[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]