims. The short answer is, yes, sir. And if you go 
back as far as last spring and summer, that was a significant 
impact to their fight in Kharkiv and then down in Kherson. In 
fact, the morale in Kherson was allegedly atrocious.
    There was a Russian document that was floating around that 
talked about things they were trying to teach their troops, 
just to give you an example, I think, of the way that they 
think about leadership.
    So in a portion where they were talking about how you 
provide leadership to your soldiers, you essentially--one of 
the comments was, if they are not--if your soldiers aren't 
doing what you tell them to do, the way you want it to be done, 
then take away their weapon and give them a shovel and let them 
fight with a shovel until they determine that they are ready to 
do what they are supposed to do.
    I think that is indicative of much of the leadership that 
we have heard at the junior level. I put myself in that 
position as a platoon leader and company commander trying to 
lead men and think about that. I don't know how an army 
survives like that.
    And then you go back to the waves of individuals. How long 
does an army sustain itself when what you are being told to do 
is essentially walk forward until you are killed or you make it 
to that ridge. I don't know how long you do that, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, the Ukrainians and the Russians have the 
long history together. They are related. They are kinfolk. That 
has got to be a real problem that the Russian leadership has in 
keeping these Russian soldiers motivated.
    Have we seen any defections of Russian troops?
    General Sims. We did, sir. I hesitate to give you numbers 
for fear that I will get that wrong.
    The short answer is yes. There are a number of reports of 
individuals who were attempting to desert who were shot by the 
Russian leaders. Russian leaders have been given permission to 
shoot their own soldiers when their soldiers choose to try to 
leave the battle or not advance when they are told to advance.
    So there are a number of reports of that, yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. It is kind of shades of 
Stalingrad.
    General Sims. Yes, sir. Absolutely.
    Mr. Calvert. A familiar situation.
    Mr. Case.

                          MONETARY COST OF WAR

    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Real quick, because we have just a few 
minutes.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Lightning comment. Budgeting, funding, not 
just necessarily for you, but for those of your folks that are 
listening.
    Please be totally honest with everybody about what this is 
all going to cost. People need to know what this will cost, and 
people need to consider how to fund it. We are under incredible 
pressure, as you know, not only in the defense bill, but across 
government. We have colleagues that are good Representatives of 
their constituents who want to increase, who want to decrease, 
who want to borrow more, who want to borrow less. And we just 
need to know what it is going to take realistically to get 
through, an assumption.
    And I am making an assumption that this--for these 
purposes--that this war is going to continue. You had to make 
that assumption. I mean, we have borrowed a lot of money in the 
last 3 or 4 years. We borrowed most of World War II. That is 
why the last time we were in this kind of fiscal situation in 
this country was 1945. That is the last time we were here.
    So we need to have the facts. The American people need to 
know this is what it is going to cost and this is how we are 
going to pay or borrow it so we can all make those judgments.
    So no answer needed. Just please do that.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Cole.

                     CONCLUSIONS DRAWN FROM THE WAR

    Mr. Cole. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank both our witness for your stamina and your 
patience.
    Two quick questions. And let me sort of reverse the 
question that Chairman Rogers asked. We have talked a lot and 
we all have a lot of grudging respect for just the toughness 
and endurance capacity of the Russians. But, I mean, the people 
who are really ensuring here are the Ukrainians. It is 
exponentially different in terms of what has happened inside 
their country, what has happened to them, what they have gone 
through, as opposed to the Russians.
    So the first question would be, given that level of 
sacrifice, how comfortable are you that they can sustain this 
kind of effort as long as they have the materiel support and 
the training, the types of things we are doing now?
    I am not trying to put a limit on it or find a timeline. I 
am more interested in your assessment of their capacity, which 
has been extraordinary. It is a lot greater than anything any 
of us anticipated and I think anything any of us have seen in a 
very, very, very long time. That is question No. 1.
    Question No. 2. This might go more to you, General Sims. We 
have talked a lot about lessons learned. If you had to give me 
three or four, looking at things, that we look at the world 
differently now as a military because these are the things we 
have seen, what would be your top three or four observations 
as, okay, we thought this, but now we are thinking this because 
of what we have learned through this experience and our support 
for the Ukrainians?
    Ms. Wallander. Thank you, Congressman.
    Ukrainians actually never had a terrible view of Russians. 
I have been going to--the first time I went to Ukraine is over 
30 years ago. But they did have a separate identity. They had 
periods of their history in which they were an independent 
entity of one form or another in Europe.
    So what has happened since 2014 is they have further 
developed that separate identity. And what the Russians have 
managed and what the Kremlin has done since a year ago with the 
horrors in Bucha, in Mariupol, in other places, the horrific 
degradation and disregard for human life, is Ukrainians 
understand they can't live in Ukraine if Russia occupies 
Ukraine.
    And so that, I think, that won't change for this generation 
or generations to come. So they can endure it, too.
    But what we need to do, in my view, in addition to 
supporting them militarily, is we will have to use the time, 
but that there will be not just military assistance, but 
financing, reconstruction, investment.
    They do have a perspective. The EU has said they will be a 
member of the EU. So that can help to build their economy. That 
can be part of what Europe brings to the table to give 
Ukrainians hope and the capacity to have a vibrant, capable 
country.
    So I am quite confident that if we can find ways to 
sustainably and appropriately support them, that they can be 
that European country that is peaceful and secure.
    Mr. Cole. Okay.
    General Sims. Sir, that is a great question. So just 
hastily, I would tell you, I think top three things.
    Number 1, our stuff is really good. I mean, our stuff is 
really, really good. If you doubt that, you look at the impacts 
of the 777, you look at the impacts of the HIMARS. I have no 
doubt the Patriot will prove the same, as will our Bradleys and 
our M1s.
    Our stuff is good. Our stuff is good when it is employed 
the way it was meant to be employed. And I think the training 
that we are engaging in right now with the Ukrainians will set 
them up for success with that kit.
    Number 2, when you have hope and when you are able to 
sustain your will and your morale it is very difficult to 
lose--very difficult to lose. In fact, I would argue the only 
way to lose is to be completely dominated.
    And then, No. 3, and this is the case not just for this 
fight, but I think every fight that we have been around or seen 
or participated in, leadership is the key. And that is 
leadership at every echelon, at the national level, down all 
the way through the operational and the individual level. Good 
leaders provide that will and that hope and create that level 
of morale that allows you to win.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    Yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    We are out of time. I apologize. I have got to be in a 
meeting upstairs.
    But I wanted to point out, though, the relationship between 
Ukraine and Russia obviously had a low point when Mr. Stalin 
was around, and the Ukrainians have a memory of 20 million dead 
Ukrainians during that period.
    So as we look forward to hopefully an end to this conflict 
by giving the Ukrainians what they need, hopefully that we will 
see our allies and others assist us and we can see an end to 
this conflict sooner rather than later.
    With that, we adjourn.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    

                                           Thursday, March 9, 2023.

                              MEMBERS' DAY

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon. Today, the subcommittee will 
hold an open hearing in which all members of the House have 
been invited to testify on their priorities for the fiscal year 
2024 Defense Appropriation Bill.
    As you are aware, the subcommittee receives thousands of 
member requests per year. Obviously, we don't have thousands of 
people here, so that is good. Ranking Member McCollum and I 
take requests from both sides of the aisle very seriously. We 
don't have to remind anyone that China and Russia are growing 
bolder by the day. It is vital that America be the leading 
force against Chinese provocation in the Pacific and the 
Russian aggression against Ukraine.
    I look forward to finding ways we can all work together to 
create efficiencies in the department and invest in 
capabilities for our service members' needs and provide them 
with the quality of life they deserve.
    Without objection, all testimony submitted to members will 
be entered into the record, so ordered. And I recognize the 
distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for her opening 
remarks.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to 
learning about the priorities of the members testifying before 
us today. Sometimes it is local priorities, and sometimes it is 
national priorities which help our servicemen and women do 
their jobs effectively, efficiently, and welcome them when they 
come home. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And first--thank you. And I will 
now begin with the members' testimony. Each member will be 
given 5 minutes to their remarks. When the light turns yellow, 
you have one minute remaining.
    The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized. I suspect 
you know the gentleman here on the dais quite well.
    Mr. McGovern. I do. I thought I was in the wrong committee 
for a minute.
    Mr. Calvert. Small world. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 9, 2023.
HON. JAMES P. MCGOVERN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 
    MASSACHUSETTS

                   Summary Statement of Mr. McGovern

    Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you Chairman Calvert, and Ranking 
Member McCollum, and my chairman, Tom Cole, and Judge Carter. 
Thank you all for giving me the opportunity to talk to you 
about one of my priorities for the fiscal year 2024 Defense 
Appropriations Bill.
    I respectfully ask that the committee provide $16 million 
for the Wounded Warrior Service Dog Program. Since fiscal year 
2015, this committee has led the way in creating and funding 
this program that provides grants to qualified nonprofits to 
offset the cost of training service dogs for our veterans. This 
modest increase will allow the program to deal with 
inflationary costs and other increased expenses and expand to 
new qualified grant applicants.
    Already, we have seen so many incredible success stories in 
which these dogs have helped veterans suffering from post-
traumatic stress or physical limitations to reintegrate into 
the social framework of their families and communities and 
often reduce their reliance on prescription drugs.
    Over the past few years, I have had the opportunity to 
spend time at the National Education for Assistance Dog 
Services or NEADS, located in Princeton, Massachusetts. Like 
similar nonprofits, NEADS customizes each dog's training to 
serve its future owner. Dogs can be trained to retrieve 
medicine from a refrigerator, turn the lights on, and scan an 
empty house before the owner enters, guard an owner's back in a 
public setting, and even wake up an owner from a nightmare.
    So thanks to your support, the Wounded Warrior Service Dog 
Program has allowed these nonprofits to help hundreds of 
additional veterans and service members, yet we continue to see 
increased demand and delays. So rather than relegating those in 
need to a waiting list, let's continue supporting these highly 
technical nonprofits so they can continue to do what they do 
best, help our veterans.
    So, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am happy to hear any 
comments or take any questions that you might have.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                  WOUNDED WARRIOR SERVICE DOG PROGRAM

    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. Yes, 
I have seen this work with many of the veterans that live in my 
Congressional District. As a matter of fact, there is a trainer 
in my Congressional District that does that for these warriors, 
and it has been a wonderful program. So we will certainly give 
it serious consideration.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum, any comments?
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. These are hardworking dogs, and 
they are hard at work keeping our servicemembers welcomed back 
into the community. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. 
And I will make sure that Senator Franken knows that something 
he started working on when he was here is alive and well and in 
good hands with you, Mr. McGovern.
    Mr. McGovern. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Any other comments?
    Mr. Cole.
    Mr. Cole. Since I know we don't have our 302(b)s yet, but I 
know you are going to be taking money from my committee to 
spend here, I would like some of the money you take from me to 
be spent on my good friend, Mr. McGovern's program.
    Mr. Calvert. He is very generous.
    Mr. McGovern. Like I said, he is the best chairman in the 
world.
    Mr. Calvert. What we don't spend on F-35s, we will spend it 
over here.
    Okay. If there is no further comment, I will now recognize 
the gentlelady from Nevada.
                              ----------                              

                                           Thursday, March 9, 2023.
STATEMENT OF HON. SUSIE LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 
    STATE OF NEVADA

                      Summary Statement of Ms. Lee

    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Thank you, Chair Calvert and Ranking 
Member McCollum. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share 
with this committee Southern Nevada's priorities for defense in 
ensuring our Nation's security. I am excited to highlight the 
unique role that Nevada plays in our national defense as we 
make critical funding decisions for 2024.
    As you know, Southern Nevada is home to key defense 
installations and equities, without which our Nation would be 
less safe and the world a more dangerous place. These 
installations include Nellis Air Force Base, home of the U.S. 
Air Force Warfare Center, the Weapons School, the 2.9-million-
acre Nevada Test and Training Range, and numerous subordinate 
wings, groups, and squadrons.
    Nellis is on track to become the Fifth Generation Center of 
Excellence. It holds the future of joint-aerial combat. Taking 
full advantage of the Nevada Testing and Training Ranges, the 
base holds regular Red Flag exercises, which provide the U.S. 
and allied aircrews experience with diverse aircraft in a 
unique, safe training environment.
    Southern Nevada is also home to Creech Air Force Base, 
which hosts 8,000 Air Force personnel and conducts an essential 
mission for our Nation's security. Creech hosts the hunters of 
the 432nd Air Expeditionary Wing, responsible for the global 
Remotely Piloted Aircraft Enterprise, and also executing combat 
operations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
    As Creech's mission continues to expand, I look forward to 
working with the committee to ensure that the needs of its 
mission and personnel are fully met. The Nevada Army and 
International Guard also stands out with their C-130s and their 
impressive capabilities across tactical airlift, medevac, 
transportation, and engineering, a particularly important 
contribution of Nevada Guard's modular airborne firefighting 
mission, and I appreciate the committee's attention to the need 
to replace their legacy fleet of C-130Hs with modern C-130Js.
    Another major contribution of the Nevada Guard is the role 
in the State Partnership Program. In partnership with Samoa, 
the Kingdom of Tonga, and the Republic of Fiji, Nevada 
Guardsmen are doing critical work in building security 
cooperation and productive relationships across the Pacific. 
This element of the National Guard's mission will only increase 
in importance as the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command continues to 
navigate a difficult security landscape.
    While the committee should keep Nevada's equipment and 
training needs top of mind, we also must make sure we are 
supporting the personnel behind these critical missions. 
Affordable housing, access to childcare and Medicare, these 
need to be regarded as top priorities this fiscal year. This is 
a question of U.S. military readiness.
    For example, junior enlisted airmen living in Nellis but 
working at Creech drive 50 miles one way to get to work. That 
is $400 a month in gas, eating up almost 30 percent of their 
basic pay.
    I encourage this committee to look into solutions here like 
hardship pay or a gas stipend to support airmen struggling with 
the elevated cost of living. And childcare has been another 
major stressor for military families in Southern Nevada. Our 
Air Force parents work irregular hours, long commutes away from 
the city, and they lack affordable flexible childcare. The 
waitlists at our child development centers are simply out of 
control with an average wait time of 130 days. Air Force--this 
is Air Force wide.
    The committee must prioritize continued progress in 
supporting families like those at Creech and Nellis by 
improving fee assistance programs and increasing flexibilities 
for at-home childcare options.
    Again, I am proud of Nevada's role in defending our Nation 
and contributing to our global security. Still, in fiscal year 
2024, there is much work to be done to make sure that our 
Silver State servicemembers are provided and set up to succeed. 
I appreciate the subcommittee's attention to the critical 
missions at Nellis, Creech, and by the National Guard, and I 
look forward to a productive appropriations process. Thank you 
for giving me this time, and I yield.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                     NEVADA MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady for her testimony. I 
have been to Nellis and Creech and the various ranges and 
facilities in Nevada, and they are irreplaceable. And the men 
and women who serve there are certainly very valuable to us. We 
want to make sure they have the best quality of life that we 
can afford and the best equipment, of course, and we will work 
to attain that goal.
    And with that, Ms. McCollum.

                         NEVADA NATIONAL GUARD

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Congresswoman Lee. A couple of 
things. Thank you for your testimony. I learn something new 
about States and their home National Guard when I meet members 
and we talk about it. And so, I have noticed that Nevada, which 
I would consider a very landlocked State, has reached out to 
the Pacific. So your guardsmen and women get not only training 
and help train some of our partners, but they also get to 
experience the different culture and a different way of life 
when they do that as well. The firefighting, it is really 
important that that is done there, too.

                        NAVAL AIR STATION FALLON

    I was a little taken aback when I read that the Nevada's 
defense--another gem in Nevada's defense is a naval air 
station, a naval air station in Fallon.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. In Fallon, yes.
    Ms. McCollum. So I am sure the Navy had a good reason for 
locating it in Nevada. It is a training station, so I 
understand how important it is to have the space to do the 
training and that. But that is a piece of trivia I am going to 
keep with me, that you do naval training in Nevada.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum. So thank you for your testimony.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. Thank you. Thank you for the time.
    Mr. Calvert. There is a lot of desert in Nevada.
    Ms. Lee of Nevada. That is right. That is exactly what it 
is.
    Mr. Calvert. All right. Well, before we conclude, I want to 
thank the members, again, for testifying before the 
subcommittee today. Your input is vital as we move forward with 
the fiscal year 2024 appropriations process. We look forward to 
everyone's support as we move this process forward.
    At this time, I recognize our distinguished ranking member, 
Ms. McCollum, for closing remarks.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you for providing this opportunity once 
again for members to come forward and speak to the committee 
about priorities that are important to them. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. That concludes today's hearing. The 
subcommittee stands adjourned.

                                          Thursday, March 23, 2023.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                               WITNESSES

HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
GENERAL MARK A. MILLEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
HON. MICHAEL J. MCCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/CHIEF 
    FINANCIAL OFFICER

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The Defense Subcommittee will come to order.
    Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony from the 
Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense, General Mark 
Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Under 
Secretary Mike McCord, the Department's comptroller and CFO.
    The Department of Defense is requesting $825 billion in the 
subcommittee's jurisdiction. It is a modest increase from 
fiscal year 2023, particularly as we enter the middle of a 
decisive decade for security and prosperity of our Nation and 
the world.
    In many ways, the Biden administration has put the United 
States at a serious disadvantage. First, a short-sighted 
political decision to conduct a hasty withdrawal from 
Afghanistan, resulting in a rapid resumption of power by the 
Taliban, a return of a permissive operating space for al-Qaida, 
a strategic failure of geopolitical competition and, 
ultimately, the tragic loss of 13 U.S. servicemembers at Abbey 
Gate.
    One of the brave Americans lost that day was Lance Corporal 
Kareem Nikoui, my constituent. It should never have happened. I 
am still waiting for a sliver of accountability from this 
President and an answer to when the people who orchestrated 
this attack will be brought to justice.
    This is to say nothing of the thousands of unvetted Afghans 
allowed to depart the country for U.S. and allied soil, some of 
which may be the thousands of terrorists released from the 
prison at Bagram Airfield.
    Secretary Austin, these events have made the world a more 
dangerous place. Moreover, the administration's concept of 
integrated deterrence failed to deter Putin from invading 
Ukraine and waging the largest conflict in Europe since World 
War II.
    It is well-documented that President Biden and his national 
security team knew that Russia would invade months in advance. 
Frankly, there was open source information that foreshadowed 
the invasion. The administration had an opportunity before a 
single shot was fired to rally NATO, arm Ukraine, and make 
clear to Putin and his thugs that Russia aggression toward a 
sovereign Ukraine would come at a tremendous cost to them. But 
the Biden national security team failed to act quickly, and 
today they continue to compound this error by giving Ukraine 
just enough assistance to survive but not enough to win. Even 
today, as Russia and Ukraine prepare for spring offensives, the 
administration has testified that it is not requesting 
additional funding. By our assessment, however, your remaining 
Presidential drawdown authority for security assistance will 
only last another 2 to 3 months.
    I want to be clear. Congress will not be writing blank 
checks. It is important that you communicate future requests 
for funding for Ukraine clearly, thoroughly, and early. 
Congress will need sufficient time to review and ask questions 
on any requests submitted.
    In isolation, the failings I detailed are unconscionable, 
but events do not happen in a vacuum. The administration's 
continued failure to anticipate and implement a coherent 
geopolitical strategy that is now compounded by China's rapid 
modernization and preparations to attempt to reclaim Taiwan in 
this decade. Weakness is provocative, and this administration's 
weakness has emboldened authoritarians around the world.
    Today, China, not the United States, is brokering peace 
negotiations in the Middle East. The U.S. is losing influence 
as the world's partner of choice, and the reason is all too 
clear.
    In terms of our own modernization, too many of our weapon 
systems are delayed due to the status quo, risk-averse mindset, 
the bureaucracy of the procurement process, and the lack of 
consistency for our defense industrial base. By the assessment 
of some senior Defense officials and military leaders, a 
modernized U.S. force in 2030 will arrive too late to deter a 
force reunification of Taiwan by the Chinese Communist Party.
    As General Douglas MacArthur famously said, the history of 
failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late. Too 
late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy, 
too late in realizing the mortal danger, too late in preparing, 
too late in uniting all possible forces of resistance. Two 
words: Too late.
    We must be ready to fight tonight and rapidly modernized to 
maintain the world's greatest fighting force. To pick one over 
the other is a false choice. I do not want to be the chairman 
presiding over World War III. I hope to hear how this budget 
changes China's increasingly aggressive behavior today, not 
tomorrow or in 2030.
    With a budget of over $800 billion, 3.4 million employees 
and a physical presence of over 4,000 sites in 160 countries, 
the Department of Defense is also the world's largest business. 
I expect the Department to implement efficiencies and identify 
cost-saving measures in its business operations.
    Today, the DOD relies on too many antiquated systems that 
cannot talk to each other and too many manual processes. These 
outdated systems and processes lead to unsuccessful financial 
audits, duplication of effort, a frustrated workforce where top 
talent is difficult to retain, an unsustainable trajectory for 
personnel costs.
    And this year, you are requesting 3,500 net more people. 
For what? The same Department that developed sixth-generation 
fighters is running a second-generation IT system, and the 
resulting inefficiencies are eating into the Department's 
ability to invest in the future.
    Regardless of the challenges we face internally and 
externally, I will ensure that our servicemembers and their 
families have the best quality of life we can afford and they 
have the best equipment possible, so if we do get into a fight, 
we win, they lose. That is it.
    Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to 
recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for 
any opening comments.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 
courtesy.
    I would too like to welcome Secretary Austin and General 
Milley and Under Secretary McCord.
    General Milley, this could be your last appearance before 
the subcommittee, so I would like to take this opportunity on 
behalf of the families of Minnesota's Fourth Congressional 
District and myself to thank you and your family for your 43 
years of dedicated service to our Nation.
    For fiscal year 2024, the President has proposed $825.3 
billion within our subcommittee's jurisdiction. That is a 3.2 
percent increase above what was enacted in fiscal year 2023. 
This budget request builds on the work of the last Congress 
that ensured America meets our pacing threats and meets the 
needs of our servicemen and -women and their families. This 
modest increase proposal for fiscal year 2024 is consistent 
with the National Defense Strategy.
    I would like to point out that if we review the growth of 
the defense bill over the past two fiscal years, we see a 
nearly $100 billion increase, or we could call it 11.8 percent. 
Each one of these dollars represents an increased effort to 
defend, deter threats to our Nation, but I would argue that we 
have more than adequately resourced the Department of Defense 
in recent years.
    We must be both realistic and careful about the continuing 
trend of inflation defense spending well beyond this 
administration's request. Congress must be better about making 
the hard choices when it comes to the defense budget. We can no 
longer continue to fund out-of-date legacy systems that are no 
longer relevant, not survivable, or too costly to maintain in 
both dollars and cents, and the personnel required to maintain 
them could be better used in our modernization efforts. 
Instead, we must prioritize the modernization of our force and 
the investments in emerging technologies, like quantum 
computing, artificial intelligence, that will drive decision-
making in the future of modern combat.
    The Appropriations Committee must also remember we are only 
as strong abroad as we are here at home. The previous Congress 
and the Biden administration made 2 years of key investments in 
the American people: transportation, clean energy, healthcare, 
education and workforce development. If we fail to continue 
investing in the American people, then will we not only fail 
the next generation of Americans, but we will be unable to 
capitalize on the investments in our defense budget that 
require a strong American workforce.
    If we want to support the continued investments in our 
shipyards, aerospace industry, our microelectronics industry 
base, we must be sure that we are investing in the inputs and 
support those industrial efforts, and that simply is our 
people. To put it plainly, we cannot afford to fund the defense 
bill on the backs of the 11 other appropriation bills.
    And speaking of here at home, I want to commend Secretary 
Austin and the Department for the recent reproductive 
healthcare policy decision. The Department's policy is legal, 
it is fair, and it will provide our servicewomen and their 
families the healthcare that they are entitled to.
    Turning back to the fiscal year 2024 defense budget, I was 
encouraged to see the increase for climate change efforts. 
Resiliency at our installations is vital to our ability to 
train and to win. As this request works to track industry 
trends and standards, I look forward to hearing how the funds 
will empower our military in the future.
    And finally, you know how concerned I am about your efforts 
in the Arctic and the challenges we face from our adversaries 
there. I look forward to hearing how this budget will support 
the strategies not only in Europe, in the Indo-Pacific, but how 
it will address threats in the Arctic.
    Mr. Chair, I know how deeply impacted you were by the loss 
of your constituent at Abbey Gate, but I have to point out it 
was the Trump administration, not President Biden, that 
negotiated the deal with the Taliban to withdraw the forces, 
our forces from Afghanistan. And I personally believe that if 
President Trump had been reelected, that there was little doubt 
he would have pulled our troops out early in 2021.
    Mr. Chair, I look forward to working with you.
    Once again, I thank Secretary Austin, General Milley, and 
Under Secretary McCord for your service to this country and for 
appearing here today.
    I thank you again for the courtesy, and I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    It is my pleasure now to recognize the chair of the 
committee, Ms. Granger.

                 Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Granger

    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for appearing before us 
today. Every year, senior defense officials testify that the 
world is the most dangerous it has ever been. Unfortunately, 
that trend continues today. Our enemies have become more bold 
and, in many cases, more capable.
    Russia is waging an all-out war against the people of 
Ukraine. China continues to take provocative steps in the 
Pacific and spread its influence around the world. Iran is 
reportedly making significant strides in developing a nuclear 
weapon. And just last week, North Korea tested what they say is 
their largest intercontinental ballistic missile to send a 
message to the United States and our allies.
    The events over the past year emphasize why it is essential 
that Congress provide the funds to ensure we are ready for war. 
However, just putting money toward a problem is not going to be 
enough. The funds must be spent and invested thoroughly.
    We must do everything possible to break through the red 
tape and create a more responsive military. To do that, we need 
to remove the barriers that prevent us from quickly developing 
and implementing cutting-edge technology. We owe it to the men 
and women of our military to give them the tools they need to 
deter our enemies and to enter the fight when necessary.
    Most importantly, we need leadership. As Chairman Calvert 
mentioned, the actions of this administration have put our 
national security at risk, have our allies wondering if they 
can trust us, and have shown weakness in our enemies.
    To close, I thank each of you for your service. We look 
forward to hearing your testimony today.
    And I thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chair Granger.
    Gentlemen, your full testimony will be placed in the 
record. Members of the subcommittee are eager to get to 
questions, so please give a brief summary of your statements.
    Secretary Austin, the floor is yours.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Austin

    Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir.
    Chair Granger, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
distinguished members of the committee, I am glad to be with 
you today to testify in support of the President's budget 
request for fiscal year 2024. I am joined, as always, by 
General Milley, and I remain grateful for his leadership. I am 
also glad to be joined by the Department's comptroller and CFO, 
Mike McCord.
    This is a budget aimed squarely at keeping America secure 
in the world of the 21st century. At $842 billion, it is a 3.2 
percent increase over fiscal year 2023 enacted, and it is 13.4 
percent higher than fiscal year 2022 enacted.
    This is a strategy-driven budget and one driven by the 
seriousness of our strategic competition with the People's 
Republic of China. This budget will help us continue to 
implement our 2022 National Defense Strategy and the 
President's National Security Strategy.
    Now, I have three key priorities at the Pentagon: to defend 
our Nation, to take care of our outstanding people, and to 
succeed through teamwork. And the PRC is our pacing challenge, 
and we are driving hard to meet it.
    Our budget builds on our previous investments to deter 
aggression by increasing our edge. We are investing in a more 
resilient force posture in the Indo-Pacific and increasing the 
scale and scope of our exercises with our partners.
    And this budget includes a 40 percent increase over last 
year's for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and it is an all-
time high of $9.1 billion. Now, that will fund a stronger force 
posture, better defenses for Hawaii and Guam, and deeper 
cooperation with our allies and partners.
    Now, this budget also makes the Department's largest ever 
investments in both R&D and procurement. We are requesting more 
than $61 billion to sustain our air dominance, and that 
includes funding for fighters and the extraordinary B-21 
strategic bomber that I helped unveil last December.
    We are also seeking more than $48 billion in seapower, 
including new construction of nine battle force ships. And we 
are boosting capacity at America's shipyards to build the ships 
that our strategy demands. And we are investing a total of $1.2 
billion in the submarine industrial base, and we are buying two 
Virginia-class attack submarines and one Columbia-class 
ballistic missile submarine.
    On land, we are investing in air and missile defense, and 
we are investing in defenses to counter unmanned aerial 
vehicles. We are also requesting $11 billion to deliver the mix 
of long-range fires that our security demands, including major 
investments in hypersonics.
    We will also continue to modernize all three legs of our 
nuclear triad and bolster our strategic deterrence. And we put 
forward the largest space budget in Pentagon history. We 
requested $33.3 billion to improve our capabilities, our 
resilience, and our command and control in space.
    Now, let me again thank Congress for providing the 
Department with multiyear procurement authorities and 
appropriations for critical munitions. This helped send a 
consistent demand signal to industry. In this budget, we are 
requesting more multiyear procurement authority, and we are 
asking for more than $30 billion to invest in the industrial 
base and to buy the maximum number of munitions that American 
industry can produce. This budget also moves us away from aging 
capabilities that aren't relevant to future conflicts, so we 
can focus on the advances that warfighters will need going 
forward.
    Now, our National Defense Strategy calls out Putin's highly 
aggressive Russia as an acute threat. And under President 
Biden's leadership, the United States has rallied the world to 
help Ukraine fight Russia's unprovoked and indefensible 
invasion. And our allies and partners have stepped up to 
provide crucial security assistance, coordinated through the 
Ukraine Defense Contact Group that I lead. And we will support 
Ukraine's defense for as long as it takes.
    Meanwhile, the Department remains vigilant against other 
persistent threats, including Iran, North Korea, and global 
terrorist groups. And we are investing in over-the-horizon 
counterterrorism capabilities as well. This budget also invests 
in improving our readiness and resilience in the face of 
climate change and other 21st century threats that don't care 
about borders.
    Mr. Chairman, we are going to remain the strongest military 
in the world, and that is because we have the best team in the 
world. And as we mark the 50th anniversary of our All-Volunteer 
Force, I am enormously proud of the brave men and women who 
choose to wear the cloth of our Nation. We owe it to them and 
their families to take the best possible care of all of our 
people.
    And over the past 2 years, we have made moves easier. We 
have cut commissary prices. We have made childcare more 
affordable, and expanded job opportunities for military 
spouses. And this budget funds other key steps to increase the 
quality of life for our teammates, including the largest 
military and civilian pay raises in decades.
    Now, we are also pushing hard to eliminate suicide in our 
ranks, including immediate steps to hire more mental health 
professionals and improve access to mental healthcare. And 
meanwhile, we are working toward a military that is free of 
sexual assault. We have worked with Congress to improve the 
response to sexual assault and related crimes under the Uniform 
Code of Military Justice, and those reforms will be fully 
implemented by the end of this year.
    And the Department is also investing in a specialized 
workforce to combat sexual assault, harassment, suicide and 
more. And on many installations, we are conducting on-site 
evaluations that tell us what is working and where more support 
is urgently needed.
    Now, the Department's third priority is succeeding through 
teamwork. And our network of allies and partners magnifies our 
power and expands our security, and no other country on Earth 
has anything like it. In over the past few months in the Indo-
Pacific, our friends have taken major steps forward. The 
Philippines has agreed to nearly double the number of sites 
where we cooperate together. Japan committed to double its 
defense spending, and we are going to forward station the 12th 
Marine Littoral Regiment, which is one of the most advanced 
formations in the Corps, in Okinawa, so that we can better 
deter conflict in the first island chain.
    We have also made history with the AUKUS partnership. It is 
a generational initiative with our Australian and British 
allies to build game-changing defense advantages that will 
deter aggression and promote a free and open Indo-Pacific and 
boost our defense industrial capability.
    And you can also see the profound power of our alliances in 
today's united NATO. Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, we 
further strengthened NATO's defense and deterrence on its 
eastern flank. And congressional leadership on the European 
Deterrence Initiative and our investments since 2014 helped us 
react quickly and boldly to Russia's cruel war choice and made 
our deterrence even stronger.
    In sum, Mr. Chairman, this is the budget that will meet 
this moment, and I respectfully ask for your support. And the 
single most effective way that this committee can support the 
Department and our outstanding troops is with an on-time full-
year appropriation.
    So I look forward to working with everyone so that we can 
continue to defend our democracy and support the forces of 
freedom in this hour of challenge.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Secretary Austin.
    I now recognize General Milley for his remarks.

                  Summary Statement of General Milley

    General Milley. Chair Granger and Chair Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum and distinguished members of the committee, 
thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. And 
I have been distinctly privileged to defend this country for 43 
consecutive years in uniform. And this will, maybe, be my last 
set of posture hearings.
    I want to thank the Congress up front for your continued 
support to our military not only this year but every year for 
the last four decades. And I am very privileged to represent 
the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, guardians, and families 
of the United States Joint Force, alongside Secretary Austin 
and Mike McCord, who I want to thank personally for their 
leadership.
    Our joint force is the most lethal and capable military in 
the world. Our troops are the best-led, best-equipped, and 
best-trained force anywhere because of your support. So thank 
you for what you have done. And yet again, I ask that you 
support this year's request with an on-time budget approval.
    Our mission, the mission of the uniformed military and our 
purpose is very simple. It is to defend the United States of 
America. And our task is to fight and win in all domains of 
combat. In order to do that, our priorities are simple: 
Maintain high states of readiness while simultaneously 
modernizing for the future operating environment and taking 
care of our people and their families while always sustaining 
our values. Our end state is that America is secure and great 
power war is prevented.
    In order to protect the American people, readiness now and 
readiness in the future through modernization is our number one 
priority, and there is no other number one. The joint force 
will deliver modernization of our Armed Forces and security to 
the people of the United States at the fiscal year 2024 budget 
request of $842 billion. And we will be good stewards of the 
American people's money, trust, and confidence.
    Right now, the international system is under stress. For 
the first time in our Nation's history, the United States is 
facing two major nuclear powers whose vital national security 
interests are in competition with the United States.
    Both the People's Republic of China and Russia have the 
means to threaten our interests and our way of life. But war 
with Russia or China is neither inevitable nor imminent. Great 
power war has not happened in the last 80 years, in large part 
because of the rules put in place at the end of World War II 
and the capabilities of the United States military along with 
our allies and partners. The United States military was able to 
do that because we were and still are the most powerful 
military in the world, and we must remain so if great power 
peace is to continue to hold.
    This budget is driven by our strategy and deters war. This 
budget maintains our capabilities. It maintains our strengths 
and our high levels of readiness now, and it prepares us for 
the future.
    The People's Republic of China remains our number one long-
term geostrategic security challenge, so-called pacing threat 
in our strategy. The PRC intends to be the regional hegemon in 
the Western Pacific and Asia within the next 10 years and 
exceed the United States overall military capability by 2049, 
according to their open source speeches. The People's Republic 
of China's actions are moving it down the path to its 
confrontation and potential conflict with its neighbors and 
possibly the United States. But, again, I say, war with China 
is neither inevitable nor imminent.
    Additionally, Russia is an acute threat and remains very 
dangerous. Over 1 year ago, Russia undertook an illegal and 
unprovoked war against Ukraine, threatening peace on the 
European continent and global stability. We are supporting 
Ukraine in its fight to protect its sovereignty and supporting 
our NATO allies with the United States force presence in every 
single Nation on NATO's eastern flank. This fight is not just 
in Ukraine's interest. It is in the U.S. interest to protect 
the system that has prevented great power war for eight 
decades.
    Additionally, Iran threatens to push the Middle East into 
regional instability by continuing its support to terrorists 
and proxy forces. Also, Iran is taking actions to improve its 
capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon, should it make the 
decision to do so, while continuing to build its missile 
forces.
    From the time of an Iranian decision, as you have heard in 
previous testimony from members of OSD, Iran could produce 
fissile material for a nuclear weapon in less than 2 weeks, and 
it would only take several more months to produce an actual 
nuclear weapon. But the United States remains committed, as a 
matter of policy, that Iran will not have a fielded nuclear 
weapon. And we, the United States military, have developed 
multiple options for our national leadership to consider if or 
when Iran ever decides to develop an actual nuclear weapon.
    North Korea's continued ballistic missile testing and 
nuclear weapons development pose real threats to our homeland 
as well as our allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific. 
Terrorists continue to operate around the globe, threatening 
the United States and our allies and partners. But this budget 
supports both our prevention of war on the Korean Peninsula and 
our continued worldwide counterterrorism efforts.
    In concert with other elements of national power, the 
United States military stands ready to protect our Nation's 
interests and the American people. And right now, today, as we 
sit here, we are currently standing watch on freedom's 
frontier, with nearly a quarter of a million troops, 250,000 
troops in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South 
America.
    The United States never fights alone. A key source of our 
strength to keep the peace and prevail in war is our large 
global network of alliances and partnerships. For example, just 
this month, we conducted 63 operations in joint and combined 
exercises globally with our allies and partners.
    In addition to that, we are currently training over 5,000 
Ukrainian soldiers in neighboring countries. On a weekly basis, 
our Transportation Command is moving a small city's worth of 
logistics to enable our continued global operations. One-third 
of our Navy, a hundred ships is on patrol, ensuring freedom of 
maritime navigation, and our Air Force secures our skies.
    And lastly, our operational readiness rates are higher now 
than they have been in many, many years. Our minimum standard 
is about a third of the force at the highest states of 
readiness. There are 10,330 units in the United States 
military. 4,680 of them are Active Duty. Sixty percent of our 
Active Duty force is at the highest states of readiness right 
now and could deploy to combat in less than 30 days. Ten 
percent could deploy to combat in less than 96 hours. This 
military is ready. We are prepared to fight now, and we will 
continue to be prepared to fight in the future. And this budget 
supports the programs and exercises at the service joint and 
combined levels to keep our military ready to defend the 
Nation.
    Furthermore, the joint force is at an important inflection 
point. We must balance current operations/readiness with future 
modernization. We must not allow ourselves to create the false 
trap that we can either modernize or focus only on today. We 
must do both. We must fully integrate developing technologies, 
including precision long-range fires, hypersonic weapons, 
quantum computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, and the 
pervasive all-domain sensors.
    The time is now. We have very little margin to wait. And 
the common thread critical to accomplish all of this is our 
people. We must continue investing in training, education, 
talent management in order to be prepared for a future 
operating environment.
    Additionally, we must ensure that we have taken care of our 
troops and their families' quality of life. I urge Congress to 
support this budget's significant pay raises, healthcare, 
housing and childcare initiatives. This budget sustains our 
current readiness and adapts the joint force to the future 
warfighting requirements.
    This is a matter of significant national security 
importance, and we must act with clear-eyed urgency. By doing 
so, no adversary should ever underestimate the resolve of our 
Nation and the strength of our military.
    Preparation for war and deterring war is extraordinarily 
expensive, but it is not as expensive as fighting a war. And 
this budget prevents war and prepares us to fight it, if 
necessary.
    Thank you for your support, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                           NAVY SHIPBUILDING

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your comments.
    Secretary Austin, China is building 20 ships a year and has 
a fleet of now over 400 vessels and, as I understand, capable 
vessels. Meanwhile, the Department's budget request proposes to 
decommission 11 ships this year while procuring 9. The request 
will shrink the Navy's fleet to 291 ships by fiscal year 2028, 
despite having a goal of 373 ships.
    Mr. Secretary, how does having fewer ships deter Chinese 
aggression in the Indo-Pacific?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thanks, Chairman. Let me begin by 
saying we have the most powerful and dominant Navy in the 
world, and we will continue to make sure that it remains that 
way. As we look to invest in capabilities, we are looking for 
the right mix of capabilities that can support our warfighting 
concepts and will continue to remain focused on that.
    And as you know, Mr. Chairman, this budget, we are asking 
for $48 billion to invest in effective naval forces. So, from 
our perspective, it is about making sure that we have the right 
capabilities to support our warfighting concepts, and I am 
comfortable that we are moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Calvert. I understand the need for increased 
capability. But, you know, the old saying, you can't catch a 
ball in left field if you only have a guy in right field. So 
numbers do matter. And your budget proposes to decommission 
eight ships before the end of their service life. And ship 
count matters, as I said earlier.
    When are we going to see the Department's 30-year 
shipbuilding plan?
    Secretary Austin. Well, the Navy continues to work on that 
plan. And as soon as they are complete, certainly we will bring 
it forward to Congress.
    Mr. Calvert. We look forward to seeing that.

                         FOREIGN MILITARY SALES

    Last week, I led a congressional delegation of Members to 
Asia. In Taiwan, nearly every single leader we met with 
remarked at the extremely slow pace of U.S. defense articles. 
Unfortunately, this is not a familiar theme, which was 
highlighted last month in our Ukraine hearing.
    Secretary Austin, what are Ukraine and Taiwan's most 
critical defense needs, and what steps are you taking to 
expedite and prioritize the delivery of these items?
    Secretary Austin. Well, two things. First, in terms of FMS, 
we all recognize that there has been--we faced some headwinds 
as a result of 2 years of COVID and pressure on supply chains 
and the inability of industry to really move at the pace that 
they wanted to move at. And I think industry will catch up in 
terms of that backlog.
    But I have put together--I put together a tiger team months 
ago to really dig down into the FMS issues and identify logjams 
and work through those logjams to try to expedite--do 
everything we can to help expedite the delivery of key 
platforms.
    And I have also put together a group of senior leaders in 
the Department to focus on this on a weekly/monthly basis to 
make sure that we are providing the right kinds of capability 
that Taiwan needs. So this remains an area of focus for the 
Department.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum.

                            ALLIED PARTNERS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think the discussion about the number of ships is 
interesting, but as General Milley said, we don't go to war 
alone. So if we include Australia, Canada, NATO, you know, all 
the great powers that we work with, we would have a multiplying 
effect that neither China or Russia has.
    Would that be a fair statement, Secretary Austin or General 
Milley?
    Secretary Austin. That is, in fact, correct, Ranking Member 
McCollum. We will always fight with our allies and partners. 
And, again, the capability that they bring to the table 
magnifies our overall capability. So you could expect that in 
any instance we would be able to draw upon some of their 
capability as well. So we work on a routine basis to make sure 
that we are interoperable and make sure that----

                              PHILIPPINES

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you.
    I would like you to, a little, go into more importance on 
the recent--on February 2, the agreement that you signed with 
the Philippines, whichever one of you gentlemen want to answer 
that.
    President Marcos seems to have made some deliberate 
decisions to align more closely with the United States' 
interests and away from China. Could you kind of tell the 
committee more about this agreement with the Philippines and 
how you see it enhancing our efforts in the region, because I 
think this goes back to the whole question of the multiplying 
effect of having resources that China and Russia do not have, 
and if there are any other nations in Indo-Pac that you see 
wanting to align more closely with the United States--with 
China as these new relationships that you have been working so 
hard, along with State, to foster?
    Secretary Austin. Well, I was, as a matter of fact, out in 
the Philippines and engaged the President on this particular 
issue. And I was really pleased that the President made the 
decision to move forward and increase the number of sites where 
we could work along with the Philippine forces to increase 
interoperability and develop their skills as well. And it is 
actually a benefit to them, as you know.
    So this really is a significant movement forward. I think 
we will continue to build upon this as our airmen and soldiers 
and sailors rotate in and out and work with the Philippine 
military.

                    INDO-PACIFIC STRATEGIC PARTNERS

    So if you take a look around the region--I mentioned AUKUS 
earlier. This is a generational capability. You know, as we 
develop a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine 
capability for Australia, it will help us make sure that we can 
do the right things to continue to deter any adversary that 
would want to threaten or challenge the free and open Indo-
Pacific.
    So if you look at Japan, as I mentioned earlier, Japan has 
doubled its defense spending. It has allowed us to position a 
new element in Japan in Okinawa. If you look at, you know, a 
number of the countries that we have partnerships with or 
alliances with, we continue to work to build and strengthen 
those alliances and partnerships. And so we have moved the ball 
a significant distance down the field here in the last couple 
years. And I really feel good about what we are doing to 
increase access and to strengthen partnerships.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentlemen.
    General Milley. If I could just make a quick comment on 
that.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, if that is allowed.
    Mr. Calvert. General.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you for the courtesy.
    General Milley. Just two points. One is you are correct on 
the allies and partners, Australia, Japan, but there are many 
other countries there as well, to include European countries. 
We have done exercises with the Brits and the French also in 
the Asia-Pacific region. So they are force multipliers.
    Secondly is our sub force, which is rarely talked about, 
and I am not going to talk about it in detail right now, but 
our sub force is incredibly--submarine force--incredibly 
capable and very deadly and extremely lethal. So those two 
pieces I think would make a huge difference and help deter any 
kind of aggression by China.
    The last thing is the Philippines, but the Philippines and 
other countries in that region, they sit astride the key sea 
lines of communication that China relies on for their 
international access to the Middle East oil, et cetera, et 
cetera.
    So those allies and partners of ours are fundamental. And 
us being able to conduct military operations or having access, 
basing, overflight to those countries in time of conflict or 
crisis would be fundamental, and it would give us a decisive 
advantage.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And hopefully we can speed up the 
acquisition of those Virginia-class submarines.
    Ms. Granger.

                                SOUTHCOM

    The Chairwoman. Secretary Austin, our enemies are 
developing stronger ties with nations throughout South America. 
While we need to focus on the growing threats in Europe and the 
Pacific, we can't ignore the threats to the south of us.
    So what particular things are in what you are presenting, 
and what is our support for our partners in SOUTHCOM?
    Secretary Austin. Strengthening our relationships and 
maintaining access in the SOUTHCOM area is a key area of focus 
for us and our SOUTHCOM commander. Our SOUTHCOM commander, as 
you know, General Richardson, is absolutely focused on this and 
active. She is increasing the number of engagements and, where 
possible, exercising with partners.
    And so I see this moving--continuing to move in a positive 
direction. We have some security force assistance elements that 
are working with various countries to strengthen their 
indigenous capability to be able to protect their sovereign 
territory.
    So this is something that we remain focused on. And I 
applaud what General Richardson is doing in terms of continuing 
to develop additional access and to strengthen the 
relationships that already exist.
    The Chairwoman. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairwoman.
    Ms. DeLauro.

                     TOPLINE FEDERAL FUNDING LEVELS

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
welcome our guests this morning, and I thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, Under Secretary, and Mr. McCord, thank you 
very, very much for being here this morning. I apologize for 
being late, but there are six hearings I am going to get to 
between now and the end of the day.
    So let me just--there has been the discussion of the budget 
by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that 
what we ought to do with regard to the 2024 budget is to apply 
the 2022 numbers. And within that, there are a number of folks 
who believe that that may be true for nondefense efforts and 
that we should hold, if you will, defense harmless in that 
effort.
    And I want to just briefly quote Under Secretary McCord in 
a letter that you sent to the Appropriations Committee this 
week. You stated: Should, as some have suggested, the Defense 
Department be exempt from such reductions and the entire burden 
fall on nondefense discretionary agencies, the cuts would be 
just as harmful, even if distributed differently. Our whole-of-
government response to Russia's aggression against Ukraine 
clearly demonstrates the value of integrating security 
assistance, economic assistance, humanitarian assistance, 
sanctions, and export controls. No one agency could achieve the 
effects we are producing as a team and deep cuts to any one of 
the agencies would undermine the effort as a whole.
    For any of the witnesses, could you please outline how the 
nondefense funding affects the Department of Defense and our 
national security? For any of the witnesses.
    Mr. McCord, I quoted you.
    Mr. McCord. Thank you. Yes. Ukraine is probably the most 
vivid example, as said in the letter, of the teamwork that we 
require with export control, sanctions, every kind of tool. And 
this goes across, right, we need an educated workforce, but it 
starts, you know, with the school system. So we have all kinds 
of needs.
    Every time the Department of Homeland Security fails to get 
to a place they need to be to, we get called on to help. So 
there are so many connections of what we need to do. And as I 
think you are aware, I am certainly aware that Chair Granger 
and Chairman Calvert are not advocating deep cuts to defense.
    Ms. DeLauro. I understand that as well.
    Mr. McCord. But then there is the math problem.
    Ms. DeLauro. That is why I said some.
    Mr. McCord. Right. There is the math problem that we all 
understand, right, if you have half the discretionary budget is 
exempt, and that is what we are trying to recognize in our 
response.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. And I am going to look forward to 
your help in this effort.
    Yes, General.
    Secretary Austin. And as Mike has indicated, it is always a 
whole-of-government effort with these complex problem sets that 
we are dealing with. And the old saying that if you cut State 
Department's budget too much, then you need to buy more 
bullets.
    Ms. DeLauro. More ammunition.
    Secretary Austin. Right. Because what we want to do is we 
want to drive things towards greater stability and security 
around the globe. And, of course, you know, the solution to 
every problem is not necessarily a military solution, but we 
need to work together to provide access to other agencies so 
that they can reach the places they need to reach and do the 
things they need to do. But it is typically a whole-of-
government effort, and I think we just need to remain mindful 
of that.
    Thank you.

                            UH-60 BLACK HAWK

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you. If I might, I have, if you will, 
two parochial questions. I appreciate it, and I welcome your 
help as we move forward in terms of crafting the budget for 
2024.
    And as I said, two parochial questions. As we move to the 
future of Army aviation, develop the future long-range assault 
aircraft, the reconnaissance aircraft--and I will be very, very 
brief. The question is related to the Black Hawk, even the 
eventual fielding of a new FLRAA rotary-wing aircraft. I am 
told the Army will be still flying hundreds of UH-60M Black 
Hawks for the next 40 years. Many are flying now.
    What are the DOD's plans to preserve the industrial base 
suppliers and workforce that built the Black Hawk and vital to 
the Army aviation of the future? And I will just add very, very 
quickly, this has to do with the F-35.
    I would like to give you an opportunity, Mr. Secretary, 
that there have been really conflicting statements regarding 
Secretary Kendall's support for the upgrade. If you can just 
tell us, what is the Department of Defense position on whether 
to upgrade the existing F-135 or develop a new engine for the 
F-35?
    Secretary Austin. Thanks. With respect to the F-35, I would 
like to take that question for the record, because, as you 
know, I was on the board of a company that makes that engine.
    Ms. DeLauro. Got you. Okay.
    Secretary Austin. And so I will take that for the record, 
with your permission----
    Ms. DeLauro. That is fine.
    Secretary Austin [continuing]. And get back to you.
    Mr. Calvert. You might want to turn your mikes on too.
    Ms. DeLauro. And with regard to the Black Hawk?
    Secretary Austin. Well, there is no question that your home 
State provides a tremendous capability to----
    Ms. DeLauro. Very proud of it.
    Secretary Austin [continuing]. Our overall defense effort. 
You mention the long-range aviation piece that, as you know, 
that is still a work in progress. That is in dispute. And 
because it is at that stage, I am not able to make any 
comments.
    But, again, I think that will resolve itself going forward. 
And when it does, we will make sure we come and brief you and 
the delegation.
    Ms. DeLauro. I just meant I understand, you know, that 
there is a dispute and there will be a resolve of that, but 
there is also the issue of the continued use of Black Hawk 
helicopters. And will you continue to be using the Black Hawk, 
since many are flying right now, and what will be, you know, 
the future of the Black Hawk?
    Secretary Austin. It is a workhorse, as you know. And so it 
will be around for some time to come. And in the meantime, the 
Army and the other services continue to look for greater 
capability in the future or additional capability in the 
future. And that work, in terms of modernization, will 
continue.
    But the Black Hawk has served us well. I have personally 
benefited from that tremendous aircraft, and I have every 
expectation that it will continue to do so going forward.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    And thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole.

                        DEFENSE SPENDING LEVELS

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, let me join many others and just thank all 
three of you for your service and your professionalism. I have 
had the opportunity to interact with you probably in ways you 
don't even remember in some cases a lot over the course of your 
careers. And I just have always been impressed, again, with the 
professionalism and the absolute dedication all three of you 
have shown to the country. So it is much appreciated.
    And we wish you well, General Milley, in whatever your next 
endeavor is, but you certainly rendered exceptional service to 
our country, so thank you for that.
    I want to thank one other entity while I am chatting here, 
and that is the United States Congress, because as General 
Milley went through the higher state of operational readiness 
we have and some of the things that have been accomplished, it 
struck me that Congress has actually given the Department of 
Defense--and there are some differences even on this panel 
about that--more money than President Trump asked for and more 
money than President Biden has asked for.
    So Congress is, in a sense, responsible for those higher 
rates of readiness, because we have used our judgment to say, 
whatever the President has asked for may all be good, we think 
we need a little bit more. And I think that comes out of some 
of the things that happened with sequester and the Budget 
Control Act during President Obama's era.
    But, anyway, those things have led us to a better position. 
And my hope is we will do that again, quite frankly. I think 
your budget, there are a lot of good things in here. I think it 
needs to be more. You know, 3.2 percent in an era of 6 percent 
inflation is effectively a cut in inflation-adjusted dollars.

                                PALADIN

    There are two areas I want to both ask you about and flag 
for you and for the committee that I will be working on. And it 
is somewhat parochial, but I think it is in the national 
interest.
    The first is disappointed to see, particularly given the 
importance of artillery, as we have seen in the situation in 
Ukraine, to see for the third year in a row the Army has cut 
the PIM, the Paladin Integrated Management program. We managed 
to restore those cuts last year. I think probably, you know, we 
are still furnishing that system to the Active and the National 
Guard, and we are now sending parts, lots of it to our allies 
and to the Ukrainians as well.
    So I will just tell you there is not enough in the Army's 
budget to maintain the production lines that exist there. So I 
would ask you, you know, why the cut? And the answer may be 
that you just have too many other things to do. I get it. Your 
business is tough choices. But I would argue that is a bad 
choice right now, particularly given the situation in Ukraine.
    The second is one that is something that we all want to 
accomplish together, I just worry about the rate of it, and 
that is the transition from the E-3 to E-7 command and control 
platform. I have Tinker Air Force Base in my district. I have 
Fort Sill Army Post in my district. And I am all for 
transitioning from the E-3 to the E-7. It is a good decision, 
should have honestly been done some time ago.
    But the rate of retirement for those E-3s is well ahead of 
the rate of acquisition. And that is partly just a production 
problem. It takes a while to get a new aircraft up and running. 
And I worry about that interim time, because I think we are in 
a very dangerous world here where you are going to lose 
capacity.
    I am not for keeping the E-3s. I just want to bring on E-7s 
as we retire E-3s so that we never put you in the situation 
where you have to deny a combatant commander some capability 
that he or she thinks they need. And those are two I would just 
flag for you and then ask for any response about either of 
those items I mentioned.
    Secretary Austin. Well, first of all, let me thank you and 
the entire Congress for, you know, your incredible support over 
the years. And I absolutely agree with you that we could not be 
who we are and do what we do without the tremendous support--
tremendous congressional support that we are provided 
routinely. So thanks so much for that.
    On the Paladin, we continue to see the importance of 
artillery, you know, in the warfighting. Of course, you have 
seen us really hustle to make sure that Ukrainians have not 
only the weapon systems but the munitions that they need to 
remain effective in this fight.
    The Army feels that the rate that they are being produced 
right now, it meets their needs and it also allows them to 
invest in future capabilities as well. And so as the needs 
change, then the Army, of course, will----
    Mr. Cole. Just to make the point, Mr. Secretary, not to 
interrupt you, it meets your needs because Congress put more of 
them in there than you asked for last time. And we are 
reverting back to the same number.
    And I would just suggest, look, you got a lot of stuff 
across a lot of areas to deal with, and I respect that. You 
have to make a lot of really hard decisions. This one, I think, 
is one that you run the risk of shutting down the line to some 
degree. So, I mean, we intervened the last two times and got 
it. And, again, you got what you need. Maybe we can do that 
again. But I don't think they are being produced at the rate we 
need in your budget. They are being produced at the rate we 
need right now.
    So I interrupted you and I apologize. Went over time. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.

                     REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE SPENDING

    Mr. Russerberg--Ruppersberger, excuse me.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It took a long 
time to get it right, but you did it well. Thank you.
    First thing, I want to acknowledge the leadership of both 
of you. Throughout my years, I have worked with you in Iraq, 
Afghanistan, and you are some of the better leaders that I have 
worked with. And you are doing a great job, and I want to 
acknowledge that.
    I am going to ask two questions, one of each. The first 
thing, I am deeply concerned about--and this is to General 
Milley. I am deeply concerned about efforts to reduce our 
defense top line to previous year's level, especially as China 
increases its own military spending each year. If we don't 
prioritize investing in our national security today, I fear we 
risk a much costlier fight with China down the road, whenever 
that may be, whether it is 2025, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years.
    General Milley, can you please describe the strategic 
advantages we would be handing over to the Chinese Communist 
Party if the 2024 defense budget top line were to return to 
what it was in fiscal year 2022, or if we were to pass the 
budget a year late?
    General Milley. Well, in both cases, we would have to cut a 
significant amount of programs. Congressman Cole just mentioned 
artillery, for example. We know that artillery inflicts 70 
percent of all casualties in warfare. We know that other 
things, shipbuilding, for example, F-35, all these programs are 
going to have to--would have to get cut back, and that is 
unfortunate.
    The other thing that would be cut is readiness. We know 
that if budgets aren't passed on time, you can't do multiyear 
contracts. You can't lock in for industry the amount of 
ammunition, the amount of platforms you need, et cetera.
    And then for training and readiness, we have gone through 
this drill several times. We have got all kinds of analysis 
that shows that our training would be reduced significantly, 
our exercises. Last year, for example, we did, like I said, 63 
just last month, 63 exercises around the world. And we did 23 
CTCs. You have got guys going through all kinds of aviation 
training. We are dropping a lot of bombs. Our pilots are flying 
a lot of hours.
    All those things would come down. All your readiness 
levels, everything that has been achieved over the last 3, 4, 
5, 6 years, 7 years, all of that would start going in the 
opposite direction with continuing resolutions or if you went 
back to previous budgets. I think it would be very significant 
and the risk would increase with China. It would be the wrong 
signal to send.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, I think there are a lot of people 
that agree with you. There are others that don't. And it is 
important that we get the facts out. And as I said before, you 
two have a tremendous amount of experience in this role, and we 
are going to have to rely on you a lot.

                    CIVILIAN CYBERSECURITY WORKFORCE

    Secretary Austin, and building off of what I just talked to 
the General about, my second question for you is about the 
impact of potentially reducing Department civilian workforce to 
offset top-line cuts. As you know, the Department faces a lot 
of challenges in hiring and retaining a civilian cybersecurity 
workforce due to attrition and loss of talent to the private 
sector. And I do represent NSA and I have for 20 years.
    How will cuts to the Department civilian cybersecurity 
workforce further exacerbate this problem and make us more 
vulnerable to cyber attacks by foreign actors?
    Secretary Austin. Well, it will have a significant impact. 
As you know, cyber threats in this day and age are enormous and 
they come from every corner of the globe. And so the force that 
we have developed, I think we have done a really good job of 
putting together a significant capability that allows us to 
protect our interests and support our overall National Defense 
Strategy.
    We need the right people. We need the talented people, to 
your point, sir, to be able to continue to do the work that we 
are doing. We have really pressed hard to make sure that, you 
know, we are going after the right people. We are providing 
initiatives. We are mindful of the fact that this is a very, 
very competitive field, and so we have to do what we need to do 
to make sure we get the right people and we can retain the 
right people.
    But to your point, if we cut those kinds of people, then I 
think it will have a significant impact on our warfighting 
capability.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you for your testimony, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Ruppersberger. I got it right 
that time.
    Mr. Womack.

                       STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Austin, General Milley, great to have both of you 
here again. I echo the comments of my colleagues in 
appreciation of your service.
    General Milley, personally to you, thank you for all that 
you have done for this country. I will miss working with you, 
though I am sure you are not going to miss sitting in these 
hearings in front of these panels when you leave your position.
    Secretary Austin, this is a question pretty much for you, 
but I am a big believer, as my colleagues know, in the State 
Partnership Program. I think they have added a lot of value 
around the globe where we have those. No better example than 
what the Californians did with Ukrainians over time. And I just 
believe it brings a lot of value to not only the partner 
nations but for our own forces, for the National Guard troops 
that get an opportunity to do some training with these 
partners.
    This is related to Taiwan. And as Chairman Calvert said, a 
delegation of us just recently visited there. I wonder how best 
we can help our Taiwanese friends prepare for contingencies. 
And is a state partnership or a modified program like the State 
Partnership Program for Taiwan, is it advisable, practical, 
possible? What would be your comments? Why or why not?
    Secretary Austin. I think it is. And since you were just 
there, you know that we have a number of National Guard 
elements that have been working with our partners in Taiwan and 
increasing their proficiency in a number of areas.
    To your point, this program adds value wherever we are, 
wherever we are partnered with around the globe. And I think 
the point that you--the example that you use is a great one. 
You know, Ukrainians benefited greatly from all the work that 
the Guardsmen did, you know, over the years.
    But yes, I believe that our continued work with the 
Guardsmen in Taiwan I think will be very, very valuable. So we 
will continue to work to structure this so that we optimize, 
you know, the effort of the Guard and it complements all the 
other things that we are doing with the Taiwans.

                      COMPACTS OF FREE ASSOCIATION

    Mr. Womack. Mr. Secretary, the Compacts of Free Association 
with the Marshall Islands and Micronesia are up for renewal in 
the coming months, with Palau's expiring next year. I 
understand the defense provisions of the existing compacts 
remain valid regardless of renewal.
    That being said, the incentives of the freely associated 
states to continue the security relationships expire with the 
economic assistance. Because of their strategic location to our 
military assets present in the countries, these partner states 
seem to provide key terrain that can help advance our strategic 
goals as we concentrate on the Indo-Pacific region, while at 
the same time helping us directly combat Chinese influence.
    Can you articulate the importance of these compacts to the 
Department?
    Secretary Austin. Extremely important. And I agree with the 
points that you have made. They do provide--they magnify our 
efforts in terms of access, presence.
    And so I think we will continue to do everything we can to 
make sure that we are strengthening our relationships and that 
whatever additional access we can gain, we are going to 
continue to do that.

                         MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT

    Mr. Womack. The Department's budget this year includes 
requested multiyear procurement authorities, and we have 
already talked in your opening statement about that. This is a 
question basically for Mr. McCord. These multiyear procurement 
authorities are not typical for munitions but have been used 
when procuring large systems such as aircraft and ships.
    Mr. McCord, can you expound on why the DOD went this route 
with munitions and how you selected the munitions that--I 
should have mentioned in my--in the beginning of the question, 
the SM-6, AMRAAM, LRASM, this sort of thing. So can you expand 
on that?
    Mr. McCord. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Womack. Yes. The thought 
had been for many years that you buy missiles in enough 
quantities that a multiyear wasn't necessary. But what we found 
clearly with Ukraine was that the industrial base there on more 
ground-focused munitions was not agile enough due to a number 
of factors the Secretary has already mentioned, supply chain 
issues, common components, workforce issues in the COVID era 
that have decreased that agility.
    So the effort that we undertook, the Department, really 
under Deputy Secretary Hicks' leadership, was to do the 
thinking about where would we like to be in a few years for the 
more larger scale Pacific contingencies and start taking those 
steps now, things that ideally maybe if you had known 4 years 
ago where you would be on Ukraine, you could have done some of 
those on the ground side.
    And that is what led to what we are doing here is to 
expand, as you said, for the first time into the munitions 
world, and also to--we have a concept we have been working on 
in my team for some years of having multiyears that overlapped 
and reinforced, because so many of these missiles are produced 
by one or two companies. And so we brought that concept in as 
well.
    We do believe that this is going to, as the Secretary said, 
provide more of a stability signal that companies rely on, 
because this is a space in the budget where there has been a 
little more fluctuation than there has been on something like 
submarines, where we also have multiyears.
    And so we are trying to bring stability as one of the tools 
we need. It is not the only thing that needs to happen in terms 
of the health of the industrial base, but we think it is going 
to be a big thing that we can do to position ourselves better, 
particularly for the larger scale contingencies.
    Mr. Womack. Sorry for going over, Mr. Chairman. I yield 
back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuellar.

                        GREAT POWER COMPETITION

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank all of you for your service. General 
Milley, glad you still have your Texas license as you look at 
the next phase. But I want to thank all of you.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you one question, but let me 
just lay out the facts. Do you believe that great power 
competition in the Western Hemisphere is a defense issue? Now, 
we know the importance of the State Department, USAID, and 
Department of Commerce and everybody else. I understand all 
that. It is a comprehensive approach.
    But I listened to the answer that you gave Ms. Granger, and 
you talked about what SOUTHCOM is doing and all the work of 
doing that. But I notice you left NORTHCOM, which has Mexico, 
because right now you have SOUTHCOM covers everything south of 
Mexico.
    And if you look at what China is doing, 36 percent of their 
total food imports comes from Latin America and the Caribbean. 
When you look at lithium reserves and all that, it is in that 
area of responsibility. You look at infrastructure projects. I 
don't want to go through all of them, but, you know, 
infrastructure projects, 5G development, Safe City projects, 
space infrastructure, which is very important what they are 
doing down there, and so on and so on. And that is China and 
Russia.
    But then if you look at Mexico, which is right next door, I 
am concerned that NORTHCOM is not paying that much attention to 
them. And I am sure they are going to say they disagree with 
me. I understand all that. But we did ask follow-up 
information, and I think we are still waiting for that follow-
up information after we had the NORTHCOM commander.
    But just to give you--we just got back from a bipartisan 
meeting in Mexico. Fentanyl--and you know the problem, how many 
people it kills in the United States. That fentanyl precursors 
will go into Manzanillo, Lazaro Cardenas. And then about 75 
percent of all of the fentanyl and fake pills move through the 
Tijuana-San Diego area, if you look at the geography itself.
    When you look at the critical locations of the PRC 
investments, a lot of them are close to our northern border, 
lithium and other areas. When you look at the investments they 
have done in Manzanillo and Lazaro Cardenas, which is where 
they get their shipments from China, you look at the new 
isthmus corridor that Mexico is doing, which is their new 
Panama Canal on land, who is doing the investment in those two 
areas into the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific? A lot of it is 
the Chinese. And there are some other space infrastructure 
things I cannot talk here at this location, but it is very 
concerning what we are seeing.
    So my question is, is there a way--and I think we did ask 
for you all to study whether Mexico should be part of SOUTHCOM. 
And I understand, you know, Mexico, Canada, part of NORTHCOM, I 
understand all that. But either that or we get them to work a 
little closer together, because I don't see an alignment, that 
we do all this great work and we need more resources in 
SOUTHCOM, but we are leaving out Mexico. And that is--I live in 
Laredo. I live just a few miles away from the border, just 
literally a few miles. So I am concerned about that.
    So my question, after I laid all that, do you think that 
great power competition is an important part of the defense in 
the Western Hemisphere?
    Secretary Austin. I certainly do, sir. And I would also say 
that all of our combatant commanders feel the same way. And I 
am sure that if General Van Herk were sitting here today, he 
would say that this is an area that is important to him.
    I would also say that our combatant commanders routinely 
coordinate with each other, pass information, and work with 
each other to ensure that there are no significant gaps and 
seams between the combatant commanders' areas of 
responsibility.
    I do know that General Van Herk continues to engage the 
leadership in Mexico. I mean, that is routinely. And I would 
say that this is important. But we can never do enough. I will 
make sure, by the way, that you get the answers to your 
questions. And this is something that we need to continue to 
focus on.
    And you mention the fentanyl problem. It is primarily a law 
enforcement issue, but, you know, DOD will continue to do what 
it can to support the overall whole-of-government effort in 
this regard.
    Mr. Cuellar. And we will work with you in any way that we--
my time is up, but there was another young Hispanic soldier 
died in Fort Hood besides Vanessa Guillen. I know there is an 
investigation. I am talking to the Secretary of the Army 
tomorrow, but I just want to bring that up to you all also.
    Secretary Austin. Not lost on us, sir. And my heart goes 
out to her family and to her teammates. And, again, this will 
remain an area of focus for us.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Judge Carter.

                               INDOPACOM

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome to all of you. It has been great working with 
you.
    General Milley, you are welcome in Texas when you get ready 
to retire, if that be your choice.
    I just finished travel to INDOPACOM, where there was the 
importance of power projection for the region, which seems to 
be very, very important. We need to modernize weapon systems. 
We also need a place to forward operate from.
    What are we doing to get more infrastructure for power 
projection in INDOPACOM and are we doing enough?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir. The answer to the second 
question first, I will probably never say we have done enough. 
We will continue to work at this.
    I think you may have heard me say earlier that we are 
investing $9.1 billion this year in the Pacific Deterrence 
Initiative. That allows us to invest in infrastructure. That 
gives us greater access and also improves some of our defensive 
postures in places like Guam and also do things to protect 
Hawaii as well.
    We have done a lot of work to engage our partners and our 
allies in the Philippines. We are working with Australia to 
increase our access there, and we have developed a great 
partnership. Our rotational units are going in and out of 
Australia at a greater frequency. So we continue to work this. 
But to answer your question, we are doing a lot. It will 
probably never be enough.

                      INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS

    Mr. Carter. Will we continue to see an increased budget for 
infrastructure and acquisition and development in that area, in 
your opinion, as we go down the road? Because I just came from 
Kwajalein. And, yes, we are building a barracks there, but they 
have got some buildings there that really need work.
    Secretary Austin. You will continue to see a significant 
investment in those types of things going forward. I think it 
is important that we have the ability to be able to forward 
station, forward position our troops so that they can be 
relevant in any kind of an upcoming contest.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Case.

                                RED HILL

    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, I have to ask you about Red Hill Bulk Fuel 
Storage Facility in my district in Honolulu. First of all, I 
just want to commend the job that Vice Admiral Wade and the 
Pearl Harbor Joint Task Force are doing to address this crisis 
in a transparent and deliberate manner. So they are doing a 
good job, but they need a lot of help, obviously, from back in 
the Pentagon. And so I would commend that to you.
    But I have to ask you just for a clarification, a 
confirmation, I hope. Does the Department of Defense remain 
fully committed to the expeditious and safe defueling and 
closure of the Red Hill facility?
    Secretary Austin. The Department of Defense remains fully 
committed, and I personally remain fully committed. As a matter 
of fact, I just met with the team out in Hawaii on this very 
topic here. And we routinely get updates.
    And I would agree with you that the Admiral is doing a 
tremendous job. And most important, he is doing a lot of good 
things to keep the community informed and, you know, the 
delegation informed of what we are doing and what his needs 
are, what our requirements are.
    Mr. Case. Thank you so much for that.
    Are you aware of any budgetary limitations on the Defense 
Department achieving the safe and expeditious defueling and 
closure of Red Hill? I have looked high and low for it. I don't 
believe so. I believe that you have the adequate funding to 
achieve that goal, but I don't want this budget to go past us 
if there are any limitations whatsoever in that mission as well 
as the broader mission, which is, you know, remediation, some 
health risks as well.
    Secretary Austin. Again, thanks for your continued support 
in this area as well. I am currently not aware of any obstacles 
that would prevent us from achieving our objective. This is 
going to take some time. And things can change. If they do 
change and we do have requirements, I will certainly come back 
and ask for more help, sir.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you so much.

                        DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Let me shift gears on you, because I was also on the 
congressional delegation that the chair led to the Indo-
Pacific. We were not only in Taiwan but in Japan, Okinawa, and 
the Republic of Korea. And, first of all, it was amazing to 
spend time with our servicemembers there, top to bottom, high-
quality, committed to the job. So I just wanted to pass that 
along to you.
    One of my huge take-aways was along the lines of Mr. 
Womack's questions, which have to do with the sufficiency of 
our munitions and other armaments that are provided to our 
friends and allies around the world.
    And it just strikes me that with the burn rate in Ukraine, 
which is not going to go away anytime soon, and with the needs 
of our friends and allies relying on us to provide them, 
because they don't have that capability for the most part 
themselves, and with our own intentions to, as part of our 
Indo-Pacific strategy, preposition equipment and other 
facilities, including munitions, out in the Indo-Pacific, that 
our defense industrial base just really needs to be ramped up.
    Now, I don't think this is a matter only of, you know, 
multifiscal year programming and procurement. It is a matter of 
the basic funding to do that. Because you can set it up for 
multiyear procurement, but if the money is not there to do it 
to start with or if the defense industrial base is not capable 
of that production, then we have got a problem.
    You referenced in your opening remarks $10 billion invested 
in our industrial base. And so what I would like to explore 
with you is, how do we not get ourselves behind the eight ball 
in terms of the basic needs that we have in both Ukraine and 
the Indo-Pacific and conflicts that we may not know about 
today?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thanks. We are doing a lot. And let 
me say up front that our industrial base is really a core 
element that has enabled our strategic advantage. And we will 
continue to work with industry to make sure that we are doing 
everything possible to signal to them the right things in terms 
of our requirements and to help, wherever possible, to expand 
capacity and capability.
    So, you know, we have a $170 billion request for 
procurement. We have asked you for multiyear contracting 
authority. And I think those send powerful signals. But not 
only are we buying the numbers of munitions that industry can 
produce, we are also helping--we are also investing in 
additional capacity so they can begin to expand and rapidly get 
us up to where we need to be and help us replenish the stocks 
of some of our allies and partners who have donated to the 
Ukraine effort.
    So we have asked for additional authority in terms of the 
Defense Production Act authorities, and the President has 
supported us on that. And so my team is working day and night, 
working with industry to make sure that, you know, we are 
getting as much productivity out of the key places in industry 
as possible. And, you know, I have engaged CEOs. My deputy has 
engaged CEOs.
    But to your point, we need to do more, we are doing more, 
and we will do more in the future.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Garcia.

                            SPOUSE LICENSING

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 
for the testimony and your service.
    Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for mentioning the 
spousal working conditions improving. I am very proud that my 
Spouse Licensing Relief Act was signed into law by the 
President in January under the VA bill.
    As I have visited multiple commands from COCOM down to, you 
know, platoon commander, I am not sure that the troops yet 
fully understand that this spouse licensing reciprocity is 
available to them and it is the current law of the land.
    So recommending we get a DOD-wide way to message that 
spouses can cross-deck their professional licenses--doctors, 
lawyers, real estate agents--across State lines when they are 
Active Duty and on orders. I don't think it is being fully 
absorbed and utilized yet.

                        MILITARY PAY ADJUSTMENTS

    On the pay raise, I personally do not believe the 5.2 
percent pay raise is enough, especially for our junior enlisted 
troops. To put things in context, the average E-1, E-2 are 
making roughly $22,000 a year. And, in fact, it is not until 
you are an E-4 over 5 years that you are making the equivalent 
of what would be a $15-per-hour wage if it was normalized for a 
40-hour workweek, which means that, effectively, the bottom 
third of our ranks are making less than fast-food workers are 
in many of our States. And some of our States are very high 
cost of living.
    Given the recruitment and retention challenges that we 
have, I think we have a collective action here between this 
committee, Armed Services Committee, as well as in the Senate 
and DOD, to look at how we can maybe not take a one-size-fits-
all pay adjustment of 5.2 percent and get our junior enlisted 
specifically above that $32,000 a year number, which is the 
equivalent of $15 per hour.
    I think there are ways to do that without impacting the 
top-line budgets, whether it is harvesting from the flag 
officer ranks. That, you know, 1 percent goes a lot further for 
a flag officer than our junior enlisted.
    And so I look forward to those conversations, but I think 
that is a critical element to the quality of life, especially 
from a recruitment perspective. The gap between DOD and 
civilian counterparts is at an historic high when it comes to 
salaries right now, especially for the junior enlisted.

                           F-18 SUPER HORNET

    Mr. Secretary, are you aware of the Strike Fighter 
shortfall that we have DOD-wide but specifically within the 
Navy, the challenges that we have from a number of aircraft per 
air wing and per aircraft carrier?
    Secretary Austin. What I do know is that the CNO and the 
Chief of the Air Force continue to invest in fighter 
capability. And, again, it is going to take a couple of--
several years before we get up to what they believe is----
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah, that is right.
    Secretary Austin [continuing]. Meets their full capacity.
    Mr. Garcia. Yeah. I understand there are some projections 
where we are literally two air wings short relative to the 
number of aircraft carriers within the Navy side.
    And I am sure you are aware, this committee, as well as our 
counterparts in the Senate, in fiscal year 2022 added 12 Super 
Hornets to the budget, and then in fiscal year 2023 added eight 
Super Hornets to the budget.
    I wasn't sure if you are aware, but those jets have yet to 
be actually awarded to the prime contractor, and they are 
actively shutting down not just their production line but their 
entire supply chain.
    I am a big proponent of F-35. A large portion of that 
aircraft is made in my district. I believe we need capacity as 
well as the capability. And I think right now we are losing, as 
a Nation, one of the critical tools to closing that Strike 
Fighter gap in the form of the Super Hornet production line.
    The lawyers are battling it out right now. This is one of 
those things that, watching it from my perspective, I am 
calling balls and strikes. I think the government is 
overreaching. They are asking for intellectual property from 
the contractor that is different from tech data packages 
designed for basic sustainment and repair. I think we are 
overreaching.
    And this is one of the things that I think is going to 
impact the customer, the customer being the warfighter and the 
taxpayer, in the form of 20 jets not being put on contract. And 
so I would encourage you to look into that.
    The Navy is actively working this with the prime contractor 
right now, but I think we need some supervision here and just 
get the lawyers in the room to put a kibosh on this, get a 
negotiated settlement, and figure out some other means to get 
that intellectual property.

                    U.S. WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN

    And so I will end with the question. General Milley, you 
worked in both administrations. You are very familiar with the 
conditional withdrawal elements of the Afghanistan, you know, 
situation under both administrations. Do you agree with the 
assertion that was made earlier in this room that the debacle, 
the State Department-led debacle out of Afghanistan and the 
travesty of Abbey Gate and the devastation, the loss of 13 
personnel was the fault of the previous administration?
    General Milley. I am not going to characterize fault or 
point fingers. I think, as we all know, that the end state was 
a strategic withdrawal. And when the enemy occupies the capital 
of the nation that you supported, that is a strategic failure. 
And there are a lot of lessons to be learned. All of us are 
learning those lessons.
    Both Secretary Austin and I have served many years in 
Afghanistan. I am deeply personally invested in it and 
psychologically invested in it. And I can think of no greater 
tragedy than what happened at Abbey Gate. And I have yet to 
fully reconcile myself to that entire affair.
    So I don't want to point fingers or anything. What happened 
in Afghanistan did not happen in the last 19 days or even the 
last 19 months. That was a 20-year war. There were decisions 
made all along the way which culminated in what the outcome 
was. And there are many, many lessons to be learned, and I 
think we are just at the beginning of that lessons learned 
process, not at the end.
    Mr. Garcia. Well said. Thank you for your service.
    General Milley. If I could, I would like to thank you, 
though, personally, on behalf of my wife, really. She pushed 
that licensure amendment significantly for years, she and many 
others. And you and the President and Members of Congress 
brought that home. So thank you very much for that.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, General. Appreciate it.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Next, Mr. Kilmer.

                          MILITARY HEALTHCARE

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thank you both for being with us today. I am hoping to 
get to two topics. First, as you both know, changes to the 
military health system have resulted in downsizing at several 
military treatment facilities, including Naval Hospital 
Bremerton in my neck of the woods, which recently closed its 
emergency and its labor and delivery departments.
    Prior to that downsizing, our area already had challenges 
accessing care. It had been identified by the Department of 
Health and Human Services as a high-risk area and a health 
shortage area. We raised concerns about this prior to the 
downsizing because of that. And, unfortunately, the closures 
have had a real impact on our region and on servicemembers.
    I really think that the network analysis that was done was 
really off. The hiring goals were really off. And this isn't 
sort of a theoretical conversation. We did a roundtable with 
submariners in our area who have been unable to receive routine 
screenings or medical care. That impacts fleet readiness.
    I met with a pregnant sailor who, due to downsizing at the 
Naval Hospital, was forced to go to a local hospital, waited 8 
hours in the emergency room--or, sorry, in the waiting room and 
ultimately miscarried in their waiting room.
    And these aren't isolated incidents. I bring this to your 
attention because after several letters and questioning in 
hearings and meetings with the head of DHA, where we have 
emphasized the inability of the network to handle the burdens 
of the closures at the Naval Hospital, the concerns of my 
community just aren't being heard.
    And so I want to raise this again and ask you if DOD can 
direct DHA to review some of that downsizing in underserved 
areas like Kitsap County. I want to ask you what tools are in 
place to reassign military and civilian providers to areas 
where there has been a significant degradation in care that is 
impacting folks in uniform. And I want to know if there is any 
plan to reassign providers to areas like Kitsap County, where 
we have seen a significant and, frankly, dangerous decline in 
healthcare quality for servicemembers.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. I would just like 
to start by saying the health and welfare of the force is 
extremely important to me, and I really appreciate all your 
support and the support of Congress over the years.
    We continue to follow congressional intent to--as you know, 
we were mandated to consolidate military healthcare under DHA 
and, of course, there are decisions that have to be made there. 
And since that decision was made, you know, we faced a global 
pandemic that put pressure on the workforce across America, the 
medical workforce across America. And so it made it a bit more 
difficult to do some things.
    And so we are facing some of the same challenges that the 
medical community across the country are facing. But what we 
are doing about it is we are trying to utilize a variety of 
tools, including direct hiring authorities. We are exploring 
bonuses and incentives to hire, to get the right talent in to 
fill the vacancies that you mention.
    And I will ask our new DHA leader to come in and sit down 
with you and brief you specifically on Bremerton and what our 
challenges are and what we are doing about it.
    General Milley. Secretary, if I could make a quick comment 
on that.
    Mr. Kilmer. Please go ahead.

                         MILITARY HEALTH SYSTEM

    General Milley. In my travels around the military, the 
number one topic that I get in terms of quality of life is the 
healthcare system.
    I was Chief of Staff of the Army, you know, 3.5 years ago. 
In my first year, this was an issue, and we were asked as 
chiefs at that time, to write an assessment of what we thought 
of the congressionally mandated consolidation at the DHA. Every 
one of the chiefs at that time, as I recall, we wrote that this 
is going to result in significant risk.
    What we are seeing today, 7 years later, 8 years later is 
the fraying. It is not broken, but we are seeing the fraying of 
the defense healthcare system, which is one of the biggest 
healthcare systems in America. And that is really cause for 
concern. And it is the number one issue that is on a lot of 
soldiers', sailors', airmen, Marines' minds and their families. 
It is a big deal.
    Mr. Kilmer. I think, acknowledging that, we are seeing 
that. We are seeing that in our area. And I just plead with you 
to take a look at what is happening in our region, to look at 
the impact on readiness, on sailors, and on their families, 
because, you know, sitting across from a sailor who miscarried 
after waiting for 8 hours to get care, this is not acceptable, 
and we have got to do better for these folks who are stepping 
up for our country.
    Thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. And I agree with the gentleman. We need to do 
a deep dive on that, see what we can do to improve this 
immediately.
    Next, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                                SOUTHCOM

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Before my question, Mr. Secretary, you mentioned SOUTHCOM a 
little while ago. And one of the things that is crucial to them 
is the security cooperation agreement, something that I have 
been very supportive of. There is $200 million there.
    And I just want to make sure that it is on your radar, 
because it is $200 million for SOUTHCOM and AFRICOM. And I just 
want to make sure that in a region that is--you know, not many 
good things are happening in this region right now, in this 
hemisphere, that SOUTHCOM has the resources it needs.
    And as you well know, SOUTHCOM not only does, you know, 
kind of like the regular mission, but they also literally are 
saving American lives through their interdiction program. So I 
just wanted to flag that for you. And if you could take a look 
at it to make sure that it doesn't fall through the cracks and 
that SOUTHCOM is not kind of ignored there, I would appreciate 
that.

                            SPECTRUM SHARING

    Chairman Milley, as you know, there has been a lot of 
conversation about this potential legislation to auction off 
the lower three gigahertz spectrum band, which obviously the 
DOD uses for, you know, important missions. And Secretary 
Austin and the Commerce Secretary sent a letter endorsing this 
agreement, while the Director of Joint Staff signed a formal 
nonconcur memo.
    So, Mr. Chairman, in your view, what is your view about 
potentially vacating this spectrum, and what risks potentially 
could it pose to national security, if any?
    Secretary Austin. Sir, I just want to make sure that, you 
know, where we are with this is understood. I convey where we 
are in terms of what we have done.
    First of all, I support sharing the spectrum, pieces of the 
spectrum, where appropriate. I do not support--I do not support 
putting our national security at risk. And to your point, there 
are platforms and capabilities that we use and we need that 
employ pieces of that spectrum.
    And so what we are doing now is that we are conducting a 
study to make sure that we account for everything, and once 
that study is done, then we will make a recommendation to the 
President.
    But just to be clear, I have not agreed to auction off that 
piece of the spectrum that we need to effectively protect the 
homeland or conduct our operations altogether.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And I don't know if, Mr. Chairman, you 
want to address the potential risk, if there is any.
    General Milley. Yeah, there is risk. First of all, I am 
witting of the memorandums that you mentioned. I concur that we 
need to wait until there is a study complete, which is due in 
September. And, therefore, you make a fully informed decision. 
Making a decision right this second is probably not a good 
idea.
    And I concur that it needs to be shared, sure. No problem 
sharing. The issue is how to do that. And we need to do that in 
a way that doesn't jeopardize national security. And what we 
can't do is vacate the spectrum. Sharing it, fair enough, if we 
can figure out a way to do that correctly without placing 
national security at risk.
    If we were to vacate it, if we were to give up that piece 
of the spectrum, it would have a significant, huge impact on 
our ability to protect North America, our ability to protect 
the Pacific or Europe or anywhere else. That is the part of the 
spectrum that we use for radars and communications and our 
ships and navigation and so on and so forth.
    So it wouldn't be good if we didn't have access to that 
part of the spectrum. So there is a study ongoing. That study 
is due in September. I would caution everybody just wait until 
the study is done and then move out.
    Second point is, when that study is complete, I or whomever 
is the chairman at the time, are required to render--or our 
recommendation was to the Secretary, and he agrees with it, is 
that the Secretary and I make an independent recommendation in 
writing to the President so he can make an informed decision. 
And I think that is the proper way to head.

                             WAR IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Good. I appreciate that. And I don't have 
a lot of time, so I don't know if I am going to get an answer 
on this, but, obviously, I think it is important to defeat 
Putin in the Ukraine. But as the chairman said, you know, the 
days of blank checks are over.
    And so I think one of the things that would be helpful is 
if we knew what the strategic end state is in Ukraine. And, you 
know, not a lot of time, but it would be helpful.
    General Milley. The President was very clear, actually, 
with the strategic end state at the very beginning of this 
thing. He said it to myself and Secretary Austin and many 
others. He has also said it many, many times in public forums 
and his speeches. It is very clear.
    The strategic end state is the global rules-based 
international order that was put in place in 1945 is upheld. 
How do you do that? How do you know you have achieved that end 
state? You achieve that end state when Ukraine remains a free, 
sovereign, independent country with their territory intact. And 
then you know the rules base was upheld.
    If that rules-based order, which is in its 80th year, if 
that goes out the window, then be very careful. We will be 
doubling our defense budgets at that point, because that will 
introduce not an era of great power competition. That will 
begin an era of great power conflict, and that will be 
extraordinarily dangerous for the whole world.
    Ukraine is a fight for Ukraine that is existential for 
Ukraine, but for the rest of us it is a much bigger and 
important national interest that is fundamental to the United 
States, to Europe, and global security.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Joyce. Mr. Joyce.

                    DOMESTIC RAW MATERIAL PRODUCTION

    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
    Gentlemen, thank you for your service to our country and 
for being here today.
    The United States has a vested national security interest 
in taking decisive action to reduce our dependence upon China, 
particularly as it relates to military readiness. I have 
concerns that our military is dangerously relying upon China 
when it comes to procuring raw materials, like plastic and 
rubber, that our defense industrial base needs to produce 
defense articles. We must have a whole-of-government strategy 
in place to free our military from relying upon goods coming 
from Communist China as soon as physically possible.
    In fiscal year 2023 defense appropriation bill, I worked to 
include language directing the Department of Defense to issue a 
report outlining the Department's increase of domestic sourcing 
of plastic and plastic alternatives.
    Secretary Austin, do you have an update on the status of 
this report or an expectation when this report will be made 
available to Congress?
    Secretary Austin. An increase in the production of--I am 
sorry, sir. I missed----
    Mr. Joyce. An increase in the production of plastic, 
domestic sourcing of plastic or plastic alternatives for the 
defense industry.

                           U.S. SUPPLY CHAIN

    Secretary Austin. I will take that question for the record, 
sir, and get back to you. But I would like to tell you some of 
the things that we are doing along the lines of strengthening 
our supply chains and making sure that we onshore capability, 
because I absolutely agree with you, this needs to be a whole-
of-government effort.
    I want to thank you and the rest of Congress for what you 
have done for the CHIPS--in support of the CHIPS Act. I think 
that will make a really big difference. In this budget, we are 
asking you for $2.6 billion to invest in microelectronics. We 
are investing $125 million in batteries and electronics. We are 
going after critical minerals and, you know, I have asked for 
$253 million to be focused on that as well. So things like 
casting and forging, $177 million for that.
    So I absolutely agree with you, sir, that we have to do a 
lot to make sure that we have independence, you know, we can 
trust our supply chains. And so we are going to continue to 
work with industry to do that.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you very much, Secretary.

                              ABRAMS TANKS

    I was pleased to read that the Biden administration is 
working to expedite the delivery of 31 Abrams tanks to our 
allies in Ukraine, the arrival of which will undoubtedly 
provide the Ukrainians with a technological advantage over 
their Russian counterparts. I was disappointed, however, to 
find the President's budget including funding for 34 Abrams 
tanks, just three more than we are sending to the Ukrainians. 
This reduction in funding is a concerning departure from 
previous years in which Congress has indicated continued 
support funding for a full battalion of tanks.
    This is for either of you gentlemen. Considering the 
commitment we have made to Ukraine in regards to transfer of 
the Abrams tanks, can you offer insight to explain the 
justification behind this reduction in funding?
    Secretary Austin. We are actually funding a Ukrainian 
battalion of tanks, which is why--which reflects the number 
that you have seen, sir.
    Mr. Joyce. We have heard at length about the need to 
bolster the military industrial supply base. Could a reduction 
in funding for the tanks program not make it more difficult to 
make sure we have the supply base to effectively scale up 
production for this in future needs?
    Secretary Austin. So what we will do for these tanks that 
we are providing to Ukraine, if that is the question, is that 
we are taking tanks out of our stock and rebuilding those tanks 
so that they are exportable. And so that actually will come out 
of drawdown versus new purchase.
    Mr. Joyce. I understand and appreciate that, but are we not 
securing new tanks in the process from the supply chain here in 
America? Because it was a reduction from the amount that were 
authorized.
    General Milley. There are, just not at the rates--I will 
have to go back and check with General McConville and the Army 
staff, but the tank plant at Lima, Ohio, is continuing its 
operations. It is not being shut down. And if you have 
information it is being shut down, that would be new news to 
me.
    The tank production line is going to be kept open. It is 
necessary to keep it open. It is a unique thing. Tanks aren't 
produced in the commercial world, so we have got to keep that 
line open, because tanks, although there is going to be a 
future operating environment, you are going to have 
introduction of robotics, you are going to have all kinds of 
other things in the future with artificial intelligence and so 
on and so forth, but tanks have value and they have value today 
and you are seeing it play out in Ukraine, and they are going 
to have value for many, many years to come. So I don't know of 
any intent to shut down the Lima, Ohio, tank production line.
    Mr. Joyce. Well, I didn't mean to bring it up as a Buckeye 
thing. But the fact that we are actually slowing it down, as 
you know, sir----
    General Milley. Yes, slowing it down.
    Mr. Joyce. The problem with that is that you have the 
pieces and parts and mom and pop people who produce on that 
supply line. And if they are slowing down or being shut down 
because we are not doing that, that slows down our ability to 
ramp up, God forbid the need be.
    General Milley. Sure.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you for your answers. I look forward to 
getting a copy of that report soon, Secretary.
    And I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                        INDOPACOM FUNDING LEVELS

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Milley, I wanted to start where some of my 
colleagues have in thanking you for your service, but 
specifically for your testimony and honesty when you sat with 
the January 6th Committee. Your commitment to the truth, your 
honesty and availability is only matched by your commitment to 
protecting our democracy and protecting this country. So I just 
wanted to thank you for that.
    I wanted to also echo the concerns that Ranking Member 
DeLauro and Representative Ruppersberger said about some of the 
cuts in defense spending and how they would negatively impact 
our national security.
    General, how could a reduction in military funding impact 
the joint force and our ability to provide credible deterrence, 
specifically to PRC activities in the Indo-Pacific?
    General Milley. It would impact several different ways. If 
you think of the domains of space, cyber, land, sea and air and 
undersea, right now we have got, roughly speaking, about 
100,000, 120,000 troops west of the International Date Line of 
all branches of service. And we have at sea at any moment in 
time probably 20, 30 surface combatant ships. You have got 
subsurface ships, submarines out there as well. You have got 
Marines conducting exercises in Okinawa and beyond. You have 
got Army forces with their long-range task forces. You have got 
the Marine Littoral Regiments.
    All that training is conducted. There was 24,000 live fires 
conducted last year by just the Army and the Marine Corps, not 
just in the Pacific but worldwide. So that level of training 
would be reduced. That level of operational tempo would be 
reduced. And that level of what Secretary Austin has in the 
National Defense Strategy, day-to-day campaigning, if you will, 
which acts as a great deterrent.
    So I think if you reduce all that, you are going to force 
us to reduce our op tempo, force us to do less Taiwan Strait 
transits, less freedom of navigation, less patrolling of the 
air, less ISR. Everything will be less, which will increase 
risk, increase danger, and send the wrong message. And the 
probable result will be an acceleration of what could be some 
sort of aggressive moves in the future by China or other 
countries.

                               EXTREMISM

    Mr. Aguilar. Secretary Austin, I wanted to thank both you 
and the General for your work in addressing domestic violent 
extremism in the Department.
    In December of 2022, the inspector general released a 
report that, among other things, talked about the effectiveness 
of policy and programs to prevent and respond to supremacist 
and extremist activity in the military. And the report found 
200 allegations of prohibited activity, including 146 
allegations of supremacist and extremist activities.
    On its face, this is a concerning number, but the IG report 
also stated that the Department had decentralized and 
nonstandardized systems to collect and track this data. For 
example, one of the quotes in the report was that the Army's 
total allegation data does not reflect its total number of 
allegations, just the total number of allegations with a 
follow-on status.
    What steps is the Department taking, Mr. Secretary, to 
standardize the collection of allegations of extremism by 
servicemembers since the release of that report?
    Secretary Austin. We continue to make sure that our 
leadership is doing the right thing to--first of all, our 
troops understand how to recognize certain types of behavior, 
what is acceptable, what is not acceptable, what the military 
won't tolerate. And I think that is a first step in making sure 
that we are doing the right things. But we are emphasizing that 
we do have the right means in place, the right methods in place 
to accurately reflect or collect, you know, reports that are 
being rendered.
    And I would also say that--you know, you have heard me say 
this before--99.9 percent of our troops are doing the right 
thing each and every day. They are focused on accomplishing 
their mission. Our leaders are focused on their task at hand, 
their missions. And you don't get to be a ready force, the 
ready force that we are, that the chairman described, unless 
your leaders are focused on the right things.
    And while, you know, making sure that we don't have 
extremist behavior in our ranks is important, it hasn't 
consumed the force, a focus on this. It just enables us to do 
the things that we are supposed to do, and it makes us better.
    Mr. Aguilar. And allows us to look at tools to help make 
the force better, correct?
    Secretary Austin. Right.
    Mr. Aguilar. General, any other thoughts?
    General Milley. Yeah. In the area you are talking about, 
183 out of 2.1 million were referred for extremist behavior. 
And we have means and mechanisms that can discipline the force 
that are not necessarily available in civil society.
    We are a very disciplined force. We don't tolerate 
extremism of any kind, left, right, in between. It doesn't 
matter. No extremists in the ranks, period. We are not a 
political military. We are an apolitical military, and we 
intend to stay that way.
    So there is no extremism tolerated. Where we find it, we 
discover it, we refer it, and we take appropriate disciplinary 
action. As the Secretary said, out of that 2.1 million, 
99.9.9.9 are in there every single day trying to do the right 
thing for the right reasons to protect this country, and they 
wake up every morning, try to better themselves, better their 
unit, and better this country.
    Mr. Aguilar. I completely agree with that, but the report 
also mentioned 183, which is an accurate number, but there 
might be more that just had not had the follow-on status.
    General Milley. There may be, but I would say it is 
relatively small numbers. I have been doing this for a long 
time. When I was a lieutenant and captain, we had extremists 
then too. Secretary Austin, when he was a young officer, he had 
some experiences at Fort Bragg with extremists.
    So this isn't something new. We discipline the force. We 
don't tolerate it. When we find it, we punish it, we get it 
out. But that shouldn't smear the entire force. This force is a 
disciplined, dedicated, patriotic force that loves America and 
will fight and die for it.
    Mr. Aguilar. Agree.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                           COUNTER-NARCOTICS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations on 
your accession to your position.
    Welcome to our subcommittee, Secretary Austin and General 
Milley. General Milley, thank you for your service to our 
country. Both of you have distinguished yourselves in your 
service. I am very proud of both of you, and I know my 
constituents are too.
    I want to say my top priority is Ukraine right now. And, 
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will have a closed door session on 
that before we move into markup, but I just wanted to request 
that, if possible.
    General Milley, as a followup to the Liberty Road 
Initiative, I would greatly appreciate an individual we could 
work with on your staff somewhere in the rather large staffing 
at the Department of Defense. We have been unable to do that 
effectively.
    Then I wanted to follow up on something Congressman Cuellar 
talked about, the severe illicit narcotics activity that is 
really destabilizing in his region and, frankly, having an 
impact across our country. And I just wanted to put on the 
record for those who are listening, there is a great book 
called ``Dreamland'' by Sam Quinones, who tracks the economics 
of what is going on following the passage of NAFTA in 1993 and 
the wipeout of the Mexican white corn market and the springing 
up in all those places, Jalisco, Tamaulipas, et cetera, of the 
planting of heroin and moving into other drugs. It is quite 
sobering to read. And I just place that on the record for those 
who really care about this. Until we solve that, the abject 
poverty that resulted from that, we are not going to solve the 
problem. And I don't know if the Government of Mexico is 
capable of solving it.

                   STRENGTHENING THE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Secretary Austin, I wanted to ask if you might help us set 
up a meeting with the folks who are handling the ramp-up of 
additional work in defense industrial base activities in your 
Department.
    I come from manufacturing America. We helped save the M1, 
the Abrams tank plant. We were told, oh, we will never have 
another land war, what do we need that for? We had to save the 
tank capability of this country. We had to save the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve of this country, because there were people 
who were willing to wipe it out.
    Those of us who come from manufacturing America understand 
what it takes. I would be very grateful so we could learn more 
about the funding, the staffing, and the current authorities, 
if they need to be expanded. Thank you for listening to that.

                       COMMUNICATIONS RESILIENCY

    And finally, for either gentleman today, in terms of hybrid 
warfare, I am very interested in more detail on the impact of 
the internet on communications and how U.S. Forces are working 
to overcome communication problems with host nations, and the 
impact that the internet is having on creating disruptive 
activities, false information and so forth that I would like to 
know more detail about that as we move forward in terms of 
meeting threats to our security globally.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, and thanks for all your 
support. And certainly, I will make sure my staff reaches out 
to yours and we provide you access to the people who are 
working on these issues with the industrial base for us.
    Ms. Kaptur. We have a Manufacturing Task Force here, sir, 
on the House side. We are very interested.
    Secretary Austin. Sure.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Secretary Austin. With respect to the internet and 
information, how information impacts operations, we have seen 
over the years that in terms of transnational terrorist 
activity, people have been recruited and actually encouraged to 
take action over the internet and radicalized over the 
internet. That kind of thing continues to--we continue to see 
that.
    But even in kind of a conventional fight, there is still a 
lot of activity that adversaries will put on the internet to 
create a number of different types of effects. And we see this, 
as you know, with the Ukraine-Russia conflict. And we have to 
be active in that space, and we also have to enable our 
partners to be active in that space.
    So it is really important to us, and it will continue to 
evolve. And so there is significant, significant activity in 
those spaces and they do directly affect the fight.
    And let me see if Mark wants to add anything.
    General Milley. Congresswoman, first on the Liberty Road 
thing, I will circle back with you and make sure that we close 
the loops on that whole project. And I was very proud to be 
there with you and as part of that over in Poland.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    General Milley. On the communications piece, communications 
is fundamental, obviously, to the conduct of military 
operations. That is one of the key pieces of our joint 
warfighting concept, which will be doctrinaire this summer. The 
JADC2 piece is part of that. So, from a defensive standpoint, 
our communication systems have got to become more resilient and 
less susceptible to either jamming or spoofing or any other 
kind of interference, or intercepting and collecting off of our 
signal systems. I think we are pretty good, but we need to get 
better.

                          INFORMATION WARFARE

    In terms of broader implications, the social media and the 
advent of social media, if you think about it, the iPhone just 
came out in 2008. So we are really at the beginning of a 
proliferation of all kinds of information, all kinds of 
platforms out there that can spew all kinds of accurate data 
and inaccurate data. And that is something that we all have to 
come to grips with, because there is a lot of stuff out there 
in the internet and social media that is false. And we have to 
be wary of that because of misinformation, disinformation, 
propaganda.
    We know factually that adversary states are using bots on a 
very frequent basis to try to influence our elections, 
influence elections in Europe, influence elections in other 
countries, undermine, create divisiveness.
    Where there is already divisiveness in a society, adversary 
states may try to pour on with social media and make it worse. 
Even though it is just a single person in a foreign city who is 
doing this through some means and mechanisms, but they can take 
a single issue and blow it up and make it much more divisive 
than it would have been otherwise.
    So there are a lot of issues with social media and how it 
is being used for information transmission, disinformation 
transmission. And I think there are a lot of things that we 
have to come to grips with.
    From a military standpoint, though, for us, it is really 
just a communication system that we need to build, make it 
resilient so that we can effectively command, control, and 
coordinate during combat operations.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. The gentlelady's time is expired.
    Mr. Rogers.

                         COMPETITION WITH CHINA

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you for your service to the country, a 
lifetime of service. And we thank you very much.
    Let me bring up a topic that is the elephant in the room, 
and that is competition with China.
    How do you assess the Chinese President's visit to Moscow 
recently, and how does that play in the larger world stage on 
our competition with China? Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Austin. I will begin, sir, then certainly offer 
the chairman, with your permission, a chance to comment.
    Certainly, it is troubling to see that. Putin attacked his 
neighbor in an unprecedented way, and seeks to change the 
border and access his neighbor's property or sovereign 
territory. So Xi's visit to Putin and remaining there for a 
couple of days I think sends a very troubling message, a 
message of support.
    We don't see them providing any material support to Russia 
right now, but we are watching this very, very closely. If they 
were to go down that path, I think it would be very troubling 
for the international community. But certainly, just showing 
support by his presence there I think is very troubling.
    I think that, you know, this is--it has been described as a 
marriage of convenience. You know, Putin doesn't have any 
allies or partners that he can turn to in the international 
community, and so China is willing to continue to develop that 
relationship. That is very, very interesting.
    But it is troubling, you know, what we have seen. Again, it 
will be even more troubling if Xi decides to provide material 
support to Russia. It would prolong the conflict and certainly 
broaden the conflict, potentially not only in the region but 
globally.
    Mr. Rogers. General.
    General Milley. So, Congressman Rogers, to answer that 
question, you know, look, China is a serious, probably the most 
serious geostrategic adversary the United States is facing 
today and will be facing through mid century and perhaps the 
entire century.
    And if you were an historian in the year--you know, a 
century from now, the story of this century will likely be--the 
geostrategic story is going to likely be what was the 
relationship between the United States and China. Did it end up 
in a war or not?
    And I think that we need to be really careful as we go 
forward to make sure that our military and our capabilities are 
way stronger than anything China can field. That is fundamental 
to deterrence. We don't want a great power war with China. We 
want to prevent that, and the way to prevent it is a strong, 
powerful military, a demonstrated will to use it, if necessary, 
and that they clearly and unambiguously understand it.
    What we see in China, what we see in terms of a nation-
state over the last 40-plus years since Deng Xiaoping 
introduced his reforms in 1979 is an enormous growth in wealth, 
the greatest growth in wealth of any country, to include the 
United States back in the 1800s. This is an enormous growth in 
wealth and an enormous shift in power globally.
    And in the wake of that wealth is coming this military. 
Their military has advanced from a peasant-based infantry army 
in 1979 to a world-class military that is a near-peer of the 
United States. They are not better than we are. They have a 
long way to go for that, but they are closing the gap very, 
very quickly.
    It is incumbent upon us to make sure that we remain number 
one at all times. That will help keep the peace. If we somehow 
fall behind, that will become very dangerous, in my opinion.
    Secretary Austin. So the goal, sir, is to deter China from 
making an ill-advised decision going forward. And you have 
heard me say a number of times that I don't think a military 
action against Taiwan is either imminent or, you know, 
unavoidable.
    I think that the way that we keep things in the right place 
is to make sure that we are able to talk to each other. You 
have seen me reach out a number of times to my counterpart. I 
will continue to do that. I think military leaders should be 
able to talk to each other, to manage escalation, and to 
determine intent and a number of other things. But I think this 
communication is really, really important.
    So, again, I do not think that military action is imminent, 
but, you know, certainly, as the chairman pointed out, we have 
to make sure that we remain a combat credible force, and we 
will do everything within our power to make sure we do that.

                           PACIFIC DETERRENCE

    Mr. Rogers. Well, in the question of competition with 
China, undoubtedly we are at a crucial moment here. We are 
beginning to lose our critical competitive edge in multiple 
domains. I am interested to know, in your budget request, what 
is needed to reverse this trend that we are on?
    Secretary Austin. Well, you see us, No. 1, investing in our 
posture. And so the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, we have 
allocated--or requested for that initiative some $9.1 billion 
this year. That is a 40 percent increase over what we asked for 
last year. That will help us, you know, improve infrastructure 
that provides us the ability to position our troops forward in 
theater so that we can deter much further forward.
    You have seen us ask for $61 billion to support and 
maintain our dominance in the air domain, $48 billion in combat 
effective naval forces, and some $13-plus billion for our 
effective ground forces. And we are investing in the 
capabilities that support our warfighting concepts that support 
a strategy.
    So there is a lot in this budget that is focused on this 
particular challenge. And, again, we will continue to invest in 
the years going forward to build upon the things that we are 
asking for today and doing today in theater.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Stewart.

                     STRATEGIC END STATE IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Stewart. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I have a 
few things I want to talk about briefly, but I am going to have 
to go fairly quickly through them, if I could, in the time 
allowed.
    Chairman Milley, I want to follow up with something you 
said and just try to add some clarity to it. When we talk 
about--and I want you to know, in fairness, I am one of the 
members who is becoming more and more concerned about our 
efforts in Ukraine and where that actually leads us, and have 
we applied any of the lessons of the last 20 years and can we 
apply those to Ukraine.
    And so when you talk about our goals there, our 
international--I am paraphrasing--international rule of law 
preserved, Ukraine a free and independent nation with its 
territory preserved, does that include Crimea?
    General Milley. Yeah. What the President has said in the 
guidance he has given out and publicly as well, as well as 
Secretary Blinken, Mr. Sullivan and others, is that that is a 
decision for Ukraine to decide. Our task is to help Ukraine 
defend itself. The United States is not at war with Russia, 
even though Russia tries to portray that. We are helping a 
country defend itself, defend its territorial integrity and its 
people.
    Mr. Stewart. Well, and I think that is where this becomes a 
very different situation for us and I would say a very much 
more dangerous situation. If we say our goal is to reclaim all 
of the eastern Donetsk region and then including Crimea and 
including the land bridge, the evidence and the intelligence 
and experience is really clear that that is a very, very 
different thing than what we are talking about without that.
    General Milley. That is right. And I have said that 
publicly, that that goal, which is really a maximalist goal set 
by President Zelenskyy publicly, that is an extraordinarily 
difficult goal to achieve militarily.
    Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate that. And we will have more 
time to talk about that.

                      OFFICE OF STRATEGIC CAPITAL

    You know, the interesting thing about these hearings is we 
often come with kind of esoteric issues, things that are kind 
of personal to our district maybe or to our State. And this is 
a little bit like that, but not really. It is actually very 
broad and strategic.
    And I think also in our conversations with your staff, it 
appears that both of you are supportive of this, and that is 
the Office of Strategic Capital, the $115 million that is 
allocated. And I have talked with dozens and dozens--and I know 
you have too--dozens of small companies but, you know, some 
other larger ones as well, who want to work with the Department 
of Defense, but they just can't get through the contracting 
process.
    Mr. Under Secretary, you have the worst job in the world as 
a comptroller. And I think God looks at the acquisition process 
and says, it is too hard, I can't do it. It is a very difficult 
thing.
    But this Office of Strategic Capital I believe would bring 
billions of dollars of market money, private money to the 
Department of Defense in a way that just we can't do now, 
because it is so difficult and they get so frustrated.
    And if either of you would like to respond to that, I would 
appreciate it if you have views on that, but, if not, we would 
like to continue to work with the office as we try to make this 
an actual reality.
    Secretary Austin. This is really important to us, and 
thanks for your support. I want to thank the chairman for his 
support as well. We have had a couple of conversations on this 
initiative.
    I want to applaud Heidi Shyu's efforts in this area. She 
and I and a couple of others sat down many months ago and 
really focused on the problem of trying to get small companies 
into this--you know, into the business here. And how do we 
break down barriers and how do we make it--how do we 
incentivize investment.
    And so that is what this is about. We really are interested 
in making sure that it begins to move in the right direction. 
We partnered with the Small Business Bureau. And so, again, we 
are optimistic about it and thanks for your support.
    Mr. Stewart. And, Secretary, thank you, because I think it 
could really make a difference. And some of the technology they 
would make available to our warfighters would make a difference 
to them. They have got things that we need. We need to find a 
way to get it, to get us access to it.

                              RECRUITMENT

    And the last comment, if I could, very quickly, I come from 
a family of military. I am three generations now. All of my 
brothers, my father, et cetera. And one of the reasons that I 
joined the military is because my dad did. And if he had ever 
indicated to me, you know, I don't know if you would like it or 
I am not sure it is a good thing anymore, I would never have 
done it.
    And there is a culture here that I think we have, I don't 
want to say broken, but we have strained it. And, General or 
Chairman Milley, I think you have seen it in the Army in the 
sense of our recruitment goals. I mean, 15,000 soldiers short, 
25 percent short of our goal.
    And we can talk about salaries and compensation, and that 
is part of it, but you both know that that is not the primary 
reason someone joins the military. They do because of that 
culture and that wanting to serve. And we have broken that 
somehow between fathers and sons.
    And I just wondered--and my time is up and maybe we can 
talk about it again, but what has changed culturally to make it 
so we are not meeting our recruiting goals and how do we 
address that?
    General Milley. Thanks for the question. Well, first, the 
services are meeting their recruiting goals, with the exception 
of the Army. The Army ran into some real headwinds there, and 
they are trying to dig their way out of that.
    Secondly, we are at a 50-year high, actually. Since the 
all-volunteer military began right after Vietnam, 50-year high 
on retention. So that should tell us something. What that tells 
us is that those that are in uniform are very satisfied with 
what they are doing on a day-to-day basis and they feel 
fulfilled that they are serving a cause better than themselves, 
they are bettering their own lives, et cetera. So those are on 
the plus side.
    For the recruiting piece, though, we are in a difficult 
recruiting period. There is no question about it. I think for 
sure COVID plays a role in that. We know that in terms of the 
demographics of our society, only about 23 percent of America's 
youth between 17 and 25 even qualify to get into the military, 
and of them, only 9 percent show a propensity to serve.
    We know that about 78 percent of those of us in uniform 
have military family members in uniform, like yourself. Both my 
mother and father served in World War II, and grandparents 
before them. Uncles, brothers, sisters, cousins, all of them 
served at one time or another. And that is true with you. It is 
true with Secretary Austin. It is true with many of us in this 
room. So 78 percent of those that have familiarity with the 
military tend to join the military. So contact time, 
familiarity with the military, meeting troops, et cetera.
    We also know that the Army did a study. I don't know if it 
has been made available or not, but I was briefed on it. And 
one of the things in the study that comes out is in terms of a 
barrier to join for kids coming out of high school, et cetera, 
is the fear of being injured or the fear of getting hurt, PTSD. 
There is a lot of stuff out there about rape, sexual assault, 
sexual harassment. Those sorts of things are out there that 
have mischaracterized, actually, the military in many, many 
ways. And so it creates a little barrier for those that are 
considering joining.
    In addition to that, there is probably about 20 or 30 
factors. But I think one of the biggest ones, actually, is the 
lack of kids going to school in the last couple of years has 
prevented our recruiters from getting into high schools and 
having contact time. And we know right off the bat that that 
drops recruiting rates if you don't have contact done with 
recruits. There are a lot of reasons. I wouldn't, you know, say 
that there is one particular reason. There are a lot of reasons 
why it is challenging right now.
    But those that are coming into service are doing it for the 
same reasons that you did, which is to serve your country, 
serve a cause greater than yourself, try to better yourself, 
develop certain skills. They are coming in for certain pays and 
benefits to be sure, but no one comes in the military just for 
the money. That is not why you come in. You come in to serve 
your country, protect the Constitution, and hand it off to the 
next generation.
    Mr. Stewart. Thanks for your service, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Ranking Member McCollum, do you have any closing statement?
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit a few 
questions for the record on climate change and resilience and 
arctic resources.
    Thank you both for your testimony. And I think it was well 
said by Congressman Stewart to talk about family and service. 
My family goes back on both sides to the Revolutionary War, but 
now we have had a gap in this generation. So there is something 
that we need to do to make sure people embrace and being 
welcomed.
    So thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for your courtesy and 
for the way everybody got their questions in.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    And I also want to thank both of you for your service.
    General, we have known each other for many years and ran 
into each other over the years. I am sure we will continue to 
know each other. I respect your service, and I am sure we will 
be working closely together until you run through the tape in 
September. So thank you again for your service.
    Obviously, I am concerned about this budget. I made that 
clear. I think we are going to work together to plus this up 
somewhat to make sure we meet the requirements. We will be 
working with our colleagues both here on the other side of the 
aisle and in the Senate to see if we can come up with a number 
that will meet the needs to protect this country and lead it 
into the future.
    With that, thank you, and we are adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    

                                           Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

                           UNITED STATES ARMY

                               WITNESSES

HON. CHRISTINE WORMUTH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY; AND GENERAL JAMES C. 
    MCCONVILLE, CHIEF OF STAFF, UNITED STATES ARMY

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The subcommittee will come to order. Today the 
subcommittee will receive testimony of the United States Army.
    First, I would like welcome our two witnesses: Secretary of 
the Army Christine Wormuth and General James McConville, Chief 
of Staff of the Staff of the Army. Thank you for joining us. I 
look forward to your testimony.
    The rise of China as a military and economic power has 
raised concerns about the potential for conflict and the need 
for the Army to maintain a credible deterrence posture. China 
is improving their military capabilities and their efforts to 
maintain the technological edge, particularly in the areas of 
munitions, missiles, and other grounds combat systems. Now, 
more than ever, we need the United States Army to field 
modernized, lethal equipment to achieve our deterrence 
strategy. However, while the Army continues to make large 
investments in future modernization for the Army in 2030, this 
budget fails invest the capabilities that our soldiers will 
need today.
    While the President's budget request was released on March 
9, we still do not have all of the justification materials that 
provide detailed information about your funding requests.
    We would like to move quickly this year to avoid a 
continuing resolution. However, that is difficult to do without 
having the information required to make decisions.
    From the information that we do have today, we see that the 
budget request underfunds several key programs such as ground 
combat vehicles, aircraft, and other key warfighting enablers. 
I am supportive of your efforts to modernize the force of the 
future, but we cannot deter an ever-evolving China if we are 
sacrificing investment in lethality that can be put in the hand 
of soldiers today.
    And speaking of those soldiers, new capabilities are only 
as good as the soldiers operating them. That is why I am 
interested in hearing about the Army's recruitment, training, 
and retention plans to meet its authorized end strength levels. 
This includes the impact of changes and military policies, 
demographics, and economic factors.
    The U.S. Army has done a remarkable job executing the 
transfer of significant amounts of equipment to the Ukrainians. 
However, I am concerned about our own inventory of equipment 
and our ability to resupply our depleted stock of munitions.
    I am pleased to see your recent investments in production 
lines to boost monthly deliveries of key munitions, but I am 
also interested in hearing about the Army's plans to ensure the 
reliability and security of its supply chains, and how the Army 
is leveraging resources, including supplemental appropriations, 
to ensure we have a proper level of munitions and other weapons 
available so we are prepared to fight at a moment's notice.
    Finally, as I mentioned, I do support the Army of the 
future, including the efforts of Army Future Command. As the 
nature of warfare continues to evolve, it is essential that the 
Army keep pace with new technologies and innovative concepts. I 
hope we can discuss the Army's efforts to leverage emerging 
technologies, such as artificial intelligence, autonomous 
systems, and cyber capabilities, to enhance its operational 
effectiveness and efficiency.
    With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking member, 
Ms. McCollum, for opening remarks.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary, General, 
thank you for coming and testifying before us today. General, I 
understand that this possibly is your last appearance before 
the subcommittee in your current role?
    General McConville. It very well could be.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to take this opportunity to 
thank you and your family for your decades and dedication to 
our Nation.
    The Department of Army's budget requests reflects the 
continuity of purpose towards the goal of the Army of 2030. Of 
$182 billion is 1 percent increase from the fiscal year 2023 
enacted level. The Army is not a regional force; it is a global 
force. The Army must meet the different challenges of each of 
the combat commanders and adjust to many different 
environmental situations. And the Army has accomplished over 
the years great things, strengthening our ties with nations, 
South Korea, and Japan, and so many other new partners in Asia 
under Operation Pathways.
    While at the hearing today, we will be covering a range of 
topics. I want to highlight a few that are important to me and 
to Ranking Member DeLauro. The Army seems to be taking a risk 
with the number of Blackhawks, tanks, and other medium and 
heavy vehicles in the fiscal year 2024 request. I realize that 
you are moving towards a more technology advanced system, but 
for what happens if those systems are delayed? I also want to 
know if that will affect or interfere with the Army having to 
fall back on executing any commissions if there is a gap in 
this equipment exchange?
    The second is on climate change. I am pleased to see the 
department's overall increase, support for resources, but I 
believe the Army still has a long way to meet resiliency 
targets necessary to secure the Army's many installations. I am 
not only concerned about how climate change continues to impact 
our bases, but how it is changing the geopolitical nature of 
the arctic. I am curious to learn more about the's Army Arctic 
strategy in meeting our national security goals, as our near-
peer China likes to refer to itself as a near Arctic nation.
    And, finally, we know the Army has struggled with 
recruitment in the last year as we continue to face an 
unsettled labor market. I would like to hear more about how the 
Army's addressing its recruiting challenges. What cities is the 
Army particularly focused on in terms of recruitment? And what 
metrics are you using to determine success? And how can we 
help.
    Again, thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us 
today. We appreciate your testimony and answers to our 
questions, both oral today and submitted later. With that, I 
yield back and thank the chair.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Secretary Wormuth, 
General McConville, your full written testimony will be placed 
in the record. In the interest of time, I encourage you to 
summarize your statements in 5 minutes or less. Madam 
Secretary, the floor is yours.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Wormuth

    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Chair Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for 
your ongoing support as we continue to build the Army of 2030. 
We are both pleased to appear before you today. I am joined by 
General McConville, and I also want to thank him for his years 
of service and leadership in the Army. I am very grateful to 
work with him every day.
    We have accomplished a lot this year, but we still have a 
lot of work ahead of us. We remain focused on our three key 
priorities: people, modernization, and readiness. The fiscal 
year 2024 budget enables us to support the National Defense 
Strategy to provide ready forces to the combatant commanders 
and to take care of our people. By investing over $39 billion 
in procurement and RDT&E, we are maintaining momentum on our 
modernization program and are largely on track to bring 24 
systems across the finish line in 2023. This is a big year for 
long-range precision fires, prototypes of the precision strike 
missile, the mid-range capability, and the long-range 
hypersonic weapon will be in the hands of soldiers in this 
fiscal year.
    It is also a big year for next-generation combat vehicles. 
Mobile-protected fire power is in production and armored 
multipurpose vehicle (AMPV) is also being fielded. And it is a 
big year for our integrated air missile defenses and the Future 
Vertical Lift Program as well.
    As we shift from two decades of counterinsurgency and 
counterterrorism operations to large-scale combat operations, 
we are also transforming our force structure. We are going to 
need to adapt our force structure to make room for things like 
the multi-domain task force as well as other new units like the 
indirect fire protection capability and our M-SHORAD 
battalions.
    We are a ready Army, and we continue to emphasize readiness 
in everything that we do. We are funding 22 combat training 
center rotations. We have a robust exercise program. And we are 
implementing our new readiness model, which helps us balance 
modernization training and ongoing missions. We are also 
investing in Army preposition stocks which have served us very 
well in Europe and will continue to serve us in other theaters 
as well.
    To assist Ukraine in fighting against Russia, the Army has 
provided $20 billion in lethal assistance, including a wide 
range of munitions, radars, and combat vehicles. And I think 
one of the most important lessons we have learned from Ukraine 
is the need for a more robust defense industrial base. So in 
our budget this year, we are investing $1.5 billion in our 
arsenals, depots, and ammo plants. We are also working very 
closely with our partners in the defense industry to increase 
munitions productions, so that we can continue to help the 
Ukrainians, but also very importantly replenish our own stock.
    And even as our soldiers provide lethal assistance and are 
training soldiers in Ukraine, we haven't taken our eye off the 
pacing challenge of China. INDOPACOM may be a theater named 
after two oceans, but the Army has an important role to play 
there. The best way to avoid fighting a war is to show that you 
can win any war you might fight. And the Army is contributing 
to strengthening deterrence in INDOPACOM every day as we 
campaign in the region through our exercises and partnerships. 
And if deterrence fails, the Army will be a key player on the 
Joint Force team if there is a conflict.
    As important as it is to build new weapon systems and 
maintain our readiness, people are the strength of our U.S. 
Army. This budget includes--increases soldier and Department of 
Army civilian pay by 5.2 percent and funds important quality-
of-life improvements like family housing, childcare 
initiatives, and new and renovated barracks.
    We also, of course, want to build cohesive teams of 
soldiers that are trained, disciplined, and fit. So the Army is 
committed to building positive command climates across the 
force where our soldiers can be all that they can be. And since 
appearing before you last year, we have taken steps to build 
out a prevention workforce that will help us in our efforts to 
reduce harmful behaviors across the Army, which in turn will 
help us with recruiting and retention.
    We are also continuing to strive to prevent suicide in our 
ranks. Suicide is a national challenge, but we have to do 
everything we can to reduce suicide in the Army. So we are 
pursuing a range of initiatives to help our soldiers be more 
resilient. And I think one of the most important things we can 
do is make sure that we have engaged leaders at every level who 
know their soldiers and make sure that their soldiers are 
connected to their leaders, to their buddies, and to their 
families.
    Our Army is the greatest Army in the world, but to keep it 
that way we have to solve our recruiting challenge. The 
difficult recruiting landscape we face didn't appear in a year, 
and it is going to take us, I believe, more than a year to turn 
things around. But we are laser-focused on this challenge, and 
we are not going to lower standards to try to help solve the 
problem. The whole Army leadership is working on adapting how 
we recruit.
    We are generating positive momentum from initiatives like 
our future soldier prep course, our soldier referral, program 
and our new advertising campaign, Be All You Can Be, which I 
hope you all have seen. We have gotten a lot of good feedback. 
Our efforts are geared towards doing one thing: Reintroducing 
the Army to the American public and inspiring a renewed call to 
service. We very much need your help to be successful in that 
effort. I am proud of all that our soldiers do to protect our 
country and look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Secretary. I now invite General 
McConville for his testimony.

                Summary Statement of General McConville

    General McConville. Well, good afternoon, Chair Calvert, 
Ranking Member McCollum, distinguished members of the 
subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today 
and for your continued support.
    The United States Army exists for one purpose: To protect 
the Nation by being ready to fight and win our Nation's war as 
a member of the Joint Force. To do this, the Army has set three 
clear priorities: people, readiness, and modernization, or in 
other words future readiness. We have remained aggressively 
committed to these priorities while answering the Nation's call 
during every crisis and every challenge. This year the Army 
continued to undergo its greatest transformation in almost 50 
years. We are delivering on modernization because we have been 
consistent, and we have been persistent and you have funded our 
modernization priorities.
    Last year, we have officially updated our capstone 
warfighting doctrine to multi-domain operations which 
incorporates emerging lessons from Ukraine. We continue to 
stand up new organizations to support our new doctrine.
    Last June, we reactivated the historic 11th Airborne 
Division in Alaska for Arctic operations. In September, we 
stood up the third of our five multi-domain task forces. As the 
Secretary noted, we are on track to field 24 signature weapon 
systems in 2023. Eight systems have been fielded, six systems 
have been issued for testing, and the remaining ten systems are 
on schedule. But at the end of the day we must get the right 
people in the right place in order for any of these initiatives 
to be successful. This is why people remain the Army's number 
one priority. We want every young person and every parent to 
know that service in the Army is a pathway to success both in 
and out of uniform, whether you served for 4 years or you 
served for over 40 years.
    The Army offers endless possibilities. We are not only a 
profession of arms, but a profession of professions. You can be 
whatever you want to be in the United States Army. You can be 
anything you want to be. In fact, you can be all you can be.
    I am often asked how people can help us, and my answer is 
inspire young men and women to serve. Because when we get the 
call, we go with the Army we have. The Army we have is the 
world's greatest fighting force because we serve with the 
world's greatest soldiers. And with your continued support, we 
are going to keep it that way.
    I look forward to your questions, sir, and ma'am.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you for keeping your remarks 
brief. Each member will have 5 minutes for their questions and 
answers. When timer turns yellow, you have 1 minute remaining. 
First, I will recognize myself.

                             ARMY MUNITIONS

    Secretary Wormuth, given that the United States has 
provided a significant amount of munitions to the Ukrainians, 
are you concerned about, one, the current stock of U.S. 
equipment, which munitions have the greatest shortfalls, and 
what are you doing to address the problem? How does the U.S. 
Army collaborate with industry partners to ensure a stable and 
reliable defense industrial base? I know there was a lot of 
questions in this question, but--and how does the U.S. Army 
work with smart businesses and startups to promote innovation 
in the defense of industrial base?
    So, basically, how are we going to make sure we have the 
munitions that we need and get them as quickly as possible and 
get them back in inventory?
    Last month, the Army acquisition executive said the Army is 
looking into ways to speed up production, including the 
possibility of a budget amendment to start buying long-lead 
materials, but Congress has not received a formal request for 
the multi-year procurement for these munitions. And so, I 
guess, just give us an update on where you are at.
    Secretary Wormuth. Certainly, Chairman. First of all I 
would say, General McConville and I, when we get the request 
from the Ukrainians through the Secretary staff, of course, we 
look very carefully at what provided might do to our readiness. 
So I think at the moment we are comfortable that the amount of 
lethal assistance we have been providing is not eroding our 
readiness, but we keep a close eye on that.
    In terms of what we are trying to do to make sure that we 
can increase the production rates and also replenish our own 
stocks, as I said, first of all, we are investing in our own 
organic industrial base to try to increase its capacity, you 
know, to do more, for example, in places like Scranton, PA, 
where we do the shell casings for the 155 millimeter. And we 
have asked for--you know, again, we have put in 1\1/2\ billion 
dollars in our request this year to be able to do even more in 
that area.
    We are working very closely with industry to try to do 
everything we can to help make it easier for them to increase 
both the volume of their production, but also the speed of 
their production. And I think one thing that has been very, 
very helpful in doing that is multiyear procurement authority. 
You know, giving them a consistent demand signal, I think, 
makes it much easier for them to invest their own dollars in 
scaling up their production, and it can generate cost savings 
for us in the Army as well. I believe our errata to the budget 
request for multiyear for GMLRS and pack three missiles has, I 
hope, come over here. It is certainly our intent to ask you for 
multiyear authority for that.
    And to your question about which munitions, you know, are 
being used most heavily, I would say it is the 155, but also 
GMLRS. And, again, we are working to get GMLR production from 
6,000 a year up to 15,000 a year in the next couple of years. 
We are working to increase 155 production from about 20,000 a 
month right now to up to 75,000 a month by 2025. And we are 
always looking for ways to kind of pull that ramp to the left.
    And on your last question, Chairman, about small 
businesses, we are trying to work with small businesses 
wherever we can to try to leverage their innovation. And, 
actually, at Army Futures Command down in Austin, we have the 
Army applications lab, which is particularly focused on finding 
small businesses and finding projects that we can work on with 
them.

                        155 MM ROUND PRODUCTION

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. On the 155 rounds, you are going to 
go from 14 rounds production per month to about 85,000 rounds 
per month?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, Chairman, we went from 14,000 a 
month. We are now at 20,000 a month. We are not going to get to 
75,000 a month until fiscal year 2025. So we have work to do 
there. That is going to be a gradual process. We are looking to 
do it as quickly as we can.
    Mr. Calvert. How many rounds do you use a month just in 
your training operations?
    Secretary Wormuth. I think I will defer to General 
McConville on that.
    General McConville. Yeah, usually, it is about a--if you 
look at 14,000, it is about 150,000 rounds a year we were using 
for training. And that is why, you know, if you looked at your 
utilization rate, it was about 14,000 a month. That is what we 
kind of built. We are very efficient. And then we had our 
stocks that we remain. But we are basically, you know, 
producing enough 155 rounds to train our force.
    Mr. Calvert. You had some 155 rounds that actually met the 
expiration date. Wasn't that correct? I mean, you sent the--the 
Ukrainians were happy to destroy them for you. I guess that----
    General McConville. The Ukrainians are very happy with the 
ammunition, sir, we have given them. And we are giving them an 
awful lot of 155 rounds.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, good. Thank you. The gentlelady.

                     TOPLINE DEFENSE SPENDING LEVEL

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think you asked a 
question a lot of us have on our minds. So thank you for that.
    Madam Secretary, there was a question that came from our 
ranking member. It was sent to the Secretary of Defense, and 
others. We also got a letter back from you. But the gist of the 
letter was what would happen if we returned to the DOD's fiscal 
year 2022 spending levels? And that would mean your department 
as a whole would be cut by $74 billion.
    So, specifically, because you talked about recruiting and 
retraining, what would that mean for you? Because, you know, if 
you see housing allowances affected, you know, some of the 
other things that are, you know, daycare, things that are very 
important that people sometimes don't associate with the Army, 
because when you have a soldier. You also have a family with 
that soldier quite often.
    So would you just briefly hit that? And then I have some 
other questions too, but just kind of like--is that a concern?
    Secretary Wormuth. It is absolutely a concern. I would be 
very concerned, frankly, if the Army had to have its budget 
returned to fiscal year 2022 levels, and here is why. You know, 
I think that would be, you know, certainly a multibillion 
dollar cut to our budget. And, you know, we are not going to 
stop paying our soldiers. We are not going to stop paying for 
the training for our soldiers.
    But as you said, it would make it harder for us to do some 
of the improvements that we have done recently on quality-of-
life initiatives.
    But, most importantly, I think, you know, if we had to 
return to those funding levels, I think it would force us to 
start cutting into our modernization programs, you know, 
precisely at a time where the Army is undertaking its most 
significant modernization effort in 40 years; and precisely at 
a time where, obviously, we are looking at China, the pacing 
challenge, and China, you know, continues to engage in a broad 
and deep modernization of its military.
    So I would be very concerned that we would be unable to 
fund some of the important new weapon systems.

                           ARMY MODERNIZATION

    Ms. McCollum. Could you or the General give one, two, or if 
you have time, three examples of some of the things that might 
be put on the chopping block with modernization and how that 
would affect the Army?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I think, for example, some of our 
more expensive new weapon systems, for example, are in the 
future of vertical lift categories. So the new FLRAA helicopter 
that will replace the Black Hawk eventually. The FLRAA 
aircraft, which is going to be a recognizance helicopter. Also, 
the optionally manned fighting vehicle. Those are some of 
bigger ticket modernization programs that I think would 
probably have to be reduced if we return to those levels.

                         BLACK HAWK HELICOPTER

    Ms. McCollum. And so that goes to the question that--and 
Ranking Member DeLauro could ask it much more eloquently than I 
can--but most of us on this committee have been in a Black 
Hawk. Their workhorse C-130. So workhorse--we know who the 
workhorses are. With the decision not to scale down the Black 
Hawk, come up with a modernization, that can create a cleft if 
things don't go smoothly, or all of a sudden you find yourself 
either with year long CRs or with government shutdowns or with 
2020 levels of funding, correct?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, Congresswoman, I would say, you 
know, we are going to continue to have Black Hawks in our fleet 
for a very good long time. And we are not planning, obviously, 
in our fiscal year 2024 request to return back to fiscal year 
2022 levels. Again, I think that would be a very significant 
step backwards for the department. But we will continue to have 
thousands of Black Hawks in our fleet. Those are, you know, 
terrific helicopters.
    We value the workforce that builds them and maintains them; 
the industrial base that supports that. And we continue to have 
to be able to sustain those helicopters over time.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ranking 
Member DeLauro--as you and I both know with people in and out 
of these meetings with other things going on couldn't be here, 
and she wanted that on the record. Thank you.

                          SMALL DIAMETER BOMB

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Just before I recognize Mr. Rogers, 
just a point to clarification. The small diameter bombs, I know 
typically it is an Air Force program, but can the small 
diameter bomb--I know we are in the GMLR through the HIMAR 
system--but does the small diameter bomb that can be run 
through the HIMAR system also?
    General McConville. As far as probably--it is not our 
program, but as far as range, it goes a little further than the 
HIMARS system we have in place, and it goes a little less than 
the TACUM. So it kind of fits into that area right there.
    Mr. Calvert. But can it be used in the HIMAR system as far 
as in the longitudes itself?
    General McConville. I would have to get back to you. I am 
not an expert on that system. But the ones I have seen, it is 
not. It is not part of that system, but we can take a look 
and----
    Mr. Calvert. So the small diameter bombs has got about a 
90-mile range?
    General McConville. It is--I can do kilometers, but that is 
about right.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Rogers.

                            ARMY RECRUITING

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Army fell short of 
its 2022 recruiting goal by 25 percent, creating a significant 
recruitment shortfall. What happened, and what are we doing 
that, and what is the portence for the future? Madam Secretary?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think a few things 
happened. You know, first of all, the overall pool of young 
Americans who are eligible sort of physically and behaviorally 
for the military and who are interested in serving, 
unfortunately, get smaller every year. So that is something we 
have to do to--we have got to turn back that tide and get more 
young Americans interested in serving in uniform. And I think 
that's what our call to service is about.
    But it has also been a combination of other factors. You 
know, we have very, very low unemployment. We have companies 
that are offering $24 an hour minimum wage and tuition 
benefits. We have the pandemic, which meant that our recruiters 
were out of high schools for a couple of years and kids, you 
know, had some learning losses, and I think, frankly, some 
physical fitness losses. So all of that kind of combined, I 
think, is a good part of why we find ourselves in this 
situation that we are in.
    In terms of what we are doing about it, you know, we are 
fully engaged and are working on this aggressively. And I think 
one of the most useful things we have done is create a program 
called The Future Soldier Prep Course that we are running down 
at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and at Fort Benning, Georgia.
    And it is, basically, like a mini boot camp that takes 
young people who want to join the military but maybe didn't 
quite score high enough on the ASVAB test or who aren't quite 
within our body fat standards. We tutor them. We have them do 
PT twice a day. And about 97 percent of the young people who 
have been in that program have graduated and gone on to basic 
training.
    So that is a really good initiative. We have put a lot more 
money into advertising and we have launched our new Be All You 
Can Be marketing campaign. And I think that is resonating 
positively. We have a soldier referral program where, 
basically, if a soldier goes to their hometown and gets a 
friend to sign up, they can get promoted, or they can earn 
points towards promotion.
    So we are trying to think of--we are trying to do 
everything we can think of because this is really a fundamental 
thing that the Army has got to solve if we are going to 
continue to be the Nation's, the world's greatest Army.
    Mr. Rogers. What happens if this doesn't work, will you 
continue to have this shortfall?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I think a couple of things would 
happen. First of all, we understand that this is the most 
important issue for the United States Army, and we are seeing 
some positive momentum.
    So our recruiting numbers right now look better than they 
did this time last year. So, first of all, you know, I want us 
to solve the problem. I don't want to concede that we are not 
going to be able to figure out how to improve our recruitment 
numbers. But if we don't improve our recruiting numbers, I 
think it could be mean two things down the road: One, you know, 
we are a total Army.
    So we have the Guard and Reserves. And we might find 
ourselves using the Guard and Reserves a little more. And they 
have done amazing things in the last few years both overseas 
and at home.
    And the other thing I would be concerned about, frankly, is 
we don't want to have a hollow Army. We don't want to have 
units that are not manned sufficiently to have sufficient 
readiness. So down the road if we don't solve this problem, we 
might have to look at that some force structure cuts, but that 
is not something I want to do.

                         RECRUITING INITIATIVES

    Mr. Rogers. You announced a shift of $1.2 billion from Army 
programs to recruiting initiatives, enlistment, and 
reenlistment bonuses, and other efforts. Has that worked?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, sir. I think, certainly our 
incentives, our financial incentives are helping us. Even 
though we have recruiting bonuses, those have been helpful. We 
have a two-plus-two program where young people can join in 
active or for 2 years, and then go into the Guard and Reserves. 
We have something called a quick ship bonus.
    So young people who were willing to go quickly to basic 
have a financial bonus. And then another incentive that has 
been popular is getting to choose your first duty stations. So 
those are all bonuses and incentives that are bearing fruit.
    Mr. Rogers. General, would you care to add?
    General McConville. You know, what I would add, and the 
Secretary covered most of them. One of the facts that I think 
is concerning to me is 80 percent of the young men and women 
that come into the United States Army come from military 
families, and they come from places like Fort Campbell where 
they have been exposed to the military.
    I have three kids to serve, so I am all in. And what we 
need to do is expose more young men and women to the military.
    Another interesting factoid is 44 percent of the kids come 
from high schools that have JROTC. Not in JROTC, but they have 
been exposed. And so what we are doing right in align with what 
the Secretary says, you know, places like the 101st Airborne 
Division have a mission to support their recruiting brigades.
    So they are going out there, and they are showing young men 
and women what you do in the Army. And I think we need to do 
this around the Nation. And I think we need to expose more 
young men and women to what the Army, military, and service is 
all about.
    And if we do that, we will get primal cues early on in 
their development, and they may choose to serve, and I think 
that is really important for the future of the Nation.

                        ARMY RECRUITING COMMAND

    Mr. Rogers. The recruiting command is based out of Fort 
Knox, not too far from my district.
    General McConville. Yes, it is.
    Mr. Rogers. Are they deeply involved in these programs?
    General McConville. Absolutely. We have great leadership at 
the recruiting here. But all commanders are. You know, 
historically--you know, I have been doing this for a while. It 
was a recruiting commands kind of challenge or problem to fix 
recruiting. This is the Army's challenge. And so all our 
commanders are involved. Our division commanders are involved, 
our FORSCOM commanders are involved, our soldiers for life are 
involved. It is critical that we get everyone to help us 
inspire young men and women to serve.
    Mr. Rogers. Godspeed to you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. On the chairman's questions. I see 
you had a bit of bad luck on your Be All You Can Be commercial. 
Your star, I guess, got into some trouble. But, hopefully, you 
are cutting a new commercial, getting it online as quickly as 
possible. Mr. Ruppersberger.

                        IMPACT ON MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Just call me Dutch. It is good to see 
you all. And I do want to say, you are doing a great job, I 
think, in leadership in the United States Army. You have a lot 
of missions, and I believe you are doing well. First thing, I 
am a strong supporter of providing aid to Ukraine. We need to 
do that. It is very important for the future of our world.
    And I want to make sure that the Army has the funding that 
it requires, and the defense industrial base has the signals of 
intent that it needs to work together and replenish our stocks 
without lowering readiness levels or slowing modernization 
efforts.
    I know the department is working hard to strike this 
balance. And I think we all know that reduced stockpiles of 
weaponry has the potential to impact readiness. However, I 
think there is less discussion on its impact on our 
modernization programs.
    With that said, question for you, Madam Secretary, and also 
for General McConville.
    Madam Wormuth, how is the Ukraine conflict industrial 
base's efforts to replenish stocks affecting our modernization 
glide path?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, at the moment, Congressman, I 
would say, you know, we are not seeing negative effects from 
the efforts to provide lethal assistance to Ukraine. In fact, 
in some ways, you know, it has allowed us as my partner says, 
you know, rather than buying new old stuff, we are buying new, 
new stuff. So, for example, the M 113 vehicles that we have 
given to the Ukrainians, we are actually going to replace those 
using the supplemental funding from Congress with AMPVs, you 
know, which are newer.
    We have given some of our paladin systems to the 
Ukrainians, and we will again be able to augment what we have 
got in our base budget by buying some additional paladins, for 
example.
    So in that way, I think it has been helpful to us. And, 
again, it has caused us also, as I said, to invest more in the 
organic industrial base which is going to, I think, pay 
dividends over the long term in terms of building up our 
stockpile.
    Mr. Calvert. General.

                        DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    General McConville. There is a lot of good lessons to be 
learned from Ukraine. You know, we take a look at some of our 
usage rates for ammunition. And, you know, you asked a question 
how many, you know, a month for 155 millimeter, that was very 
much sufficient for operating in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and 
training the force. And now we are seeing with a good-sized 
regional war what it requires for ammunition stocks, and what 
it requires for the organic industrial base.
    And much of our organic industrial base, if you take a look 
at it, we have some great arsenals around the country. We are 
built during World War II when we had a very large war, and 
some are still operating the same way today. So with the 
funding that you have given us we are able to improve and 
actually modernize the industrial base.
    We are able to replace, as the Secretary said, weapon 
systems that are still good weapon systems. But as we buy, we 
are buying new, and at the same time things like stingers and 
javelins that have been sitting on the shelf for a while, we 
will have to replace them and do it.
    I think as long as we can replenish our stocks, as long as 
we can get the replacement equipment and money to do that, we 
will be okay.

                         FUTURE ARMY PRIORITIES

    Mr. Ruppersberger. You know, it has been said that the Army 
which is the largest in personnel has had cuts in the past 
years. And, you know, you have got to take your orders before 
us here today. We know where your priorities are at now, and we 
are going over that at this time. But there is some things that 
you were not going to be able to get.
    Of those areas, where do you think we need to focus next 
year--I am not talking this year--for the future of the Army, 
so you can carry out your mission? Either one.
    Secretary Wormuth. Well I would say----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, both. Both.
    Secretary Wormuth. I would say, Congressman, again, you 
know, we are very committed to our modernization program. 
Because, you know, most of the weapon systems that Army 
currently has are ones that we developed in the eighties. And 
so we want to be able to continue to maintain our momentum 
there. It is very important to invest in those new portfolios, 
future vertical or long-range precision fires. Our challenge is 
always how do we balance that with the other things that we 
also have to do; take care of our soldiers.
    You know, we have an enormous inventory of barracks and 
housing that we are trying to renovate to make sure that our 
soldiers and families are living in quality housing.
    And then a related piece to that that, I think, has not 
gotten as much attention in the last several years but is 
intimately connected to our servicemembers and to just our 
ability to operate is our infrastructure overall. You know, we 
have got to take care of our infrastructure, whether it is 
housing, or whether it is all of the infrastructure in Hawaii, 
the underground systems, the water systems, the pipelines, the 
electric grid.
    Those are expensive initiatives. But if we don't take care 
of them, you know, it is sort of like letting the foundation of 
your house go bad. So, I think, balancing all of that is always 
the challenge for General McConville and I.
    General McConville. Yeah, I just agree with everything the 
Secretary said. And I think we have a very balanced approach 
to, you know, how we are taking care of our people, how we are 
making sure the force is ready. And the modernization is really 
important. We have got to transform the Army. And we will get 
questions like, well, why didn't you buy more tanks, why didn't 
you buy more Apaches, or why didn't you buy more Black Hawks.
    We certainly want those items. But those are what we call 
enduring weapon systems. They are going to around for a while, 
and we have been incrementally improving them over the last 40 
years. But I believe we have to get to the transformation of 
weapon systems coming in for us to be effective in some of the 
fights we are going to see in the future.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Cole.

                        DEFENSE SPENDING LEVELS

    Mr. Cole.  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And it is 
good to see you both of you again. Thanks for stopping by the 
office. Much more importantly, thanks for your service. I will 
make a point, and then I have--well, a couple of points and 
then a question.
    The first point in terms of cutbacks, it is worth noting, 
the cutbacks we are talking about is actually with the 
administration's budget. You know, this committee didn't 
support increases beyond the administration's budget. That 
happened because the authorizers in the House and the Senate 
and the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense went 
first 30 billion and $45 billion above what the President asked 
for in the last 2 years. So the gains we have had have actually 
been congressional gains on top of what the administration has 
asked for.
    So going back to the administration budget, I am astonished 
people are concerned about that that support the 
administration. But I do believe in the end we do need more. As 
I have told both of you when we had the opportunity to visit, 
we are not spending enough. And I hope Congress, once again, 
delivers a budget, honestly, that is larger than the President 
request.

                               FORT SILL

    I am going to be shamelessly parochial here as I was in our 
conversation, so forgive me for that, but I was disturbed. I 
want to just point this out for you. Fort Sill is a pretty 
major facility for the Army, fire centers of excellence, air 
and missile defense, long-range precision fire CFTs, counter 
UAS schoolhouse, extended range cannon artillery testing, basic 
training, and AIT training for new soldiers. So pretty 
significant.
    And yet, under the construction budget, there is not going 
to be a single building built at Fort Sill for 5 years. Now, I 
am going to work with you on that. There is limits to what I 
can do given our own rules on that. But I would just invite you 
to relook at that.
    There is too many missions there to not have a single 
building. I am not arguing for a single one. I just know that 
amount construction isn't realistic in a base that small. But 
you got to live within a constrained budget.

                        ARTILLERY PRIORITIZATION

    The second thing I would ask--and I would ask you to 
comment on either that or both these things, but the second one 
particular--you know, for the third year in a row, the Army has 
proposed a thin budget being cut back. This is the 
modernization of a thousand artillery pieces.
    And we overruled your last two. And I think we were 
justified to have done that, because frankly I think we not 
only need to quip our own force, our own Guard. You know, 
honestly, we are sending a lot of stuff to Ukraine now, that 
new stuff coming on lets us send other things over there and 
lets our allies do the same thing.
    So, you know, I will just flag this for the committee. That 
is something I will be trying to persuade us to do, because I 
think we are in an era when artillery really matters.
    Are you concerned about the levels we are asking? Because 
when I talked to the folks that are involved in production, 
they are worried about maintaining the line, so to speak, a 
sufficient number of units being modernized coming through.
    And I do not want to lose the capability, more importantly, 
I don't want to lose the weaponry for our men and women in 
uniform.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, our assessment, and I mean, 
first of all, I would say, you now, the paladin is a very good 
weapon system. And, you know, we absolutely think it has a 
place. And we know from what we have seen in Ukraine that 
artillery systems are very important and remain important.
    You know, I think our judgment is that the amount that we 
have got in the budget this year, which I think is 24 systems 
is enough to keep the production line open. It is an example, I 
would say, like Abrams to give another example of where we are 
trying to balance continuing investment and ensuring systems, 
like paladin, like Abrams, while also making sure that we have 
got room to invest in new systems, and, of course, new 
artillery systems. New long-range precision fires are a major 
piece of our new modernization agenda.
    So I think with the 24 that we have, plus the 18 that we 
will be able to purchase as replenishment for the 18 that we 
gave the Ukrainians will get us up to--I don't want to do math 
in public, I think it is 42, but--so, you know, I think we will 
be okay there, but certainly understand your perspective.
    Mr. Cole. Well, again, I don't think we will be okay there. 
And if we would have relied on the Army's judgment the last 2 
years, I don't think we would be okay today. I mean, it was 
because Congress put additional money towards those systems. 
And, again, just a last point, I just think you need more, and 
that is not a criticism of what you are doing and what you 
have.
    I think you guys have done a great job with what you have 
done particularly in helping Ukraine and dealing with the 
problem. I just think we need to be more generous as to 
Congress, because I think we are in that dangerous a world 
right now, and we need to give you everything you need to carry 
out your mission.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Kaptur.

                        ARMY RECRUITMENT TRENDS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both or your 
service to your country, and this has been a very interesting 
hearing.
    General McConville, I'm interested in some of the figures 
you gave on recruitment; that 80 percent of those who do enlist 
are from military families. How is that a change in the culture 
of service that we have had in our country and generations?
    General McConville. Well, I really don't have the--you 
know, as far as how has that changed some historically, I don't 
think it was that high. I think it was, you know--because I 
think the challenge is there is less people that serve. So when 
you say 80 percent, the pool was much smaller. If you go back 
to days--you know, if you go back to the World War II 
generation with just about everybody served in the military in 
some type of role, then you would have--just about everyone had 
some type of family exposure. I think now, when it was smaller 
numbers, that is very concerning for me. Because what we want 
to do make sure people understand what military service is all 
about. And we just need to do a better job exposing young men 
and women to that.
    Ms. Kaptur. I have read one figure that stated that you 
only 1 percent of American's families have any direct 
connection to the military. Do you think that is true?
    General McConville. Well, people like to throw in a figure. 
One percent of Americans served. And so maybe from that they 
can, you know, say, you know, that those people have exposure. 
But I think we personally have to do a better job. I take that 
on myself. You know, we live in these gated communities because 
of security. It is very difficult for nonmilitary people to get 
on their posts. There is places--you know, like major posts.
    And I use like Fort Bragg or Fort Campbell or Fort Hood, 
you know, where people are very much exposed to the military. 
But there is other parts of the country where they may not know 
anyone in the military. And we got to reach out to them and 
show the advantages of serving in the military.
    Ms. Kaptur. I think that there is a--I am not saying the 
recruiting stations aren't good and so forth, but I do think 
there is a new generation out there. And I commend you for the 
work that you are doing to try to help them understand what the 
opportunities are within the military.
    And I think--you know, congratulations on those. I am very 
concerned about it myself, because I see young people having 
rather limited experiences in life, and that gives them a 
certain point of view. And one aspect of the military, it helps 
to widen your portal so that you can see a broader world. And 
that is something that I think is really needed in our country. 
So I push you on in your efforts, and I support those.

                             WAR IN UKRAINE

    I also wanted to ask each of you in terms of the war in 
Ukraine which has now been going on into its ninth year in one 
form or the other. As you look forward, a lot of articles are 
saying this looks more like World War I than more recent 
conflicts. From your vast experience looking down the road, 
what do you think that the likelihood is that there will be a 
resolution?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, I would say, Congresswoman, I 
don't have a crystal ball, and I am no longer the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Policy. So I am in the business of 
manning and training and equipping the Army. But I think, you 
know, you do see obviously some parallels to World War I with 
sort of the trench warfare that we are seeing with the 
incredible reliance on artillery.
    I think this spring, you know, what happens this spring 
will be very, very constructive and perhaps decisive in terms 
of the next counter offensive. You know, we have to, I think, 
do everything we can to support the Ukrainians against the 
Russians.
    Because we just can't let the principal of a state invading 
another state and authoritarian regimes decreeing that a 
country doesn't have the right to exist. I don't think any of 
us want to live in that kind of a world.
    But, really, I think, you know, ultimately how this war 
resolves itself will depend on when the parties, I think, 
decide that they want to come to the negotiating table. And as 
President Biden has said many times, you know, nothing about 
Ukraine without Ukraine.
    So we are not, I think, going to--I am certainly not going 
to speculate on what President Zelenskyy, when he decides that 
he has reached that point.
    Ms. Kaptur. General.
    General McConville. Yes, one of my big lessons learned, I 
think it applies to other situations we have seen this year. If 
you take a look at the Ukrainians, and you know one of the 
things that we have been able to do with them is provide them 
capabilities, like weapon systems, capacity enough for the 
weapon systems, and also competence in those weapon systems.
    Their soldiers are very eager to learn. But the one thing 
we can't give them which they have is the will to fight. And 
they are very committed to fighting and defending their 
country. And, quite frankly, as long as they are willing to do 
that, they are not going to lose this fight. And it is a battle 
of wills.
    It is all a matter of time. And I think what I have seen, 
which is most impressive with the Ukrainians is how serious 
they are about defending their country. And I think as we look 
at future allies and partners and relationships, that ought to 
be a consideration on how we support them.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Womack.

                          JUNIOR ROTC PROGRAMS

    Mr. Womack. I spent three and a half hours this morning in 
the board meeting of the U.S. Military Academy Board of 
Visitors, which proudly serve on.
    And, General, I can tell you that your alma mater continues 
to distinguish itself in the production of a about a thousand 
lieutenants every year for our Army. And I would be remiss if I 
didn't acknowledge the great work that is going on by General 
Gillon and his team up on the Hudson River.
    I also believe that Junior ROTC is a pretty important piece 
of this people issue that we have been talking about. What is 
our backlog right now for people, for high schools that want a 
junior program, but for a lot of reasons we just can't fill the 
slots that are requested? Does anybody know? And, certainly, 
that is something that we should be paying attention to. 
Because it is one thing to run out of bullets; it is a whole 
another thing to run out of people. So what say you?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think we have somewhere 
around 240 to 250 high schools who have expressed interest in 
hosting a Junior ROTC program. I believe that we are planning 
to expand to 30 programs approximately in the next year or so. 
So there is a waitlist.
    I think one of the things that is very important that goes 
to some things General McConville said earlier is a lot of our 
Junior ROTC programs are in parts of the country where we have 
already a very strong, first of all, presence by the United 
States Army. And our big bases like Fort Bragg, Fort Stewart, 
Fort Campbell, and are also in states where we have a lot of 
Junior ROTC programs.
    So I am of the view that we need to be strategic as we 
expand and try to place those new programs into states that 
don't already have a lot Junior ROTC or a heavy Army presence.
    Mr. Womack. I do know this, that when I do my academy day 
programs for our service academies, that I do have quite a 
significant number of people that have connections to the 
junior programs that exist in my district. And we are not a 
heavily military district.
    So I do think that that is one of the tickets to kind of 
relieving us to this whole people issue. But there is some good 
news. I understand that retention programs are doing pretty 
well. General.

                        ARMY PERSONNEL RETENTION

    General McConville. Our retention is extremely--I wouldn't 
say--some people say it is a historical high. I would hate to 
say it is that high, but it is actually very, very good. And 
the soldiers that are staying, you know, we are retaining, and, 
you know, like we say, and we appreciate the support we are 
getting. We enlist soldiers, but we retain families. So these 
programs that take care of families are extremely important.
    Mr. Womack. So why in your opinion are retention rates 
better?
    General McConville. I think, you know, people like what 
they are doing. You know, there is a lot of maybe 
misconceptions about what Army service is all about, and I 
think that is why we have to expose people to, you know, the 
advantages of actually serving. You know, there is so many 
stories about those who have been successful by coming to the 
Army and getting ahead and the education, training, and 
leadership. And, like I said, whether they stayed 4 years or 
they stayed 40-plus years, there is a lot of value in serving 
in the Army.
    And, you know, we have to kind of overcome--you know, some 
think they are putting their lives on hold by going into the 
military. I would argue in some cases it can be accelerating 
their lives and getting ahead. So we need to do a better job of 
putting out those possibilities.

                           TALENT MANAGEMENT

    Mr. Womack. You are known for your talent management 
strategy. And I know it has been somewhat revamped, but it has 
got your fingerprints all over it. So I suppose you must be 
proud of how we are managing talent in our Army today.
    General McConville. Like I tell people, we are in a war for 
talent, and we are competing for every one of the soldiers. And 
when I talk to civilian leaders, we are competing against them. 
And we have got to give them purpose. We got to make sure that 
we are using them in talents. And that is the program we are 
trying to go ahead with.

                         BASIC NEEDS ALLOWANCE

    Mr. Womack. Last question. As both of you know, the basic 
needs allowance is a new program designed to assist our most 
vulnerable servicemembers to care for their families, 
particularly, in high-cost-of-living duty stations. And I will 
be shameless like my friend over here from Oklahoma. I have 
introduced legislation to make this benefit, the BNA tax free. 
I think it should be tax free, like BAH and BAS. Can you 
explain how important every dollar of the benefit that we are 
talking about with the BNA, how that--what that means to 
qualifying soldiers? Secretary?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, certainly, you know, our soldiers I 
think right now need every dollar that they are getting. 
Because of inflation, you know, gas prices are up, food prices 
are up, particularly in a lot of remote and isolated places 
where our soldiers serve, or in Hawaii, for example, when the 
costs are high. So we want to make sure that our soldiers are 
getting every dollar.
    Secretary Austin has put out a number of initiatives to try 
to take care of people. We have increased BAH rates in a lot of 
different places. And we want to make sure that our soldiers 
are not worrying about food insecurity, for example, or 
financial insecurity so they can focus on their jobs. I think 
that is why it is so important.
    Mr. Womack. Yeah, thank you. Mr. Chairman, before I yield 
back, look, not to belabor the point, but I just think it is 
wrong for us to try to fix a problem, and then turn around and 
then yank a bunch of it back in taxes from the beneficiaries. 
And this is important to me, and I would encourage everybody to 
take a look at it.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Aguilar.

                   FUTURE SOLDIER PREPARATORY COURSE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I might have jumped 
the line from my colleague to Hawaii, so apologies to that. 
Hawaii has been name-checked a couple of times in this hearing, 
though, so he will get over it.
    Let me pick up on where the gentleman from Arkansas and Mr. 
Rogers was talking about, too, and talk a little bit about, ask 
you about the Future Soldier Preparatory Course.
    Madam Secretary, last year, the Army launched the Future 
Soldier Prep Course Pilot Program to help applicants improve 
their scores and their physical fitness and standard aptitude 
test. And my understanding is they spent up to 90 days with the 
prep course. And they are being located at Fort Jackson, South 
Carolina, and Fort Bragg.
    I wanted to talk a little bit about the metrics of the 
program and the success rate that you have seen, but more 
importantly, Madam Secretary, what is scale, and what can be 
done? We heard a little bit about recruitment in general. What 
more can we do, Madam Secretary?
    And then, General McConville, I would love your thoughts, 
too, on how this is affecting the broader recruitment strategy, 
and where this fits in? Because I just think it is innovative. 
I think it is helpful. I think it is something we need to do a 
lot more of.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. We are big 
supporters of this program as well. It is about investing in 
young Americans and young people who want to serve, and we have 
seen it work quite well. Basically, what we are doing in terms 
of sort of can we expand it, and we are monitoring both at Fort 
Jackson and Fort Benning on a weekly basis to see if there is 
sufficient people in the pipeline to expand it.
    What we are really doing is taking young people who score, 
who are what we call CAT-4s, who basically have the lowest 
scores on the ASVAB on the aptitude test. We take a small 
number of those normally, and we don't want to lower our 
standards. What we do through the Future of Soldier Prep Course 
is help them--you know, give them some academic help, so that 
they can raise their scores. Or in the case of physical 
fitness, it is to get them within our body fat standards.
    And we think there is about eight to 10,000 people right 
now, you know, who can come through that program. As you said, 
they can have it up to 90 days. A lot of the young people 
coming through are finishing up in 3 to 4 weeks and are 
performing well enough to go on to basic training. We find that 
when they go into basic training, they often seem to have a bit 
of a head start over young people who come just sort of 
straight off the streets, if you will, and they are often sort 
of getting leadership positions at basic training.
    So I think it is doing quite well. But we will--if we think 
there is a pool of people who can use it and benefit from it 
grows, we would be open to expanding it further.
    Mr. Aguilar. General McConville.
    General McConville. Yes, Congressman. I am very excited 
about the program. I think it is something that we have, in a 
lot of ways, an industrial-age recruiting program. Some of our 
standards are outdated, and, you know, but we don't want to 
lower the quality, so how can you do that? Well, having an 
assessment program gives us a chance to take a look at these 
young men and women that want to serve.
    And what we see is when they go to the course, something 
about what you just teach in the test, so they can pass the 
ASVAB. Not really. What we are really giving them is 
discipline. You know, they have to get up early in the morning. 
They get a chance to do physical fitness. They get a chance to 
study all day long. And they learn even how to make their bed. 
You know, and they do all these great skill sets.
    And what we are finding is these young men and women are 
improving their scores, they are losing sometimes 4 to 6 
percent body fat, they are getting in shape. We are giving them 
a head start.
    So when they actually go into initial military training 
where they were at the lowest category, they are actually 
excelling; in some ways exceeding the standards; becoming the 
student leaders.
    And I think there is potential to take a look at other 
things. Kids that made a mistake growing up that we would not 
give a waiver to, maybe they will come in the future soldier 
prep course. When you say, we will give you a tryout, see if 
you can, you know, develop through this process. In over 30, 
60, or 90 days, you get a chance to see what they are all 
about.
    And in some cases, you know, the Army is not for everybody. 
But what we are finding is for about 95 percent of those young 
and women, they are succeeding, and I think it is a good 
investment in young men and women in the future.
    Mr. Aguilar. How many have gone through the program?
    General McConville. We are right at about 5,000, and I 
think we could do more. Once we get a look at it, and we get 
out there, and it is taking people--and it is really an 
investment course. I think with a lot young men and women 
today, we are finding engaged inspirational leadership is much 
better with the young men and women today than some of the 
other type leadership that we used before to break people down. 
In this case, we are building them up.
    And then when they go in, they are ready to go, and they 
are going pretty well so far. And we are tracking, too. We are 
doing studies to kind of get an idea, you know, come back to 
the Secretary and say, hey, you know, here is how the 
investment is paying off. So we got to see how they matriculate 
through their 4 or 5 years, or they end up being Chief of Staff 
of the Army.
    Mr. Aguilar. Nothing against Mr. Womack's a thousand 
lieutenants who come out, obviously, but this could be a 
program that could be helpful to complement the force moving 
forward. So I appreciate the innovation in the pilot projects 
and your willingness to do it. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Aguilar.
    General, I remember an old-timer ran--I ran into one time 
and told me that as a young man he was given a choice by a 
judge. Either I--you join the Marine Corps or go to jail and he 
ended up being a master sergeant in the United States Marine 
Corp. So he made the right choice. So they don't do that 
anymore, I guess. But maybe we should.
    General McConville. We would like to give them an 
assessment.
    Mr. Calvert. What is that?
    General McConville. I would like to give them an assessment 
before we, you know.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Carter.

                         ARMY SOFTWARE FACTORY

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I apologize for my coughing fit. I was in surgery for 4 
hours yesterday. And I am still kind of halfway goofy over 
that, what they gave me to put me to sleep. So please forgive 
me.
    And thank you so much because I came here because of my 
Army and I want--and that is very important to me. Something 
that is very important to me, I want to talk about the Army 
Software Factory. As you know, this year is very important to 
me. I recently saw a Marine--that the Marine Corps announced it 
would enable--it will enable the Army Software Factory, because 
they think that the leadership there is impressive and the 
concept is very valid.
    I am concerned that the Army is not fully recognizing and 
supporting the potential of this unit. I hope they are. And, 
obviously, we need more soldiers who are competent in the 
technical fields. And just as important, we need them to want 
to stay in the Army to do these fields.
    My question to you is: What is the Army doing to utilize 
the specially trained soldiers from all backgrounds? And how 
have we operationally--operationalized the capabilities that 
they build in leveraging their talents as--in their new career 
process?
    What is--what have we done to support AFC leadership as it 
navigates this very unique system?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thanks, Congressman, for your support of 
the Army but also for your support of Army Futures Command and 
the Software Factory. I actually went down to Austin to visit 
the software factory myself a while ago and was very impressed 
with the folks that I saw in the program.
    And it is, I think, a good example of General McConville's 
commitment to talent management where, you know, we have got 
soldiers in the software factory who aren't cyber warriors, if 
you will. They were just sort of, you know, terrific coders on 
the side, if you will, and we brought them into the software 
factory.
    As you probably know, we have been running a pilot program 
to help us understand do we create a separate MOS for folks 
coming out of the software factory or do we, you know, merge 
them later on into some of the existing MOSs that we have. And 
that pilot is coming to an end, and I think we will be able to 
assess how best to give people coming out of that program an 
onward career trajectory.
    And in terms of how we have been using them, you know, one 
great example is they have been helping us with recruiting. 
They have actually been writing some apps for our recruiters to 
help our recruiters out on the street be able to, you know, 
gather data on the fly in a much more effective way. I mean, we 
are in the process of redoing, frankly, our IT support for our 
recruiters. And while we work on that program, the software 
factory has kind of given us some great shortcuts.
    I don't know, General McConville, if you want to add on 
that.
    General McConville. I think they are absolutely critical 
today, Judge, Congressman. And I think in the future they are 
going to be more critical. We are coding on the battlefield 
and, you know, the force that moves the data the fastest, that 
can take it from sensors and get into a Integrated Battle 
Command System and use artificial intelligence and get it to 
out the right weapons system very quickly, you are seeing some 
of that play out in Ukraine. But in the future this is going to 
be extremely important. And we are going to have to write code 
on the edge of the battlefield.
    So it won't necessarily be done by civilians. We are going 
to need soldiers that are going through it as people are using 
algorithms to do targeting, and that is what they are going to 
be doing.
    And they are doing a whole bunch of things, like the 
Secretary said, helping us solve problems because they are 
really skilled operators when it comes to coding. And they have 
a military perspective, and they are operators. And I think 
this program is really important, and it is only going to get 
more important in future.

                     RETENTION OF ARMY IT EXPERTISE

    Mr. Carter. I am hearing great things back home about it.
    But the question, I think, is: Do we have a place for them 
now so they will stay in the Army? Because we are training up 
people with real skills to be better. And then have we got a 
place to put them now so they will stay in the Army?
    General McConville. I think we do. And you may, unless you 
have someone, because the ones I have talked to, they stay in 
the Army. In fact, if you know the leaders down there----
    Mr. Carter. Yeah.
    General McConville [continuing]. The leaders actually 
stayed in the Army because of the soft--they were going to go 
somewhere else but because of the software factory, the ones I 
talked to, they actually stayed in the Army.
    And as you said, this is where our talent and management 
program comes in. We have got to get them to the right place. I 
know some are working on, you know, with our 18th Airborne Corp 
and they are working through some of the cutting-edge 
technology we are working on. They have been on project 
convergence. They have been on some of our other really 
challenging problems. So we will just make sure. We will get 
back to you, Judge, and check on that and make sure.
    Mr. Carter. People, we will--we have recruited them. We 
have educated them. Now let's keep them. Okay?
    General McConville. I am with you.
    Mr. Carter. Okay. I am all for you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Carter.
    Mr. Case.

                     STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF HAWAII

    Mr. Case. Thank you, Chair.
    Madam Secretary, I do appreciate your references to Hawaii 
for examples of points you were trying to make in your 
testimony. And I do thank you for your visit to Hawaii which 
was more than just a 2-hour fly-in. It was a couple of days 
long, and I think you got around Hawaii pretty well.
    And I hope you did take some lessons from what is the 
largest, both per capita 6 in absolute, one of the largest in 
the entire country from a military installation perspective, 
certainly the most intensively used and one of the most 
impactful areas and a very--a very--a very good but sometimes 
fragile military-civilian connection that has to be maintained 
for us to be able to do what we want to do and need to do in 
Hawaii.
    And so I appreciate, for example, the lessons you took 
away, I believe, that small investments sometimes in the 
defense space can have huge dividends. For example, the REPI 
program, the Readiness Environmental and Protection Program, 
which is not a lot of money but yet buys incredible benefits in 
terms of community support, community engagement. You saw that 
at Pohakuloa.
    I think you certainly saw and publicly commented on our 
infrastructure issues at places like Schofield Barracks where 
we have somewhere around 40 percent of the total buildings that 
need major renovation to achieve their purpose. You know, my 
grandfather who served at Schofield in World War I, was in some 
of those buildings. And so I think--I think you are on the same 
page.
    And so I just want to make the point that it is not all 
about weapons. It is not all about, you know, really large 
programs. Sometimes the smallest of programs can make an 
incredible difference.
    I will give you another example from a codel last year in 
the republic of Palau, of course, one of the most 
strategically, you know, key places in the Indo-Pacific, a 
small country, a country that is aligned with us, that we want 
to continue to align with. And a small civics action team there 
of six to eight servicemembers are making an incredible 
difference there from a community engagement. I think if you 
looked around the entire military, if you looked at a pure raw 
cost benefit, expense to benefit, you wouldn't find a better 
investment as that.
    And that is true throughout programs such as Pacific 
Pathways on a bigger picture, the Pacific Deterrence Initiative 
that the Army has a piece of that gives INDOPACOM and others in 
the military more flexibility to apply not just straight hard 
military power to the problem.
    I think these are all really, really valuable. So I just 
make those points to you.

                       ARMY MUNITION SUSTAINMENT

    What I want to do is go back to the chair's comments on the 
sustainability of our munitions, our missile pipeline over 
time. And I had this brief discussion with the Secretary of the 
Defense the other day and basically asked him: How do we 
actually sustain what we need do in Ukraine on the assumption 
that, although we wish this was over next month--we have to 
assume that it is not going to be over next month--how do we 
reconcile that with the drawdowns in other theaters from other 
allies and friends? We saw this in spades when we were out in 
INDOPACOM on a codel last month in which obviously those 
countries that rely on our munitions supplies for their own--
for their own arsenals in their own fights are being drawn 
down.
    And I am simply not calculating it yet how the Army, in 
particular, but also defense, large, is thinking about this on 
a long-term solution basis. For example, I think you mentioned, 
General, that pre-Ukraine we were producing around 14,000 
shells. A month, I think it has been openly reported, that 
Ukraine is burning 80 to 90,000 shells a month. Okay.
    So on that basis, if we are only taking our production up 
from 14 to 75,000 by fiscal year 2025, then we ought to either 
have a really big supply depot somewhere, which I don't think 
we do, or we ought to ramp up a lot faster than that.
    So I am not--there must be an answer out here but I am not 
reconciling it yet. How are we going to handle the 
sustainability of what we need, not only in Ukraine but 
elsewhere over time?
    Secretary Wormuth. Let me take a shot at that, Congressman. 
And it is a great question and I would say that sort of a 
multipronged effort to try to get after the problem that you 
are illustrating.
    You know, first and foremost, I think, you know, it is not 
just the United States that is providing ammunition to the 
Ukrainians, obviously. You know, we are--many of our NATO 
allies are making contributions, although, frankly, you know, 
the Europeans have got to do the kind of investing in their 
industrial base that we are now starting to make. And I know 
DOD officials are making those arguments to them very strongly.
    We have other allies around the world, you know, the South 
Koreans, for example, who are providing munitions, as well, you 
know, the Turks. And, you know, I don't want to list too many 
in an open session.
    But so it is a combination of drawing from our stocks, 
having our NATO allies provide munitions, having allies from 
other parts of the world, and then also ramping up our 
production system over time.
    And you are right. I wish that we could ramp that 
industrial base up more quickly than we are able to, and we 
look every day for new ways to try to do that. But some of the 
machining tools, for example, that are needed to make these 
munitions take quite a while to be fabricated themselves and 
take time to be installed.
    I mean, I went to the plant in Lima, Ohio, where we produce 
tanks, for example. And they showed me where there, you know, 
they have dug 12 feet down into the concrete to get ready to 
put in a new set of machining tools.
    So there is a time-physics challenge. But I think when you 
look at the totality of all of those things--and the last thing 
I would offer is we are also, and General McConville may want 
to say more about this, working with Ukrainians to do more 
training of them in terms of combined arms and using the 
munitions that we are giving them as efficiently as possible. 
So that is some of it. In the early stages of war they were 
shooting lots and lots of munitions, and they may be able to do 
that more efficiently.
    So my hope is that with all of that put together, we will 
be able to move forward.
    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.

                     ARMY RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

    Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Madam Secretary and General, thank you again for your 
service. Appreciate all you do.
    West Point not only delivers second lieutenants but 
heartbreaking losses to the Naval Academy every year. So 
appreciate that.
    I want to get on this retention recruitment discussion 
again because I do actually think this is the most important 
problem and challenge you-all face, and I know you are working. 
And I actually do trust you both to oversee not only that 
challenge but the acquisition of hardware, material, and 
managing that. I think you guys are the right folks for these 
jobs, and that is very important.
    But on this recruitment and retention challenge, I am 
encouraged by the retention data because there is an old saying 
that today's retention problem is tomorrow's recruitment 
problem. Right? And so that is a good telltale indicator that 
at least on the retention side we may be stemming the tide a 
little bit on the future recruiting challenges we face.
    And, I mean, basically the value proposition that we are 
putting in front of young Americans right now is I want to you 
to go shave your head, cut your hair, give up some of your 
rights, never be home, live in below-average quality housing, 
be overseas, put your life on the line, and do all that for the 
equivalent of $8 to $10 less than what a McDonald's worker 
makes.
    Those are all facts. Those are all the realities of 
serving. And a lot of us chose to do that, despite those 
sacrifices, because of the mission. And I know with the global 
war on terror and us pivoting out--and I will be brutally 
honest and tactful, as much as I can be, about this. The 
debacle in Afghanistan did not help, and the withdrawal and the 
manner that we withdrew did not help. And I am not pointing 
fingers or placing blame.
    But we do need inspiring leadership. We do need good 
results. We need to reestablish our dominance on the global 
stage, and we need victories. And defeats like that are morale 
busting, as you guys know. And it is not just the Army. This 
applies DOD wide.
    And I trust your leadership. I trust your inspiration and 
what you all are doing with the new commercials and the pushes 
you are doing for quality of life to be effective. But I--but I 
do think we all have to be very cognizant of in a post-9/11 
environment, on the heels of the global war on terror, we had a 
very clarified mission. We knew exactly what we were doing. I 
fought during the global war on terror and we knew what the 
mission was and it was a--it was a solidifying mission.
    And so in these marketing commercials and the recruitment 
pushes, we need to make sure that we are focusing on this is--
this is truly an existential fight for the country and we need 
warriors. We need warfighters who are looking to combat not a 
near-peer threat. That term near-peer has been used in this 
room. China is a peer threat, and you guys know in several 
domains we are challenged relative to China. And so that needs 
to be the mission. We are literally trying to protect our 
country against a peer threat.
    And do whatever we can on the compensation. You have heard 
me be very vocal. This 5.2 percent or 5.4 percent pay raise is 
anemic. That is the equivalent of $80 a month for E1s through 
E3s. That is one bag of gas for their truck. It is not doing 
enough for an inflationary environment like this.
    But we have to--we have to do all of the above. And I think 
if we fail to do the--all of those things, not just 
compensation, getting the weapons systems, the technology, the 
readiness, the beans, Band-Aids, and bullets to the field for 
our troops but also inspire them and have the Commander in 
Chief be more inspiring and have the results of our 
international missions be more inspiring, we have to do those 
things.
    That--sorry to get on a soap box but it is very important 
and I very--I take this one very personal.
    I am hearing from a lot of parents who served, moms and 
dads who, frankly, say they wouldn't let their 18-year-olds 
right now enlist in any branch of service because they don't 
have confidence in the government. And patriotism means you are 
always on the received your country, but it doesn't mean you 
trust your government.
    And I think we as a body here in Congress, the DOD, the 
executive branch, we have to reinvigorate Americans' trust in 
our government. And that comes from multiple facets, but 
inspirational leadership and some wins need to come with that.
    And I am going do all I can from a base pay perspective and 
housing allowance and all of the above, but the fact that our 
kids are choosing between making $20 to $22 at McDonald's or 
going and making $22,000 a year as a private is a problem and 
we need to address that as well.
    But I have no questions. I have got a lot of interest in 
the flora and 6 fauna. I will take those offline in the 
appropriate spaces.
    Madam Secretary and General, thank you for your service and 
thanks for obliging me and listening to me opine on that.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. Mr. Kilmer.

                         ARMY HOSPITAL STAFFING

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thanks to you both for being with us.
    Madam Secretary, I know when we spoke, I mentioned some of 
the concerns I have about the military health system 
downsizing. We are certainly seeing that in my neck of the 
woods with some of the changes made to Naval Hospital 
Bremerton, the elimination of labor and delivery department and 
the emergency department. I know that is not an Army equity, 
but it does impact the Army because the burden has been shifted 
to Madigan, which is really straining to pick up the slack from 
the downsizing.
    Unfortunately, Madigan is also--has a lot of gaps. There 
are 700, over 700 critical vacancies, an increase of over 100 
vacancies from last year. Given the difficulties hiring 
healthcare workers throughout the region, these vacancies are 
likely to remain open.
    And so with all of that in mind, I just want to get a sense 
of how the Army is prioritizing staffing for hospitals like 
Madigan to ensure adequate healthcare is provided to 
servicemembers and their families. And also if you can speak to 
how the Army can better collaborate with DHA to ensure that we 
have the correct mix of uniform and civilian personnel at 
places like Madigan.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    And I appreciated our conversation the other day on this 
matter. You know, making sure that we have got adequate medical 
professionals to take care of our soldiers and families is 
really important. And, obviously, when there aren't enough 
resources in our hospitals, they go out onto the broader 
network, and that can sometimes put a burden on the surrounding 
community.
    I think some of what we are seeing here is a little bit of 
the results of decisions that the department has made for the 
last several years across a couple of administrations to cut 
some of our medical professionals at military treatment 
facilities and then the transition to DHA. All of that, I 
think, has put us a little bit in the situation that we are in.
    We are, first of all, always working. Our surgeon general, 
General Dingle, is always working closely with DHA to try to 
make sure that we have got the right numbers of medical 
professionals in our hospitals. And we will certainly go back 
and look at Madigan to try to see if there is more we can do to 
close some of those vacancies.
    I think, looking ahead, you know, I am very heartened by 
the fact that the new head of the Defense Health Agency is an 
Army general, Telita Crosland, and our new surgeon will be 
coming up with a new surgeon general, as well, in several 
months.
    They are two people who know each other well, who have 
worked together well over the years. And I think that the 
collaboration between the Army and our medical community and 
DHA is going to be improving going forward. So I think that 
will be helpful.

                            MILITARY HOUSING

    Mr. Kilmer. I hope so. We are meeting with the new DHA 
leader later today, and I think my message primarily is going 
to be our region is being failed right now.
    So the other significant strain that we are hearing, I was 
just out at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, met with a group of 
servicemembers and their families. The other big strain we are 
hearing about is on housing. For my State to meet the demand 
for housing, we would have to build about 50,000 new homes a 
year just to keep up with demand. It is putting a big squeeze 
on military families, particularly because they can't choose 
where to live.
    You know, give me a sense of what we can do, what this 
committee can do to help servicemembers afford to rent or 
purchase a home at their new duty station. And, you know, is 
there any--is the Army exploring any ways to increase on-base 
housing options?
    Secretary Wormuth. We are always looking at ways to--this 
is a problem, frankly, that we face in a number of areas, not 
just at JBLM.
    And so one of the things that we are trying to do with the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense is look at how BAH is 
calculated, because I think we are concerned in the Army that 
the way we calculate BAH isn't keeping up with the times and is 
resulting in situations where sometimes our soldiers and 
families can't afford the kinds of homes or rentals that are 
available in places like the community around JBLM.
    So we are talking to OSD about let's look at the utility 
rates, the databases that we use to calculate utilities. Let's 
look at whether we have the right anchor points in our BAH 
calculation. And maybe, you know, looking at the costs of 
vacant homes, which is how we do it right now, isn't the right 
way to look at it, because those homes may be vacant for a 
reason. In some cases those vacant homes are vacant because 
they are in higher crime areas where our families don't want to 
live. So help supporting us as we try work through 
recalculating BAH would be helpful.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah, I will just say, as I yield back, the--
one of the concerns we heard was that the market analysis that 
is done consistently is really off in terms of what the supply 
is going to be and now including some of the these areas that 
are high-crime areas that historically servicemembers and their 
families don't want to live. So I appreciate you taking a 
closer look at that.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                           MILITARY READINESS

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
    And, Madam Secretary and General, thank you for your 
service.
    I want to go back to just very briefly to really what Mr. 
Cole had said at the beginning about just the levels. Right? I 
mean, if you look at inflation, it is about 6 percent and the 
request is at 4.6 percent. I mean, that is just real math. That 
is just basic math. And so, therefore, how do we do what we 
need to do? And, in fact, it ends up being a net reduction.
    But so a couple of questions. You know, does your budget 
adequately address the needs for all COCOMs?
    And then I want to go back to what Mr. Case was talking 
about and the issue of munitions, right, and the expenditure of 
munitions. And understand the Europe situation but how does 
that affect our military readiness with potential conflicts in 
other parts of the world, in particular, China, right?
    And, lastly, you know, what is the Army's potential role in 
Taiwan, a Taiwan scenario? And how is the Army accelerating 
ground-to-air missile defense systems in support of forward 
bases? Something that has me kind of concerned. So those are 
the three questions, if I may.
    Secretary Wormuth. Okay. Congressman, I will try to cover 
those. And also I am sure General McConville wants to speak to 
them.
    You know, as I said, our budget allows us to fund our 
contribution to the National Defense Strategy. Right now we are 
able to meet all of the requirements that the various combatant 
commanders are levying on us. You know, for example, we 
obviously quickly deployed additional forces over to Europe to 
support the Ukrainians and to stand shoulder to shoulder with 
our NATO allies. So I think we are able to do what we need to 
do.
    On munitions, we are absolutely, as I spoke with 
Congressman Case, not just looking at how do we continue to 
support the Ukrainians, how do we replenish our own stocks, but 
how do we replenish the stocks with an eye towards a future 
conflict in mind. And I think that is why you see the, you 
know, $2.7 billion in the space budget for munitions, $1.5 
billion to invest in our organic industrial base.
    But it is a challenging problem, and we need to keep 
working with our defense industry partners to find ways to ramp 
that up production more quickly than ever.
    And then I am sorry. You had one other--oh, support to 
Taiwan. You know, first of all----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yes.
    Secretary Wormuth [continuing]. We are doing everything 
that we are being asked to do to support Taiwan and its ability 
to defend itself. And you all have given us drawdown authority 
for Taiwan, and I think the department will be looking at how 
to best use that.
    And then, you know, we do a lot in the region, the Army, to 
develop relationships with allies and partners, to be able to 
be interoperability with countries in that region, because I 
think if we were to go to war with China, we would not go 
alone. We would come with other countries in the region. So 
showing that we can operate with their militaries is very 
important.
    And the investments we are making in air and missile 
defenses are going critical, given the kinds of missile 
stockpiles and ranges of those missiles that the Chinese have.

                 GROUND-TO-AIR MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. And, again, if any of you want to talk 
about--a little bit about the air-to-ground missile 
acceleration and we saw what happened, you know, recently in 
the Middle East. And it is just how do we make sure--what can 
we do, what do we need to do to make sure that our ground-to-
air missile defense systems, particularly supported forward 
bases, is what it needs to be?
    General McConville. Yeah, when you talk about, you know, as 
far as our protection from air-to-ground, is that----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. It is--yeah, I mean, just where we are 
there to protect our forward bases?
    General McConville. Yeah, well, that is why, you know, part 
of our modern----
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. It is just an area, General, that we have 
heard things that are potentially concerning there.
    General McConville. Yeah, well, what we are trying to do is 
really aggressively grow our air and missile defense 
capabilities. So we are building more Patriot. We are building 
what we call Indirect Fire Protection Capability type systems 
that will be able to take out counter UAS and those type 
things. So, in fact, we are building nine of those units and 
nine counter UAS.
    And we recognize the importance of building that. But it is 
also an Integrated Battle Command System with multiple sensors 
that can quickly take information via radars, bring them into 
an Integrated Battle Command System, and then having the right 
weapon system, whether it is lasers, high-powered microwave, 
missiles, guns, Stingers, and making sure you use the right 
arrow for threat you are seeing. And we recognize the 
importance of that, and that is why that is at the top of our 
list to get after.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. I appreciate that.
    But, again, just going back to, Mr. Chairman, when you look 
at basic math, all of these needs that we have, particularly 
when you are dealing with, you know, what Mr. Garcia said, you 
know, it is not necessarily a near-peer. Right? And yet, you 
know, math doesn't lie. Right? 4.6 percent request, 6 percent 
inflation, something has got give. And an area where we can't 
give is on our military strength.
    So, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Obviously, I agree with the gentleman.
    Mr. Stewart.

                         MUNITION REPLENISHMENT

    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Again, both of you, thank you for being here.
    You may know I come from an Air Force family. I think there 
is 12 of us who served. We had one brother-in-law who is an 
Army officer. He is actually two-star general. But other than 
him, the rest of us have stayed on the straight and narrow. And 
we know how--yeah, yeah.
    Yeah, that is right. My father is Army Air Corps. That is 
true.
    Hey, I want to--I want to kind of beat two dead horses, if 
I could, just to emphasize how important they are. One of them 
is what you have already discussed, replacement of ordnance and 
weapons systems. I had a example that troubled me.
    After we had one of these conversations with some very 
senior people, someone pulled me aside after and said, hey, you 
know, what we tell and what is conveyed to you is that we can 
replace some of these ordnance by 2026. And she said the actual 
answer is probably 2029. You may not be getting as accurate 
information as is necessary.
    And the reason she explained was because the supply chain, 
critical components, they just didn't think they were going to 
be able to get.
    You know, I think even in the best case scenario it is a 
concern and the truth is, is that we may run into challenges 
there that we don't anticipate right now or that we think we 
worked our way through and we may not.

                            ARMY RECRUITMENT

    And the second thing is, once again, on recruiting, and, 
again, coming from a military family, I said the same thing to 
General Brown this morning, Secretary of the Air Force, to 
Secretary Austin, Secretary Milley, or Chairman Milley, and 
others, we have got to look at what has changed in our culture 
and the perception of the military among our young people.
    And go back to the time that this idea of service, that the 
military as service is different than serving in, say, State 
Department or the EPA or any other government service. There is 
something different about the military, and that can be and 
should be attractive to people. And I am afraid we have lost 
that.

                         DUGWAY PROVING GROUND

    Having said those two things now, if I could, it is not 
unusual for us to come with parochial concerns. And this is one 
that I do need your help on, and I won't go into a deep 
background. I am curious. Have either of you been to the Dugway 
Proving Ground before? And this isn't a ``gotcha'' question. 
I'm just curious if you have.
    Secretary Wormuth. I haven't yet been there but I have----
    Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
    Secretary Wormuth [continuing]. Still got a couple of more 
years left in me.
    Mr. Stewart. Okay. Yeah, General? You have?
    General McConville. I have.
    Mr. Stewart. I mean, it is an interesting place. It is one 
of the most desolate places in the lower 48. I mean, the people 
who serve there are truly serving under austere circumstances. 
But it is also very important because it is the only place in 
the world we can do this, this biochemical testing, and 
critical to our own security. We know that.
    Without going into a lot of elaboration, which I hope you 
will understand, there is this dichotomy right now because, in 
1994, Congress transitioned that to the Secretary of the 
Defense. And since then, we have tried to get the 
undersecretary to move that back or it has moved back to the 
Army. But what that is done is it has left uncertainty in who 
actually funds Dugway and their capital improvements.
    They are in dire need of some very basic expenditures. For 
example, a fire--a fire station that they can't get their new 
equipment in because the door is just too small. And I could go 
on and on, critical things. I mean, the fire station actually I 
don't put in the critical element. The critical things are to 
actually accomplish their mission.
    And we have got to get it fixed and to definitively say 
this is who is responsible to fund them and then to budget in a 
way that they can fund them because they have been left out for 
far, far too long now.
    Please, please share your thoughts and tell me that we can 
go back to them and try and give them some good news.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I would be happy to look 
into this and see if we need to be doing more.
    I was under the--it was my sense that we had continued to 
invest in Dugway Proving Ground and that had actually done a 
little bit of an increase compared to last year. But if there 
are critical shortages with things like the fire trucks, for 
example, happy to take that, look into it.
    We have a whole process to look at our huge inventory of 
facilities around the country, and sometimes there are things 
that are important that we may not see.
    Mr. Stewart. No, I know you do. And I know that everyone 
would love to see the money spent in their district, and this 
is not at all. It really isn't. And I generally trust that, you 
know, those priorities that the senior leadership makes are the 
priorities that should be.
    But I am telling you that there has been a hole in the 
process here. It is not just, hey, will you help us out because 
we want to see the facilities in my district and my State, you 
know, shine. This is not that. This is something different. 
They have been at a deficit for years because of this 
uncertainty about who actually funds them and it is--and it is 
way worse than it ever should be. It really has to be addressed 
now that we have got the funding mechanism. They have got make 
up for some of their funding.
    And, again, it is not fire trucks. They can live without 
fire trucks, probably. God forbid there is a big fire out 
there. I am talking about the basic structures they need in 
order to accomplish their mission are now deficit.
    Secretary Wormuth. Happy to look into it and happy to also 
make sure that we have got good organizational clarity between 
us and the OSD office.
    Mr. Stewart. Please do.
    Yeah, thank you.
    Chairman, thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I think we are going to get a closing statement from Ms. 
McCollum and I will close it up and then we will call for the 
hearing.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, I want to thank you for being here.
    And, Mr. Stewart, I always learn something new with the 
questions that you ask. So I want to learn more about the--
about your fire trucks not fitting in the fire station.
    But I am also going submit a question for the record about 
the Arctic, as China is our near peer and very, very aggressive 
in the Arctic, 33 visits by high-level officials there.
    So, Mr. Chair, thank you for the courtesy of thanking 
people.
    And, with that, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    When the gentleman from Utah mentioned the garage door not 
being big numbering for the fire vehicle, it reminded me of 
the--I was looking over to the gentleman from Oklahoma when the 
Crusader, he designed that, and it was too long to fit into a 
C-17 and that, boy, what a misstep. Those mistakes we can't 
make anymore, general, Madam Secretary.
    But I thank you and I--I guess you are going to win the 
hypersonic war if you can deploy at the end of this year but it 
is still frustrating. The Chinese have deployed over 600. Of 
course, I know their R&D budget is a little short because they 
just steal our stuff and deploy it. But hopefully you will be 
able to deploy that system by the end of this year and maybe we 
can get the Navy and the Air Force off the dime and we can get 
this rolling.
    So we thank you for your service.
    And, General, after all these years, I appreciate your 
coming to this committee. And I am sure you are relieved that 
you don't have to do that anymore hopefully.
    And, Madam Secretary, thank you very much for what you are 
doing and your service.
    And with that, we are adjourned.
    [Ansers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    

                                           Tuesday, March 28, 2023.

                UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE

                               WITNESSES

HON. FRANK KENDALL, SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE
GENERAL CHARLES Q. BROWN, JR., CHIEF OF STAFF, U.S. AIR FORCE
GENERAL B. CHANCE SALTZMAN, CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS, U.S. SPACE FORCE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Good morning. Today, the subcommittee will receive 
testimony from the Honorable Frank Kendall, Secretary of the 
Air Force; General C.Q. Brown, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; 
and General Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations.
    General Saltzman, welcome to the subcommittee, first time 
here.
    Air and space superiority are more important than ever as 
the U.S. faces the challenge of strategic competition with 
China. To safeguard our national interests and defend our 
partners and allies, our military must maintain superiority in 
all warfighting domains.
    Due to the significance of airspace capabilities in these 
demanding environments, we must continue to invest in our 
capability, create new technology, and build a world-class 
workforce.
    For fiscal year 2024, the Air Force and Space Force 
combined budget request is $215 billion, roughly $9 billion 
over fiscal year 2023 enacted level. This request makes 
continued progress on prior year funding from Congress; 
however, these investments come with certain tradeoffs, like 
the disinvestment of capable aircraft that the subcommittee 
must carefully consider.
    I am encouraged by many aspects of this request, such as 
the shift of digital engineering, increasing investment in 
agile combat employment, and the delivery of priority programs 
like the B-21 and NGAD. Yet I fear we are not still moving fast 
enough. To quote General Brown, ``We must accelerate change or 
lose.''
    With new Major Defense Acquisition Programs on the horizon, 
like the Collaborative Combat Aircraft and the Next-Generation 
Air-Refueling System, I am challenging the Air Force to set the 
example by fundamentally changing how we develop and field 
advanced systems and bring the DOD into industry 4.0.
    Having just returned from the Indo-Pacific region, I am 
acutely aware that adversaries like China and North Korea are 
not waiting for us to field of our advanced systems to take 
action. We need progress now. All three of you have my 
commitment to work closely with you and throughout this budget 
process to find ways we can hasten fielding of the platforms 
needed by our warfighters today. We cannot let our legacy 
procurement process inhibit our ability to decisively defeat 
any adversary.
    I also want to highlight some concerns I have with the 
request, especially with respect to our military and civilian 
personnel. We are aware of the challenges the entire Department 
is having with recruitment and retention. Within the Active 
Guard and Reserve components, I want to hear about your 
strategy to recruit the force of today and leaders of tomorrow. 
Further, I continue to be convinced that our civilian workforce 
is not appropriately structured in sustainability to meet the 
National Defense Strategy.
    To meet the threat environment within the budget 
constraints, we must prioritize the fielding of weapons systems 
and advanced technologies, not a larger bureaucracy.
    For the Space Force, the fiscal year 2024 budget request is 
$30.2 billion, 15 percent increase over last year's enacted 
level and the largest request ever for the service. I am 
pleased to see this increase as our military forces rely on 
space for mission-essential services.
    I have been impressed with the work of the Space 
Development Agency and their rapid development to acquisition 
process. We need to get capability on orbit faster and should 
leverage commercial applications and capabilities. However, I 
am very concerned about the increasing threats posed by 
adversaries, particularly Russia and China, both of whom have 
carried out provocative tests demonstrating antisatellite 
capability. So I would like to hear how the proposed budget 
accelerates the development and fielding of more resilient 
capabilities to counter these threats.
    Finally, I would like to hear General Saltzman's thoughts 
on his strategy to shape the Space Force and position it for 
the future.
    Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to 
recognize the distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for 
any opening comments.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    And I also would like to welcome Secretary Kendall, General 
Brown, and General Saltzman.
    For fiscal year 2024, the President has proposed $825.3 
billion within our subcommittee's jurisdiction for the 
Department of Defense. The $211.4 billion total of the Air 
Force and Space Force budgets compromises roughly 30 percent of 
the DOD's overall budget. Each one of these dollars represents 
an increased effort to remain vigilant in our national defense, 
to ensure that America meets our pacing threats, and this 
budget builds upon the investments of the last Congress to meet 
the needs of our servicemen and -women and their families.
    The fundamental strength of our Nation's defense is derived 
through the strength of our military personnel and their 
families. That requires a whole-of-government approach to 
support military families, not only through the defense bill 
but the other 11 appropriation bills as well. We will fail to 
support our servicemembers and their families if we sacrifice 
domestic investments in transportation, healthcare, education, 
and workforce development.
    To maintain our technology superiority in the air and space 
domain, it is important as ever to educate and train the next 
generation of mathematicians, physicists, and aeronautical 
engineers and, of course, computer scientists. Falling behind 
is not an option in any of these fields because we are one 
Nation that is supported by an entire budget, not a fraction of 
its parts.
    Turning back to the fiscal year 2024 request. The Air Force 
has requested a 3 percent increase over the enacted level, and 
Space Force, as the chair pointed out, has a 15 percent 
increase. I would like to hear from both witnesses about how 
the Air Force and Space Force is staying leaner and being more 
efficient while growing. Since the Space Force is relatively 
new, it is important to get things done right and build towards 
a mission without being weighed down by missteps and excess 
bureaucracy.
    I was encouraged to see the Department's increase for 
climate change efforts. Resilience at our installations is 
vital to our ability to train and win. From sinkholes on 
critical roadways at one of our space launch facilities at 
Vanderbilt Air Force Base--and I have a couple of--I would like 
to bring photos, Mr. Chair. I have a copy of the sinkhole at 
Vanderbilt Air Force Base--Vandenberg--and the wildfire that 
raged there. I know you are very familiar with that.
    And then going farther north on the West Coast, we have 
Offutt Air Force Base under flooding, and deteriorating runways 
in the northern Arctic bases.
    So resilience, building that into what you need, is part of 
the discussion that we are--that falls under climate change. We 
cannot have the deterioration keep happening. Early warning 
radar stations in Alaska are impacted by melting permafrost, 
coastal erosion. The list goes on and on. I was pleased to see 
the President address these challenges confronting you because 
of climate change.
    So we need to make sure also that our space launches 
continue to move forward. So we need to be mindful of also what 
those emissions have on our climate. So I have one question on 
this that I--on climate change I will be submitting for the 
record.
    But, finally, you know how concerned I am about our efforts 
in the Arctic and the challenges we face from the adversaries 
there, especially with China calling itself a near Arctic 
nation and being one of our pacing peers. I look forward to 
hearing how the budget will support the strategies, not only of 
Europe and the Pacific, but how the Arctic will be addressed.
    So, Secretary Kendall, General Brown, General Saltzman, I 
want to thank you for your service to the country. I want to 
thank those who serve under you, and I appreciate you being 
here today.
    Mr. Chair, thank you for the courtesy. And, with that, I 
yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Thank you, Ms. 
McCollum.
    And it is my pleasure to recognize the chair of the 
committee, Ms. Granger.

                 Opening Remarks of Chairwoman Granger

    The Chairwoman. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
    General Saltzman, welcome to your first hearing in front of 
this subcommittee as the Chief of Space Operations.
    Over the past year, our enemies have become more bold. 
Russia continues to wage war against the people of Ukraine, and 
China is rapidly expanding its military capabilities. In the 
past 2 years, Congress has provided significant funding for the 
Air Force and the Space Force to meet these threats.
    The funding will modernize two-thirds of a nuclear triad, 
which consists of our ground-based intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, nuclear submarine force, and strategic bombers. These 
assets ensure that our adversaries could not take out our 
ability to launch or respond to attack.
    The funding will also restore aging aircraft, invest in 
space capabilities, and support our airmen and guardsmen.
    Regarding the budget request, I am encouraged by increases 
for our fighter jet inventory, next-generation technologies, 
and the nuclear enterprise. However, I am concerned by both the 
Air Force's proposed retirement of capable aircraft and your 
recruitment and retention numbers. People are the backbone of 
our military. Without them, investments in the best 
technologies mean nothing.
    I look forward to hearing from you on these issues and, 
again, thank you for being here today.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Chairwoman Granger.
    Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed on 
the record. Please give a brief summary of your statements.
    Secretary Kendall, you are recognized.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Kendall

    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chair Granger, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 
testify today on the Department of the Air Force's fiscal year 
2024 budget submission.
    Approximately 1 year ago, I began my testimony before this 
committee with a quote from General Douglas MacArthur, 
reminding us that the history of failure in war can almost 
always be summed up in two words: Too late. That warning is 
even more true today.
    Over the past year, under the rubric of seven Department of 
the Air Force Operational Imperatives, the Department of the 
Air Force has worked to define the capabilities and 
technologies we need, along with the programs and resources 
required, to deter and, if necessary, prevail over our pacing 
challenge: China, China, China.
    In fiscal year 2024, we are requesting approximately $5 
billion as a direct result of this work, and over $25 billion 
for operational-imperative related investments. War is not 
inevitable, but successfully deterring conflict is heavily 
dependent on our military capabilities.
    In our fiscal year 2024 budget, there are approximately 20 
completely new or significantly rescoped program elements, some 
of which are classified, that we must develop, produce, and 
field if we desire to maintain the air and space superiority 
that America and our allies have counted on for decades.
    In order to proceed with any of these programs, the 
Department of the Air Force needs timely authorizations and 
appropriations. The DAF is ready to move forward with the next 
generation of capabilities we need, and there is no time to 
lose.
    In addition to these new starts, or enhanced efforts, the 
fiscal year 2024 budget includes requests for additional 
resources to increase production and accelerate development of 
programs essential to the Department of the Air Force's 
missions as defined in the National Defense Strategy.
    For the strategic triad, we have fully funded the Sentinel 
ICBM, the B-21 Raider bomber, the long-range standoff weapon, 
and our nuclear command and control programs. For the 
conventional force, we are increasing production of both the F-
35 and the F-15EX. The Next Generation Air Dominance program is 
funded to move forward and, as indicated last year, an uncrewed 
Collaborative Combat Aircraft program of record is fully funded 
in our fiscal year 2024 submission. We are also continuing the 
acquisition of central programs like the E-7 Wedge Tail and the 
new resilient missile warning and tracking space system.
    As we indicated last year, hard choices have been required 
to move the Department of the Air Force into the future. We 
deeply appreciate the support of Congress for the divestitures 
we requested last year. This year, we must continue divestment 
of the over 40-year-old A-10 Warthog. This program has served 
us well, but it is absorbing resources needed for higher 
priorities.
    We ask for Congress' continued support for this and other 
identified changes we must make to field the forces we need to 
be successful, and it is our pacing and other challenges.
    But, of course, it isn't all about the equipment we need to 
perform our missions. It is also about the men and women who 
serve in the total force: Active, Guard, Reserve, and those who 
support them. We appreciate Congress' support for a 4.6 percent 
pay raise last year. This year, we are asking for a 5.2 percent 
pay raise, the largest 1-year increase we have ever requested.
    In line with Secretary Austin's Taking Care of People 
initiative, we are continuing to invest in child development 
centers and dorms to meet the highest priority needs of our 
airmen, Guardians, and their families.
    Like the other services, with the exception of the Space 
Force, the Air Force faces challenges in recruiting in a 
generation where the propensity to serve is the lowest we have 
seen in decades. We are removing barriers to service to ensure 
that anyone with the capability and desire can serve to their 
full potential.
    Under the National Defense Strategy, we are also 
strengthening teams, both in the joint force and with our 
allies and partners. Building these relationships and investing 
in our ability to work together is the essence of integrated 
deterrence. The effectiveness and importance of these 
relationships are on display in Europe today where NATO is 
stronger than ever.
    I recently returned from the Indo-Pacific where I met with 
a number of our teammates and where I participated in the 
groundbreaking event for one of the Enhanced Defense 
Cooperation Agreement air bases in the Philippines. Our budget 
request supports this and strengthening our partnerships in 
general around the world, especially when we confront our 
pacing challenge and most acute threats.
    In closing, I believe the Department of the Air Force is 
well positioned to move into the future. Our work to define 
that future is not complete, but it has produced compelling 
results that are reflected in the fiscal year 2024 budget. We 
look forward to your questions today, and we would like to 
offer a more complete briefing on the classified details of our 
submission at your convenience.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                   Summary Statement of General Brown

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I now recognize General Brown for his remarks.
    General Brown. Good morning, Chair Granger, Chairman 
Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and distinguished members of 
this committee.
    Today, I am proud to represent the 689,000 total force 
airmen serving our Nation. I want to thank you for your 
steadfast support to our airmen and their families. It is an 
honor to join Secretary Kendall and General Saltzman to testify 
on the fiscal year 2024 budget submission.
    This budget builds on the progress made in fiscal year 2023 
and marks the next milestone towards the transformation of the 
Air Force to address the evolving security challenges outlined 
in the National Defense Strategy.
    In today's changing global landscape, our service faces 
unprecedented challenges. As I emphasized last year, we must 
continue to accelerate change or risk losing our strategic 
advantage. The Department of the Air Force's operational 
imperatives describe key capabilities that must be attained to 
enable the Air Force's modernization in the face of a rapidly 
changing threat environment. We remain dedicated to ensuring 
our investments and resources outlined in this budget 
submission are in line with the National Defense Strategy and 
will continue to deter adversaries, prevail in conflict, and 
execute our mission: to fly, fight, and win; airpower anytime, 
anywhere. Not sometime in someplace; anytime, anywhere.
    This budget ensures the Air Force continues to provide the 
Nation the assurance of air superiority, the advantage of 
global strike, the agility of rapid global mobility, and 
combine that with the adaptability of intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance, and the authority in our 
command and control capabilities, providing the ability to 
sense, make sense, and act. That is what we do today and we 
must be prepared to do tomorrow.
    Last year's budget started our necessary transformation, 
and we indicated that hard choices would have to be made. We 
must continue to make hard choices in airpower modernization to 
keep pace ahead of our strategic competitors, while balancing 
risk over time. Often these choices are between current 
capacity, readiness, and future capabilities. Our message this 
year has not changed. The Air Force must modernize to counter 
strategic competitors.
    In the fiscal year 2024--in fiscal year 2024, we continue 
our modernization efforts, while balancing risks, by divesting 
platforms and capabilities that have decreasing relevance 
against our pacing challenge.
    Investments in speed, agility, and lethality of the Air 
Force's capabilities underwrites the entirety of the joint 
force. We are exponential force multipliers to any global 
military operation.
    Our airmen remain the backbone of our Air Force, and we are 
committed to ensuring their well-being and development, while 
providing them the resources and opportunities to reach their 
full potential wherever and whenever the Nation calls.
    The Air Force is dedicated to reducing barriers, enhancing 
connections, and improving quality of service for our airmen 
and quality for life for them and their families, to recruit 
and retain the best total force airmen, Active, Guard, Reserve, 
and civilian, both today and tomorrow.
    Additionally, the success of airpower doesn't happen alone. 
Success is only possible through the collaboration with our 
many stakeholders and teammates.
    I want to thank the Congress and this committee for their 
past and continued support. Last year's budget and this year's 
budget submission support the operational imperatives and 
broader investments, providing the Air Force the necessary 
capabilities to deter and, if necessary, defeat any 
challenging--challenger.
    Reforming the platforms, airborne capabilities and airborne 
domain awareness needed to ensure our joint team is a credible 
combat force.
    Furthermore, to overcome emerging global challenges, we are 
seeking to expand opportunities for inoperability with our 
allies and partners, because the emerging threats of today will 
require the weight of effort of many like-minded nations.
    While we remain the strongest Air Force in the world, an 
on-time budget will continue the change required to address 
both today and tomorrow's national security threats. We must 
fulfill our sacred duty of providing our airmen with the tools 
necessary to be successful. But we need teamwork in 
collaboration with all of our key stakeholders to maintain our 
thrust, to safeguard our national security now and into the 
future.
    We must move as rapidly as possible, accelerating the 
future capabilities we need to continue to deter and project 
credible combat power. We must have an on-time appropriations 
and avoid a continuing resolution to stay ahead of pacing acute 
and unforeseen challenges. There is not a moment to lose.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.

                 Summary Statement of General Saltzman

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    And I now recognize General Saltzman for his remarks.
    General Saltzman. Chair Granger, Chairman Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum, distinguished members of the committee, thank 
you for the warm welcome, your continued support, and for the 
opportunity to testify on the fiscal year 2024 President's 
budget request.
    As the Space Force enters its fourth year, we continue to 
mature as an independent service and are fully delivering on 
assigned missions. Since assuming my responsibilities in 
November, I have traveled globally to engage with Guardians, 
combatant commanders, and the military service chiefs from 
partner nations to better understand where the Space Force 
should focus our efforts. Across the board, each of these 
groups emphasized the vital role space place in strategic 
competition and integrated deterrence.
    As this committee well understands, competition and 
deterrence requires investment in and modernization of 
technology, training, and partnerships. The fiscal year 2024 
President's budget submission for the Space Force seeks to do 
exactly that.
    This budget submission is directly in line with the 
National Defense Strategy and the Department of the Air Force 
operational imperatives. The fiscal year 2024 budget will allow 
us to further efforts to develop a resilient space order of 
battle and prepare for rapid transition to a wartime posture 
against any potential adversary to fight and win a high-
intensity conflict.
    In conjunction with ongoing modernization efforts, the 
Space Force has seven new starts for fiscal year 2024 to 
support. Investing in these modernization projects will allow 
us to execute our assigned missions as we move forward to 
better posture for the emerging complexities of the space 
domain and the threat systems being fielded by strategic 
competitors.
    Space is now undeniably a contested warfighting domain. 
China and Russia define space as such and are investing in 
technology meant to undermine U.S. advantage in the domain. 
China, our pacing challenge, is our most substantial threat 
into and from space. But Russia also remains an acute threat. 
Both present serious challenges with space capabilities that 
can track U.S. military forces on land, at sea, and in the air. 
Both can hold U.S. space assets at risk with cyber and 
electronic warfare, lasers, ground-to-space missiles, and 
space-to-space orbital engagement systems. These systems 
threaten the space architecture the Nation relies on for 
prosperity and security.
    To meet this challenge, the Space Force will prioritize 
three lines of effort. First, fielding ready, resilient, and 
combat-credible forces; second, amplifying what I call the 
Guardian Spirit; and, three, partnering to win. These are 
directly in line with Secretary Austin's mission, people, and 
team priorities.
    In sum, this budget request is designed to deliver the 
forces, personnel, and the partnerships the Space Force 
requires to preserve U.S. advantages in space. To build 
resilient-ready, combat-credible Space Forces, we are 
accelerating the pivot towards modern, more defendable 
satellite constellations and support infrastructure. We are 
conducting transformational force design analysis based on 
threats, operational needs, and costs so that we can maximize 
our budget while investing in effective missile warning, space 
domain awareness, communication, and navigation systems.
    Additionally, we are investing to ensure our networks are 
hardened to defeat cyber threats and that we have the 
operational test and training infrastructure necessary to 
prepare Guardians for high-intensity conflict.
    With our second line of effort, we are amplifying the 
Guardian Spirit by recruiting, developing, and retaining the 
best talent and empowering Guardians to succeed. Investment in 
space-centric curriculum for entry level schools will build 
Guardians laser focused on space operations and competition and 
conflict. Guardians will be empowered through mission command 
to innovate and execute in those scenarios.
    Notably, and with congressional support, we plan to 
integrate the space mission elements of the Air Force Reserve 
into the Space Force to offer Guardians flexible career paths, 
including both full-time and part-time duty to retain talent 
and bring private sector experience to the force.
    The third line of effort acknowledges that the Space Force 
relies on partnerships to accomplish our mission. We are 
investing in training, education, data sharing, and integrated 
capabilities with our allies and partners. The Space Force will 
strengthen our presence in all the combatant commands where 
Guardians are already making solid connections with allies and 
partners.
    Because of its critical importance, the Space Force is 
collaborating with commercial space partners to build resilient 
capacity and leverage emerging technologies. To enhance this 
partnership, the Space Force is working to eliminate barriers 
to such collaboration so that we can build enduring advantages 
and field them more rapidly.
    In conclusion, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the 
fiscal year 2024 request. The Space Force continues to be the 
preeminent military space organization in the world, and our 
adversaries seek to challenge our advantage in space. But with 
the support of this committee, our Guardians will be able to 
outwork, out-innovate, and outcompete our potential adversaries 
to ensure that we maintain the advantage. The budget request of 
$30 billion will make all of this possible, even more so if the 
Congress passes timely appropriations.
    I look forward to your questions.

                          F-35 Engine Upgrade

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, General.
    We will now begin our questions. Each member will have 5 
minutes for their questions and answers. When the timer turns 
yellow, you have 1 minute remaining. First, I will recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    On the F-35 engine, Mr. Secretary, the subcommittee has 
increased funding in prior years for the Adaptive Engine 
Transition Program, with an understanding that we need to do 
something to upgrade the current F-135 engine. The Air Force 
request for fiscal year 2024 does not fund the development and 
integration of the adaptive engine technology that has been 
discussed in the F-35A, instead opting to upgrade the current 
engine. Yet last week, you were quoted in the press that you 
worry about this decision, that you may want to reconsider it. 
But sometimes the press gets it wrong. So here you have got 
your chance to straighten it out.
    Can you please clarify your view as to whether fiscal year 
2024 request includes sufficient funding to upgrade the F-35 
engine to meet the future requirements, and what additional 
funding could the subcommittee consider in fiscal year 2024 to 
ensure the F-35 engine meets the Lockheed 21 mission system 
requirement?
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned we 
had to make hard choices in the budget. This was one of them, 
but I support the decision. We chose to fund the engine core 
upgrade program. It is not--does not provide quite as much 
capability as ATP would have, but it does meet the needs of all 
three services. And it provides us with the growth potential 
that we need, that has been identified so far.
    I do not have a recommendation for you that would continue 
ATP. It is a several billion-dollar bill to take it through 
development and get it into introduction, and we can't afford 
everything we might like to have in the budget under any 
circumstances. So I do support the decision the Department made 
to fund the core upgrade and give us the capability that all 
three services can use. It was the best business case among the 
choices that we had.

                     COLLABORATIVE COMBAT AIRCRAFT

    Mr. Calvert. Okay. Some time for a quick other question on 
the collaborative combat aircraft, Secretary.
    The Air Force is requesting almost $400 million in this 
2024 request for the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. And 
certainly I support the CCA concept. I am interested to hear 
from you detail justification for the request. And I know that 
we probably need to get into a classified setting for a more 
specific discussion.
    But, further, as the Air Force considers it must pay bills 
for the B-21, the Sentinel, the F-35, NGAD, KC-46, other 
modernization priorities, can this subcommittee trust the Air 
Force will prioritize funding for CCA in future years, given 
the uncertainty of the affordability of the potential system?
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Chairman. I think the CCA is 
not just desirable, it is essential. It is essential for a 
couple of reasons. One is cost effectiveness. The combination 
of crewed aircraft with much less expensive CCAs from our 
analysis has major payoffs and operational cost effectiveness. 
The other is affordability. The anticipated cost of the CCA 
will be a fraction of an F-35, either half or less, maybe a 
third or a quarter even.
    As we move--and we are committed to that program. We have 
to do that to sustain the Air Force that we are going to need 
to meet our challenges around the world. The CCA makes the Air 
Force more affordable effectively. And without it, it is very 
difficult to envision how we could keep the Air Force at the 
size it currently is.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I will recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. 
McCollum, for her questions.

                        DEFENSE TOPLINE SPENDING

    Ms. McCollum. I thank the gentleman from California.
    I would like to thank you for the response that you gave to 
Ranking Member DeLauro and myself when we were asking questions 
about the Secretary of Defense to respond to what it would mean 
to go back to 2022 fiscal year's funding levels. So thank you 
for that information.
    You know, specifically my question is going to have to be 
more of a detailed explanation of what you sent us in the 
future. But I just want to throw out a couple of things, and 
then you gentlemen can choose which one that you want to 
answer.
    So we know in Air Force and Space Force these cuts could 
affect research and development. It could affect launch. It 
could affect environmental cleanups. It could affect, you know, 
modernization. It could affect quality of life, the ability to 
move forward on pay, housing, recruitment, retention. You 
mentioned childcare in your opening statement.
    It also would affect missile defense and domination 
awareness, reducing 50 percent of the requested funding for 
space-based missile warnings and ground-based midcourse missile 
defenses. Any delay to being able to defend ourselves is a 
serious thing that we have to take in account.
    So could you maybe elaborate, you know, at a high altitude 
some of your concerns? And then we will follow up with some 
more detailed questions at more of a ground level, you know, 
more specifically how these would affect funding if you had to 
go back to 2022 funding levels.
    Thank you, gentlemen.
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Ranking Member. I can't 
overstate how devastating that would be. It would be a direct 
reduction in nominal value, but it would also stop us from 
moving forward on a number of things that we have in this 
year's budget, which is critical to our success.
    I mentioned the 20 enhanced or new efforts. Those are truly 
imperative things for us to do. We have a very aggressive 
competitor in China in particular. Russia is still investing in 
a number of areas, space in particular. So we have got to stay 
ahead of the threat. Our deterrent capability depends upon that 
and our ability to prevail depends upon that. So it would be 
utterly devastating to the Department. It would have a lot of 
negative impacts across the board.
    We have a large, as you mentioned, investment in R&D. It is 
about 26 percent of the Air Force's budget, even higher 
percentage for the Space Force. Those are investments and 
options to procure in the future things that we must have to 
stay ahead. We have--a large part of our cost is fixed, 20 
percent for pay, for example, 36 percent right now for 
operation to maintain the current force.
    So if you bring budgets back but don't downsize the force 
substantially, then we have to sacrifice a lot of that 
modernization, also some of the other areas that you mentioned 
that where it is important for us to be doing some R&D. So I 
can't overstate how devastating it would be to go back to that 
level.
    Let me ask my colleagues to comment more.
    General Brown. Ranking Member McCollum, I would tell you 
too it would be a step backwards. It would be very equivalent 
to sequestration. And if you recall, during sequestration, the 
Air Force stopped flying in certain units. It impacts our 
readiness, and that is not the place we need to be if we have a 
pacing challenge. Our goal is to stay ahead of the pacing 
challenge, not chase the pacing challenge. And so it is very 
important that we keep the funding levels at the levels that 
they are at, versus going backwards.
    I would also, broader than the readiness, it is also the 
impact to airmen and families. You know, it slows down our 
movement and development of our airmen. It impacts our quality 
of life, and that impacts not only recruiting but also 
retention, and it will have a factor long term.
    And then the other aspect I would offer is just, as the 
Secretary highlighted, either the modernization or sustainment 
of the capability we do have. We definitely have to modernize, 
and so that will be important. But also being able to sustain 
the capability we have as we transition to the future will be 
important, and that will be impacted if we go back to fiscal 
year 2022 levels.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. General Saltzman.
    General Saltzman. Ranking Member McCollum, thank you so 
much for the opportunity to talk about this. The Space Force of 
fiscal year 2022 doesn't look anything like the Space Force of 
fiscal year 2024. This would, quite frankly, be catastrophic. 
And I wish I could pick just a few of those categories that 
would be impacted. Unfortunately, it is all of those 
categories.
    From the key pivot we are making in modernization through 
our RDT&E efforts to the very civilians and Guardians that we 
are paying as we continue to grow around our missions, all of 
these would be set back dramatically.
    But aside from all those things that would be unfunded, 
probably the most important concern I would have is the loss of 
time, trying to reconstitute those when we are moving as fast 
as possible to address the threat.
    Secretary Kendall. If I could add one more point. I lived 
through when sequestration was implemented in 2013. So I know 
firsthand, I think these gentlemen too, what happens when you 
have a severe cut like that to planned growth in the budget. It 
has huge impact on our people, it has huge impact on our 
ability to move forward with modernization, and it destroys 
readiness. It would be utterly devastating.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. I just want to be on the record, I am no big 
fan of sequestration either. So hopefully we can get this 
appropriation bill completed.
    Ms. Granger, you are recognized.

                             PILOT TRAINING

    The Chairwoman. General Brown, for many years, Air Force 
leadership has stated the Air Force's pilot shortage is a 
crisis. As you know, I have been personally engaged with this 
issue for many years. In spite of increased funding and new 
approaches to training, the Air Force is still roughly 2,000 
pilots short of what is needed.
    What is the impact of not having enough pilots, and how 
does the budget request address this shortage?
    General Brown. Chairman Granger--Chairwoman Granger, I 
appreciate your interest and focus that you had over the years 
and the engagements we have had on our readiness and 
particularly as we look at the pilots.
    You know, this budget is focused on trying to decrease that 
shortage. And what we really try to do, first of all, is 
prioritize where we put our pilots. And we put most all those 
and get 100 percent manning on our aligned test and training, 
and then we take a risk in our staffs. And so one part of just 
the development piece is how we, as we look at the staffs, how 
we build the operational acumen of all of our airmen so it 
doesn't necessarily require a pilot but we have broader 
expertise.
    The investments in this budget will continue aspects of our 
pilot training UPT 2.5, which will bring in a air mobility 
fundamental sim that will replace the aspect as we start to 
retire T-1s. We will continue the process of our undergraduate 
helicopter training. Instead of going to fixed-wing, then the 
helicopters, just going straight to helicopters, which will 
free up some of that capacity as well.
    And then also part of the approach is how we optimize our 
scheduling, and the budget will help with that as well. It will 
also help with the sustainment of the engines on the T-38 
because that is also going to be--that is a challenge to us as 
we go forward, as we wait and transition to the T-7.
    And so, overall, the budget supports us continuing to move 
forward. We will still, I think, still continue to have 
challenges partly because the economy and the airlines are 
starting to hire. So retention becomes a challenge for us as 
well. And so we have got--we are pulling on both ends, not only 
production but also how we retain and increase the readiness of 
our pilot corp.
    Ms. Granger. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Next, Mr. Ruppersberger.

                          MARTIN STATE AIRPORT

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Is this working? Yeah.
    I am going to focus--and, Mr. Secretary, we--I have talked 
to you all about this before--is the Maryland Air National 
Guard's 175th Wing. And the issue there is at Martin State 
Airport is that in the beginning, we were told that the Martin 
State Airport, which has been in existence, I think, since 
1920, a long time, generations of families--it has been a part 
of really our east end of certain areas of Baltimore County--
and that you were going to stop using that as a air base, and 
it would be the only air base in the Air National Guard in the 
country that didn't have an air base.
    Your response to me was, well, we have cybersecurity. And 
that is fine. But they are two different missions. And I have 
asked you to look into it and work it out.
    But another thing, we knew there was an issue that the 
runway was not long enough. So last year, we were able to 
procure or get appropriated $32 million. I believe that is the 
number, approximately $32 million. And it was moving ahead, and 
then all of a sudden, we hear that we are losing an air base.
    Well, you know, to begin with, Air Force, to me, means 
flying, but whatever. That is a simple argument, but it is a 
good argument.
    Now, we are asking, again, to reconsider. We have the money 
that is there. We need the base there. It is in the Washington 
region, and that is a big issue to have an air base. It has 
been in existence. And the reason that it became an issue is 
that you are going to--going to stop using the A-10s. They have 
just been too old. It is a command decision you have made, and 
I agree with that, that decision.
    So I am just asking you at this point: Where are we on the 
issue? I would work with you on it. But I feel very strongly 
that in defense of our country, the location of where it is, 
the history at the base--not that history is that important, 
but you learn from history. And it is part of the culture of 
the area that I have represented for a long time. And culture 
means a big deal in the military and because of the generations 
of families and people who have been involved and people who 
want to fly in that area.
    And I think they are considered to be right--to be rated 
one of the top three in the country, if not, I believe, in--or 
top two in the country and top four or five in our bases 
throughout the world.
    So I look forward to working with you. We are ready to go. 
The money was appropriated. And I would just like your opinion 
on where you are now, where we are going to go, because we 
can't have an air base without having airplanes.
    Secretary Kendall. Thank you, Congressman Ruppersberger. We 
haven't made final decisions. As you mentioned, we are retiring 
the A-10s. We have made a decision to do that. What we are 
trying to do is, with each of the units or each of the bases 
that has A-10s, is find, first of all, a replacement fighter 
mission, if we can. If we can't do that, then we try to find a 
replacement flying mission of another type. And then we try to 
find a replacement mission period that would be appropriate for 
the base.
    Unfortunately, as we go out through the next few years, we 
are going to be reducing the numbers of fighters. We are not 
buying as many as we are taking out, and there is not much we 
can do about that at this point.
    The one thing that we are introducing--and I provided a 
planning figure for the staff to work with just recently--is 
the introducing of the uncrewed Collaborative Combat Aircraft, 
and I gave the planning figure of a thousand, which is a 
starting point for analyzing how much additional force 
structure would be provided by that new concept. So there is 
some potential there that we need to explore.
    Our plans change over time as circumstances change. Threats 
change, in particular. Budgets change as well. So we will be 
very happy to work with you to try to find a suitable way to 
move forward.
    I have to say that, in general, people can't always accept 
that they are going to get a replacement that is like what they 
have. There are a lot of missions that are important to the Air 
Force. ISR, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; 
cyber, and there is a lot of cyber capability already at Martin 
State; C3 battle management, just to name a few. So electronic 
warfare is another one. So----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Excuse me. In my opinion, cyber, and I 
do a lot of cyber work in my career--is an entirely different 
mission, and I really hope that you can get a little bit 
stronger on where you are because I am really not going to give 
up on this. This is my number one issue, and I see it just 
doesn't make any sense to take this away from this region.

                      FIGHTER SQUADRON SUSTAINMENT

    And the final thing I wanted to say, because I have got 24 
seconds, General Kelly made the comment--and he is a four-star 
and he is the commander of Air Combat Command--recently stated, 
we need sixty fighter squadrons to maintain steady State 
demands. We are trending in the opposite direction.
    How do you respond to that?
    Secretary Kendall. Yeah, we are recapitalizing the fighters 
as quickly as we can. We increased our F-35 and F-15EX 
production this year, but we have----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. We said we would work with you too. We 
are not asking for anything tomorrow, but we want to be in that 
area. So work with me. This is a major issue for the people, 
the State of Maryland, and for the country. And I really would 
like to work with you.
    Secretary Kendall. We will work with you, Congressman, to 
try to find the appropriate solution.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I think we have a number of allies would love to have those 
A-10s, Mr. Secretary. I think you know who I am talking about.
    Mr. Stewart, you are recognized.

                              ACQUISITION

    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thanks all of you for being here. I have had a chance 
to spend some time with some of you recently, and I look 
forward to more of that.
    I would like to comment on a couple of things that have 
been said here and then get to a couple of things that I would 
like to discuss.
    To Chairwoman Granger's question about pilot shortage, if 
you will--General, if you will put me in the cockpit, I would 
retire today, if you could promise me that. Probably bring some 
of my other colleagues with me.
    Mr. Garcia, would you as well?
    Mr. Garcia. I will be the most dangerous guy in the sky, 
but sure.
    Mr. Stewart. Very, very quickly, I was with my 
granddaughter, one of my granddaughters, this weekend. We were 
jumping on the trampoline. As we were jumping, she keeps going, 
faster, faster, faster. And then when I got off, she would go, 
more, more, more. That is what we need from all of us, faster, 
faster, more, more, more.
    And I know we talk about it and I know we are trying to 
implement it, but I got to tell you too, I don't think that we 
are there yet. I mean, I have talked with a number, I mean, 
really a remarkable number, for example, manufacturers who 
could provide us capability in 18 months, but it is going to 
take 7 years to work through the acquisition process for 
something that we know we are going to buy at the end of the 7-
year process anyway.
    And that is not a question. That is a comment, but I know 
that we share that frustration. I want to let you know we do as 
well.

                   ADAPTIVE ENGINE TRANSITION PROGRAM

    To the AETP, it is a generational technology. I mean, the 
reduction of fuel is obviously very, very promising. But more 
than that, in the region, the increase in range is, I think, 
key as we look at what the potential conflicts will be, billion 
dollars, developing already.
    Just very quickly, I understand it is a complicated thing. 
I don't disagree with the decision that was made. I am not sure 
I am informed enough to make that decision. But would it change 
the decision if we had had some of the other services who were 
willing to share in the cost?
    Secretary Kendall. The problem is that the engine doesn't 
fit in the other airplanes. The three variants are very 
different. It is quite clear it doesn't fit in the Marine Corps 
variant.
    Mr. Stewart. So that takes that off the table then. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall. And the Navy doesn't believe that it is 
justified for the Navy on a cost basis. Even if you could fit 
it in, there is uncertainty about that.
    So the only service it really would benefit significantly 
is the Air Force. And we share your views on the value of the 
range and the fuel efficiency and so on. But we needed a 
solution for Department of Defense that would move all three 
services together, and so we ended up with ECU because of that.
    Mr. Stewart. Well, I mean, there is a lot of reasons why 
some of us are hesitant about that. But again, it is a 
complicated decision. I understand that, and hope we made the 
right decision on that.

                                  A-10

    To the A-10, as well, you know, some of you know I used to 
fly helicopters, as well as the B-1. And we flew with the A-10 
all the time, this daisy chain. It is a very precise maneuver, 
wonderful aircraft. I have been an advocate for keeping it for 
a number of years. Maybe it is time to make a transition.
    But, General Brown, if we do make that transition, this is 
what I would ask. We recognize it is not as good of a platform, 
the F-35. Or, you know, we used to do close air support for the 
B-1. I mean, look, that is a lousy platform to do that. And you 
bomb the wrong bridge, you can live with that. You frag your 
own troops, your life is changed forever. I mean, it is 
incredibly precise, incredibly delicate, and a very important 
mission. The A-10 was such a great platform. I don't think 
anything is going to replace the A-10 as far as capabilities.
    But my point is this. The A-10 drivers knew that was their 
mission, and they practiced it and were committed to doing it 
all the time. The F-35 drivers, it is an irritant to them. It 
is not their mission. It is an irritation. It is like, yeah, we 
got to go practice these missions once in a while.
    And if we are going to make that transition, we have to 
have squadrons that are training and capable and accept that 
mission as a priority, because they need to be qualified in it 
as the A-10 drivers were.
    General, would you respond to that? Do you think I am wrong 
on that?
    General Brown. Rep. Stewart, the way I look at this is the 
close air support is more than an airplane. And like you 
described, you have flown in the B-1. I have flown in the B-1 
in combat doing close air support. I have flown the B-52 doing 
close air support. I flown for most of my career in F-16 doing 
close air support and have watched our Air Force over the years 
continue--throughout our history have done this mission with 
various platforms. The A-10 has been very good at it.
    At the same time, we have actually got to, as we move to 
the future, be focused on that mission, as well as all the 
other missions across the platforms that we have. And so as we 
retire the A-10, more emphasis will be put on close air support 
and the other airplanes, to include the F-35 and everything 
else.
    I would also add, from a technology standpoint, as we put 
on targeting pods and digital mechanisms to move the 
information from the ground to the cockpit, we have gotten 
better at CAS, close air support, with the platforms that we 
have today. And I believe--I will continue to be focused on 
that particular mission and all other missions in some 
response.
    Mr. Stewart. And I agree with that. We can compensate for 
some of the changes in platforms if we increase training and 
emphasize the training.

                               RECRUITING

    And last thought in the 10 seconds I have left, I am deeply 
concerned about recruiting. I am deeply concerned that we have 
created an impression that someone, for example, a person of 
faith, wouldn't be welcome in our military. I mean, what 
nonsense. We know that is not true.
    But there is a perception out there that the military has 
changed, and we need to push harshly against that, bringing in 
these individuals who their fathers served, like mine did, and 
I served because he did. But now I hear fathers tell their 
sons, I wouldn't recommend they go serve. And it is deeply 
concerning to all of us, I know.
    And, Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized.

                            RESILIENT BASING

    Mr. Case. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I think, General Brown, but, Mr. Secretary, if you think it 
is better, I just want to address your Operational Imperative 
Number Five, especially in the context of the Indo-Pacific 
which is resilient, forward-facing.
    General, I think we first talked about agile combat like 3-
plus years ago in your PACAF, and you had me convinced then. I 
just came back from the same codel, as the chair and other 
members of the committee, and I think it seems to be more 
critical than ever that we do that.
    However, it seems that if the chair of the Chinese 
Communist Party has a self-professed goal to have his military 
ready to conquer by force within just a matter of years, that 
at least in some of the targets that we have for developing a 
more dispersed Air Force, we are not on a 3-year timeframe. Or 
at least, if we are, it will be an imperfect solution.
    And so I wanted to ask the question. This obviously takes 
us back to the Philippines and to other countries that have 
readymade bases and to gain access to those bases as opposed 
to, you know, refurbish a World War II standard air base that 
takes a lot of time and effort to handle our modern aircraft 
or, for that matter, to create new bases.
    I mean, what can you tell us about where this budget 
actually tries to accelerate agile combat? Because it seems to 
me that that is a pretty key ingredient of the overall 
strategy.
    General Brown. The agile combat employment and the 
resilient basing are very key and critical to our operations in 
the Indo-Pacific. And we talked, when I was the commander of 
the Pacific Air Forces, it was still more of a concept. What I 
am very proud of is the fact that we--this is part of our 
budget this year and that on some aspects last year as well.
    What it is going to help us do forward--move forward is the 
investments with our allies and partners in various locations. 
As the Secretary highlighted, he was in the Philippines where 
one of the enhanced defense cooperation air fields was opened 
up, and there is four more there in the Philippines. But it is 
work we are also doing on Guam and Tenney and other locations 
to build up the resilient basings. It is the aspect of 
hardening. It is the aspect of prepositioning capabilities.
    The other thing I would highlight to you, which is 
different from maybe 3 years ago when we first talked about 
this, is the awareness not only for us is the threat from China 
in the region but also for our allies and partners. And because 
of that, that has opened up access and basing opportunities at 
some of the locations, and Philippines is a good example and on 
closer work with the Japanese as well.
    So I do see progress with the money that we have put into 
this budget. There is $1.2 billion that are played in for 
resilient basing, and an additional about $1.9 billion that is 
tied to aspects of agile combat employment, which will include 
training of our airmen and also equipping them with the 
capabilities to be able to communicate and operate in a 
dispersed environment.
    Secretary Kendall. You know, I would just add that of the 
seven operational imperatives, this was the one that I think 
we, for the Air Force at least, emphasized the most. It was one 
we could act on quickly. A lot of the others require research 
and development programs to get to fielding and then production 
to put the material out.
    In this case, we can act very quickly. We can have hardened 
shelters. We can have prepositioned equipment. We just have to 
buy it off the shelf. And there is a tight coupling between the 
training under agile combat employment that is going on and 
these investments that we are making to help make it a more 
robust capability.
    Throw in the enhanced interests in our partners in the 
region, giving us access to bases, and training with us to be 
prepared. And the net result of that is to provide a much more 
difficult operational challenge to our adversaries, who now 
are--have a much more complicated problem than simply sending 
missiles to a handful of bases that they know where they are 
that are not really hardened or well-defended.

                          ALLIED PARTNERSHIPS

    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    General Saltzman, somewhat the same question. Who are your 
natural partners and allies in the Indo-Pacific that you have 
engaged already and that we can work on our side to assist 
those alliances? Because we have many great partners that have 
great capabilities in space. We don't tend to think about it 
quite as much but, obviously, Japan and we were talking 
yesterday about New Zealand and others.
    Where do we need to focus our efforts with our partners? We 
can't do this alone, not basing, not prepositioning, not, you 
know, munitions, anything. It has to be our partners and allies 
a lot more now.
    General Saltzman. Yes. Thanks, Congressman. That is what I 
mean when I talk about the Space Force's third line of effort, 
partnering to win. We know we can't do this alone. We know we 
have to seek the broadest possible expansion of partnerships, 
particularly our allies and international partners, long-
standing relationships with Australia, New Zealand, the 
Japanese. We have a presence on South Korea that the Secretary 
got to visit recently. A remote tracking station on Guam and 
some capabilities there.
    We are all over the region, and the key is making sure that 
we get the most mutually beneficial relationships that we can 
because of the critical nature of the geographic position, but 
also the quality of the capabilities that those nations bring 
from a space perspective.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Garcia.

                           AIRCRAFT CAPACITY

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We will test your left gimbals over here, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you for the time, gentlemen, and the testimony.
    I just want to echo real quick Rep. Stewart's sentiment on 
the A-10. I do think it is a mistake. I understand there is 
trades, but I do think at some point we will have that mission 
of, you know, delivering in a very intimate way ordnance on the 
battlefield that may not just be an A2/AD type mission. But I 
do understand there are trades.
    I do want to applaud the Air Force for recognizing that the 
challenges we face on the global stage relative to China and 
others is as much a capacity problem as it is a capability 
problem.
    So seeing 48 F-35s, 24 F-15EX, fully funding B-21 and 
classified programs, while still moving the ball forward on 
NGAD, demonstrates, from a funding perspective, that your 
priorities are to make sure that we are not just looking at the 
high-end technologies, but also looking at capacity to go with 
that capability. That is refreshing. And I would--you know, I 
am not seeing that, frankly, out of your counterparts on the 
Navy side. So a little disappointed in that.

                       B-21 ACQUISITION STRATEGY

    I abide by the mantra that speed is life, and in California 
27 District, we are very proud of the B-21 program. We are very 
proud of all of our programs at Plant 42. But the Raider was an 
example of how to do it right, how to contract correctly, how 
to develop correctly, how to move fast, get to sell off points 
earlier, and bring product to the market. And we are looking 
forward to the first flight here very soon after the rollout 
last year.
    I guess, Mr. Secretary, the question is: Are we capturing 
everything that was done correctly on B-21, either through the 
contracting officers, the program office, and applying that to 
as many other programs? And I realize not every program can 
take a RCO type approach. But can they at least adapt some of 
the buying behavior patterns from the PCO's perspective?
    Secretary Kendall. Yeah, thank you, Congressman. The B-21 
program acquisition strategy was put together by Bill LaPlante 
when he was Secretary of the Air Force and myself when I was 
Under Secretary for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics. It 
was structured to have a relatively high probability of success 
and not to be overly aggressive and certainly not to be 
leisurely.
    The programs performed reasonably well, and I want to give 
the RCO, the Rapid Capability's Office, credit for their 
management, but also Northrop for their execution of the 
program. It was designed under the same guidance that I have 
given to the Department of the Air Force now, which is 
structure programs to get meaningful military capability as 
quickly as possible, not one or two experimental things but 
real military capability.
    So we set up so that the tooling that was used for the 
development of the aircraft would also be used for production. 
So you have a seamless transition. That was one of the main 
features.
    We also made sure we did adequate risk reduction, 
technology risk reduction before we committed to the final 
design and chose the final--the contractor. I think the 
contract incentives were set up well to provide a reasonable 
incentive under cost-plus basis for the development phase and 
then to move to fixed price as we got into production where we 
can predict cost much more accurately.
    I think it was a structure based on a lot of historical 
experience with programs and what works and what doesn't and 
with, I think, a clear-eyed sense of the risk we were taking on 
and how to structure to deal with that risk.
    Every program is different. It always depends upon--you 
have got me on one of my soap boxes. I am sorry.
    Mr. Garcia. No, no, I am okay with that.
    Secretary Kendall. But it all depends on the product and 
the requirements and the difficulty associated with that 
design.
    Acquisition moves at the speed two of things: money and 
engineering. And we got the money for the B-21 through the 
Congress in a timely way, and then we set it up so that we had 
a reasonable engineering challenge for the program as it went 
forward.
    It is not done. We haven't flown yet. There is a long way 
to go. There is still a lot of risk in the program. So I am not 
going to sit here and make any predictions about the future.
    Mr. Garcia. Sure.
    Secretary Kendall. But at this point, it seems to be 
executing well.
    Mr. Garcia. But I appreciate the comments. You know, so 
bottom line, synergize EMD with production as much as you can, 
early requirement setting, contracting models in the right 
accordance system.
    I would add one thing. It is money and engineering, but it 
is also the contracting officers, and they have to adapt that. 
The PCOs need to adapt that paradigm with programs. So thank 
you for that.
    Thank you for supporting the defense forum we are hosting 
at Plant 42 in June. The goal of that, Mr. Chairman, is to 
figure out how industry can go faster, how the Pentagon can go 
faster, and, obviously, Congress needs to do better as well.

                                  T-38

    I just want to be on the record as well that I don't think 
5.2 percent pay raise for our troops is enough. I also want to 
be on the record that--and the chief and I spoke about T-7 the 
other day. The T-38 has killed too many people. And whatever we 
can do to accelerate the production of T-7 to replace the T-38 
is absolutely critical to our Nation's future, especially the 
Air Force pilot force. So would love to partner with you on 
that. I understand there is restrictions right now on how fast 
we can go, but any levers that we have in the future, I would 
love to help you pull them.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                        KC-135 RECAPITALIZATION

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman, and thanks to you all for 
being with us.
    Secretary Kendall, as you know, air refueling will be 
critical to counter threats in the Indo-Pacific. Units like the 
Air National Guard, 141st Air Refueling Wing at Fairchild Air 
Force Base on the eastern part of my State will play a key role 
in that mission.
    Despite this, the 141st remains a classic associate unit 
without any assigned KC-135s. There is a clear need for 
additional tanker capacity, but the Air Force's current plan is 
to retire KC-135s to the boneyard. I know there are questions 
about the capacity of the KC-135s when we think about a 
conflict with a near-peer adversary; however, any conflict in 
the Indo-Pacific will need refueling capabilities from the West 
Coast to Hawaii and beyond. Air Guard units like the 141st 
flying KC-135s could be an indispensable piece of that mission.
    So recognizing the importance of units like the 141st, the 
fiscal year 2023 NDAA directed the development of a plan to 
transfer KC-135s aircraft to air refueling wings of the Air 
National Guard that are classic associations with Active Duty 
units of the Air Force. So my question is, what is the status 
of the plan, and does the Air Force intend to complete that 
transfer?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman Kilmer, that plan is in 
final coordination, as I understand it. So we should have an 
order to you fairly shortly.
    Mr. Kilmer. And is it--does the Air Force intend to 
complete the transfer?
    Secretary Kendall. I would have to get that for the record. 
I am not sure where we are on that. We are recapitalizing KC-
135, essentially one for one with KC-46 as we buy them. And 
right now our inventory objective is set by the NDAA at 466. So 
that is what we are planning too.
    Mr. Kilmer. Okay. I would certainly appreciate followup on 
that. And if there is any specific requirements that need to be 
addressed before a transfer could occur, we just want to know 
how we can get this done.
    Secretary Kendall. I will take a look at that and get back 
to you.

                               CHILDCARE

    Mr. Kilmer. I also want to just express appreciation. I 
know you mentioned the Department's commitment to improving 
childcare resources for folks in uniform. I really think this 
is a readiness issue. I was out at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, 
and we met with Active Duty folks who don't have their 
families. And it is putting an enormous strain. The waitlists 
that occur--we have got 1,500 military kids on waitlists in the 
State of Washington. The average wait time is between 3 months 
and a year.
    This is a staffing issue, though, primarily. They have got 
the space. It is just that they are at like 70 percent staffing 
capacity.
    I know the DOD introduced a program that will provide up to 
a 50 percent fee discount for the Child Development Center 
employees to try to track more providers. I guess I just want 
to know what else can be done to tackle these staffing issues, 
and if there is something that Congress can do to be a partner. 
We have got to help these families. We have got to make sure we 
are taking care of these kids.
    Secretary Kendall. I couldn't agree more. And it is a 
refrain I hear when I visit bases and talk to members and their 
families. We are increasingly, you know, a military with 
couples with children. Often, you know, two people are in 
uniform and their children, and it can be very stressful and 
difficult. It is more of a staffing than a facilities issue, 
and we have taken a number of steps.
    You mentioned the, you know, the discount for staff. The 
Air Force has gone further than DOD. We are offering a deeper 
discount than the DOD did. And that is having some impact. We 
are seeing some things there. We are also doing some creative 
things to get people certified to give care in their homes, so 
that people can add to the effective care providers for 
children.
    I would be happy to work with you on any legislative 
initiatives that would help in this regard as well. Anything we 
can do to encourage people to support us and increase our 
capacity in this regard would be very helpful. We are building 
a couple of CDCs in our budget under MILCON, but as you say, it 
is more about staffing than it is about facilities right now.

                            MILITARY HOUSING

    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah. I will say--I know I got a minute left--
the two issues that came up all day long when I was out at JBLM 
were childcare and the other was housing. There is just a huge 
squeeze in terms of availability on base, off base. I know the 
increases in the basic allowance for housing at the beginning 
of the year was helpful, but there is not a similar increase in 
the Air Force Military Family Housing budget proposal, which 
remains at fiscal year 2023 levels. Cost of housing is going 
up.
    So what can the Department of Air Force do to ensure 
servicemembers can afford to rent or purchase a home at their 
new duty station, and are you exploring any ways to increase 
on-base housing options?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, there is an increase for 
the basic allowance for housing in our budget. I believe it is 
over 3 percent.
    Mr. Kilmer. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall. I would have to check the exact number. 
It is not quite as big as the pay raise.
    Housing is a problem that I encounter too, but it is more 
location dependent than some of the others. We have a problem 
in Alaska, in particular, as you may be aware. We also have 
some areas where our privatized housing is not performing up to 
par, and we are having to do some restructuring. But it is one 
of the things we are definitely paying a lot of attention to.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.

                             MISSLE DEFENSE

    Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary and Generals, welcome to Capitol 
Hill. Last year, we discussed our missile defense capabilities, 
and I wanted to follow up and see how we have advanced in that 
department, if at all.
    Mr. Secretary, you highlighted the need for a more 
serviceable airborne capability. How have we progressed in the 
development of the next-generation airborne missile defense?
    Secretary Kendall. There are a number of technologies for 
active defenses in pursuit over the years, but most of what we 
do to defend our aircraft against missiles involves things like 
electronic countermeasures, decoys, and tactics that can--and a 
lot of the aircraft can survive. And electronic protection can 
be onboard the aircraft or it can be off-board through an 
escort jammer. We are fielding a number of systems. And as we 
develop next-generation air dominance, for example, that 
electronic warfare self-defense capability is embedded into the 
design. So we write requirements for that and try to stay ahead 
of the state of the art.
    And I would have to get into some classified things to talk 
about exactly what we do in some of those areas. But it is an 
area we spend a lot of attention on.
    We have mentioned the operational imperatives a few times. 
As we were going through those, we realized that there were 
some areas of cross-cutting operational enablers, we call them. 
And one of those is electronic warfare, which has a direct 
impact on aircraft survivability against the missile threats we 
see.
    The best way to protect the aircraft is often to kill the 
shooter, to reach out with an air-to-air missile and destroy 
the thing that is launching the missile at you, or the air 
defense system, particularly on-base air defense system. So 
suppression of enemy air defenses as well as our own air-to-air 
capabilities are important as well. So there are a mix of 
things that we are doing to make our forces more effective with 
those two missions.
    C.Q., do you want to add anything?
    Mr. Rogers. Excuse me. Go ahead.
    General Brown. The only other thing I would add, in 
addition to, you know, taking out the shooter is actually 
taking out the sensor. And so if you can, you know, put 
pressure on the sensor, whether it is through cyber or through 
electronic warfare or through kinetic action, then that helps 
to defend the aircraft and our strike packages that are 
executing.

                              HYPERSONICS

    Mr. Rogers. Last year, we also talked about the unique 
problem opposed by hypersonics when it comes to detection 
especially. Just coming in this morning, on the radio, I heard 
the report of two Russian hypersonic missile tests fired into 
the Sea of Japan.
    What can you tell us about their capability and anyone 
else's and ours on supersonics?
    Secretary Kendall. We are pursuing hypersonic defense in a 
number of areas. The Missile Defense Agency has a 
responsibility for that and has a number of programs designed 
to actively defend against hypersonic, long-range hypersonics 
in particular.
    The Space Force new missile warning and tracking system is 
designed to deal with the full range of missile threats, 
including hypersonics. Currently, we have the ability to detect 
launches of the longer-range hypersonic weapons but not 
necessarily to track them over the course of their flight. The 
new system will give us that ability and allows us to provide 
both for active defense against them as well as much better 
warning against them. But General Saltzman may want to comment 
on that.
    General Saltzman. We just usually talk about the shift in 
the resilient architecture for missile warning about being more 
resilient, more defendable, but it does come with increased 
capabilities to detect things like the hypersonic threats. And 
so, you know, being in low Earth orbit as opposed to being 
23,000 miles out at geosynchronous orbit, the closer you are to 
the playing field, the better you can follow the action if you 
see that. So it is going to be an enhanced capability.
    Mr. Rogers. Gentlemen, thank you for your service to the 
country.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                      INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Secretary, General Brown and Saltzman, and all those of 
your associates who have joined you, thank you for your 
patriotic service to our country.
    I have three questions. I don't know how many rounds we 
will have, but I am sure you noticed that, recently, Congress 
has passed major infrastructure legislation and also energy 
modernization, a substantial funding for that, and aimed at a 
net carbon zero footprint in as many places as we can possibly 
get it.
    I am interested in how you think about as Air Force and 
Space Force the bases under your command. So, for example, in 
my own district, I have the 180th Army Air Guard Fighter Wing, 
and it shares a tarmac with the Toledo commercial airport. All 
right. So if this rather large region were to attempt to 
modernize and the Air Guard sits on locally owned property that 
is in public possession, who within the Air Force do people go 
to in order to work out a plan to modernize this large facility 
that is shared in a way that meets our net carbon zero goals as 
a region? Who--is a staff assigned at Air Force to deal with 
communities? How do we work with you?
    Secretary Kendall. Representative Kaptur, the best point in 
contact would be the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 
Installations, Environment, and Energy. That is Mr. Ravi 
Chaudhary. And he would be responsible for exactly what you 
just described directly.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall. We can make sure he contacts your 
office.
    Secretary Kendall. I would appreciate that. I would really 
appreciate that.

                      TRANSITIONING SERVICEMEMBERS

    Number two, I would like to ask you, what do you consider 
to be your highest three research priorities?
    And then, I was going to ask General Brown, the military 
service, I hear, has trouble recruiting pilots--I might be 
wrong--or keeping them because of what is happening in the 
commercial sector. So one of the questions I have in terms of 
agility and training, what programs might exist within Air 
Force to train and retain skilled mechanics, welders, plumbers, 
engineers, the individuals who have their hands on the 
hardware, and doing it in a way that is concurrent with 
qualification on the civilian side when they leave the Air 
Force, that they have academic qualification so they can work 
in the private sector?
    How do you--I remember when we were dealing with Army and 
we had so much trouble with rotating out truck drivers. They 
ended up leaving the service, right? And then they didn't have 
a CDL. So we worked so hard with the workforce people at DOD to 
try to get them duly qualified to serve on the civilian side. 
How do you think about that?
    You have a vast, you know, array of things to worry about, 
but in terms of personnel, how do we make them academically 
qualified so when they rotate out, they have a community 
college or they have this certification where they can work and 
not have this bump that they face when they come out into the 
private sector.
    So research priorities, and then how do you prepare your 
enlistees to rotate out at some point in their lifetime, if 
they want to, to a real job on the private side?

                          RESEARCH PRIORITIES

    Secretary Kendall. Let me take the research priorities, and 
I will ask General Brown to comment on the transition.
    It is very difficult for me to pick three areas of 
research. I can identify a number of programs which are 
critical to our success. At the top of the list would probably 
be the strategic programs, the recapitalization of the 
strategic nuclear deterrent.
    Ms. Kaptur. I didn't hear that. Recapitalization of what?
    Secretary Kendall. The nuclear deterrent.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall. That would be first. And then I would 
say the combination of things that allow us to have air 
superiority, which is a necessity if the Air Force is going to 
do all of its other missions in the tactical environment.
    Ms. Kaptur. Is that hardware? Is that the planes 
themselves?
    Secretary Kendall. It is a combination of the planes 
themselves and, in particular, the missiles that they carry, 
air-to-air missiles.
    Ms. Kaptur. Okay.
    Secretary Kendall. As well as sensors and communication 
systems that net them together. And I also would add, the 
initiative in this budget for the uncrewed Collaborative Combat 
Aircraft, that would be basically controlled by a crewed 
fighter and used as a formation under his control to be more 
effective against the opponents. That is the next generation of 
capability as we see it.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall. So those would all be high on my list. 
But I have to mention space resilience as well, the systems 
that will allow us to continue to provide the services that we 
do in space.
    It is hard to give you three because I had seven 
operational imperatives, and I would like to talk about them 
all. They are all imperative. We need every one of those things 
to be successful.
    Let me go ahead and ask General Brown to talk about 
recruiting and transitioning people to various occupations.

                         TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

    General Brown. So one of the areas that we, as in Air 
Force, pay attention to is not only what we do internal to the 
Department of the Air Force, but also what is going on in the 
commercial sector, because there is advances in how they would 
certify. So we do want to pay attention to that because there 
may be advances that we can use internal to the Air Force that 
would actually develop that airman so when they do decide to 
transition.
    We actually have the Community College of the Air Force. So 
many of our career fields within enlisted--enlisted career 
fields provide the opportunity for our members to get an 
associate's degree that is very much tied to their day-to-day 
experience. So it is a combination of coursework and day-to-day 
experience that will give them an associate's degree. So when 
they depart the Air Force, they will at least have an 
associate's degree, and then they can continue on with other 
education.
    And the last thing I would highlight is we are also taking 
a hard look at the various certifications. I would say in 
cyber, for example, there is a number of certifications that 
are valuable, not only for the Air Force, but also valuable on 
the outside. And we want to make sure that is more visible on 
promotion records and other career development to ensure that 
we are using those opportunities, but also promoting people 
based on those opportunities or certifications that they get 
while they are in uniform that will pay dividends to them when 
they decide to either separate or retire from the Air Force.
    Ms. Kaptur. I invite you to our community any time, 
General. You come out and talk about that. We will bring all 
the kids in the region together. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                            E-7 PROCUREMENT

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, let me focus on the production of the E-7. 
If that is delayed, what are the Air Force's plans to continue 
operating the E-3s? And are we--is the Air Force potentially 
accepting operational risks by divesting the E-3s on the 
proposed timeline? That is kind of a two-part question.
    If I may, also, General Brown--and when you answered Mr. 
Stewart's question, you mentioned that the production of the F-
35. But do current production rates for our fighters meet the 
need to be fighter squadrons fully operational, obviously, as a 
transition to legacy platform? And that would include--I would 
ask, not only Active, but also Guard and Reserves. So two 
separate questions.
    Thank you.
    Secretary Kendall. Let me take the transition from AWACS to 
the E-7. The problem we have with AWACS is that it is a very 
old aircraft. It is obsolete technology, effectively. It is 
incredibly difficult to maintain. It is one of the lowest 
operational availability rates that we have, and it doesn't 
have capability against a threat. So the gap in our ability to 
do that mission already exists.
    By reducing the numbers and consolidating some of the 
resources that we have in the fleet, we think we can keep the 
remaining aircraft more available than they would have been 
otherwise and have a--and actually have an improvement in 
availability of the fleet that is left. But we need to get the 
E-7 as quickly as we can.
    We are a little bit limited just by the fact that we have 
to take a production aircraft from Boeing and then transition 
it into an E-7. So we are moving as quickly as we can. We 
looked over the last year at ways to possibly accelerate that. 
What could be done would be, once we get them in a production, 
is to buy them faster and increase the numbers. And we still 
have an opportunity to do that in subsequent year budgets. So 
that is a possibility for us. But we need to get to that new 
capability as quickly as possible.
    General Brown. Congressman, one of the areas that I focus 
on as the chief is the balance between capacity and capability. 
And as we look at this particular budget, and as we look at the 
previous budgets, is to ensure we are providing on bringing on 
new capabilities, at the same time maintaining levels of 
capacity. And as we work through some of that, we don't always 
have--we have not necessarily procured enough in some cases to 
be able to cover exactly one to one in every location.
    As Secretary Kendall described a bit earlier, our goal is, 
if we are retiring a fighter aircraft out of a particular unit 
or location, is to try to replace it with a fighter aircraft. 
If not, we will try to replace it with a flying mission. And if 
not, then there is other and very important missions within the 
United States Air Force through all components--Active, Guard, 
and Reserve--that we take a look at.
    The intent here is we value the airmen that serve, and we 
want to make sure that they have meaningful missions that they 
are going to be able to execute. And, ideally, we would like to 
use the experience they have, but in some cases, based on the 
needs of the Air Force, but also we are able to procure--we 
have to balance that out across the Air Force. But the goal is 
still to make sure we are meeting the requirements for the 
Nation and also for our combatant commanders.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. But in your estimation, are we on track 
with--you know, our current levels, are we on track?
    General Brown. I think we are. I mean, as we make these 
transitions and these--transitions are hard. And therein lies 
part of the challenge. So you make these transitions. Those--we 
are very comfortable in the capabilities that we have today, 
but the capabilities we have today are not the capabilities we 
are going to require for tomorrow. And as we make those 
transitions, there will be--you know, it won't be a flip of a 
switch.
    And that is the part as we work with each of the locations 
to ensure they are going to understand what we are trying to 
achieve, and look at from an enterprise approach for the entire 
Air Force, not one--you know, one element where there is Active 
Guard or Reserve; it is how we do this collectively across all 
three components.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Yeah. Well, thank you.
    I also want to thank the three of you for your 
distinguished service to our Nation. So thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

                            GROUND STATIONS

    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    We are going to go to a second round. And we will go about 
3 minutes for each member. I will start it off.
    Secretary, last month, the Department of the Air Force 
submitted its annual report on the highest and lowest 
performing acquisition programs in the Space Force portfolio. 
The top five performing programs are Polar SATCOM, GPS IIIF, 
National Security Space Launch, Space-Based Infrared, Weather 
Satellite Follow-On. And I certainly congratulate you on that.
    However, the poorest performance was the GPS Operational 
Control Segment, Space and Command Control, FAB-T terminals, 
GPS User Equipment, and Enterprise Ground program. All five of 
these lowest performing programs are ground programs, not 
satellite programs. It appears that the biggest problem in 
space are actually in the in-ground user equipment, not the 
actual satellites.
    Can you explain why the ground systems are so hard to 
deliver, and what are we going to do to correct that?
    Secretary Kendall. I can give you what is kind of an 
impression grade, because I haven't taken a hard look at this. 
But I am familiar with the programs that you just cited.
    I think there is a tendency in space programs, 
historically--and General Saltzman may want to comment on 
this--that emphasize the satellite payload over the ground 
station. Ground stations are almost always very software 
intensive. And we tend to have a problem with software programs 
in general in the Department of Defense.
    The other thing that has impacted on our programs, and I 
know this from a lot of experience, is that the cybersecurity 
requirements have gotten more stringent over time, and that has 
added a layer of complexity. And if you don't design for that 
upfront and you commit and you try to overlay it later on as 
you are going through a design, it gets much more difficult.
    When I was the acquisition executive, I struggled with OCS, 
one of the programs on your list. In fact, I struggled with 
most of the ones that you mentioned at some point. Getting the 
contractors to put the A-team on those programs to make sure 
that they don't have the kind of difficulties, and having the 
government pay as much attention to the ground as to the space 
segment, I think is important.
    The Air Force's acquisition executive for Space, Frank 
Calvelli--and I have talked about this a number of times. And 
he has put out a number of tenets for how to structure and 
manage space programs. And one of those is that you have to pay 
as much attention to the ground segment as you do to the 
satellite. I think he is absolutely right about that. So, 
hopefully, we can learn from some of those experiences and do 
better as we move forward.
    Mr. Calvert. Do you want to add anything to that?
    General Saltzman. Well, the Secretary covered the main 
points that I would make. It should be noticed that a lot of 
the ground infrastructure is very software-dependent, software-
based upgrades, software-based enhancements. In large part, 
this is due to the network-centric constructs that the 
Secretary talked about in terms of cyber defense. And that is 
what complicates this. But how we acquire and how we develop 
requirements for software-based systems is something that we 
are working through and managing in, I would say, in a new 
modern era of acquisition associated with those kind of 
systems. So it stands to reason, I think, that some of those 
programs are lagging. But as he mentioned, Honorable Calvelli 
is hands-on with these programs to get it right.
    Mr. Calvert. And I will also make a point that we should 
use the modern technology to test that software. Like the ATR-2 
technology that primarily the Navy is using. The Air Force has 
been slow to pick up on that. But I would hope that you are 
looking at that.
    Ms. McCollum.

                              CANCER RATES

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Last month, the Pentagon showed higher cancer rates found 
in military pilots and ground crews. A yearlong study of almost 
900,000 servicemembers showed that crew members had an 87 
percent higher rate of melanoma, a 39 percent higher rate of 
thyroid cancer, a 16 percent higher rate of prostate cancer, a 
16 higher percentage rate of breast cancer. Overall, aircrews 
had 24 percent higher rate of cancers of all types. Ground 
crews, 19 percent higher brain and nervous system cancers, 15 
percent higher rate of thyroid, 9 percent higher rate of kidney 
or retinal cancers. Women had a 7 percent higher rate of breast 
cancer.
    And then we met with the Air Force talking about what 
happened at Malmstrom Air Force Base where they are doing a 
detailed study about nine officers. They are diagnosed with 
non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
    So the overall cancer rate was 3 percent higher in the Air 
Force. I appreciate that the study is being done. It is a broad 
study. It is going across all services, whereas early studies 
were just focused on Air Force pilots. So it is important that 
we look at the entire folks who are serving with us.
    Secretary, I am sure--I know because I have talked about 
healthcare with Secretary Austin, with General Milley. I know 
that you are concerned about this too. So my point is, we must 
get our arms around this. And we talked earlier about, you 
know, what a devastation of a 2022 budget numbers would be.
    So what are some of the things that you can get back to 
your office that the chair and I can look at, either with 
lines, with help, with studies, or if we need to be taking more 
of a whole-of-military approach on this? And then, how are you 
interfacing with the VA and the VA interfacing with you as 
folks retire and these cancers are diagnosed.
    I know this is something--this isn't a gotcha question. 
This is, let's get our arms around this, let's work together. 
We have a big military health budget, which the chair now 
oversees, and I know that members are concerned about this.
    So what could we do to help you? If you can get back to us, 
there might be specific things you need to have us look at. And 
direct the money to go there.
    Secretary Kendall. Ranking Member, that is a great 
question, and we will get back to you on that. I can talk a 
little bit to the missile air issue that we are dealing with 
right now. And maybe General Brown can talk about the earlier 
studies in the pilot situation and the others that you 
mentioned.
    On the missile air case, you know, it was observed that 
non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was more prevalent or seemed to be more 
prevalent among people who have been in that career field, 
particularly in certain locations. So what General Bussiere, 
the head of the Global Strike Command, has organized is a very 
thorough, in-depth professional study to try to assess that 
impact and try to be--first of all, determine that, if it is 
really an out-of-the-ordinary cluster with some systemic, cause 
that we can hopefully identify, and then we can address that.
    We are trying to get out to everyone who might have been 
affected by that, and we are making sure that we bring in some 
outside experts to work with us to ensure that the study is 
thorough, transparent, and gets valid results so that we can 
tackle that problem. It is of great concern to us. And it will 
take us about a year, I think, to get the results from that 
study so we can determine what steps to take next.
    Let me turn it over to General Brown. He can address that 
earlier study that you mentioned.
    General Brown. Well, as you know, and as you mentioned, 
there is information from previous studies that show a high 
rate of cancer amongst some of our pilots. And so I think the 
more we end up learning more--well, you will learn more and 
more as we collect more and more data and start asking more and 
more questions about the--particularly those that are flying, 
you know, fighter cockpits, because you are exposed to the Sun 
a bit more. You also have a radar in the airplane. And trying 
to understand what the causes may be associated with those, and 
then how we may take some mitigation.
    But it is not only talk, as you said, it is not only how we 
look at those that are on Active Duty, it is also those who are 
separated or being used--or get medical care through the VA, 
pulling in that data, because that will help us better get a 
good sense of what is happening to our--not just our aviators, 
but really across the Air Force, as you highlight.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Garcia.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         NUCLEAR MODERNIZATION

    Gentlemen, again, just a great thank you for your service 
and being here today. I have a very strategic question. We are 
living in an era right now where China has effectively tripled 
its nuclear inventory and ramping up development efforts. We 
see MIRV technology with DF-41, 31. We see Russia developing 
novel nukes. We see Russia now staging nukes in Belarus. We see 
Russia hitting pause on its commitment to New START Treaty 
provisos. We have got the nuclear and conventional hypersonic 
thread.
    And in the vein of staying ahead of pacing challenges and 
embracing change to maintain that strategic advantage that we 
have been discussing today, in your opinion, is it good enough 
strictly to modernize the nuclear triad at this point, given 
what our threats are doing and how quickly? And I will add 
North Korea in that mix seeing, you know, three to four times 
the number of test shots in the last year than the previous 
year. Mr. Secretary, I guess, you first.
    Secretary Kendall. That is a great question, Congressman. I 
don't think I have seen anything more disturbing in my career 
maybe than the Chinese expansion--ongoing expansion of the 
nuclear force. For decades, they were quite comfortable with an 
arsenal of a few hundred nuclear weapons, which was fairly 
clearly a second strike capability to act as a deterrent. And 
that--the expansion that they are undertaking puts us into a 
new world that we have never lived in before where you have 
three powers--three great powers, essentially--with large 
arsenals of nuclear weapons.
    I don't think there is anything that we need to change in 
our modernization strategy to recapitalize, basically, our 
triad. I think that is the right answer. But I do think that 
those three nations--ourselves, Russia, and China--need to 
start talking to each other about this situation and start 
finding some ways to work together to reduce the instabilities 
that are being created by what China is doing.
    I spent 20 years of my career as a cold warrior. And I had 
a lot of mistaken impressions or mistaken conclusions about 
what the Soviet Union actually believed, because there was a 
cultural gap between us and them. And some of the things they 
said, I couldn't think--I thought they were lying, because it 
couldn't possibly be true. I had a very different logic than 
they did.
    The potential for a cultural gap like that with China is 
vastly greater than it was with the Soviet union.
    Mr. Garcia. Sure.
    Secretary Kendall. And all sorts of strategic stability 
questions are--you know, come to the forefront once they create 
this new world that we are entering into. So we really need to 
start talking to them.
    Russia's latest move on New START Treaty is not helpful. It 
is going in the wrong direction. Nobody wants a nuclear war, 
but, you know, our experience has been that, during the Cold 
War, we came close a couple of times. And we do not want to go 
back into that world. Thirty years ago, I thought we would 
never be in this position again, and here we are. So we need to 
be wise, and we need to----
    Mr. Garcia. Well, I think your point about communications 
is key. We averted the Cuban Missile Crisis because we had that 
line of communications at the senior levels. We don't have that 
with China, to your point. So, hopefully, the State Department 
and this administration is taking that onboard. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                       TACTICAL RESPONSIVE SPACE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking 
member.
    Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Good to see you, Generals.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to focus on tactical responsive 
space, which is crucial for ensuring the U.S. has flexible and 
reliable systems, as you talked about previously, to launch or 
replace satellites in contested environments.
    Has Space Force developed any requirements for tactical 
responsive space? And if so, what does that look like?
    Secretary Kendall. I am going to ask General Saltzman to 
help me with this one. He is responsible for Space Force 
requirements. But we have done some successful experimentation 
with tactical responsive space. Most of the effort in the past 
has been experimental, and it is focused on rapid launch 
capability. But that is just a piece of the equation for 
rapidly reconstitutable space. You also have to look at how 
long it takes to get a payload, once you put in orbit, into 
operations. And we are looking at ways to reduce that timeframe 
pretty dramatically.
    I would say, at this stage of the game, it is more 
understudy than it is a committed investment, other than the 
experimentation. What we want is resilient architectures that 
can survive under attack. We would like to have some capability 
to reconstitute those architectures over time, but right now we 
don't envision a large wartime reserve on the satellites ready 
to launch, although that is a possibility. We are starting that 
type of possibility.
    General Saltzman can add to that.
    Mr. Aguilar. General Saltzman.
    General Saltzman. Just a couple of things. He hit the 
highlights. That is the most important thing to remember is 
that it is responsive space, not responsive launch, because you 
need all of those capabilities. And so as a part of the 
demonstrations, we are looking at what are the key missions 
that would benefit most by a rapid reaction launch, if you 
will; inspector satellites to figure out what is going on; on 
orbit situational awareness, if you will.
    And then the second most important thing is, obviously, 
having the all of the operational concepts, the contractual 
vehicles, all of the integration procedures figured out so that 
you can rapidly go from a requirement to putting something on a 
launch pad to get it off into orbit.
    And we think the NSSL, National Security Space Launch, 
Phase 3 strategy provides an opportunity for emerging launch 
providers, smaller launch providers to demonstrate how they 
would put payloads on orbit and work towards a certification 
for national security launches. So the full scale concepts to 
make sure we put the right kinds of capabilities on orbit 
quickly, and then supporting those emerging launch service 
providers is a key element to it.

                                  ARRW

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, General.
    My time is dwindling here, Mr. Secretary, so I will submit 
another question for the record.
    Mr. Calvert. I will allow you an extra couple of minutes, 
since you were here earlier.
    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Sorry, gentlemen.
    Mr. Rogers had talked about hypersonics a little bit, and I 
wanted to follow up on the systems. The ARRW Hypersonic Missile 
Program has experienced some setbacks. And just this month, Mr. 
Secretary, the Air Force conducted its second test of ARRW. And 
after the launch, the Air Force noted that the test met several 
of the objectives, but it didn't indicate whether it was a 
successful test.
    In this setting, Mr. Secretary, can you talk with us about 
the latest impact of ARRW? And maybe from the broader lens of 
the budget request that you have in front of us, if that is the 
best way to approach it, what should we consider--I think the 
budget requests $150 million in research and development for 
ARRW. What is the status, and what can we look forward to in 
the next fiscal year.
    Secretary Kendall. The ARRW we set up is a mid-tier 
acquisition program with limited number of test assets with the 
potential for some leave-behind capability. It has struggled a 
little bit in its testing program. It had a very successful 
flight, which was a big step forward, the flight before the one 
that just occurred. But the one that we just had was not a 
success. We did not get the data that we needed from that test. 
So they are currently examining that, trying to understand what 
happened.
    We have two more test articles that we can use, and we will 
probably have to make a decision on the fate of ARRW after we 
complete the analysis and hopefully do those two tests. And 
then we will revisit it, I think, as we build the 2025 budget 
to see what could be done in the future.

                    HYPERSONIC ATTACK CRUISE MISSILE

    Mr. Aguilar. Fiscal year 2024 also requests $384 million in 
R&D on the cruise missile side. Do you envision a scenario 
where in fiscal year 2025 or outyears where that request 
continues to grow at the expense of other categories?
    Secretary Kendall. We do have money throughout the 5-year 
plan to move back and forth. It is based on some technology 
development out of DARPA that has been reasonably successful. 
And we see a definite role for the HACM concept. It is 
compatible with more of our aircraft and it will give us more 
combat capability overall. So we are more committed to HACM at 
this point in time than we are to ARRW.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence. Thank you, 
Ranking Member.
    Mr. Calvert. You know, on the point that Mr. Aguilar was 
making on this R&D issue with Lockheed on this ARRW program, it 
seems that it is a continual--and I like to call it R&D 
welfare--but it seems to go on forever. And as you know, the 
Chinese, of all people, are less risk averse than the United 
States, it seems to me, at this point. They went right from--of 
course, their R&D budget is pretty cheap if they can just steal 
the technology as they did. But nevertheless, they got right to 
procurement, and now they have, what, 600, 700, you know, 
hypersonic missiles out there. So we got to get on with it. 
Hopefully, soon. And I know you know that.
    Mr. Ruppersberger.

                              SPACE FORCE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. General Saltzman, we had a talk 
yesterday, and I found it very productive. And it is a shame 
the way it works, but there is no other way, I guess, and we 
have 5 minutes to get to all these different areas. And, you 
know, as I said to you yesterday, when we are attempting to set 
your mission up, it was very controversial. Do you set it in 
another bureaucracy. Should you be a part of the whole Air 
Force, will this make a difference, cost, all of that? Whatever 
the issues were or however you thought about it, we now have 
you. And I think it is very important that we all do whatever 
we can to work with you and to help you, especially with big 
Air Force.
    And so I just ask that you reach out to us as defense 
appropriators to make sure that we can do what we need to do, 
within reason, to get you started, especially in the beginning. 
You are not going to discover all the issues you need to do 
right away. It is going to take some time. But we have to be 
patient, but we are asking you to take on a mighty task, and 
your team. And I think with your leadership, with General Brown 
and the Secretary, I am reaching out to say that you can't 
fail. We can't afford to have you fail with all of these that 
are out there. It is unacceptable.
    So I just wanted to say, it is a shame sometimes we can't 
spend more time with all the leadership, but we have time 
issues, and you do too. So we are just going to have to do the 
best we can. And I just wanted to say that.

                               175TH WING

    On this other thing--and I am still focused on this 175. 
But the Air Force does not replace--if they don't replace the 
175th--this is to you, General Brown--do not replace the 175th 
wing with another fighter flying mission, does that mean the 
Maryland Air National Guard will be the only State Air National 
Guard without a flying mission, either manned or unmanned? I 
kind of know the answer. Just making a point.
    General Brown. I don't know the specific answer on that 
one.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I would think, what I know from you all 
right now, that it is the only one. But we will confirm that 
later on.
    And I just ask you all again to work with me on this 
important issue, because there is so much involved and so many 
people within my districts, generations that are very 
interested. And I think it is in the best interest of the 
United States national security to move forward with that 
project. Just for emphasis, putting it all on the table.
    General Brown. Mr. Ruppersberger, we will work with you.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Okay. So I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Aderholt.

                    U.S. SPACE COMMAND HEADQUARTERS

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. Sorry for being late. As you know, 
Mr. Chairman, there is a lot of hearings going on. So I was 
just chairing a hearing myself. So thank you for letting me 
come in.
    Thank y'all all for being here. Thanks for your testimony 
before this subcommittee.
    Mr. Secretary, let me address this to you. There are some 
rumors out there that the President may overturn Space Command 
regarding the basing decision. I guess my question to you, what 
is your recommendation to the President, and why would the 
President overturn that decision?
    Secretary Kendall. Congressman, I have no indication that 
the President is going to do anything with regard to that 
decision. Secretary Austin delegated it to me, and that is 
where it stays today.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. And what was your recommendation to the 
President?
    Secretary Kendall. I haven't made a recommendation. I 
haven't made a decision. We are still in the process of doing 
some analysis.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Well, according to a GAO report, the 
basing concern comes from the operational capacity timeline--or 
capability timeline. Interestingly, this concern appeared in 
January of 2021, the same month the Air Force released a 
decision memorandum to move Space Command to Redstone. 
Furthermore, Space Force suddenly offered to reduce civilian 
numbers from 1,000 to 500, allowing Colorado to reach a full 
operational capability more quickly by renovating 
infrastructure rather than building new infrastructure. And to 
me it seems convenient that the basing rules changed upon 
Redstone's selection.
    Can you explain to the committee why the U.S. Space 
Command, upon the imminent decision to move the command to 
Redstone, lowered the personnel from 1,000 to 500, giving 
Colorado a clear advantage at the cost of significant risk of 
readiness?
    Secretary Kendall. First of all, the size of the Space 
Command has not decreased. There was some discussion of that 
possibility in the previous administration. But one of the 
things that I did after we completed the two independent 
reviews was to ensure that the requirements are not 
fundamentally changed. I consulted with General Dickinson about 
that. If the requirement had changed as dramatically as those 
numbers would indicate, we would probably have to redo the 
entire base selection process. We have not done that.
    We have taken the results and given it a year at that time 
when I started this. It passed over a year. We had to recheck a 
number of things and address some of the concerns that the GAO 
and the IG raised. So there have been a number of steps that 
have been taken. I can't get into the details of that, but I 
would be happy to do it once we make the decision and explain 
all the things that will happen in the process.
    Mr. Aderholt. But there was an offer to reduce the civilian 
numbers from 1,000 to 500. Is that correct?
    Secretary Kendall. There was a discussion of that 
possibility in the previous administration, but that has not 
happened. The requirement has not been reduced by those 
numbers.
    Mr. Aderholt. It was not reduced. It was not reduced, is 
that what you are saying? It was not----
    Secretary Kendall. It was not reduced.
    Mr. Aderholt. On the civilian side.
    Secretary Kendall. Per the requirement, it is roughly as it 
originally was.
    Mr. Aderholt. There were some changes, though?
    Secretary Kendall. A small change op actually. It is on the 
order of 1,500 people total for the headquarters.
    Mr. Aderholt. How the Department failed to consider 
operational capability's importance in the basing from 2018 to 
2021?
    Secretary Kendall. Operational capability and mission 
performance is one of the fundamental things we look at in 
every basing decision. The thing--what was raised in this case 
was the disruption of possibly having to move the headquarters 
and delay in full operational capability. So in the analysis we 
have been doing, we have taken all that into account.
    Mr. Aderholt. Oh. But I am correct, the initial 
recommendation that came forward was that Redstone was the 
place that was chosen to--was recommended?
    Secretary Kendall. If you look at the IG and the GAO 
reports, there was a recommendation of Huntsville, and there 
were a couple of iterations after that. The reports have been 
redacted, so I am not sure exactly what is in the public domain 
in the report. But anyway, we basically have taken into account 
the two independent reviews that were done, ensured that the 
requirements were valid, and reevaluated based on any change 
circumstances that occurred. Under the NEPA process, we are 
allowed to do that. So that is the process that has been 
ongoing for roughly a year now.
    Mr. Aderholt. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. This is one space-
basing decision California is not involved in, but San Diego 
State did beat Alabama.
    Mr. Aderholt. That is a good point. Congratulations.
    Mr. Calvert. I just thought I would point that out.
    Okay. Ms. Kaptur.

                             CYBER THREATS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Saltzman, Russia's war on Ukraine has now extended 
into its ninth year, and expanding. I am wondering what you 
have seen, what you have noted how these adversaries wage war 
in the 21st century, and what has Space Force learned from 
combatting cyber threats and disinformation campaigns like we 
have witnessed in Ukraine? If you have comments on that, what 
might we have learned already about the potential future 
conflicts and how to prepare ourselves?
    And then secondly, Secretary Kendall, in terms of social 
media's impact and potential to track access and negatively 
influence our servicemembers. Take a site like TikTok and the 
sharing of personal information directly to our enemies and the 
pacing threat of China. How are we ensuring that airmen and 
guardsmen are protected against such social media monitoring 
systems, especially those holding top security clearances?
    So those are my two questions, starting with General 
Saltzman, please.
    General Saltzman. Thank you for that. We are learning or at 
least observing several key things from the Russian invasion of 
Ukraine. First, that space is going to be critical to modern 
warfare. We saw attacks on space systems right out of the gate, 
both interference on orbit as well as cyber attacks against 
ground networks that supported space systems. So there is no 
question that space is going to be central to effective 
operations in the future.
    I think it also--we are observing that commercial 
augmentation does show to be a viable solution set with the 
Ukranians accessing the proliferated LEO commercial satellite 
communications. It is proving to be more resilient with regards 
to their communications capabilities.
    And then maybe most important to me, I have observed that, 
you know, weapon systems alone are not enough. That if you 
don't have the operational concepts, the tactics, the training, 
the combined arms practice, the logistics, and the sustainment 
for your force, it is not going to be as effective in a high-
intensity conflict.
    And so as we start our transition from space operations in 
a relatively benign environment to one where we expect it to be 
contested, we are focusing on those kinds of things. You know, 
giving our Guardians the training they need, the experience on 
ranges and in tests to test their tactics, we think that is 
going to be just as important as buying the right kind of 
resilient architecture that we put on orbit.
    And cyber defense, obviously, is going to be just as 
crucial. And you will see in the fiscal year 2024 President's 
budget request that we are requesting about $700 million to 
enhance the cyber defense of our critical networks associated 
with space operations.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.

                             DISINFORMATION

    Secretary Kendall. On social media, there is a high 
potential for both misinformation and manipulation and 
influence of people through social media, as we are all aware. 
On the government devices that we provide people, we can 
prohibit apps like TikTok, for example, right, so that people 
don't have them on their government device and don't use them. 
We can't do that for people's personal devices, but we do a lot 
to try to educate our people. They have mandatory education on 
cybersecurity, on operational security, and so on. And we try 
to publish as widely as we can to make people aware of the 
misinformation that is out there and how social media can be 
used against them. It is largely a training and educational 
process as far as their personal devices are concerned.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. McCollum, any closing remarks.
    Ms. McCollum. I just thank you, gentlemen, for being here. 
We know that there will be questions submitted for the record. 
We look forward to seeing it.
    And thank you, Mr. Chair, for a good hearing.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And thank you all for your service. I appreciate your 
both--all three of you being here, I should say. And look 
forward to seeing you all again soon.
    The subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	

                                         Wednesday, March 29, 2023.

                  UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

                               WITNESSES

GENERAL DAVID H. BERGER, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS
HON. CARLOS DEL TORO, SECRETARY OF THE NAVY
ADMIRAL MICHAEL M. GILDAY, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr.Calvert. Good morning. The Defense Subcommittee will 
come to order.
    Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony from the 
Honorable Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy; Admiral 
Michael Gilday, Chief of Naval Operations; and General David 
Berger, Commandant of the Marine Corps.
    Welcome.
    The United States Navy and Marine Corps team is the 
cornerstone of our Nation's defense. It represents the 
embodiment of our commitment to global freedom. With a presence 
in every corner of the world, this team stands ready to defend 
our national interests and the interests of our allies at a 
moment's notice.
    Their mission to maintain freedom of navigation on the 
world's seas and project American power when necessary cannot 
be overshadowed by their unmatched ability to respond to 
natural disaster or humanitarian crisis. By embracing new 
technologies and tactics, the Navy and Marine Corps team are 
better equipped to respond to a wider range of threats and 
operate effectively in contested environments. This 
transformation will also improve their ability to work 
alongside our allies and partners.
    By fully implementing Force Design 2030, the Marine Corps 
is positioned to deter and react to Chinese aggression and 
fulfill the congressional mandate to seize and defend advance 
naval bases and conduct land operations for naval campaigns. 
Operating within the Chinese A2/AD weapons engagement zone is 
not a decision taken lightly and is the only option.
    They are the embodiment of American strength and 
resilience. As a Nation, we must continue to invest in our Navy 
and Marine Corps to ensure that they have the resources, 
training, and equipment they need to carry out their mission 
and keep our country safe.
    The Navy and Marine Corps combined budget request for 
fiscal year 2024 is $255.8 billion, roughly $11 billion over 
the fiscal year 2023 enacted level.
    At first glance, this request seems to represent a sizable 
investment toward our future, and it is. However, given the 
rapid pace of inflation and challenges faced by our industrial 
base, this budget does not do enough to keep pace with our 
adversaries.
    The Navy continues to retire ships faster than it builds 
them, putting us dangerously behind our adversaries in ship 
count. I am troubled by the Navy's request to decommission 11 
ships and build 9. While the Marine Corps accelerates its force 
redesign, the budget fails to include any significant 
investment in amphibious ship construction.
    I know you have to make tradeoffs, but you need to explain 
to this committee and to the American public how this makes 
sense.
    The Navy has seen inflationary impacts to the pricing of 
many aspects of readiness. Flying hours are 6 percent more 
expensive than fiscal year 2023. Rising port fees and 
competition for shipyard labor is driving an increase in the 
cost of ship maintenance and new construction. Sustaining and 
modernizing the existing infrastructure is costing 5 percent 
more than general inflation.
    This budget also fails to tackle the aging strike fighter 
inventory. In both the skies and in the seas, the Navy and 
Marine Corps must plan for looming shortfalls. Once again, the 
administration is betting on Congress to bail it out.
    I am encouraged to see the budget meets the Department's 
long-term goal of possessing long-range strike capability a 
reality. For the first time, the Navy budget proposes to 
procure eight conventional prompt strike hypersonic weapons. I 
look forward to hearing about how that effort is going.
    The budget also proposes a multiyear procurement for a 
variety of munitions. We must provide the demand signal that 
the industry needs to scale to the capacity of today's threat 
demand. However, this cannot be done without providing real 
savings and producing real results. I look forward to hearing 
more about this proposal today.
    I am also encouraged by the successes we have seen when we 
partner with the private sector. If we are to succeed in our 
rapidly changing threat environment, the Navy must continue to 
experiment with commercial technology to address our evolving 
operational needs. We need to continue to invest in these 
partnerships.
    I look forward to hearing from all of you about a range of 
issues that continue to face the Navy and the Marine Corps 
today. These include recruiting and retention, improving 
quality of life for our servicemembers and their families, 
establishing stable and predictable plans for our shipbuilding 
programs, improving our defense industrial base, and supporting 
rapid innovation.
    Finally, I would like to hear General Berger's thoughts on 
how this budget advances his strategy to shape the Marine Corps 
and position it for success.
    Before we hear from our witnesses, I would like to 
recognize my friend, the distinguished ranking member, Ms. 
McCollum, for any opening comments.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General, thank you for testifying 
with us today.
    Admiral Gilday, General Berger, I understand this may be 
your last appearance before the subcommittee in your current 
roles, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you 
both on behalf of myself and the families in Minnesota's Fourth 
District for your decades of service to our Nation.
    The Department of Navy's budget request reflects the 
enormity of the mission that you have to protect America. The 
$256 billion, including for military construction, is the 
largest request we have yet seen.
    The Navy and the Marine Corps work together to solve and 
address some of our most pressing challenges. You are at the 
forefront of all we do in China, as it continues to spread its 
influence around the world, and play a predominant role in 
dealing with threats you address from both Russia, Iran, and 
North Korea. You must also train and equip and ensure the 
readiness of hundreds of thousands of Active Duty and Reserve 
personnel and civilians.
    At the hearing today, we will cover a wide range of topics, 
but I want to highlight just a few that are important to me.
    First is the well-being and mental health of our sailors 
and marines. I raised this issue last year, and I am interested 
to learn about the progress you have made in suicide 
prevention, childcare, and other family programs.
    I also want to raise the ongoing transformation of the 
Military Health System. And you will hear more from one of my 
colleagues, who experienced this firsthand with constituents.
    In our hearing, however, last week, Secretary Austin and 
Chairman Milley articulated some of their concerns on how the 
Defense Health System is proceeding with these changes and the 
negative impacts that they are having on our military families.
    Members continue to be alarmed about the reductions in 
medical care and the lost medical capacity that is taking place 
nationally. We know that this is not the Navy's problem alone. 
It is actually a problem that our Nation is trying to address 
in healthcare, providing the best healthcare to all Americans. 
But this committee would really like to get your thoughts on 
what is happening and how we are going to turn this around.
    My second priority is climate change. And I am pleased to 
see the increased request for resources. I believe that the 
Department still has a long way to go to meet the resiliency 
targets necessary to secure our installations. I am 
particularly concerned about how climate change is impacting 
not only our bases but the geopolitics of the Arctic.
    I am also glad to see that the Marine Corps is making 
important advances in energy efficiency. I congratulate the 
Marine Corps's Logistics Base Albany in Georgia. It was the 
first department to receive a zero-electricity status. That is 
a big deal. Congratulations. As the largest consumer of energy, 
the Department of Defense still has a long way to go, and I 
hope other bases will follow your lead.
    I am also interested to hear an update on ship and 
submarine maintenance issues. Our public and private shipyard 
backlog remains high, too high. And the shipbuilding industrial 
base continues to face production delays and capacity 
challenges.
    And, finally, being the stewards of taxpayers' dollars 
doesn't mean that we should just be judicious about how we 
allocate our funding, but we also must be able to track it and 
ensure that it is spent in a manner consistent with the law. So 
I want to hear how the Navy and the Marine Corps can achieve a 
clean audit option. I want to thank you for your focus on this 
as you work to overcome some of your audit challenges, but we 
want to get it to an A grade.
    So, again, thank you to our witnesses for appearing here 
today. I appreciate your testimony, and I look forward to you 
answering our questions.
    And, Mr. Chair, thank you for the courtesy. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Ms. McCollum. I appreciate it.
    Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed on 
the record. Please give a brief summary of your statements.
    Secretary Del Toro, the floor is yours.

                Summary Statement of Secretary Del Toro

    Secretary Del Toro. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, distinguished members of the committee, good morning. 
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 that we operate in, from the seabed to the stars. And we 
recognize that the People's Republic of China is 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 Marine Corps 
are the foundation upon which the success of the Joint Force 
rests. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing the 
Department of the Navy as the cornerstone of our national 
security.
    The President's 2024 budget sends a strong signal to the 
American people of the value that President Biden, Secretary 
Austin, and myself place in maintaining a robust Navy and 
Marine Corps team to confront the threats that we face.
    This year's budget request supports our three enduring 
priorities: strengthening our maritime dominance across all 
domains, 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 to modernize our fleet and our force. 2022 saw the 
first deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford, 
providing the Navy with lessons learned that will benefit 
future Ford-class carriers. With the support of our partners in 
Congress, we are proud to field capable aircraft carriers as 
part of our fleet with a lower service-life cost than their 
Nimitz-class predecessors.
    Construction of high-end surface combatant continues: the 
first Constellation-class frigate, the Constellation, and the 
first of our Arleigh Burke-class Flight III destroyers, the 
Jack Lucas, which we are scheduled to commission this fall.
    We continue progress on our first Columbia-class ballistic 
missile submarine, the U.S.S. District of Columbia, while pre-
construction activities on the second Columbia-class ballistic 
missile submarine, the USS Wisconsin, have also begun. These 
are significant accomplishments.
    On the innovation front, Task Force 59 in Bahrain continues 
to test a wide range of uncrewed service vessels. We look 
forward to bringing the capabilities that these platforms 
provide us to additional regions that we operate in around the 
world. Investments in unmanned technologies are significant and 
will continue well into the future.
    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 avoid ever 
again having a hollow force. This year, our divestment request 
includes three amphibious ships and at least two cruisers in 
poor material condition that offer limited warfighting 
capability.
    Our decisions to divest or extend a ship's life are based 
on a hull-by-hull examination based on the realities of the 
day. For example, we recently announced the modernization of 
the destroyer USS Arleigh Burke DDG 51, the first in its class, 
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 
whenever possible. We owe it to the American people to be 
responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars, as you have 
suggested, Mr. Chairman. Investing in platforms with limited 
capability conflicts with that responsibility.
    The Navy and Marine Corps are more than just platforms and 
systems, however. Our sailors and marines are our greatest 
strength, as you have suggested. This year's budget request 
contains multiple investments to support them and their 
families with the services, the benefits, the housing, the 
education, the quality of life that they indeed deserve.
    In addition to our commitments to our people, we are 
reinforcing our relationships with our allies and partners, 
including our Ukrainian partners as they defend their 
sovereignty in response to Russia's illegal and unprovoked 
invasion.
    In the Indo-Pacific, we are playing a leading role in the 
AUKUS security partnership, for example. Just this month, 
President Biden announced the optimal pathway for Australia's 
acquisition of conventionally armed, nuclear-powered, fast-
attack submarines. Our Navy will be critical to this 
initiative's success as we support this very important ally in 
the Pacific.
    We continue to hone our skills with allies and partners in 
the Arctic through exercises such as ISIC Series (ph) and Joint 
Viking 2023, ensuring we are prepared to operate in this 
challenging and unforgiving environment.
    In addition to 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. We are 
committed to doing what it takes to address the concerns of 
servicemembers, their families, the people of Hawaii, and all 
other communities across the United States. As I have said 
before, we build trust one day at a time, one action at a time.
    Lastly, I am grateful for the trust that you have placed in 
me to lead this department. I look forward to discussing how 
best to support our sailors, marines, and their families in 
defense of our Nation with you all.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
                  Summary Statement of Admiral Gilday

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I now recognize Admiral Gilday for his remarks.
    Admiral Gilday. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
distinguished members of the committee, good morning, and thank 
you for the opportunity to appear this morning alongside 
Secretary Del Toro and General Berger.
    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 ensuring access to the 
seas. Today, our Navy's role has never been more expansive or 
more consequential.
    This past year, the Navy-Marine Corps team executed more 
than 22,000 steaming hours and nearly a million flying hours. 
We participated in roughly 100 exercises with our allies and 
partners across the globe.
    At this moment, we have nearly 100 ships at sea reassuring 
America's allies and partners that we stand with them, 
alongside them, and reminding the world that we seek to 
preserve peace and to be ready 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 U.S. Naval forces to defend the 
rules-based international order. The United States Navy flies, 
we operate, and we sail wherever international law allows so 
that others can too.
    The United States has always been a maritime Nation. To 
preserve our security and our prosperity, America needs a 
combat-credible Naval force to protect our interested peace and 
to prevail in combat, not just today but for the long run.
    Our fiscal year 2024 budget request remains consistent with 
the Navy's enduring priorities. As the Secretary stated, we are 
prioritizing readiness first, with an emphasis on our sailors, 
who empower everything that we do, ensuring that we are always 
combat-ready.
    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 our capacity, 
ensuring that we have relevant, lethal platforms to achieve 
warfighting advantage, with a hybrid fleet of manned and 
unmanned platforms on, above, and under the sea. Our budget 
request reflects the Navy's commitment to deliver, deploy, and 
maintain our fleet.
    It fully funds the Columbia-class submarine, ensuring the 
on-time delivery of the most survivable leg of our Nation's 
strategic deterrent triad. It keeps our fleet ready to fight 
tonight, dedicating the resources necessary to train and to 
educate resilient sailors that can out-think, out-decide, and 
outfight any adversary.
    It funds the private- and public-sector ship maintenance to 
100 percent, increasing capacity and retaining highly skilled 
labor to get our ships back to sea faster and with full 
magazines and spare parts in store rooms to be prepared for any 
contingency.
    It invests in modernizing our force, procuring weapons with 
range and speed, along with integrated systems to improve fleet 
survivability, and a resilient, cyber-secure network 
infrastructure.
    And it invests in capable capacity, building towards a 
larger distributed hybrid fleet, fielding a ready fleet today 
while modernizing for the future.
    Our competitors are investing heavily in warfighting 
capabilities of their own, and the oceans we are operating in 
are growing more lethal and more contested every day. Failing 
to modernize to meet these threats would erode America's 
maritime superiority at a time when command of the seas will 
determine the balance of power for the rest of this century.
    This means 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 must be relevant for today'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 costs of maintaining 
them. But history shows that without a powerful Navy the price 
tag would be much higher.
    Thank you again for inviting me today, and I look forward 
to answering your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.

                  Summary Statement of General Berger

    I now recognize General Berger for his remarks.
    General Berger. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
and distinguished members of the committee, 3 years ago, I 
appeared before you and described how change, rapid change, was 
required to meet our statutory missions in the Marine Corps and 
the mandates of the National Defense Strategy. And with the 
bipartisan help of the members of this committee and my 
civilian leadership in the Pentagon, I am here to tell you this 
morning that force design is not a future end point; it is a 
reality today.
    And I will give you a couple examples. In INDOPACOM, Task 
Force 76.3, they are creating advanced information webs to 
support maritime awareness that Admiral Aquilino needs. And 
they took what they learned in experimentation and they applied 
it in exercises, turning kill webs into reality right in the 
Philippines and in Japan, right in the PRC's backyard.
    And in EUCOM, earlier last year, Task Force 61.2, they 
found ways to create greater air and maritime awareness for the 
Sixth Fleet, and that was focused primarily on the Russian air 
and naval forces. And in CENTCOM, General Kurilla has Marine 
Corps MQ-9s flying for him to provide the persistent ISR that 
he needs in his key maritime terrain in the Middle East.
    Next month, our new Marine Littoral Regiment, Third MLR, 
out of Hawaii, will demonstrate some of its newest 
capabilities, lethal and sensing, in the Philippines during 
Exercise Balikatan, right alongside allies and partners, and 
that is how it ought to be.
    Two months ago, Japan agreed to host the next Marine 
Littoral Regiment, which will be 12th MLR, forward in the first 
island chain, right where persistent Marine Corps matters most.
    In short, your Marines are forward. They are where it 
matters today, just as they always have been.
    Three years ago, I described how the Marine Corps would not 
just modernize quickly but we would self-fund the changes that 
we needed to make. We would get leaner, lighter, more naval. 
Three years later, your Marines have done just that, and 
results are in the field now, not in the future. We are not 
waiting for 2030 or 2027 or 2025. Your Marines are ready to 
handle any crisis anywhere today.
    Our major divestments, which we needed to do, are done. We 
are at our fighting weight. Now we have to sustain those 
modernization efforts while focusing on the quality-of-life 
issues most important to marines and sailors and their 
families. Because people, as the CNO and Secretary and you all 
have mentioned, they are the real source of our competitive 
advantage as a Nation and as a Corps, and I ask for your help 
to invest in their quality of life now.
    We have to focus on where they live, on where they work, 
and where they eat. I think marines and families expect that 
from us. They have earned it. They deserve it. Now we have to 
deliver.
    Restoring and modernizing our infrastructure is directly 
tied to retention, supporting our families, generating 
readiness. On behalf of all marines, I ask for your support now 
as we bring our facilities, which you all have seen, up to par 
with the quality of the marines and sailors operating from 
those warfighting platforms.
    And I also ask for your support to your amphibious fleet. 
The CNO and I agree on three key principles when it comes to 
amphibious ships: First, the minimum number of traditional L-
class amphibious ships the Nation needs is 31. That is the 
warfighting requirement. Second, block buys do two things: They 
save the taxpayers money, and they give the industry headlights 
that the CNO articulated in previous testimony. And, third, 
divesting without replacing is a dangerous approach, creates 
unacceptable risk.
    Amphibious ships are critical to crisis response, as the 
chairman articulated already, as he mentioned. That is how we 
evacuated our U.S. citizens out of Lebanon. That is how the 
U.S. made our initial entry into Afghanistan after 9/11, from 
the sea.
    And when we send lifesaving support to other nations for 
hurricanes and typhoons and earthquakes after they happen, and 
including here in the U.S., in places like Louisiana, 
amphibious ships with embarked marines are the only practical 
option.
    Today, we need them to do all that, plus directly 
contribute to campaigning and integrated deterrence.
    Here is the bottom line: I think the first time that we 
can't respond to an ally in time of need when they ask for it 
is the last time they are going to depend on us for help.
    In my final year as Commandant, I will just finish by 
saying simply, thank you. Thank you to the members of this 
committee. Thank you for your oversight, for your guidance. 
Thank you for your support.
    And, with that, I welcome your questions.
    Thank you again, sir.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Commandant.
    I want to make sure each member has a chance to ask 
questions. Each member will have 5 minutes for their questions 
and answers. When the timer turns yellow, you will have 1 
minute remaining.
    First, I will recognize myself.

                         SUBMARINE ACQUISITION

    Mr. Secretary, I am concerned about the schedule for both 
submarine programs. The Columbia-class submarine is the Navy's 
No. 1 acquisition priority, yet a GAO report found the Navy 
does not have a good visibility into the program's schedule.
    Mr. Secretary, what is your confidence for the on-time 
delivery of the lead Columbia submarine, given GAO's 
assessment? And how are you working with the prime contractor 
to drive down the program risk and ensure delivery of the lead 
ship is not delayed?
    And I might bring up, too, on the Virginia-class, 
construction is supposed to occur at a cadence of 2 per year, 
and obviously we are not there. The current rate production is 
closer to 1.2.
    So, obviously, we would like to get your understanding of 
when the shipbuilders plan to make up on that schedule so we 
can get these ships done on time.
    Secretary Del Toro. Mr. Chairman, thank you for raising 
those concerns.
    And let me assure you that, first and foremost, Columbia is 
our number-one acquisition priority in the Navy. And, in fact, 
I think we do have clear visibility into the schedule 
challenges that Columbia faces. She is currently about 10 
percent behind schedule, is what she is, given the challenges 
that were faced with COVID and supply chain. Not being able to 
get the advanced procurements that are necessary to be able to 
fulfill those requirements leads to her being 10 percent 
behind.
    Having said that, we want to try to obviously close that 
gap in every possible way. And we are thankful for the 
contributions the Congress has actually made last year in 2023. 
There was over $2 billion, basically, in investments to the 
submarine industrial base. Those investments are being put to 
good use through the developments of pilots all across the 
country, starting with the one in Connecticut that is called 
RTS, basically is the model to try to improve the workforce 
development issues that are at play there.
    The shortage of workers in the submarine community and 
across the Nation is obviously a national challenge that we all 
have to address collectively. I do believe that increasing 
legal immigration in this country will help the blue-collar 
workforce, including those workers that we need actually in the 
submarine force as well.
    But we are working very closely with industry to try to 
close these gaps the best we can.
    On the Virginia said side of the house, you are right; they 
are significantly behind. They should be at two ships, two 
boats per year. They are currently around 1.4. So they have 
made some progress in moving in that direction. I am concerned 
particularly about the construction of the sterns and the bows 
in Virginia and getting those up to Electric Boat up in 
Connecticut and integrating them all.
    So we do have a far better job to do. And we are holding 
industry accountable in every which way that we possibly can 
and working with them at the same time to try to close these 
gaps.

                         SUBMARINE MAINTENANCE

    Mr. Calvert. One just quick follow-on, because I got a 
brief this morning on the Boise. And it takes, what, 4 years or 
so to build a Virginia-class submarine. And I understand by the 
time the Boise is through the maintenance program in San Diego, 
it will be 10 years.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    And, well, first, let me thank you for the support of 
actually half-a-billion dollars to actually get Boise back on 
track.
    I think Boise fell victim, quite frankly, to other higher-
priority maintenance items that took place with other boats, 
getting them into the maintenance process. And we need to get 
Boise back on track. With the funds that Congress has provided 
us, I hope we can now do that here in the near future. I know 
that Hartford is coming out.
    CNO, would you like to comment briefly on Hartford and 
Boise?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, one thing I would say about doing 
submarine maintenance in the private yards, it is absolutely 
critical to maintaining our capacity for the future. And so the 
investments we are making now with ships like Hartford and 
Boise, the return on investment there is yards that are going 
to be proficient, highly proficient, at that work in the 
future.
    We stopped doing submarine maintenance in private yards for 
well over a decade. We are starting from scratch again. I could 
say the same thing about new production programs. When you have 
the most complex machines in the world and you stop and then 
you try to restart, it takes time to get proficient. That is 
why you are seeing the delays with the submarines in the 
private yards.
    I am optimistic that we are going to get back on track.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Admiral.
    Ms. McCollum.

                    TOPLINE DEFENSE SPENDING LEVELS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, you were in receipt of a letter with 
questions from our committee. The Secretary of Defense 
responded. Everybody worked on it together. It detailed what it 
would mean if the Department was to return to the fiscal year 
2022 funding levels. It indicated that the Department as a 
whole would be cut nearly by $74 billion.
    So, specifically, we know it would impact the shipyards, 
the discussion you just had with the chair, forcing the Navy to 
eliminate at least two capital ships, most likely a Virginia-
class submarine and a destroyer.
    Could you speak to that for a moment?
    But then, more importantly, would you tell me what, you 
know, these funding-level cuts would look like for what you are 
working on for our sailors and marines, for their families, for 
housing, for childcare, some of the healthcare work?
    But workforce has been something that we have been very 
focused on at the shipyards, working with the Navy on that. So, 
as we have people retire from the building trades and those 
expertise jobs, that we are getting a new pool of workers who 
find out the excellent pay they are and how they can also give 
great service to our Nation.
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair, for that 
question.
    First, let me say that China will not be setting its budget 
back by 2 years. And so they would have a significant greater 
advantage over the significant work that we are currently doing 
with 55 ships under construction, 72 ships under contract, for 
example.
    The results would be unquestionably catastrophic, in my 
opinion. It would actually prevent us from being able to move 
forward with the progress that we have actually been able to 
develop over the course of the last 2 years on ship maintenance 
and submarine maintenance and a lot of different areas across 
the board.
    We have also made massive investments in the quality of 
life of our sailors and our marines. Those investments are 
finally paying off. We are now seeing retention rates 10 
percent greater than they were last year in the Marine Corps, 7 
percent greater than they were last year in the Navy. That 
would also be catastrophic to the quality of life and the 
morale of our sailors and marines. I don't think there is any 
other way to describe it but ``catastrophic.''
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.

                           ARCTIC OPERATIONS

    I am going to ask a question on the Arctic, and I expect 
more of it will be detailed, responding back to this.
    So we know that the temperatures are rising three times 
faster in the Arctic than anywhere in the world. That is based 
on science.
    We have also, at this committee, followed the activities by 
the Russians and the Chinese in the Arctic, with China sending 
high-level figures to the region 33 times in the last two 
decades. They participate in all the major Arctic institutions. 
They continue to expand their icebreaker fleet to two medium 
icebreakers, and now they are developing heavy icebreakers. 
They call themselves a near-Arctic nation.
    This is to our national security and our economic security, 
that we are ready to stand toe-to-toe, ship-to-ship with Russia 
and China in the region of the Arctic.
    Russia alone has 40 icebreakers, including 2 nuclear-
powered ones. So, out of the $5.1 billion DOD has requested for 
climate change activities, how much of that is for the Navy 
specifically in the Arctic and for what activities?
    So I would like to know if you can update me on what the 
Navy is doing to counter Russia and China's activities in the 
region, and why we aren't talking about in any budgets that I 
have seen since I have been here Navy icebreakers to operate 
efficiently in the Arctic.
    And I am going to also be submitting a question to our 
Merchant Mariners about what is the condition of their ships 
for operating in these new waters that we are going to find 
ourselves in.
    Mr. Secretary? And then anything you could do to follow up 
on that would be appreciated.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, ma'am, I will.
    Oh, you would like me to answer now? I am sorry. I wasn't 
sure.
    Ms. McCollum. Yeah. I mean----
    Secretary Del Toro. No, absolutely.
    Ms. McCollum. I think the question is, I have been asking 
about icebreakers, and I know I have colleagues in the Senate 
from Alaska who have been doing it, and, you know, I keep 
hearing the Coast Guard, ``One or two.'' You know, there are 
other NATO nations that are concerned about this that are cold-
weather nations like we are.
    Do you have any plans? And if you want to give me more 
detailed plans--I just want to hear about training and buying 
equipment. I want to know what we are going to do to have our 
flag floating in the water.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, ma'am. Well, we have significantly 
increased the amount of operations that we have conducted in 
the Arctic just these past 2 years, in fact.
    And so maybe I could ask the CNO to discuss those specific 
operations to show, both in the Navy and Marine Corps, how we 
have increased those operations.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, if I could.
    Ma'am, on icebreakers, there is no requirement for the Navy 
to have icebreakers. We never have had that requirement. So 
that requirement is with the United States Coast Guard, and, 
hence, they would be receiving funding for those vessels----
    Ms. McCollum. I realize that. You have a position, you 
have--the President puts forward a budget. Our committee has 
expressed a lot of interest on this. We can talk to--you know, 
we can talk to the authorizers.
    That, to me, Admiral, with all due respect, not to you 
personally, but on behalf of the Department of Defense, that is 
not a good answer, that they don't have a requirement, because 
you make requests for lots of things. So----
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. McCollum. Please continue.
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, ma'am.
    And I would like to say, ma'am, that we do try our best to 
tie our funding to specific requirements.
    With respect to the Arctic, we are doing seven exercises 
this year alone, along with the Marine Corps, our allies and 
partners. We have $236 million across the FYDP that the 
Secretary has directed us to invest in scientific research with 
partners like Canada, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark.
    And so we are doing work, and that work is principally run 
out of the National Ice Center in Suitland, Maryland. But we 
are doing scientific work, because we know that over the next 
couple of decades the trade routes between Asia and Europe are 
going to fundamentally change.
    And so we are operating at an increased rate in that area, 
and we are learning, along with our allies and partners, how we 
can improve.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the--thanks for the question.
    I think we ought to look into leasing some icebreakers from 
Finland. I understand they make more icebreakers than anybody. 
So maybe we can look at that one of these days.
    Ms. McCollum. And you know I have the prop with me all the 
time.
    Mr. Calvert. Oh, you do. You have the brochure from 
Finland.
    Mr. Womack.

                            LPD PROCUREMENT

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And to our witnesses today, thank you. Mr. Secretary, 
Admiral, General, thank you for your service.
    And I think I can speak on behalf of the chairman and my 
friends Mr. Cole and Mr. Garcia down here, a big thank you to 
your team that are forward deployed and your team behind you 
there that do a magnificent job.
    We just took a trip over into the INDOPACOM region to be 
able to spend time with a number of our military personnel, 
Seventh Fleet. And I thought Admiral, I think it is, Eslich, if 
I recall correctly, gave us a really good brief, and then over 
at the Third MEF, General Fridriksson. Just a remarkable visit, 
for the first time for me. So I will admit, I was a bit in awe 
of what we have going on over there in that region of the 
world.
    First question. General Berger, I notice your top unfunded 
priority is funding the LPD procurement. And I agree that the 
LPD is a great platform. I think we need more. And certainly, 
personally, I would like to see the vertical launch system on 
future LPDs.
    But can you share with us some of your comments that came 
in an article earlier about the procurement of this ship and 
why it is so important?
    General Berger. I can, sir. Thanks for the question. Thanks 
also for visiting Okinawa and Seventh Fleet and III MEF.
    As I mentioned in my openings comments, the statutory and 
the operational requirement, both, are 31. And the CNO and I, 
full agreement there. It is a law, in other words, but it is 
also the warfighting requirement which is driving the law. That 
is a floor. It is not a cap; it is a floor.
    And that 31 is broken down into 10 LHA/LHDs, which are the 
bigger decks, like a small aircraft carrier with a well deck, 
and 21 medium and smaller-sized amphib ships, so a total of 31.
    The current budget proposes to early decommission three of 
the LSDs, and no plan to procure LPDs. So, as the requirements 
person for the Marine Corps in terms of--or for the Nation for 
what amphibious ship requirements must be, with that 
divestment, it would drive our inventory down to 27 ships in a 
couple years.
    And then we would get an LHA that is under construction, 
but then it would go down to 24.
    We can't do our job at 24 or 27. Thirty-one is the bare 
minimum. So that is why it is on the list, sir.

                    MUNITIONS MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT

    Mr. Womack. Admiral Gilday, your budget request includes 
four multiyear procurement authority requests, two for the Air 
Force for preferred munitions. Great idea. It is refreshing to 
see the Navy get serious about preferred munition stockpiles. 
Too many times over the last few years, Congress has been 
forced to step in and bolster Navy munition buys. A perfect 
example, I think, is the Tomahawk.
    But I am concerned with the request for a simple reason, 
and that is our history with multiyear procurement. So I am 
supportive of the multiyear procurement concept, but how can we 
be sure the Navy will request funding to fulfill these 
contracts in future years?
    Admiral Gilday. Yes, sir. The Secretary has directed that 
we make it a priority. We know we get the most bang for the 
buck when we bundle buys like this. That is why we went after 
weapons with range and speed--AARGM, LRASM, SM-6, and Naval 
Strike Missile with the United States Marine Corps. And so we 
are committed to these high-priority munitions, to continue to 
fund them through the FYDP and beyond.
    This is part of what we learned from the ongoing conflict 
in Ukraine, that we are going to need deeper magazines. But to 
do that, we also need to give industry a clear signal so that 
they invest in their workers and in their infrastructure to 
keep those production lines going.
    Mr. Womack. Yeah.

                   IMPACT OF A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

    Last question on this round is--and I will direct it to the 
Secretary. You know, this committee wants to do a bill. We have 
a bad history of not being able to get our work done on time. 
And I am going to ask this of all of our services. You know, 
what is the practical effect if this Congress cannot get out of 
its own way and get a bill on time and, indeed, if we end up 
having to resort to a continuing resolution for any part of the 
next fiscal year?
    Secretary.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, thank you, Congressman. And 
perhaps to touch lightly on your first two questions and close 
on the third, quite frankly.
    You know, this year, we are investing in the Pacific 
Deterrence Initiative alone in the Navy $3.2 billion. And thank 
you for your visit out west. Our missiles procurement is $2 
billion over the 2023 request.
    I assure you that China doesn't have to deal with a 
continuing resolution. And if we have to be held to a 12-month 
continuing resolution or even a 6-month continuing resolution, 
it will have a significant impact, negative impact, on all the 
things that we are actually trying to accomplish to build 
deterrence, to prevent China from doing what it wants to do 
with regard to Taiwan and around the globe.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Kilmer.

              SHIPYARD INFRASTRUCTURE OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    Thanks for being with us.
    I am hoping to cover two topics, if we can squeeze it in.
    First, Secretary Del Toro and Admiral Gilday, over the past 
several years, we have discussed the importance of the Shipyard 
Infrastructure Optimization Program, the Navy's 20-year, $21 
billion investment in modernizing our public shipyards. I want 
to thank you both for your support for the public yards and for 
the SIOP.
    As you know, we had a bit of a setback out at the Puget 
Sound Naval Shipyard and IMF with the seismic concerns, forcing 
us to suspend submarine docking as a consequence to seismic 
risk.
    To the Navy's credit, you have already gotten to work on 
seismic mitigation, moving O&M dollars, a fair chunk. We have 
heard that SIOP projects could be impacted if O&M funding isn't 
backfilled by Congress.
    So I just want to start by asking, how can Congress provide 
the resources to ensure that the SIOP remains on track and that 
the seismic mitigation needs are met?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, first and foremost, thank you for 
your support of the entire SIOP project, over $10 billion over 
10 years. Just last week, I signed a $2.8 billion contract for 
the dry dock in Hawaii, for example. The dry dock in Portsmouth 
is moving along, on schedule, on track.
    And I am not sure that, you know, I would actually call the 
situation that we had in Puget Sound necessarily a setback. 
Because, you know, when we talk about infrastructure 
investment, you know, we have neglected infrastructure for a 
long, long time. And the dry docks in the shipyards are a 
perfect example of that--over a 100-year dry dock, 65-year, you 
know, where we haven't been paying attention to the shipyards 
themselves.
    So the fact that we were actually proactive in this case to 
identify a problem and actually fix the problem before it 
actually turned into a catastrophic failure actually is a 
positive thing. So I don't always view it----
    Mr. Kilmer. I think that is true, yeah.
    Secretary Del Toro [continuing]. Completely as a setback.
    Mr. Kilmer. Yeah.
    Secretary Del Toro. And the fact is that we were able to 
avoid the worst of the submarine maintenance because it was at 
a time when we didn't have submarines in the docks themselves 
who could quickly fix them.
    I also want to thank you for your leadership and the 
support that we got from the community. I think in all my years 
of experience working in the Navy, Active Duty and now as 
Secretary, I have never seen so many stakeholders come together 
so quickly to get approval on a plan, fund that plan, and now 
execute that plan, where hopefully this month and next month 
and the month after we will actually be able to do the 
immediate repairs on those three dry docks.
    We will need an additional at least probably $300 million 
to cover the cost of all of the repairs. We have already 
invested about $100 million in the immediate repairs. So we 
would certainly appreciate those funds being put back into the 
budget.
    Mr. Kilmer. Great.

                      MEDICAL PERSONNEL SHORTAGES

    The other thing I want to cover is something I have spoken 
with you about before and raised with the Secretary of Defense 
in our hearing last week. We have really seen a very negative 
impact due to the downsizing at Naval Hospital Bremerton. Last 
year, I mentioned and you committed to reevaluating some of the 
billet reductions.
    You know, this is about making sure that our sailors are 
getting the care that they need, that the families are getting 
the care that they need.
    The situation has really deteriorated, and it is impacting 
readiness, it is impacting families. Since the closure of the 
ER and the labor and delivery department, which delivered a 
quarter of all the babies in our community, the local 
healthcare network just has not been able to step up to deal 
with the patient load.
    We did a roundtable with sailors and their families, and 
the stories were just heartbreaking--the inability to access 
prenatal care; someone who literally sat in a waiting room for 
8 hours and miscarried in the waiting room; being unable to get 
just routine checkups to be able to go out on patrol. This is a 
readiness issue.
    And I understand this is not solely a Navy issue, that this 
is a DHA issue as well. But I am concerned that without 
pressure on DHA to reassign additional personnel to the Naval 
Hospital, healthcare for our servicemembers is going to 
continue to deteriorate.
    And so I think this is going to impact mission readiness. I 
think this is definitely impacting the community. And I just 
want to get your sense of, you know, have you discussed the 
impacts of these personnel shortages on our sailors' readiness 
with DHA? And do you plan on urging them to reassign personnel 
to the Naval Hospital to respond to what has been a real 
degradation of care?
    Secretary Del Toro. So, Congressman, let me first say that 
I completely--I agree with you 100 percent. I myself have 
visited the Puget Sound area, the Bremerton area, and I agree 
with the challenges of the shortfalls that exist there.
    I personally--I want to assure you that I personally have 
discussed this with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 
with the Deputy, with the Secretary of Defense himself. They 
are both highly attuned to what is happening, and they have 
actually asked for reassessments of the situation in the Puget 
Sound area to take a look at the conditions with the hospital 
and such.
    So I know that previous assessments had been done several 
years back. It is time to do another assessment, basically, to 
try to determine what the exact needs are and the requirements, 
based on the number of people that are there today and the 
number of people that may come there in the future, as well, 
too.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Secretary Del Toro. And that is obviously compounded, as 
well, too, by some of the challenges that are faced out in the 
community with regards to housing and other matters as well.
    Mr. Kilmer. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole.

                       PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, first of all, I just want to thank all three of you 
for your service, which has just been exemplary, you know, over 
your collective lifetimes. It is pretty remarkable.
    And, Mr. Secretary, your personal story frankly just 
reaffirms what is best in our country.
    So I just thank all three of you. I mean that quite 
sincerely.
    I also want to go on the record and thank you for pointing 
out that if we, you know, cut the defense budget back to, you 
know, 2022 levels, that would be disastrous.
    Now, I also want to point out, that would be about where 
the President wanted us to be. You know, this committee and 
Congress on a bipartisan basis 2 years ago increased the 
defense budget by $30 billion and increased it by $45 billion 
last fiscal year.
    And so to argue now about cuts is basically to argue 
against the President's budget. And that is an important point, 
because I think right now you are also asking for too little. 
And I don't mean that critically of any of you, but I would 
like to see your budget go higher, given how dangerous the 
situation in the world is right now.
    And I am going to ask you to comment on this, not to be 
critical of the budget. Look, you work for the President of the 
United States. You should be up here arguing for his budget. No 
problem with that. But, you know, we either have the capability 
we need or we don't.
    Right now, I think a lot of these things that I think this 
committee is concerned about, in terms of retiring legacy 
systems--something I totally agree with. I mean, we need to do 
that. We should have been doing it earlier. So you are right 
about that. But we are not replacing those things nearly fast 
enough.
    I have made this point in terms of the AWACS things in the 
Air Force, where we are retiring from old E-3 platforms, moving 
to E-7. That is a really good thing. And I represent the area--
you know, people always think of us as Air Force and Army with 
Tinker and Fort Sill in the district, but the reality is we 
have 2,000 sailors at Tinker Air Force flying, the E-6 unit 
doing an unbelievably great job, and we have Marine artillery 
training down at Fort Sill. So we are very proud to host all 
four services.
    But I would just ask you, does the budget really have what 
you need, or should Congress do what it has done the last 2 
years, and that is honestly not only give you your budget but 
go beyond what you are asking for?
    And I will start with you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, thank you, Congressman. Thank you 
for your support of our national security and the support of 
the budget for both the Navy and the Marine Corps.
    I would also like to add that our President actually deeply 
cares about our Nation's national security.
    Now, I often say that national security equals economic 
security and economic security equals national security. And I 
think it is fair to say that, over the past 3 years, with our 
Nation faced with significant COVID--which, COVID itself was a 
national security threat to our country. There were many other 
factors that I think the President, the administration, had to 
assess and deal with and invest in to get the Nation through 
the COVID crisis.
    And so now we are at the place where, quite frankly, the 
President has invested in a budget 2 years in a row that is 
higher than the enacted numbers of the previous year. I think 
that is quite a reflection of his commitment to the national 
security of our country and our allies and partners, as well, 
too.
    Having said that, there are always other significant 
challenges that develop, and we are faced with significant 
challenges with regards to China, with regards to the crisis in 
Ukraine and Russia. And that also requires resources that the 
Nation needs.
    And, therefore, I think that this budget is a good 
reflection of what is needed moving forward. Just for the 
Department of the Navy alone, it is $11 billion.
    And I also understand the impact that inflation has on 
budgets, as well, too. And the fact that the President and the 
Congress has invested just last year, in 2023, $9 billion to 
address those inflationary issues, I am very respectful, I am 
very thankful for on behalf of the Department.
    Mr. Cole. Well, I am not going to ask either of your 
service chiefs to dispute you. So that would be a very----
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Cole. That would be a very unfair question. I won't do 
that.
    But I will make the point--and, again, I want to do this in 
a bipartisan way. Look, we thought the previous administration 
underinvested as well, and we went beyond what they asked for. 
And a lot of that is, we think, as a committee, we 
underinvested during the Obama years and Budget, you know, 
Control Acts and what have you.
    So it takes a long time to catch up to the basically flat 
funding that we had for 8 years, and we have given you a very 
tough problem. But, again, just for the record, I want to make 
the point, I think we need to go beyond what is in this budget.

                            E-6 REPLACEMENT

    I don't have a lot of time. We will probably have another 
round. But just, Admiral, to give you a heads-up, I wanted to 
just ask you about new platforms to replace the E-6, where we 
are headed in terms of that, and are you satisfied with the 
pace that we are on with the new platforms? I think it is the 
KC-130J that they are talking about for your needs out at 
Tinker.
    But, with that, I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Ruppersberger.

                         MARINE FORCE STRUCTURE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, that is perfect timing, isn't it?
    Mr. Calvert. Yeah.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. First thing, I want to thank you all for 
your leadership. I have a lot of respect for our military--
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard. But I think we 
are dedicated. And thank goodness we have a military which is a 
big reason why we are the best country in the world and the 
freest country in the world.
    And I also want to acknowledge, Mr. Womack, I think you are 
chair of the West Point, the Army Board, and I am chair of the 
Naval Academy Board. But I am not going to ask questions about 
the Naval Academy. I am going to get into the Marines.
    Mr. Womack. Or the football game.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, yeah, but 10 years in a row, you 
have got to--you have the help the Army a little bit. I am co-
chair of the Army Caucus, too, so I get lots of--but, anyhow, 
getting off of that.
    And, Mr. Secretary, you know, you are doing a good job. A 
lot of our conversation has been about, you know, the Naval 
Academy, their issue of infrastructure. And if we have another 
round, you know, I might get into that.
    Mr. Berger, this is an issue--and I can't believe I have 
been here as long as I have. But there has been an issue about 
your management, and you have made some changes in the Marines. 
And, you know, I know a lot of your former leaders in your 
position. And I have told them, and there are some issues.
    And this is what I want to discuss with you, because, you 
know, you are no longer--not you; the former people that have 
concerns about certain things and decisions that you have made. 
You are in charge now, and you are going through the process. 
And, you know, from what I see in our oversight, you have done 
a good job and, you know, you are moving ahead.
    Nobody likes change. Sometimes they do; sometimes they 
don't. But I think it is more important to air out, when you 
have people that you respect, and then you have someone who has 
made some changes in modernization, I just want to make sure 
that we kind of get that straight, so to speak, so that we can 
move on. Because it is not easy to be the top person, as you 
know. And when you are not there anymore, you don't have the 
same obligations.
    So what I want to do, first thing: Do you see the Marine 
Corps mission as the kick-down-the-door force changing or 
evolving? If so, how? And if not, why not?
    General Berger. I think the statutory role of the Marine 
Corps to be the Nation's crisis response force doesn't change 
at all. How we do that absolutely is--other people have 
described, as the character of warfare changes, we have to 
evolve, we have to adapt too, and we are.
    I think as you highlighted, during their service and their 
30 years when they wore the uniform, a lot changed during their 
careers. A lot has changed in the 30 years since they have 
retired.
    We have to stay in front of the threat. I mean, my job is 
to make sure it is not a fair fight. I think that is what you 
expect me and the CNO and the rest of us to do. We are not 
looking for a fair fight. So, if we don't change, then we are 
going to put marines and sailors in a disadvantageous position. 
You don't want that.
    What I have learned from others, myself, is, one of the 
hardest parts about change, I think, is--it is not actually 
embracing the new ideas. That is not the hardest part. It is 
letting go of the old. And other people have said that before.
    But they have to understand that I am making decisions, we 
are making decisions based on fact, not based on gut. And we 
are iterating, we are testing those assumptions, modifying our 
decisions along the way.
    But, in the end, I am doing the same thing that they did, 
making sure that the Marine Corps is ready for the future and 
today, both.
    Secretary Del Toro. If I could just add, Congressman, for 1 
minute, you know, I served in the Navy for 22 years and I was 
in business for 17 years, and I would like to think that I am 
very objective in my approach to strategy. And I have traveled 
the Marine Corps and the Navy, and I have talked to a hell of a 
lot of young marines, both senior enlisted, young enlisted, 
junior officers.
    Every time I bring up the subject of Force Design 2030 and 
I ask the question, I ask them if there are things that are 
wrong with them, and of course there are always things that can 
be improved. However, they fully are embracive of Force Design 
2030. I have yet to meet one junior officer, actually, who has 
approached me and challenged me about it not being the right 
strategy for our Marine Corps and our Nation moving forward, 
given the threats that we face in the Indo-Pacific as opposed 
to the challenges that we faced in the Middle East, for 
example, over the last 20 years.
    So, you know, in my conversations with the force, 
everywhere I have gone, they have embraced Force Design 2030. 
And in all my discussions with the generals, the Active Duty 
generals who understand the challenges that our Nation faces 
today, they also have embraced it, as well, too.
    So I think it is time to move on on this subject, quite 
frankly, and embrace Force Design 2030, which, quite frankly, 
was embraced by two administrations--a Republican 
administration, a Democratic administration--and two 
Congresses, as well, too, with leadership in both parties as 
well.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, but one thing I have to say, when 
you sit in our chair, we are oversight. You know, we are 
funding. And when we have a situation like this--and I have 
worked with people who were in your position, General, and when 
there is anxiety there, I think it is better to work it out.
    I told them, I am going to go with the facts. I am going to 
go and see where we are. If I disagree, I will raise the 
questions and we will have a meeting and we will talk about it.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yeah.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And so that is what I think we need. But 
I hate to see either side, instead of complaining about it, 
just going out publicly. You are former Marines. You are tough 
people. I mean, you are the 9/11 group.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, that is something they are going 
to have to deal with. You know, we have a job to do here in the 
military, and whether it is in civilian or it is in uniform, we 
have to look at our strategy based on the threats that we face 
today in China, in Europe, and all around the world. And Force 
Design 2030 is the expeditionary strategy that we need, that 
our Nation needs, to move forward on this.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. But I think you also have to communicate 
with them and try to work these issues out.
    Secretary Del Toro. We actually have. Let me assure you 
that my door has been open to every retired general who wants 
to have a discussion with me on this topic. And I haven't 
gotten many invitations to come--you know.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well----
    Secretary Del Toro. They haven't come in and spoken to me 
about it. But I have talked to them on the sidelines basically, 
and we have had an honest debate and discussion about this.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, it is just an issue, I normally 
wouldn't put it in this meeting, but it has been out there for 
a long while and back and forth. You are in charge now, and 
that is what is important. And that is what I have told them. 
And there are changes.
    And when you are in the top position, like all three of you 
are, you know what your agenda is going to be. But you should--
in my opinion, both sides need to calm it down, because you 
have the ultimate authority right now.
    A couple more questions--oh, I am out of time. Okay. I 
yield back.

                      WEAPON SYSTEM SURVIVABILITY

    Mr. Calvert. We will come back for another round.
    But just one quick comment. I think we have learned a lot 
in this Ukrainian war that is obviously out there. We have 
found that some people made a prediction that tanks may not--I 
don't want my friends from Ohio to get upset at me, but we 
probably need to look at the survivability of tanks, just as we 
looked at battleships at the beginning of World War II. Are 
tanks survivable?
    We have to make an argument--look at aircraft carriers. We 
make a 50-year investment. Are our aircraft carriers 
survivable? So we have to ask those tough questions. And change 
is hard.
    And, General, I have been supportive of what you have been 
doing. I think we have learned that long-range fire is 
extremely important. I am sure the Ukrainians would love to 
have that right now, and I wish they could get it.
    And so I would just make that point.
    Mr. Garcia.

                           F-18 SUPER HORNET

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for your service. It is actually 
quite humbling for me to be here, as a lowly lieutenant 
commander at some point in my career. It is an honor.
    You the guys are aware, I am sure, of the capability and 
capacity gaps that we have relative to China. Admiral and Mr. 
Secretary, I know you are also aware of the significant strike 
fighter gaps that we have within our Navy. I won't talk about 
the strike fighter gaps relative to the Marine Corps. That is a 
separate conversation.
    But even with programs that have actually yielded through, 
like SLM, we are still behind the power curve relative to the 
strike fighter staffing, to the point where, when I read 
certain studies and documents--I have read a lot of them--none 
of them are actually good. The most probable scenarios actually 
yield, effectively, two air wings short over the, call it, next 
10 years.
    And I know, Admiral, you testified, I think in front of 
this committee last year, that we were trying to close that gap 
by 2025; now it is looking more like 2031.
    And in this chart, in fact, in the pre- brief that we have, 
we have fiscal year 2022 actuals for 12 Super Hornets and 
fiscal year 2023 enacted for 8 Super Hornets that this 
committee added to the President's budget request. But those 
weren't actually actuals, and they weren't actually enacted. 
They weren't actually put on contract and in production right 
now.
    And, Mr. Secretary, I know that we had a meeting on this 
back on February 24, almost 5 weeks ago, and you committed to 
having a meeting with the prime contractor in this case and 
having discussions and being open-minded. I was wanting to 
know, A, what is the status of--how did that meeting go? Did 
you actually meet with Boeing, in this case? What concessions 
were made?
    And I know the background--for those not aware, there are 
questions about tech data packages and IP. And we can go into 
that offline like we did. I appreciate your time.
    But I want to just get the status of that meeting and what 
the current state is.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, thank you, Congressman. Thank you 
for your commitment to ensuring that we have the fighter 
aircrafts that we actually need. And I believe in the F/A-18E 
and F. How could I not? You have seen ``Top Gun'' and ``Top 
Gun: Maverick,'' too, right?
    But, without question, the Department of the Navy is 
committed to purchasing and putting on contract those 20 
additional F/A-18E and Fs. In fact, we have extended an RFP to 
the Boeing Corporation. They have told us that they will come 
back to us with a proposal sometime in the June timeframe.
    In the meantime, what we are trying to actually do is 
ensure that Boeing does deliver to us the data rights that are 
essential for us to be able to, in the future, maintain and 
repair those aircraft.
    And what I am most concerned about, Congressman and Mr. 
Chairman, is that, if we actually do get into a conflict with 
China, we are not going to be able to send those aircraft back 
to the continental United States to get repaired at a 
manufacturing plant. We are going to have to repair those 
things ourselves.
    Which means the government, we need, on behalf of the 
American people and our servicemembers, the data rights, the 
full data rights package that we paid for and deserve to have, 
in order to be able to repair and sustain those aircraft in 
combat. And that is our major concern.
    I think we can get there. In the time that I met with you, 
I promised you that we would have greater engagement with 
Boeing. We have. Our engineers are actually meeting with their 
engineers to get the full definition of what the data package 
actually calls for.
    Mr. Garcia. That is good.
    Secretary Del Toro. And I have also instructed our two 
general counsels to meet, as well, too, so they could have 
parallel discussions on this topic.
    And I myself have put in a phone call to the vice president 
of defense at Boeing----
    Mr. Garcia. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Del Toro [continuing]. To have those 
conversations.
    Mr. Garcia. And if I can just use the last minute, I have 
been on the warfighter side; I have been on the contractor 
side, delivering billion-dollar programs to the U.S. Navy. I 
have read these contracts specifically. And I would submit that 
I agree with you; the Navy has a requirement to maintain and 
repair, and the tech data package to support that, not to 
manufacturing. And there is a clear bifurcating line there. You 
are clawing right now at IP that is not within the government's 
domain.
    And Boeing has been very supportive in the SLM projects and 
making sure that the FRCs, the O-level depot maintenance is 
actually functional. And I would submit that the IP that you 
are clawing for right now for the manufacturing know-how--which 
is not only Boeing but also their entire supply chain--is not 
nearly as valuable in closing the strike fighter gap as the 20 
jets.
    We have a mandate--and it is not formal, but we should--to 
be ready for something in 2025. And, right now, closing the gap 
in 2023 will be interesting. But your gap by that point will be 
significantly higher, because our carriers will be schwacked, 
our air wings will be missing, and our warfighters will be 
dead.
    I think this conversation between the lawyers and the 
contracting officers is screwing the customer. The customer is 
the warfighter. The customer is the taxpayer. And I implore 
you, sir, with all the power and leverage at your disposal, to 
compartmentalize this IP conversation, get these jets on 
contract so they can get delivered. They are already going to 
be late.
    I don't know that we are going to get 20 for the amount of 
money that we allocated at this point. And that is another 
collateral damage----
    Secretary Del Toro. And I commit to continue working with 
you on this, Congressman.
    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                        SERVICEMEMBER CHILDCARE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, gentlemen, for being here.
    I wanted to follow up, Mr. Secretary, on a topic that the 
ranking member discussed, and I know my colleague, Mr. Kilmer, 
discussed this in another setting previously, with respect to 
childcare and our servicemembers.
    The Navy seems to be experiencing a severe lack of 
childcare workers within its child development centers, and 
this has contributed to long wait lists for servicemembers 
seeking childcare. This is a problem across DOD that was 
exacerbated by the pandemic. However, this shortage is still 
affecting the quality of life of many sailors and their 
families throughout the country.
    What efforts has the Navy taken to incentivize more 
childcare workers to apply at the Navy's child development 
centers? And what incentives do you think should be utilized to 
retain these workers?
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Congressman. And, you know, 
taking care of our people and taking care of their families and 
especially our children--I, myself, my wife and I, had four 
children when I was Active Duty. We moved around 17 times in 23 
years, and there were numerous times where we had to depend 
upon child daycare centers, as well, too.
    This has been a major priority for me. Last year, in 2023, 
we actually included two child daycare centers--one in Point 
Loma and one in Norfolk, Virginia. And I am proud to say that 
in this President's budget we commit to three more child 
daycare centers--one in Little Creek, one in Hampton Roads, and 
one in Guam.
    In addition to that, we also have to look at other measures 
outside of the Department of the Navy-managed childcare 
centers, right? We have to look at actually increasing 
opportunities to go into private childcare centers. And we have 
some pilots moving in that direction, as well, too, once those 
private childcare centers are certified properly.
    And we also have to--and we have, actually, increased the 
allotment amount that is afforded families who choose to pick a 
childcare center of their choosing, as well, too. I believe 
those numbers moved from $1,200 at one point to about $1,500 a 
month--a significant increase, as well, too.
    So this is a major priority for our Department.

                        CHILDCARE PILOT PROJECTS

    Mr. Aguilar. Can you tell me--you mentioned some of the 
discussions about pilot projects. Are those things that we 
could see in fiscal year 2025? Admiral or General?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes. But I will allow the CNO to----
    Admiral Gilday. So the Secretary has directed us to take a 
look at a number of pilot projects. So I will mention two.
    One of them is to go to universities. So the University of 
Utah is one, and NC State is another. We are actually surging 
students who are in graduate programs to help us during peak 
summer months. We have actually driven down our wait list by 
2,500 over the past year, and so we have gone from 8,000 on the 
wait list down to 5,500.
    We have a pilot program in Coronado, California, where we 
found a school building that was excess capacity that wasn't 
being used. We are now leasing that and using it as a childcare 
facility.
    The Secretary has directed us to increase wages for 
childcare providers from the national average of $16.70 an hour 
to between $17 and $21.50 an hour depending upon the location.
    He mentioned the raised salaries--I mean, he mentioned the 
reduction in cost, 50 percent for the first child, 20 percent 
for additional children. Those are also pilots that the 
Secretary has directed us to execute. So they are in play, and 
they are proposed to continue in 2024.
    Mr. Aguilar. Okay.

                     SERVICEMEMBER QUALITY OF LIFE

    And a little unfair, but when it comes to, you know, fiscal 
year 2025, do you consider, do you see, do you envision us, you 
know, continuing down this line or turning these pilots, seeing 
if we can scale them up in the future?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, I have no doubt in my mind 
that the investments that the Secretary of Defense and the 
service secretaries have committed to and have made in quality-
of-life measures is partially the reason why we see the higher 
retention rates in both the Marine Corps and the Navy. We 
absolutely must commit to this continued investment over the 
course of the future.
    General Berger. If I could just add one quick addition. I 
think that, in addition to pay, your question is about the 
workforce. The second issue is tied to how fast we can hire 
them.
    And, here, I think Congress has helped in areas like the 
transferability for spouses who move from one State to another 
to another. And they don't have to wait 90 or 120 days or 6 
months to get approved and vetted. Those are things that will 
help bring them on board. Because they want to work, but if 
they have to wait 4 months to get hired, they are going to go 
somewhere else, probably out in town.
    So the speeding up of vetting, but still making sure they 
are quality workers, and especially when you all address 
spouses, that is huge.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, General.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

                           SERVICEMEMBER PAY

    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I would just make a point that--I congratulate to increase 
the wage on the childcare workers from $16 to $17 per hour, but 
E-1s are making $11 an hour, based on a 40-hour week, and they 
are working more than 40 hours a week. So we need to address 
that issue also.
    Mr. Stewart.

                                RED HILL

    Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Chairman.
    And, gentlemen, what an honor to be with you. Like Mr. 
Garcia, I am a little taken aback, in the sense that I was a 
major in the Air Force. And I have mentioned this before. When 
I was elected and a general officer called me ``sir,'' I just 
cringed at that. It was like, that is so uncomfortable. We 
appreciate your service.
    And the committee will forgive me; I have mentioned this 
before. I come from an Air Force family. Yesterday, we had the 
Army before us, and while I was waiting to question them, I 
started adding up in my family. We have 12 members--my father, 
my brothers, and now our sons and daughters--who have served.
    One of them was an Army guy, and, Admiral, one of them is 
Navy. In fact, he is a graduate of the Nuclear School and one 
of your instructors, and we are very proud of that.
    Admiral Gilday. We are still hiring, sir.
    Mr. Stewart. Okay. Well, he is obviously the smartest 
person in the family, being able to do that.
    I would like to talk about a couple things, if I could.
    I went with Mr. Case to the Pacific a couple weeks ago. One 
of the things that I was vaguely aware of but not really, and 
we were able to dive in quite deeper with him--and this won't 
surprise you if you know him and his background there in 
Honolulu. As we talk about readiness in INDOPACOM, you can talk 
about equipment, you can talk about manning, as we will, you 
can talk about, you know, advanced weapons systems, et cetera, 
et cetera; it turns out we also have to have fuel. And Red Hill 
is a bit of a problem there now, as I understand. 250-million 
gallon storage facility. That is a lot of gas.
    And I understand it has been drained--if not completely 
drained, at least partially drained. Tell me, if you would, 
what the status of that is.
    How do we replace that type of storage facility? What is 
our plan there?
    And, by the way, as a sidebar, you talk about Force--FD 
2030. I almost wish that was FD 2025, because it kind of 
conveys, I think, sometimes, ``Hey, we have 7 years, you know, 
we have plenty of time,'' when we probably don't. Of course, I 
am not suggesting realistically that we change that to Force 
Design 2025, but it does, I am afraid, lend to maybe a sense 
that there is more time than we have.
    But, anyway, back to the issue, fuel. I don't know, 
Secretary or Admiral, can you help us talk and understand Red 
Hill and how we replace that capability?
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Congressman, for caring 
about that very strategic question actually.
    Before the Secretary of Defense actually made the decision 
to close Red Hill and redistribute the fuel, we took a very 
close look at how it can be executed. And I don't want to get 
into the details of the actual plans of strategically 
distributing the fuel across the Pacific, because that is 
classified, but it was done in a great amount of depth over a 
long period of time, even before we decided to close Red Hill. 
So those plans had actually been in motion for quite some time 
in order to effectively do that.
    And I am extremely confident that we have not only the 
ability to redistribute it but that the new plan makes far more 
sense than actually accumulating all of that fuel in one 
location that, itself, could then present a bigger threat to 
the island of Oahu today, given the fact that we have far more 
advanced missiles than we did, say, during World War II.
    So this is the right decision to make, and, in the 
Department, we have given tremendous thought to this.
    Anything you would like to add?
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I think you hit all the points. With, 
you know, all your eggs in one basket----
    Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
    Admiral Gilday [continuing]. One basket right now, the fact 
that we are going to come at any adversary in a distributed 
manner, and, thus, the ability to sustain us logistically has 
to also be distributed.

                       DEFUELING PLAN OF RED HILL

    Mr. Stewart. Well, I certainly agree with that. You know, 
back when I was flying the B-1, I would love to be the guy who 
flew over a 250-million-gallon storage facility and dropped the 
bomb that lit that on fire, right? That would be a crowd 
pleaser, as they say.
    So I understand why, you know, a single target--and you may 
not be able to address it here, but on a scale of 1 to 10, 
where are we in the process of moving that fuel and having that 
fuel available then?
    Secretary Del Toro. So we are actually effecting repairs 
that are necessary to actually defuel Red Hill. That will be 
completed over the course of next year--this year, actually, by 
the end of this year. And then we will actually begin the 
defueling process, which will take us to about June of next 
year. And then we will actually begin the process of actually 
closing down Red Hill.
    Mr. Stewart. So we have a lot of work ahead of us.
    Secretary Del Toro. There is still work ahead of us. Yes, 
sir.
    Mr. Stewart. And, again, we probably can't get into it, 
but, I mean, right now, is it fair to say that we don't have 
access to that fuel like we did before we began to drain it for 
repairs?
    Secretary Del Toro. So I don't want to get too much into 
detail as to how operations with regards to fueling our ships 
work in Pearl Harbor. But there have actually been no 
operational constraints----
    Mr. Stewart. Okay.
    Secretary Del Toro [continuing]. On our ability to operate 
in Pearl Harbor or in the Pacific due to the situation in Red 
Hill.
    Mr. Stewart. Okay.
    And I have 2 seconds, so I am just going to say: 
Recruiting, a deep concern. And I hope we can elaborate on that 
later.
    Thank you.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. Thank you, Congressman.
    And, by the way, lieutenant commanders and majors are 
actually the ones that run the Marine Corps and the Navy. I 
just wanted to make that clear.
    Mr. Stewart. Well, we thought so in the Air Force as well, 
but----
    Mr. Calvert. I thought it was the chief petty officers that 
ran the Navy.
    Secretary Del Toro. That too.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay.

                               INNOVATION

    One issue. We need more tankers also. So that would be 
helpful, as far as more ships.
    We are going to have a quick second round real quickly, and 
I am going to start it out. We will try to keep it to, say, 3 
minutes, and we can get finished on time.
    Accelerating innovation. We need to make, you know, smarter 
moves and faster moves regarding technology, get to this low-
rate initial production faster. It concerns me, I know it 
concerns the committee, that we don't do that.
    Secretary, how is the Navy improving the transition of 
successful commercial technology from experimentation into 
actually operating it and getting it in the field as soon as 
possible?
    Secretary Del Toro. So, Congressman, this has obviously 
been an issue of interest for quite some time. And, yes, I do 
believe that we are lagging behind probably where we should be 
with regards to being able to cross that valley of death and 
actually get the technology that the warfighters deserve in 
their hands far quicker, obviously dependent upon the weapons 
system itself. There are systems that probably should pursue 
the normal acquisition process because they are large, major 
capital investments. But there are many others, actually, that 
should be expedited.
    And in the time that I have been Secretary of the Navy, for 
example, I have a strong desire to move that along. We have 
actually stood up, just this past year, two innovation 
centers--one in the Marine Corps in New York and one at the 
Naval Postgraduate School--for this very purpose, to actually 
focus all their energies on trying to transform how the Marine 
Corps and the Navy acquire these technologies that are needed 
for our warfighters.
    And I will ask the Commandant to just briefly touch on the 
Marine Innovation Unit at Troy, and then we could talk about 
the one in Monterey.
    General Berger. The Marine unit in Troy is almost 100 
percent Reservists, on purpose, because their regular day job 
is in the fields where we need to draw that technology you are 
talking about. So they become our connecting file to the small 
companies, the businesses that are doing the innovation. But 
because they are marines and they are plugged into the Marine 
Corps, they are going to know what our requirements are.
    I think we have to take better advantage of the legislation 
you already gave us in terms of accelerated procurement. We 
have to do a better job of that. We have to stop refining 
requirements for forever. Settle on something quickly, get it 
out to the field fast, put it in the hands of marines. They 
will figure out the last 30, 40 percent faster than we will in 
Washington, D.C.
    Mr. Calvert. Very well.
    Admiral.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, the current acquisition process that 
exists in the Pentagon does not lend itself to the rapid 
fielding of innovative technologies inside the FYDP, as you 
just suggested. That doesn't mean that we need to blow up the 
existing system, I would argue, but we need a parallel path 
that moves fast across the valley of death that it takes, about 
3 years, to get something from proven prototype to low-rate 
production.
    The way that we do that is by leveraging the Office of 
Strategic Capital that you helped stand up at OSD, as well as 
the legislation that you sponsored that helps small businesses, 
that keeps them alive and vibrant during that period when you 
are trying to move from experimentation or proven prototype to 
low-rate production.
    The way that we have been able to take advantage of 
existing legislation is through Task Force 59 and the stuff 
that we are doing with unmanned in the Middle East. We will be 
scaling that effort to other AORs.
    But I would tell you that the fact that we can take that 
technology, whether it is the platforms or the AI that really 
brings it alive, and to have investment capitalists take a look 
at what we are doing, with a high degree of confidence that the 
money that they are putting behind some of these small 
companies is actually going to pay off, I think that this 
example of unmanned is going to be a path-maker for us to field 
things more quickly and to give the industry a set of 
headlights of, hey, look, you can put faith in us that the 
gamble you are making has a higher----
    Secretary Del Toro. Return on investment.
    Admiral Gilday [continuing]. Return on investment. Right.
    Mr. Calvert. The only disagreement I would make with you, 
Admiral, is, I think we need to blow up the existing 
procurement system. It takes too long. You know, when we have 
a--you know, I was here in the beginning of the F-35 program. 
It took us, by the time we thought of it to the time we started 
producing it, 25 years.
    Admiral Gilday. Sir, I don't disagree with that, but we 
just--as the Commandant just kind of alluded to, we can't wait 
for that to be fixed before we move. And that is why the 
legislation you have given us has allowed us to----
    Mr. Calvert. Right.
    Admiral Gilday [continuing]. Move around it.
    Mr. Calvert. In other words, we had to work around the 
existing procurement system.
    Ms. McCollum.

                     DEFENSE TOPLINE FUNDING LEVELS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    To my dear friend and colleague from Oklahoma, I did 
support the President's budget when it came forward. It was 
smaller, but the President also had a lot of cost savings in 
it, that Congress refused to do, by retiring a lot of legacy 
equipment. So, if we are not going to retire it, then we start 
raising it. So it is something that we have to grapple with 
together. And I know we share the same spirit in solving 
problems.

                     RED HILL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

    Red Hill. This committee put a billion dollars into Red 
Hill over the next 3 years. And if we were ever to build a 
large storage facility, as we are looking at doing in other 
places--and, as you said, some of this is classified, so we are 
not going to get into where it is--we would have never placed 
it on top of an aquifer, which is where--Red Hill is on top of 
the drinking supply for Honolulu. So that was then. This is 
now.
    And I am going to be out there next week, looking at the 
way we are moving forward. And I appreciate the Navy's due 
diligence in making sure that what we drain there we drain 
safely by doing the needed repair work to do that. And I know 
that the citizens of Hawaii and the citizens of the United 
States--the residents of Honolulu and Hawaii appreciate your 
due diligence not to cause any more harm.

                              PHILIPPINES

    Mr. Secretary, one of the top challenges that you said is, 
you know, building and maintaining strategic partnerships. One 
of the places I hope to go in the coming months is going to be 
the Philippines. So is there anything you would like to 
highlight regarding this regional partnership with the 
Philippines and any updates you could provide regarding the 
expansion of the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement?
    Secretary Del Toro. Madam Vice Chair, I am extremely 
grateful to the Philippines for the strength of the 
relationship that they have built, particularly over the last 
several months, with the new administration, working closely 
together with us in every possible way to strengthen our 
national security and our mutual interests in the Indo-Pacific.
    From the day I became Secretary of the Navy--in fact, my 
first visit by an ambassador was from the Ambassador of the 
Philippines, because I recognized that the strength of this 
relationship is critical to our national security efforts in 
the Pacific.
    And we have seen many different results from that 
occurring, to the point today where we are now committing to 
actually conducting at-sea exercises together. You may have 
also learned here that, very recently, there was a commitment 
on behalf of our national security team to actually create a 
relationship between Japan, the Philippines, and the United 
States, as well, too, for our mutual interests.
    And so I am very excited about what the future holds in 
terms of the relationship between our two nations. And, as you 
know, they have also recently--the Filipino administration 
recently agreed to four additional sites, basing sites, 
throughout the country, as well, too.
    So I think there is a lot of good that is going to continue 
to come from this very important relationship with this very 
important ally.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Womack.

                           MILITARY EXERCISES

    Mr. Womack. I want to pick up a little bit on that theme 
for the two service chiefs.
    Great football programs are in spring training right now. 
They are getting ready. They are in the weight room. They are 
doing the things before the lights come on in the season.
    And, of course, our job is to make sure that the schedule 
doesn't unfold, that we have a proper deterrence to avoid 
conflict. But, should we get into the real varsity competition, 
it is my strong belief that preparation is important, 
interoperability is important with our allies and partners, and 
that campaigning and exercises, big joint force exercises, are 
essential.
    Are we affording our exercise programs, like RIMPAC and 
others--are we doing enough? Are we committing the proper 
resources to ensure that these campaign exercises are 
beneficial?
    And so I will lead, first of all, with General Berger.
    Your thoughts, sir?
    General Berger. I think Admiral Aquilino has accelerated 
what his predecessor did by not just counting the number of 
things that they are doing in the Pacific, as you point out, 
but stacking them on top of each other, sequencing them, 
bringing the right countries into the exercises so that they 
are meaningful, not just doing what we have always done.
    I think, over time, the services and the combatant 
commanders, him especially, using the exercises to send a 
message. They provide training and readiness for us, no 
question. They also send a powerful message. They always have, 
but I think it is more meaningful now in the environment that 
we are in.
    I am comfortable, yes, that we are headed in the right 
direction. I think if Admiral Aquilino was sitting here, he 
would want more money for more exercises. We would want more 
funding to send more troops to train in those exercises.
    Lastly, I will just add, they provide us a great real-life 
laboratory to test stuff out or to demonstrate stuff. And we 
are doing that thoughtfully, both us in the CNO, in major 
exercises like you point out, RIMPAC, but they are a great 
opportunity when the world is watching to demonstrate 
something, to show something.
    Mr. Womack. General.
    Admiral Gilday. Yeah. Very well stated by the Commandant. I 
will add a couple of things.
    First, we can never train enough. And so the exercises that 
we are doing, one of the great things that we have seen evolve 
over time is the fact that we are setting the bar higher and 
higher for our allies and partners. And they want it high. They 
want to be able to operate and integrate and be interoperable 
at a much higher level than they have in the past, because of 
the buildup they see from the Chinese.
    The other thing that I would mention is that, when we talk 
about great powers, people often talk about spheres of 
influence, but in the Pacific, as the Commandant talked about 
the stacking exercises, we actually have spheres of 
integration. Nobody sits the bench. Everybody plays, from small 
countries in Micronesia to Australia and New Zealand, Canada, 
Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and so on.
    And so there is a place for everyone to come in, like-
minded nations, to observe and to reinforce international law, 
and the fact that the maritime commons and the skies above them 
are open to everybody.
    So we are heading in the right direction, sir.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Kilmer.

                  MENTAL HEALTH AND SUICIDE PREVENTION

    Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman.
    I am going to try to hit two more topics with you.
    One is a tough one. I know the Navy has continued to 
struggle with mental health and suicide issues. Unfortunately, 
we saw three suicides during the year-and-a-half-long shipyard 
period that the USS Teddy Roosevelt had. The George Washington 
also suffered an alarming series of suicides.
    We have heard pretty consistent concerns in our neck of the 
woods just regarding how hard these shipyard periods can be for 
our sailors, and I just want to make sure we are doing all we 
can.
    Maybe, quickly, can you give me some sense of how the Navy 
is working to improve quality-of-life issues and mental health 
issues? And what do you need from us, if there are things that 
Congress can do to step up and make sure that we are taking 
care of those who are taking care of our country?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, thank you, Congressman. There is 
no more important mission than quality of life for our sailors 
and their very life itself.
    And we have taken a very close look, not just anecdotally 
but actually taking a look at the data, on how many suicides 
occur, why they are occurring, where they are occurring, and 
trying to get good information so that we can make good 
decisions based on those.
    Without question--and there are many reasons why someone 
commits suicide, obviously. It could be work-driven stress, the 
stress factors associated with that. It could be financial in 
nature. It could be relationship-driven. And so it takes a 
holistic approach to try to address all these issues at one 
time.
    But one of the things we have discovered, obviously, is 
that life is stressful in shipyards. And we, as the Department, 
probably haven't done enough over the course of decades to try 
to improve the quality of life in shipyards. I, myself, 
actually spent an entire year building a ship in a shipyard. I 
know how tough it can be.
    So, this year, with regards to the George Washington in 
particular, you know, we have invested $258 million that we are 
investing to improve the quality of life in shipyards. And that 
includes basically moving the crew off the ships earlier than 
normal to address that issue, building and modernizing our 
berthing barges, some of which are 50 years old and in need of 
repair. So there is a lot of investment in berthing barges.
    We are looking at building parking garages, for example, at 
HII in Norfolk, Virginia, so that sailors don't have to walk 
extreme distances to get to their cars in parking lots that are 
far away from the ship itself.
    We are looking at multi-use facilities to support 
recreation, for example. And we are looking in other places, as 
well, too: the quality of the life for the barracks, for 
example, which needs much improvement, as well, too.
    So it is a holistic approach that we are taking to this. 
And it needs to continue. This can't just be a one-off in any 
way possible, so that we can get to a better place and protect 
the lives of our sailors and marines and their families.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. And if there are things that we can 
do from this subcommittee, I think we are here to do it.
    Admiral Gilday. Could I add something, sir? Oblige me just 
a bit of time.
    The most common mental health diagnosis that we see from 
sailors is adjustment disorder. And so one of the things that 
we are focused on is, how do we separate life stress from 
mental illness, right?
    And not all of that requires a doctor. And so, as an 
example, investment in chaplains. We have one now on every 
single destroyer. On our big-deck amphibious ships, on our 
aircraft carriers, we have resilience teams, so we have 
psychiatrists, psychologists. We have psychiatric nurse 
practitioners. We have licensed clinical social workers.
    And we send our corpsmen through school. The Secretary has 
pushed this, to maximize the throughput for our corpsmen to be 
trained as behavioral health technicians. They do that triaging 
at the tactical edge to help determine whether or not somebody 
is just having a bad day and they are sad or whether they are 
sick and to get them the right kind of care.
    So not always is it the right solution set to say, we need 
to get this sailor to a hospital. What we are doing in many 
cases is we are overloading our hospitals with cases that, 
again, are diagnosed as adjustment disorders.
    That is not at all to minimize somebody's condition, but we 
are trying to make smart choices here. And, as you all know, 
the connectedness at the lowest levels, that, you know, we 
learn a lot from the other services, the Marine Corps, the 
Army, how they are doing it.
    And so I would say, sir, in terms of helping us, I think 
funding for a lot of those embedded mental health enablers that 
may not necessarily be doctors per se, to continue that funding 
is helpful.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Cole.

                              INDO-PACIFIC

    Mr. Cole. Thank you very much.
    I have two questions. I will pose them both quick.
    One is very parochial. Admiral, as I said, I would like to 
just get your viewpoint on the transition from the E-6 
platforms to C-130Js, how we are doing, what the timeline is, 
are you satisfied with the pace of change in terms of the E-6 
wing at Tinker.
    The second one is actually for any of you that care to 
answer it. As my friend Mr. Womack mentioned, under the 
chairman, a lot of us were out in, you know, the Western 
Pacific. And I have been there a lot of times. I have been to 
Japan, particularly, a lot of times over the years. And usually 
the conversation is always about trade. You know, it is, like, 
beef imports and tariffs and regulation. Every conversation we 
had, partly because of who we were, but, look, they wanted to 
talk to us about security.
    And to be in Japan and hear about them doubling their 
commitment of GDP to defense in a 5-year period from 1 to 2 
percent, when you are the third-largest economy in the world, 
that matters. That is a pretty big deal.
    To go to Taiwan and see them--``Okay, conscription used to 
be 4 months; it is a year now. And we want to buy everything 
you are willing to sell us, and can you possibly get it here 
tomorrow?''
    And then to go to South Korea and see them sending their 
President to Japan, you know, given the historic tensions 
between those two countries, to talk about how they can 
cooperate better.
    I mean, at one sense, it was really, you know, refreshing 
to see that degree of commitment. And, frankly, you know, if 
you want to be a popular American, just go to the Western 
Pacific. Boy, they want you there. But it was also concerning, 
in terms of how quickly--you know, how concerned they are about 
the Chinese.
    So I just want you all to reflect and give us a--how 
quickly are allies getting to where they need us? How good a 
job are we doing helping them to get to where they need to be 
and expanding our capability?
    Because, you know, again, you always rely on yourself first 
and foremost, and I have a lot of respect for what the Navy and 
the Marines in particular do in the Western Pacific, but it is 
sure nice to have friends. And I think that is something China 
doesn't have a lot of and we do have a lot of. And so how we 
prepare and use them and bring them in, I think, is really 
important.
    So I yield back. Well, if you can--first, the E things and, 
then, just whatever you want to tell us about our 
relationships.
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, let me say very quickly 
that I think you are absolutely correct in the sense that, you 
know, a Nation's economic security depends on its national 
security. And all these countries in the Western Pacific, they 
want to have the United States as an ally. And we want to 
further that relationship, both economically and from a 
national security perspective.
    And even the relationship with China has to be very 
carefully managed, obviously, for all the right reasons.
    But it is obvious that when--and the Department of the Navy 
is at the pointy end of that spear, both the Marine Corps and 
the Navy. So let me allow, perhaps, the General to comment 
first and then go over to the CNO.
    General Berger. I think the window you described for us to 
step in there is now, without a doubt. They need a partner. 
They are looking for a partner. They want the U.S. They favor 
the U.S. We have to move into that window. We have to be the 
best friend that they have now.
    I think Japan, Philippines, Australia, South Korea, even 
the influence we are having in Thailand, Vietnam--all in a 
good-trending direction. We can't back off of that. It is not 
on autopilot.
    We also have to meet them where they were. I mean, I have 
lived in Japan and deployed there for 40 years. The countries 
in Asia, sometimes we go in with a one-size-fits-all, this is 
how you do business, and try to force them to do it, and that 
doesn't work. We have to listen, understand where they are, 
meet them there, and then get to the point where you all 
described, where we are completely interoperable. This is that 
window now.
    Admiral Gilday. I would just add, take a look at our 
foreign military sales cases. Take a look at the South Koreans 
and the Japanese with the Aegis systems. The Japanese just 
fired an SM-6, our most advanced missiles, off of our own 
missile range at really challenging targets. P-8s; look at the 
potential Tomahawks; the potential submarine deal with 
Australia.
    There is a lot of good stuff happening out there with a 
high level of trust. We are leveraging their companies with 
respect to quantum computing and AI. There is a lot of goodness 
back and forth.

                            E-6B REPLACEMENT

    On EA-6Bs. So the Secretary just signed the contract this 
week for three test aircraft. These are C-130Js. The Marine 
Corps is flying them now. These are a mature, proven 
capability. We have two in the FYDP 2027 and another--three in 
the FYDP in 2027, another six in 2028.
    I think we are moving at the right pace, sir, in order to 
get those aircraft on line. And we just have an RFP out to 
industry right now for the VLF comms capability that we are 
going to integrate in.
    So we are committed to it, and hopefully we can maintain 
that funding, the funding levels, to bring it through.
    Mr. Cole. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Ruppersberger.

                             NAVAL ACADEMY

    Mr. Ruppersberger. I want to move to the Naval Academy. And 
we have had--you and I have had conversations about the Naval 
Academy.
    The first thing I want to say, I think all of our 
institutions are some of the best in the world. And when you 
see someone going in the first year and when they graduate, 
they are different. It is one of the reasons we are still the 
most powerful country in the world. And that leadership is 
there.
    But every area has issues. And, in my role, I have tried to 
focus on, as chair of the board there, infrastructure. The 
infrastructure is falling apart, and whenever you are about to 
fix it, it is cut, or it doesn't pass muster.
    We have been able to--from an infrastructure point of view, 
we have to do the cyber building, which was built to deal with 
the issue of the flooding and the water. And that is very 
unique, and I think it is going to help us. And the fact that 
it is right down the street from NSA, it really gives us an 
edge, I think.
    This last year, we were able to get about $32 million, I 
believe, for flooding. And I think what we are going to do with 
that program is that it will help us for at least the next 50 
to 60 years, if we can keep it in.
    But it is still--it is not sexy. It is not exciting. It is 
not going to war with China, Russia, you know, all the things 
that we do, which we have to do. We are preparing for that, and 
the freedom and liberties that we have. But we have to really 
take the infrastructure of the Naval Academy seriously.
    Bancroft Hall is falling apart. I mean, you have gymnasiums 
there with water coming through. And we just have to do it. It 
is something that is important from an infrastructure point of 
view.
    And, you know, the good news is that our board has agreed 
with me that we are going to keep trying to do that. You know, 
we are dealing on this committee with all sorts of issues out 
there, but when it comes to our institutions, we don't want to 
slip there at all. And we are not slipping. And I think our 
institutions are some of the best in the world.
    Now, I will say that, for the last maybe--I have been on 
that board for a long time. I have had about maybe 12 bets, 
Army-Navy, and we won 10. And then, all of a sudden, I get a 
call from General Milley, saying, ``Hey, we are coming to 
Baltimore, and I want to sit with you.'' Well, I said, ``Well, 
I am not going to bet.'' He said, ``Fine, Chairman.'' You know, 
Army won. And they won a second time. Whew, it took the heat 
off of me, thank goodness.
    But my one question here is, you know, I need your 
commitment. And I have really talked to you about it, Mr. 
Secretary. We have got to talk about these issues and make sure 
we fund the infrastructure.
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, you are absolutely right. 
And I am committed to this venture, not just at the Naval 
Academy but at all our professional military education 
institutions. I often say that I expect all my generals and 
admirals to know how to fight. I need them to learn how to 
think strategically, as they have in the past and will continue 
to do so in the future. And that investment is made at the 
Naval Academy, at the Navy Postgraduate School, the Navy War 
College, at the Marine War College, and at the Naval Community 
College, as well, too, for our enlisted force.
    And you are right; the infrastructure at all of those 
institutions needs a lot of help. And so I am committed to 
making the necessary investments, as well, too, because it is 
an investment in our warriors and our future warriors that are 
leading our Navy and Marine Corps, both as officers and as 
enlisted, as well, too, through the Naval Community College as 
well.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. The Naval Academy is a unique 
institution, but we have all this water around us, and it is 
flooding.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. And thanks for your 
leadership in fixing the seawall.
    And I know there is a lot more to come. And I have already 
invested some--moving some funds around in 2022, with your 
permission, and 2023, and we have more investments coming in 
2024 for FSRM and MILCON, as well, too. It is going to take a 
long time, but you have to start the process, and it is going 
to begin now.
    Mr. Calvert. We are going to close--and the chair may find 
out it would want me to mention Monterey, so I will just bring 
that up.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. The gentlelady is recognized.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This has been a great hearing. I look forward to answers to 
the submitted questions that will be given to you.
    And to you, General, and to the Admiral, wherever your 
career takes you in the future, I hope it is filled with great 
happiness and good health for you and your family. Thank you 
for your service.
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.
    If I could just add one thing, ma'am, which is critically 
important, I think, to our national security here. Ensuring 
that--and I know this is a House Appropriations Committee 
meeting, but ensuring that we have our senior general officers 
and flag officers in place is absolutely critical to our fight 
with regards to deterring threats from China and Russia.
    It is about leadership of the force and looking at these 
issues that we face, as we have discussed today: live war on 
NATO's border, aggressive China, or any backed attacks on U.S. 
forces that are belligerent in North Korea.
    We have five three-stars today, Mr. Chairman, that are due 
to rotate imminently, including our top Navy commander in the 
Middle East, for example. Over the coming months, we have 70 
three-star and four-star rotations--CYBERCOM, SPACECOM, 
NORTHCOM, the service chiefs themselves for the Army, Navy, 
Marine Corps, and the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Easily 
hundreds of military families are going to be impacted, 
delaying school transitions for kids and spousal employment and 
much more.
    I would ask for the Senate's support and your encouragement 
here in the House, as well, too, to support ensuring that these 
nominations of the Department's top military officers are not 
delayed any further.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, if I had any influence over the Senate, 
I would do a lot of things.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. But I think, as you know, peripheral issues 
sometimes get involved, and some of the things have--it is 
unfortunate.
    Before we conclude, I want to thank our witnesses for your 
testimony today.
    Obviously, the subcommittee members are welcome to submit 
questions for the record, and I would ask the witnesses to 
respond to those questions in a reasonable time.
    Mr. Calvert. And, again, I want to thank both of you guys 
for your service, the Secretary for his service. I think we 
have all known each other for a--especially the General and the 
Admiral, we have known each other for a lot of years, and I 
appreciate your service. We will talk to you soon.
    We are adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                          [all]