```

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

                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS 
                                   FOR 2025
_______________________________________________________________________

                                 HEARINGS

                                 BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                              SECOND SESSION

                             _____________________

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON DEFENSE

                    KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky		BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota,
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas		C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama		MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas			HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida		DEREK KILMER, Washington
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio			PETE AGUILAR, California
  MIKE GARCIA, California		ED CASE, Hawaii
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee

  NOTE: Under committee rules, Mr. Cole, as chairman 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, Ariana Sarar, Jacquelynn Ripke, David Bortnick,
           Kiyalan Batmanglidj, Matthew Bower, William Adkins,
               Hayden Milberg, John Forbes, Kyle McFarland,
                     Maxwell Morgan, and Alec Estaban
                            Subcommittee Staff

                                   ______________
                                                                   Page
  United States Navy and Marine Corps...                              1
                                        
  United States Army....................                            147
                                        
  Department of Defense.................                            201
                                        
  National Guard and Reserve Forces.....                            277
                                        
  United States Air Force and Space  Force....                      391
                                        

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                      __________
                                      
                                      
             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations                                     
                                            
 
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-432                     WASHINGTON : 2024                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                                ----------                              
                      TOM COLE, Oklahoma, Chairman

  HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky,
    Chair Emeritus
  KAY GRANGER, Texas,
    Chair Emeritus
  ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
  MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
  JOHN R. CARTER, Texas
  KEN CALVERT, California
  MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
  STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
  CHARLES J. ``CHUCK'' FLEISCHMANN,
    Tennessee
  DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio
  ANDY HARRIS, Maryland
  MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
  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
  SCOTT FRANKLIN, Florida
  JAKE ELLZEY, Texas
  JUAN CISCOMANI, Arizona
  CHUCK EDWARDS, North Carolina

  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

                   Susan Ross, Clerk and Staff Director

                                   (ii)

 
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2025

                              ----------                              
                                                 Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

  FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE UNITED STATES NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

                               WITNESSES

HON. CARLOS DEL TORO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
ADMIRAL LISA FRANCHETTI, CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
    NAVY
GENERAL ERIC M. SMITH, COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF 
    THE NAVY

                 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, the Secretary of the Navy, 
Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations, General 
Eric Smith, Commandant of the United States Marine Corps. Thank 
you all for joining us.
    I want to start by welcoming Admiral Franchetti. You have 
the distinction of the being the first woman Chief of Naval 
Operations, the first women in the Joint Chiefs of Staff. And 
today is your first time testifying before the committee, we 
are happy to have you here today.
    General Smith, this is also your first time testifying 
before our committee. You lost your chance last year, but we 
are glad that you are back. And we appreciate your service. And 
we were all worried about you for a while there. But God bless 
you and thank you for leading the Marine Corps, and thank you 
for being here.
    Finally, Secretary Del Toro, welcome back. It is always 
good to have you. Today, our Nation faces global all-domain 
threats. Conflict in the Middle East has sent our sailors to 
the Red Sea. And our strongest regional ally, Israel, is at 
war. The ongoing war waged by Russia and Ukraine continues to 
demand our attention and support. Despite these ongoing 
conflicts, capturing our time and resources, China remains, as 
you refer to it, the pacing threat. In a China scenario, the 
Navy is the cornerstone of our military's ability to project 
power. The tyranny of distance cannot be surmounted without a 
robust fleet. And I am concerned that the Navy is falling 
behind, it is behind.
    The Navy continues to retire ships faster than it builds 
them. And I am troubled by the Navy's request to decommission 
10 ships before the end of their service life and build only 
six. The budget also proposes to buy fewer strike fighter 
aircraft than we previously planned, and delays production of 
critical next generation platforms in all domains.
    I understand the need to make tradeoffs, but these are 
pivotal years, and we must meet the challenges facing us today 
with credible capability. I am especially concerned about the 
delays in the construction of the lead Columbia-class 
submarine. This program is the Navy's top priority and 
fundamental to our nuclear triad. Congress has funded every 
dollar requested for this program; now it is delayed by at 
least 1 year, leaving no more margin for failure for the rest 
of the decade's long procurement and delivery schedule.
    I want to know how the Navy lost sight of the critical path 
to delivering this vital platform to the fleet. It is simply 
unacceptable.
    What is more, the budget proposes to buy only one Virgina-
class submarine, production remains at a 1.2 submarine cadence 
per year versus the necessary cadence of two per year, further 
undermining our ship count and sending a bad signal to our 
AUKUS allies.
    I hope to learn more about how the Navy will get our 
submarine production back on track. Following three consecutive 
failed or no test events in the development of a Navy 
hypersonic weapon, the Navy is requesting deferral of its plan 
procurement by 2 years. I am concerned that after $4.3 billion 
invested in development we have not had yet a successful test. 
I want to hear the Navy's plan to get a hypersonic weapon 
fielded to the fleet in the near term.
    I also want to note my concern regarding the nearly $2 
billion requested for completing ship construction that was 
previously funded, this is historic level of additional funding 
that represents cost overruns driven by scheduled delays and 
poor program execution.
    In a time of constrained budgets, this reflects the gross 
inefficiencies and problems in our shipbuilding program. I hope 
to learn more about what actions the Navy plans to implement to 
get these programs back on track. Informed by the 45-day 
shipbuilding program review, I understand was recently 
completed.
    I note that the Navy intends to conduct a second review of 
challenges in the shipbuilding enterprise. I look forward to a 
robust discussion on the results of the review that you just 
concluded so we may be aware of the issues and challenges that 
were illuminated.
    The Department of the Navy's capability and capacity is 
further eroded by the maintenance delays that plague the fleet. 
The issues range from lack of experienced manpower at our 
public shipyards to inconsistent demand signal and government 
paperwork delays at the private yards.
    The committee continues to see the Navy spend every cent 
appropriated for ship maintenance, but complete fewer 
maintenance availabilities than forecasted. This creates both 
near-term risk to the fleet readiness, and a bio wave of costly 
future maintenance requirements. Repeated extensions of the 
baton's recent Middle East deployment and subsequent gap in the 
Marine Corps afloat in that region all because the baton's 
replacement was delayed in maintenance is the latest example of 
the significant impact to global operation.
    The conflict in Ukraine is teaching us how drones can have 
an asymmetric impact on the battlefield as chief platforms can 
inflict damage on multimillion dollar platforms. I am 
encouraged by programs like Replicator and Hellscape that are 
using these lessons to scale treatable kinetic solutions to 
deter and ultimately defeat a cross-strait invasion by the 
Chinese.
    Our progress in leveraging emerging technologies is defined 
by the successes we have when we partner with the private 
sector. If we are to succeed in a rapidly changing threat 
environment, the Navy must continue to experiment with 
incorporating commercial technology to address our evolving 
operation needs.
    Finally, I would like to hear General Smith's thoughts on 
the continued evolution of force design and how this budget 
advances the strategy to shape the Marine Corps of 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, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, Admiral, General, thank you for being here 
today. Admiral and General, as was pointed out, we welcome you 
to your first appearance before the committee.
    The Department of the Navy's budget request reflects the 
enormity of your mission to defend freedom, and to preserve 
economic prosperity, and to keep the seas open and to keep them 
free. The $258 billion, including military construction, is the 
largest request we have seen. I would like to point out what 
happens in MILCON affects your ability to maintain and to 
deliver ships and boats on time.
    It is fitting that the Navy and the Marine Corps work 
together to solve and address some of our most pressing 
challenges. You were at the forefront of all we do to compete 
with China and counter threats from Russia, Iran, and North 
Korea. As we know, the Navy is fighting daily in the Red Sea 
defending our ships and our sailors, while ensuring freedom of 
navigation.
    We thank all of our servicemembers involved in the 
operations there for their service, and wish them a successful 
mission and a safe return home when their tour is done.
    While the hearing today will cover a range of topics, I 
want to highlight a few that are important to me that often get 
buried under some of the other topics that the chair brought up 
that I also totally agree with his remarks on.
    First, I would like to talk about the Great Power 
competition that has expanded into a region that you have heard 
me talk about a lot--the Arctic. I would like an update on our 
training activities in that region and the Navy force planning 
with respect to the Arctic.
    Second, the recent legislation was enacted updating the 
compacts of the free association. I feel that having this 
compact work successfully is vital to our success in the Indo-
Pacific region.
    I would like to know the Navy's interactions with our 
allies in that region, and how this budget request supports 
that and if there is more that needs to be done.
    And finally, the committee's concerned about the 
recruitment and retention across the services, and I would like 
to hear how the Navy is addressing this. And what plans in 
funding proposals are included in the fiscal year 2025 budget 
to achieve your fiscal year 2025 recruiting goals.
    But before I yield back, Mr. Chair, we do not get to say 
this very often, but I am excited and I am here to commend the 
Marine Corps on achieving an unmodified audit option. Thank you 
for doing that. You have become--yeah, you deserve a round of 
applause. We have been asking for audits forever.
    So General Smith, this is a tremendous achievement, you are 
now the North Star for how the rest of the services should be 
getting their audits done. You have set an example, and we 
sincerely applaud your efforts.
    I want to thank again our witnesses for appearing today. We 
appreciate your testimony. We look forward to hearing the 
answers to your questions in a follow-up.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I am sure the Navy is next with 
clean audit.
    Now it is my real pleasure to turn to the new chairman of 
the full committee, and my good friend and now chairman Tom 
Cole. Congratulations, Mr. Chairman. The floor is yours.

                    Opening Remarks of Chairman Cole

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    As my good friend, Chairman Calvert, mentioned this is your 
first rodeo. It is my first rodeo in this slot too, but 
fortunately not on this committee where I have had the honor to 
serve, thanks to my good friend Chairman Rogers for many, many 
years. He put me here in more ways than one.
    So good morning to our witnesses. Thank you for being here 
with us today. Our adversaries continue to challenge us across 
multiple fronts and all domains. Now more than ever, it is 
critical that we maintain a strong and capable Navy. Ship count 
remains a significant factor of our military readiness. 
However, the Navy's proposed shipbuilding budget fails to grow 
the fleet in response to China's pacing threat. Modern Naval 
warfare relies on mass dispersion. And I am concerned by the 
lack of a defined plan for growing our fleet. We cannot 
continue to divest ships without investing adequately in ship 
construction.
    I am particularly troubled with the Navy's recent report 
finding four of our most important shipbuilding programs are 
years behind schedule. These programs Columbia and Virginia-
class submarines, constellation class frigates, and forward-
class carriers are vital to countering China in the Pacific. I 
look forward to hearing more about the Navy's plans to address 
these delays.
    I am also concerned about the Navy's decision to delay 
several significant modernization programs, including the 
Navy's next generation submarine, destroyer and strike fighter. 
We must maintain technological superiority, particularly as 
China continues to advance its military capability.
    Finally, as the Marine Corps continues to modernize as part 
of force design, I am eager to learn more about your efforts to 
project power as an expeditionary force in the Indo-Pacific. It 
is critical that we maintain our forward posture to bolster 
deterrence and strengthen defense relationships with our allies 
and partners.
    I look forward to hearing from you all about a range of 
issues that continue to face the Navy and Marine Corps today. 
These include fleet readiness, Navy recruitment, improving 
quality of life for our servicemembers and their families, 
establishing stable and predictable plans, and for shipbuilding 
programs and strengthening our defense industrial base.
    Thank you very much. And with that, I yield back. And again 
thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is great 
to say that. Great to have you on board.
    Now, gentlemen and Admiral, your written testimony will be 
placed in the record. I would like to please have you all 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, Chairman Cole, distinguished members of the 
committee. It is an honor to appear before you this morning to 
discuss the posture of the Department of the Navy.
    First and foremost, as you have done, I would like to thank 
General Smith and Admiral Franchetti for answering, again, the 
call of our Nation time and time again. They, like all who 
devote their careers, and in some cases, sacrifice their lives 
in defense of their fellow Americans represent everything that 
makes these United States a beacon of hope and freedom around 
the world. Together our combined years of service to our 
country totals over a century; a century marked by multiple 
deployments, time away from home and sacrifices that have been 
made by our families.
    And as we gather here this morning, thousands of our 
sailors, marines, civilians and their families are either 
stationed or deployed all over the globe. Making the same 
sacrifices and enduring the same trials that myself, General 
Smith and Admiral Franchetti have faced throughout our careers.
    In the Indo-Pacific, our Navy and Marine Corps sailing and 
operating alongside of our international allies and partners in 
support of a free and open maritime commons, one where nations 
are secure in their access to the seas, and where their rights 
within their exclusive economic zones are respected and upheld.
    Across Europe, we, in cooperation with our Navy allies, are 
supporting our Ukrainian partners as they continue their fight 
to restore their territorial national sovereignty as Russia's 
illegal full-scale invasion now enters its third year. And I 
urge Congress to pass the National Security Supplemental in 
support of our Ukrainian partners as they fight to restore 
peace in their homeland and more importantly perhaps defend 
democracy for all free nations.
    In the Middle East, our sailors and marines have countered 
hundreds of missiles and drones launched by the Houthis. Our 
Iranian partner and a specially designated global terrorist 
group targeting merchant shipping in the warships of both the 
United States and our international allies and partners. We are 
confronting an adversary that has no respect for innocent lives 
of civil merchant mariners, and one that is actively targeting 
our ships attempting to harm our sailors and marines because we 
dare, we dare to defend the defenseless.
    For any who may question why the American taxpayer should 
provide for and maintain a Navy and Marine Corps, look at what 
is happening today in the Red Sea, where we are defending the 
free flow of international commerce in support of the economic 
and national security of our Nation, our allies, and our 
partners around the global.
    Members of the committee, we appear before you today to ask 
for your continued support, your partnership and your 
commitment ensuring that the nearly 1 million sailors, marines 
and civilians to the Department that we lead are ready on all 
fronts.
    While the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 forces us to 
make very hard choices, the $257.6 billion in the President's 
budget request for fiscal year 2025 for our Department 
definitely balances maintaining and modernizing the fleet and 
our force today against the planning of the future force, while 
also taking care of our people, which is so critically 
important to all of us.
    This budget directly supports our Department's three 
enduring priorities, strengthening our maritime dominance, 
creating a culture of warfighting excellence, and enhancing 
strategic partnerships around the globe. We are requiring the 
most lethal, agile and capable warships, submarines, aircraft, 
weapons and systems that our world has ever seen. And they will 
replace the legacy systems that, perhaps, it is time to 
decommission.
    We are also funding the research and development of 
transformational technologies and fielding them as quickly as 
possible to make our fleet more lethal and persistent within 
our current FYDP. We are also investing billions of dollars 
into the industrial base that supports us while encouraging 
them to also invest more in themselves as they should be. And 
as responsible stewards of taxpayer funds, we will enforce 
accountability to ensure our sailors and marines have the 
platforms and capabilities that they need on time, and on 
budget as well.
    Above all else, we are taking care of our personnel and 
their families by focusing on improving housing, expanding 
childcare capacity and increasing access to mental health 
resources, amongst other critical areas. We are clear-eyed 
about the challenges that our Nation faces today in the 
maritime domain, both commercial and naval. And as a maritime 
Nation, we must confront the challenges of today and prepare 
for the potential conflicts of tomorrow by investing in a 
strong Navy and Marine Corps.
    Again, it is an honor to appear before you this morning. 
And we look forward to discussing with you how best to deliver 
the Navy and the Marine Corps that our Nation requires. It is 
an honor and a privilege for me to serve as the seventy-eighth 
Secretary. And I am proud that our Navy and Marine Corps is the 
most powerful, capable, lethal and flexible Navy and Marine 
Corps in the world, and we are committed to keeping it so.
    Thank you.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
        
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Now I recognize the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral 
Franchetti, for her remarks.

                Summary Statement of Admiral Franchetti

    Admiral Franchetti. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, Chairman Cole, distinguished members of the 
committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to 
testify on the posture of the United States Navy.
    On behalf of the sailors, Navy civilians and their families 
deployed and stationed all around the world, thank you for your 
leadership and your continued support in providing and 
maintaining the Navy the Nation needs.
    I would also like to thank my teammate, General Smith, for 
his exceptional partnership and collaboration as we guide our 
services under the leadership of Secretary Del Toro.
    Flanked by two oceans the United States is and always has 
been a maritime Nation whose security and prosperity rely on 
access to the sea. And for over 248 years the United States 
Navy has guaranteed that access, operating forward, defending 
our homeland, and keeping open the sea lines of communication 
that fuel our economy and underwrite our Nation's security.
    The events of this past year and the actions taken by your 
Navy and Marine Corps team in the Indo-Pacific, in the 
Mediterranean, Red Sea and beyond, underscore the enduring 
importance of American Naval power. With an average of 110 
ships and 70,000 sailors and marines deployed on any given day, 
the Navy and Marine Corps team is delivering power for peace, 
deterring potential adversaries, and standing ready to fight 
and win our Nation's wars if called and deterrence fails.
    I could not be more proud of this Navy team. No other Navy 
in the world can train, deploy and sustain such a lethal combat 
credible force that operates from the seabed to space at the 
scope, scale and tempo that we do.
    This year's budget request supports the national defense 
strategy and my priorities of warfighting, warfighters and the 
foundation that supports them. It enables the Navy to continue 
to meet our congressionally mandated mission, both in peace and 
war. It is strategy-driven, maintaining our focus on the 
People's Republic of China as the pacing challenge, and the 
acute threat of Russia. And other persistent threats like the 
Democratic People's Republic Korea, Iran and violent extremist 
organizations.
    Given this discretionary spending cap prescribed by the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act and a top line increase of .7 
percent, the Navy had to make tough choices, favoring near-term 
readiness, investing in our industrial base, and prioritizing 
our people while assuming risk in future capabilities.
    Within this physically constrained environment, the budget 
request fully funds the Nation's top acquisition priority, and 
the most survivable leg of our strategic deterrence the 
Columbia-class submarine. It provides funds for six battle 
force ships, and incremental funding for two forward-class 
aircraft carriers in fiscal year 2025 and continues our support 
to Marine Corps force design by maintaining 31 amphibious 
ships, procuring three LPDs, one LHA and eight medium landing 
ships. In total, the budget request prioritizes procures 57 
ships across the FYDP. This budget request prioritizes 
warfighting by funding our operations, training and readiness 
accounts. It continues our strong commitment to our warfighters 
and our families through pay raises, for our sailors, and Navy 
civilians and investments in quality of service initiatives 
such as unaccompanied housing, education, childcare, and sailor 
resiliency. And it invests in our foundation with funding for 
our installations, for our Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization 
Program, and for the broader defense industrial base, sending a 
strong signal to our industry partners on the need to increase 
our capacity to meet the growing demands of the present and of 
the future.
    As Chief of Naval Operations I am committed to pulling 
every level available to me to put more ready players on the 
field. Those are platforms that are ready to go with the right 
capabilities, weapons and sustainment, and people who are ready 
with the right skills, tools, training and mindset to defend 
our Nation's security and prosperity wherever and whenever it 
is threatened.
    I thank the committee for your leadership and partnership 
in ensuring the world's premier warfighting force remains ready 
to preserve the peace, respond in crisis and win decisively in 
war if called.
    I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Admiral.
    I now recognize General Smith to comment on the Marine 
Corps, for his remarks.

                   Summary Statement of General Smith

    General Smith. Good morning. Chairman Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum, Chairman Cole, ladies and gentleman, thank you 
for the opportunity to represent your Marines today. I would 
like to start by sincerely thanking this committee for its 
enduring support and your advocacy for a timely predictable and 
sufficient budget that enables the Marine Corps to remain first 
to fight.
    I would also like to express my deep gratitude for the 
partnership between Admiral Franchetti and me as we lead our 
respective services under the leadership of Secretary Del Toro. 
Whether deterring, responding to crisis, or in conflict, it 
will be the Navy and Marine Corps expeditionary forces who make 
first contact with partners seeking help or adversaries seeking 
a fight. Our partnership collaboration and integration is a 
decisive advantage.
    Last week, I published updated guidance to the force 
entitled maintain momentum. I chose this title as I firmly 
believe the Corps is on the right path under force design.
    A few points from that document. First, I believe the Corps 
must continue to strike a balance between high end 
modernization and our commitment to persistent forward deployed 
Naval expeditionary forces that campaign and respond to crisis 
globally. This effort is represented by our Marine 
expeditionary units, the crown jewel of the Marine Corps.
    Second, we must prioritize our operation with the Navy and 
its amphibious ships, and we must provide Marines with the 
organic mobility to rapidly maneuver from shore to shore, ship 
to shore and back again.
    Third, on recruiting. Our performance speaks for itself. We 
will continue to make mission without ever diminishing our 
standards. Additionally, our top performing marines are 
reenlisting at record rates and we must sustain this trend.
    Fourth, we must maximize the capabilities of our Reserves 
to ensure that our Nation has the ready bench of warriors that 
they have relied on since the founding of Marine Corps Forces 
Reserve in 1916.
    And fifth, I am dedicated to ensuring a quality of life for 
our Marines that matches the high demands we place on them 
every day. That means nutritious food, high-quality and 
accessible gyms, and a safe quiet place to recover from a hard 
day's work. Our barracks 2030 initiative is our most 
consequential barracks investment ever, and it is sorely 
needed. While aggressively pursuing these priorities I commit 
to you that our core will always be frugal and accountable with 
the resources you and the American people provide. I am proud 
of my marines and civilian marines who enable the Marine Corps 
to receive an unmodified audit opinion earlier this year, first 
of any service to do so. They told us what we had long known, 
when you entrust us with the taxpayers' money it is money well 
spent and fully accounted for. All of these things are critical 
to maintain the strength and dominance of your Marine Corps.
    This year marks 249 years since the founding of our Corps, 
that is 249 years of battles won and peace upheld in the name 
of democracy and prosperity for our Nation and for all nations 
who abide by the international rules-based order. But 
increasingly world events demonstrate this order is being 
challenged. Free trade, unrestricted access to the seas, 
peaceful cooperation between nations big and small are under 
assault. Our Nation's prosperity is underwritten by a strong 
Navy and Marine Corps who maintain a global presence and keep 
maligned actors at bay.
    Thank you for the opportunity to represent your Marines 
today. I pledge to continue to work closely with each of you to 
ensure that your Marine Corps remains the most lethal fighting 
force on the planet. And I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
        ASSESSMENT OF THE DOMESTIC SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Commandant.
    I want to make sure that each member has a chance to ask 
questions. So 5 minutes, including myself. So when the timer 
turns yellow, you have 1 minute remaining. First, I will 
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    You have obviously heard, Mr. Secretary, of our problem 
with a number of ships that we have right now and the future of 
the shipbuilding program. The Navy's proposing to buy only six 
ships in fiscal year 2025 and decommission 10 ships before we 
end their planned service life. The fleet would decline to 287 
ships in fiscal year 2025, compared to 293 ships we have today. 
This is a far cry from the Navy's 30-year force structure plan 
of 355 ships. Meanwhile, China's Navy is projected to have 395 
ships by the end of 2025. And 435 ships by 2030.
    Mr. Secretary, what is your assessment of the domestic 
shipbuilding industrial base including its suppliers, its 
capacity to handle increases in shipbuilding? Does industry 
need a demand signal to ramp up its production capability?
    Secretary Del Toro. Sure, and I think it's a valid concern, 
obviously, actually the investments that are being made by the 
President's budget 2025, we are looking at $15 billion of 
American taxpayer investment in the submarine industrial base 
loan to be able to get the production rates up where they 
should is--for example 1.2 should be at 2.0 I believe, focusing 
on these major submarine industrial base investment and 
$7,507,348 invested in the service ship base the right tactic 
to take to help industry get to a higher production rate. Let 
me also add, this is a team effort, it involves all the team 
players on the team to do their part as well too.
    We need industry to develop more to the recapitalization of 
shipyard in this country so we can be more successful in the 
fleet. I think that there are opportunities and it is part of 
my Maritime Statecraft strategy basically to reach out to other 
investments, domestic and international, to come here to the 
United States an make investments here in the U.S., create even 
more American jobs throughout the country and help smaller and 
medium-size shipyards as well become that much more robust, and 
they contribute as subcontractors major crime to get those 
production rates up to where they should about be.
    Mr. Calvert. Admiral. How, additional requests. Manpower.
    Admiral Franchetti. As the Secretary said, we definitely 
need a larger Navy and we continue to invest all those 
resources in the industrial base this year's budget to be able 
to set the conditions to increase that throughput to be able to 
meet the demands that we need.
    As far as the manning goes, as you know, we are about 
18,000 billets short at sea right now. This is a full-court 
press for us to be able to increase our recruiting. While we 
continue to maintain our very historically high retention of 
our sailors. So we are taking a lot of initiatives right now to 
reach out to every ZIP Code in America where all of that talent 
is, to be able to bring more people on to our Navy team.
    I will just quickly say we are doing that in probably two 
key ways, first is improving our actual recruiting enterprise 
by appointing a two-star admiral to be in charge of that 
enterprise, to fully manning all of our recruiting stations and 
centers. By the end of May, we will be fully manned at those 
centers. We have taken people out of those centers to be able 
to man our ships at sea.
    So again, we are going to have the full manning so we can 
get out and make all those investments in all of the places we 
get to go in high schools, and coaches, and talking to all the 
different influencers.
    The other part of the recruiting equation is expanding the 
pool of folks that are able to join our team. We have increased 
the age of folks that can join to be able to join us to their 
42nd birthday. We have put in place a future sailor preparatory 
classes for academics and for physical fitness, again, to be 
able to provide people more opportunities to join the Navy team 
and increase the number of specialties that they are eligible 
for. We are also enabling folks who don't have a GED or a high 
school diploma to be able to join the team if they have a very 
AFQT score of 50, which will enable them to be in very many 
specialties across our force.
    So again, we are really optimistic that the investments 
that we are making and the investments and changes we are 
making in marketing and using data analytics to make sure that 
we are actually getting out to the population that we want to 
recruit. We are going to see promise and progress in 
recruiting. So that will help us man those stations.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ranking member McCollum.

                          EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I am going to follow up on a 
little bit of the shipbuilding for a second. But what you said 
about waiving the GED and the high school diploma. So for those 
young adults who maybe didn't pay attention--I used to teach 
high school, we had bright kids who didn't pay attention 
sometimes. Are you going to work with them so at the end of 
their service contract, that they will have either a GED or a 
high school diploma?
    Admiral Franchetti. Certainly. You know, we do provide a 
lot of educational benefits in the Navy, and we actually have a 
lot of senior enlisted that started out without a GED or a high 
school diploma and now have bachelors and master's degrees. We 
are committed, again, through this academic prep course as well 
as continuing to support----
    Ms. McCollum. I assumed that, but I didn't want to just do 
that and not have that be accurate so that they can take 
advantage of advanced career opportunities after they leave the 
Navy.

                       ``COLUMBIA''-CLASS DELAYS

    I am going to follow up a little more on some questions, 
and I am going to package them together and whoever wants to 
respond can. A little more in-depth about what you feel is 
happening with the Columbia-class submarine delays. And what 
can the committee--we have things that we could do in 
discussions that we have with business leaders in that. What 
more should this committee maybe be looking to do to assist you 
in changing that around? Could you tell us a little more about 
the proposed repair activities in Japan, and one of our 
important allies. We have the prime minister speaking to a 
joint session tomorrow. And then, you know, how that could 
impact and free up some things in maintenance as you work 
through your other maintenance plan. And then last but not 
least, what is the plan for not the Coast Guard, but for the 
Navy to have a heavy ice cutter in its near future, not the 
distant future? Thank you.
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Member. Let me take on the 
question of Columbia specifically. So one of the most 
significant challenges that we have with Columbia that is 
specific to Columbia is actually the late delivery of the 
turbine generator to Columbia by subcontractor Northrop 
Grumman. That has had a major impact on the delay of the 
Columbia.
    Now there are other issues that actually transcend all of 
these platforms that are causing some of the delays. We have a 
shortage in blue-collar workforce in this country that is 
significantly impacting our shipyards and it is making it 
difficult for them to actually be able to recruit. I believe 
the shipyards need to do more in terms of retaining their own 
people as well, too. So industry has to do a bit more, bump it 
up basically when it comes to retaining the people that they do 
recruit. We have one shipyard in particular who has an 
extremely low retention rate. So we are trying to work with 
that shipyard to improve the retention rate, actually by even 
giving bonuses to potential workers; $5,000 for the first year, 
$5,000 if they stay at the shipyard by the delivery of the 
first ship for example.
    So we are trying to be as creative and innovative and 
supportive of industry as we can be, but ultimately, it is a 
response of the industry to recruit and retain their own 
people. There have been shortages in the supply chain that have 
been impacted by COVID across the board that has also caused 
the late delivery of a lot of materials to the shipyards, and 
that itself has caused problems, which by the way of moving 
forward, advanced procurement for a shipyard is a strategy that 
makes a lot of sense, whether it is for Virginia or for the 
aircraft carriers themselves. So those are the significant 
contributing factors to the delay of the Columbia submarine 
itself.
    With regards to Virginia, it is compounded by the shift 
from block 4 to block 5, for example. The Virginia payload 
module is a far more complicated submarine, it is significantly 
larger. And the design teams, both at the shipyard, and I would 
argue also----
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. Secretary, I have 50 seconds left. Can 
you touch on the other two please?

                       REPAIR ACTIVITIES IN JAPAN

    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, ma'am. With regards to repair 
activities in Japan we look forward to working with the 
Japanese shipbuilders, and other shipbuilders around the globe, 
including the Indians for example and the South Koreans to take 
a look at which shipyards we could actually conduct voyage 
repairs. Because this is something that we should explore now 
so that when we do, if by chance find ourselves in times of 
conflict, and we have damage to our ships in repairs that have 
to be conducted underway that we don't have the need to bring 
them back, all the way back to the United States but we can 
conduct these forward as we should expect to do so. And seeing 
that would you like to comment on the ice breaker issue.

                           ARTIC PARTNERSHIPS

    Admiral Franchetti. Ranking member McCollum, the Arctic is 
an incredibly strategic terrain. We know we need to operate up 
there. We are fully supporting the Coast Guard and their design 
of the ice breaker and support funding for their Department of 
Homeland Security for additional ice breakers. I think we have 
great opportunities to partner with our Arctic friends like 
Norway, now Finland and Sweden joining NATO to find 
opportunities to work together to develop that capability 
broadly with like-minded nations.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    I want to make a point that my father joined the Navy, a 
lot of young people did before he finished high school in World 
War II. And got his GED while he was serving in the United 
States Navy. And he did okay after he got out of the Navy.
    So with that, I am happy to recognize the chairman of the 
full committee, Mr. Cole.

                      SHIPBUILDING BASE CHALLENGE

    The Chairman. Thank you very much. Again, I thank all three 
of you for being here. Thank you very much for your service. 
You will probably hear a common theme in what Chairman Calvert 
and Ranking Member McCollum had to say in my questions. Because 
I am very concerned, I will tell you bluntly I think this 
budget is too low. I think that has been consistently true this 
administration. But I also recognize we are under the 
constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and that is going 
to make it difficult for us to do some things that I think we 
need to do.
    But I am particularly concerned about this shipbuilding 
problem, I mean, the trim lines in terms of the size of the 
Chinese navy and ours and they are able to concentrate a lot 
more of their forces in a single region than we are in ours and 
we are a global power. Those things are concerning. Even more 
concerning to me is just lack of capacity, you know. We can 
give you a lot of money, but we clearly don't have the capacity 
to produce as quickly as we would like to, as much as I think 
we need to.
    So I would ask you, again, on your investments in the 
shipbuilding base, but I also, Mr. Secretary, would ask you to 
tell us a little bit. I mean, we are not building very many--
our private shipyards don't produce commercial shipping 
anymore. We don't have the kind of capacity. Actually, you are 
the biggest part of the shipbuilding that we do do in the 
country. So we don't have the kind of base that we had in 1941 
or the 1930s or well into the fifties and sixties. So how big 
is that challenge and with can we do to increase capacity to 
produce?
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a great 
question and something I have been focused on very aggressively 
over the past 2\1/2\ years launching this concept for the 
National Maritime Statecraft. That just doesn't look at Naval 
shipbuilding but looks at commercial shipbuilding, which has 
been devastated in this country since about the 1980s after the 
Cold War as well, too. But we started--we stopped, actually, 
incentivizing and subsidizing the commercial shipbuilding 
industry, and it is because of that that actually our shipyards 
went from 30 down to eight shipyards today that basically work 
the Navy to produce ships. And that is a real challenge. It 
also results in our ships being far more expensive than they 
would be if we had a robust commercial industrial base in this 
country as well, too. That is where we need to get after.
    As part of my discovery, for example, we have discussed 
authorities that are already on the books to just Title 46 that 
allows the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security and 
myself, the Secretary of Transportation, to deem a ship that 
has dual military use for both commercial and for military use 
for example, to be able to receive subsidies.
    So if the ship costs, say, $100 million to build here in 
the United States, but actually cost $80 million to build it 
overseas, we could actually subsidize that shipbuilder with $20 
million to support the construction of that ship. We need to 
get innovative of how we actually grow the commercial 
shipbuilding industry. And I have stood up actually a 
government shipbuilding council to try to look across 
government for all of the key agencies to work together to try 
to achieve this. And there has also been increasing interest on 
the part of Congress as well, too, and a request made for 
maritime coordinator, for example, for the White House to be 
designated to take a look at all these issues to try to get us 
to a better place.
    The Chairman. Are there things that Congress could be and 
should be doing to incentivize capacity building, frankly in 
the north military field. You kind of touched on that. Do you 
have any specific recommendations, because that is one of the 
things actually looking at the Tax Code and some other things 
we could do.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think one perfect 
example is that is the LNG situation. And we can't build our 
own LNG ships.You know, if we could actually encourage domestic 
shipbuilders to invest in building LNG ships here we could 
actually have the ships that transport LNG around the United 
States and the Territories as well, too. And there might be 
international investors that are willing to, again, invest in 
shipyards here. The South Koreans and the Japanese are some of 
the best LNG shipbuilders in the world. If they could actually 
invest in smaller shipyards here, then we can start building 
our LNG ships domestically and that would be a big boon for the 
economy.

                           JAPANESE SHIPYARDS

    The Chairman. Great. Last question because I don't have a 
lot of time and you touched on this, but a lot of us around 
this room served with our former colleague, our current 
ambassador to Japan, Ambassador Emanuel. Any time we go, he 
will rail at us about why aren't we doing more to use Japanese 
shipyards and cut the amount of time now. So you talked about 
planning it, but what would it take to actually do that? And 
how quickly could that be done? And, you know, how big of an 
asset would that be to you and the Admiral?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir, there is a legislative 
proposal right now before the Congress in fiscal year 2025 
basically allows us to do up to six, not CNO availabilities but 
voyage repair availabilities, basically, that would allow us 
for approximately 15 days to 30 days, to be able to bring a 
ship into an international shipyard and have them actually do 
the work. That, of course, would ease up the load on the 
domestic shipyards in one manner. But more importantly, it will 
actually allow us to be able to certify these shipyards to be 
able to work with us so that in a time of conflict, we would 
actually be able to rely on these shipyards to do that type of 
work. And it could be done on MSG ships, but also done on Naval 
ships as well.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we are all 
hearing from our good friend, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, lately.
    Let's see, who is next? Dutch.

                      NAVAL ACADEMY INFRASTRUCTURE

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Secretary Del Toro, as you know, I am 
chairman of the Naval Academy Board. I work a lot of with the 
Naval Academy.
    We also work very closely with the Army, too. Mr. Womack is 
chair of that board, by the way.
    The big issue the Academy leadership has is increasing 
number of flooding events on the yard. I mean, you went to the 
Naval Academy, you know that, and it is getting worse and 
worse. And we are just falling behind in infrastructure, and it 
is getting worse. Even where the midshipmen and whatever live, 
it is not good. And yet the Naval Academy, just last year, I am 
not sure this year, it was rated the No. 1 public 4-year 
institution in the country. So we are doing okay there.
    Now as you know, the Academy has put together a 
comprehensive installation residency plan to get after the 
problem. And now, before it is too late, we need to move 
forward. The plan includes several project needed over the next 
40 years. However, I don't see any of those projects in the 
project pipeline for program FSRM and MILCON funding, and that 
really concerns me. It always seems the Naval Academy is always 
left over, if there is anything left over after everything else 
is taken care of, and we have a lot to take care of, as you 
know.
    Now are there any shovel-ready resilience projects at the 
Academy that have been identified as a priority for FSRM and 
MILCON funding?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, let me first thank you for 
your leadership on this issue, and for Congressman Womack's 
leadership at West Point as well, too, because these academic 
institutions are the very best in our military and we need to 
be sending our best and our brightest to these institutions, 
and they deserve to have the material readiness so those 
installations could be the very best that they can be. I have 
been extremely devoted to this for the last 2\1/2\ years 
working very closely with you. We have increased FSRM funding 
over the last 2 consecutive years to fix things like the 
utility bridge. And again, I thank you for your investment in 
the seawall, for example. There are FSRM projects that are 
ready to go. In fact, they have a 15-year installation 
resiliency plan in place with numerous projects and we can 
certainly make that information available to your staff for 
additional investment as well.
    But we are committed, I can't speak to why my predecessors 
did not make this a priority, but it is a priority, including 
the renovation of Bancroft Hall, for example, that has water 
leakage on the fifth floor, the roof needs to be replaced. So 
we are going to----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. It is the infrastructure and it's water.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. The West Point doesn't have water, and 
water is getting worse. We had one major project, and that 
has--well, but I am really concerned.
    And more broadly, how does the big Navy plan to fund and 
implement the resiliency plan laid out in the long-range plan 
to capture the effects of rising sea levels on the campus' 
infrastructure and safeguard it for future generations of 
midshipmen?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, we are obviously extremely 
concerned about the rising sea levels and the impact that it 
has on all of our naval bases on the coastline for both the 
Navy and the Marine Corps. We have already made major 
investments at Camp Lejeune and Parris Island and numerous 
other places. But last year, we need to really coordinate this 
as one department. And last year, I directed both the Navy and 
Marine Corps and my own department, put together a 30-year 
infrastructure plan. And we are committed to doing that.
    We are about, in the planning stage about year 15 right 
now, and we are extending it out to 30 years, so that we can 
actually have all the different installation plans for all the 
different bases in place, and then we can prioritize with the 
focus on which projects are going to actually provide the 
biggest return on investment to develop the--I always say that 
installation-readiness is combat-readiness, and we have to work 
together in one department.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I see this, but I don't see it in the 
budget. That is what bothers me, and I want to get your 
commitment, because you have given me that commitment for 2\1/
2\ years and you have been producing.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. To do this, but this is serious now, 
because water doesn't stop.
    Secretary Del Toro. We would be happy to come to your staff 
and show you the great lengths that we have made in the 
Presidential budget for 2025. But I will also add that the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act has actually also made it difficult 
for us to be able to grow that list of projects as well, too. 
And so, in some cases, we actually had to reduce MILCON in 2025 
from what it was in 2024, which was a very productive year to 
make progress on the installation front.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. And one quick question on how would 
resilience work if identified as a priority when stacked 
against the Navy's range of other infrastructure requirements? 
That is a big question. You have talked about it a lot, but it 
seems that the Naval Academy is always at the end.
    Secretary Del Toro. For the past 3\1/2\ years, sir, you 
have had a Secretary of the Navy who graduated from the Naval 
Academy, has made more investments in infrastructure at the 
Naval Academy than any past secretary probably in decades. So 
we are focused on this as an important mission requirement 
basically for the combat readiness and training of those 
midshipman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Dutch.
    Mr. Ruppersberger [continuing]. The Army Navy game too.
    Secretary Del Toro. I am always willing to take an earmark 
for the Navy football team so----
    Mr. Calvert. With that, Mr. Rogers, you are recognized.

                       PACING CHALLENGES OF CHINA

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We share your concerns 
about the advancement of China's military and the risk it poses 
to our assets in the Indo-Pacific theater. Mr. Secretary, could 
you quickly highlight one area especially in which you have 
changed your 2025 budget request to reflect the pacing 
challenges associated with China in the Indo-Pacific.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. Of course, as you know, there 
are many challenges in the Pacific, but let me just highlight 
one, and I thank the support of the Congress on this issue as 
well, too. When we look at the important role that the Marine 
Corps, and I will let the Commandant to comment after I finish. 
When we look at the very important role that the Marine Corps 
will play in the Pacific with regard to the force design 
providing expeditionary advance basing operations stand in 
forces, maneuver reconnaissance and counter reconnaissance, for 
example, they need heavy lift to transport marines into the 
Pacific, and then once in the theater, they are going to also 
need the lift necessary to do inter theater transport as well, 
too. So in--one of the things I am most proud about is that we 
have three LPDs that are baked in now, into the FYDP basically. 
We have one in 2025, 2027, 2029 and we also have the first LSM 
that is also baked in for 2026 with additional LSMs in the FYDP 
as well too.
    That is one example of adjustments that we have made to be 
able to provide the Marine Corps, in this case, the ability to 
do their job in the Pacific. And perhaps I can have the 
commandant talk about that a bit more.
    General Smith. I can, Mr. Secretary.
    Force design we are committed to it. It is a balance 
against crisis response and readiness, and invest in key 
capabilities, like strike unmanned systems, long-range fires, 
medium range intercept capability. And it enables modernization 
while retaining our capacity for competition and crisis 
response, meaning our muse, our crown jewels. The force-design 
effort continues a pace, and it requires a landing ship medium, 
which the request for proposal is out to industry now, so I 
will be mindful not to get ahead of myself.
    But as the Secretary said, the acquisition plan is the 
first LSM purchased in fiscal year 2025, and I am pleased with 
the fiscal year 2025 SCM plan that produces 11222. We just need 
a ship that meets our key performance parameters to go inter 
island and to be able to beach itself and to come off a beach, 
in order to carry these capabilities of long-range fires and 
sensing and making sense and passing to the Joint Force what 
the PRC is doing throughout the first island chain.

                                MARK 48S

    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you, last year we 
provided funding for 79 Mark 48 torpedoes. And you requested 79 
more. Is that enough, is that too much? How important is that 
stock?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. The Navy could always use 
more. There is no question about that. I think that the 79 that 
we have requested is in line with what industry can properly 
produce at this time. And so, without creating opportunity 
costs in the future, I think it is the right number for now. 
But I think that continued investments in the submarine 
industrial base to be able to help increase the production of 
Mark 48s. In addition to many other missile systems as well, 
too, that we need in greater numbers is the right approach in 
2025.
    Mr. Rogers. I thank you. Thanks for your service to your 
country. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kilmer.

                             SIOP BANDWIDTH

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thanks for being 
with us, Secretary Del Toro and Admiral Franchetti.
    As you know, our public shipyards are incredibly important 
for readiness, including Puget in my neck of the woods. And 
thank you for visiting. We have discussed the importance of the 
Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, which is 
multiyear, multibillion dollar effort to modernize our 
shipyards.
    In my neck of the woods we have been dealing both with SIOP 
bandwidth, some seismic challenges, which frankly, you know, 
due to some fast-action hundreds of millions of dollars from 
Navy's O&M accounts were deployed to repair three of the 
highest priority dry docks.
    So I have a few questions on this front. First how do we 
ensure that SIOP remains on track while also addressing the 
seismic mitigation efforts? And is the $2.8 billion requested 
for fiscal year 2025 sufficient?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, I do believe it is 
sufficient for this year. We have made progress on the multiple 
projects that we have across all the four public shipyards. I 
am particularly pleased with the collaboration that existed 
between the local community and the Navy and being able to 
execute the seismic repairs that we had to conduct last year. 
We have done most professionally, most expeditiously in order 
to preserve the operation of that particular dry dock.
    As you know, the dry dock programs are all phased in. There 
will be more money that will be needed outside the FYDP for 
SIOP investment. There is no question in my mind about that. 
But I want to make sure that those projects are properly costed 
early on, so that we have a full understanding of how much 
resources will be needed before we actually make those requests 
of Congress, and perhaps I could ask the CNO to also comment.
    Admiral Franchetti. Thank you. I just wanted to add I was 
just out last week in Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and, you 
know, it is really good to see that Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard 
has learned from Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. So there are a lot 
of lessons learned through that first SIOP project are actually 
being transferred over there. And I know as we continue to 
design the two other SIOP projects that that continued lessons 
learned sharing will occur. I think the other pieces all the 
new dry docks are designed for all the seismic standards that 
we can anticipate. So again, I think that is already being 
planned in the design.

                   PUGET SOUND MULTI-MISSION DRY DECK

    Mr. Kilmer. Probably the big decision that needs to be made 
for Puget is the multi-mission dry dock. Do you have a sense of 
the timing, how close is the Navy to making a decision 
regarding the construction of the MVT2? And how will that 
impact programming and planning for the necessary work?
    Secretary Del Toro. I have to get back to you with 
specifics on the timing. I don't want to misspeak.

                       CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTERS

    Mr. Kilmer. All right. The other thing I wanted to ask you 
about was a workforce issue, the demand for additional child 
development centers with supporting staff has really exceeded 
the supply and installations in my State. Childcare in 
Washington State costs, on average, $1,000 per kid per month. I 
have heard real concerns from the workers at the shipyard, you 
know, the combination of relatively lower wages, high cost of 
housing the cost and lack of availability of childcare is 
really creating concerns, both with regard to recruitment into 
the shipyard workforce, but also being able to hang on to the 
folks that work there. So what do we do? How do we plan to 
assist in terms of addressing this need, both for 
servicemembers and for employees, who are looking for something 
to do with their kids? And are there plans to increase CDC's 
nationwide? Should we be looking at community partnerships? How 
do we handle this?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, I am aware of the 
difficulties actually that exist in the Pacific Northwest on 
this particular issue. I am very proud that over the course of 
the last year, the Navy and Marine Corps have made enormous 
progress on this. The 2025 budget actually has four CDCs in the 
Marine Corps, and four additional CDCs in the Navy. There are 
also an additional 12 that are actually baked into the FYDP 
across the board, but just in the last year alone, we have gone 
from a combined shortfall of 11,000 families that have been 
needing seats and CDCs basically spots in CDCs to 3,400 in the 
Navy, and 900 in the Marine Corps.
    That is an enormous change and it has also been fostered by 
the support that we have gotten for Congress, for example, in 
being able to provide families with additional moneys so that 
they could subsidize private CDC care as well, too. So I think 
we are making a marked difference from where we were just even 
a year ago, but we will need to continue to make more 
investments, particularly in the Pacific Northwest to 
accommodate this challenge. Do you want to comment further?
    Admiral Franchetti. I was just going to add in addition to 
the creating new spaces by MILCON, or building now centers or 
renovating old ones, part of the challenges, the workforce.
    Mr. Kilmer. Staff.
    Admiral Franchetti. The staff itself. We are about 88 
percent manned right now, and that is improvement from where we 
were, but that's about making sure that we are paying people 
the amount that is commensurate with what they could make out 
in town for that same thing. So we are incentivizing them by 
having a discount for their own kids to be able to be able to 
go to that childcare as well as providing more like a career 
path, so they can have retention bonuses, they can move the 
different CDCs if their spouse moves to another duty station.
    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Womack.

                   MEDIUM RANGE INTERCEPT CAPABILITY

    Mr. Womack. I have to respond to my friend Dutch's comments 
about no water around West Point. Obviously, you were not there 
on Sunday, July 9 when 500-year storm flooded virtually that 
entire campus, lots of damage.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. That is just one storm.
    Mr. Womack. Of note, Dutch, I have to commend the West 
Point leadership for doing some resiliency stuff. They have now 
protected the area on which the commander in chief's trophy 
which sit so that any future 500-year storms will not----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. What about the scholastic----
    Mr. Womack. I am not going to yield any time to you.
    I also add my thanks to the panel here this morning in what 
terrific service you render this country. We are eternally 
grateful.
    Mr. Commandant, I want to jump down in the weeds on one 
program if I have time with the CNO. I want to talk a little 
bit about that Medium Range Intercept Capability, MRIC, we have 
put money into that program. And I know it is a vital piece of 
your force design. I want to give you an opportunity to talk 
about it in the innovative strategy Marine Corps has to 
implement and partner with Israel and bring this capability to 
the Corps.
    General Smith. Mr. Womack, thank you for the question. We 
are using an Israeli Tamir missile paired with a TPS-80 G/ATOR 
radar to sense and make sense of inbound threats and take 
actions at great ranges. So the relationship is good with this 
Tamir missile. It fits our needs. It is light enough to be 
transported, and it has the range we require to protect our 
forces when paired with the TPS-80 G/ATOR radar.
    And I can come back to you in a classified setting and tell 
you the size of the targets that the TPS-80 radar can detect. 
But in an unclassified setting, I can say that--well, I'll be 
mindful in the unclassified setting, but it is an incredibly 
powerful radar, and the Tamir missile is an incredibly good 
partner to that TPS-80 radar.
    Mr. Womack. Yeah. And look, I appreciate the fact that you 
were willing to take a proven capability, and to us here that 
sit on this committee, that is very important.

                       TOMAHAWK MISSILE CAPACITY

    Admiral Franchetti, I want to ask a Tomahawk question. We 
all know the Tomahawk missile has demonstrated its continued 
utility in recent strikes against Houthi targets. I understand 
you expended a significant amount of Tomahawks in those 
strikes. Glad to see we are trying to degrade Houthi 
capabilities even in a limited way. The Houthis and all of the 
Iranian proxies are like that old schoolyard bully. They only 
understand strength, and they need to be--we need to punch 
back. I hope we see increased strikes to destroy their 
capability.
    To that end, I have noticed that while the Navy's 2025 
budget request includes Tomahawk modifications and research, it 
does not include any new production Tomahawks. Army, Marine 
Corps, on the other hand, are buying new production missiles. I 
understand the Navy does not believe it can buy any new 
production Tomahawks given the Army, Marine Corps, and 
recertification efforts. To that end, what investments do we 
need to make to expand our Tomahawk capacity?
    Admiral Franchetti. Well, thank you. And, again, the 
Tomahawk really is the premiere strike, land strike weapon. And 
we continue to really be impressed by its capability. And in 
our budget, we actually are buying new--in the fiscal year--in 
the PB 2025 we are actually procuring about 181 new Tomahawks, 
as well as doing recertifications for about 1,800 of those 
Tomahawks, and that will also include 306 maritime strike 
Tomahawks. So again, we believe this is a weapon that we need 
to continue to invest in.
    I think, more broadly, you know, as we talked about 
infrastructure investments, we also have made significant 
investments in things like munitions over the last few years, 
and we appreciate the multiyear authorities that we have to do 
that. And again, when you talk about what do we need to do to 
get after the pacing threat of China, having ready players 
means having munitions and enough munitions to be able to 
prevent--to provide a credible combat deterrent. And, again, we 
really appreciate the support for all the munitions 
investments, including Tomahawk.
    Mr. Womack. Yeah. I thank you.
    With 30 seconds, I will yield back to my chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Case, you are recognized.

                                RED HILL

    Mr. Case. Thank you very much.
    Good to see you all.
    Admiral, good to see you again. Hope you had a good trip to 
Hawaii.
    Mr. Secretary. Let me focus a little bit on Red Hill, Mr. 
Secretary, if I could. We have had a momentous change recently 
from the Joint Task Force Pearl Harbor, or Red Hill, I should 
say. It is now exclusively, again, in the Navy's kuleana as we 
say in Hawaii, jurisdiction, and that is a development that we 
all have to be very careful about because, of course, it was on 
the Navy's watch that it happened to start with. I think we 
would all agree the Joint Task Force Red Hill was very 
successful, at least that is my view, and I think it is most 
people's views.
    We are now back to the Navy itself. Good, solid start, but 
a lot of things to watch for. And one of the things that has 
been concerning to me is that we had actually gotten Red Hill 
into a very focused line item in our budgets, and that is no 
longer the case in the current budgets. It is now split up, 
again, among the various components. And so, it is hard to 
track what is actually being put into Pearl Harbor. And I 
suspect it is very hard to supervise as well, and that is why 
we went there to start with during the original decision to 
focus everything into one line item.
    How are we going to be sure that your efforts on Joint Task 
Force Navy in the next steps of Red Hill are, in fact, 
coordinated, synchronized across numerous budget lines?
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, Congressman, first of all, let me 
thank you for your leadership ensuring that the Department of 
Defense and the Department of the Navy have the necessary funds 
through the supplemental that was enacted for us to be able to 
accomplish the very important mission at Red Hill.
    But let me also reassure you, Congressman, the Navy has 
never been absent from Red Hill. We have been there from the 
very beginning as part of the Joint Task Force, making up most 
of the Joint Task Force, and most of the leadership of the 
Joint Task Force, whether it be Admiral Aquilino, Admiral 
Paparo, now Admiral Koehler, Vice Admiral Wade, Rear Admiral 
Barnett, they have all been engaged, as have I, as well, too, 
from the very beginning. And you have my strong commitment to 
continue to be as engaged today as I was in the very beginning 
to ensure that we safely take care of the servicemembers in 
Hawaii and the people of Hawaii, which is our number one 
responsibility, to act with caution and safety always first and 
foremost in their mind.
    We have made major changes to the C2 structure at Red Hill 
and all our fuel depots and installations across the Navy, in 
fact, as a result of some of the lessons that we learned at Red 
Hill. The funding is sound to be able to fulfill the remaining 
mission there. We have 35,000 gallons of sludge that still 
needs to be removed from the bottom of the tanks. We need to 
clean the tanks, decommission the tanks. We need to disable the 
10 miles of pipeline actually between the tanks and Pearl 
Harbor itself, and then we need to remediate the ground around 
Red Hill in order to make it completely safe for the people of 
Hawaii and our servicemembers.
    We are tracking every issue at Red Hill extremely 
cautiously, from the very top of the Department of the Navy, 
down to the lowest person who is working there at Red Hill 
itself, and has the ultimate attention of both the CNO, myself, 
and the continued leadership out at Red Hill. And I was very 
proud to go to--and visit during the transfer of authorities at 
Red Hill and meet with the community while I was there as well. 
And so, the challenge continues, and we will be there on the 
ground doing everything that we can responsibly to remediate 
what needs to be done at Red Hill.
    Mr. Case. I didn't mean to leave the Navy out of my 
reference to the Joint Task Force Red Hill. I do commend the 
Navy for your actions in Joint Task Force in Red Hill, and I do 
realize that you had a leadership role. You personally have 
always been very transparent, very dedicated to this, so I 
didn't want to leave that point unresponded to.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Case. I get that. What about my basic question though, 
is how are you actually going to coordinate the budget 
authorities that you need? How are you going to be able to 
track what--who needs what and prioritize it across a number of 
line items again as opposed to one single line item where we 
can track it and you can track it?
    Secretary Del Toro. No, sir, we are tracking it very 
closely. And, of course, the supplemental had one line item 
associated with it, but all the underlying activities that 
continued at Red Hill still had multiple line items. And both 
myself through the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Meredith 
Berger for EI&E are tracking those line items ensuring that 
they are fully funded, there is not going to be any withdrawal 
from full funding to do everything that we need to do there, as 
well as the CNO, who is also tracking it on the uniform side as 
well, too, and the leadership there on the ground and Admiral 
Barnett as well.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Calvert. Judge Carter, you are recognized.

                          FRIGATE COMMITMENTS

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, and thank you very much. We are all concerned 
about the shipbuilding with the submarines and other things, 
but you are also starting to build frigates. Is that correct? 
And you did away with all your frigates and now you are 
bringing back frigates.
    I chaired MILCON--I mean, I chaired Homeland for a while, 
and we built what everybody told me in the National Defense 
Cutter, basically a frigate, just outfitted for--basically it 
was outfitted for the Coast Guard not the Navy. Is there 
anything--do you believe--do you agree that that largest ship 
that they built is basically a frigate? And if so, are you 
looking to people that have that kind of experience that maybe 
they could build up the--speed up the--and be geared up to 
build frigates in the future? Is there any--anything that I--am 
I just speaking out of my--out of stupidity, or is that a 
reality that that ship that they built for the National Defense 
Cutter was basically a frigate?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congressman, if you are referring to 
the Constellation-class frigate that we have committed to, 
absolutely so. It is absolutely the right decision to build 
that ship. My very first ship in the Navy was a Garcia-class 
frigate, and I will tell you that this frigate is 10 times more 
capable than my old Garcia-class frigate was. And so, we are 
committed to the frigate.
    I think the Congress and the Navy made the right decision 
when we actually decided to also add additional SM-6 capability 
to the frigate as well, too, which will make it even that more 
capable as a multimission platform. It is what the Navy should 
have committed to actually 20 years ago. We are late to the 
game, but moving forward, it is absolutely the right 
investment.
    CNO, would you like to further comment?
    Admiral Franchetti. Just, you know, the frigate really has, 
for a long time, been the workhorse of our fleet. We are really 
excited about getting that capability in there. You know, we 
are--have been able to work with the allied frigates all around 
the world, especially the FREMM-class frigate, and, again, 
incorporating a lot of those technologies that they will be 
building into our frigate up in Marinette. It is very exciting 
to get that ship under construction.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.

                              3D PRINTING

    General, I have got a question for you. In the Pacific, we 
are basically going to be outfitting the islands with supplies 
and rebuilding runways for--so that if the Marines have to come 
quickly to a location, they could land a plane at a specific 
location. And I have been out there once looking at this stuff, 
and I will be out there again in about a month and a half, or 2 
months. Have you ever considered using 3D printing for building 
runways? They can build a house in like 2 days.
    Have you ever looked at 3D printing for the building of 
runways and load dwellings on these islands where basically you 
don't need it until you need it, and then is the Marines going 
to need to be moving both by sea and by air to respond to 
issues that are out there?
    General Smith. Congressman, thanks for that question. We 
have considered the expanse of the Pacific, and we have 
surveyed all of the runways and potential runways that we can 
use, which is why we have--I won't say we have begun to print 
runways, but we have begun to do additive manufacturing and 
digital printing of parts of aircraft and we have--we call it 
mobile matting, which is a replaceable, nonpermanent runway 
that we can lay down.
    The additive manufacturing is more for parts for engines, 
but the reason that we have our Harriers is precisely that they 
can land in a basketball court. But we have surveyed the vast 
amount of runways and we know where they are, and we have our 
mobile construction battalions along with our CBs, where we can 
repair them quickly to allow our aircraft to land.
    Mr. Carter. So you just basically work with what you have 
got?
    General Smith. We do, sir.
    Mr. Carter. All right. Well, I would like for you to at 
least look at 3D printing for various things you are doing 
because it is the future.
    General Smith. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carter. It really is the future as far as quick 
building with the very strong building materials, and the 
building materials that are available on those islands fit 
perfectly with what they do and they have portable units. I am 
not pushing any company. I just watched multiple companies 
build houses and dwellings in 2 days. That's pretty fast.
    General Smith. Yes, sir. You have my commitment that we are 
experimenting with and looking into all of those things because 
we need runways that are--can take a hit, be repaired quickly, 
and land our aircraft, to include our F-18 Hornets.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you. Yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Judge.
    Marcy, you are just in time. You are recognized for 5 
minutes.

                      GREAT LAKES NAVAL RECRUITING

    Ms. Kaptur. I have got to remember which subcommittee I am 
in. I am sorry. I have been running around. I think the 
leadership, now that Chairman Cole will be in charge, could 
plan the schedule in a way that we can give proper courtesy to 
those that come before us. That is just an observation.
    All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
    The first question I have is of the Secretary. I kindly 
gave some of your staff that are accompanying you maps of the 
Great Lakes, and I need your help with some information. I am 
looking at your recruitment numbers, both for the Navy and the 
Corps, Marine Corps. I notice they are down significantly, and 
I am sure others have asked this question, but I am interested 
in drawing to your attention that in some places in the 
country, such as the Great Lakes where you receive many, many, 
many enlistments, the investments of the Navy are not very 
stellar.
    Maybe over in the Chicago area for the Great Lakes 
investment of the Navy, you know, fine. But over where I come 
from, where we join Canada in the Great Lakes system, we have 
really been shortchanged by the Navy. I am just being very 
honest. And we had a big armory years ago. They--it still sits 
in the Bay. But I am just asking you to kindly look at the 
places in the country where you have high recruitment levels, 
and they could be better, but maybe the Navy could do something 
as well.
    And I have been working for 10 years with the Department of 
Defense and failed to be able to bring home a program like 
Starbase. And the excuse we are constantly given is, Well, you 
know, we can't bring it there because you don't have a base. We 
only work when you can be on base. Well, what if the Navy 
hasn't given us any kind of base? How do we succeed? So if we 
are trying to provide a pipeline, help us.
    You don't have to answer that question. I am just giving 
you a problem, and I'm really tired of it, because I think that 
our people distinguish themselves with military service. In 
fact, I am going to a big Marine Corps breakfast in about 2 
weeks, and so, those who have served the Corps, you couldn't 
find better Americans anywhere. But I just am asking you to 
take a look at your assets.
    Over in Lorain, Ohio, which I don't any longer represent, 
we have facilities there that could--the Navy might use to 
speed up your shipbuilding program. All I am asking is, look at 
us. What can we offer? I think the Great Lakes have been 
shortchanged. Maybe Ranking Member McCollum has a different 
experience up in Minnesota. I don't know. But, you know, 
California does real well, and I understand that they have got 
the Pacific Ocean, but we have got another kind of ocean, and 
it is going to become more important with what is happening 
with climate change. So I just ask you to take a look at that.

                         CIVILIAN POWER PLANTS

    And the other question you might be able to answer on the 
record, I represent northwest Ohio, where one of the two 
commercial nuclear power plants at the center of Ohio's largest 
public corruption scandal is located. And this plant called 
Davis-Besse has had a long and troubled history of safety 
violations under the ownership of FirstEnergy and its 
subsidiaries. It is tragic really.
    Back in 1986, when a series of pumps and valves failed and 
caused a temporary loss of coolant water to the Reactor Core, 
retired U.S. Navy Admiral Joe Williams, former commander of the 
U.S. Atlantic submarine fleet, and the NATO submarine fleet was 
brought in at my request to reform the plant and its safety 
culture. He is the only person I have known in 41 years that 
did the right job there. The rest of them are corrupt. They are 
going to jail. Horrible things are happening in Ohio now in the 
Federal courts with the people that perpetrated these crimes.
    But witnessing his leadership in the aftermath of this 
egregious event has made me a lifelong admirer of the nuclear 
Navy. If only his leadership could have continued at the plant, 
perhaps my constituents would have been spared living through 
the worst nuclear safety incidents since Three Mile Island, 
when in 2002 a pineapple-size hole was found in Davis-Besse's 
reactor head.
    Given the preeminent expertise in the field, can you 
describe how the nuclear Navy engages with civilian power 
plants? If you can't do it today, provide it for the record. 
And does it maintain relationships with such plants across our 
country?
    Secretary Del Toro. Congresswoman, I would be happy to come 
back to you with a submission on the record, specifically how 
we interact. However, most of the responsibilities for 
operating the civilian power plants, as you know, fall under 
the Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 
But certainly, I will give you specifics as to where the 
intersections actually lie, and perhaps what we can do to at 
least bring awareness of how much we actually focus on safety 
as the most important issue with regards to the operation of 
our nuclear power plants and the high standards that we impose 
on all our nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers as we 
operate them safely around the globe.
    Mr. Calvert. Appreciate the Secretary for getting back with 
Ms. Kaptur with a written response on that.
    And with that, I recognize Mr. Diaz-Balart.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                      PRIVATE SHIPYARD UTILIZATION

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And Mr. Secretary and Admiral and General, thank you. 
Sincerely, thank you for your service to this amazing country 
of ours.
    You know, the 2 weeks that we were not here, one of the 
things I did is I visited a number of private shipyards, and it 
seems to me that the Navy is not fully utilizing our own 
private shipyards. And since--as we all know, since 1993, the 
number of public shipyards has actually shrank from eight to 
four with, frankly, limited, you know, functional dry docks and 
obviously we had the issues of delayed maintenance schedules 
for our fleet.
    Fortunately, that is augmented by 22 private shipyards, but 
even there, three shipyards have left the industry and only one 
new shipyard I think has been built since, I guess, since the 
1960s, right, since 1960. And so it would seem to me that since 
we are falling behind in maintenance, what is it now, we are 
looking at 20 years behind maintenance, right, something like 
that? I mean, whatever it is----
    Secretary Del Toro. I wouldn't agree with that number, but 
we are.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Well, yeah, and it'd be great to get the 
actual number, not right now, but just where we are. But I 
think there is pretty much an agreement that we are not where 
we need to be, right. And so I am just curious, why are we--or 
am I wrong that we are not fully using our own, you know, 
private shipyards? We keep hearing about the industrial base, 
obviously, which is a real issue. But I think there is some 
inconsistency in how we are using them, and I actually 
witnessed some, you know, open areas there that they are kind 
of waiting for a ship to come in and--so there seems to be some 
inconsistency potentially in scheduling. So just if you could 
help me kind of understand, what--how can we do a better job 
utilizing those shipyards?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Congressman. First, let me say, we 
are maximizing the use of our private shipyards. There may be 
smaller shipyards that perhaps have not been able to 
successfully compete for contracts and we would be more than 
happy to work with your office to identify if any, for example, 
in Florida who may have had challenges in competing for smaller 
shipyard contracts. Obviously, all shipyards are not capable or 
certified to work on nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, 
and this is part of the problem. We want to help as many small- 
and medium-size shipyards become certified to be able to work 
as subcontractors to the major primes so that they can more 
fully engage in doing the shipyard work itself.
    But just in the President's budget for 2025, we have $14 
billion that have been invested in maintenance across these 
shipyards, and we have 57 actual availability--excuse me, 58 
availabilities for private shipyards, both for submarine work 
and surface craft work, large and small. So we are making 
maximum advantage of the capacity of our shipyards.
    But again, as the Secretary of the Navy, my job is to keep 
ships at sea, not to have them in shipyards all the time 
either, and so I want to be able to minimize the amount of time 
that they actually are in shipyards by making those shipyards 
as efficient as humanly possible. And that is part of the 
submarine investment in the industrial base of $14 billion over 
the next 5 years and $750 million on the surface ship side.
    So we are perfectly willing to work with your office, 
Congressman, if there are shipyards in Florida or other 
shipyards that you may be aware of, including Bartlett in Ohio, 
Congresswoman. I am more than happy to work with Bartlett to 
have them be more effective and actually integrating into the 
supply chain for all shipyards to get them to a better place.
    And I have been actively going around the country visiting 
shipyards in Maryland and Philadelphia and all across the 
country, so I am willing to continue those efforts to integrate 
even more into our supply chain.

                     INCREASING TORPEDO CAPABILITY

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Great. Great. I have a minute left. Let me 
just follow up with what the Dean of the House asked about 
torpedoes and you answered. And, I believe, Mr. Secretary, you 
talked about that is what we can do now with the current 
capability out there, right. Is there anything that we can do 
to increase that capability of--to increase our capability to 
build torpedoes? It would seem to me obviously that, if we are 
dealing with an issue in the Indo-Pacific, we are going to need 
some large numbers, right? And anything that we need to be 
doing on our side to increase that capability of manufacturing 
of building of--of producing torpedoes.
    Secretary Del Toro. Well, continued investment into the 
supply chain is always welcome. I mean, I fully understand 
that, again, we are restricted by the Fiscal Responsibility Act 
this year in terms of the choices that we can make, but 
additional investments on the civilian side and to those 
companies is always welcome.
    Perhaps the CNO could comment further on the torpedo issue.
    Admiral Franchetti. Again, I think it is--for the suppliers 
and the supplier base, it is really about increasing the 
throughput. So, again, you know, it takes a long time to make a 
torpedo. How can we make them more quickly, more effectively, 
and that will help us get more munitions that we need out there 
into our units.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for going 8 
seconds over my time. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. We will forgive you.
    Mr. Garcia.

                          JUNIOR ENLISTED PAY

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you, all, for your service to this beautiful country.
    I personally have no doubt that we would win a war against 
China. I think it would be protracted, very bloody, extended, 
probably not popular after time. But I do believe that because 
of the Marines with the rifles and the sailors who launch and 
project power overseas from carriers and vertical launch tubes 
that we would win that war.
    What I do have concerns about is our ability to deter that 
war, and frankly the pivot to the Pacific has not been fully 
realized, and I think that is, by any metric that you look at, 
a reality. We are either falling behind or losing our lead 
relative to China. The most important weapons system, in my 
opinion, and frankly did not get enough attention today, is 
that young Marine, that young sailor, the young Army soldier, 
the junior enlisted E1 through E6.
    In California, they just raised the minimum wage to $20 an 
hour last week, okay. And so that means that a McDonald's 
worker, right now, his starting salary is making almost double 
what an E1 makes when they join the Navy. Now, that doesn't 
account for housing, BAH, BAS, and all these things, but those 
incentives are also lagging, right. BAH in San Diego is not 
keeping up with the pace at home value.
    So I would encourage you to--you have got on the 
President's budget request a 4.5 percent increase in base pay. 
I would encourage you to look at my RAISE Act, which takes the 
starting salary of an E1 from $22,000 and brings it up to 
$31,000, which at least gets it to that $15 equivalent per 
hour, okay. It compresses the pay table, so that doesn't ripple 
all the way up. General, you are not going to get that kind of 
raise, but the E1s through E6s deserve that raise to get above 
the poverty line to get off of food stamps. The request is that 
you support that, and we are going to try to work that through 
Congress.

                  MILITARY SPOUSE LICENSING RELIEF LAW

    The other request I have is that you continue to remind the 
young marines and sailors that the military spouse licensing 
relief law is now law of the land. Spouses who have a 
professional license should be able to get reciprocity across 
State lines. As I visit units, they don't know that, so we need 
to do a better job making sure that our troops know that the 
spouses should be able to just cross-debt their licenses across 
State lines, if they are a real estate agent, nurse, doctor, 
teacher, whatever it is.
    A lot of talk today about shipbuilding. I am more concerned 
about ship readiness in the fleet. And, Secretary, you 
mentioned, you know, getting as many ships to sea as we can. 
That is the metric you look at. As my classmates start becoming 
one- and two-star admirals, they start becoming skippers of 
amphibs and aircraft carriers. I am hearing stories that are 
frankly just blowing my mind, and we visited Seventh Fleet, 
what, last year and the Seventh Fleet commander was talking 
about cannibalizing cruisers to make destroyers whole or vice 
versa. The metrics are bad.
    So we are going to submit a series of questions for the 
record that I would like to get a better understanding of what 
our troop readiness issues are, specifically in the INDOPACOM 
region, specifically around Japan and Seventh Fleet.
    In the aviation community, we use the FMC versus, you know, 
partial mission--full mission capability versus partial 
mission. I think the metrics are not just bad, but I also think 
that the metrics are not truly honest. And I am not accusing 
anyone of gun decking their logs here, but our readiness 
levels, when it comes to the ship availability numbers, is 
below where it needs to be, so we are going to submit some 
information--or some questions for the record for that.
    The repair issue, Secretary, I agree. The only thing I 
disagree with you is that the overseas ship repair capabilities 
and the partnerships with other countries should not begin 
today. It should have begun 10 years ago, to be honest. We need 
to lower the classifications of sensitivity levels of some of 
these repairs. I know that is not your fault, but we need to 
accelerate that and make sure that we are doing that mindfully.
    So just to sum up, a couple asks, support for higher pay 
for junior enlisted, especially the RAISE Act. We are going to 
be continuing to fight that fight. That was in the HAC-D bill 
last year. The Senate stripped it out, and unfortunately, it 
didn't come to the floor in the end, in the final version. We 
have a lot of metrics that we are falling behind in, and 
recruitment is probably one of the most scary metrics that we 
are falling behind on.

                        STRIKE FIGHTER SHORTFALL

    If I can ask a question here, Mr. Secretary, what is the 
status of the strike fighter shortfall? This has been a well-
documented issue. I thank you for finally getting the prime on 
contract for the Hornets. We lost three as a result of all that 
churn. The American taxpayers are now getting 17 instead of 20, 
but if you can comment on the status of the strike fighter 
shortfall and what are the plans to mitigate that moving 
forward?
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, Congressman. You covered a lot of 
ground. I am not sure I can answer it all in a short period of 
time, but I certainly would welcome submitting responses.
    Mr. Garcia. I will submit all of the other QFRs and just 
the strike fighter shortfall.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. Be happy to do that. But 
thank you on your leadership on the strike fighter shortfall. 
Actually, the strike fighter shortfall will be down to zero, I 
think, by the end of 2025, and so that is a tremendous 
accomplishment, and I attribute it so much to actually being 
able to extend the service life of F-18, which has been an 
extremely successful program in the Department of the Navy due 
to the investments that Congress has made on depot-level 
maintenance for on the aircraft side as well, too. So that is 
very, very exciting.
    I think the bigger challenge that we face on the aviation 
side is actually getting to tech refresh three on the F-35 side 
with Lockheed Martin, and I am hopeful that, of course, by the 
end of this year that we will overcome those challenges so that 
we can actually get those F-35s back into the fleet. But we 
will actually have a zero fighter shortfall by the end of 
fiscal year 2025, and it is a testimony to the aviation 
community and Department of the Navy and Marine Corps actually 
doing the things that they have done over these last several 
years.
    CNO, would you like to further comment?
    Mr. Calvert. Well, when you get back with some of the 
written responses to the gentleman, that would be great.
    And, again, we appreciate getting those 17 Hornets under 
contract finally.
    Secretary Del Toro. Yes, sir. And by the way, there is a 
huge advantage--forgive me, my mic wasn't on. There is a huge 
advantage actually, because, well, the big success of the 
Boeing negotiation--and I am thankful to Boeing for having 
finally closed a deal with us--is the advantage that we get 
from the data package actually, which is enormous. Protecting 
the--getting the intellectual property rights to those jets so 
that we can actually conduct emergency repairs on them in the 
future should it be forward is a huge, huge advantage, and that 
is the big return on investment that the taxpayers are getting 
out of this as well, too. And hopefully, it will also serve as 
an example for future negotiations on MQ-25, which will be 
extremely important moving forward.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Aguilar, you are recognized.

                       SUBMARINE INDUSTRIAL BASE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairman Calvert. Apologies for 
stepping away. I had a press conference to attend. And the 
first question I got was about Mr. Cole, so I wanted to--I said 
some nice things. In the spirit of our committee, I said some 
very, very nice things about our colleague, Mr. Cole. 
Congratulations to you. We all look forward to working with you 
and your leadership here, as well, working with Chairman 
Calvert and Ranking Members McCollum and DeLauro.
    Mr. Secretary, I wanted to start where you started, which 
is the national security supplemental we know included $3.4 
billion to support the Submarine Industrial Base. What happens, 
what is the impact if this doesn't pass, and can you talk to me 
about how the funding would affect specifically our AUKUS 
relationship and those commitments?
    Secretary Del Toro. Thank you, Congressman. Our goal is to 
get to 2.3 on Virginia-class submarines as just one example. 
And so these Submarine Industrial Base investments are critical 
in order to help the industry get there with--under our 
oversight. So if we don't get the $3.3 billion in additional 
supplemental money, that means that we will have to actually 
slow down the workforce training programs, the advance 
manufacturing programs that we hope to implement over the 
course of the next year or so, and it will simply slow the 
process of us being able to get there, and that is why it is so 
critically important to have this supplemental pass in Congress 
in addition to the support that we need to provide, the $60 
billion or so that we need to provide our Ukrainian brothers 
and sisters who are fighting for our freedom in Ukraine.

                     ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING CENTER

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, a critical component 
that we have spent some time here, and I appreciate the 
conversation talking about recruiting on retaining skilled 
workforce.
    Admiral, I did want to ask you if you have anything to 
offer on the national security supplemental, please feel free. 
But specific to the Additive Manufacturing Center for 
Excellence, you know, are we beginning to see the results of 
these efforts? What is the retention level of those recruited? 
What does the future of that, you know, look like as well?
    Admiral Franchetti. Thank you. And just on the 
supplemental, you know, it is really important to maintain the 
momentum. So, you know, we have made investments over the last 
couple of years. This continues that momentum. And again, it 
has taken a little bit of time for these investments really to 
percolate through the system to be able to have the effects we 
are trying to achieve to increase the throughput, both in the 
Submarine Industrial Base and, as the Secretary mentioned 
earlier, in our shipbuilding industrial base for surface ships.
    On the Danville center, you know, this is one of the many 
initiatives we have working with industry to create a pipeline, 
you know, for the workforce to be able to come from wherever 
they are, enter one of these training programs that is, you 
know, it is a State industry Navy partnership to be able to 
come out with a certification and a direct path into a job. So 
we are really excited about both of these pathways, as well as 
the promise of additive manufacturing and the different 
opportunities that it is going to give us going forward. So, 
again, these investments really help, I think, uplift the 
entire workforce that will be able to help us in any one of our 
shipyards going forward.
    Mr. Aguilar. Can you talk about other partnerships that we 
should know about, specifically as it involves our universities 
and existing, you know, institutions that you guys are working 
through and that you think could yield some benefit?
    Admiral Franchetti. Well, I think we have a lot of good 
relationships with different academia through different 
laboratories that we use. I would even say, some that you might 
not think about, which is partnering on getting out into the 
high schools and into middle schools with STEM, because, again, 
if we really want to grow our workforce, our engineering 
designers that we need in the future, there are different 
programs. RoboSub is a great example of one of those. You know, 
we are really getting kids interested early on in technology 
and really introducing themselves to the Navy, to academia, and 
then really engineering and design.
    So I think beyond just the ones that we are doing with 
industry and with State to produce the workforce we need at the 
more senior level, I think these are some good opportunities. 
There is also a lot of partnering going on with community 
colleges. And again, this is another place not just for 
recruiting but for training the workforce we need in the 
future.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, Admiral.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Ellzey.

                        RESUPPLY IN THE RED SEA

    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very honored and 
grateful to be on this subcommittee. And as a former Navy 
pilot, with my friend Mike Garcia, I am grateful that we are 
starting these budget hearings with the best service.
    I appreciate the three of you being here, but I would also 
like to point out someone who I have known since 1988 who I 
knew was destined for greatness and when she was my upper 
classman at the Academy. I don't remember too many of them, but 
I remember her, and I'm really proud of her, and I am proud to 
see her here, and that is Major General Shay. She is a great 
person and a great leader, and I am really, really glad to see 
you again.
    Mr. Garcia. He is your fault.
    Mr. Ellzey. From the top, bro.
    Bases, boats, barracks, and airplanes. This service, unlike 
most of them, has to leverage all those four things with the 
current requirements plus future requirements in a way that no 
other service has to. They really don't. And at some point, 
with limited abilities to pay for that stuff, something gets 
leveraged every once in a while, which is why we are seeing 
what is going on with our bases and our barracks as compared to 
our Air Force brethren that are just falling apart because we 
have to build new ships. We have to go fight at war.
    Every time we are in deployment we are on a wartime footing 
in the sea service, and you are forced to think about EW 
capabilities that we may or may not have but we need, contested 
logistics that we are dealing with from time to time and is 
going to be looming in the INDOPACOM, tanking which suddenly 
rears its ugly head with new scenarios, magazine capacity 
issues, construction of missiles, which aren't airplanes, but 
everything that we shoot off out of our aircraft or drop off 
of.
    Now with the Chinese capacity to out build us 10-to-1, 
those are issues that we always have concern. And admittedly, 
on our side, CRs, not passing the budgets that you have asked 
for, the FRA, and mandatory spending, which has eaten up more 
and more of our capacity over time.
    But you mentioned something, SecNav, about the competition 
for your blue-collar workers. So what we have with the 
shipbuilding and the industry versus what you are doing is the 
two in uniform are competing for the very same people that we 
need for that industrial complex. And when we are talking about 
where are we getting these folks when the number one killer of 
Americans at wartime numbers, similar to World War II, is 
fentanyl killing 200 Americans, aged 18 to 49 every day. That 
pool is getting thinner and thinner and thinner, so we have to 
find other ways to build that industrial base that may not be 
based on ours.
    And the two in uniform are in competition with police, law 
enforcement, welders, plumbers, trades, all across the country, 
and suddenly we find ourselves at a crisis of manpower 
capabilities for the blue-collar trades in our country. So it 
is a difficult problem to over--you can't buy yourself new 
people.
    Secretary Del Toro, I appreciate your frank dialogue on the 
industry and how to improve delivery in our shortfall.
    CNO, thank you for the opportunity to join you and Mr. Case 
on ICEX. It is a once-in-a-lifetime trip that I never intend to 
take again, but it was fantastic. I also want to commend you on 
getting more players on the field for autonomous platforms.
    And General, your work on the Marine Corps transformation 
is commendable. And even if you don't believe the warnings 
coming out of INDOPACOM, one only needs to look at Europe and 
the Middle East to see that we need to be approaching our 
defense needs through an immediate wartime lens because we are 
at war in the Red Sea with the Houthis. The Philippines is at 
war with China. We are at war with the cartels, and that must 
mean we must properly fund our force structure and deliver 
ships and aircraft on time and on budget.
    We also need to accelerate the fielding of new technology. 
On that front, it is good to see the Navy advancing the work of 
Disruptive Capabilities Office, and that is a game changer.
    Admiral, in the short time I have got left, because I 
tended to talk too much, are you pleased with the resupply in 
the Red Sea, and are there some needs that have manifested 
themselves in a way that we didn't foresee? Very quickly, 
please.
    Admiral Franchetti. Thank you. And I am really proud of our 
team operating the Red Sea. It is really years of investment 
that we have the equipment that is operating as it is designed. 
We have the people that are trained and ready to use it. I 
think on the capabilities that we think about for logistics and 
contested logistics and that theater and other theaters, I am 
really pleased with our logistics force as being able to 
deliver. We had been developing some expeditionary reload 
capabilities as well, and we have been able to put those in 
practice. And again, a lot of lessons that we can take to use 
in other theaters going forward.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Admiral.
    And, General, I am about out of time, but I did want to 
talk about contested logistics, and I will get those questions 
on the record. I didn't want to ignore you today, but I ran out 
of time. So contested logistics and aerial refueling capability 
in the Navy are questions I would like to see answered. I will 
submit those for the record. And thank you, all, for being 
here.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I just have some last comments and I will turn it over to 
the ranking member and then we will close it up.

                        DEFENSE INNOVATION UNIT

    But one thing, Mr. Secretary, and as you know, I have been 
talking about innovation for some time now, and certainly a 
high priority for me since I have come to Congress and for both 
of us, obviously. I think it is a collaborative effort on 
innovation across the services, certainly across the 
enterprise. And DIU, right now, is scaling manpower the support 
increased appropriations in fiscal year 2024 and going forward.
    Secretary, I would like to get your commitment you will 
support the DIU with the manpower billets and detailees as 
needed before we can get this program off to a robust start.
    Secretary Del Toro. Mr. Chairman, absolutely. I mean, we 
are really tied closely to DIU. In fact, when Replicator came 
out, we were probably one of the biggest contributors to the 
Replicator program with funding provided by DIU as well, too. 
So our Disruptive Capabilities Office is simply working side by 
side with DIU.
    Mr. Calvert. Yeah. I am hopeful that they don't use the DIU 
money that we just appropriated as a pay-for for all of this, 
but I would like to find some other avenues to pay for that 
with if we move forward on reprogramming.
    With that, Ms. McCollum.

                          RECRUITMENT FUNDING

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had a robust 
discussion in the office, and Mr. Garcia rightly points up the 
competition for pay.
    But I would like for you, Admiral and General, to kind of 
touch on--you have been successful with recruitment, but it is 
not--it is the barracks, it is the daycare, it is the 
healthcare, it is everything that we also have to account in 
our budget when we go to balance it at the end of the day. So 
recognizing that we have done bonuses, we need to do more. 
Could you maybe elaborate what you are hearing and what is 
keeping with recruitment and how we have to keep moving forward 
in making sure the funding is there for other those other 
things that are touching those sailors' and marines' lives that 
is making them stay. If you could just take a minute and do 
that as you did in my office, I would appreciate it.
    Admiral Franchetti. Well, thank you. I mean, I think, you 
know, our most important resource is our people. We can have 
great platforms. We can have all the good equipment. But if we 
don't have the people that can operate that, I think they are 
really our true secret weapon, and we really have to invest in 
their quality of service. And, you know, we have been very 
focused on making sure that we are a world-class employer, that 
we can attract and retain those people that will do that 
warfighting for us.
    You know, we have focused on improving our barracks, making 
sure they have a high-quality standard of living. We are 
working hard to improve 24-hour access to gyms, making sure 
that people have access to parking, making sure that we can put 
our mental healthcare providers, make them embedded with our 
units so people can quickly and easily access some of that 
healthcare that they need at their time of need.
    We are also working to make sure they have access to high-
quality food. We have just changed our policies so they can 
cook food in their rooms in the barracks. Again, that is 
something that is very meaningful for the younger generation 
being able to take care of themselves and, again, we want them 
to be able to have that standard of living.
    I think for our families, of course, we are focused, as I 
mentioned earlier, on childcare and making sure--access to 
childcare.
    And, again, I think the other thing we were looking hard is 
quality of life while ships are in shipyards, making sure that 
our sailors have an opportunity to serve at sea, that they 
don't spend their entire first enlistment while they are in a 
shipyard yard in the shipyard, that they get off and do what 
they joined the Navy to do, and also that they don't have to 
live on the ship when they are in an availability. So those 
were just some of the things that we are looking at.
    I would also--last one I would say is, younger people 
really love to have WiFi, access to WiFi, setting up a lot of 
pilots so we can make sure that people have access to free WiFi 
and things that they need to get their jobs done and their life 
taken care of.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you for your testimony.
    And, Mr. Garcia, we will figure out a way to balance all 
this out. I know we will. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And before we conclude, I would like to thank our 
witnesses.
    Mr. Secretary, as always, I appreciate your frankness and 
coming to meet with us in this committee.
    CNO, thank you again for your service, and Commandant. We 
appreciate all of you. We appreciate your service.
    If there is any questions for the--that you would like to 
be submitted, I would encourage the members to do so, and 
please respond in a reasonable amount of time.
    And with that, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

                                         Wednesday, April 10, 2024.

          FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE UNITED STATES ARMY

                               WITNESSES

HON. CHRISTINE E. WORMUTH, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
GENERAL RANDY A. GEORGE, CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE 
    ARMY

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Today the subcommittee will receive testimony on the 
posture of the United States Army.
    First, I would like to welcome our two witnesses, Secretary 
of the Army Christine Warmuth, and General Randy George, Chief 
of Staff of the Army. Thank you for joining us. We look forward 
to your testimony.
    The U.S. Army provides our Nation with our best fighting 
force in the world. We face a variety of threats from across 
the globe, which require a well-trained and well-equipped Army. 
As new threats evolve, it is imperative that we prioritize 
investments that not only contribute to current readiness but 
also provide us with a decisive advantage on any future 
battlefield.
    I am pleased to see your ongoing efforts to improve force 
posture in INDOPACOM, the over 70,000 soldiers serving in the 
region, your work with our regional allies and partners, and 
investments in critical munitions will help secure greater 
operational access to the region and provide a much needed 
deterrence posture. I look forward to discussing more about how 
your fiscal year 2025 budget request invests in the INDOPACOM 
theater.
    We are keenly aware of the need to modernize the Army of 
today and to address the great power competition in the future. 
And I appreciate this process began several years ago. I think 
you will agree that the subcommittee worked with you to balance 
supporting your strategy while ensuring that successful ongoing 
programs continue to receive an appropriate level of resources. 
However, I see a disturbing trend in the success rate of your 
modernization programs, particularly the Army's big dollar 
investments.
    I am thinking of $2 billion for a helicopter program that 
has now been canceled, a $3 billion long-range hypersonic 
weapon that has not yet had a successful test flight and was 
well past its fielding date, and $1 billion for a long-range 
artillery cannon that was recently canceled due to engineering 
challenges. That is $6 billion invested into three major 
programs, no operational capability. Imagine the number of 155 
rounds for other critical munitions we could have bought with 
that funding.
    I support innovation and modernization, but I would like to 
have a higher level of confidence that the Army is investing 
their limited budget appropriately. I am hoping you can tell us 
how you are scoping modernization to identify non-feasible 
programs earlier and working to incorporate successful 
technologies more rapidly.
    Threats from unmanned aerial systems are increasing, and 
the technology for these systems is also maturing at a rapid 
rate. We have watched this evolve during the past 2 years in 
Ukraine, and have unfortunately suffered the consequences of 
not addressing the threats of this technology as we continue to 
mourn the three U.S. soldiers who were killed in January at 
Tower 22.
    That is why I am a supporter of the efforts to rapidly 
prototype and field UAS and counter-UAS technologies. 
Initiatives like the deputy secretary's Replicator program are 
a step in the right direction. I understand that the Army is 
already leaning forward by investing in these capabilities. I 
am interested in learning more about your initiatives today. 
Modernized capabilities are only as good as the soldiers 
operating them.
    I was pleased to see that the fiscal year 2025 request 
includes significant funding for new and modernized barracks, 
as well as a sustainment cost to ensure that our soldiers have 
improved living conditions. I am interesting in hearing about 
these efforts, including receiving assurances from you that you 
are addressing important quality-of-life programs for all our 
soldiers worldwide. The Army continues to face recruiting 
challenges, and I would like to hear about your efforts to 
address that issue.
    Finally, I am pleased to see your recent investments in 
production lines to boost monthly deliveries of key munitions. 
The Army has overseen a significant transfer of equipment to 
Ukraine, and I applaud your efforts; however, I continue to be 
concerned about domestic stockpiles and therefore our readiness 
rates. I hope you will discuss today how your fiscal year 2025 
budget will improve the production of munitions and address any 
shortfalls that we may have in inventory.
    With that, I recognize the distinguished Ranking Member, 
Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the 
courtesy.
    Secretary Wormuth, General George, thank you for being here 
to testify before us today.
    General George, this is your first appearance before the 
committee. Welcome.
    The Department of Army's fiscal year 2025 budget request 
reflects the priorities for personnel and for procurement. At 
$182 billion the Army, again, is having to make difficult 
choices and what is essentially a flat line budget when not 
accounting for inflation. You are also managing personnel 
deployments to EUCOM, CENTCOM, and INDOPACOM, keeping our 
Nation safe in the face of threats from abroad all around the 
world.
    Well, the hearing today, we will cover a wide range of 
topics, but I want to highlight a few topics that are 
especially important to me: First is personnel. The Army 
continues to strive to meet recruiting goals, and we must do 
all that we can working together with you to assist you in this 
effort. I would like to hear an update on what programs and 
activities the request has included in it to address the 
recruitment challenges that the Army faces.
    Second, the Army has personnel deployed in Europe, in the 
Middle East, performing activities in support of Ukraine and to 
keep our troops safe in Iraq. But the funding for many of these 
activities all reside in the supplemental. Everyone here knows, 
and I think most of the committee, we strongly support a 
supplemental moving forward, but the House, as you know, 
continues to struggle with passing it.
    I am concerned that in order to cover these deployments the 
Army is now robbing Peter to pay Paul, or I could even say 
Elizabeth to pay Beth. And unless the supplemental funds are 
provided soon, the Army will have to restrict its activities 
for fiscal year 2025.
    Finally, the request for fiscal year 2025 includes 
increased investments in counter-unmanned systems. I would like 
to better understand how these investments will advance the 
Army's position on the battlefield, that given drone technology 
is constantly evolving at a rapid rate.
    I want to let you know that we stand ready to work together 
with you to give those who are on mission the equipment that 
they need to achieve success and come home safely. Thank you 
again to our witnesses for appearing here today. We appreciate 
your testimony and answers to our questions.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    I would like to now turn to the new chairman of the full 
committee and my good friend, Chairman Tom Cole. Mr. Chairman, 
again, congratulations, and the floor is yours.

                    Opening Remarks of Chairman Cole

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    China's military modernization efforts and increasing 
assertiveness have raised concerns about the potential for 
conflict with the United States. At the same time, Russia's 
continued unprovoked attack on Ukraine underscores the range of 
threats that we and our allies face. It is vital that the 
United States Army maintain a robust and responsive force 
posture to deter potential threats and ensure the safety and 
security of U.S. interest.
    The United States Army is faced with a variety of issues 
that demand our attention and require us to ensure that our 
soldiers are properly equipped and prepared to face the 
challenges of the 21st century.
    As chairman of the committee, I am committed to supporting 
our soldiers and ensuring that they have the resources they 
need to succeed. The Army must prioritize investment in modern 
aircraft, strategic long-range fires, ammunition and missiles, 
and trained personnel to support the force of today while also 
working to modernize the force for tomorrow.
    I look forward to your testimony, gentlemen, today, and the 
Army's plans to maintain and improve its capacity and 
capabilities, including the development of new technologies and 
programs to support our soldiers.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I would now like to turn to the ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro, for any opening 
comments.

                     Opening Remarks of Ms. DeLauro

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks to the ranking member.
    And let me offer my congratulations to the chair of the 
Appropriations Committee, a good and dear friend, Congressman 
Tom Cole. Look forward to our opportunities to work together on 
what is, in my view, the central committee at the center of the 
Federal Government in its role in what it does with regard to 
the American people. So, again, my congratulations.
    I want to say a thank you to today's witnesses, Secretary 
Wormuth and--General George, we had this conversation in the 
past. I am sorry that Iowa won and defeated the women at UCONN, 
but we will get another chance at this and so forth, so. But go 
Huskies, is all I can just say, General, but welcome. Welcome 
to you, my dear.
    I want to thank you both for your dedicated service to our 
Nation. You do keep our Nation safe. You keep our troops safe. 
You ensure that our allies are supported wherever democracy and 
freedom are threatened around the globe.
    Through the fiscal year 2025 budget, Congress has the duty 
to ensure the Army has the resources to be able to fulfill its 
mission to keep our country secure, our troops protected, and 
well equipped. The President's budget includes a $400 million 
increase for the Army that will ensure we are doing all that we 
can to support our soldiers and their families.
    I will get parochial for a moment. I am proud that in my 
district Sikorsky Aircraft manufactures the UH-60 Blackhawk, a 
utility helicopter that has been used by the U.S. Army and 
other military branches in numerous roles around the world 
since its introduction in 1979. So I am especially pleased that 
the President's budget includes $25 million for research and 
development to upgrade the Blackhawk platform, keeping it in 
service for many, many years to come.
    While we are here to discuss the 2025 budget, I must 
underscore how critical it is that Congress immediately pass a 
supplemental funding bill to address multiple ongoing national 
security concerns. It is as much for our national security 
issues, it is as much to provide aid to Ukraine and others, 
but, as well, it is the--what this means in terms of what is 
spent domestically that ensures our national security. 
Sometimes we lose track of that or maybe people don't know or 
understand what is involved in that and what the benefits are 
for national security for the U.S.
    The U.S. Army is currently deployed spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars in Europe and the Middle East, and the 
longer we wait to buttress the Department of Defense resources 
the more our military will have to dip into annual funding to 
cover its rising costs. Every moment this funding is delayed 
helps our adversaries, hurts our allies, and risks damage to 
America's military readiness and reputation. We must ensure 
that we are adequately backfilling our military equipment, 
stockpiles that are being used in these theaters, and we must 
ensure we are sufficiently restoring our own industrial base. I 
look forward to discussing these items today.
    Additionally, I want to hear about how the Army is 
addressing the recruitment issue and the challenges that attend 
to recruitment. The majority chose last go-around to inject 
culture war debates into last year's Department of Defense 
funding process. I am concerned with how that may further hurt 
recruitment efforts, especially among women. We must do all 
that we can to ensure that any American who wants to bravely 
serve in the United States armed forces, defend our Nation, 
feels that they belong and that they are not going to be drawn 
into political warfare while confronting legitimate threats to 
freedom, democracy, and our national security.
    I thank you for being here, and I yield back. Thank you, 
Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Secretary Wormuth, please take 5 minutes for your opening 
remarks.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Wormuth

    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum, Ranking Member DeLauro.
    And congratulations, Chairman Cole, to your new 
responsibilities leading the full committee.
    Thank you all, distinguished members of the subcommittee, 
for your continued support for our soldiers, our Army 
civilians, and their families.
    General George and I appear before you today at a moment of 
profound transformation for the United States Army. We are 
transforming our capabilities, our force structure, and our 
recruiting enterprise to ensure that the Army is ready and able 
to defeat evolving threats, keep pace with technology, and 
attract the best talent so that we remain the world's best land 
fighting force.
    As we pursue this transformation, we must also take care of 
our people, ensuring that our soldiers and families have the 
quality of life they deserve to sustain our readiness now and 
into the future.
    This year, like last year, the Army's fiscal year 2025 
budget continues to support the most ambitious modernization 
program the Army has undertaken in the last 40 years. We are 
making significant progress in transforming our capabilities by 
staying consistent in our goals and meeting most major 
milestones for development and fielding. The Next Generation 
Squad Weapon, the Integrated Battle Command System, our 
midrange capability, and the precision strike missile are just 
some examples of the critical new systems we have recently 
delivered.
    As we bring these new systems into our inventory, we are 
also transforming our force structure to meet the priorities of 
the National Defense Strategy. We are building out new 
formations, such as our five multi-domain task forces, and 
making sure they are equipped with the capabilities we need to 
conduct large-scale combat operations against advanced military 
peers. And we are shrinking excess force structure so that the 
units we have are manned and ready.
    While these force structure decisions bring down our 
authorized troop levels by about 24,000 spaces, our goal is to 
increase the Army's authorized end strength from 450,000 active 
soldiers to 470,000 active soldiers by fiscal year 2029. To 
meet that goal we are working around the clock to overcome our 
recruiting challenges, and I am pleased to say that we are 
making very solid progress this year. Building on successful 
initiatives like the future soldier prep course, we are 
fundamentally transforming our recruiting enterprise to better 
compete in the 21st century job market.
    Most significantly, we are professionalizing our recruiting 
workforce by creating new, permanent talent acquisition 
specialties for both enlisted soldiers and warrant officers. 
The assessment and selection of the first cohort of our new 
warrant officers is complete, and this group will be out in the 
field by the end of the summer.
    As we transform, we also have to take care of our soldiers 
and families. A key part of that responsibility is providing 
safe, high-quality housing and barracks. And, Chairman, as you 
noted, over the next 5 years, the Army will invest an average 
of $2.1 billion each year in the construction, sustainment, 
restoration, and modernization of barracks for unaccompanied 
soldiers.
    This investment will also fund sustainment at 100 percent, 
something we haven't done in several years. We are also 
leveraging the expertise of the Corps of Engineers to stabilize 
our project costs, and we will hire civilian barracks managers 
to oversee our barracks so that our soldiers can focus on their 
warfighting responsibilities.
    Physically and emotionally healthy soldiers are more 
resilient, they are higher performing, and they are less likely 
to engage in harmful behaviors. To build resilient soldiers we 
are expanding our holistic health and fitness programs to 71 
active brigades, we are investing in financial management 
services so that our soldiers know how to budget, and we are 
encouraging programs in our divisions that focus on soldier 
well-being. Our goal is building cohesive teams and proactively 
working to reduce harmful behaviors from a soldier's first day 
in the Army.
    Even as we transform, and we have to because it is a very 
dangerous world out there, we are continuing to provide 
combatant commands with trained and ready formations. This 
year's budget seeks $1.5 billion for activities associated with 
the Pacific Deterrence Initiative, and we have asked for 
hundreds of millions of dollars for Operation Pathways, our 
exercises in the region that strengthen deterrence and build 
interoperability with our allies and partners.
    In Europe, our troops are demonstrating our commitment to 
deterring Russian aggression. The Army has been leading the 
effort to support Ukraine from training over 17,000 Ukrainian 
troops to providing hundreds of vehicles, different kinds of 
equipments, and millions of munitions. The chief and I strongly 
urge the passing of a supplemental appropriations bill that 
will maintain this critical support for Ukraine, invest in our 
own readiness, and create jobs for Americans all around the 
country.
    With your support, we will continue to take care of our 
people and sustain the transformation that will keep the Army 
the world's best Army. I am proud of all that our soldiers and 
civilians are doing, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your comments.
    Now, General George, please take 5 minutes for your opening 
remarks.

                  Summary Statement of General George

    General George. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum, Chairman Cole, Ranking Member DeLauro, thank 
you for the opportunity to talk with you today about our Army.
    The world is more volatile today that I have seen it in my 
36-year career, and there is clear cooperations between 
adversaries than I have seen in a while. A spark in any region 
could have global impacts. Meanwhile, the character of war is 
changing rapidly, which we see from what is happening on 
battlefields in Ukraine and in the Middle East.
    Our Army is as important as ever to the Joint Force. We 
must deter war everywhere and be ready to respond anywhere, so 
we are focused on providing the best Army with the budget we 
are given. Our soldiers deserve it, the joint team deserves it, 
and our Nation deserves it. That means making some tough 
decisions and finding ways to get better every day.
    As the Secretary already highlighted, our planned 
investments reflected in our fiscal year 2025 budget will help 
our Army win the future fight and ensure that our soldiers and 
their families remain ready and resilient.
    Across the Army, we are learning from global events and 
continuously transforming how we operate, how we train, and how 
we equip, and I would like to highlight a handful of things. We 
are learning that designs for things like unmanned systems must 
be modular, adaptable, and software defined. We are working to 
get relevant technology in the hands of our soldiers 
immediately.
    We are learning that counter-unmanned systems must evolve 
as the threat does to protect our formations and critical 
infrastructure. We are also moving out on that while being 
mindful of the cost curve. We need cheaper solutions.
    We are learning that, in some cases, the right tech already 
exists to support transformation. For instance, the tech exists 
to make our command-and-control modes more mobile, low 
signature, and more effective right now, and we are fixing our 
network. And we are building our magazine depth and modernizing 
our organic industrial base, because we know that wars never 
end quickly as we hope. They take a lot of ammo.
    We are also transforming how we recruit, ensuring that we 
have the right talent and the right tech and that we are 
getting the word out about how our Army is a great place to 
serve because of our mission and our people.
    Finally, we are also looking at where we need to reimagine 
our processes and where we can afford to stop doing things that 
don't support warfighting or building cohesive teams.
    I am proud of what our soldiers are doing around the world 
to help defend our country. We appreciate your support, and I 
look forward to your questions.

                        COUNTER UAS INVESTMENTS

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General. I want to make sure all 
the members have a chance to ask questions so we will have a 5-
minute clock on, even for myself, and we will go around and get 
as many questions in as possible.
    Obviously we spent some time in my comments and the ranking 
member's comments and your comments about UAS and counter-UAS 
strategy and what we are going to do to defeat that. The threat 
from kamikaze drones and unmanned aerial systems has 
intensified, and it changes almost daily. I see that your 
budget request includes $400 million for systems to counter 
small drones. I would like to talk more about your approach to 
countering UAS threats.
    So, Secretary, how are you ensuring that the Army 
investments in counter UAS flip this cost curve so we are not 
just shooting down $500 drones with $1 million missiles?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Chairman. We are trying to do 
that in a couple of different ways. As you noted--first of all, 
I would say, since 2020, we have had $3 billion that we have 
invested in counter-UAS and UAS systems, and there is several 
hundred million dollars in this year's budget request for that, 
and there are also some on the chief's unfunded priorities list 
as well. I think, you know, we all are very focused on growing 
our investment here.
    One, we are very much looking at how can we find lower cost 
attributable systems, and we are working with companies like 
Aderol, for example, to try to invest in smaller, very 
effective but less expensive types of UAS and counter-UAS 
systems. Another thing I would highlight, Chairman, is our 
investments in directed energy. So, for example, we have 
directed energy M-SHORAD. There are four prototypes for that 
system out in CENTCOM right now. We also have a couple of high-
powered microwave programs.
    And one of the things that--I highlight DE M-SHORAD, for 
example, because we are still working on the costing, but in 
theory, you know, the laser is essentially unlimited 
ammunition, so it offers the possibility of us being able to 
shoot down hundreds and hundreds of UASes and have a very quick 
reload rate. So I think there is a lot of potential in that 
kind of a platform.
    Chief, I am sure you want to add.
    General George. Yeah, I just would add, Chairman, that--and 
what the Secretary talked about, what we are trying to do in 
the Middle East by sending over the user, the developer, and 
the tester, and them all being together, I think what we are 
learning from the battlefield, for example, what is happening 
in Ukraine is things are changing in weeks and months, and we 
are going to have to be able to adapt and so that is what we 
are doing.
    So we are sending everything that we possibly can into 
tougher environments and putting all of those people together, 
and it is--a lot of the--there is a lot of small companies out 
there that are doing a lot of great things. We just got done 
with a big experimentation with Project Convergence that was 
out at our national training center, inviting them in.
    The Army is also--is the executive agent for the joint 
counter-UAS office and is getting a lot of R&D to make sure 
that we are--there is a lot of great ideas out there, but we 
are getting all of those from American industry in addition to 
what we are developing.

                               IRON BEAM

    Mr. Calvert. Obviously, you know, Israel, in this 
supplemental that hopefully we will be able to figure out how 
we are going to pass, has some money in it for Iron Beam. And 
Rafael has made significant progress in this, and I know that 
our contractors have been working with them. I am curious if we 
have personnel in Israel that are working with the Israelis as 
they test in realtime Iron Beam. Is any of that going on?
    General George. I am not--I can tell you, Chairman, is that 
we are--I just had met the IDF ground commander and several of 
his staff and we were just together, so we are exchanging 
lessons and having that kind of interchange and we are looking 
at sending some people over there, so--and I have also had some 
discussions with Rafael. So for our part, what we want to do is 
whatever is working out there and is adapting we are looking to 
bring that into the system.
    Mr. Calvert. And the systems that you have already put on 
some of our equipment and the testing you are doing, are you 
satisfied that it is moving in the right direction?
    General George. I mean, I think we have more work to do, 
and this is one--there is probably three areas, Chairman, where 
I think that we need to be more flexible in our funding 
approach: Counter UAS is one of them, unmanned systems is the 
other, and then EW, which is related to both of those efforts. 
And our challenge was with the continuing resolution, if we 
wanted to spend more money we could not reprogram and put other 
money in there to make adjustments.
    And so, again, that was a big--that was a problem for us. I 
think we lost time with that. So that is one area that I would 
recommend--those are three areas that I would recommend that we 
would have more flexibility in our funding so that we could--
when something is working in prototype that we could 
immediately--if those systems are working that we could procure 
it.
    Mr. Calvert. Okay. Ranking Member.

                  RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION ABILITIES

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    And the chairman and I and this committee have been working 
on trying to adapt and respond quickly to some of the 
situations we find ourselves in, and so I know that we want to 
work together to put into place what you were talking about 
with getting things tested and out and then in production. But 
behind all the equipment is personnel, and so I am going to 
back into personnel for a few minutes.
    Madam Secretary, General, the committee knows that 
recruitment was a problem for the Army last year, and it was 
true for most of the other services, too. You have requested an 
increase for recruiting activities, and I would like an update 
on where the Army currently stands with both recruiting and 
retention. We heard just a couple hours ago from the Navy that 
they had the recruiting offices empty because they had people 
out to sea, and now they are starting to staff them up again, 
so if you could enlighten us a little more about what you are 
doing.
    And so I know that you had mentioned when we talked that 
you were making some progress, if you could share with the 
committee what you think that--what caused that shift. And then 
we talked about retention as well. So part of the package for 
recruitment and retention are a lot of things, pays plays a big 
part of that, but there is other things that are part of that 
too.
    So if you could maybe help the committee, because we are 
trying to find that sweet spot, because for some people it is 
more than just pay, it is childcare centers, it is access to 
gyms, it is barracks and the other things that you talked 
about. So could you tell us what you think has been successful 
in your recruitment abilities moving forward, and what has been 
successful and made people stay in when you are doing the 
retention? Thank you.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am pleased 
to report, as I said, I think we are making very good progress 
this year on our recruiting goal. The chief and I have set a 
goal of recruiting 55,000 new soldiers and putting another 
5,000 into our delayed entry program, so that is sort of the 
bank account. And we still have 6 months to go in this fiscal 
year. So I don't want to be over confident, but I think we both 
feel that we have a good shot at making that goal this year, 
which I think would be very, very important.
    Part of the reason that I think we are doing better this 
year is we continue to have great success with our future 
soldier prep course. We have actually expanded that. We now are 
running that program at Fort Jackson and at Fort Moore. We 
continue to see a lot of interest in that effort. We are also 
selecting our recruiters differently. We are doing more of an 
attribute-based selection, and I think that means we are 
picking soldiers that are a little bit more inclined to be good 
salespeople for the United States Army. We have evolved our 
recruiting college curriculum by about 40 percent, so we have 
really updated that, and, again, I think that has helped our 
recruiters be more effective in the field.
    The soldier referral program, where soldiers can, you know, 
bring a friend from high school or something, if that person 
actually signs a contract, you can get promoted more quickly 
and that program is also bringing good success.
    So there is a lot that is kind of--you know, we have had 
multiple pieces to our efforts and to our broader 
transformation that I think are now starting to bear fruit. We 
have also put--we have surged some medical folks into our MEPS 
stations to be able to work through all of the different 
waivers that kids sometimes need for different health 
conditions, and that has allowed us to get more contracts 
through the pipeline.
    So I think that is a lot of what is behind why we are doing 
better this year. Retention remains historically high. We are, 
I think, already on track to exceed our retention goals for 
this year. You know, I think the fundamental reason we are 
retaining well is that when people join the Army, they like it. 
They are a part of something bigger than themselves. There is a 
sense of family, a sense of community, and a real purpose to 
defending the country. But, of course, we have targeted 
retention bonuses and things like that that also help us keep 
key specialties. But I think we are feeling a lot better about 
recruiting this year.
    I don't know, Chief, if you want to add.
    General George. I would add--and the Secretary did a great 
job running that down. And we spend--there is probably not a 
day that goes by actually that we are not having some 
conversation about what we are doing. It is critically 
important to us and to our whole formation.
    We are also trying to get the right tech into the hands of 
our recruiters. You know, there is a lot of things that happen 
on--I look at Indeed or some of the other--so we are getting 
commercial off-the-shelf stuff. We have had a couple of 
innovation companies that are actually trying to go out there 
and innovate a little bit, which I think is helping.
    And then the other thing is, what we also want to approve 
is have good analysis on what actually is working and what 
isn't. For example, we are finding that a lot of people are 
choosing location, is very important to people. There is 
different things that are important to people, a job specialty. 
Twenty-five percent are picking location, so that is--I think 
we are trying to get better at understanding the dynamics of 
recruiting as well.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Chairman Cole.

                 PALADIN INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    And good to see both of you again. Again, I enjoyed our 
personal visit. Thank you for taking the time to do that.
    Let me ask you one parochial question. I am disappointed to 
once again see in the President's budget a reduction on the 
Paladin Integrated Management program down. This is the fourth 
year in the row that number keeps coming down. We raise it 
every year here, because you are asking for 20, it takes 36 to 
maintain the production line minimum. Is there a problem here, 
or is your budget just stretched that far?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Chairman. I think the 
investment in Paladin is a good example of where we are having 
to make hard choices given our relatively flat top line, and 
there are--you know, you can see that whether it is equipment 
for our armored brigade combat teams, you know, things like 
Bradley, things like Striker, you know, we have not been able 
to invest as much as ideally we would and continue to modernize 
the new systems.
    I would add though that, again, this is another place where 
if we get the supplemental we are planning to invest in 18 
additional Paladin systems. So between what we have gotten in 
our base budget, and hopefully if the supplemental comes 
through, we should be above the minimum sustainable rate for 
the foreseeable future.
    The Chairman. That is good to hear.

                  INDUSTRIAL BASE MUNITIONS PRODUCTION

    General George, you mentioned in your testimony, you talked 
about the magazine depth, and that is something I think that 
concerns us all, relates back to our own industrial base. And 
so could you just give us an overview on, you know, how much 
have things improved, what--I would assume this is another 
place where the supplemental would help us a great deal if we 
were able to get that done, and just thoughts in general on--I 
mean, it is pretty bad when you are worried about, you know, 
155-millimeter shells and things that are pretty basic things 
that we ought to have an abundant supply.
    General George. Chairman, it is--obviously we want to--we 
are putting a lot of energy in the Organic Industrial Base. I 
think it is important not only just for the Army but for the 
Joint Force in what we are doing. So we have invested, I think, 
more than $3 billion ourselves. We are--the supplemental has, I 
think, $4.5 billion that is in there that, you know, would go 
into improving the industrial base and buying the munitions 
that we need, you know, back to the magazine depth.
    So I think what is important, and I have been to several of 
these, is that we are, you know, trying to automate a lot of 
these places so that we could scale and increase production 
that we have with the workforce. 155 is a perfect example; we 
started off at about 14,000 rounds a month in 155-millimeter. 
We are up to a little over 30 right now, and we are ready to 
scale to 70.
    With the money that goes in the supplemental we can go up 
to 100, and I think we need that capability again. I think one 
of the lessons a lot of people have learned over the last year 
is just how good U.S. equipment is, and there is a lot of 
people buying, you know, those same systems, so the magazine 
depth is critically important for us.

                    LESSONS FROM THE WAR IN UKRAINE

    The Chairman. I am going to ask you one other question 
because--and you don't have enough time to do this, but I know 
obviously you are very keenly, and the Secretary is as well, 
looking at what is happening in Ukraine, so I am just--if you 
can give us lessons learned, what do you think a year into 
this--2 years into this but that you might not have thought 
about before, and how is that changing the way you think and 
what you need?
    Secretary Wormuth. I would highlight a couple things, and I 
know the chief and I--there are a lot of lessons that are 
coming out of Ukraine. You know, one obviously is the 
importance of unmanned aerial systems and counter-UAS systems. 
You know, I was just in Germany seeing some of the training we 
are doing to--with the Ukrainians and was fascinated to talk to 
one of the Ukrainian BTG leaders but also see what our forces 
were doing in terms of actually welding little sort of droppers 
on the bottoms of drones to be able to drop small kinetic 
payloads. We are learning as much from them, I think, as they 
are learning from us, and so that is a huge lesson and I think 
is reflected in our budget.
    The importance of long-range fires, obviously, which, 
again, I think speaks to the importance of continuing to invest 
in things like precision strike missile or the long-range 
hypersonic, which, you know, we have had some challenges with 
but we are working quickly on that.
    And the last thing I would highlight, Chairman, is in 
contested logistics, you know, how--we are going to have to 
disperse in a future battlefield where everything is 
transparent. We can't have these big sort of supply bases, and 
we are starting to really bring those lessons into our combat 
training center rotations. I have seen that myself at Fort 
Johnson where we are doing a lot to change how we are 
approaching logistics, recognizing how contested the 
environment will be.
    General George. Oh, I will be really quick here, Chairman, 
and we could go on a long time about what we are doing. And we 
talked the difference between observing a lesson and actually 
learning it, and the learning it is changing how we are going 
to train and fight, how we are training our people at the--like 
at Fort Sill and the places that are going--all our 
professional military education and how we buy things.
    I think on the--you can't hide on the modern battlefield 
anymore is the big thing, and so it has--that has really 
changed, you know, signature management, network. We have to be 
more mobile. We are going to have to be more dispersed, and it 
is really going to impact every potential system.
    I will tell you, there is three big things that are 
happening at Fort Sill that are--we have a lot of lessons in, 
long-range fires, how effective ground-based, long-range fires 
that are very hard to find in the clutter and to kill, and we 
have seen that. They are very effective on the battlefield. 
Integrated air and missile defense, another thing that we do a 
lot at down at Fort Sill is very, very important to the Joint 
Force and what we are doing for protection. And then the 
counter-UAS, which we are doing--also doing down at Fort Sill, 
is something that we were talking about earlier that we are 
going to have to, you know, continue. That is going to be a 
growth industry, I think, for all of us.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I think we are all going to have to get out to 
Fort Sill.
    Ms. DeLauro.

                          BLACKHAWK HELICOPTER

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, again, thank you both for being here today.
    I am going to follow up with a parochial issue as well. I 
think it is something that you are well aware of, it is 
important to the district, and that is the Blackhawk 
helicopter. Sikorsky makes the finest helicopter in the world, 
and Connecticut is their district.
    So let me direct my first question to you, Madam Secretary. 
I understand the Army is going to be focusing on purchasing the 
Mike models of the Blackhawk. I am concerned though that since 
the multi-year contract expires in 2026 there could be a gap in 
the contract with the industry. Can you tell me how you and the 
team will work to shrink or eliminate that gap so production 
can continue without interruption?
    Secretary Wormuth. Absolutely, Congresswoman. When the 
current multiyear contract expires it is our plan to have 
essentially a heel-to-toe arrangement so that the next 5-year 
multiyear contract will start immediately. We will buy 24 
helicopters annually for 5 years for a total of 120. That is 
the plan. So we will work closely with the company to make sure 
that the negotiations are worked out so that we can have no 
break between the two multiyear contracts.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very, very much.
    And just in terms of the Army's commitment to the 
Blackhawk, how many Blackhawk helicopters will remain in the 
force, for how long? What will the Army do to ensure an 
adequate number of Blackhawks for the Army National Guard?
    Secretary Wormuth. Let me take that a couple pieces at a 
time. We expect the Blackhawk to remain a very important part 
of our overall aviation portfolio for years to come. The Mike 
model is a 20-year airframe, and those are the ones that we 
will be buying with the new 5-year multiyear. So they will be 
in the fleet for a very long time.
    I am sure you are also aware, you know, there are--
reflecting on the quality of American equipment, there are a 
lot of allies who would like to buy Blackhawks, and so I expect 
we will continue to see quite a bit in foreign military sales. 
So I think those will go on for quite a while.
    And we will be--in terms of the Army Guard, who had 
originally been intended to get the Victor model, which only 
has a 10-year lifespan for the airframe, we will be providing 
the Army Guard over time with the Mike models, so I think they 
are quite pleased about that.
    Ms. DeLauro. What is the focus of the Army's Blackhawk 
modernization plan, characteristics, and performance needed to 
improve the Blackhawk to keep pace with the rest of the force 
during its remaining decades of service? And has the Army 
identified funding for 2025 over the future year's defense 
program to execute the planned modernization?
    Secretary Wormuth. Let me say a few things and then, Chief, 
if you want to add anything.
    We do have R&D in the budget as we did the rebalancing of 
the overall aviation portfolio for continued upgrades to 
Blackhawk. Some of that is looking at open system 
architectures. Some of that is also going to be doing the 
integration work to bring the ITEP engine, the new engine 
eventually into Blackhawk as well as the Apache, so those are 
some of the things that we will be doing with the Blackhawk 
going forward.
    General George. I guess, the only thing that I would add, 
Congresswoman, is--and I have spent a lot of time in the back 
of Blackhawks, and it is a great aircraft--is we are also 
looking at sensors, we are also looking at how you would match 
launch effects that come with these aircraft. So kind of what 
we said upfront, we are look--these are areas we are going to 
have to continuously transform, and the Blackhawk is going to 
be a part of our formation, a very important part of it, and we 
will have to continue to transform as we move forward.
    Ms. DeLauro. Great.
    I appreciate your indulging me in these questions. As you 
can tell, it really is a top priority for me. It is a top 
priority for my community, as you have known, for a long time.

                ADDITIONAL SECURITY SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING

    If I could just ask about the security supplemental. The 
Army has requested approximately $10 billion to support 
activities in and for Ukraine and for additional activities in 
the Middle East. How are you funding activities to support 
Ukraine and the Middle East, and what will happen if these 
activities are not funded with additional supplemental funds? 
What will suffer without these additional funds?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that. 
There is really--I think there is three pieces of the 
supplemental that are really important to the Army. You know, 
first of all, we have given the Ukrainians $10 billion worth of 
equipment and material, and we have been essentially planning 
on the supplemental coming through so that we can replenish 
that equipment that we have given to the Ukrainians. So we 
intend to, you know, use that money to buy AMPVs, to buy some 
of the Paladins that I talked about earlier, to buy more JLTVs. 
So that replenishment is really important. The second piece is 
the investment in munitions, particularly the 155-millimeter 
shells and getting up to 100,000 rounds a month that General 
George spoke about.
    And the last piece I would highlight in the supplemental 
that is really hitting us right now is we have cash flowed 
about $800 million to train the Ukrainians and also to do some 
support in CENTCOM. So if we don't get that supplemental, we 
are going to not have money, basically by the end of May, to be 
able to get the current units who are over there in Europe 
doing the reassurance mission. We don't have the transportation 
money to have them redeploy. We don't have the transportation 
money to send units to backfill them. We won't be able to 
support our participation in things like K4 or exercises in 
European Command in the third and fourth quarter. So there is 
some real problems for us that are going to come out if we 
don't have that supplemental.
    Ms. DeLauro. I will yield back in just a second, but I just 
want to make the point on the replenishment. I am not sure how 
well widely understood it is the that we are paying a price for 
not moving forward on a supplemental. And obviously continue 
that Ukraine will pay a very, very big price if we are not 
there, and our own ability to be able to keep our word and let 
our allies know that we--our commitment--our word is our bond 
in these areas. But above all, we cannot replenish unless we 
have the supplemental. That hurts the industrial base here.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. All right. Probably need to get out to 
Stratford, Connecticut, too.
    Ms. DeLauro. Amen. You are welcome. It really is a 
wonderful experience, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. There you go.
    Mr. Rogers.

                         FURTHER AID TO UKRAINE

    Mr. Rogers. President Zelenskyy says that without the 
further aid from the U.S. the Ukraine will assuredly succumb to 
the rapturous war of Putin. Can either of you confirm President 
Zelenskyy's characterization of where we are?
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, I think, you know, General 
Cavoli, our head of U.S. European Command, was on the Hill 
earlier today, and I think he said if you can't--the side that 
can't shoot back loses. And at this point, Ukraine is really 
starting to be pressed to be able to shoot back. So I am very 
concerned, you know. We saw Ukraine lose some territory, you 
know, a couple of months ago, and I think, you know, there is a 
real danger that they could have--that the Russians could have 
a breakthrough somewhere in the line.
    So I am sure Chief would want to say more about that.
    General George. I think that was well stated. I would agree 
with that. I mean, they need the ability to have, you know, 
return fire, long-range fires. I would be concerned about what 
they have for air defense and the ability to defend their 
critical infrastructure and their formations, all of those, so 
I would agree with that.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you worry about the image that we are 
throwing out there, particularly to the Eastern European former 
SSRs who see us not defending them? Is that a problem for us to 
worry about?
    General George. I will just comment, Congressman, that I 
think every Chad or Army chief that comes to see me is very 
concerned about that. They, you know, looking at that as 
commitment and, you know, where is our commitment. And what I 
have found interesting is it is not just in Eastern Europe, 
there is a lot of countries that ask the same question around 
the world, so same thing in the Pacific that are watching what 
our support is.

                         LAND MINES IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Rogers. One of the main problems in Ukraine are land 
mines, which apparently are being sold throughout the country 
by the Russians. What can you say about that, and what can we 
do about it?
    General George. Again, I think that comes down to, you 
know, what you are providing. It is a perplexing problem with 
all the obstacles and everything that has been placed over 
there. It is not only danger to a force, it is danger to 
anybody who is around in that environment. So I think it 
would--it is going to take a lot of engineering assets to clear 
that, and I think it would also take a lot of time whenever we 
have seen that with mines.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you for your service, both of you. Yield.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And I thank the chairman for the 
quick time, because we need to finish this hearing by 3:55 
because we have a special meeting we need to attend to.
    So with that, Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized.

                HYPERSONICS, PERSONNEL, AND ABRAMS TANKS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for your testimonies today.
    I regret the inability of this current House of 
Representatives to pass legislation so essential to the defense 
of liberty and do not count myself among those who are holding 
up the process. And it makes your life exceedingly difficult, 
and all of this is completely unnecessary.
    Now, I have four topics real quickly. I am going to ask 
about hypersonics and advancements there. I am going to ask 
about personnel and your ability to staff with mechanics and 
people who are technicians, any shortages there. I am going to 
mention Abrams tanks and Ukraine, and then, finally, Iran and 
its capabilities.
    So on the first one, just a quick update on the progress 
you are making on hypersonics, both offensive and defensive.
    Number two, in terms of your staffing, are you having any 
difficulty in Army in having enough mechanics and people who 
are trained technicians to work on equipment, and if you are, 
are you working with your Reserve units around the country that 
do have excess equipment and could be doing training on some of 
the Reserve bases?
    Number three, Abrams tanks have their capabilities, those 
are made in Ohio, we are proud of them. Congressman Joyce and I 
support them. And have they made a difference in Ukraine, and 
what more could we do if they are being effective?
    And then, finally, on Iran, give us your assessment of 
Iran's intent in the region that she is having a tremendous 
influence on. Is her capacity growing? Is she receding in some 
of her capabilities? I don't have a real sense of that, but I 
think it is a really important question. Thank you.
    Secretary Wormuth. Okay. Lightning round. I will start with 
Ukraine--start with Iran and say, you know, I think we are all 
in the Defense Department quite concerned about Iran and its 
capabilities. I think it is--you know, one of the things it 
seeks to do in the region is to be destabilizing, both directly 
but also through its use of proxies in Iraq and Syria. I think 
the relationship that seems to be growing between Iran and 
Russia is concerning, so that is just a snapshot of, I think, 
how I would see Iran.
    The Ukrainians, you know, I think have--very much value the 
tanks that we provided to them and find them very effective. I 
can't comment extensively on how much they have used them, but 
I know when I talked to the Ukrainian leader in Germany, he 
said they have a lot of--the soldiers feel more confident going 
on offense when they are in the tanks or in our Bradleys 
because they feel protected and they have that additional 
protection while they are, you know, having mobility at the 
same time.
    On personnel, I think the challenge we have with mechanics 
in my experience, what I hear from soldiers, is because of the 
recruiting challenges we just--our soldiers who are mechanics 
have more work to do because we don't have as many soldiers 
generally as we need. So that is what I have heard and, you 
know, we are working very hard on recruiting to try to make 
sure that we increase the number of soldiers overall.
    Long-range hypersonic weapon, we are working on that 
diligently with the Navy. We will have another test later this 
year. As I said to Chairman Calvert, you know, this is a 10-
year program that we have sort of compressed into 4 years, so 
we are going very, very fast. And I think some of the testing 
we have done in parallel is part of--you know, it is harder to 
determine where the problem areas are when you are doing--
testing multiple things all at the same time. So we are moving 
to trying to have a more sequential approach to our testing so 
that we can really nail down where we have issues. And I think, 
you know, we are hopeful that we will have a good test later 
this year.
    I don't know, Chief, if you want to add.
    General George. I am just going to add a couple things. I 
just was out at Joint Base LewisMcChord. We have a hypersonics 
battery that is out there, and I will tell you, once we get 
this round, which I think is coming, that battery is training, 
testing, you know, ready to go, and so I think that will be a 
capability we are coming out.
    On the mechanics, the other thing that we are looking at 
and there is broadly--we are down on some of that. We need to, 
you know, recruit more mechanics and people with technical 
expertise. We do use the Guard and Reserve and we try to plan 
this out for exercises, Guard and Reserve----
    Ms. Kaptur. General, I want to help you on this, just know 
that, on the mechanics side.
    General George. Okay. To get them into, you know, into 
exercises and where they can help us and our ordnance 
companies. We are also trying to get rid of excess inside of 
our formation so that we don't have--we are not maintaining 
things that we don't need to maintain. We are in the process of 
doing that.
    On the Abrams tank, I will--it is the best tank in the 
world. And if--in all of these, for success on the battlefield 
and being out there, it requires combined arms, so it is with 
everything else. And I have heard the same thing that the 
Secretary has heard, and that you get a certain level of 
confidence though when you have an M1 tank inside of your 
formation.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Next, Judge Carter.
    Mr. Carter. Me?
    Mr. Calvert. Yep.
    Mr. Carter. Oh.
    Mr. Calvert. You got here earlier.

                  CREDENTIALING AND TUITION ASSISTANCE

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you both for being here. Let me apologize for not 
being able to meet with you the other day. It wasn't my fault. 
It was an air controller who wouldn't let us take off.
    I want to first ask about something that is near and dear 
to my heart. I would like to ask about the credentialing and 
tuition assistance. I have heard reports that the Army may be 
looking to reduce these programs. As you may know, the program 
for credentialing assistance was at Fort Cavazos. I am deeply 
concerned that cuts in these programs will not only hurt 
recruiting and retention but also hurt the soldiers' ability to 
transition out of the military and be prepared for civilian 
life after they served our Nation for a long time.
    Can you understand--can you let me--help me understand what 
the Army is reviewing in these programs and that no decision--I 
understand that no decision has been made yet, but I would like 
to know what you are looking at specifically cutting these 
programs and what analysis you have done as to how this will 
impact recruiting and retention?
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman Carter. Good to 
see you. You are correct, we have not made any decisions about 
the credentialing assistance program or the tuition assistance 
program. We have been looking at the credentialing program. It 
is a great program. We support it. You know, we know our 
soldiers value certifications that they can then use when they 
leave the Army. That was a pilot program essentially that has 
met with catastrophic success, and the challenge we have is we 
didn't frankly really put any guardrails around the program to 
help us scope it.
    So what we are looking at, we haven't made any decisions 
yet, but what we are looking at is, you know, rather than 
having soldiers be able to pursue an unlimited number of 
credentials every year in perpetuity, we may look at saying 
soldiers could do, you know, one certification a year, maybe 
have sort of a cap on the number of certifications they can get 
over the duration of their time in the Army, really just to try 
to manage the costs of the program a little bit better. But 
that is sort of how we are thinking right now, and those kinds 
of guardrails are very similar to what our sister services have 
done in the Air Force and the Navy.
    Mr. Carter. General.
    General George. Yeah. Only thing I would add, Congressman, 
is how we transition our soldiers. We obviously want to keep 
them. That is our number one goal is to keep everybody, but how 
we transition them is critically important to us in doing that 
and making sure, and that is important to us also for our 
recruiting mission because we know that when people come into 
the Army they are going to get a skill, they are going to enjoy 
what they are doing, and then we want to send them back out 
there. So we are looking at all of this in total.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you.

                      APACHE MODERNIZATION FUNDING

    The Apache helicopter is in my district. With the 
cancellation of the FARA, I have yet to hear what the Army's 
plan is for funding modernization of the Apache. Could you 
speak to what plan you have and where the funding might come 
from?
    Secretary Wormuth. Certainly. We are very much--you know, 
the Apache is another great helicopter. My XO sitting behind me 
is an Apache pilot as well as a Blackhawk pilot. We are going 
to continue to modernize the Apache over time, and there is 
money in the budget to do that. You know, really what we are 
looking at with Apache is, again, how to have more open system 
architecture so that we can do upgrades over time more quickly 
and more easily than we have in the past.
    The other thing that we are looking with Apache is taking a 
little bit more time to figure out exactly how we are going to 
integrate the new ITEP engine into both Apache and Blackhawk.
    Mr. Carter. I have got some more time. I understand the 
Army is considering looking at privatization of barracks. Out 
of curiosity, have you looked at allowing the E-5s to move out 
of the barracks. They could potentially reduce the number of 
barracks we need to build and help reduce cause for 
maintenance. I don't know the math on how this cause would 
work, but I would be interested in hearing this.
    And I also understand you are looking to recruit older 
people to be brought into the military and they are not going 
to be wanting to live in the barracks, especially if they are 
given special duties where they are not going to have a lot of 
promotion and they might spend 10 years in a barrack and the 
guy that you a 25-year-old is not going to be interested in 
being in a barrack until 35. Would you like to answer that?
    Secretary Wormuth. Sure, I will start and then Chief if you 
want to add. We are looking at a couple----
    Mr. Calvert. Also if you want to do that for the record, we 
can get that back to you, Judge. And then that way we can----
    Mr. Carter. Yeah, maybe so.
    Secretary Wormuth. Okay. Happy to do that.
    Mr. Calvert. We will do that, and keep things going.
    Mr. Case.

                     PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE

    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Madam Secretary, I just wanted to take off on your brief 
comments opening on the Pacific deterrence initiative and I 
think we would all obviously agree that our challenge is in the 
Indo-Pacific and that we need to focus on that and we need to 
plan for it from budgetary perspective. But to be really honest 
with you I am trying to figure out what Pacific deterrence 
initiative actually means nowadays and whether it has the 
purpose that I think Congress envisioned which was to quantify 
our efforts in a joint coordinated way so that we were sure we 
are on the right path in terms of doing what we need to do in 
the Indo-Pacific and funding for it also, so the EDI model. And 
I understand there are questions about OCO, et cetera, et 
cetera. But I am just talking about the use of a mechanism 
inside the DOD and that we, in Congress, can use to quantify 
whether we are on the right track. I have a couple of concerns 
in that department.
    I think first of all as I look at the fiscal year 2025 
overall PDI summary from DOD, including the Department of the 
Army, you cited $1.5 billion to PDI. If I look at the 
categories of things that you have stuck in PDI, frankly some 
of them are exclusively INDOPACOM so that is fair game. But 
some of them seem to be usable anywhere in the world. So then I 
ask myself, well, what is the good at that. That wasn't what 
PDI was supposed to be about. PDI was not supposed to be about 
things that are designed--and I am quoting from your thing, 
design to address or deter broader strategic threats easily 
transferable between theaters, routine activities and 
exercises. Some of that seems to fit in that category so I am 
wondering how they were categorized there. Number one.
    And then number two, if I look at your FYDP over time the 
overall PDI is declining precipitously over the next 5 years, 
including the Army which is going down something like 60 
percent. I think the figure I have got here is $1.5 billion 
requested down to .9 billion by fiscal year 2029.
    So I guess my real question here is again I want something 
that I can look at and go, okay, yeah, we have got everything 
in that box and we know what we have to do in the Indo-Pacific. 
We know what we have to do for the geopolitical challenge of 
China and all services, this is what you need to be doing, and 
this is how much it is going to cost, and this is what we have 
to do over the next 5 years plus. And I don't think I am 
getting that in the PDI.
    So I am thinking to myself well, do we have to fix PDI 
somehow in Congress or somehow in another way to get what we 
are after here. Do you have any comments on what PDI means to 
you nowadays? Why are we seeing such a loose bunch of stuff in 
PDI in my estimation? And why do we see it going down so 
precipitously over 5 years?
    Secretary Wormuth. Let me take a shot at that, Congressman. 
I think what I would say and I can understand your frustration, 
I think as someone who was in the Defense Department, when the 
European Deterrence Initiative was created, there is I think a 
pretty significant difference between EDI and PDI, which is 
that the European Deterrence Initiative came with a pot of 
money from Congress that was sort of firewalled. Whereas when 
Pacific Deterrence Initiative was created, it didn't have that. 
It was sort of the same concept, but very importantly without 
the money.
    And so now I do think you have a situation where we in 
Congress--one thing I can assure you is the Army is very, very 
focused on INDOPACOM as the priority theater and our whole 
strategy as a Department is very, very focused on INDOPACOM as 
the priority theater. That is how Secretary Austin and the 
deputy worked with us and the services to try to align our 
investments. They grade our POMs very much on whether they 
think it is meeting the challenge there.
    So I think I feel confident that our budget is putting the 
money that we need to put towards that theater. But I certainly 
can understand that from an accounting perspective it can be 
hard sometimes to get a real sense of whether you have 
everything. And there is also I think the report that INDOPACOM 
generates as well I think which is a very large list of 
requirements.
    Mr. Case. Probably because and I am just guessing at this, 
because some of the PDI--it is not in PDI.
    They have to find it somewhere. They have to emphasize what 
is necessary in the Indo-Pacific. Do you think it is possible 
to have a PDI without an OCO style dedicated source of funding 
as in the EDI? Does it just at that point just become, as 
somebody actually referenced an accounting mechanism inside 
DOD? And an imperfect one at that, because obviously we are not 
just spending $9.9 billion on the Indo-Pacific.
    Secretary Wormuth. We certainly feel the loss of OCO. I 
think that is fair to say. And I would say that within the top 
line that we have, it would be hard for us to put more money 
than we have in our base budget towards INDOPACOM.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Next Mr. Garcia.

                          JUNIOR ENLISTED PAY

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    First of all, I want to thank you both for your service to 
our country. I want to focus on the troops here. In California 
last week, and we brought this up in an earlier hearing with 
SECNAV as well, and we have had discussions with SecDef about 
it as well. California last week raised its minimum wage to $20 
an hour. Okay so you have got 18, 19-year olds working at 
McDonald's who are making almost double what an E-1 makes when 
they come into the service. An E-1 right now even with the 5 
percent raise last year and the 4.5 percent increase in this 
President's budget request is still $22,000, $23,000 a year. 
And so we are competing from a recruitment perspective with 
fast food workers, right? And those guys aren't putting their 
lives on the line everyday like our soldiers are. This isn't 
just a problem in California, it is a problem in multiple 
States Virginia, Florida where the cost of living is higher and 
the pay is still low.
    I have been pushing and this committee's done great job 
this subcommittee has done a great job, unfortunately the 
Senate stripped out our Pay Raise Act which would have started 
base pay of an E-1 from taking it from $22,000 a year to 
$31,000 a year. And that increase about a 35, 38 percent 
increase would have actually rippled up through the E-6 ranks, 
okay.
    So it takes E-1 through E-6 where we are recognizing not 
only the recruiting challenges but also the retention 
challenges at about the year 4, year 5 mark on the enlistment 
side. And at least from a salary perspective gets more 
competitive with their peer groups and the civilian sector.
    And ranking member McCollum has been very clear about this 
as well and this isn't just a money pay salary issue. It is a 
quality of life, it is daycare on the base. It is quality of 
the barracks. It is not having to live in squalor where your 
civilian counterparts aren't.
    But we need help on this, we need more pull from the 
Secretary, we need more pull frankly from the President and 
prioritizing this pay gap right now that is very significant 
and is a forcing function. There are other things driving the 
recruitment problems. There are other things driving the 
retention problems, but the pay is significant.
    To enact that Raise Act and it is my bill it is called the 
Raise Act it is takes it from $22,000 to $31,000 a year, that 
ripples up through the E-6 and compresses it, so generally you 
wouldn't be getting that 30 percent pay raise but you do not 
need that 30 percent pay raise. Your soldiers need that, the 
junior enlisted do. But it basically gets them above that $15 
minimum wage sort of Federal recognized minimum wage number, 
right? And it gets them off of food stamps frankly. It gets 
them above the poverty line. The cost of that is roughly 
anywhere from half to 1 percent of the total DOD's budget to 
implement it.
    So we are not--we are talking, you know, $7 to $8 billion 
to implement this junior enlisted Pay Raise Act. So the 4.5 
percent in the President's budget request is barely going to 
keep pace with inflation. The last I think 5 years we have seen 
a cumulative of roughly 25 percent to 27 percent inflation 
while the sum of the pay raises that we have given our troops 
and especially the junior enlisted is something like 14 to 15 
percent. So we are putting them further and further behind the 
power curve.
    So the ask is that we support higher pay and I know that 
that is not in the President's budget request. We are going to 
try to legislate our way through that and create a new pay 
table that increases that E-1 through E-6 pay. But I think that 
goes a long way.
    And right now if you ask an 18-year-old if he wants to go 
work at In-N-Out for $22 an hour or join the Army for the 
equivalent of $12 an hour you are going to get 95 percent of 
them going to In-N-Out even if they love the country, even if 
they want to serve, they just cant afford to go join the Army 
right now and that is a fundamental problem.
    So we would respectfully request support for that. We can 
look at all the other elements that go to the quality of life 
and holistic pay and whatnot.
    I will submit for the record a question around the FARA 
cancelation.
    Mr. Garcia. We sunk about $2 billion in an acquisition 
program, industry put in about $500 million of IRATA of their 
own money getting to a point where we did. It did kind of 
surprise a lot of us. I know you were communicating with some 
folks but I would like to get a deeper dive on the explanation 
of the sudden cancelation. I know Congress didn't help, the CR 
didn't help, but if we can get all the details.
    And the last thing I would recommend is beyond high energy 
lasers and high energy microwaves that I know are very useful 
in counter UAS, counter drone. There is new technology out 
there that I have gotten to do classified briefs on for high 
energy RF where it is basically an AUSA radar that uses larger 
brick size rays instead of little TR modules like you find in a 
fire control radar, the beam steering basically uses high 
energy RF capability and is a little more stable than high 
energy lasers for instance.
    Mr. Calvert. You will get back to them.
    Mr. Garcia. And I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. If you could get back to them for the record 
that would be great.
    Mr. Calvert. Dutch.

                 IMPACT OF SHORT-TERM SPENDING MEASURES

    Mr. Ruppersberger. I can't even sit down?
    Secretary, congratulations on what you have done. You have 
done a good job. General, you too. You have got a good team and 
that is what counts.
    Secretary Wormuth and General, you can answer some 
questions here too, the question I am going to ask, not many.
    I don't know what this year holds in store, but I do know 
that the last time that the Department went a fiscal year 
without operating under a continuing resolution was back in 
1997. Now could you provide a brief overview of how short-term 
spending measures impact the Army? What do we put at risk when 
we don't pass funding bills on time, especially when it comes 
to competing with China?
    Secretary Wormuth. Absolutely----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Or other adversaries too but basically 
China.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman. And I am sure 
the chief will want to add to this. I think of when we are 
operating under a continuing resolution, which you all know we 
were in the first 6 months of this year under CRs, we are 
basically trying to compete with China with one hand tied 
behind our back, you know. We are not able to spend the money 
that we have in the most efficient way. We are not able to do 
reprogramming. We can't do new starts on some of the, you know, 
very important modernization programs that we have. Sometimes 
it can delay our military construction. So at a time where we 
don't have a moment to lose in terms of all of the new 
modernization we are doing, operating under CRs can be very 
challenging.
    General George. Yeah, Congressman. I will just give you one 
example, the battlefield is changing, what our troops were over 
there in the Middle East and if we wanted to make some 
adjustment and bring something to counter UAS system for 
example and we can't start something new, we can't increase 
production on the missiles that we need. So it has a real 
impact.
    And then the other thing I will just say is then when you 
get the money you have a very limited time to spend it and that 
is also a challenge for us and has been.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. All right. Well thank you. In the past 
few decades is there any indication at all, it seems that the 
Department keeps getting put in these intractable solutions. 
And I will be honest I don't know what the solution is. So do 
you have any ideas about other authorities and spending 
flexibilities that would enable the Army to overcome the 
challenges that continuing resolutions represent? Both of you.
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, Congressman, the last thing I 
would want to do is to try to tell Congress how to do its 
business.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. It is a good idea.
    Secretary Wormuth. I think the PPBES Commission that 
recently I think put out its final report had some good 
recommendations in a lot of areas for sort of how we in the 
Department can work more effectively with you all in Congress 
to have a more agile budgeting system. You know, there might be 
some good ideas there. But beyond that--the only other thing I 
would say, and this is something the chief feels very strongly 
about, it is not CR specific, but is it possible in some very 
targeted ways for us have more flexibility in where we invest 
the programs, you know, inside of a particular portfolio for 
example to allow us to be more agile in terms of going after 
new technology but that is not really CR specific.
    General George. Congressman, I mentioned this up front. 
There are three areas where I think we have to be more flexible 
and that is counter UAS, counter unmanned systems, unmanned 
systems ourselves, so that we can detect and do all the things 
that we need do on the modern battlefield and then the 
electronic warfare. All of that is changing really quick.
    So I think internal to the Army what we are looking at 
doing is not having a specific program but we need to have a 
portfolio where--because the industry is changing really fast, 
there is a lot of small companies out there. American ingenuity 
is the best in the world and we need to have the flexibility do 
that.
    What I think would be helpful is because of the continuing 
resolutions if in those three areas that we had flexibility 
between research and development and then we would come over 
obviously for the oversight and say, hey, this is something, 
you know, we need this system, we want to procure it and it 
would be a notification. I think that would help us with the 
continuing resolutions.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. That is a good idea. Because we have got 
to do something. Because we are changing so much and the whole 
world is changing. And we have to stay dominant as a democracy. 
We have to start doing more of this and think out of the box 
for the future.
    Thank you for your answers. And I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Womack.

                    COMBAT TRAINING CENTER ROTATIONS

    Mr. Womack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the two 
witnesses we have here today. Madam Secretary, Chief, great to 
have both of you here today.
    Before I get to my questions, a couple of things, I want to 
take a moment of personal privilege to recognize that gentleman 
sitting over by the camera in the very back of the room wearing 
that Navy shirt. To my colleagues this is Harrison Henry. He is 
soon to become part of the class of 2028 at the U.S. Naval 
Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. He is a Fayetteville High 
School kid in Arkansas. He and his dad Mark are here. They are 
headed over to Annapolis this weekend. They missed the hearing 
this morning. Actually, I think that was on purpose. I think 
they are here spying on the Army. But Harrison we are really 
proud of you. And I know this committee is proud of you and 
your classmates that will join you at the Naval Academy. 
Congratulations.
    One of a note, I want to mention this as well because this 
could involve action of our leadership team here in the House 
and that is that 2 days ago the last surviving medal of honor 
recipient from the Korean War Colonel Ralph Puckett passed away 
down in Columbus, Georgia.
    My oh my, medal of honor, DSC, couple of silver stars, five 
purple hearts, probably the most--I develop know he was the 
most decorated in Korea, but he was one of for sure. And I know 
there will be a request forthcoming from people very close to 
that family about the potential for him to lie in state as I 
think we did with Woody Williams from World War II. And I hope 
our leadership team will give that some serious thought. We are 
losing a lot of our heroes these days and we should be mindful 
of the sacrifices that they have made for all of us.
    Madam Secretary, General George, I want to go back to 
comments made about the supplemental. I don't want to beat this 
dead horse, but I am going to join the chorus of people that 
think that we need to act posthaste on a supplemental.
    What concerns me as much as anything, General George, is 
the potential for us to be canceling combat training center 
rotations as a result of the our inability to move forces and 
train them appropriately. I personally think it is the secret 
sauce in readiness that be gets our warfighters prepared and 
ready to fight and win.
    So I want to give you an opportunity to comment on that. 
That is a real threat right now. I suppose that we could see 
some of these training center rotations go by the wayside.
    General George. I would just tell you, Congressman, we are 
going to have to make, based on what Secretary said earlier, we 
are going to have to make some tough choices that we are going 
to look, you know, look all around. CTCs will be very tough for 
us. I have been to I think four times already this year, it is 
kind of our crown jewel of where we are going to train and 
adapt for the future. So we don't want to have to make those 
kind of tough choices and we need that for our readiness.
    Mr. Womack. Madam Secretary?
    Secretary Wormuth. That is exactly right. I mean, I think 
we would really try to protect the 22, I think, CTC rotations 
that we have. You know, we could look at reducing 
participation, you know, skinnying it down a little bit, but I 
think we would really avoid canceling it all together. But 
those are the kinds of hard choices we are looking at if we 
don't see the supplemental come across the finish line.
    Mr. Womack. I think we have a role in that and hopefully we 
can get to it.
    I want to go back to counter UAS. I note that in the budget 
nearly $450 million for counter UAS capability in your unfunded 
priority list. Now there is money for counter UAS but there is 
additional money in the unfunded list. Is it fair to assume 
that that is just something that you need but because of all of 
the other requirements you are just unable to get the full 
amount in the base budget?
    General George. We have, Congressman, we have some--we have 
a good amount in our base budget. We have some that we 
requested in the supplemental. And then when I was asked for 
unfunded priority list the world has changed a lot since we put 
in our budget and what happened last October 7th. And I know 
there are things on there that we would like to do like 
increase production for Coyote missiles that have been very 
effective. There are other systems from Andril for example so 
we would like to spend on that.
    So there is really two things in that unfunded priority 
list that is ramping up production for the things that we 
couldn't quite get to and then a lot of it is how the 
battlefield is changing.
    Mr. Womack. I want to thank you both for your service and 
for your ascension to the chief's role General George we are 
honored to have you here today. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Cuellar.

                          APACHE MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you Mr. Chairman and ranking member for 
having this meeting. I want to thank both of you very much for 
your service to the country.
    Madam Secretary, you are from College Station. What 
happened to Texas A&M? I am just kidding.
    Secretary Wormuth. The last time I went back it has gotten 
enormous. Oh, my goodness. The new Kyle Field, like, blocks the 
sun.
    Mr. Cuellar. And it has grown. I think John Carter and I 
know this.
    I want to follow up on something that the judge mentioned. 
My understanding it is $81 million for we are talking about 
Apaches, $81 million for modifications and $8 million to 
modernize the whole fleet. That certainly is not enough right? 
If those numbers are correct.
    Secretary Wormuth. What I can tell you, Congressman, is you 
know, we are committed to Apache. It is going to stay in the 
fleet for a long time. I was just talking to the folks who 
build Apache and they felt I think pretty comfortable with 
where we are. So we do plan on continually upgrading it. It is 
not at any risk.
    Mr. Cuellar. Okay. We certainly want to work with you on 
that Judge and I----

                     HUMAN PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION

    Let me talk about one item that I am really proud of what 
you all are doing, the Army. I think the Army is leading all 
services in human performance optimization. And as you know, it 
is important to make sure that we get elite soldiers, mind, 
body, everything. And I certainly want to say thank you so much 
for the efforts that you all are doing. I know that through the 
help of the chairman and the ranking we are able at $15 million 
there for the UT Health Science Center in San Antonio working 
on optimization and we are working with your Department.
    But if you can tell us, right now my understanding is that 
the Army's using that for active soldiers. Any plans for the 
Reserves or the guards or is it just for active soldiers right 
now?
    And again, I really want to--I have talked to your folks, 
my military fellow we spent a lot of time past military fellows 
have been--and the Army is doing a wonderful job and I hope 
that the other departments do the same thing. Human 
optimization, human performance optimization is to make sure we 
get the best soldiers.
    Secretary Wormuth. Thank you, Congressman.
    Yeah, we have found the health and holistic fitness program 
to be really, really effective. It is both helping our soldiers 
get more fit, but it is also helping them become more 
resilient. We have been accelerating the buy of those sets to 
brigades by about 15 to 20 a year.
    For the guard and Reserves our plan is to try to start 
bringing those types of capabilities to the guard and Reserves, 
sort of starting in fiscal year 2026, 2027 and going out to 
fiscal year 2030. Particularly with the Reserves and how 
distributed they are we are going to have to take a somewhat 
different approach, but we do plan to eventually get that kind 
of capability to the COMPO 2 and 3.
    Mr. Cuellar. Sir.
    General George. Yeah, I think the other thing that we had 
discussions with the guard and I have gotten together with a 
lot of the tags is how do we--you look at Peloton app or Nike 
fit app, what are ways that we can do this a little bit 
different. Every time I go to an installation we are going 15 
more health and holistic fitness. It is making our warriors 
better. And it is not surprising to me, I mean, you feel better 
about yourself and you are more fit. You are just going to be 
more resilient on the battlefield and everywhere else. So we 
are going to continue to invest in that.
    The challenge that we have is obviously we are competing 
with everybody else to hire nutritionists, strength coaches, 
performance coaches and all of those things. And so some areas 
we are growing as quickly as we want and others we have to push 
a little more.
    Mr. Cuellar. And again, we thank you. We just want to make 
sure we are very supportive. Because this work especially it 
does prevent a lot of the military injuries that can be 
prevented. And it is not only just what you eat and what you 
exercise, it is really your mind.
    Studies have shown that you could use that especially when 
you have soldiers working under pressure situations and they 
have to make a decision there is a lot of things. And, as you 
know, a lot of the research the Department of Defense does goes 
on to the general population and it is also on aging, you know, 
how do you age better? I mean just because you got old doesn't 
mean that you have to be in a difficult situation. So it has 
not only good for our soldiers but certainly for our general 
population.
    So I want to thank you, my time is up. But I certainly want 
to thank you for leading the services on human performance 
optimization. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Joyce.

                     LONG RANGE MILITARY PLATFORMS

    Mr. Joyce. Given that the Army's tactical fire study 
revalidated the need for longer range military platform, what 
is the Army's plan and timeline to get IRKA into the production 
phase with the proposed cut in fiscal year 2025?
    General George. I think our challenge was--is basically was 
the technology, you know, not being ready which is why it was 
extended. The requirement to have long range fires, 
Congressman, has not changed. I do think that the battlefield 
is changing. I do think that technology is changing.
    One of the things that we need to really focus on, this 
gets back to cost curve as well, is how do we adjust the round, 
how do we adjust the missile? What are the things that we can 
do I think to increase performance? But long range fires is 
critically important. It is ground based long range fires. So 
we are definitely focused on that particular aspect.
    Secretary Wormuth. Congressman, if I could add to what the 
chief said, he mentioned the engineering challenges we had with 
the barrel. What we are planning to do because as the chief 
said we need--the requirement remains, we are going to do a 
performance demo this summer with industry.
    There are other platforms that we think could potentially 
meet our needs so we are going to have a bunch of folks who 
have capabilities that they think might be useful and we expect 
we will probably select one of those for production in fiscal 
year 2025.
    Mr. Joyce. You have spent a fair amount of money to date, 
though, in testing this equipment, correct?
    Secretary Wormuth. Yes, that is true. And I think, you 
know, what we have found you all in Congress have been great 
about giving us some new authorities to allow us to develop and 
acquire systems more quickly than we have had in the past. We 
have been making good use of those.
    And I think one of the lessons coming out of our experience 
with IRKA, is that which we will apply going forward to all of 
our modernization programs is we need to have more points where 
we can have off ramps if we see that a system isn't working.
    Because I think we probably if we had to do it over again 
would have off ramped away from IRKA a little bit sooner. So we 
will build that into our acquisition plans as we go forward.
    Mr. Joyce. So that is something you would need on your end, 
not so much we would have to put it in.
    Secretary Wormuth. That is right. You have given us the 
authority, you know, we are making use of them and I think we 
are learning quite a bit as we go. We have been doing much more 
this kind of--and the chief alluded to it earlier bringing 
industry soldiers and our acquisition professionals together to 
do touch points as we go.
    So we have had a lot of learning in the last several years 
in terms of how we are using these new authorities. And I think 
we did learn some process lessons from the experience with 
IRKA.
    Mr. Joyce. Fair enough.

                          REENLISTMENT BONUSES

    Madam Secretary, on March 1st 2024 the Army National Guard 
issued a memo suspending reenlistment bonuses effective 
immediately. The sudden suspension was due to a miscalculation 
by Army National Guards planners who forecasted the amount of 
funds needed and anticipated a volume of troops planning to 
continue their service.
    A week later, the National Guard restarted issuing 
reenlistment bonuses on March 8. However, the updated policy 
cannot be applied retroactively, meaning that those who signed 
reenlistment packages between March 1st and March 7th will not 
be eligible for those bonuses.
    A, how did this miscalculation first occur? And what 
actions are made to ensure that it doesn't occur again. And 
secondly, what are we going to do with the people in the March 
1 to March 7th space?
    Secretary Wormuth. Well, Congressman, I think a couple of 
things. Obviously with all of the different tags and all of the 
different States it is a little harder I think sometimes to 
manage our pay, bonuses, reenlistment bonuses, than it is for 
us in the active--for the active part of the force. So I think 
there are some lessons learned for the Army guard in terms of 
managing these types of programs and putting in cost controls.
    And this is not the first time frankly we have had some 
times these kind of issues. So my understanding is the Army 
guard rate now is putting in those kinds of cost controls so 
that we don't have the kind of situation where they find oops, 
we have got to stop giving these reenlistment or retention 
bonuses. And we, I think chief and I, can talk to General 
Jensen about whether there is something to be done with the 
individuals in that week period. We can certainly look it.
    General George. I will look into the--what I was talking to 
General Jensen was part of that was coming up against the 
continuing resolution and they were--you know, they had to go 
back and look at money.
    So I do think we have something to learn that would put the 
guardrails in place, but we will look and find out if there--I 
was not tracking anybody that didn't get that, but we will go 
back and confirm. Close the loop with you.
    Mr. Joyce. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Appreciate it.
    Mr. Ellzey.

                               GAZA PORT

    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here.
    A couple of quick questions. Somehow you all got stuck with 
establishing a port in Gaza. That is a big headache. How do you 
anticipate doing that with adequate force protection. What 
happens if things go haywire and you get shot at? And ma'am who 
is going to be building this temporary port?
    Secretary Wormuth. Sure, happy to talk about that, 
Congressman. I actually had the opportunity to see the joint 
logistics over the shore capability in Australia this summer 
when it was out and it is a remarkable capability.
    Could say more in a closed session, but we are extremely 
focused on force protection for our Army soldiers who are going 
to be both on the floating peer and the Trident peer that will 
actually touch the beach. There is going to be a very robust 
and layered security approach that General Kurilla in CENTCOM 
has been working very hard with our general--at our Army 
CENTCOM.
    It is going to be a team effort, Army, Navy, Israeli 
defense forces will all be part of making sure that we have a 
layered system to deal with air threats, maritime threats, 
undersea threats, ground threats. We can give you more detail I 
think in a closed session because we want to make sure our 
soldiers are protected.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you.
    General George. Yeah, I think as you know, Congressman, 
these are joint efforts so that is what we will need to take 
place. And that is why we have talked to General Kurilla on 
down. We have taken a pretty extensive brief on what that is 
and I feel like they have the right force protection measures 
in place.

                                  A-10

    Mr. Ellzey. Another question is with the demise of the A-10 
which I know that the Army fought against for many, many years. 
How do you fill the gap caused by the loss of the A-10 in the 
close air support region?
    Secretary Wormuth. Chief, you are probably better.
    General George. Yes, I think yes did enjoy the support of 
the A-10. I think it was also a different environment that we 
were in. And I know that the Air Force just like us has to make 
decisions to advance technology and a lot of that technology 
would not survive on the modern battlefield.
    So I think there are a lot of different ways that we are 
giving the sidebar our own internal support that we have. And 
we have a lot of systems that are coming online right now with 
long range precision fighters that have significant capability 
to be provide long range fires.
    Same thing we are still going to rely on the Air Force and 
the Navy. We have mid-range capability, which I know you are 
familiar with. So I think again it is a joint battlefield.

                              GUAM DEFENSE

    Mr. Ellzey. Okay. As long as they fill the gap. I mean, the 
A-10 it was time for it to go. I just had not heard recently, 
if you guys feel like that was being filled.
    Finally, with the remaining time one quick question, you 
guys are responsible for again a joint way but the defense of 
Guam is that going along as planned? You have got it covered on 
the budget and execution.
    Secretary Wormuth. I think we have a good approach 
Congressman. First of all, that is another place joint mission. 
No, it is not just the Army, it is going to be the Navy, the 
Marines, and the Air Force, we all have a role to play. Our 
responsibility is to come up with the architecture for the 
acquisition system. We are going to go have that strategy by 
the end of May. And the plan is still to have a capability by 
fiscal year 2027.
    One thing I think that has been helpful is the deputy 
secretary established what we are calling the Guam Oversight 
Council, it is chaired by Erik Raven the undersecretary for the 
Navy. That brings all of us services in the MBA together to 
make sure that we are synchronizing. I mean, one thing for 
example and I was in Guam last summer, they have finite 
construction capability. So we have got to all work together to 
make sure that we are prioritizing the projects so that we are 
all kind of moving together as a group.
    Mr. Ellzey. Great. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And before we conclude, I want to thank the witnesses for 
their testimony today. The subcommittee members are welcome to 
submit questions for the record. I would hope that the 
witnesses would respond in a reasonable amount of time.
    And with that, we are adjourned.
    [Answers to submitted questions follow:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]     

                                         Wednesday, April 17, 2024.

                         DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                               WITNESSES

HON. LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL CHARLES Q. BROWN, JR., CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
HON. MICHAEL McCORD, UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (COMPTROLLER)/CHIEF 
    FINANCIAL OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The Defense Subcommittee will come to order.
    Today the subcommittee will receive testimony from Lloyd 
Austin, the Secretary of Defense; General CQ Brown, the 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Mike McCord, the Under 
Secretary of Defense for Comptroller.
    The Department of Defense is requesting $833 billion within 
this subcommittee's jurisdiction for fiscal year 2025. This is 
1 percent higher than fiscal year 2024 enacted level and would 
keep defense spending within the cap imposed by the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act, which is an interesting number considering 
the nondefense discretionary request is about $23 billion over 
the same cap.
    President Biden frequently reports a quote from his father: 
Don't tell me what you value, show me what your budget--show me 
your budget, and I will tell you what you value.
    It seems this administration will continue to value its 
domestic agenda over national security. I, on the other hand, 
agree with the former secretary, Jim Mattis, who advocated for 
annual 3 to 5 percent real growth in defense top line to both 
fight tonight and adequately invest in capability to deter and 
win in tomorrow's wars.
    That said, this subcommittee will closely scrutinize a 
request to ensure that we provide a strong military as we 
develop fiscal year 2025 defense appropriation bill. Our job is 
made more difficult when our enemies are emboldened to act with 
impunity.
    Secretary Austin, with the deteriorating global security 
environment as a scorecard, I assess that your emphasis on 
integrated deterrence is failing.
    China is positioning itself to realize Xi's vision of 
building a force capable of taking Taiwan by 2027, reducing 
capability at scale and bullying our allies and partners across 
the Indo-Pacific. Xi is not deterred.
    Russia is in the third year of an unjust war of aggression 
against Ukraine, with no signs of stopping its ongoing invasion 
attempt. Putin is not deterred.
    China is waging asymmetric warfare against the American 
people by providing base fentanyl components to Mexican drug 
cartels. The fentanyl products flowing across the porous 
southern border killed 112,000 Americans last year and 
devastating communities across the Nation. The Chinese 
suppliers and the Mexican drug cartels are not deterred.
    And over the weekend, Iran, for the first time, launched a 
direct attack on the state of Israel. The Iranian barrage 
included over 100 ballistic missiles, 30 cruise missiles, 150 
attack drones launched from Lebanon, Yemen, and, for the first 
time, Iran itself. Ninety-nine percent of their missiles and 
drones were intercepted. But make no mistake, Iran is not 
deterred.
    Unfortunately, the Department is plagued by bureaucracy 
that impedes the actions necessary to restore deterrence. This 
is most notable over cost and significantly delayed weapon 
system acquisition. Pick a service. I can point you to systems 
that fit this mold.
    The Navy's Columbia and Virginia submarines are both 
delayed despite being dubbed the service's number one priority. 
Air Force Sentinel experienced a Nunn-McCurdy breach. The Army 
spent over $2 billion developing FARA, only to cancel the 
program. The Space Force GPS ground system is more than $3 
billion over budget, more than 7 years late, and is still not 
delivered. And, of course, there is the Department's entire 
hypersonic program, which has cost over $10.5 billion so far 
and produced not a single fielded system.
    Our warfighters need modern technology now. A part of the 
solution must be a true commitment by the Department to embrace 
and adopt an agile and innovative approach to acquisition.
    In Fiscal Year 2024 Defense Appropriations Act, I invested 
in this solution by ensuring that defense innovation unit 
received $1 billion, along with the flexible authorities 
necessary to rapidly identify, contract, and deliver innovative 
technologies to the warfighter.
    Included in this funding is $220 million for combatant 
commanders to procure and rapidly field their capabilities they 
need most urgently. The hedge portfolio investment is critical 
to addressing the emerging dynamic and materializing threats I 
discussed earlier.
    This funding is separate and distinct from the Replicator 
effort. Fiscal year 2024 appropriations reinforced this fact, 
providing $1 billion for DIU and more than $200 million for 
Replicator tranche one.
    Additionally, to achieve an effective and efficient 
military, the Department must also reoptimize its workforce. I 
am pleased to see the fiscal year 2025 request includes a net 
reduction in civilian full-time equivalence, and I am 
encouraged by the progress the Department is making to 
incorporate artificial intelligence and process automation to 
eliminate manual business processes. More must be done here.
    And finally, our people are an asymmetric advantage that 
our adversaries could never replicate. They deserve the best 
from barracks to business systems and from livable wages to 
robust family support.
    We as a committee have long championed significant boosts 
in pay for our junior enlisted servicemembers, and I am happy 
to note this seems to be a popular initiative in Congress this 
year.
    Together with their families, our servicemembers are the 
foundation upon which our Nation's strength is derived. 
Supporting and investing in them is a priority, and I know we 
can all agree on that.
    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, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, General Brown, and Under Secretary McCord, 
thank you for testifying before us today.
    General, we welcome your first appearance before the 
committee as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
    For fiscal year 2025, the President has proposed $823 
billion within our subcommittee's jurisdiction. It conforms 
with the enacted level in the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which 
passed the House by a vote of 314 to 117. This allowed for a $7 
billion increase above fiscal year 2024 enacted levels, even 
though it is below the rate of inflation.
    I voted for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, not because I 
agreed with the spending levels in the deal, but because this 
country could not afford to default on its debts.
    Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Department has received 
criticisms from its authorizers for the top line budget 
requested. I think that criticism is unfair and unjust, 
especially from authorizers who do not have the responsibility 
for allocating the funding.
    Mr. Secretary, you personally did not impose a Fiscal 
Responsibility Act on the Department of Defense. Congress did. 
And I think those of us who voted for that law, we need to 
remember that when talking with you.
    I hope Congress has learned a hard lesson: that we should 
not hold our national debt limit hostage over arbitrary 
spending caps.
    The Department and the administration are conforming to 
what the law of the land is. Asking the Department to ignore 
the law is not advisable.
    I note each of you and the service chiefs have made 
difficult choices this year to follow the law. As I said last 
year, Congress must be better about making hard choices when it 
comes to the defense budget. We need to continue to train, 
equip our servicemen and women, and to support them and their 
families here at home. We must prioritize modernization of our 
force and support investments, which will support future modern 
combat. And most of all, we need to meet the requirements 
included in the National Defense Strategy. Every dollar 
allocated in your budget request represents an increased effort 
to defend our Nation and to deter threats.
    As you know, we finally enacted fiscal year 2024 bill on 
March 23, 6 months after it was supposed to be completed. This 
delay triggered multiple continuing resolutions and impeded 
your ability to start new programs. None of this should have 
happened.
    Now turning to the security supplemental. The Senate passed 
it over 2 months ago, and it is deeply unfortunate that it has 
not been brought directly to the floor of the House for a vote. 
Funding that bill would provide much needed support for 
Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel. And it will make sure that we have the 
critical munitions we need here at home to protect the United 
States.
    The supplemental will support our military and provide them 
with the ammunition necessary to defend us here at home and 
support our allies abroad. And it also includes much needed 
humanitarian assistance, which is long overdue to the people 
who need it.
    As the chair mentioned, evidenced by Iran's actions this 
weekend, Israel will require more interceptors to defend itself 
from Iranian missile attacks.
    Last week, our subcommittee was briefed by U.S. European 
Command on the prognosis for Ukraine without American support. 
As you know, it was chilling. Without the United States' 
assistance, Ukraine will literally run out of ammunition and 
more civilians in Ukraine will be murdered by Russia. For these 
reasons, the supplemental must be enacted as soon as possible.
    While the hearing today will cover a range of topics, I 
want to highlight a few that are very important to me.
    First, I am concerned about our Nation's ability to address 
emerging threats. Many of the major systems that we rely on 
from each of the services are delayed and require additional 
funds from their original stated contracts. This needs to stop.
    Our industrial partners seem to be losing workers right and 
left after they have been trained, particularly in the 
shipbuilding industrial base. This is unacceptable, and it is 
extremely concerning to me.
    The Department, Congress, and industry must work together 
to ensure that there is consistency because of those jobs and 
the people in them are important to the national security of 
our Nation.
    Second, the subcommittee has heard from the Army and the 
Navy about how they are addressing recruitment and retention 
issues. I would like to know what you think the progress is 
that the services have made in recruitment goals in the past 
year, and do you believe this will get us back on track on the 
near term future.
    And finally, given the focus on the Pacific, which is 
important, and the recent visit of Washington by the Japanese 
Prime Minister, I would like to hear your thoughts on our 
relationship with Japan. How can the Department work with Japan 
to better utilize maintenance and repair facilities in Japanese 
territory that our forces can execute their missions more 
effectively and efficiently? And what are some of the ways that 
the Department has worked to strengthen our relationship with 
allies, such as the Philippines, Australia, and South Korea?
    Again, thank you to the service for our witnesses who are 
appearing before us today and all those who serve and work 
under you. We appreciate your testimony and answers to our 
questions.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the courtesy, and I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    And now I would like to turn to the chairman of the full 
committee, my good friend, Chairman Tom Cole, the floor is 
yours.

                    Opening Remarks of Chairman Cole

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Chairman Calvert.
    And good morning to our witnesses. Certainly, Mr. 
Secretary, General Brown, Under Secretary McCord, it is great 
to have you here this morning.
    Iran's missile and drone attacks on Israel and the 
persistent and aggressive actions of China and Russia are 
reminders that we need a strong military to deter war, protect 
U.S. interests and, when necessary, win in conflict.
    We are witnessing an evolution in warfighting through the 
proliferation of technology. Small, cheap, and autonomous 
systems provide regional actors with the ability to threaten 
their neighbors and endanger the global order.
    With that backdrop, the Department's fiscal year 2025 
request makes tough choices to stay under the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act cap. It trades long-term modernization of 
capabilities to preserve near-term readiness of force.
    Frankly, like my friend Chairman Calvert, I would like to 
see an increase in defense spending to more completely address 
these threats. I certainly, as my good friend, Ranking Member 
McCollum said, support the supplemental, both for its immediate 
impact and its long-term, you know, assistance in developing 
and sustaining our own industrial base.
    However, additional funding would not absolve the 
Department of its responsibility to deliver capabilities on 
time and on budget. In that regard, I certainly associate 
myself with the remarks of my good friend Chairman Calvert.
    From hypersonic programs to shipbuilding to aircraft like 
the E-7, I continue to be concerned by the Department's 
inability to deliver weapons to the warfighter in a reasonable 
timeframe.
    Successful weapon system acquisition requires clear 
standards, adequate funding, competent program management, and 
a trusting partnership between the Department and industry. It 
also requires constant communication and transparency with the 
Congress.
    These are some of the areas--excuse me. There are some 
areas, such as munitions, where the Department is working 
directly with this committee in providing the funding and 
demand signal necessary to ramp industrial base production.
    I am interested in your thoughts, Mr. Secretary, on how to 
go a step further and develop surge capacity across the 
industrial base. This would increase our readiness for whatever 
the global security environment throws at us.
    I want to note that the Department is enduring the most 
challenging recruiting crisis since the creation of the all-
volunteer force. The junior enlisted force is the lifeblood of 
the military, and this committee is committed to recruiting and 
retaining the best America has to offer.
    There is no shortage of challenges for this Department, and 
I look forward to hearing how the fiscal year 2025 budget 
request addresses those issues.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the chairman.
    Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed on 
the record. Please give a brief summary of your statements.
    So, Secretary Austin, the floor is yours.

                 Summary Statement of Secretary Austin

    Secretary Austin. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, distinguished members of the committee, thanks for 
the opportunity to testify in support of President Biden's 
proposed fiscal year 2025 budget for the Department of Defense.
    And, Chairman Cole, I look forward to continuing to work 
closely together as you take the gavel of the full committee.
    I am pleased to be joined by our outstanding Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General CQ Brown, and by Under 
Secretary Mike McCord, the Department's comptroller.
    Let me start by thanking this committee for all that you do 
to support the U.S. military, our troops, and our military 
families.
    We began seeing the exceptional skill and professionalism 
of our forces after Iran's unprecedented and reckless assault 
on Israel. Alongside Israel and our allies, we had enormous 
success in defeating Iran's attack, and we will continue to 
stand ready to protect our troops in the region and to support 
the defense of Israel from attacks by Iran or its proxies. And 
our commitment to Israel's security is ironclad.
    And let me be clear, while we have not seen renewed attacks 
on U.S. Forces or facilities, as President Biden has said, we 
will not hesitate to take all necessary actions to protect our 
people.
    Now, let me turn to this year's budget request.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Calvert. The meeting will be suspended.
    The committee will be in order.
    The chair notes a disturbance of the committee proceedings. 
The chair reminds our guests that disruptive demonstrations in 
the audience is in violation of the House rules. Any additional 
disruptions to the hearing will require law enforcement to 
remove protestors from the room and restore order. And I will 
do that.
    Mr. Secretary, please continue.
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, Chairman.
    As Secretary, I have always been guided by three 
priorities: defending our Nation, taking care of our people, 
and succeeding through teamwork. Our budget request for fiscal 
year 2025 will advance all three of these priorities.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Calvert. The committee will stand in recess until the 
Capitol Police can restore order.
    Capitol Police, please remove the demonstrators from the 
room.
    The committee is in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Calvert. The committee will come back to order.
    Mr. Secretary, please proceed.
    Secretary Austin. As I said, Chairman, our budget request 
for fiscal year 2025 will advance all three of the priorities 
that I mentioned.
    First, the President's request will invest in cutting-edge 
capabilities across all domains. This includes $48.1 billion 
for naval and shipbuilding capabilities, $61.2 billion to 
reinforce U.S. air dominance, and $13 billion to bolster Army 
and Marine Corps combat capabilities. Our request will also 
provide $33.7 billion to strengthen our space architecture and 
$14.5 billion to develop and field advance cybersecurity tools. 
It will direct $49.2 billion to modernize and recapitalize all 
three legs of our nuclear triad, and it will sharpen our tech 
edge through a $167.5 billion investment in procurement and a 
$143.2 billion investment in R&D.
    Second, this budget request will support our outstanding 
troops and their families. That includes raising base pay and 
housing allowances, investing in better housing, making 
childcare more affordable, and funding vital work to prevent 
sexual assault and suicide in the military.
    And third, this request will help the Department further 
deepen our teamwork worldwide. Our network of allies and 
partners remains a strategic advantage that no competitor can 
match. And you can see its power in our strengthening ties 
across the Indo-Pacific, in today's expanded and united NATO, 
and in the 50-country Ukraine defense contact group that I 
convene.
    Our budget remains rooted in our 2022 National Defense 
Strategy. Our request positions the United States to tackle the 
Department's pacing challenge--the People's Republic of China--
with confidence and urgency. It will help meet the acute threat 
of Putin's increasingly aggressive Russia. It will help us 
tackle the persistent dangers that we have just seen from Iran 
and its proxies in their attack on Israel. It will help us take 
on the threats from North Korea, global terrorist 
organizations, and other malign actors. And it will help us 
continue to deter aggression against the United States and our 
allies and partners and to prevail in conflict, if necessary.
    Now, today I want to underscore three key messages. First, 
even as our budget request abides by the mandatory cap set by 
the Fiscal Responsibility Act, it is aligned to our strategy. 
We made tough but responsible decisions that prioritize near-
term readiness, modernization of the joint force, and support 
for our troops and their families. Our approach dials back some 
near-term modernization for programs not set to come online 
until the 2030s.
    Second, we can only fully reach the goals of our strategy 
with your help, and I am grateful that Congress passed the 
fiscal year 2024 appropriations in March. The single greatest 
way that Congress can support the Department is to pass 
predictable, sustained, and timely appropriations.
    My third and final message is that the price of U.S. 
leadership is real, but it is far lower than the price of U.S. 
Abdication.
    As the President has said, we are in a global struggle 
between democracy and autocracy, and our security relies on 
American strength of purpose. And that is why our budget 
request seeks to invest in American security and in America's 
defense industrial base.
    It is also why the administration has requested nearly $60 
billion in the National Security Supplemental for the 
Department, and that supplemental would support our partners in 
Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan, and it would make key investments 
to increase submarine production. In fact, about $50 billion of 
this supplemental would flow through our defense industrial 
base, creating good American jobs in more than 30 States.
    Now, we are more than 2 years into the Kremlin's war of 
aggression against Ukraine, and Putin is betting that the 
United States will falter, abandon our friends, and leave 
Ukraine in mortal danger. If the Kremlin prevails in Ukraine, 
it would embolden would-be aggressors around the globe. And we 
know that China, Iran, and others are watching what Putin does 
and how we respond.
    So we look to our partners in Congress to help us make the 
investments needed to strengthen America's security through 
both the supplemental and the President's budget request.
    The United States military is the most lethal fighting 
force on Earth, and with your help, we are going to keep it 
that way.
    I am truly grateful for your support for our mission and 
for our troops, and I look forward to your questions.
    Thank you.
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    General Brown, you are recognized.

                   Summary Statement of General Brown

    General Brown. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
Chairman Cole, and distinguished members of the committee, I am 
honored to join Secretary Austin and Honorable Mike McCord to 
appear before you today.
    On behalf of the joint force, the Department of Defense 
civilians, and our families, I want to thank Congress for your 
steadfast support and the opportunity to testify on the fiscal 
year 2025 defense budget request which reflects our shared 
commitment to national security.
    The global security environment is increasingly complex. 
The 2022 National Defense Strategy identifies five key 
challenges: the People's Republic of China, our pacing 
challenge, continues its risky behavior around the globe. The 
newly aggressive Russia with its unprovoked war against 
Ukraine. A reckless Iran, who as we saw just this past weekend, 
attempts to escalate regional conflict with unprecedented 
attacks in support of proxy forces. A destabilizing North Korea 
which threatens regional security. And violent extremist 
organizations which leverage instability to advance their 
cause.
    These challenges are interconnected, which demands a 
strategic approach addressing the immediate threats while also 
preparing for future contingencies.
    Days after becoming the chairman, I laid out three 
expectations in my message to the joint force: honing our 
warfighting skills has primacy in all we do, modernizing and 
aggressively leading with new concepts and approaches, and 
trust is the foundation of our profession.
    Our military exists to fight and win our Nation's wars. We 
train every day to ensure we are so good at what we do that we 
deter any adversary from engaging the U.S. in conflict.
    This budget requests $147 billion to sustain readiness and 
ensure the Department can counter near-term threats. We are 
also focused on better integrating our allies and partners in 
our planning and operations by investing in critical programs 
and capability, expanding security cooperation, exercises, 
training, interoperability. Our investments in readiness ensure 
the joint force can respond when the Nation calls.
    While we are focused on our readiness for today, it is 
critical to modernize and lead with new concepts to prepare for 
tomorrow. The Department continues to invest in capability and 
capacity to outpace our competitors, while transforming from 
costly legacy platforms that are no longer relevant to the 
threat.
    This budget strategically invests in $167.5 billion in 
procurement, underscoring our commitment to equip the joint 
force with unparalleled combat capabilities across every 
domain. This budget also invests $143.2 billion in research, 
development, tests, and evaluation of future capabilities that 
will retain our strategic edge.
    Finally, this budget invests significantly into nuclear 
modernization, digital innovation, multi-year procurement of 
critical munitions, and a strengthened defense industrial base. 
With rapidly evolving threats in technology, accelerating our 
modernization is crucial.
    Lastly, trust is the foundation of our profession. The 
joint force must build upon and uphold trusting each other, 
trust with our families, trust of our elected leaders, and 
trust of our Nation. Enhancing the quality of service and the 
quality of life of our personnel is not just a moral 
obligation; it is a strategic imperative.
    This budget includes investments in quality of service 
efforts, such as advanced training, educational benefits, and 
career development, while also investing in quality of life 
projects, like housing, medical clinics, and childcare 
facilities, as well as funding spouse employment initiatives, 
enhanced mental health resources, and robust programs to combat 
sexual assault. We must create an environment where all can 
reach their full potential.
    Trust that our joint force stands ready, ready to defend 
our national interest, ready to deter aggression, and ready, if 
necessary, to fight and win our Nation's wars.
    I thank you for your support and collaboration in our 
shared commitment to face the security challenges of today and 
prepare for tomorrow. We are living in consequential times, and 
there is no time to waste.
    Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
                 Defense Innovation and Rapid Fielding

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    I want to make sure that each member has a chance to ask 
questions, so each member will have at least 5 minutes, 5 
minutes to answer their questions. When your timer turns 
yellow, you will have 1 minute remaining.
    First, I will recognize myself.
    Innovation and rapid fielding to the warfighter has been a 
number one priority of mine since coming to Congress. There are 
many efforts underway, and I am encouraged by this momentum. 
However, as stated before--and I support the Replicator 
initiative. In no way should Replicator cannibalize from the 
hedge fund established in fiscal year 2024.
    General Brown, the transition of requirements to 
capabilities to a program of record is low, not well 
understood, and opaque to warfighters and industry alike. How 
will you address this issue during your tenure?
    General Brown. Chairman, I appreciate the question, and I 
would also offer I have the same focus on being--accelerate 
capability to our warfighters.
    You know, part of this dialogue is really the collaboration 
that I try to do with the service chiefs but how we can engage 
with--from the requirements to our acquisition and to industry 
to best accelerate each of these capabilities to go from a 
prototype to production.
    This also is very important about the defense industrial 
base, so we can actually make sure we are able to deliver--once 
we identify the innovation, be able to move it much more 
quickly into the hands of our warfighters.
    And so it is going to require leadership, which I am happy 
to do, but it is also going to require for us to have, you 
know, on-time resourcing, consistent demand signal, and to 
build that trust across the spectrum to make sure we bring the 
capability forward much faster.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, I look forward to working with you on 
that. We can make sure that we deliver the funds on time.
    Secretary Austin, last week, Under Secretary Shyu 
inaugurated the Transition Tracking Action Group, which will 
employ advanced analytics to track how the Department delivers 
capability to the field. Will you commit that this effort will 
be collaborative with Congress and that you will support its 
success?
    Secretary Austin. Absolutely, Chairman.
    Again, I commend Ms. Shyu, or the Honorable Shyu, on the 
things that she has done since we have been together. I think 
she has done a number of things, to include things like RDER 
and OSC, as you know, to help us bridge the value of death.
    And the programs that you mentioned or the initiatives that 
you mentioned are really mutually supported, and we are going 
to do every--continue to do everything we can to move 
capability as quickly as we can across the valley of death and 
get it into the hands of our warfighters.
    Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.

               EXECUTION OF SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENSE FUNDING

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Secretary, General Brown, Under Secretary McCord, the 
Senate passed a supplemental, and it includes funding for 
allies and partners in UCOM, CENTCOM and INDOPACOM, as well as 
much needed humanitarian assistance.
    Mr. Secretary, I am going to ask a couple of questions 
together. Could you please let this committee know how our 
allies and partners are reacting to our delays in the 
enhancement of the supplemental?
    General Brown, please share with us your military 
assessment of the situation in Ukraine today and what it looks 
like for tomorrow.
    Mr. McCord, we know that the services are utilizing base 
funds to cover the cost of deployed personnel operating in 
EUCOM and CENTCOM. If we do not enact a supplemental, how will 
this impact the services' fiscal year 2024 base activities?
    So, in general, why do we need to pass the supplemental 
right away? And is the United States losing stature in the 
world community?
    Thank you, gentlemen.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Calvert. The committee will not allow for disruption. 
If any more disruption happens, we will recess and have the 
disruption removed.
    Mr. Secretary, you are recognized.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, Chairman.
    You know, delaying the supplemental sends a terrible signal 
to our allies and partners, and they will question whether or 
not, you know, we are committed to this cause and whether or 
not we are a reliable partner. And we have--as you know, we 
have led every inch of the way in terms of making sure that 
security assistance is provided to Ukraine. We have united 
NATO, been instrumental in uniting NATO in ways that we haven't 
seen. Actually, NATO has expanded. And so I think that American 
leadership in this endeavor has been really, really important.
    I think that it is also--you know, the supplemental is also 
important to us for our security as well. This supplemental 
invests in our industrial base.
    As you know, we don't provide funds to Ukraine. The 
Department of Defense doesn't. We provide materials in terms of 
weapons, vehicles, munitions. And all of those things are 
replaced by us, and the replacements are designed and built in 
our industry. And so that means good jobs, good jobs for people 
in America.
    So if that supplemental was passed, and when it gets 
passed, some $50 billion or so would flow through some 30 
States here in America, and I think that is really important.
    And again, the supplemental not only provides support for 
Ukraine, but it also provides much needed support for Israel 
and also for Taiwan.
    [Disturbance in hearing room.]
    Mr. Calvert. The committee will stand in recess until the 
Capitol Police can restore order.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Calvert. The committee will come back to order.
    Mr. Secretary, you are recognized.
    Secretary Austin. So to sum it up, this supplemental is 
really important for a number of reasons. And, again, it is 
important to us for our security as well, and it is really 
important that we have the ability to replenish the stocks in 
our inventory that will be critical for us going forward.
    General Brown. Ranking Member McCollum, you asked about my 
military assessment on Ukraine, and I will just tell you that 
Ukraine right now is facing some dire battlefield conditions. 
And it is partly because their capability from a resourcing 
standpoint, from--whether it is munitions, whether it is 
vehicles, whether it is platforms, they are not being 
outmatched by the Russians.
    They have had some pretty--the Ukrainians have had some 
positive gains in the course of the 2-plus years that they have 
been in this conflict, regaining more than 50 percent of the 
territory that the Russians seized at the beginning of the 
conflict.
    Those hard-fought gains can be lost without our support, 
and so it is important that we continue to provide them the 
capabilities that they require.
    And so when I think about this, I think about the 
supplemental, those three things. One, it supports Ukraine's 
ability to defend itself. It shows--it puts money into our 
defense industrial base, not just for Ukraine, but for many of 
our allies and partners because the U.S. equipment is valued 
around the world. And last, it shows U.S. leadership.
    I have been in this job 6 months, and I have had about 115 
engagements with my counterparts from around the world, and 
they often talk about U.S. leadership. I can tell you it is 
watched, it is desired, and the actions we do are sending a 
message of where our commitments are. And it also sends a 
message to our adversaries. And I think it is important that we 
continue to show leadership like we have done throughout my 
entire career wearing this uniform, and I want to make sure 
that we do that.
    Ms. McCollum. Mr. McCord, if you could be brief.
    Mr. McCord. Ranking Member, thank you.
    Well, the security assistance is, of course, the most 
urgent, time-sensitive part of the supplemental. It cannot be 
replaced with anything in the base budget.
    You highlighted the lesser known part is that the Secretary 
and the President, of course, can deploy forces quite legally 
where they choose to, and we have surged forces in Europe the 
entire fiscal year to date. Navy and particularly CENTCOM the 
same way.
    We have incurred over $2 billion and counting of 
operational costs that, if we can't get the supplemental, will 
have to be absorbed in the base budget. We would have to work 
with this committee and the other committees to try and 
reprogram funds hopefully not from direct readiness but from, 
if not that, readiness enabling things like facilities 
maintenance and equipment maintenance. So there is an impact on 
our forces and our readiness as well if we cannot get the 
supplemental approved.
    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, gentlemen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Mr. Cole.

                            DEFENDING ISRAEL

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary and General Brown, I want to ask you, if you 
would--first of all, I want to compliment you. Thank you for 
the performance of our forces and your leadership in the recent 
attack by Iran on Israel. Our personnel was just outstanding, 
and that reflects well certainly on both of you and our 
military.
    What additional things in your professional opinion do we 
need to do to provide Israel with what it needs to defend 
itself in the short term?
    Secretary Austin. Thanks, Chairman. The most important 
thing that we can do right now is to pass the supplemental, and 
that will provide us the opportunity to continue to provide 
security assistance to Israel in the form of air defense 
interceptors, you know, munitions, and things that it 
critically needs to be able to defend itself.
    But that supplemental, I would say, Chairman, is truly the 
most important thing that I would highlight for you.
    The Chairman. General?
    General Brown. Chairman, I would echo those comments. As I 
have a chance to talk to my Israeli counterpart and my other 
counterparts, region, it is important that we provide that 
capability through the supplemental.
    But I also think about what it does for us and for our 
forces. And I will just also highlight, I mean, I couldn't be 
prouder of the work done by our forces over the course of this 
past weekend. It shows the professionalism of our force, and 
that is why we had the most combat credible and most respected 
force in the world, because of events like that.

                         U.S. FORCE PROTECTION

    The Chairman. I will also ask you both, obviously, when we 
employ our forces in this way, you know, they are exposed 
themselves to being attacked, and we have certainly had plenty 
of incidents from Iran attacking.
    So where are we at in terms of force protection for our men 
and women on the ground that are engaged in these activities?
    Secretary Austin. Force protection is of utmost importance 
to me and to the Department and to the President, and we have 
done a lot in the last several months to reinforce our force 
protective posture in the region. As you know, we deployed a 
number of additional assets over the last several months to 
ensure that we accounted for, you know, just about any 
contingency that could arise.
    As I said earlier, while we know that--we haven't seen any 
additional attacks from Shia militia groups over the last 
several weeks. We know that that could change in a moment's 
notice. If it does, then you can expect that we will do what is 
necessary to protect our troops, and we will respond at a time 
and place of our choosing.
    General Brown. Again, I would echo exactly what the 
Secretary said. It is very unfortunate we lost three 
servicemembers back in January. But the tremendous work by our 
forces, the force protection, to be able to respond like we did 
back at the beginning of February sent a pretty clear message 
that we will defend ourselves, and the Secretary and I will 
continue to do so.

                     DELIVERY OF WEAPONS TO TAIWAN

    The Chairman. Obviously, this supplemental has a lot of 
different components to it. We talked a lot about Israel and 
Ukraine, the importance of both of those, and I certainly agree 
and hope we can get that done literally this week.
    But there is another component portion, of course, and that 
is directed at the Western Pacific, both our own forces and to 
Taiwan. Widely known that Taiwan has ordered billions of 
dollars worth of weapons from our country that haven't been 
delivered. Can you give us some insight as to the difficulty, 
why we have not been able to help a country that literally is 
under enormous pressure from China, receive weapons that it has 
actually paid for?
    Secretary Austin. This has been an area of focus for us, 
Chairman. From the very beginning, you know, I asked my team to 
bore into what was causing the delays or is causing the delays, 
and there are a number of things that come together to create 
those delays. And we are working hard to make sure that in 
every way possible we do everything we can to speed the process 
up.
    I agree with you that this is critical capability that is 
very much needed by Taiwan, and so we are going to continue to 
work on this. But it is a complex picture, but, nonetheless, we 
are going to make sure that we are doing everything we can to 
move as quickly as possible.
    And, you know, we continue to communicate to our allies and 
partners--where we are in terms of getting them the needed 
capability. And again, I could not agree with you more, this is 
really, really important.

                            E-3 CAPABILITIES

    The Chairman. One last question, and I will direct this to 
you, General Brown. You are very familiar with Tinker Air Force 
Base. We have talked about it a lot over the years. As you 
know, the AWACS Wing is primarily based out of Tinker. Those 
are really old air frames, E-3s. We know we are beginning to 
try and address that problem, but it is something I have raised 
in this committee for many, many years.
    Tell me where we are at in terms of the E-7. I am a little 
disturbed. I think in the Department budget we are zeroing out 
that line. Again, I know you are under a lot of pressure for 
money for that right now, but let me know where we are at, 
because I do worry.
    With the Russians, this is, you know, airborne early 
warning combat control capability. We have lost a lot of that 
as we have retired E-3s. We haven't been able to replace them 
anywhere near as rapidly as we should. So give us an update on 
how we are doing there.
    General Brown. Well, Chairman, I am a little bit removed 
from my time in the Air Force, but I will defer to the Air 
Force to get you some specifics and will do that.
    The Chairman. I will have that opportunity next week with 
them.
    General Brown. Okay. But, you know, one of the things we 
are really trying to do is, first of all, as you know, you have 
got to buy the green aircraft and then convert it over. And, 
you know, we were looking at the long lead items to make sure 
we are able to do that, but also at the same time working with 
our allies and partners, particularly the Australians who have 
the platform today. And we have, you know, airmen in Australia 
that are training.
    So not only, you know, it is the aspect of getting the 
capability like you described with the prototype, but also 
marrying up our servicemembers so they can operate it as soon 
as it becomes available.
    And we'll continue to work very hard to make sure we bring 
that capability forward as well.
    The Chairman. Well, I look forward to working with you on 
that, but I just want to highlight it is a matter of real 
concern. I think this really relates to Chairman Calvert's 
larger point about delivering weapon systems on time and on 
budget. And I think we have got a problem across the board.
    We have used a lot of--eaten up a lot of our immediate 
capability on the assumption certain things would be ready at a 
certain time, and it hadn't happened. So we have a gap where 
the capability is gone, and we haven't gotten the replacement 
online. Worries me a lot.
    With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. DeLauro.

                   SHIPBUILDING AND SUBMARINE DELAYS

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, welcome. Sorry we are kind of hearing 
hopping this morning. So welcome you to the committee.
    Mr. Secretary, it is well known that the Navy is 
experiencing significant issues related to shipbuilding and, in 
particular, submarines. We know we need more ships, more subs, 
but we lack the infrastructure and the workforce to stay on 
track. I want to be clear that the private sector could do more 
to help.
    There are delays in several programs, including both the 
Columbia and Virginia-class submarines and a future aircraft 
carrier. We also have a significant backlog of ship and 
submarine maintenance, all of which have a footprint in my 
State.
    These delays will impact the Navy's readiness, and the Navy 
completed a 45-day shipbuilding review to address some of these 
issues. And I noted in a recent article here, Sea-Air-Space, 
that it says that the Secretary of Navy says 45-day 
shipbuilding review will be followed by another review.
    Can you share with us your impressions of the findings of 
the first review, particularly the delays in the Columbia-class 
submarine, and how this might impact the shipyard industrial 
base and what this committee can do to assist you?
    Secretary Austin. Regarding the delays, you know, I share 
your concern. As you know, we are requesting to invest in one 
Virginia-class this year, versus two, and the reason that we 
are doing that is because there is a backlog. And rather than 
increase that backlog, the right thing to do, in my view, is to 
invest in the industrial base in terms of giving the industrial 
base the means to expand capacity by recruiting and retaining 
the right people, making sure that they can strengthen their 
supply chains.
    And so in 2023 and 2024, we asked you for $1.9 billion to 
invest in the submarine industrial base. And this year, we are 
asking you for, in this budget, for some 25--some $4 billion, 
excuse me, for the industrial base for the 2025 budget. That is 
in addition to the $3.3 billion that is included in the 
supplemental.
    So as you can see, there is some pretty significant 
investment in the industrial base, and I think we have to do 
everything we can to put those resources to good use.
    Now, I met with the CEOs of General Dynamics and Huntington 
Ingalls here recently, and we talked about what their 
challenges were in terms of workforce challenges and supply 
chain challenges. And we talked about, you know, how we could 
best use those resources that you are allowing us to invest in.
    So, certainly, they are doing things on their own to invest 
in increasing capacity, and I think the right things are going 
to happen. It is just going to take a bit more time.
    And as you know, because of AUKUS, Australia is also 
investing in our submarine base. So the amount of money, the 
amount of resources that we are putting against expanding 
capacity I think is material. It is real capability, and we 
have to make sure that we are putting it to good use. I know 
that industry is serious about it, and, again, it is just going 
to take a bit more time.
    Ms. DeLauro. I understand. And if we could, we can speak 
offline, but the findings of the 45-day review, I understand 
it, and I think the committee has tried to provide resources. 
But then I just, you know, read that we are then looking at 
additional review to deal with ordering another review to take 
a deep dive into the opportunities for improvement. I don't 
know how many dives we need with regard to submarines. You 
know, how many dives are we going to accommodate here?
    But I just--I would like to know, I hope the committee 
would like to know the results of that review, where you think 
it takes us, and what is going on with an additional review of 
this?
    And I appreciate your working with General Dynamics and 
others and getting their view, and the Australians.

                CONSEQUENCES FROM CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS

    If I can ask you a question about continuing resolutions. I 
appreciate your comments and your testimony regarding the--
about the importance of passing government funding bills on 
time to ensure our Nation's safety, keep the industrial base 
strong, outcompete our adversaries.
    Many of my colleagues speak at length about wanting to 
achieve these goals, yet, as you know, we passed a defense 
spending bill this year over 5 months late. I repeat, 5 months 
late. I hope that we do not continue to play games with our 
Federal spending process this year.
    Can you an elaborate on the negative effects of continuing 
resolutions for the Department of Defense, American 
manufacturers, the industrial base, and for our readiness 
generally? What would be the consequences of another CR this 
year, Mr. Secretary?
    I hope General Brown and Mr. McCord can chime in as well.
    Secretary Austin. Well, the effects of the CRs are 
significant, especially if you have CRs that last that long. 
You obviously can't initiate new starts. You lose a lot of time 
on initiatives. And the one thing that you can't buy back is 
time. And so, over the course of years, these things compound, 
and they create--they add some of the friction that we have 
been discussing.
    But, again, I think the best way that we can help ourselves 
is to make sure that we receive an on-time budget. And as you 
know, our budget request is directly linked to our strategy. So 
without a budget, we can't execute the strategy to its fullest.
    And, you know, I have been pretty deliberate in asking my 
staff to maintain course on making sure that, you know, 
everything that we ask for is directly linked to the strategy. 
And, you know, we have done a good job of that over the last 3 
years. But if you don't get a budget on time, you know, you are 
not executing to your full capability. So it has a significant 
impact on our ability to do a number of things, but you can't 
buy back time.
    Ms. DeLauro. General Brown.
    General Brown. Thanks for the question. I will tell you I 
have been a general officer for about 15 years, and we spend 
about a third of that in continuing resolutions. And the 
challenge we have there is--and I will use this year as an 
example. There is about 400 things we couldn't do, whether it 
was new starts, change our levels of procurement, or to do 
MILCON.
    And so the concern I have there is that what it does to us 
is it drives uncertainty; it erodes trust, particularly when we 
work with our defense industrial base; and then it increases 
cost and it increases time.
    And we talked earlier about that we want to deliver 
capability on time. The best way to do that is to have the 
resourcing on time. But I think the same thing for us as a 
Department is that we have a consistent demand signal, which is 
why multi-year procurement is another piece that helps that 
demand signal. It allows the defense industrial base to do 
their supply chains, have a workforce that has consistency in 
employment. And so it is important. All that comes together for 
our national security. It is really--it is hugely important.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    Mr. McCord.
    Mr. McCord. As Secretary noted and General Brown noted, we 
have now emerged into a pattern over many years of spending 
about a third of each fiscal year in a CR, which is much more 
problematic on the acquisition side, to go back to Chairman 
Cole's comments about trying to deliver things on time. Our 
contracting gets delayed. We have a better time managing on the 
operating side than we do on the acquisition side.
    In this year, the particular issues were the difference 
between our request and the CR was about $25 billion. So think 
about losing $2 billion a month, falling behind, hoping that 
you will catch that up. But also, just given the way that the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act was written, there was a chance, 
however remote, of a full year CR, of a sequester. And so 
myself and others spent considerable time planning for things 
that didn't happen, which was also time that could have been 
used on other--you know, more productively.
    Ms. DeLauro. Just this final comment. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    I think it--and the ranking member mentioned it a moment 
ago. This winds up being a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars, 
and people who care deeply about that should think about this, 
as well as people who care about our national security and our 
being able to do--you can't buy time. I think that is a 
critical comment, Mr. Secretary. And thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And I think that we would all agree, no one on this 
committee enjoys continuing resolutions.
    Ms. DeLauro. I understand that.
    Mr. Calvert. I hope that we can talk to some of our friends 
and colleagues over on the other side of the building in the 
United States Senate. We got our bills done relatively on time, 
and, unfortunately, the Senate seems to be in the habit of not 
passing appropriations on both sides of the aisle.
    Ms. DeLauro. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think we 
have to talk to people on our side who proclaim that continuing 
resolution would be great. Even shutdown of the government 
would be great. We know and I know and others know that ain't 
the truth.
    Mr. Calvert. That is not anybody on this committee.
    Ms. DeLauro. No--hey, I am not talking about this. Please, 
people shouldn't feel, you know, threatened, but it's out 
there.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rogers.

                  RAMIFICATIONS OF THE WAR IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, welcome to the subcommittee.
    And, General Brown, congratulations on your elevation. 
First time in front of us, you are with us as Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs. So congratulations and welcome.
    Let's talk a moment about the ramifications of what we do 
in Ukraine. Obviously, our most severe noncombatant is absent 
from the scene, but the ramifications of what we do there or 
don't do there is heavy.
    Mr. Secretary, would you care to tell us what you think is 
the bigger picture, the strategic and moral importance of the 
situation in Ukraine as it relates with us?
    Secretary Austin. You know, what we said from the very 
beginning, sir, is that we want to see, at the end of the day, 
a Ukraine that is a democratic, independent, and sovereign 
state that has a means to defend its territory and deter 
aggression. And Ukraine is not asking for us to fight the fight 
for them. They are asking for us to assist by providing some of 
the means that they need to protect themselves and defend their 
territory. And we have done that over the last 2 years, and 
that is why they are in the place that they are now.
    I mean, they have defended against a much superior force 
and not only held their ground but also taken back some 50 
percent of what Russia--the ground that Russia occupied 
initially. And I think, for a much smaller force, I think that 
is commendable.
    But unless they have, you know, the air defense 
interceptors, the artillery munitions, and others things that 
they need, it is going to be very difficult for them to sustain 
their efforts.
    Now, if they are not successful, to your question, it has 
ramifications not only for Europe but for the United States of 
America, because we all know that Putin won't stop in Ukraine. 
This will continue. And, you know, our allies on the Eastern 
front there are very, very concerned about that, and rightfully 
so.
    It will also signal to other autocrats around the globe 
that, you know, the United States is not a reliable partner. 
And so all of the alliances and partnerships that we have 
worked hard to develop over the years will be in question in 
terms of their eyes.
    So it has significant ramifications, but, again, I think 
Ukraine has done an incredible job of inflicting significant 
damage on the Russian military with a much smaller force, and 
they have done that with our help and the help of some 50 
nations that we have rallied in their support.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, with Mr. Putin saying very openly and 
repeatedly that he wants to restore the old Soviet Union, and 
all of the nation-states in Eastern Europe especially, as you 
have said, are looking to us. And if we fail them, I think it 
fuels further the belief that Putin will try to succeed in 
restoring the old Soviet Union.
    Do you agree with that? Do you agree with that?
    Secretary Austin. I absolutely agree, sir, and you know, I 
think Putin believes that he can wait us out. He believes that 
the resolve of the Western countries will soon fade and our 
coalition will fracture. But Putin's wrong, and, you know, we 
are going to continue to try to find ways to support Ukraine.

                          LANDMINES IN UKRAINE

    Mr. Rogers. Let me quickly ask you about land mines in 
Ukraine. ``60 Minutes'' on CBS last week did a story about the 
land mines that have been sewn all through Ukraine by Putin and 
his forces. What can you tell us about that problem?
    Secretary Austin. The Russians have made extensive use of 
land mines, and we saw the Ukrainians go up against that last 
spring as they launched their offensive. And they have done 
that--the Russians have done that in every place they fought, 
but in this case, the territory, the terrain is littered with 
just, you know, with land mines, and it will take years to 
police this up, to clean this up.
    We have stood up a capability coalition with countries who 
are volunteering to pull together their capabilities to assist 
Ukraine in acquiring the right capabilities to address this 
problem going forward, but it is going to be something that is 
going to require a lot of countries to work together on in the 
future.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I recognize Mr. Cole for an announcement.
    The Chairman. I think probably good news on all fronts. 
Just want folks to know that the three component bills of the 
supplemental have been filed--three: one for Israel, one for 
Ukraine, one for the Western Pacific.
    My understanding, there will be a fourth bill that relates 
to border security, but those will be--the component parts of 
the supplemental will be considered independently.
    So just wanted people to be aware of that. I think that is 
good news all around.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for that announcement.
    Mr. Ruppersberger.

                 CHINA'S MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO RUSSIA

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yes, thank you.
    First thing, thank you all for being here today and for 
your service to our country. This is a very important time.
    Honorable McCord, thank you for all you do and your 
expertise.
    You know, we are going through the President's budget and 
the supplemental, and I share your concerns about the current 
global security environment and the multiphase challenges that 
we face.
    Just last weekend, Iran directly attacked Israel for the 
first time in decades. What happened in the Middle East this 
past weekend is a snapshot of what happens every day in 
Ukraine. But right now, Ukraine is running dangerously low on 
ammunition and other equipment, as you have stated before. 
Without additional aid, I don't see how much longer they can 
hold out.
    And amidst all these conflicts, there is China. The 
National Defense Strategy identifies the PRC as our pacing 
threat, and while the global security environment is rapidly 
changing, we continue to be in a great power competition with 
China.
    So in that vein, General Brown, can you please describe how 
China is helping Russia reconstitute its military since its 
invasion of Ukraine? How is the PRC strategically exploiting 
the conflict to gain advantage in this great power competition 
with us?
    General Brown. Thanks for the question. And so how the PRC 
is helping Russia is, you know, it is very low level but, by 
and large, it is by not condemning the acts of Russia invading 
another country.
    And how that has impacts is how the PRC is watching what 
Russia is doing, they are watching what we are doing, and are 
doing things to prepare themselves should they decide pursue 
any type of conflict in the Indo-Pacific.
    And so it is hardened our capabilities from an economic 
standpoint but also looking at their military capabilities and 
what they can learn as they watch current events there in 
Russia--in Ukraine, excuse me.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Well, thank you for that. It is apparent 
that it is not helping Ukraine. We are helping China.
    Now, in March, the Senate passed a national security 
supplemental that provides foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and 
Taiwan. It sounds like we are set to consider some version of 
that in the House, hopefully.

                 IMPORTANCE OF MILITARY AID TO UKRAINE

    Now, Secretary Austin, why is it critical to our own 
national security that we get additional military aid to 
Ukraine as soon as possible? If we care about the threat of 
China, why does it follow that we should also care about 
Ukraine and whether it wins or loses?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. Again, in terms of 
our own national security, we know that--or we believe--I 
believe--that Putin won't stop with Ukraine. I mean, I think he 
will continue to seek to pull back in some of those countries 
that were in the former Soviet Union. And I think the--we can 
look for significant turbulence in the region going forward, if 
he is successful.
    We have provided a number of elements to Ukraine and hope 
to continue to do that in terms of security assistance. We have 
to replenish what we have provided, and so having the means to 
do that, I think, is really, really important for our readiness 
and our security.
    And you mentioned China. China, Iran, and others are 
watching what happens in Ukraine. And if the United States 
proves to be an unreliable partner, not only will it erode the 
confidence of our European allies in NATO, but it will also 
encourage players like the PRC and Iran to do the kinds of 
things that they would want to do anyway.
    So I think this creates more discord potentially in the 
future, but this is really important. Ukraine matters not just 
to Europe, it matters to the whole world. This is about the 
rules-based international order and making sure that a 
country--a leader of a country can't wake up one day and decide 
that he is going to erase the borders of his neighbor and get 
away with it. I mean, there has to be some kind of a 
international order.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Yeah, I am very--I want to make this 
comment. I am very concerned that certain Members of this House 
are acting as if China is our--I mean, Russia is our ally. And 
I hope that if we can get the facts out, that this is a very 
serious issue. And I wish more people who feel that way in this 
House would attend this type of hearing to realize how 
dangerous that is.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his questions.
    Mr. Womack.

             CONTINUING RESOLUTIONS AND TOPLINE CONSTRAINTS

    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    My thanks to the gentlemen before us for their long-
standing service to this country.
    I want to follow up on a conversation that we were having 
with the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. DeLauro, on 
budget process and on continuing resolutions and that sort of 
thing.
    Secretary Austin, have you ever known Russia to operate 
under a continuing resolution?
    Secretary Austin. I have not, sir, and I have never known 
China to operate under a continuing resolution either.
    Mr. Womack. Well, I am glad you asked that question because 
my next question was to General Brown. Have you ever known 
China to operate under a continuing resolution?
    General Brown. I have not.
    Mr. Womack. So if they have needs, they take care of those 
needs?
    Secretary McCord, Kim Jong-un, does he operate ever under a 
continuing resolution?
    Mr. McCord. He does not, Mr. Malone [sic].
    Mr. Womack. And I won't bore you with the others. I had 
listed ISIS-K, violent extremist organizations.
    The fact is, adversaries to our way of life and to the way 
of life of free nations all around the globe, they don't 
operate under continuing resolutions and they don't threaten to 
shut their government down. And to me it places a heavy risk on 
our men and women who serve in the greatest military on the 
planet that we would ever consider delaying the budget, like we 
did this past year for 5.5 months in the fiscal year, because I 
think that does endanger our way of life. I will leave it 
there.
    Secretary Austin, the DOD budget request for 2025 is capped 
at a 1 percent increase compared to 2024 under the FRA. It is 
clear the DOD prioritize increased funding for some services 
more than others. For example, the Army saw a 0.2 percent 
increase in funding. The Air Force got 1.1 percent.
    Can you outline the risks that we buy in this budget 
proposal to the Army if we adopt those top-line constraints?
    Secretary Austin. Because of the top line, you know, we had 
to make some choices, but, again, we linked our request to our 
strategy, and these were difficult but, I think, prudent 
choices. And, again, as we have worked with the services, I 
think that, you know, the investments that we have made in 
near-term readiness and in modernization and in taking care of 
our people will pay significant dividends for us in the near to 
midterm and in the long term as well.
    And we also recognize that, in the outyears, the top line 
is going to have to grow a bit in order to make sure that we 
maintain pace and speed with modernization.
    So it is something that we don't take lightly in terms of, 
you know, how we resource the entire force. And choices have to 
be made. The services participate in our deliberations. And so, 
again, I think it is--these--it is--the risks are acceptable at 
this point in time.

                    MULTINATIONAL TRAINING EXERCISES

    Mr. Womack. General Brown, both of you are keenly aware 
that joint multinational large-scale training exercises enhance 
our forces' readiness. Can you describe how these exercises 
help our formations in learning how to integrate at scale and 
across domains and how the continued repetitions set the joint 
force up for success in the face of conflict?
    General Brown. You know, every time we get to train, 
whether it is individually within our services, train as a 
joint team, or train with our allies and partners, it just 
makes us stronger. And what that does, it allows us to work on 
our areas of interoperability, but it also identifies some 
areas we can improve upon, because we want to continue--every 
time we have an exercise is to step away from that exercise and 
learn something about ourselves as a force that will be 
applicable to the threat.
    And so every time we do this, it is--you know, we try to 
take the lessons learned. And they are not just lessons learned 
or observed, it is how we implement those to ensure that our 
joint force, with our allies and partners, can do what the 
Nation asks for, but also for our national security and the 
security of our allies and partners as well.
    Mr. Womack. So if we were forced to make some decisions, 
buy some more risk because of budget constraints that we have, 
where would those joint exercises fall in the list, if you 
will, of candidates for either scaling back or doing without?
    General Brown. Well, in this particular budget, we focused 
on readiness. And so, as the Secretary highlighted, we deferred 
some of the modernization to maintain that readiness. And so, 
you know, one of the responsibilities I have as the chairman 
working with the Joint Chiefs is to balance that risk between 
our readiness and our modernization, and we take a hard look at 
all the various exercises.
    I would also highlight the fact that now because of 
technology, we can do a fair amount, you know, through 
simulation and the like. But we are trying to use every tool we 
can to ensure our readiness and take advantage of the exercise 
opportunities that we do have.
    Mr. Womack. I thank you, gentlemen.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Cuellar.

              COLLABORATION BETWEEN NORTHCOM AND SOUTHCOM

    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
    And to all of our witnesses--Secretary, General, and Mr. 
McCord--thank you so much for what you all do.
    I would like to bring your attention to the Secretary and 
General Brown. Want to get your thoughts what the Department 
looks at sharing information and resources across combatant 
commands, and in particular, I am talking about NORTHCOM and 
SOUTHCOM when it deals with the southern border, what is 
happening in Mexico.
    You know very well what is happening there, and I am 
talking about drugs and criminal organizations. The amount of 
money they make, not only passing drugs, but if you look at, 
what is it, 7 million, 8 million encounters at the border the 
last 3 years, multiply that by an average of $8,000 that the 
coyote charge, they are making billions of dollars to our 
southern border.
    And, you know, we have NORTHCOM that has Mexico, and then 
SOUTHCOM has everything south--Central America and south. And I 
want to see how we can get NORTHCOM and SOUTHCOM to work better 
and sharing information and resources, because, as you know, 
part of the work that you all do is the national security and 
defense of our country also in that particular area. So just 
want to get your thoughts.
    And we have already talked to both commanders, both 
SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM, and we have asked them if they can align 
themselves because they are apart. They see Mexico very 
differently. Just want to get your thoughts on what we can do 
to get those two commandant areas to work better.
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir, and thanks for your 
interest in this topic.
    I do believe that we do a credible job of working together 
currently. Both commanders are great commanders, and I have 
tremendous confidence in both of them.
    Having said that, there are always things that we can do to 
improve our collaboration, and I think this gets to your point. 
And from my perspective, what I see the commanders doing is 
just that, finding ways to support each other, finding ways to 
make sure that there are no gaps that can be exploited.
    But, you know, the environment is dynamic, and there will 
always be a new challenge that presents itself that will 
require us to develop additional capabilities and also work 
with allies and partners to develop their capabilities so that 
they can, you know, control and protect their sovereign space.
    So to answer your question, I do believe that there are 
always things that we can do better, and we will continue to 
focus on that.
    Mr. Cuellar. Thank you. Yeah.
    General Brown. If I could, I would add, it is not only the 
Secretary, we have got tremendous commanders. But it is also 
the work that happens between the staffs, between the Joint 
Staff, between the staff at SOUTHCOM and NORTHCOM, to work in 
the next level of detail in how things are interconnected and 
to flatten that communication and using some of the digital 
tools we have to be able to share information to visualize.
    And then the last thing I would highlight is just the 
relationships--relations with the interagency but also 
relationships with our partners within both combatant commands; 
to get their perspective as well helps us to raise our 
awareness and have those two commands work better together.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir. Yes, we need to see everything south 
of our border together instead of two--and both commanders are 
fantastic. We just want to see if we can push a little bit more 
on that.

                         CHINA IN LATIN AMERICA

    I would ask you also, the unity of government is so 
important. China is just--you know what they are doing in Latin 
America. They are in almost every country. And last night, 
somebody sent me a video--and I remember, we had gone to El 
Salvador, and the new President at that time wanted to work 
with us and said, we want to keep China away. And whatever 
happened, our relationship with El Salvador, you know, the 
video that they were showing was this brand-new library, and 
they were showing off this new library, as you know, China gets 
involved. And right next to him was the Chinese ambassador.
    And some years ago when we went to go see him at a codel, 
he was trying to keep China--I guess he felt that the U.S. was 
not providing the support, and guess who is right there with 
him. And that, I can name country after country. You know what 
they are doing down there.
    So, you know, just showing up, and I know you all are doing 
that. We are working our Guard also, our State Guard, that, you 
know, we have our relationships. But I just want to make sure--
we got so many problems across the world, but we cannot wake up 
one of these days and right across our southern border, you 
know, we see the, you know, the work that China, and Russia to 
an extent, but mainly China is doing down there. So we 
appreciate that and the focus that you all can provide with 
that.
    Secretary Austin. To the point that you are making, sir, it 
does require not only the tremendous efforts of the military 
but also a whole-of-government approach. And so, you know, a 
few dollars spent in the right places or invested in the right 
places can certainly buy us credibility and goodwill, access 
that is very important to us, and also displace some other 
elements that would want to enter that space as well.
    Mr. Cuellar. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you so much.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I would point out too, to Mr. Cuellar--and we share the 
same concern on Mexico being in NORTHCOM--the decision of 
putting Israel into CENTCOM turned, I think, to be the correct 
decision. Obviously, the coordination between Jordan, UAE, and 
other countries within that region proved very valuable during 
this last encounter with Iran.
    I think the same thing could happen if we could work out 
some kind of agreement to put Mexico into SOUTHCOM.
    With that, I recognize Mr. Carter.

              DIALOGUE BETWEEN U.S. AND CHINESE MILITARIES

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And welcome. Very proud of the service each of you give to 
our country.
    General, I also understand you had a meeting with the Prime 
Minister of--or the Minister of National Defense for the PRC, 
or a conversation at least, yesterday. Can you talk about the 
call and how it went? And are there plans to continue dialogues 
between our militaries? And what efforts are we taking to 
address the unsafe, risky behaviors of the PRC military and 
prevent conflict in the region?
    Secretary Austin. Well, thank you, sir. This is very 
important to us, and I think we have seen--across our 
governments, we have seen a number of engagements over the past 
several months, including Secretary of State, Secretary of 
Treasury, the National Security Advisor. So we are engaging at 
a number of levels.
    This is the first time that I have had the opportunity to 
engage the new Minister of Defense. And, of course, its 
predecessor, we never had an opportunity to talk, and that was 
very disappointing, even though we reached out a number of 
times.
    You have heard me say, sir, that I think it is critical 
that great powers continue to maintain open lines of 
communication, because if we are operating in the same areas, 
if, you know--there are a number of things that can happen that 
could quickly spiral out of control. And the inability to talk 
to senior leadership and make sure that, you know, we have the 
ability to dial down tension I think is really, really 
important.
    So the initial engagement, I think, was really good, and we 
spent an hour talking to each other, and I hope to continue 
that at some point in the future.
    And, again, the things that we are interested in is making 
sure that, number one, we dial back the unsafe activity that we 
see in the region, you know, the unsafe intercepts of our 
aircraft and ships, and also the aggressive behavior that we 
see in the region against our allies and partners. And a good 
example is what we just saw with the Philippines there at 
Second Thomas Shoal. So we talked about a number of things 
during that conversation, and it has been pretty widely 
reported.
    But, again, the most important thing to me, sir, is that 
that dialogue is there. Those communication lines are now 
opening up again, and we are going to try to do everything we 
can to maintain those open lines of communication.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you for that.

                 PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE FUNDING

    So your budget is based on strategy. The fiscal year 2025 
budget includes $9.9 billion for the PDI. However, there are 
concerns that we are not investing fast enough in the region.
    Could we be moving faster with investments in that region 
or do you feel we are doing enough in our investments we are 
making? Are they going to be enough to deter China?
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir. And let me again thank 
you for your support over the years for PDI.
    You are right, sir, we are asking you for $9.1 billion in 
this 2025 budget. Over the last couple years, we have asked you 
for some $20 billion-plus in support of PDI. We are investing 
in those things that we can--that are achievable, you know, 
things that we can actually accomplish in the time period that 
we want to accomplish them in, in the near term. So improving 
infrastructure, enabling our forces to be forward position in 
theater, making sure that we have the ability to continue to 
conduct exercises, and invest in the right things.
    I think, you know, there are always things that we--
additional things that we can go after, but I think we have 
made the right choices in investing in things that we can 
actually achieve here in the near term.
    Mr. Carter. Well, thank you. I visited that region once. I 
am going to do it again probably in August. I have real 
concerns. So thank you very much.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    I would like to briefly pause the proceedings to recognize 
our newest member of the subcommittee. My friend from 
Tennessee, Chuck Fleischmann, just joined us.
    Chuck was chairing his own hearing over in Energy and Water 
Subcommittee with the Army Corps of Engineers this morning--
good luck with them--so he couldn't be here this morning.
    But, Chuck, welcome to the Defense Subcommittee. Pleased 
that Chairman Cole appointed you. I look forward to benefiting 
from your dedication and knowledge. Welcome aboard.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
privilege.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    With that, I recognize Mr. Aguilar.

                   SUSTAINMENT OF UKRAINE'S DEFENSES

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
    Mr. Secretary, many of us in Congress are committed to 
passing this national security supplemental. Ukraine, Israel, 
Taiwan, giving our allies the security assistance that they 
need to combat the threats that you have discussed posed by 
Russia, the PRC, and violent extremist actors that threaten 
global peace and stability. We have been asking for this vote 
for a number of months, in light of what the chairman of the 
full committee said.
    And I would just like to offer to the chairman of the full 
committee, it is our hope, and our side genuinely hopes, that 
we have an opportunity to vote on this this week, and that 
other extraneous pieces of this aren't part of it, so from a 
speed perspective we can deliver this aid as quickly and as 
soon as possible. It would be unfortunate if that was held up 
with other additional votes that weren't germane to our 
national security and the importance of helping our allies.
    General Cavoli told the authorizers earlier this week in 
open session that the side that can't shoot back loses. If 
Ukraine cannot shoot back to take out drones, they won't be 
able to hold the line, and Putin could be able to take more 
land.
    The U.S. is obviously the main supplier of air defense and 
artillery shells.
    Mr. Secretary, is it fair to say, if we don't pass the 
national security funding, that we can't provide those 
artillery shells to help combat Russia? And from a timeliness 
perspective, can you put a finer point on what the next few 
weeks means for our ally in Ukraine?
    Secretary Austin. You know, what we have done is try to 
invest in our industrial base to increase our capacity to 
produce, you know, artillery munitions and other things. And so 
what we have asked for in the supplemental, some of that is 
focused on increasing capacity in the industrial base. And if 
we fail to do that, then it is very difficult for us to keep 
pace with the requirements there.
    In terms of, you know, what happens going forward and how 
long Ukraine will be able to sustain its efforts, I think we 
are already seeing things on the battlefield begin to shift a 
bit in terms of--in Russia's favor. We are seeing them make 
incremental gains. We are seeing Ukrainians be challenged in 
terms of holding the line. They are doing a very good job, a 
credible job, but in order to continue to do that, they are 
going to need, you know, the right materials, the right 
munitions, the weapons to be able to do that.
    So passing this supplemental is absolutely critical, and 
it--and our request is that we pass it as quickly as possible, 
because time matters. And Putin, again, is trying to exploit 
this time period where there is doubt created about the U.S.' 
resolve.

           EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PACIFIC DETERRENCE INITIATIVE

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    General, I wanted to give you an opportunity to--kind of 
building off of what Judge Carter's question about the PDI. 
Aside from obviously the importance of the national security 
requests that we have been talking about, all of us have been 
pleased to see the Pacific Deterrence Initiative and the 
European Deterrence Initiative contained within this proposal.
    Can you elaborate on the effectiveness and how the 
Department and how you plan to implement plans to execute 
funding for the PDI?
    General Brown. As the Secretary described, the PDI is going 
to allow us to build out the capability within the region so we 
can posture our forces. So some of that is in MILCON, military 
construction. Some of it is in weapons capability. It is also 
things we can do to work with our allies and partners.
    And I will just tell you, I was the director of operations 
for United States Air Force in Europe, and I got there the week 
after Russia went into Crimea, and watched how the European 
Defense Initiative came about to better posture ourselves for 
today's current events.
    I think the PDI will do the same thing in ensuring we are 
doing all the things to prepare ourselves for a potential 
future conflict. And the key here is to be so good at what we 
do that we deter a future conflict, and this is where PDI is 
going to help us be able to do that.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you. Thank you, General.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, we will all have a chance to vote on the 
supplemental on Saturday night.
    With that, Mr. Diaz-Balart.

                        HOMESTEAD AIR FORCE BASE

    Mr. Diaz-Balart. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And, gentlemen, thank you for your service.
    I really have one point and then two questions. So first 
point is that history is full of dismal failures that are never 
forgotten; you know, peace in our time. After Putin invades 
Georgia, that infamous reset by the then Obama-Biden-Clinton 
administration.
    And then recently, Mr. Secretary, I have seen a very catchy 
word that has been used to try to dissuade our adversaries and 
Iran's proxies: don't, don't, don't.
    Unfortunately, that has been met by another--I guess our 
adversaries have been using another phrase, which is ``just do 
it'', and they have been doing it. It is pretty evident that 
they feel that they can do so with hardly any real 
consequences.
    So here is the question--and this may require maybe a SCIF 
to talk about it. First question is, are there going to be 
serious consequences to those who did not listen to all of the 
don't, don't, don't, don't words from the administration and 
have done it? And including, obviously, we know that some of 
our GIs have died. Question number one.
    Question number two is this. At present, the current future 
year's defense program indicates that the Air Force Reserve 
plans is to divest in the F-16 program at Homestead Air Reserve 
Base through 2028.
    I don't have to tell you all of how China feels emboldened, 
and they are making strides in this hemisphere, in our own 
hemisphere. And while they don't have a base yet, they do have 
things that are starting to look like bases. You know, refer to 
Argentina as an example.
    And so Homestead is the closest defense against any 
potential future hostile action.
    So in light of this divestiture plan, can you confirm 
whether we--I can't even say that--recapitalization efforts are 
being considered to ensure that the continuity and enhancement 
of air combat capabilities at this key facility, shouldn't we 
look at, frankly, Homestead's mission with F-35s rather than 
continuing with the older F-16 Post Block upgrades?
    Again, we use Homestead--we always think of Homestead Air 
Reserve as a place that is essential for emergencies, for 
hurricanes, et cetera. But I will argue that when you look at 
what is happening in this hemisphere, I think we need to be a 
little bit more concerned about what Russia, China, et cetera, 
is doing in this hemisphere.
    So two questions, and I appreciate hearing from you all.
    Secretary Austin. Thank you, sir. Well, first of all, 
Homestead is an important base because of its location, and it 
has--you know, gives us reach that I think it is pretty 
important. And so Homestead is going to--the plan for it is to 
be in the inventory for some time.
    So if you are asking as to whether or not we are closing 
down Homestead, the answer is, no, that is not in the current 
plans.
    And then I will let the Air Force speak to some of the 
specifics there in terms about--in terms of what is planned for 
the future.

                  CONSEQUENCES OF ADVERSARIAL ACTIONS

    Regarding consequences and what people have learned from 
what has happened here in the Middle East here recently, you 
know, Iran did launch an unprecedented attack against Israel 
from its--from Iran with an unprecedented number of weapons. 
What it should learn from that is that not only does Israel 
have the ability to defend itself against significant 
challenges, but its allies--principally the U.S.--has 
significant capabilities as well.
    And so what you saw come together there in defense of 
Israel, I think, was quite remarkable. And, again, that doesn't 
happen at the 11th hour. That happens because, you know, 
countries are working together, making sure that we have the 
right procedures and processes in place to enable us to do 
that. And the skill of our pilots and the ability to pass 
information between countries and share insights on battle 
space, I think all of that came together the way it was 
supposed to come together.
    And General Kurilla and others have been working on this 
issue for quite some time, and I think you saw some of the 
outcomes on Saturday night.
    But what Iran should learn is that, number one, their 
assumptions are wrong, and, you know, number two, that, you 
know, we are going to do what is necessary to help in the 
defense of Israel.
    Mr. Diaz-Balart. But, Mr. Secretary, I am running out of 
time, but the key here, though, is that the administration, 
you, the President, said don't, don't, don't, don't, don't to a 
number--it wasn't just Iran. It was their proxies. And what 
they did is, did, did, did, did, did.
    And what I would like to hear from you--again, probably 
this may not be the place--what are going to be the specific 
consequences for those who basically thumbed their nose at the 
President of the United States, at you, at others in the 
administration?
    When you said don't, they said did. And I hope that we are 
able to see some serious consequences, because otherwise, with 
all due respect, just like peace in our time, just like the 
reset, that is going to be one of those words that will be kept 
for history's sake as, frankly, a very sad joke.
    I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Kilmer.

                        NAVAL HOSPITAL BREMERTON

    Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman.
    And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us.
    Naval Hospital Bremerton in my district closed its labor 
and delivery unit in April of 2022, as a result of the military 
health system downsizing several military treatment facility 
capabilities and staff.
    In my neck of the woods, the local healthcare network has 
simply been unable to manage the additional patient load, and 
it is unrealistic to have our servicemembers travel all the way 
to Madigan Army Hospital, which is 43 miles away, not to 
mention having to cross a toll bridge, for consistent general 
and maternal care.
    Without continued pressure on DHA to expedite reassigning 
additional personnel to the naval hospital and reopening the 
labor and delivery unit, healthcare for our sailors and their 
families will continue to deteriorate. These shortages are 
unacceptable and dangerous at a critical time when the Navy 
plans to expand its missions and maintenance in the region and 
when the DOD recently announced the stabilization of the 
military health system by bringing patients and families from 
the heavily referred off-base providers back to understaffed 
MTFs.
    With this in mind, have you discussed the impacts of these 
personnel shortages on our sailors' readiness with DHA?
    Secretary Austin. We have, sir, and we have also discussed 
it with the services. And to the point that you are making, we 
do need to make sure that we invest in our healthcare system by 
making sure that we have the right personnel on board in the 
right numbers to be able to provide that service that our 
servicemembers and families expect.
    Mr. Kilmer. So with that in mind, do you plan on urging DHA 
to reassign personnel to Naval Hospital Bremerton to respond to 
the significant degradation of care in Kitsap County?
    Secretary Austin. We are looking at rebalancing our 
footprint across the board. And, of course, that is a part of 
it, but we are taking a holistic look at this. And as you know, 
we complied with congressional guidance in terms of 
consolidation of resources and that sort of stuff. But as we 
look at this and as we endeavor to make sure that our families 
and our--our troops and our families are getting the right kind 
of healthcare, it requires that we relook some of the 
assumptions and relook some of the manpower allocations that we 
have made in the past. And we are doing that.
    Mr. Kilmer. I am making a personal plea that you look at 
this, specifically related to Naval Hospital Bremerton and 
labor and delivery. I can tell you stories that I have heard 
from sailors and from their families that are heartbreaking, 
and it is as a consequence of these decisions that have been 
made. I understand tough decisions have to be made, and 
sometimes they are the wrong decisions, and we can make this 
right.
    I will tell you we are also working on a bill called the 
Midwives Act, which would direct the DOD to establish a 5-year 
pilot to evaluate the use of professional midwives under the 
TRICARE program to help alleviate some of these challenges. I 
hope that we can work with you and your team to secure that 
bill through the NDAA this year and just wanted you to be aware 
of it.

                      PUBLIC SHIPYARD MITIGATIONS

    With the time I have left, I wanted to talk to you about 
our public shipyards, obviously a critical part of maintaining 
the readiness of our submarines and our carrier fleets.
    Puget Sound Naval Shipyard is in my district. We have 
discussed the importance of the Shipyard Infrastructure 
Optimization Program, which is a multiyear, multibillion dollar 
effort to upgrade our four public shipyards.
    Puget faced significant seismic risk and had to go to work 
quickly to repair three of the highest priority dry docks this 
past year.
    My question for you is, how can Congress provide the 
resources to ensure that the SIOP remains on track while also 
addressing ongoing seismic mitigations? And, additionally, how 
close is the Navy to a decision point on the construction of 
the multi-mission dry dock, M2D2, understanding how this is 
going to impact programming and planning for the necessary 
work?
    Secretary Austin. Well, in terms of what Congress can do to 
help us stay on track, I think we have already talked a great 
deal about that, and that is getting the on-time 
appropriations. Even though, as you pointed out, we have 
invested--we have decided to invest billions of dollars into 
SIOP, it doesn't matter unless you get those appropriations on 
time and you can start the construction and that sort of stuff 
in a timely fashion. So your help in supporting that I think 
would be much appreciated.
    In terms of the Navy's decision process, I will let the 
Navy speak to where they are specifically and how close they 
are to a decision, and I will make sure that Secretary Del Toro 
and his team get up to brief you on where they are.
    Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And thank you, Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Joyce.

                   CURRENT INDUSTRIAL CAPACITY LIMITS

    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
    Secretary Austin, I would like to follow up a little bit on 
what my colleague, Mr. Womack, brought up before, and just 
wondering, what are the current industrial capacity limits for 
producing key weapons and equipment, including precision-guided 
munitions? And how quickly could industrial capacity for 
producing key weapons in that equipment be increased?
    Secretary Austin. Clearly, there are limits in each line 
of--each munition, each weapon system is different. And we have 
worked with industry on those critical items, things like 
Javelin, artillery munitions--or artillery pieces, to expand 
capacity and to increase production rate as rapidly as 
possible.
    Because of a number of challenges, this is not 
instantaneous, and there are some clear lessons learned here. 
If we want to be able to expand rapidly in the future, we need 
to think about how we are doing things and whether or not there 
are certain processes in the overall system that we can 
compress, you know, where there are things that we can buy 
ahead to be able to have on hand so that we can rapidly expand 
production. Those are the kinds of things that we are working 
with industry on. But it will vary by munition, by weapon 
system.
    But, you know, what you have done in terms of providing us 
additional procurement authority, multiyear procurement 
authority has been very, very helpful in sending the right 
signal to the industrial base. And, again, I think we are going 
to need that support that is baked into the supplemental to be 
able to continue our work in expanding the industrial base 
capacity there.
    But it is critical. This is work that me and my Acquisition 
and Sustainment Under Secretary are focused on routinely, and 
we are also working with allies and partners to get them to 
expand their industrial base as well. You know, our Acquisition 
and Sustainment Under Secretary meets routinely with European--
his European counterparts to talk over issues of, you know, how 
we can consolidate efforts and expand lines of production and 
that sort of stuff. And that is having some effect, but, again, 
it is not instantaneous. It is going to take time.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. And certainly as we deplete our 
resources to help our allies, we want to make sure we have 
our--that readiness available for you at all times.

               CHINA'S ILLEGAL SOVEREIGN MARITIME CLAIMS

    General Brown, what has been taking place over in China? We 
continue to see them continue to make illegal and illegitimate 
sovereign claims over maritime areas in autonomous regions. In 
the South and East China Seas, China is conducting island-
building campaigns to expand their exclusive economic zones, 
and they have militarized those islands with new ports, 
airstrips, bunkers, radars, and jamming stations. They are 
deploying advance anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles.
    How are we working in concert with our allies and partners 
to counter China's continual steps into acquiring an increasing 
presence in areas where they have no legitimate or legal claim?
    General Brown. Well, the best way for us to do it is to 
challenge those claims, and it is the operations we do 
throughout the South China Sea, the East China Sea, with many 
of our allies and partners. A good example of that is how we 
support the Philippines and resupply the Second Thomas Shoal. 
It is the air operations and the maritime operations we do 
throughout the region.
    I would also highlight to you, having spent time as the 
commander of Pacific Air Forces and watched over the past 
really 6 years the growing strength of our partnerships with 
many of our allies and partners and how they are adjusting 
their visions, their strategies, and their National Defense 
Strategies to align, to counter what the PRC is doing in the 
region. And all that together is a way for us to push back. And 
it is not only what we do from a military standpoint but also 
with the rest of our government and the other governments, from 
an economic standpoint, and how that plays into--to counter 
what the PRC is doing in that part of the world.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Case.

                 INDOPACOM READINESS AND MODERNIZATION

    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, I appreciated the dialogue you had with my 
colleagues earlier on the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. I have 
been asking questions in our hearings this year to try to 
figure out what PDI actually means, and I have to admit, I am a 
little more confused than when I started.
    If it is meant as a itemization or a confirmation of focus 
on China and the Indo-Pacific, clearly $9.9 billion is not 
that. So it is not supposed to be a summary of how good we are 
doing in terms of a budget against the China threat and our big 
picture response. If it is meant to be kind of a--more of a 
short-term laundry list for things that we need--isolated 
things that we need to be doing in conjunction with ancillary 
to a specific part of our budget, I can understand that.
    But when I take a look at the PDI list that we have for 
this year, clearly some things, I think, fit into that 
category, but others--for example, weapons acquisition--it 
seems to me should be kind of more of a base budget as opposed 
to PDI quantified.
    So it is not necessarily a question, just an observation, 
and I am not sure what it means nowadays, and I would love to 
work with--you know, we have had--some answers have been to the 
effect of, well, you know, it can mean a lot of things to a lot 
of people. It is accounting. If it had an OCO-style component 
to it, if there was more flexibility in the Indo-Pacific region 
to apply it to things like campaigning, maybe it would work 
better.
    But I think it is kind of a work in progress, and I am not 
sure it is exactly matching what we are trying to achieve. But 
that is more of a rhetorical statement.
    My question has to do with this comment. I think we all 
realize in spades that wherever in the world it is, we can't do 
this alone, we shouldn't do this alone, we are not going to do 
this alone. And we need to have our partners and allies be full 
contributors along the way, full participants.
    We certainly have seen this in Europe, as you pointed out 
in your opening statements, and we have seen a real increase in 
the Indo-Pacific as well.
    And an important component of that, I think we would both 
agree, is, I guess what we euphemistically call campaigning, so 
the sum total of the connections that we develop with other 
militaries throughout the region, throughout the world, joint 
training exercises, interoperability, that whole range.
    I wondered if you might just give some comment to how that 
is going with specific regard to the Indo-Pacific, where we 
clearly have needs with key allies, such as Japan and Korea and 
the Philippines, of course here this week, Australia, New 
Zealand, and beyond. But also, I was concerned with whether 
this budget does give sufficient attention to the overall area 
of connections between our military, strengthening those bonds, 
giving them the resources, the tools, the training, the 
incentives, to undertake a greater share of the overall 
defense.
    I did note that, for example, in INDOPACOM's unfunded 
priorities, they came in, one of their highest unfunded 
priorities was about half a billion for campaigning.
    So I just wondered, if that is how INDOPACOM feels about 
campaigning--and I value their input--why didn't that get into 
the base budget, or, you know, where does campaigning stack up? 
How do you think it is going, and how do you think we fund it 
properly?
    Secretary Austin. I thank you, sir. As the gentleman 
indicated earlier, you know, these operations and exercises are 
fundamental to our readiness, and you see us investing some 
$147 billion into readiness. That is a decision that we made in 
light of the fact that there is a cap on the top line. So we 
chose to invest in readiness and some modernization and also 
taking care of our people.
    In terms of the kinds of things that we are doing in the 
region, you live in the region, so you are witnessing this 
firsthand. We probably have the best relationship that we have 
had with Japan in a very, very long time. We see Japan 
investing in a significant way in its own defense. We see them 
investing in long-range strike and other things, and they are 
looking to work with us to co-produce certain items.
    We have a great relationship with the Republic of Korea, 
and we are working with the RoK and Japan in a trilateral 
fashion to ensure that we can share missile early-warning data, 
and that is going really, really well. And we saw recently the 
two leaders of those countries conduct a summit with the 
President here in the United States.
    The Philippines. 3 years ago, the Philippines were about 
ready to decide to not allow our troops to remain in the 
Philippines. You fast-forward to today and we have probably one 
of the best relationships with the Philippines that we have 
seen in a long time. And we just had President Marcos here, 
and, again, we opened up four new sites where our military can 
work with his military on a number of issues. And those sites 
are in addition to what we already had.
    Australia. We just, you know, put in play a generational 
initiative here that I think is going to continue to provide 
tremendous capability to our allies in the region and to us, 
quite frankly. This is the AUKUS initiative. Again, this 
provides Australia with a nuclear-powered, conventionally armed 
submarine capability. It will take years to put all the things 
in place, but we are moving out, and that is--that is 
progressing very, very well. And we are also working with 
Australia to do a number of things in terms of potentially co-
producing a long-range strike and some other things.
    India. We have, you know, a great relationship with India. 
We recently have enabled India to produce jet weapon--jet 
engine in India, and that is--that is kind of revolutionary. 
And that will provide a great capability to them. And we are 
also producing a--co-producing an armored vehicle with India.
    So all of these things, when you add them up, are probably 
more than we have seen happen in that region in a very, very 
long time. And they all promote interoperability, and they all 
help to increase, you know, our ability to respond to a number 
of different things. But, again, these are real meaningful 
steps that I think we have taken in the region that I think a 
lot of people are not aware of. But we have made tremendous 
progress, and we will continue to do so.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Garcia.

                          JUNIOR ENLISTED PAY

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And thank you all for, the gentlemen, for your service to 
our beautiful country.
    General Brown, congratulations. Pretty good for a Viper guy 
to be where you are right now, so----
    I see our biggest near-term tactical threat is our open 
southern border, and obviously the biggest strategic threat, 
which I treat as an existential threat to our country, being 
China, as well as our debt, but that is not your fault.
    I don't think we have a capability gap. I think we have the 
high end exquisite technology in most domains, but I do see us 
losing the lead or having lost the lead in several domains in 
terms of capacity.
    And I am encouraged by hearing, I think we are all aligned 
on the problem set and the challenges that we have. We have 
some, obviously, readiness and end-strength issues, especially 
in executing and finishing this pivot to the Pacific that we 
have been talking about for, what, almost 20 years now. We need 
to actually execute that, complete that, and deter war before 
China gets aggressive against Taiwan.
    And I think the bottom line is, is that whether the number 
is $825 billion or $850 billion, we have got to make it behave 
like a trillion dollars, so relative to what we are trying to 
accomplish here and get those efficiencies.
    I think any investments--and you are spot on, the CRs are 
the most deleterious move that we can do in that regard. But I 
think, beyond the CRs, if we are going to make investments in 
our industrial base, we also have to make sure that we are 
streamlining contracting and valuing speed as a measure of 
merit out of the Pentagon. And I don't think we have that right 
now.
    You all know my number one priority is our troops, 
especially our junior enlisted, E-1 through E-6. They are the 
most precious, they are the most potent, and they are the most 
powerful weapon system that we have. Without them, the B-21 is 
nothing, the Columbia-class submarine is nothing, and our 
nuclear triad is futile.
    So last year, we missed our recruitment numbers, retention 
numbers by a net 41,000 personnel, recruits across all the 
services. I was encouraged that the President signed my 
military licensing, Spouse Licensing Relief Act, into law, and 
I think that helps.
    And this committee did God's work last year. We passed, out 
of HAC-D, a bill that took the starting salary for an E-1 from 
$22,000 to $31,000, which is the equivalent of $15 per hour. 
Unfortunately, the Senate stripped that out in their version, 
and the NDAA ended up coming back to us without that pay raise.
    And so recognizing the challenges that we have, recognizing 
that our troops are our most precious weapon system--and I want 
to push on this issue of base pay again because, right now, 
even with the raise that we got in the NDAA last fiscal year, 
the one we just signed, the E-1 is now starting at $12.80 an 
hour.
    In California, we just started a $20-an-hour minimum wage. 
Okay. So for the DOD to be competitive in most States, but 
especially in States like California and Virginia, it is very 
difficult to keep up. BAH and BAS aren't keeping pace with the 
market values.
    And so I would like to submit, Mr. Chairman, for the 
record, a review of the basic pay table in support of the 14th 
QRMC, without objection.
    Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
    Mr. Calvert. We are going to stick to our 5 minutes because 
the Secretary has to leave, so----
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. Sorry.
    What I am asking for, Mr. Secretary, is a commitment to 
help get our troops above the poverty line, above that $15 
minimum wage. The President threatened to veto the HAC-D bill 
because of this pay raise that we put in our HAC-D bill. He was 
citing the QRMC as the reason. He wanted to wait for that. The 
QRMC has come out and validated the findings and said that our 
HAC-D bill is the right path forward.
    Can we get a commitment from you that you will help us get 
our junior enlisted E-1 starting salary above $15 per hour in 
the next year or so?
    Secretary Austin. Well, as you would guess, you know, this 
is a very important issue to me, and so taking care of our 
people is something that I am always focused on.
    I want to thank you and your colleagues for supporting a 
5.2 percent pay raise for our troops. That is the largest pay 
raise in 20 years. And before that, the year before that, we 
had a 4.6 percent pay raise.
    And in this budget, we are asking you for a 4.5 percent pay 
raise. So my goal is to reduce the costs that our troops and 
families are facing and increase the resources. Whether it is 
childcare, whether it is prices in the commissary, a number of 
things that we have done--and you are right, BAH is a thing 
that we are focused on to try to make sure that we are coming 
close to keeping pace and keeping pace. But the market in 
certain areas is pretty dynamic, and it is no easy task to keep 
pace, but we do remain focused on this.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    If you can get us a written response on that. I know you 
have committed to getting us a compensation review to us as 
soon as possible. We would love to have it as soon as possible 
so we can review that for the fiscal year 2025 proposal.
    With that, Ms. Kaptur, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                     COMMUNICATING RUSSIA'S THREAT

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to be late. We 
had our own hearing.
    Secretary Austin, great to see you. Welcome.
    Your written testimony rightly states, ``The world of chaos 
and conquest that Putin seeks--one in which autocrats think 
they can rewrite borders by force--would leave the United 
States far less secure,'' unquote.
    You understand what is fully at stake at this pivotal 
moment in Ukraine, Central Europe, and, indeed, the free world.
    Generations of immigrants from Central Europe sought 
security on our shores. I am a descendent blessed by the 
survival of our grandparents' struggle to escape Bolsheviks, 
Russia. Yet many Americans appear not to fully know the history 
of Central Europe and what is at stake today.
    What are you and the Department of Defense doing to better 
communicate to the American people the gravity of the current 
real threat to the free world represented by an armed Russia, 
the third largest military in the world?
    And then secondly, do you have any concerns that the 
defense medicine in your department could be compromised by the 
complete growing dependence of our country on imports of 
pharmaceutical ingredients from foreign countries, some of 
which are adversaries?
    Thank you.
    Secretary Austin. So in terms of what we are doing to 
communicate on this issue, we seize every opportunity to point 
out how important this is to us in terms of our national 
security, how important this is to us for our defense 
industrial base, and the fact that Ukraine matters not just to 
Europe but to the entire world.
    This is about the rules-based international order. And, 
again, as you have heard me say a couple times this morning, 
the rest of the world is watching, and they are watching to see 
whether or not the United States of America is going to be a 
dependable partner or not. And if it is not, then it is going 
to change their behavior.
    If it is one of our adversaries, they will feel emboldened. 
If it is one of our allies or partners, they will then question 
whether or not they can depend on us, you know, when times are 
tough. And so this is really important to us.
    But it is--you know, I think that Ukraine has done a 
commendable job in terms of, you know, protecting its sovereign 
territory, taking back some of the territory that the Russians 
have taken, and holding their own. And they have done that 
because of the security assistance that we and 50 other 
countries have provided to them.
    They haven't asked us to fight for them. They just ask for 
help in terms of security assistance. And so I think the right 
thing to do is continue to do that.

                  DEFENSE MEDICINE AND PHARMACEUTICALS

    Ms. Kaptur. On defense medicine and the pharmaceuticals 
being used in theatre by our own soldiers and the purchase by 
the Department of Defense of pharmaceuticals, what are you 
doing to assure their purity and manufacture in this country?
    Secretary Austin. Well, you know, the health of our troops, 
again, is important to us. And if there is a threat here of us 
not having the, you know, pharmaceuticals that are up to speed, 
then certainly that is something that we will delve into. But I 
will get back to you on that issue.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much. And thank you for your 
service.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Ellzey.

                            EW AND AEW NEED

    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, 
for being here.
    He left but I want to point out that Steve Womack and I 
don't like each other very much on one day and that is Army-
Navy day. But we are very good friends other than that.
    I would argue with General Brown that my Super Hornet will 
kick your tail in a Fighting Falcon. I know you like to call it 
a Viper. But for most days, and as it is today, we should all 
be united.
    Mr. Secretary, you and I on social issues probably don't 
agree on a single thing. But today is April 17, 1940, in my 
mind, and I am on your side, because the winds of war are 
already blowing overseas in a way they haven't in 80 years.
    We have four dictatorships, all of which are involved in 
genocide. Iran, genocide of the Jews. Russia, genocide of the 
Ukrainians. China, genocide of the Uyghurs. And North Korea 
wants to redefine their relationship with the south through 
armed combat.
    I wish it was April 17, 1946, when we could talk about 
cuts, but we can't.
    Furthermore, I would argue that we are already at war on 
our southern border against the cartels because they are 
killing wartime numbers of Americans, 200 a day from fentanyl 
poisonings, which, in my mind, is a weapon of mass destruction, 
on a chemical basis aided by China, controlled by the cartels.
    In addition, we are losing that many number of people that 
you are trying to recruit that need to be going to the police 
force, to the Reserves, to teaching, to having families in this 
country. You are in a struggle against a group that is being 
killed at wartime numbers, not seen since World War II.
    We should be on a wartime footing in this country right 
now. So the border is an issue, but those four regimes that I 
just talked about make it look like it is April 17, 1940.
    And we have been fortunate enough to see a constellation of 
stars on shoulders this week, and what they have all told us 
from the EUCOM commander, he says he needs EW and AEW. They are 
not building any 18 Growlers anymore. We need more of them. The 
Israelis need tankers. I talked about that in June when we went 
there before October and talked about that with the prime 
minister.
    INDOPACOM and the Marines need contested logistics 
capabilities with C-130Js and their landing ship medium.
    In Ukraine, most of the money that we are going to spend 
goes to weapons for us.
    You know, we won World War II with Liberty ships, and this 
LSM that the Marine Corps needs 35 of and identified that in 
2022 would have cost $100 million a piece. But requirements got 
in the way, and here we are 2 years later, we still don't have 
them. They have got ballooned up to $350 million because of the 
requirements office. And we won't get them until 2027, and 
that's assuming we pass these spending bills.
    If we go on a CR, now we are in 2028 when we have 
identified that Xi Jinping wants to act before 2027. So in the 
supply and demand and equip realm, I would say that our 
acquisitions process is broken. We need to be on wartime 
footing. We need to bypass some of the requirements that we 
have. Otherwise, we would have had a Presidential helo by now. 
We would have had an LSM by now. F-35 wouldn't have been so 
costly, and our newest version of the aircraft carriers 
wouldn't be 3 years behind and billions of dollars over budget.
    Because I am a little worried about what we have right now. 
We are not ready for the war that looks to be looming, and I am 
interested in preventing that.
    So I would like to hear from you, General Brown, how you 
feel about the EW need, because they are not making any more 
Growlers, but the line is about to close on the Super Hornet. 
If we lose an aircraft carrier and we don't have any Growler 
capability, all that EW need goes away. We are losing our E-3 
capability.
    So how do you feel about the EW, AEW need right now?
    General Brown. Well, let me start out with what you just 
laid out as far as the sense of urgency that is required and 
understanding where the threat is. And EW is an area that we 
have watched that threat increase, and we haven't had to deal 
with it for the past couple of decades, and we need to up our 
game in this area.
    Doesn't actually have to be a Growler, but I do think we do 
need to approach this with seriousness on our focus on EW, on 
tankers, on munitions, the range of capability and capacity 
that we need in order to be able to address all the challenges 
you highlighted.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you for that answer.
    And as far as the LSM goes, we need the high priority for 
that because that is specifically needed for the Marine Corps. 
The requirements office needs to drop its opposition and the 
raising of cost because we don't have the money to deal with 
that.
    We won on Liberty ships that didn't have requirements, 
didn't have shock trials. We need to move forward.
    In the time I have remaining, if Article 5 happens and we 
lose Ukraine, and they step one foot in Poland, the FRA is out 
the door.
    The investments we are making in Ukraine are small. For the 
return on investment that we are getting for the Ukrainians to 
fight on our behalf is a small amount of money, and they are 
doing it for us. The last thing I want is for Americans to die 
on a hill in Poland when the Ukrainians are willing to do it 
for themselves with our help.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Fleischmann.

                         NNSA DEFENSE PROGRAMS

    Mr. Fleischmann. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again 
for your kind words welcoming me to this subcommittee.
    I want to also thank Secretary Austin, General Brown, and 
Mr. McCord for their testimony today.
    As the chairman alluded to, I chair the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee of Appropriations. Ms. Kaptur and I, she is my 
ranking member, we just had the Army Corps before us, but we 
fund the Department of Energy. And as part of that funding of 
the Department of Energy, the NNSA, the National Nuclear 
Security Administration, we are responsible for funding our 
Nation's nuclear arsenal for the ultimate customer, the 
Department of Defense.
    And I represent the people of the Third District of 
Tennessee, gentlemen. That encompasses the great city of Oak 
Ridge, birthplace of the Manhattan Project, Y-12 National 
Security Complex. We are also building the uranium processing 
facility. So I am working very, very heavily in the nuclear 
sector.
    In that regard, I am going to address my one question today 
dealing with our Nation's nuclear deterrent.
    Right now, the NNSA defense programs are intertwined with 
the Defense Department's programs replacing all legs of the 
triad, and we are thankful for that.
    It will come as no surprise that I have concerns, given we 
see that Russia has essentially fully recapitalized its nuclear 
forces; China rapidly expanding its numbers and fielding a 
triad of its own; and the looming prospect, sadly, of a nuclear 
Iran. We also face the termination of New START in less than 2 
years.
    We are entering unchartered territory dealing with 
potentially two pure nuclear adversaries as we are in the 
middle of recapitalizing our entire deterrent.
    My question, gentlemen, is, given this troubling strategic 
threat picture, I am interested in hearing your outlook on the 
current pace of recapitalization of our nuclear deterrent. Are 
there any ways we in Congress can better support the 
Department's efforts to meet these increasingly tight 
deadlines?
    And with that, I will await your response.
    Secretary Austin. Well, let me begin by thanking you for 
what you have done to date.
    As you know, over the course of this administration, we 
requested to invest some $149 billion in the modernization of 
our nuclear program. It is the bedrock of our defense, in our 
nuclear triad here, and I personally believe that all three 
legs are important, and I think that we should continue to 
invest in the modernization of all three legs.
    Now, because of the fact that, you know, we are now faced 
with two major nuclear countries or potential adversaries, 
conditions have changed. And whether or not we are going to 
need to do more in the future is something that we are going to 
have to consider.
    But I think following through with our current 
modernization program is the right thing to do. And again, I 
support you for what you are doing to support--I thank you for 
what you are doing to support us. And, again, I think we should 
maintain course and speed here.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    And I will say, we work bipartisan. We have the Nuclear 
Security Working Group. We work with the NNSA. We want to link 
up and work very closely with the Department of Defense so that 
we can have them make sure that our ultimate customer, you all, 
are pleased with what is going on. We will continue to fund 
that I think in a bipartisan and bicameral way.
    I will close by saying this. Again, thanks to each and 
every one of you all for your tremendous service to our 
country. I did mention I represent Oak Ridge. I am very proud 
of that great city.
    But my home city, which I am not native to, actually, is 
Chattanooga, Tennessee. I will let everyone here know that we 
are going to be having our 75th uninterrupted Armed Forces Day 
Parade.
    Mr. Secretary, I know we have reached out to you. I will 
ask you to maybe contact me offline in that regard.
    Uninterrupted. I would maintain that Chattanooga is 
probably the most patriotic city in America. Our veterans are 
near and dear to us, as are our great men and women who are 
serving our Armed Forces today.
    And with that, I will yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman and thank the gentlelady 
from Minnesota for her interest in this and doing the great job 
that she does.
    And I want to thank all three of you for your service. And 
before we conclude, I want to thank you for your testimony.
    And also, if you have any--any members who have any 
questions for the record, I ask witnesses to respond in a 
reasonable period of time.
    With that, thank you. The subcommittee is adjourned.

                                           Tuesday, April 30, 2024.

  FISCAL YEAR 2025 REQUEST FOR THE NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVES FORCES

                               WITNESSES

GENERAL DANIEL R. HOKANSON, CHIEF OF THE NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, 
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JODY J. DANIELS, CHIEF OF ARMY RESERVE AND 
    COMMANDING GENERAL, U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND
VICE ADMIRAL JOHN MUSTIN, CHIEF OF NAVY RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL LEONARD F. ANDERSON, IV, COMMANDER, MARINE FORCES 
    RESERVE, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL JOHN P. HEALY, CHIEF OF AIR FORCE RESERVE, 
    DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr.  Calvert. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to 
order.
    Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony on fiscal 
year 2025 budget requests for the Reserve components of the 
United States Armed Forces.
    To discuss the budget request and other issues related to 
the Reserve components, we welcome our panel, consisting of 
General Daniel Hokanson, the Chief of the National Guard 
Bureau; Lieutenant General Jody Daniels, the Chief of the Army 
Reserve; Vice Admiral John Mustin, the Chief of the Navy 
Reserve; Lieutenant General Leonard Anderson, commander of the 
Marine Corps Reserve; and Lieutenant General John Healy, the 
Chief of the Air Force Reserve.
    Welcome to you all and thank you for your years of 
distinguished service. We are looking forward to your testimony 
today.
    The Reserve components provide our Nation with a critical 
force multiplier in a time of war and indispensable national 
response force in times of peace.
    We all know that the National Guard is our Nation's 911 
response when it comes to natural disasters. In California, the 
Guard's firefighting capabilities save lives every year. But 
the Guard is also desperately trying to repel an invasion 
across our southern border. This invasion, encouraged by 
President Biden's failed immigration and border policies, is 
bringing deadly fentanyl and criminals into our communities.
    While most Americans are aware of the Guard's domestic 
responsibilities, they should also be aware of the great work 
the Guard is doing internationally. Working with our partners 
around the world through the critical State Partnership 
Program, the Guard is enhancing the security of our allies.
    Our Reserves also demonstrated their importance during the 
periods of peacetime peril. At the height of the pandemic, our 
Reserve forces deployed around the country to augment 
overwhelmed civilian medical personnel in places like New York 
City.
    So for all that you do, we salute you. But to ensure that 
our Reserve components can continue their great work, they must 
be adequately resourced, especially given the dangerous global 
environment we find ourselves in.
    Unfortunately, the President's budget has failed to request 
the resources necessary to support our Guard and Reserve. While 
inflation is running over 3 percent, the overall funding 
request for the Reserve components in fiscal year 2025 for 
programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction is nearly 2 
percent lower than fiscal year 2024. This equates to a 
reduction of over $1 billion. While there are some Reserve 
components that receive increases in this budget over last 
year, those appear to have come at the expense of other Reserve 
components.
    Now, some may argue that this strategy of robbing Peter to 
pay Paul was made necessary as a result of the caps imposed by 
the Fiscal Responsibility Act. However, the President has 
ignored those caps when it comes to nondefense spending.
    One need only look at the National Guard's unfunded 
priority list as an example of the woeful inadequacy of the 
President's budget request. The fiscal year 2024 list of 
unfunded priorities totaled $662 million for programs under 
this subcommittee's jurisdiction. For fiscal year 2025, that 
list has grown to a whopping $2.4 billion. That is a 263 
percent increase in unfunded priorities.
    While the President's budget is obviously deficit, let me 
be clear that this committee's strong support for the Guard and 
Reserve is unwavering. In fact, last year we added $1 billion 
above the budget request for the National Guard and Reserve 
Equipment Account, and $200 million above the budget request 
for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program.
    But we need to understand your actual shortfalls. So I will 
be interested in hearing from each of you regarding any risk 
this budget is posing to mission requirements and the quality-
of-life improvements for your personnel as well as where you 
would use this additional funding.
    Specifically, I want to hear your perspectives on how 
confident you are that you will meet your required end strength 
in fiscal year 2025, the impact of NATO's expansion on the 
National Guard's State Partnership Program, the challenges 
posed to your National Guard units by the F-15EX fielding 
timelines, and the timeline for the KC-46A bed-down at March 
Air Reserve Base.
    I will also be interested in the Guard's perspectives 
regarding the proposed move of Guard personnel into the Space 
Force, an issue which has generated considerable debate 
recently.
    With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking member, 
Ms. McCollum, for her opening statement and remarks. Thank you.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms.  McCollum. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I was going to start out saying I agree with all your 
remarks, but I have to take just a slight moment to talk about 
my disagreement with your remarks about what is happening at 
our southern border.
    We do need to bring order to the border, but to lay all of 
the blame on the current President of the United States I think 
shortchanges the reality of how Congress has failed. We have 
failed to produce any meaningful legislation to reform our 
broken immigration system.
    But, Mr. Chair, I couldn't agree with you more on the rest 
of your statement about how we need to make sure that the 
Reserve and the Guard has the equipment, the training to 
fulfill its mission, and to return home safely when called 
upon.
    I want to welcome each of you before the committee today, 
and a very special warm Minnesota welcome to Lieutenant General 
Anderson.
    General Anderson, it is 47 degrees in Duluth and 48 in 
Minnesota. So welcome to steamy D.C. and your first appearance 
before the committee.
    Our sincere thanks to General Hokanson and Lieutenant 
General Daniels and Vice Admiral Mustin for what may be your 
last appearances before the committee. So we have got the new 
kid on the block. So take lots of notes, Lieutenant General 
Anderson.
    Each and every one of you have dedicated your life to 
service and know how indebted we all feel to you. And on behalf 
of the people I represent in the Fourth District, thank you.
    Each of your components are a vital part to our national 
security. Each of you has personally deployed into areas of 
conflict, assisting your Active Component counterparts in a 
seamless manner. Thank you for the work that you do in leading 
our Guard and Reserve personnel.
    Today, I am particularly interested to hear how the 
administration's fiscal year 2025 request will enhance your 
ability to meet your mission's goals, and if any capability 
gaps exist, as the chair pointed out.
    Our National Guard and Reserve components are called upon 
to support a variety of missions, including humanitarian 
missions, the continued support to the southwest border, 
overseas operations, and for the Guard in particular, the State 
Partnership Program activities, which this committee dearly is 
invested in.
    It would be helpful to receive an update on the pace of 
deployments affecting your troops' morale, readiness, and 
retention efforts. It would be helpful for each of you to share 
how your budget request will impact the current pace of 
operations for each of your services.
    Serving your country on top of managing a civilian job, and 
in many cases, supporting a big busy family is one of the 
highest forms of service. We thank you, and we thank everyone 
who serves alongside and under you. You are truly putting 
country above self. Thank you for all your efforts. And I look 
forward to a productive dialogue today. I thank you for the 
courtesy. And I yield back.
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you. General Hokanson, please take 3 
minutes for your opening remarks.

                 Summary Statement of General Hokanson

    General  Hokanson. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, and esteemed members of the subcommittee, as 
mentioned, this is my final testimony before you as the 29th 
Chief of the National Guard Bureau.
    It has been the honor of my life for Kelly and I and all of 
team 29 to represent the soldiers, airmen, and families of the 
National Guard. I am tremendously proud of their service and 
sacrifices, and I am grateful for this subcommittee's support. 
Thanks to you, we continue to increase the combat readiness of 
our formations and improve the quality of life of our soldiers, 
airmen, and their families.
    Our Nation's investment in the National Guard comes at a 
pivotal moment. Our strategic competitors are seeking 
advantages in every domain, land, sea, air, space, and cyber. 
If we are to compete and deter successfully and, if necessary, 
prevail in combat, we must invest in our people.
    Our soldiers and airmen, with the support of their 
families, are the ones who carry out these missions. They stand 
watch in the turbulent corners of the world. They monitor our 
airspace. They train with our allies and partners. They respond 
to our communities in time of need. It is our people who make 
the difference. They make us lethal, resilient, and responsive.
    Our people, like our pilots, maintainers and support 
personnel and our Air Guard fighter squadrons, are experienced, 
capable, and provide the capacity we need to keep pace with 
global demands, deter our adversaries and, if necessary, 
prevail in combat.
    With significant fighter pilot and maintainer shortages in 
the Air Force, we believe, through temporary cross-component 
aircraft transfers, we can retain the critical fighter 
capabilities in all 25 of our existing fighter squadrons until 
aircraft procurement efforts can replenish them.
    Our people, like our full-time support personnel, build 
readiness in our formations and are increasingly challenged to 
meet the growing requirements. The cap on Active Guard and 
Reserve positions and a Federal Technician Program that is no 
longer competitive, must be addressed to ensure we have the 
full-time manning necessary to meet our service-directed 
readiness requirements. Our people, as in every member of our 
force, continues to grapple with complex duty statuses and 
benefits disparity, which is why we need duty status reform.
    Lastly, our people include our National Guard space units 
that have nearly three decades of expertise and experience. We 
must find a way forward for these highly trained professionals 
as space becomes an even greater warfighting domain.
    These are issues that affect our people, the heart of our 
force. They are integral to recruiting and retention, and 
ultimately our ability to fight and win. As my time comes to a 
close, I will ensure a seamless transition to the next National 
Guard leadership team, and continue to position the joint force 
for success.
    With your help, we will keep our promise to America to be 
always ready, always there. Thank you for your time, your 
friendship, and your support. I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Next, Lieutenant General Daniels, please take 3 minutes for 
your opening remarks.

                  Summary Statement of General Daniels

    General  Daniels. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to testify once again this morning.
    On behalf of Command Sergeant Major Lombardo, and the 
190,000 soldiers and civilians of the Army Reserve, we stand 
ready to protect American interests and posture ourselves to 
meet challenges at home and around the globe.
    On any given day, nearly 9,000 Reserve soldiers are 
mobilized or deployed worldwide in support of combatant 
commands, while tens of thousands more are engaged in training 
events and annual combined and joint exercises. They reinforce 
alliances and partnerships around the globe.
    The Army Reserve is also a key partner in the Homeland, 
facilitating large-scale mobilization operations and supporting 
First Army in the activation of more than 12,000 soldiers and 
civilians every year. As the joint force prepares to operate in 
a contested logistics environment, the Army Reserve will play a 
key role in delivering the critical enabling capabilities 
needed for large-scale combat operations.
    A ready and modernized Army Reserve is a crucial part of a 
joint force that can deploy, fight, and win our Nation's wars. 
From the start of my tenure, I challenged our leaders to 
prioritize tough realistic training done safely well over 
administrative metrics. That message is resonating throughout 
the force and innovative readiness training, or IRT, is a 
textbook example of this.
    In 2023, more than 1,500 Army Reserve soldiers participated 
in 16 IRT missions across 12 States and three U.S. territories, 
providing key services to almost 40,000 patients.
    The Army is undergoing a once-in-a-generation 
transformation. The Army Reserve requires robust investment to 
modernize our aging equipment, to enable interoperability with 
the joint force. NGREA represents roughly 30 to 40 percent of 
the Army Reserve's equipment procurement budget.
    That said, the Army Reserve's unfunded equipment 
requirements list continues to grow. With inflation and 
material costs rising, our buying power is no longer the same. 
The success of the Army Reserve's modernization efforts hinges 
on NGREA funding, and we greatly appreciate the committee's 
continued support.
    Additionally about half of our 18,000 Humvees are beyond 
their useful life, reducing our ability to respond to crises 
and risking soldiers' safety without upgraded antilock brake 
systems and electronic stability control kits. Your support to 
these modernization programs will build readiness and enhance 
safety for decades to come.
    Despite the most challenging recruiting environment in 
decades, the Army Reserve's end strength has remained above the 
fiscal year 2024 and 2025 strength objectives. I would ask that 
this committee support Reserve Personnel, Army, the RPA 
account, funding reflective of our current end strength to 
maintain a momentum and to continue to train, fight, and 
accomplish our mission.
    Caring for our soldiers and families and ensuring they 
receive the benefits that they deserve is vital. Last October, 
the Army Reserve developed a first-of-a-kind intergovernmental 
support agreement pilot to deliver childcare services to 
soldiers during weekend training. We still need assistance with 
getting additional weekend childcare providers.
    Once again, I would like to thank the committee for your 
support throughout my tenure. Thanks to Congress' support, our 
soldiers are equipped and ready to face any conflict in the 
Domain. Command Sergeant Major Lombardo and I are ready for 
your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Vice Admiral Mustin, please take 3 minutes for your opening 
remarks.

                Summary Statement of Vice Admiral Mustin

    Admiral  Mustin. Good morning, Chair Calvert, Ranking 
Member McCollum, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 
It is a privilege to report to you today on the status and the 
vision of America's Navy Reserve.
    I would like to begin by recognizing my wife, Kim, whose 
steadfast support for 31 years exemplifies the unsung 
sacrifices typical of our military spouses.
    I would also like to thank Master Chief Tracy Hunt for his 
tireless efforts in support of our enlisted Reserve sailors, as 
well as express my thanks and appreciation to Lieutenant 
General Jody Daniels, as we bid her fair winds and following 
seas.
    Given this will be my last hearing before this committee, I 
want to thank General Hokanson and my peer Reserve chiefs for 
their support and friendship during my tenure as Chief of the 
Navy Reserve.
    On any given day, the Navy Reserve provides 100,000 
sailors, three dozen ship, wing, and squadron commanding 
officers, nearly 150 aircraft, two SEAL teams, three 
expeditionary medical facilities, 2,200 strategic sealift 
officers, 450 civilians and nearly half of the Navy's 
Expeditionary Combat Command and intelligence capability. 24/7 
365, your Navy Reserve is standing at the ready, with nearly 
15,000 sailors serving on Active Duty orders every single day.
    For more than a century, your Navy Reserve has reliably 
responded when and where needed. Today, our current operations 
extend around the world. You will find our sailors supporting 
operations throughout Europe, in the Indo-Pacific region, in 
the Red Sea, and even locally, including recent support 
operations in Baltimore, all showcasing the flexibility, 
readiness, and value our citizen sailors generate and 
contribute to our national security.
    And yet, these contributions merely hint at the demands 
required of our force in a great power conflict. We have 977 
days until 2027, and the accelerating pace of that countdown 
clock drives our actions with a committed sense of urgency.
    During my tenure, the Navy Reserve has aggressively 
executed a multiyear transformation focused unambiguously and 
unapologetically on warfighting readiness to prepare the force 
for high-end, multi-domain warfare.
    This effort required the modernization of equipment, 
training systems, and mobilization processes to ensure our 
sailors are trained, available, and combat-ready from day one. 
The procurement of modern KC-130Juliet aircraft is the Navy 
Reserve's number one equipment priority. This modernization to 
replace aging legacy airframes is essential to ensuring the 
Navy Reserve can effectively and efficiently meet the contested 
logistics requirements and operations demanded by our combatant 
and fleet commanders, particularly in the Indo-Pacific area of 
responsibility where this Reserve-only capability factors 
heavily into our operations plans. We share a strong bipartisan 
alignment on this priority, for which I am grateful and 
thankful.
    Beyond equipment, we are embracing technological 
advancements to improve work and training environments, 
harnessing our greatest asset, the minds, talents and ideas of 
our Reserve sailors, and propelling the Navy Reserve into a new 
era of operational and digital readiness and efficiency.
    Commitment to our sailors is central to our Navy's enduring 
warfighting advantage, so we have amplified the personnel and 
professional development of every sailor, and instilled a 
culture of excellence so every sailor, civilian, and their 
families can thrive.
    I extend my gratitude for the committee's support, which is 
crucial to maintaining the operational predictability essential 
for our sailors, their family, and our global combat readiness.
    Chair Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and members of this 
committee, the dedication of our citizen sailors, civilians, 
and their supportive families is a gratifying source of daily 
inspiration.
    Commanding, representing, and advocating for the Navy 
Reserve has been the honor of a lifetime. Thank you for your 
continued support and for the opportunity to address you today. 
I look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you, Admiral.
    Lieutenant General Anderson, please take 3 minutes for your 
opening remarks.

            Summary Statement of Lieutenant General Anderson

    General  Anderson. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank 
you for the opportunity to appear before you today and testify 
on behalf of the Commandant of the Marine Corps about your 
Marine Forces Reserve.
    I am honored to appear before you with my fellow Reserve 
Component service chiefs and with my senior enlisted leaders, 
Sergeant Major Edwin Mota and Command Master Chief Michael 
Mussett.
    The Marine Corps Reserve has always been a critical 
component of the Marine Corps total force. The emergent picture 
of the intricate and multi-domain warfighting environments of 
the future increasingly reveals the risk of relying on the 
Active Component alone.
    The problem set demonstrates why the Marine Corps 
strategically leverages its Reserve Component in two important 
ways. First, the Marine Corps Reserve provides support to 
global force management, employed as a vital contributor to 
meet combatant command requirements.
    The Reserve Component, in close partnership with the Marine 
Forces Command and Second Marine Expeditionary Force, continues 
to mature the utilization of service-retained forces in support 
of global crisis response operations.
    We provide Reserve forces for global deployments that span 
the spectrum of conflict, and we participate in combat-related 
training exercises in every geographic combatant command and 
CYBERCOM.
    Second, the Marine Corps Reserve is amplifying its talent 
management efforts. This subcommittee has been briefed 
extensively in recent years on the Marine Corps' Force Design 
Initiative. Talent management is a major focus for the Marine 
Corps and the Marine Corps Reserve.
    We are identifying select individuals with high-demand, 
low-density skill sets that are inherently challenging to 
acquire and providing those Marines pathways to continued 
military service that are complementary with their civilian 
careers.
    Each year, this subcommittee provides National Guard 
Reserve equipment appropriation funding for the Marine Corps 
Reserve, and I am grateful for your continued support through 
NGREA. The Marine Corps Reserve is designed to be equipped at 
near parity with the Active Component, and NGREA funds allow 
the Marine Corps Reserve to resource the requirements set forth 
by Congress and the combatant commanders.
    The Marine Corps Reserve would realize an even greater 
advantage by receiving NGREA funding that restores its 
historical share. I ask that you consider this in your future 
funding decisions.
    The Commandant of the Marine Corps recently called the 
Marine Corps Reserve our backbone and emphasized to our senior 
leaders the need to maximize the potential of our Marine Corps 
Reserve forces by resourcing and equipping them to ensure they 
are prepared to meet the threats that face this Nation.
    Reserve Marines serve honorably while balancing their 
civilian careers and families. They bring a breadth and depth 
of knowledge to the Marine Corps that gives the total force an 
asymmetric advantage.
    Thank you. I am glad to be here, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Next, Lieutenant General Healy, please take 3 minutes for 
your remarks.

             Summary Statement of Lieutenant General Healy

    General  Healy. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, 
and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the 
69,600 men and women of the Air Force Reserve, it is an honor 
for me to be here today with my senior enlisted leader, Chief 
Master Sergeant Israel Nunez.
    As a commander, I am continually amazed at the 
accomplishments of our Reserve airmen as they meet every 
challenge they are given on behalf of the Nation. The Air Force 
Reserve provides the Nation with operational capability, 
strategic depth, and surge capacity across every Air Force core 
mission set, both overseas and here at home.
    As a largely part-time component, we provide a ready-now, 
accessible force that is both mission-effective and cost-
efficient. As our near-peer threat increases, we are committed 
to the operational imperatives and the re-optimization efforts 
within the Department of the Air Force.
    Since October 7th, Air Force Reserve personnel and aircraft 
have mobilized to fill critical airlift and air refueling 
missions in support of U.S. Central Command and U.S. 
Transportation Command, some with only 72 hours' notice.
    To date, in fiscal year 2024, Reserve airmen have 
accomplished over 68,000 man-days, supporting Levant 
operations, filling critical requirements amidst continued 24/7 
operations.
    Reservists provide an experienced support to NATO allies 
and European partners, performing everything from intelligence 
analysis and cybersecurity, to airlift and air superiority 
missions, to aircraft maintenance and force protection. The 
U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Space Force would not be able to 
support Levant operations without Reserve airmen.
    To optimize our performance as the total force, the Air 
Force Reserve must transform for the future. This 
transformation requires the Air Force Reserve be proportionally 
modernized, and concurrently fielded with regular component 
equipment.
    Maintaining equipment parity with the regular component 
ensures our ability to match a pacing threat. Legacy aircraft 
investment without recapitalization and delayed modernization 
add substantial risk to sustaining combat credible air 
superiority and surge capacity in the future.
    We are grateful for Congress for the National Guard and 
Reserve equipment appropriation. NGREA enables us to modernize 
and replace obsolete equipment when recapitalization by the 
Active Component is not feasible. During the past year, NGREA 
funding enabled installation of the most advanced radars and 
secure communication equipment and self-protection systems, all 
designed to make our aircraft more lethal and more survivable 
in a contested environment.
    Our most important weapon system is and always has been our 
airmen. We are focused on ensuring that Reserve airmen and 
their families receive the support they need. Two of our most 
significant lines of effort focus on providing accessible, 
affordable childcare for our members, as well as making 
healthcare more accessible for family members with special 
needs through the Exceptional Family Member Program.
    Over the past seven decades, the Air Force Reserve has 
provided combat-proven readiness. I am certain that the Air 
Force Reserve will be prepared to defend the great Nation now 
and in the future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today 
and continued support of the Air Force Reserve, our citizen 
airmen and their families, and I look forward to answering your 
questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
                            FENTANYL CRISIS

    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you. Thank you, General.
    I want to make sure that each member has a chance to ask 
questions, so each member will have 5 minutes for their 
questions and answers. When your timer turns yellow, you have 1 
minute remaining.
    First, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Fentanyl, we are going to hear a lot about that I am sure 
from all of you, but we certainly hear about it all over the 
country. Fiscal year 2024 Appropriations Act provides $300 
million for the National Guard Counter-Drug Program, which is 
$200 million above the President's budget request.
    General Hokanson, how can the National Guard best utilize 
these resources to address the fentanyl crisis, which has 
claimed the lives of more than 100,000 Americans just over the 
last year?
    General  Hokanson. Chairman, first of all, thank you for 
the additional funding specific to our Counter-Drug Programs. 
As you are aware, in every one of our States our National Guard 
works closely with local law enforcement to provide additional 
support and capabilities that exceed what the State has. Not 
only that, we have counter-drug schools, five of them 
throughout the country.
    We will utilize this funding as best we can within the 
authorities we are given to help support local law enforcement 
and address this serious issue that we are facing.
    Mr.  Calvert. Can you be more specific on that? Obviously, 
intelligence data we have seen shows that the Chinese have been 
working with the two major cartels and getting the base 
chemicals into Mexico primarily to make the fentanyl, and then 
the fentanyl is distributed. And then apparently these Chinese 
criminals are working with the cartels to launder the money.
    Is there anything you are doing on that end to use some of 
your personnel to support activities that would track this 
money?
    General  Hokanson. Mr. Chairman, obviously, the stuff that 
is coming up from our southern border is monitored very closely 
by U.S. Northern Command that has that responsibility.
    We are in close coordination through them, through Joint 
Task Force North, to identify, and also work with the local 
border States to help mitigate that wherever we can. However, 
with our counter-drug specifically, we are just working within 
the States to provide additional personnel, in some cases, 
aircraft as well for surveillance, but we do have to follow the 
authorities when it comes to intelligence gathering and sharing 
that information.
    Mr.  Calvert. Well, I would hope that we are all working 
with those various agencies as a team effort. I understand 
between the fentanyl, the opioid traffic--and that includes 
methamphetamine, cocaine, crack cocaine, all the rest of it--
plus the human trafficking side of it plus the illegal farming, 
illegal logging operations, the FBI told me it is about $100 
billion a year in activity that is controlled by the two major 
cartels, $100 billion a year. And it is killing over 100,000 
U.S. citizens a year.
    And I can't emphasize the importance of us focusing on this 
problem. That is more deaths than is happening in all the 
combatant commands combined that is happening along our 
southern border with this fentanyl crisis. So I would 
appreciate anything that can be done to facilitate that.
    With that, is Dutch here? Yeah, Dutch you are recognized. 
Excuse me, Ranking Member McCollum.

                         SPACE FORCE TRANSITION

    Ms.  McCollum. I think we will probably have a round 
possibly for another session of questions, so I want to go to 
something both the chair and I have grave concerns about, and 
that is, the Air Force reservists and Space Force transition.
    General Healy, in your testimony, you said about 200 Air 
Force Reserve space operators and professionals are currently 
conducting space operation functions, as per the Space Force 
Personnel Management Act. This will give the airmen the option 
to transition into Space Force under their unique personal 
structure.
    I would like you to talk a little bit more about how you 
see this going forward and what percentage you expect to 
transform into Space Force.
    But what I do have a concern about is the decision that has 
been starting to take place to just move Air Guard around into 
other positions within Space Force.
    And I have with me--and, you know, Mr. Chair, I have never 
done this before. Do we put things into the record here? I do 
have a letter from----
    Mr.  Calvert. I would be happy to submit that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Ms.  McCollum. The National Governors. And I just want to--
I am speaking as a former State representative as well as a 
Member of Congress. States put significant amounts of money 
into National Guard, whether it is tuition reimbursement, 
whether it is into, you know, equipment, land, and other things 
like that.
    So the States not only have a role in having a National 
Guard to be there in times of disaster, to make sure that we do 
our bit as a State to make sure that they are trained and 
prepared to serve when called upon, as they have been. 
Especially, we see Iraq and Afghanistan, the heightened number 
of reservists and National Guard that were called out.
    But I am going to just read something here from the 
Governors' letter. The legislation that is proposed, ``The 
legislation that sidesteps, eliminates or otherwise reduces 
Governors' authority within their States and territories 
undermines longstanding partnerships, precedence, military 
readiness and operational efficacy. This action also negatively 
affects the important relationships between Governors and DOD 
at a time when we need to have full trust and confidence 
between the two to meet the growing threats posed by the era of 
strategic competition as well as natural disasters.''
    Can you tell me, has there been a response back to the 
Governors, how you see in the future a dialogue between 
Congress and between the States on this? Because this is a 
fundamental change as to how the Guard works.
    And, with that, I will yield for time back. And, Mr. Chair, 
if there is something I missed in the question----
    Mr.  Calvert. Maybe I could add to that just to emphasize 
this. Obviously, 48 of the 50 Governors signed this letter, and 
all the territories signed the letter.
    And one of the concerns that I think the ranking member and 
I both share is that once the precedent is set that the 
movement of Guard personnel to the regular force for whatever 
reason, that can continue. And I would like to add that to the 
gentlelady's question.
    Do you agree with that, this is setting a precedent that 
has never happened before and this could erode over time the 
Guard?
    General  Hokanson. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
McCollum, obviously, this is a new precedent. Obviously, the 
fact that I did see the letter yesterday had 53 Governors that 
had signed it, obviously expressing a concern that it changes 
100 years of precedent.
    It also ignores the non-federalized role of the Air 
National Guard, the role that they have in their States, which 
is very significant for all of our formations, to include our 
space formations as well.
    As a result, I think you are seeing a big concern coming 
from all the Governors as well as all the State adjutants 
general about the potential precedent that this could set.
    Ms.  McCollum. I would just add, we see the Navy and the 
Marine Corps sitting next to each other in a reservist sense. 
And, you know, the Space Force, in my opinion, was hastily put 
together. I am not opposed to the fact that we have a Space 
Force; but Congress, in my opinion, did not give all the due 
diligence as to how this was going to be organized, what it 
would look like in the future, including--including--what a 
Reserve and a Guard component would look like in the future.
    Now is the time for Congress, working with the Governors, 
to weigh in. And so, I appreciate your answer. And just, I 
think, we are going to have the same discussion--I am going to, 
I am sure you are--with the Secretary of the Air Force later on 
this afternoon.
    This has not gone unnoticed, and it will not be done. You 
are not doing anything wrong by moving forward with this. I 
just don't think it was as well-thought-out as it could have 
been.
    Before I yield, I just failed to mention this in my opening 
remarks. When the National Guard deploys, they deploy together 
as units. And I want to recognize the number of deployments I 
have been to over the years where there has been one or two 
reservists who have been part of that deployment.
    And sometimes--I know our Minnesota National Guards, when 
we are deploying we embrace them, we welcome them in. But it 
can be overlooked sometimes how when reservists deploy, they 
deploy and they don't deploy as a full unit until they are--
probably you have seen an Army term--mustered together. But I 
just want the reservists to know how much they are appreciated, 
and it doesn't go unnoticed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you. And it has been my experience here 
to get 48 Governors to sign anything is remarkable in itself, 
including all the territories. So my recommendation to the Air 
Force, I think they need to work with the States in a 
reasonable way ahead, because obviously, this is not going to 
fly, I think, nationally.
    With that, Mr. Rogers, you are recognized.

                    GRAY EAGLE RECONNAISSANCE DRONES

    Mr.  Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Welcome, gentlemen, to the committee. There has been a 
longstanding effort to secure Gray Eagle reconnaissance drones 
for the Army Guard, so much so that in fiscal year 2023 we 
approved, with Senator McConnell's help on the Senate side, we 
helped secure $350 million in funding to the Guard to acquire 
and field 12 Gray Eagle drones, which is, I understand, a 
company's worth of drones.
    Where do we stand, General Hokanson, on fulfilling the 
orders of this committee and the Congress on the drones?
    General  Hokanson. Congressman Rogers, first of all, we 
greatly appreciate the support from this committee to purchase 
those 12 Gray Eagles.
    And my understanding, we will be getting the new aircraft 
off the line in 2027. We are in the process right now of 
working with the States to identify where those aircraft will 
be fielded. Interestingly, we purchased 12. The Army has since 
changed the force structure from a company of 12 to a company 
of eight, and so, we are looking for the opportunity to 
potentially get four more so we can field two companies instead 
of one.
    This really sets the precedent for us as well. With eight 
divisions in the National Guard, some of those key capabilities 
are Gray Eagles as well as attack aircraft.
    With the decision to cancel the FARA, we are looking to put 
attack aircraft in all of our divisions as well as Gray Eagles 
in all of our divisions so that we have the same capability as 
our Active-Duty division so, when called forward, the combatant 
commander can expect the same capabilities coming from a Guard 
division as their Active-Duty counterparts.
    Mr.  Rogers. So what is the final deadline time?
    General  Hokanson. Sir, so later this year we will make the 
decision on the fielding of the first company, and then we will 
also decide where the second unit will be going as well. And 
the first four will be the half of that next company going 
forward.
    Mr.  Rogers. I assume you have the criteria at least in 
some form?
    General  Hokanson. Yes, sir. The criteria has been given to 
all States. They are all applying, those that are interested. 
And, as I mentioned, later on this year is when a board 
consisting of leadership within the Army, the Army Guard, and 
also the adjutants general, will make those recommendations to 
the Secretary of the Army where those units will be fielded.

                           DUTY STATUS REFORM

    Mr.  Rogers. On another topic, I am a former guardsman, so 
I understand this issue is important to all of us. I am 
concerned that they receive the benefits that they deserve.
    It seems like for decades, we have been trying to address 
the issue of duty status reform. Our current duty status and 
pay and benefit system is complex, overly complex, burdensome, 
has resulted in multiple problems.
    Today, the most noteworthy problem is that similarly 
situated servicemembers can be doing essentially the same job 
and receive a significantly different pay and benefit package, 
simply based on the authority on which they were ordered to 
duty.
    Help me out here, why is status reform important to our 
soldiers?
    General  Hokanson. Congressman Rogers, sir, that is a great 
question. And since 2019, we have been working on this. And it 
basically streamlines 27 different duty statuses down to nine, 
to ensure whether the person is on Active Duty, Guard, or 
Reserve, if they are working side by side at the same time, 
same location, same duties, that they are eligible for all the 
same benefits.
    And it would streamline the process significantly, but also 
ensure that we no longer have disparity, as I mentioned in my 
opening statement, between our servicemembers.
    Mr.  Rogers. Do any other of the panel members wish to be 
heard on this issue?
    General  Daniels. So the Army Reserve is greatly supportive 
of duty status reform, and whatever we can do to help make that 
a success, we would appreciate that. It would help us with our 
efficiencies of processing pay actions as well.
    Admiral  Mustin. I can tell you, the Navy is strongly 
supportive and disappointed that it has taken this long. We 
have talked about it for several years, since before 2019 in my 
case. We all enthusiastically support the concept. I would 
appreciate your direction to the Department of Defense to get 
it done.
    Mr.  Rogers. What is the problem? How do we solve it?
    General  Hokanson. Sir, it is actually with OMB right now. 
It has cleared the Department, and almost everyone that I know 
of is supportive of that. I think the issue is getting it 
through OMB to come forward, sir.
    Mr.  Rogers. Anyone wish to be heard?
    General  Healy. That is my understanding as well. The Air 
Force Reserve is absolutely supportive. It has been in every 
one of my talking points at every visit to the Hill in the 
previous 2 years. It is about aligning and getting rid of the 
deficiencies that we currently have for the multitude of 
statuses.
    It is a retention issue as well. It makes it easier for our 
airmen to serve if they know it is a basic one, two, three, 
four, so to speak, of what I get paid and what entitlements I 
am due.
    Mr.  Rogers. I thank all of you for your service.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Next, Dutch, got you this time.

                            BALTIC RELATIONS

    Mr.  Ruppersberger. First thing, I noticed with everyone 
there a lot of stars in this room. Thank you for your service.
    I want to talk about--the members of this committee are 
familiar with the National Guard State Partnership Program. And 
as you know, the Maryland National Guard works very closely and 
is in partnership with Estonia. And I have been to Estonia on 
numerous times, and I am very impressed with the Estonian 
people working with us. And they do a lot of good work, in my 
opinion.
    Can you please share how this relationship is contributing 
to strengthen the security of the Baltic region in the face of 
Russia's invasion of Ukraine, as well as reassuring our allies 
in the region.
    And I guess, General, we will start with you, but I know 
everyone will be able to talk, so----
    General  Hokanson. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
    And so when you look at the partnership with the Baltic 
nations--Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania--those were the first 
partnerships we began over 30 years ago, and obviously Maryland 
with Estonia.
    Where we really saw the power of this was in 2007, when 
Russia had a crippling cyber attack on Estonia, which they were 
unprepared for. So the Maryland Guard has worked with them ever 
since to establish a Cyber Center of Excellence, where we share 
information with each other, because a lot of times, they are 
at the leading edge of seeing some of the things coming out of 
Russia.
    Shortly after the invasion, unprovoked invasion of Russia 
into Ukraine, I traveled to the Baltics, to Estonia, Latvia and 
Lithuania, to reassure not only our NATO allies, but also our 
state partners. While I was there, it was brought to my 
attention that Narva, which is a city in Estonia, that Putin 
had mentioned, that is actually a Russian city even though it 
is in Estonia.
    So they were very concerned about that statement. And so we 
worked very closely with them on their Reserve Component and 
really changed all of our training plans to focus on preparing 
them for a potential invasion from Russia.
    Estonia has been very forward-looking on that and preparing 
their Nation as best they can, and we are doing everything we 
can to work with them on those areas where they feel they need 
the most help. That is a great thing for the Maryland Guard, 
but also, all of our other state partners in the region.
    Mr.  Ruppersberger. Anyone else on the panel have anything 
to say about that? Okay.
    Also, General Hokanson, many--how much time do I have? Two 
minutes, okay.

                            CYBER CAPABILITY

    Broadly speaking, what advantages or disadvantages do the 
Reserve forces have with respect to the attrition of cyber 
specialists to the private sector, especially compared to those 
by our Active-Duty components?
    General  Hokanson. Congressman, I would say within the 
Guard, we have a very strong cyber capability, and the great 
thing is, is we offer a different option here. They can not 
only have their civilian career, but they can also continue to 
serve in the military. And some of, I would argue, our best 
cyber units in the country are in the National Guard and 
Reserve, because they take their civilian skill set, they bring 
it to work, and what they learn at work in their Guard role, 
they also bring to their civilian career. So both see great 
value added related to that.
    The other option is, folks get trained on Active Duty and 
they make the decision to get out. It gives us the opportunity 
to retain that experience in the Guard and Reserve so our 
Nation continues to benefit from all the training that we have 
put into them at a time when cyber professionals are in 
extremely high demand.
    Mr.  Ruppersberger. We really have issues in Maryland, 
because NSA is located there. So it works a different way, 
because there is a lot of personnel there.
    I yield back.
    General  Healy. From the Air Force Reserve, if I could, 
sir, from our perspective, what we are particularly proud of is 
our cyber force retention right now is on the order of 86 
percent.
    So we are actually retaining these cyber professionals, and 
I think it is through innovative things that we have done, like 
a direct commissioning source. So we are able to direct 
commission enlisted and folks off the street who have the 
necessary requirements to make those positions.
    In addition to that, we have constructive credit which we 
are allowing people to take from the civilian community and 
bring it forth and allow them to continue to work in a military 
capacity on the weekend.
    I think this is what is allowing us to keep this elite 
talent that is working out there in the civilian sector and 
allow them to be citizen airmen at the same time.
    Mr.  Ruppersberger. Good to hear.
    General  Anderson. Sir, if I could, at the Marines' 
MARFORCYBER there right at Fort Meade, we have what we call an 
Individual Mobilization Augmentee unit, IMA det there that 
captures the talent that leaves, potentially leaves MARFORCYBER 
from the Active Component.
    A quick example of that is that we have a 6th Comm 
Battalion on the East Coast. And while certainly not directly 
involved in the country of Ukraine, they worked cyber with 
State Partnership Program in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, 
to really, you know, show our influence in that region 
countering some of the narrative that they are getting from 
Russia.
    Mr.  Ruppersberger. I yield back.
    Mr.  Calvert. Thank you. That was a good question, Dutch. I 
think with Estonia especially, their proximity to Saint 
Petersburg, and most of the cyber operations for Russia ran out 
of Saint Petersburg, the old headquarters of the KGB and their 
training operations. But the Russians are very capable, 
unfortunately, when it comes to cyber.
    Mr. Carter, you are recognized.

                          RESERVE INTEGRATION

    Mr.  Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to each 
of you warriors. I am very proud of each and every one of you. 
We are very proud of our Guard and Reserve. We want to make 
sure that you are treated equally.
    General Daniels, I will talk to you. And each of you might 
want to talk about this. Based on the most recent Army force 
structure design, the Reserve Component will take a larger role 
in providing support, especially in areas of logistics and 
engineering.
    We know that in the case of large-scale combat, effective 
integration between Reserve and Army components is critical. 
Does the Reserve Component have the resources necessary to take 
on this increased responsibility, particularly in the area of 
sustainment?
    And how is the Reserve Component integrating with the 
Active Component through training cycles to build cohesive and 
deployable teams?
    General  Daniels. So thank you very much for the question. 
We, the Army, just had a very large summit within the last 
couple of weeks looking at 2030 and 2040 and our future 
requirements. And so, one of the requirements that was placed 
back onto the Army Reserve to do a pilot, or series of pilots, 
looking at forward stationing some of our equipment for some of 
our logistics, engineering, and other kinds of capabilities, 
particularly in the INDOPACOM and EUCOM areas, see if we could 
station that equipment forward, use it for exercises, work with 
our counterparts in those different areas, and then maintain it 
when we are not using it.
    So, we are looking at the--when we forward station this 
equipment, it will then require us to be interoperable with the 
other forces and work with our partner nations. So for us, this 
is a great opportunity to explore some new relationships.
    Mr.  Carter. The ability to train together, from what I 
understand, is critical, especially in the big fights. You got 
to be part of one team working together. I don't know whether 
everybody goes to the National Training Center or not, but if 
that is where they train, do you get the opportunity to go with 
the Active-Duty people and have the funds within which to do 
that on this new idea that you are going to do the logistics 
part?
    General  Daniels. So the logistics will actually be 
stationed out within the areas--within the combatant commands.
    Mr.  Carter. Okay.
    General  Daniels. However, the Army Reserve does support 
every single CTC rotation, every single warfighter, with some 
of our capabilities. So we are actively participating, and we 
are actually looking to link a CTC rotation with one of the 
Army Reserve's large exercises called a CSTX.
    We are looking to do those simultaneously next summer to 
further expound on using our logistics capabilities and make 
sure that they are being really tested and pushed to their 
limit to make sure that they work as they are going to be 
needed.
    Mr.  Carter. Thank you. Any other comment from anybody 
else?
    Admiral  Mustin. I would like to comment also about the 
importance of what we refer to as contested logistics and the 
Navy Reserve's complete integration into the Navy and joint 
force operational plans.
    We talk about multiple Rs: Refuel, revive for medical, 
resupply. And every one of the capabilities is reflected in our 
force design. You are very familiar with my opening statement 
about KC-130Juliet. That is a part of the intra-theater lift 
capability.
    But also, if you are tracking, we are seeing a lot of 
missiles in the Red Sea. And we used to have to drive them back 
through the Suez Canal through Rota, Spain, but now we have got 
expeditionary vertical launch reload teams. That is a largely 
Reserve capability. So our sailors are doing that in real time 
in the Red Sea as well.
    So those investments from prior years are paying benefits 
today, but we continue to invest in the capacity so we can do 
more of it in more places.
    Mr.  Carter. Good.
    General  Hokanson. Congressman Carter, if I could add from 
the Army Guard side as well, with eight full divisions, our 
logistics is fully integrated into our divisions. And when we 
go to the National Training Center or the Joint Readiness 
Training Center, we send our logistics packages with them so 
they train exactly as they would fight.
    On the Air Guard side, as I mentioned, we had a lot of a 
lot of volunteers in our C-17 and other aircraft when we 
logistically had to surge weapon systems overseas. And we 
continue to rely on volunteers and on our air guardsmen to make 
sure we can fill that gap and get munitions where they need to 
be in a timely manner.
    Mr.  Carter. Well, I tell you, I will wait till the next 
round.
    Mr.  Calvert. Okay, Judge.
    Mr. Case.

                           AIR NATIONAL GUARD

    Mr.  Case. Thank you.
    And to all of you, thank you so much for your service.
    And General Hokanson, a special mahalo to you from our 
Hawaii Army and Air Guard. You have always been an incredible 
partner of our Hawaii Guard. And we are, you know, really proud 
of them and grateful for them, not only for the deployments 
overseas, but for some really key emergencies in Hawaii proper, 
to include COVID, Red Hill, most recently the Maui wildfires. 
And you have been fully supportive of all of that. So thank you 
very much from us.
    I feel like I have to channel our absent friend, Mr. Womack 
in joining in support of the State Partnership Program, because 
he is your biggest fan. And you have already heard mention of 
that.
    I just want to add to that. I was with five of our House 
colleagues last week in the South Pacific in Fiji and Tonga. 
And they have State partnership programs with Nevada. And it is 
truly amazing what an impact that Partnership Program has in 
terms of the overall relationship with those key countries.
    We met with the senior leadership of those countries. They 
are well aware of the Partnership Program. They value it, and 
it means a lot to them. So, you know, this is something that I 
don't think we can overinvest in.
    I just want to follow up on my colleague's questions on the 
Space Force, because, frankly, this is kind of a puzzle to me. 
I am going to put this in layman's terms or at least my terms, 
whether it is layman or not.
    We have a Space Force. We are trying to turn the Space 
Force into a full partner in the Armed Services. To do that, 
the Space Force, it seems to me, needs some form of a Guard/
Reserve construct. The Space Force has come up with their own 
construct that they believe works for them, which is a Space 
Force component, which is really a full-time/part-time 
component.
    Somehow, that has to be staffed. That has to be fully 
staffed out for it to really be an effective component. The 
most direct place to get that from is the Air Guard and I 
suppose Reserve to some extent. That is being resisted for 
various reasons, which I can appreciate. The response to that 
was the Secretary of the Air Force legislative proposal, which 
engendered a strong response from, you know, you all, and also 
from our Governors over precedent, and also the fear expressed 
and implied that if this was forced upon space-related Guard 
and Reserve units out there, that they would leave the service 
rather than go to the Space Force. I, frankly, don't know 
whether that is true or not, but it is certainly an expressed 
term.
    So it seems to me that we obviously haven't found the right 
answer yet. But one question that I think it does beg is that 
if the Secretary of the Air Force's proposal to essentially 
require the transfer is not adopted, how does the Space Force 
effectively staff out its proposed component? And will that 
really do particular damage to, for example, the Air National 
Guard? I mean, these are space missions. In a time of 
mobilization, they would probably be mobilized to the Space 
Force, so why shouldn't they get into that channel right now?
    So these are just--you know, I am just trying to sort this 
through in my mind. I don't think any of us has come up with a 
particularly good answer. I signed the letter that supported 
our Governors, because I value their NR adjutant general, 
because I value their input on a fear of demobilizing their own 
existing Air Guard, and because I am also concerned about the 
precedent, but I don't think anybody has answered the basic 
question.
    General  Hokanson. Congressman Case, thank you for the 
opportunity to address this. And, as I have been very clear in 
all of my testimony since I became the chief, I feel the best 
option is just basically no cost to our Nation. Our air 
guardsmen are currently serving space missions. If they want to 
be in the Space Force, we can just change their name tape. They 
would still be in the National Guard. They would still have 
their same civilian job, same location, same mission. All we do 
is change the signs on their name tape.
    The concerns that we have, and our guardsmen have expressed 
this--and this is coming directly from the Space Force--is they 
don't even have in place the admin processes for a part-time 
force to manage them, retirements, pay, benefits, any of that. 
That doesn't exist. So they are going to have to create that 
bureaucracy. We already have it, and we have had it and it runs 
our Air Guard. And we have effectively continued to perform our 
mission, to include 11 overseas deployments, since the Space 
Force was established. And they continue to do that as 
guardsmen in the Air National Guard.
    And when you look forward, we have asked them very closely, 
because we are concerned. Space capabilities are very critical 
to our Nation right now. And when you look at the National 
Guard, we are actually units with equipment that perform 
missions. And we are not usually fillers or anything like that.
    And so when you look at the role that the Space Force is 
looking for their part-time force, they don't see them in 
operational units anymore. They are seeing them in admin, 
educational, and institutional or test units or in staff 
positions. And that is really not what we do right now.
    And at the end of the day, whatever decision is made, it is 
my responsibility to make sure we continue to provide the 
absolute best space capability we can right now. And we do 
that. We have got another deployment scheduled very shortly.
    Our folks continue to do their mission, but many of them 
and up to 70 percent said, Look, I am going to stay in the 
National Guard. And my promise to them is, I will find a 
position for them in the National Guard if they do not want to 
go into the Space Force if they are forced to do so.

                            BENEFIT PACKAGES

    Mr.  Case. Okay. So if we solve for the basic lack of 
comparable, you know, benefit packages that you say that they 
are concerned about, how much of the problem does that solve?
    Do you think in that case, that if they were given a 
voluntary choice about whether to stay in the current Guard or 
transfer over to the Space Force side of things, would they 
take that? Because somehow, we have to do this. And that is the 
basic challenge here. If it doesn't happen on a smooth 
voluntary basis then somehow we have to make it happen.
    Mr.  Calvert. If we can get that answer back for the record 
for Mr. Case, that would be great.
    With that, Mr. Fleischmann.

                            READINESS LEVELS

    Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank each and every one on the dais for your 
respective service to your great branches and collectively to 
our country. Both officers, enlisted, thank you very much.
    A small point of privilege: Chattanooga, my hometown, is 
the venue of the Nation's longest serving, lasting, 
uninterrupted 75 years Armed Forces parade.
    I spoke with the Defense Secretary at our last hearing, and 
he was kind enough to give us General Mengus and I think 
Admiral Spivey to come and honor the men and women of 
Chattanooga. Uninterrupted, inclement weather, COVID, you name 
it. We are the most patriotic city in America. So a heartfelt 
thank you to you all.
    I have a question on force readiness, prioritization of 
readiness. We all recognize the ongoing challenges reinforcing 
NATO's eastern flank, deterring and responding to further 
aggression by Iran and its proxies across the Middle East, and 
last and most serious, the threat posed in the Western Pacific.
    Since the Cold War, we have more than half the total force 
without an equivalent reduction in responsibilities. That seems 
increasingly untenable in today's environment as our relative 
military advantage declines.
    I already had concerns about the readiness levels across 
the force from the regular deployment cycles, often of Guard 
and Reserve units, before these crises in Europe and in the 
Middle East.
    I very much appreciate the importance of demonstrating 
presence to both deter adversaries and reassure allies and 
partners, but I worry about the cost of this posture on our 
ability to then sustain forces in the event of a major war.
    My question for all of you all is, could you please briefly 
comment on the demands of the ongoing crises and deployments on 
readiness and potential impacts that might have on force 
generation in the event of a major war? And I thank you.
    General  Healy. Most recently, with the Levant operations, 
we saw a significant increase in the requirements for mobility 
aircraft air refueling to go over to CENTCOM.
    I think what we do well is we prepare our crews and our 
aircraft to be able to respond to those things. Each of those 
mobilizations, this one, the first time since the 1980s, within 
a 72-hour callout, has benefits that allows the Active Duty to 
continue 24/7 operations, which is what we are designed to do 
is augment surge if a requirement exists, a contingency exists.
    But it comes with a price as well. That price is a 
mobilization to dwell. So, for the 3 to 4 months that our units 
were mobilized in that case, they are going to get five times 
that where they are not approachable and not deployable again, 
the purpose of which is to ensure that they have the ability to 
reset, the ability to get the aircraft working and operable 
that might have been overused during that time period.
    In the case of an all-out war, if that were to occur during 
that five-time mobilization reset, all bets are off. In the 
event of--you know, what we talk about, if there is an actual 
conflict with the PRC, all bets are off. We are all in, and the 
mobilization to dwell restrictions I would expect to be waived 
by the Secretary of Defense in that case.
    Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you.
    General  Daniels. So I am going to take a slightly 
different tact, which is the Army Reserve has--our overall 
requirements have come down over time. However, through an 
authority called the funded reimbursable authority, this is an 
authorization that allows the combatant commands and others to 
bring on Reserve personnel to recolor their money in times of a 
crisis, specifically for intelligence personnel only at this 
time.
    We are asking the committee to take a look at expanding 
that authority to include cyberspace and information operations 
types of activities so they can counter some of these 
activities that we see from our opponents.
    So it is called the funded reimbursable authority.
    Thank you.
    Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you.
    General.
    General  Hokanson. So we have not seen a decrease at all in 
our operational tempo. In fact, it has kind of been above the 
standard, gone up. On any given day, we have 24,000 guardsmen 
deployed, supporting overseas our combatant commanders.
    And we talk about the impact to readiness. We actually gain 
readiness when we deploy because now we have our personnel on 
full-time orders, training up, deploying, and they are really 
at the peak of their readiness while they are there.
    Where we face challenges is when we have mission sets like 
along the southwest border where there is no military training 
value. And if you are not from a border State, it might as well 
be a deployment.
    So it does have an impact on readiness for them because 
they are not training on their military skill set.
    The other one I would highlight most of all is the need to 
have fighter squadrons. We have got a 60-fighter squadron 
requirement with 48. We have 25 of those in the National Guard, 
and our ability to retain that capability when we are already 
short fighter pilots and maintainers will be critically 
important in the next coming years as we start to modernize our 
fleet.
    Mr.  Fleischmann. Thank you.
    In the interest of time, I thank you for your answers.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr.  Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                              RECRUITMENT

    Ms.  Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to endorse Mr. Ruppersberger's interest in 
Central Europe and our State partnership programs.
    Ohio is partnered with Hungary and Serbia. I guess we 
haven't done that good a job, but I know our soldiers have. So 
I just want to put that on the record. I think it would be 
great to learn more about all of these Central European 
partnership efforts.
    We all come from different parts of the country, Generals 
and Admiral, and I am from up by the longest coastline in 
America, the Great Lakes. We are heavy industrial and 
agricultural, and we have just in my district five units that 
are Guard and Reserve.
    I wanted to ask you some questions--oh, and, General 
Anderson, I began my Sunday, 7 a.m., at a marine landing in 
Toledo, Ohio. And the people came from all across the State and 
even--I don't know how the Michiganders got in, but they got 
in. They had a great time.
    And so there is great esprit de corps in our part of the 
country toward the Corps and all services, but that one is 
particularly memorable. They really had a good time.
    My questions involve recruitment and workforce development, 
and I want to ask the questions and then you can answer.
    General Daniels, I represent a 983rd engineering battalion, 
all kinds of trucks, all kinds of equipment. No connection to 
our local school system in terms of recruitment and gaining 
skills in essential tasks as mechanics, as maintainers, as 
drivers.
    I have thought about that a great deal of the time. Maybe 
the Department has some programs I am unaware of, but the 
connection is very loose if it exists at all.
    In terms of the--General Hokanson, have I got that right?
    General Hokanson. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kaptur. On the medical front, we were hoping to get a 
Guard medical unit next to our medical university. They sent us 
an MP unit. You know, we do our best, but I worry about medical 
backup in theater, and I think we could do a whole lot better 
in Ohio by our Guard paying attention to medical units, which 
doesn't appear to be happening, in my region, anyway.
    And I am wondering what the criteria is that the Guard uses 
to establish medical facilities and stations for medical units 
and the training that has to go with them.
    And thirdly, in terms of Air Force, we have an F-16 Armed 
Guard air wing in our area. We are very proud of them. I am 
concerned about what is going to happen to them with this Space 
Force proposal. And we have worked for almost half a century to 
build it into a real base and it is. We competed for F-35s, and 
I am angry to this day we didn't get them because we weren't 
close enough to, they told us, a training base. That is 
interesting.
    But we have got Northern Command, northern watch. That is 
part of their duty station--that is part of their duty, and 
they do a great job, by the way.
    So those are kind of my first-round questions.
    General Hokanson. Yes, Congresswoman. With respect to the 
medical units, all of ours are part of the total Army, and so 
when they are in our divisions, we look at the floor structure 
we are authorized, and then we work with the adjutants general 
to determine the best locations for those.
    I will follow up with General Harris----
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    General Hokanson [continuing]. On the interest within the 
State.
    With respect to the fighter aircraft, to the F-16s and, 
obviously, the space units in Ohio, obviously, our number one 
priority is our people. We want to keep them and retain them as 
best we can. And so, we are working, hopefully, to get a 
resolution for what our space professionals will do.
    But obviously, when we look at the F-16, it is a great 
unit, and we look forward to continuing to modernize them in 
the F-16 and hopefully look for future aircraft.
    With just one touch on the recruiting, you mentioned access 
to the schools. We are actually doing a pilot program right now 
with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association because within 
the Reserve component and the active, we run a star-based 
program where we teach STEM primarily in middle schools.
    AOPA and the Experimental Aircraft Association also do that 
at the high-school level. And so we are trying to develop a 
connectivity to encourage kids to pursue STEM degrees in STEM, 
but then also connect them to the local Guard and Reserve and 
active organizations there to show them potential careers in 
aviation.
    Ms. Kaptur. Mr. Chairman, I would really appreciate, for 
the record, each of you summarizing whatever connectivity 
programs you have to our younger people that connect service 
and workforce development. I am really, really interested in 
that.
    And you know what, working with the Department of Defense 
on that issue is misery, just trying to figure out what they 
are doing, where they are doing.
    And thank you very, very much again.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Joyce.

                        PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS

    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, ladies and gentlemen in the front and back row 
for your service to our country.
    Lieutenant General Daniels, according to a recent report on 
the Army's shortage of psychological operations soldiers, I 
understand that 83 percent of the Army's psychological 
operations soldiers are in the Army Reserve.
    How can we help ensure that the Army leverages those unique 
skill sets uniquely in the Army Reserve? And how does their 
position in the Army Reserve impact the overall--Army's overall 
psychological operations mission?
    General Daniels. So one of the initiatives that we have 
taken on this past year is to look at those programs, those 
skill sets, civilian-acquired skill sets that can be brought on 
to Active Duty, brought into the Army Reserve, brought into the 
Guard that don't require--we will accept the credentialing from 
the civilian agencies so they don't have to go through training 
again.
    So the Army Reserve had--of the 44 that the active 
component was accepting, the Army Reserve only had seven. We 
are now up to that full complement of capability. So they spend 
less time doing training and are back at their employers. So we 
are trying to minimize that time away from work and that time 
away from their hometowns in order to conduct Army training.
    We are looking to further increase our direct 
commissioning, improve that process. It has been taking about 
18 months. We are trying to get it down to about 9 months. That 
will be a piece of the new Army recruiting command. They are 
taking a look at how they can integrate that and have a single 
point of entry so we can, again, bring those civilian-acquired 
skills into the Reserve and then help keep them there.

                            FLYING HOURS CUT

    Mr. Joyce. Lieutenant General Healy, the fiscal year 2025, 
budget shows a significant cut to flying hours for the Air 
Reserve, which is a nearly $160 million reduction. How does 
this budget request ensure maximum readiness for reservists as 
we continue to see pilot shortages across the Air Force?
    General Healy. I appreciate the question.
    The flying hour cut that we are looking at in 2025 is 
16,000. It could be as much as 10,000 below a 76,000-flying-
hour budget that we require in order to meet our readiness 
needs.
    But based on the current contingency flying that we are 
doing, a different pot of money, TWCF, Transportation Working 
Capital Fund, which gets after contingency operations, if the 
amount of contingency flying, specifically for CENTCOM and the 
Levant operations continues, we are able to get that deficit 
made up with those TWCF hours.
    If it flatlines a little bit and there is not as much 
contingency in 2025, the expectation is that we would come back 
for a roughly 10,000 hour bump up, specifically for our C-5 and 
our C-17 flying hour operations.
    Mr. Joyce. Seeing that I have a little more time, and 
following up on some questions from the chair, the ranking 
member, and Mr. Case, General, were you at all given the 
opportunity to advance your concerns? And how do you think the 
rank and file have accepted this reallocation of Space Force?
    General Hokanson. Congressman Joyce, we have been involved 
in the process. Obviously, there is the legislative proposal 
that we discussed earlier about where the governors have all 
signed letters towards that.
    The committee, over the course of the years, has asked for 
I think six studies, and none of them--only one has made them 
over here. There is currently another proposal right now, a 924 
report that is going through the process. So we are involved in 
that. We have our folks there.
    When it comes down to the rank and file, about 70 percent 
say they want to stay in the Guard. In fact, would even go to 
doing a different job in the Guard. And right now, frankly, our 
country can't afford to lose that level of experience in the 
space field.
    Our units have been doing this for almost 30 years. Some 
are extremely good. I would argue some are the best at what 
they do, and so for me, I'm trying to retain that capability in 
our Nation because we absolutely need it.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Ellzey.

                                KC-130J

    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good to see you all. Thank you for being here. I haven't 
seen this many stars since I did my last unsuccessful fly by. 
But I will say that I am truly afraid of the senior enlisted 
advisors behind them who have probably 8,000 years of 
experience combat time. And thank you all for all being here, 
including the folks in the back.
    General Hokanson, you are the right guy for your job. Class 
of '86 at West Point, I'm sorry, but you did go to PG school at 
the Navy War College to get to where you are today, so I am 
glad to see that.
    General Daniels, incredible resume, and especially for all 
of your background, you are the perfect person for this job, 
empirical data, in a time in which the money doesn't seem to 
exist. Neither do the resources.
    General Healy, your career in tankers and logistics is 
going to be extremely important if the balloon goes up by 2027. 
You are the perfect guy for the job.
    And then, Lonnie Anderson--I'm sorry--General Anderson. It 
is on his bio, but it is kind of glossed over. Blue Angel. 
Right there. And he flew with my friend, Jerry Deren, who says 
to give you a hard time, which I am not going to do yet.
    And then Admiral Mustin. It is good to see you. I have 
known him for a long time. We have the most incredible group of 
folks with corporate knowledge for the Guard and Reserves that 
I have ever seen assembled in one place, which I think is 
timely based on what we are talking about in a world 
environment that looks very much like 1940.
    For my limited time, I am going to go ahead and address 
Admiral Mustin. And let's talk about the unsexy stuff that we 
do: Logistics, tanking, things that we are going to need after 
day one. The war games talk about day one. What about day two?
    Contested logistics and INDOPACOM is an extremely important 
thing, and now that we are looking at a, perhaps, wider war in 
Europe, all of these things come to a very important peak that 
you all are going to be needed for.
    So let's talk about C-130Js. The Navy's unfunded priority 
list includes the KC-130J, which is a great picture--of a KC-
130T tanking a H-53K carrying an F-35 that came out this week. 
All three integral pieces of our warfighting capability.
    So that aircraft is important for intratheater lift 
requirement, especially for INDOPACOM, for Pappy, where the 
U.S. faces a tyranny of distance. Our goal is to replace the T 
with the J by 2030.
    Can you detail the Navy's need for everybody why we need 
the 130J?
    Admiral Mustin. Absolutely.
    Well, Congressman, it is great to see you. Thank you so 
much for the question.
    And, you know, my opening statement heavily emphasized the 
need for the transition from the tango to the Juliet variant.
    So starting from requirements, my requirement is validated 
at 32 airframes. That is predicated on a 75 percent mission 
capable rate, really 24 airframes. Again, that is a minimum 
number when you talk about Admiral Paparo and now Admiral 
Koehler. I will tell you they are going to say that that number 
is about three times that number.
    But as it relates to today, we are looking at a need for 24 
operational airframes. Flying the tango, which, for me, 
averages per airframe at about 31 years, means that I'm 
struggling to maintain about nine airplanes that are mission-
capable on a daily basis.
    Now, keep in mind, not just for INDOPACOM, but around the 
world I have got enduring detachments where we are flying 
these, most recently in CENTCOM where the request came in for 
my detachment to double the amount of C-130s that were on 
station. So the reality is the demand for them is persistent 
and real and the scale will only increase.
    Back to how we are going to get there. Originally, my boss 
at the time, the chief of naval operations, Mike Gilday, tasked 
me to recapitalize by 2030. So it is 32 airframes by 2030.
    We predicated a plan, from 2025 to 2030, six airframes per 
year, and now we are just at the point where we are beginning 
to realize with the first, thank you all very much, in 2024. 
But ultimately, what is going to happen is, we are probably 
going to need to increase that number per year.
    Next year, for instance, I will need nine to get us back on 
glide to get there.
    Mr. Ellzey. Well, that answered my question.
    I am going to give back to reserve my time, Mr. Chairman, 
thank you. I will hold for the second round.
    General Hokanson. Congressman, if I could just add one 
thing to that?
    Mr. Ellzey. Go ahead.
    General Hokanson. You bring up a great point. So we talk 
about capability, but we don't talk enough about capacity, and 
it is the depth that the Reserve component provides.
    In one of the recent RAND studies commissioned by the Air 
Force, it took just the F-16, and they realized in the Reserve 
component, it cost 42 percent less to operate an F-16 and, in 
fact, 34 percent less for our KC-135s.
    And when we look at the amount of area refueling capability 
we have in the Reserve component, we have to make sure we keep 
that capacity.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, General.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Garcia.

                  MILITARY SPOUSE LICENSING RELIEF ACT

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being 
late. We had the NASA administrator in the other room.
    So I want to thank you guys for your service, your 
continued service and your leadership in the Reserves.
    I had the pleasure of being in the Reserves for 3 years 
myself, and then I realized I was the most dangerous guy in the 
sky and decided to grow up and get a real job, which was not 
this one, by the way. So I want to thank you.
    We passed a piece of legislation back in December of 2022, 
that was actually signed into law by the President in January 
of 2023 on the Active-Duty side called the Military Spouse 
Licensing Relief Act.
    It is now the law of the land, and it has actually helped a 
couple of hundred thousand family members on Active Duty where 
it allows the spouses to basically cross-deck their 
professional licenses across State lines.
    So if they were a teacher, a nurse, a doctor, a real estate 
agent, whatever it is, when they got orders, when their spouse 
got orders from one State to the next, they didn't have to get 
recertified, and they didn't have to pay the money to get 
recredentialed and go in front of a board. Sometimes that takes 
over a year, a couple thousand dollars. It is cost prohibitive, 
time prohibitive, and they don't do it.
    So now you have got an Active-Duty family going down to a 
single income for 2 to 3 years wherever they are based.
    That is now the law of the land on the Active-Duty side.
    I have got a mission now and, frankly, hopefully in 
partnership--I have spoken with a few of you all here already--
that I would like to expand that. And that is not necessarily 
the purview of the Appropriations Committee, but I would like 
to expand that and enable that on the authorizing side with 
HASC to get that to apply to the Reserve side.
    So I think in terms of quality of life, there is a lot of 
issues we have got going on. We have got record low retention 
and recruitment. The pay is not where it needs to be. There is 
a whole lot of issues. It is a multi-faceted problem.
    I think getting that dual income, allowing the spouse to be 
able to stay in the workforce, but then the collateral benefit 
of also having that community, having access to more teachers 
and more nurses and more doctors where, in districts like mine, 
we are short, and then having that tax revenue at the local 
levels, the State levels, and Federal levels get reinjected, I 
think it is a win, win, win, if we do it right.
    So I wanted to float that idea. That is a two-putt, you 
know, process. It is not something probably you are going to 
get done in fiscal year 2025, but we didn't think the Active-
Duty side was going to get done in 2023, to be honest, and it 
ended up getting expedited.
    So I wanted to get your thoughts on that if you are hearing 
that feedback on the Guard side, on the Reserve side. And then, 
you know, can we get your support on something like that to get 
some pull from the leadership, especially affecting our junior 
enlisted and mid-enlisted, senior enlisted ranks as well.
    But I will open it up to anyone who has feedback on that. 
If you have got anybody that--or see any reason why that is a 
dumb idea to go run up that hill, let me know, but I am going 
to go run up that hill otherwise.
    General Hokanson. Congressman Garcia, I will jump in.
    My wife and I went to a recent signing for the active 
component, and we are actually part of that process. My wife 
was a schoolteacher, and every time we PCS-ed, she had to go 
through--and it would take the duration of our time that we 
were there.
    And so, I would be greatly supportive of this because at 
the end of the day, as you mentioned, it is very difficult now 
without two incomes for many families to make it, and anything 
we can do to make their service easier is going to make a huge 
difference for recruiting and for retention.
    Mr. Garcia. I appreciate that, General.
    I see it as a cost saver. As an appropriator, we can either 
throw more money at pay and benefits and everything else, or we 
can help on the quality-of-life side. If we can get the local 
communities to pay for that second income to augment the total 
household income and get quality of life above the poverty 
line, then we can save American taxpayer dollars.
    And by the way, like I said, the government actually makes 
money on that when they are working and getting taxed, and we 
get the workforce in the local community.
    So that is all I have. I want to thank you guys for your 
support.

                             RESERVE ASSETS

    I am very concerned about the lack of, frankly, assets 
within the Reserve components, especially on the Air National 
Guard side to be that complementary force to the Active Duty 
right now. I think we have gotten below or are approaching 
below critical mass on some of the platforms that are being 
allocated to you all. And I think that is something we have got 
to keep looking at, as appropriators, to make sure that we are 
getting the right equipment at the right levels to the Guard, 
to the Reserve units, and making sure that, again, one plus one 
equals three, and you are not just seen as the ugly stepchild 
to the Active-Duty side.
    So you have got that commitment. We will keep pushing on 
that.
    General Healy. I would certainly like to comment.
    As I said in my opening comments, concurrent proportional 
fielding, we absolutely want to see that continue with its 
intent so that we are able to have fifth gen aircraft 
participating as a surge capacity in a fifth gen fight in the 
future.
    Mr. Garcia. Well said. Thank you, General, for that.
    And with that, I am out of time. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    We are going to do a lightning rod real quick because we 
have votes coming up. So I will start off quickly.

                                 KC-46A

    One, with the March Air Reserve, I will be a little 
parochial here on that. General Healy, 2 years ago your 
predecessor indicated he expected to bed down the KC-46A at 
March by the second quarter of fiscal year 2025.
    Is that still on track?
    General Healy. No, sir. Due to production delays, not of 
our control, the expectation is third quarter of '27 will be 
the first aircraft arrival of 12.
    Mr. Calvert. Well, talk to our friends at Boeing. We seem 
to talk to them often lately.

                                  F-15

    Also, obviously, General Hokanson, the Air National Guard 
is dealing with the potential gap, as we talked about, in 
fighter jet capacity as it modernizes from the F-15C to the F-
15EX. What are we doing to eliminate that gap? And I suspect 
you have some production problems there, too, but what is the 
answer to that one?
    General Hokanson. Mr. Chairman, obviously, you saw my 
unfunded priority list. I added six F-15EXs because they were 
cut from the Air Force buy, as well as six F-35s, to make sure 
that we can continue to field these units so that we don't 
create what we call a bathtub where we don't have enough 
capability at the most critical time as we face challenges from 
our competitors around the globe.
    So we are working everything we can to get those airplanes 
as fast as we can.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum.

                         QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I am going to focus by talking to General Daniels.
    In your testimony, you talked about a childcare pilot 
program that started in the fourth quarter of 2023, and with an 
intergovernmental support agreement in Kansas City metropolitan 
area, which was offering no cost childcare options during the 
weekend and annual training.
    As Mr. Garcia pointed, there are a lot of things that go 
into recruitment and retention, both for yourselves and for 
your full-time partners. Why don't you just take a minute and 
not only tell us if there are funds set aside in 2025 for 
going, but what this means when we can get not only the pay 
right, but the healthcare right, the housing right, the 
childcare support the families need.
    General Daniels. Thank you so much for that.
    Our first pilot failed gloriously. We were not able to find 
providers. So the IGSA proved to be a really good venue to find 
sort of on-demand care. Sort of like ordering an Uber. They are 
vetted. They are credentialed. You know exactly what the 
product is that you are getting. These families are very 
comfortable. They are within a reasonable distance of where the 
family lives.
    So it is giving those soldiers a lot of relief and ability 
to go and attend when they may not have been able to. They may 
have been challenged. So for retention purposes, this has been 
tremendous.
    We have been working with the Guard at looking at some 
other locations. We are looking with the Navy Reserve at some 
other locations to expand the program. So we are looking to 
build this into future years' budgets because it is truly, it 
is, a great retention tool.
    Ms. McCollum. So if you could--this is a lightning rod. 
What is the one thing, it could be childcare, whatever, that 
keeps you up at night when it comes to having people stay on, 
or come into the Reserve or the Guard. What is one quality-of-
life issue?
    General Hokanson. Chairman McCollum, I will add healthcare. 
We have about 30,000 guardsmen that don't have healthcare. And 
for me, we need them 24/7, not just for their overseas 
deployments, but, as we know, emergencies occur in a community 
at any time. We need them to be medically ready.
    And if they don't have healthcare or access to healthcare, 
then they can't be ready, and then they can't perform the job 
that we have trained them to do.
    To me, it is, for lack of a better term, like an insurance 
policy on investment we have made but also an investment that 
they have made.
    General Healy. From the Air Force Reserve perspective, 
ma'am, you know, I would say that the access to TRICARE Reserve 
Select for our Reserve technicians and our Title 5 civilians, 
that is in excess of over 10,000 of the folks working for us. 
They don't have access to TRICARE Reserve Select until 2030 is 
the wedged timeframe right now.
    In some cases, that is doubling, tripling the cost of the 
premiums for them. But what it lacks is the continuity of care. 
So if we have a Reserve technician who is a civilian during the 
week, the Federal Employee Health Benefit system, and then they 
are, perhaps, on a set of orders for an extended period of 
time, they are having to transition back and forth between 
multiple care providers, which provides a challenge.
    This is the force that trains our part-timers. It is 
critical to readiness, and it is certainly a retention issue 
and a recruiting issue for that full-time force.
    General Anderson. For the Marine Reserves, ma'am, I think 
access certainly to TRICARE Reserve Select needs to continue, 
but just to give you a little vignette of what that looks like 
for a sergeant that just left the active component, direct 
affiliate to the Reserves.
    Over the course of the weekend, if she is going to have 
TRICARE Reserve Select and pay for Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance at the same time, when she leaves that drill weekend, 
she has really got about $120 in her pocket at the end of the 
day for 2 days of work because of the expense of TRICARE 
Reserve Select and the travel to a drill site.
    Admiral Mustin. I think access to healthcare, we have 
beaten that sufficiently, but I would say what keeps me awake 
at night is the sufficiency of the training of our sailors. So 
what we are finding right now, believe it or not, I know we 
like to hear in the headlines that the military is struggling 
on recruiting and retention. And I always say those are two 
very different things.
    Right now, the Navy Reserve, in our selective Reserve 
capacity, is at a 7-year high for retention, and I attribute 
that to the quality of training. I think our sailors appreciate 
having a well-defined mission, a well-defined adversary for 
which we can prepare. And the sense of purpose and the 
professionalism that is associated with it is impacting 
positive retention in our case.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Judge Carter.

                              3D PRINTING

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Hokanson, a few years ago the Texas National Guard 
3D printed barracks, the first of their kind. Other State 
Guards have used 3D printing for aircraft parts.
    Overall, is the Guard looking at using more 3D printing? 
And where else would the Guard like to use this technology, and 
what benefit could it bring to you?
    General Hokanson. Congressman Carter, thank you.
    I have actually been there to see the 3D-printed barracks, 
and we did it in half the time, at two-thirds the cost. In 
fact, they also built a training center as well in Texas, and 
also, as you mentioned, we are using 3D-printed parts.
    We see great capability and great promise here because 
these facilities are actually enduring, very well made. But 
once again, we have the ability to save cost and get that 
facility up in a much quicker time. So we look to continue to 
invest in this across the 54 National Guards in the 
environments that make sense to put those facilities in.
    Mr. Carter. Well, I was very impressed with 3D printing, 
the speed and solid building it builds. And I hope that all the 
folks that are building buildings ought to take a look at this.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Dutch.

                          CYBER PROFESSIONALS

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Thank you.
    General Daniels, you have mentioned your desire to grow and 
flesh out your cyber brigade but that there are challenges in 
the training pipeline for the cyber career field. Can you share 
some of these challenges and how you are addressing them within 
the Army Reserve?
    And if anyone else would like to talk on that, feel free.
    General Daniels. So this is a place where we are looking to 
try and use as much of the civilian-acquired skills to receive 
credit on the Army side. So you don't have to do training that 
you could possibly even instruct. So we are trying to have 
those credits available, reduce the amount of time that that 
cyber professional is away from their civilian career.
    So minimize the training pipeline that they must go through 
because they already have that expertise and go ahead and 
leverage that.
    So we have been working with the Army on not only the cyber 
career field, but lots of other civilian-acquired skills to 
make sure that the Army appreciates the training that these 
soldiers, you know, citizen soldiers already come to the force 
with.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Anyone else have a comment?
    Admiral Mustin. Yes, sir. And very similarly----
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Where are your stars?
    Admiral Mustin. They are actually on my collar. I know you 
mentioned that I don't have them on my shoulders here. They are 
right there. I was going to offer that in private, but anyway.
    But very similar to what you heard from Lieutenant General 
Daniels, we are investing heavily in cyber capability. We have 
also increased by adding a cyber rating now for our enlisted 
sailors and a cyber designator for our officers.
    And we are very interested in direct commissioning to 
increase the capacity across the Reserve Force, which we see as 
a growth industry.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Have you ever worked with a naval 
academy at all on this issue?
    Admiral Mustin. Absolutely. In fact, I frequently go to 
Hopper Hall, which is the cyber center.
    General Anderson. I will hit on the training aspect of this 
real quick, sir. I can have somebody flying an F-35 before they 
are fully qualified to operate on infrastructure as a cyber 
operator.
    So the footprint that is required if I am going to take 
somebody directly into the Reserves and they are not trained, I 
have to come up and find that Active-Duty time to train them 
and, oh, by the way, be away from their civilian career to get 
to that point.
    So we really rely on capturing the active component talent 
that comes to the Marine Forces Reserve because we can't do it 
and train our own people.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. Anyone else?
    General Hokanson. I would say the same with the Guard. We 
have 66 cyber units in 42 different States, and we rely very 
heavily on the civilian-acquired skills that they bring.
    Not only that, but you will see, we also are very involved 
to ensure election security by leveraging that. We are in the 
process now of changing the way we had our--we had a cyber 
element in every State, and we are actually building them into 
a--we call it a defensive cyber element. It is kind of like a 
squad, so that if we need to, we can combine States to actually 
have cyber additional force structure to address not only on 
their Title 10 role, but also how they can help the communities 
and mitigate a lot of the ransomware attacks on our public 
schools and counties.
    Mr. Calvert. Mr. Garcia, we only have a few minutes, so 
just--I want to try to get everybody real quick.

                                VFMA-112

    Mr. Garcia. I will just be brief.
    First of all, I want to say it warms my cockles to hear an 
Army four star say that he asked for six F-35s and additional 
F-15EXs. That's some good joint operation shaping you guys are 
doing there.
    General Anderson, for the Reserve F-18 squadron VFMA I 
believe 112, are they getting the APG-79(V)4 AESA Radar upgrade 
down in those jets yet, or what is the plan there?
    General Anderson. Thank you for the question, sir.
    We are upgrading the aircraft for VFMA-112 and plan on 
keeping them in the rotation. In fact, they will be going on 
their next GDP here in the coming years, just like we have 
battalions that are going forward into the first island chain.
    So certainly for TAC Air in the Reserves, while small, 
right, I would like to have more TAC Air squadrons, but for 
that particular component, as the F-18 community overall has 
gotten smaller in the Marine Corps, we have captured the bench, 
and that squadron is pretty deep.
    Mr. Garcia. Yes. You are getting golden parts in there.
    But are you getting the AESA upgrade done?
    General Anderson. Yes, we are getting not only the upgrade, 
but certainly, when you talk about parts, we have excess 
capacity now as we get some more from the West Coast.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. I would love to come see that operation 
if we can.
    General Anderson. Absolutely.
    General Healy. And likewise, with the Air Force Reserve, 
the F-16s are preblocked. The oldest F-16s we have got running 
out there right now we have been using, and we are very wisely 
putting to use the radars in those.
    Mr. Garcia. In the SABR, the Northrop Grumman SABR in 
there. Good. Awesome. Great. Thank you, guys.
    General Hokanson. Lastly, Congressman, 22 will complete our 
buy. And as John mentioned, in the preblocked F-16s, in another 
setting I can tell you how successful they have been, and it is 
a huge investment.
    Mr. Garcia. It is a game changer, absolutely.
    Well, thank you all. I appreciate it.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Great.
    Ms. Kaptur, real quickly.

                 WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND RECRUITMENT

    Ms. Kaptur. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
    I am just wondering if you could provide for me, each of 
your services, an understanding of how workforce development 
and recruitment work to attract enlistees.
    And the Army Reserve civilian-acquired skills program, talk 
to me about my 983rd unit. How does what you do impact that and 
impact recruitment and workforce development in that region? I 
have no idea.
    Mainly, Reserve and Guard don't come to see us very much. 
Active Duty does more, and it is really hard to--the commanding 
officer for that unit is in Chicago, so that creates another 
issue.
    But I am very interested in how each of your services 
connects recruitment to workforce development. If you could 
provide more specific information to the record, I would be 
very grateful for that. Especially in the fields of mechanics, 
machine tooling, truck driving, vehicular operation on land, 
and then in the air.
    General Daniels. So if I could very briefly----
    Mr. Calvert. If we could get back on the record on that.
    General Daniels. Okay.
    Mr. Calvert. That way I will have enough time to recognize 
Mr. Aguilar before we probably then have to go vote at that 
point.
    Mr. Aguilar.

                NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
    I just wanted to briefly ask a question, and maybe it can 
be for the record, to highlight the National Guard's State 
partnership program. This is something Chairman Calvert has 
discussed time and time again to highlight the partnership that 
California has with Ukraine. And it proved invaluable, as an 
invaluable resource for our ally in this war against Putin's 
aggression.
    That partnership is a strong example of a proactive 
military-to-military relationship, as you all know. I was 
pleased to see the increase in funding for the State 
partnership program in fiscal year 2025 request.
    So I wanted to ask about insight as to how this increase 
will support the SSP program this year, including support for 
new partner nations as well.
    General Hokanson. Congressman, if I could just touch this 
briefly. We have really leveraged Russia's invasion of Ukraine 
to, in fact, we have actually spoken with a lot of former 
neutral countries. Sweden and Finland, obviously, became NATO 
allies. They also became a member of the State partnership 
program.
    Switzerland recently submitted an application to be a state 
partner. We have also talked to other neutral countries, yet to 
be named, but they have all expressed an interest that they 
need to develop a capability based on what they saw. No one 
thought there would be another war in Europe. There is now, and 
they realize that capability that they need.
    We are able to add seven countries this year, which is the 
most we have really since we started, because they realize the 
benefit that they can get by training with our guardsmen up to 
a high level of standard and addressing those shortages they 
have in their military.
    Mr. Aguilar. I think California has expressed interest in 
that Sweden relationship as well. I appreciate the answer.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thanks. We all want to go to Switzerland and 
check out the program. All we need is more money for these 
state programs. So hopefully we can get through this budget 
process.
    I appreciate everyone coming out today. Before we conclude, 
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today.
    Ms. McCollum, do you have any comments you would like to 
make?
    Ms. McCollum. Just once again to the folks who are--this is 
the last time before the committee. Sincerely, not only to 
thank you, but thank your family members who supported you in 
your journey.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. And, Mr. Ellzey, I know you had a quick mark 
to make so----
    Mr. Ellzey. I did. Thank you, sir.
    The definition of Reserves is a military force withheld 
from action for later decisive use. And that is what the 
Reserves are. The Reserves mean if we attrite in war, we send 
in the Reserves, both the aircraft, the maintenance, everything 
that they need. That is the Reserves. We don't have enough.
    The Chinese know that we have got KC-46 delays. The Chinese 
know that we are closing the F-18 line. The Chinese know we 
don't have any more capacity for F-35s.
    So as we look at these line closings imminently and the 
inability to send Reserves, we can't send Reserve F-16s to 
augment the loss of an aircraft carrier and its F-18s. We need 
to keep those lines open because the Chinese know the tanking 
capacity, the ability to infill our lines with what we are 
going to lose.
    Whether it is in Europe, EUCOM, or INDOPACOM, and we need 
more--as you said, all it takes is money. However, we need to 
keep those lines open because they are watching.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    We will go with the other 11 committees, take their money, 
and we will be able to get this all taken care of.
    With that, we are adjourned.

                                           Tuesday, April 30, 2024.

                UNITED STATES AIR FORCE AND SPACE FORCE

                               WITNESSES

HON. FRANK KENDALL III, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
GENERAL DAVID W. ALLVIN, CHIEF OF STAFF, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
GENERAL B. CHANCE SALTZMAN, CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS, UNITED STATES 
    SPACE FORCE

                 Opening Statement of Chairman Calvert

    Mr. Calvert. The Defense Subcommittee will come to order.
    Today, the subcommittee will receive testimony from the 
Honorable Frank Kendall, Secretary of the Air Force; General 
David Allvin, Chief of Staff of the Air Force; General Chance 
Saltzman, Chief of Space Operations. Thank you all for joining 
us today.
    General Allvin, I will note that this is your first 
appearance before this subcommittee. Welcome and 
congratulations on your new role.
    Increasingly, volatile world events since the hearing last 
year have underscored the importance of maintaining a strong 
and ready Air Force and Space Force.
    China has engaged in a historic military buildup, seeks to 
erode our military superiority. While China remains our pacing 
threat, it is not only a threat we face. Russia continues its 
assault on Ukraine, and early this month, Iran launched its 
first ever direct attack on Israel.
    I am pleased that we are able to get supplemental 
appropriations across the finish line to address emergent needs 
in these three regions.
    Our Air and Space Forces must be ready and able to respond 
across the globe if needed. We need to be innovative and agile 
with the goal of rapidly putting advanced capability in the 
hands of our airmen and guardians.
    For the Air Force, the fiscal year 2025 budget request is 
$228.8 billion. This is 2 percent more than the enacted amount 
for fiscal year 2024, which I note does not keep up with 
inflation.
    When budgets are constrained, tradeoffs must be made, and a 
certain level of risk is assumed. Today, we will discuss your 
proposed tradeoffs in a constrained top line.
    One area that gets a lot of attention is the divestment of 
aircraft, and this budget proposes significant divestments. On 
one hand, older airframes are less suited for modern missions, 
expensive to maintain, and parts are at a premium.
    On the other, quantity has a quality onto itself, 
particularly in a perilous security environment.
    I understand that you have to prioritize to your 
constrained top line, but we need to understand the capability 
gaps this will create and your mitigation plans.
    We also need assurance that your bet on modernization over 
sustainment will yield success, and, unfortunately, the track 
record is not encouraging so far.
    Just last week, we were notified of a Nunn-McCurdy breach 
for the MH-139 gray wolf. This follows the Sentinel's Nunn-
McCurdy breach. We need to understand the implications of both 
of these breach reviews for fiscal year 2025 and beyond.
    I also hope to hear how the Air Force plans to address the 
acquisition delays and mitigation plans to ensure there is no 
capability gap for the warfighter and the F-15EX, T-7, and E-7, 
to name just a few particularly of all of our concern.
    On the bright side, I am pleased to see that the Air Force 
continues to prioritize investments in the B-21 and Next 
Generation Air Dominance aircraft, especially with the recent 
down select of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft, two 
companies, one of which was founded just a few years ago.
    For the Space Force, the fiscal year 2025 budget request is 
$29.4 billion, which is, effectively, flat funding compared to 
last year. Factor in inflation, this is a real dollar cut. In 
fact, the projected budget for Space Force remains flat at this 
amount for over the next 5 years.
    Budgets are, obviously, tight. However, given the 
increasing reliance on space capability and plans to pivot some 
missions from aircraft to space, I am skeptical that a flatline 
level budget is credible to deliver all the capabilities 
needed.
    I would like to know where you choose to take risk in the 
space portfolio in this year's budget.
    This committee expects programs to be well managed. One of 
the key reasons for establishing the Space Force was to bring a 
focused discipline in delivering capabilities on schedule and 
within budget.
    The Space Force continues to work in progress in this 
regard--a work in progress in this regard, I should say, 
especially when it comes to delivering ground systems and user 
equipment. For example, the Global Positioning System ground 
control system is more than $3 billion over budget, more than 7 
years late, and still has not been delivered.
    Further, your own assessment identifies a space command and 
control program and the family of beyond-line-of-sight 
terminals as another challenging program that failed to meet 
scheduled milestones and will be delivered late.
    The pattern is clear. The problem with space is on the 
ground. I hope to hear your plans to ensure ground systems keep 
pace with the satellite developments.
    On a positive note, I continue to be impressed with the 
progress of Space Development Agency and their rapid 
development to acquisition process. This committee is willing 
to give the Space Force resources to take risk and pursue new 
approaches when warranted, and SDA has lived up to its 
investments so far.
    I think we can agree that there are challenges that need to 
be addressed, but I also know that the devil is in the details, 
and it matters how things are being addressed.
    I have been disappointed with the level of rigor in the 
analysis behind some of the Department's program decisions and 
organizational proposals. This subcommittee is data driven and 
will not accept proposals that are presented simply as done 
deals.
    Another area of concern is the innovation of rapid fielding 
accounts, which has been a focus of mine. The request for 
AFWERX is 20.5 million, a substantial decrease from the last 2 
years. AFWERX and the SpaceWERX are critical to the defense 
innovation ecosystem, essential to expanding opportunities of 
nontraditional defense companies and increasing use of 
commercial technologies.
    I will be interested to hear how you intend to get after 
various innovation, if not through the AFWERX and SpaceWERX.
    Finally, we are aware of the challenge that the entire 
Department is having with recruitment across all components. I 
want to hear about your strategy to recruit the airmen and 
guardians of today and the service leaders of tomorrow.
    We will be working closely with you throughout this budget 
process to find ways we can accelerate the fielding of 
platforms needed by our warfighters today.
    With that, I will yield to the ranking member, Ms. 
McCollum, for any opening remarks she would like to make.

                    Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy.
    I would also like to welcome Secretary Kendall, General 
Allvin, and General Saltzman.
    For fiscal year 2025, the President has proposed eight--
excuse me--$832 billion within our subcommittee's jurisdiction 
for the Department of Defense, which is $213 billion for the 
Air Force and Space Force.
    The Air Force has requested a 1-percent increase, and Space 
Force remains relatively flat following a large growth year in 
2024. Each of these dollars represents an effort to remain 
vigilant in our national defense and to ensure that America 
meets our pacing threats.
    We are operating under the umbrella of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act, and I know that tough choices were made in 
this budget in order to conform to what the law will allow.
    As I said in the hearing with Secretary Austin, I hope 
Congress has learned a hard lesson, that we should not hold the 
national debt limit hostage to arbitrary spending caps.
    So, for those who have buyer's remorse over their votes 
last May and those who are now criticizing the overall levels 
in the budget request, I wish to remind them that the 
fundamental strength of our Nation's defense is in the strength 
of our military personnel and their families. And that requires 
a whole-of-government approach.
    Our national security is supported through our entire 
budget, which includes healthcare, education, transportation, 
and not just the defense budget.
    Growing our technological superiority in the air and space 
domain are also critical, and it is as important as ever to 
educate and train the next generation of mathematicians, 
physicists, aeronautical engineers, and computer scientists.
    In addition, Congress set the Department's hiring and new 
start schedules 6 months back by enacting a final 
appropriations bill in March. We must do better to break the 
cycle of continuing resolutions.
    And I turn to the budget at hand now and the modernization, 
which we know is a key theme for the Department of Air Force. 
It is concerning that several Air Force programs are still 
struggling. F-35 deliveries are delayed, along with an 
associated plant repair and infrastructure projects.
    Mr. Secretary, we have discussed this several times in 
conversations now, and I hope that it is being resolved. It 
needs to be resolved. It needs to be resolved immediately.
    The Sentinel program is under a critical review because of 
time delays and major cost overruns.
    The E-7 program has been delayed, and the budget does not 
have an advanced program for procurement. At the same time, the 
Air Force is proposing fielding new capabilities and required 
complex technology development along with it.
    For example, I have to ask, how can we be assured that 
programs that support long range kill chains will be a success 
when the Air Force continues to struggle with the existing 
programs of record?
    I am also concerned about the state of the Air Force's 
infrastructure. It is deficient, and it does not seem to be a 
high priority. We have discussed sinkholes at Vandenberg Space 
Force Base, the deterioration of runways, the early warning 
radar stations in Alaska.
    Climate change continues to have a high cost impact on our 
national security. Infrastructure at Guam still needs repair 
following last year's typhoon, and Congress should have acted 
on that. I hope we do so in the future.
    But, most importantly, our servicemembers need all of us, 
Congress and the Department, to do a better job working 
together to provide and maintain infrastructure necessary for 
them to be able to even do their jobs.
    Mr. Chair, as I close, 10 days ago, we had a series of 
overwhelming bipartisan votes on the components of national 
security supplemental to support Ukraine, Israel, and the Indo-
Pacific. I hope that that will serve as a model for improving 
appropriation bills and getting them approved expeditiously 
through 2025, because, as you pointed out, we don't have time 
to waste.
    Gentlemen, I thank you for your service to the country and 
for appearing here today.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Ms. McCollum.
    Chairman Cole intended to be here today but is unable to 
present his statement due to obvious disaster in Oklahoma. And, 
certainly, our prayers for those who experience these terrible 
tornados in Oklahoma, Nebraska, and elsewhere.
    So, without objection, his prepared remarks will be 
included in the record.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Calvert. I will now recognize Ranking Member DeLauro 
for any comments she may like to make.

                     Opening Remarks of Ms. DeLauro

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank you 
to you and to Ranking Member McCollum for holding the hearing 
on the 2025 budget for the United States Air Force and the 
Space Force.
    I want to thank our witnesses, Secretary Kendall and 
Generals Allvin and Saltzman for appearing before this 
subcommittee today and for your dedicated service to our 
Nation. You keep the Nation safe. You keep our airmen and women 
and guardians safe, and you ensure our allies are supported 
wherever democracy and freedom are threatened around the globe.
    Through the fiscal year 2025 budget, Congress has a sacred 
duty to ensure the Air Force and Space Force have the resources 
to fulfill its mission to keep our country secure and ensure 
our servicemembers are protected and well equipped.
    The President's 2025 budget supports our brave airmen and 
women, guardians, their families with a 4.5-percent pay raise, 
furthers initiatives to improve access to healthcare and 
childcare while addressing housing and subsistence needs. This 
is a full compensation package that our servicemembers deserve, 
and we need to deliver on all of those components.
    In the President's request, the Space Force budget is 
relatively flat, following a large growth year in 2024. 
Meanwhile, the Air Force has requested roughly $3 billion more 
than last year.
    I would be remiss if I did not point out that the combat 
rescue helicopter is not included in the request. This 
helicopter is still flying a critical mission, and Congress 
supported this mission in the final 2024 bill by ordering an 
additional 10 helicopters to maintain production.
    I will continue to support this program and hope to hear 
more about the Air Force's plans for maintaining a strong 
combat rescue capability.
    I am also interested to hear today about how the forces 
plan to balance their modernization efforts with management of 
existing programs. Additionally, I want to hear about how the 
Air Force and Space Force are addressing recruitment issues.
    Regrettably, the majority chose to inject culture war 
debates into last year's Department of Defense funding process, 
and I am concerned with how that might further hurt recruitment 
efforts, especially among women.
    We must do all we can to ensure that any American who wants 
to bravely serve in the U.S. Armed Forces and defend our Nation 
feels that they belong and that they are not going to be drawn 
into political warfare while confronting the legitimate threats 
to freedom, democracy, and, above all, to our national 
security.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Gentlemen, your full written testimony will be placed in 
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.
    Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, members of the 
subcommittee, General Saltzman, General Allvin, and I thank you 
for the opportunity to testify today on the Department of the 
Air Force's fiscal year '25 budget submission.
    The Department of the Air Force budget request supports the 
National Defense Strategy. We appreciate the committee's 
support for the recently enacted fiscal year 2024 budget and 
your efforts to secure timely passage.
    As you are aware, the 6-month delay has had a real impact. 
That time cannot be recovered, but at least we can now move 
forward with our urgent modernization plans.
    As I have testified before this committee repeatedly, time 
is my greatest concern. We are on a race for military 
technological superiority with a capable pacing challenge. Our 
cushion is gone. We are out of time. As we have briefed the 
committee at a classified level, the pacing threat moves 
steadily forward.
    Continued failure to provide on-time authorities and 
appropriations will leave the Air Force and Space Force 
inadequately prepared. We know this committee fully recognizes 
this, and we appreciate your strong bipartisan support.
    Our fiscal year 2025 budget request complies with the 
Fiscal Responsibility Act. We are requesting 217.5 billion for 
the Department of the Air Force, which includes 188 billion for 
the Air Force and 29.4 billion for the Space Force.
    The fiscal year 2025 budget reflects an increase of 2.1 
percent for the Department of the Air Force over the enacted 
fiscal year '24 budget, a 2-percent increase for the Air Force 
and a 2.4-percent increase for the Space Force. This does not 
keep pace with inflation, as was mentioned earlier, or with the 
7-percent publicly acknowledged growth to China's military 
budget.
    To stay within the levels of the FRA, the Department of the 
Air Force had to adjust our previous plans. The DAF 25 budget 
seeks to preserve the momentum behind our modernization 
efforts, particularly the work on operational imperatives that 
we initiated and that this committee supported in fiscal year 
2024.
    In order to preserve modernization, we have marginally 
reduced procurement, and we have sustained our foundational 
accounts to levels we deemed acceptable, but no more. Because 
the Space Force budget is dominated by research and development 
accounts, we have had to marginally reduce the pace and scope 
of our Space Force modernization programs.
    Our first priority in the National Defense Strategy remains 
defense of the homeland, which the Department of the Air Force 
primarily supports through investments in domain awareness, air 
and space defense, early warning, and cyberspace defense 
programs.
    Our second priority is to deter strategic attacks against 
the United States, our allies, and our partners. The Department 
of the Air Force fiscal year 2025 budget request prioritizes 
nuclear modernization to maintain a safe, secure, and effective 
nuclear deterrent.
    Notably, the Sentinel ICBM program has experienced 
unacceptable cost and schedule increases and is currently 
undergoing a Nunn-McCurdy review. The Department of the Air 
Force will work closely with the committee as that review 
reaches its conclusions.
    The third National Defense Strategy priority is to deter 
aggression and be prepared to prevail in conflict when 
necessary. The Department of the Air Force needs immediate and 
significant capability modernization to keep pace with the 
growing military capabilities of the PRC. The Department of the 
Air Force operational imperatives and the closely related 
crosscutting operational enablers continue to guide our 
modernization program. The fiscal year 2025 budget request 
includes 6.1 billion for these efforts.
    Finally, the fourth national defense priority is to build a 
resilient Joint Force and enduring advantages. This budget 
request invests to ensure that we can recruit and retain the 
force we need and ensure that our airmen and guardians and 
their families have the quality of life they deserve and can 
serve to their full potential.
    As we have briefed the committee, the Department of the Air 
Force is also currently undertaking a Department-wide effort to 
reoptimize to meet the demands of great power competition. The 
intent is to minimize both cost impacts and personnel of our 
unit movements.
    We will work closely with the committee as we develop 
detailed plans. We do not anticipate any significant impact on 
the fiscal year 2025 budget, and we have not requested funds 
for this purpose.
    The Department also appreciates the committee's support for 
the DOD quick start initiative that was enacted last year. The 
Department of the Air Force has obtained approval from the 
Secretary of Defense for two programs that will be initiated 
under this new authority. They are more resilient national 
position navigation and timing capability and C3 battle 
management for moving target indication.
    Time matters, but so do resources. The United States is 
facing a competitor with national purchasing power that exceeds 
our own, a challenge we have never faced in modern times.
    China is actively developing and expanding capabilities to 
challenge strategic stability, attack our critical space 
systems, and defeat our ability to project power, especially 
air power. Conflict is not inevitable, but it could happen at 
any time.
    General Allvin and I just returned from a trip to some of 
our key bases in the Indo-Pacific. We should all be very proud 
of our men and women serving in harm's way and doing everything 
they can to deter and be ready for a conflict unlike any we 
have seen before.
    The Department of the Air Force fiscal year 2025 budget 
request is focused on addressing these realities. We commit to 
working with the committee to secure timely enactment of this 
budget request.
    Thank you. We look forward to your questions.
    [The information follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
    
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    I now recognize General Allvin for his remarks.

                  Summary Statement of General Allvin

    General Allvin. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman 
Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and distinguished members of 
this subcommittee.
    Today, I am proud to represent the 677,000 total force 
airmen serving our Nation. I want to thank you for your 
unyielding support not only for those airmen but for their 
families as well.
    As we look across the strategic landscape, we find 
ourselves in a time of significant consequence. Simultaneous 
demands of strategic competition with an aggressive and 
increasingly capable PRC and persistent acute threats from 
around the globe require the Air Force to maximize their 
readiness of today's forces while adapting our structures and 
processes to offer the best opportunity to prevail in an 
environment of enduring great power competition. Time is not on 
our side.
    The fiscal year 2025 Air Force budget request reflects 
difficult choices. We made tradeoffs to keep the Air Force's 
operational readiness today at the minimal acceptable to meet 
the Nation's needs while seeking to preserve the previous 
year's advances in modernization.
    The Air Force budget request also invests in the Air 
Force's most precious asset, its airmen, to ensure they remain 
the decisive advantage upon which the Nation depends.
    Strategic deterrence is a key priority in our National 
Defense Strategy, and the U.S. Air Force remains committed to 
recapitalization of our nuclear force. We are actively 
supporting the process triggered by the Nunn-McCurdy breach of 
the Sentinel program and will continue to pursue the path of a 
safe, reliable, secure, and effective ground leg of the nuclear 
triad well into the future.
    Our ability to support the National Defense Strategy 
priority of deterring aggression and prevailing in conflict 
demands a modern Air Force that is connected to the Joint Force 
and can close multiple kill chains in minimal time to control 
the tempo of a complex fight with a peer competitor.
    To that end, the fiscal year 2025 budget proposes continued 
investments in the F-35 and the F-15EX, albeit with fewer than 
preferred quantities dictated by the constraints of the Fiscal 
Responsibility Act.
    We remain committed to the advanced air battle management 
system of the NGAT family systems, particularly the 
Collaborative Combat Aircraft, which will allow the Air Force 
to deliver the affordable mass required to be effective against 
a very capable PRC.
    We are also committed to building forward basing that is 
resilient enough to enable continued sortie generation even 
while under attack.
    To arrest the decline in our readiness, we have proposed 
modest increases in investments in flying hours and weapon 
system sustainment to support them while prioritizing 
investments in critical physical and cyber infrastructure.
    Our airmen are and always will be the deciding factor in 
any conflict our Air Force faces, and we are committed to their 
health, development, and quality of life.
    We have made significant progress, thanks to Congress' 
support, in increases in basic pay, adjustments to basic 
allowance for housing and subsistence to account for the 
macroeconomic factors they face. There is still work to be 
done.
    During our recent trip to the Indo-Pacific, Secretary 
Kendall and I saw dedicated airmen that were eager to 
accomplish the mission, despite infrastructure degradation 
caused by natural disaster and persistent environmental 
challenges, as well as limited access to the healthcare enjoyed 
by most CONUS bases.
    The job of your Air Force has not changed since its 
inception. Support the defense of this Nation through credible 
deterrence and unmatched combat prowess. To preserve that level 
of deterrence, we must maintain our readiness today, modernize 
our force for tomorrow, and provide the absolute best support 
to our airmen and their families.
    Success on any battlefield is a team effort. I want to 
thank the Members of Congress and this committee for your past 
and continued support.
    Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you, General.
    Now we will move to General Saltzman for his remarks. 
General, you are recognized.

                 Summary Statement of General Saltzman

    General Saltzman. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member 
McCollum, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you 
for your continued support and for the opportunity to testify 
on the Space Force's posture for fiscal year 2025.
    As the Space Force prepares to celebrate its fifth 
birthday, we are wholly dedicated to the work of forgoing a 
service purpose-built for great power competition. Space has 
never been more critical to the security of our Nation, and the 
success or failure of the Joint Force depends heavily upon the 
capabilities we present.
    It is our responsibility to contest and control the domain, 
to defend U.S. space capabilities, and to protect the Joint 
Force from space-enabled attack. Gaining and maintaining space 
superiority is the purpose for which the Space Force was 
established.
    With about 3.5 percent of the DOD budget, the Space Force 
offers a tremendous value proposition to the Nation. Every 
dollar invested in space brings asymmetric returns, but that 
means every dollar cut creates asymmetric risk.
    Against a near-peer adversary, space superiority is the 
linchpin. Without it, we cannot deter conflict. Without it, we 
cannot provide vital effects. Without it, we cannot protect the 
Joint Force. Until we have built the infrastructure to achieve 
space superiority, the Space Force is a work in progress.
    The Space Force's theory of success includes three parts: 
avoid operational surprise, deny the benefits of attack in 
space, and conduct responsible counterspace activities.
    The Space Force budget request is designed to support the 
National Defense Strategy by building, training, and equipping 
the forces the Nation needs to perform each activity, 
preserving freedom of action in space while deterring and 
denying adversarial objectives.
    Avoiding operational surprise requires us to maintain an 
accurate understanding of the space domain at all times. 8.3 
percent of our budget is dedicated to this aim. Operating 
across disaggregated sensor frameworks, the Space Force 
provides the maximum information possible to decisionmakers 
from the tactical to the strategic level.
    Denying the benefits of attack in space demands that we 
make any attack against U.S. space capabilities impractical and 
self-defeating. 43.4 percent of our budget is devoted to this 
objective, investing in resiliency for missile warning and 
tracking, satellite communications, and positioning, 
navigation, and timing.
    Hybrid architectures and proliferated constellations impose 
a heavy cost on aggression.
    Finally, responsible counterspace activities describes the 
mechanism by which the Space Force contests and controls the 
space domain. The fiscal year 2025 budget dedicates 24.7 
percent of the Space Force budget to space superiority.
    Within the constraints of the FRA, fiscal year 2025 Space 
Force budget reflects hard choices to maintain legacy space 
services and preserve current readiness, but it also slows the 
fielding of a modernized force.
    Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Space Force's 
fiscal year 2025 budget and posture. Even in the face of 
accelerating threats, the Space Force remains the preeminent 
military space organization in the world.
    With the support of this committee, our guardians will 
preserve and expand our strategic advantage, and we will step 
up to meet our pacing challenge. So long as you continue to 
trust and invest in your Space Force, the Space Force will 
respond with unparalleled value for the Nation.
    I look forward to your questions.

                              KC-46 DELAYS

    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    And we will begin with the questions. Each member will be 
given 5 minutes for their questions and answers. When your 
timer turns yellow, you have a minute remaining.
    First, I will recognize myself.
    Obviously, the KC-46 is an important aircraft for us to 
obtain. The Air Force is in the process of recapitalizing this 
aging fleet of KC-135s, which I think was the old 707 airframe, 
which is probably the only plane on the--707 is still flying on 
the planet, our fleet of that aircraft.
    There has been some issues, obviously, with the KC-46. But 
one that seems to keep--never seems to go away is the remote 
vision system, the RVS, and the stiff refueling boom. Efforts 
to resolve both these issues are underway. It has been underway 
for a long time. I understand there is a final design solution 
expected for RVS by the early fiscal year 2026 and mid-fiscal 
year 2025, respectively.
    Until the deficiencies are resolved, the KC-46A will not be 
fully mission capable.
    Secretary, we just heard this morning from the chief of the 
Air Force Reserve that the delivery of the KC-46, for instance, 
at March Air Force base in my area will be delayed. What is the 
problem, and what are you doing to resolve it?
    Secretary Kendall. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the 
issue with the remote viewing system has been there for quite 
some time. It does not completely limit the aircraft. The 
aircraft is capable for transmitting fuel to every aircraft in 
our inventory except the A-10. I think that is the only one at 
this point that we can't refuel.
    And there were certain lighting conditions, which make it 
difficult to do refueling. So the aircraft is largely 
operational, and we are continuing to take delivery of them 
while we work through solving this problem. I think the dates 
you said were roughly the dates.
    We are continuing to procure the KC-46 at a rate of about 
15 per year, including fiscal year 2025. And we are starting 
the work on the transition to the Next Generation, which will 
have to be able to survive in a more contested environment.

                        INNOVATION CAPABILITIES

    Mr. Calvert. Okay. We are looking forward to getting that 
resolved and getting delivery on the KC-46 aircraft.
    Innovation and rapid fielding to the warfighter have been, 
obviously, top priorities of this committee and mine since 
coming to Congress, which I consider a collaborative effort 
with DIU. Establishing a strong infrastructure for the defense 
innovation ecosystem is critical.
    In fiscal year 2025 request, it includes 20.5 million for 
AFWERX prime, which is a decrease of 83.3 million in 2024 and 
over 130 million in 2023 request.
    Agility and autonomy prime efforts dropped from 70 million 
in fiscal year 2024 to 6 million in 2025. I am concerned the 
Air Force has decided to slash resources in a well-known 
innovation hub.
    Mr. Secretary, what message are you sending to innovators 
if AFWERX's budget request has been gutted in fiscal year 2025?
    And, given the importance of innovation, can I get your 
commitment to support DIU with manpower billets and detailees 
so we can get this thing off the ground?
    With that, Secretary, you are recognized.
    Secretary Kendall. You won't find anybody more supportive 
of innovation than myself and my colleagues here I think.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, we are putting 
about $6 billion into modernization under the operational 
imperatives. The guidance I have given to our acquisition 
people is to structure programs to give meaningful capabilities 
into the hands of our operators as quickly as possible. So that 
is what we are trying to do with our programs.
    But there is also an observation that goes back some time 
that we have been starting more things than we can finish by a 
significant margin. We have to be more careful about the things 
we start and be certain that they are going to be cost-
effective, and they are going to fit into our budgets in the 
future and lead to real field of capability.
    So we have been trying to pare back some of the things 
which have little, if any, chance of actually transitioning 
across the valley of death to focus on the things that will.
    I have recently reached out to the directors of both DIU 
and SCO to set up day-long briefings with them to go through 
all their programs and give them feedback on the things that 
they are working on that we think will actually get into our 
budgets.
    And, in general, what we are working to do is try to ensure 
that we have a much more efficient and effective pipeline of 
new capabilities coming into the inventory as quickly as we 
can. The threat demands that.
    So you wouldn't find anybody, you won't find anybody more 
interested in innovation and getting it fielded, but we also 
have to, given the budget constraints we have, make wise 
decisions at the front end about which things to pursue.
    Mr. Calvert. Anything else, General?
    General Allvin. The only thing I would add to what the 
Secretary said is also in one of our reoptimize for great power 
competition. One of the things that we are looking at is having 
this integrated capability command. When we talk about the 
valley of death, we need to have the other side of the valley 
of death pulling, saying bring this to me.
    And having this integrated into one entity that says I have 
a single force design, I need this, I need this, I need this, 
and be able to match the innovative ideas to something that 
will make it into the force design so, as the Secretary said, 
that dollar has a better chance of making it into meaningful 
capability sooner.
    So we are trying also to work on the other end to make sure 
those innovations are targeted and focused on a force design 
that is going to use them.
    Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.

                          SPACE NATIONAL GUARD

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This morning we heard from the National Guard, during the 
budget hearing, a lot about a legislative proposal to move the 
Air National Guard members to Space Force. In the hearing, we 
were informed that 70 percent of Guard members wish to stay in 
the Guard.
    And I expect that you are more than aware that our 
Governors, the chair's and my Governors included, were very 
unhappy about this proposal. 48 of the 50 Governors signed a 
letter in opposition, as well as all the States and 
territories.
    And, as I mentioned this morning, as a former State 
legislature that had the purview over the Minnesota National 
Guard, I can tell you that the States need to be consulted and 
need to be full partners moving forward in any major change 
such as this.
    So, you know, one would wonder why Congress should 
seriously consider this if our Governors and the National 
Guards are so opposed. Maybe, I wonder, were they opposed 
because they weren't consulted and their input wasn't sought 
before this proposal.
    So, right now, this morning, it would appear that this 
would be dead on arrival.
    And the creation of a space National Guard might not be the 
most cost-effective idea either. In fact, the Congressional 
Budget Office said in 2020 that the estimated one-time cost of 
$400 to $900 million for additional facilities in each State 
and then anywhere from $385 to $490 million in annual operating 
costs.
    So I know the authorizers are looking at that. This is 
their purview. I look forward to their decision, and then we 
will work with them as finding funding as they move forward.
    So we had the conversation this morning. I thought it was 
only fair that you hear what this committee had to say.

                              CANCER RATES

    What I want to ask you about, though, today, is cancer 
rates. Last year, we discussed about the high cancer rates in 
pilots and ground crews. Air crews and members had an 87-
percent higher rate of melanoma and a 39-percent higher rate of 
thyroid cancer. Men had a 16-percent higher rate of prostate 
cancer; women, a 16-percent higher rate of breast cancer.
    Overall, air crews 24-percent higher rate of all types of 
cancer. In addition, ground crews had a 19-percent higher rate 
of brain and nervous system cancers, 15-percent higher rate of 
thyroid cancers, 9-percent rate higher of kidney or retinal 
cancers, while women had a 7-percent higher rate of breast 
cancer.
    Now, a new 2-year Air Force study has found what appears to 
be a higher rate of brain and spinal cord cancer among children 
of servicemembers at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. The 
Air Force has been saying that the three instances of the rare 
cancers are not significantly significant--statistically 
significant, yet those rare tumors are showing up among 
children with parents stationed at Cannon Air Force Base at 
higher rates than children with parents stationed at other 
bases or in the civilian population.
    And, of course, the Air Force is still investigating cancer 
concerns among missileers, nuclear missile maintainers, and 
support staff.
    So, if this is about how we are keeping our troops and 
their families safe, if our servicemembers are signing up to 
serve, and they are getting cancer at 30 to 40 years old, or 
their spouses or their children now have life-threatening 
tumors, how is their quality of life affected?
    Not only do they have to worry about their own personal 
health, they have to take time off of duty for extended 
hospital stays and doctors' appointments. This will certainly 
impact retention and will impact overall DOD healthcare costs.
    Secretary Kendall, your posture statement in a lengthy 
session is outlining in the Air Force's role in taking care of 
its people, but it fails to mention about the healthcare or 
cancer. So please tell me that you are working to address this 
and what we can expect to see from the Air Force about these 
cancer rates. They are alarming, and I want you to know this 
committee is very concerned.
    Secretary Kendall. Ranking Member, we are very concerned 
about the possibility of increased cancer rates among people 
that are serving in certain locations in particular. We have a 
study, as you mentioned, on missileers that has been going on 
for about a year now. It is well underway.
    We are trying to be very transparent about our findings and 
work very closely with our people. We are reaching out to 
people who have served to try to get a better sense of what 
cancer it really is. And we are working very closely with the 
VA on this.
    So we are just as concerned as you are about this. We are 
trying to get to the bottom of it and understanding exactly 
what has happened and try to make sure that our people work in 
a safe environment.
    Do you want to add anything to that?
    General Allvin. I would just state, as the Secretary said, 
the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine is doing as much 
longitudinally forward as backward as we can do because there 
is the correlation and the causation. We really need to figure 
out what some of the root causes are so we don't spend money 
where it is not going to be most effective for them and their 
families.
    But, to the Secretary's point on the transparency, that is 
the one thing we can do. That doesn't cost any money, and we 
are being very aggressive about that. Our commanders and our 
leaders are letting the people know in the communities what is 
going on when it is going on. However, until we get to the 
final answer, we understand that that is not going to be 
satisfactory.
    So we are putting the Air Force School of Aerospace 
Medicine on this as hard as we certainly can.
    Ms. McCollum. Well, being of the Agent Orange generation 
and--I will just--I won't get too personal about this. Being to 
reunions and that, Marine Corps reunions, hearing the stories 
of how things were impacted, knowing how difficult the 
Department of Defense and the VA made processing Agent Orange 
claims, the lesson we learned in passing the PACT Act and 
moving forward on that, I know that you are working and looking 
at studying it.
    But, for these families affected, looking and studying, we 
need to start making sure that they are included in how we are 
moving forward and addressing this.
    And I hear what you are saying. I just don't know that 
people are feeling the care the way that we want them to. So 
would you keep the committee informed on a quarterly basis 
where you are on this?
    If you need more funding, more resources, we have to work 
with the NIH. We have to do whatever we have to do. But the 
atomic war veterans are, you know, still not recognized for 
their health concerns in my opinion, and I don't want on my 
watch to be part of this committee, nor do I believe you 
gentlemen want to be on your watch not addressing this 
expeditiously.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Ms. DeLauro.

                    COMBAT RESCUE HELICOPTER PROGRAM

    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 
Mr. Womack.
    Secretary Kendall, General Allvin, again, thanks for being 
here. I understand you have to make difficult budget decisions. 
In my view, a top priority should be the capability to rescue 
our men and women who are in harm's way.
    I am concerned about the service's decision to terminate 
the combat rescue helicopter program. In my view, the moral 
imperative to, quote, leave no one behind is critical to show 
our commitment to the men and women who risk their lives to 
protect and defend us in all theaters of operation.
    Last year, the Air Force told this committee that a 
decision to truncate CRH would limit the capacity for dedicated 
combat search and rescue, combat search and rescue forces 
available to the Joint Force.
    How does this decision ensure that no one is left behind? 
How do you plan to protect the men and women in uniform moving 
forward? You know, what will you be doing in the future? Is 
there a replacement for what we are doing with the combat 
rescue helicopter?
    Secretary Kendall. The search and rescue mission, the 
recovery mission is a critical mission for our force. What has 
changed and caused to change our program is the threats that we 
face and the operational environment which will likely be 
committed.
    When we look at the mix of systems that we have and our 
capabilities that are in the Joint Force, the type of 
helicopter that the 60 Whiskey is will work in certain 
circumstances but not in others. In particular, not against the 
most stressing threats that we face.
    And, also, for a lot of recoveries in the Pacific over 
water, for example, you don't need that kind of capability. You 
can use a helicopter that is not specially equipped or very 
expensive.
    So we are looking at the mix. We think we have acquired 
enough of the 60 Whiskeys that will be able to do the mission 
where it is an appropriate tool to do it. And we are starting 
to look at more survivable ways to do recoveries and provide 
airmen the chance to survive in other environments, 
particularly in more contested environments.
    I will let General Allvin add if he wants to.
    General Allvin. The Secretary really covered just about all 
of it. We are not only looking at our joint partners who do 
have additional capabilities but also our allies and partners 
in the environments in which we may also need them, which is, 
when we think about the European context, we do believe that 
between our joint partners and allies and partners who have 
that capability, we will be able to have enough capacity 
sufficiently.
    But the Secretary really nailed it. When we talk about the 
Indo-Pacific theater, it is a different ball game, and we have 
to understand how to get there over vast distances and try and 
survive.
    We have our folks at the warfare center doing weapons 
school, integration exercise and tasks to figure out how 
through tactics, techniques, and procedures we can make it more 
survivable.
    And the combat rescue helicopter and the HH Whiskey is not 
that significantly more survivable than the Gulf's War or in 
any of the other that our joint partners have. So anymore of 
that capacity did not yield that much more capability for us to 
do that.
    So we do need to solve that problem in the Indo-Pacific, 
and I would say with the additional 10 that was added in 2024, 
we are almost to the program of record anyway. So the program 
record, as designed with that additional 10, it almost gets us 
there anyway. So we almost have the capacity that was 
envisioned to begin with.
    Ms. DeLauro. Is it possible for you all to share with us, 
given what you have talked about in terms of changing 
environments, changing theaters, et cetera, to really let us 
know what your--what are your plans in terms of replacing that 
capacity?
    And, you know, at what stage is the development--at what 
stage are we in that planning for the future? The Indo-Pacific 
is in the future, you know, but today we are operating in the 
Red Sea. So it is--how do we operate there? What is our 
capacity going to be?
    And, you know, again, for the future, to let us know where 
that is going, but I worry about the near term versus what that 
future environment is going to be.
    General Allvin. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I agree.
    And I would say that the Indo-Pacific is not only the 
future. It is approaching us rapidly.
    But your point about today being the Red Sea and the Middle 
East, with that, we do have the capacity. And again, between us 
and our joint partners, we do have the capacity to meet those 
needs.
    Ms. DeLauro. You believe we have the capacity?
    General Allvin. I do. I do.
    Ms. DeLauro. You do.
    Okay. I think it is important for this committee to 
understand and to know because what we don't want to do, as I 
say, last year you told this committee the decision to truncate 
would limit the capacity for dedicated combat search and rescue 
forces available to the Joint Force. That was just last year.
    General Allvin. From the Air Force, yes. And so that is why 
we are working with our other joint partners and allies and 
partners. And, with the addition of the additional 10 percent 
of the capacity that was added into last year, I believe we 
have sufficient capacity.
    Ms. DeLauro. Okay. If you can lend more clarity to that for 
us, I think that would be helpful, at least for myself. I don't 
know about others.

                            F-35 ADVANTAGES

    Let me just try to focus on another aircraft. In full 
disclosure, it is tied to my home State of Connecticut. That is 
the F-35. Many capabilities with the F-35. We cannot discuss 
them all here in open session, but do you know of any other 
tactical fighter in the world being produced that is as capable 
as the F-35?
    Secretary Kendall. No.
    General Allvin. No.
    Ms. DeLauro. Okay.
    What advantage does the F-35 and the fifth generation 
aircraft bring to the fight? What positive feedback have you 
gotten from the recent deployments on the jet? And what 
additional investments can Congress make to increase readiness 
of the F-35 fleet?
    General Allvin. I would say, to begin with, the F-35 offers 
additional survivability, an advanced suite of sensors, and 
integration into the fight that really we haven't seen before 
in modern combat. So that survivability, the lethality of it, 
and the ability to penetrate deep in places that other of our 
fourth generation aircraft can't, including the sensors and the 
radar that is coming.
    That is why I want to say this is the difference. The F-35 
we have is a good F-35. The F-35 on the horizon is the F-35 
that we really need for the China fight, the one that has the 
tech refresh that gives us the capability to have those 
future--the future capabilities that meet the threat where it 
is.
    So it is capable, and it will defeat the threats that we 
have today. We continually need the modernization and the new 
capabilities to meet the threat that is rapidly approaching.
    Secretary Kendall. Let me add to that. I have been with the 
F-35 since its inception, and it is the best aircraft all 
around, multi-role aircraft certainly in the world and will 
stay so, but it has got to get to the next set of technical 
upgrades. Block four is what it is called.
    And, for the years I was in my previous position, we were 
trying to get to block three. The threat has not stood still, 
and we have got to continue to modernize and upgrade the 
aircraft as we go forward. And right now the contractors are 
really struggling to deliver block four to us.
    And that is our priority is to get those aircrafts. That is 
one of the reasons we reduced our buy of F-35 a little bit in 
this budget. We had financial constraints as well, but we also 
are really in great need of getting that next generation of 
capability out of it.
    Ms. DeLauro. So does that--so you are meaning additional 
investments from Congress to assist in that process or is it--
--
    Secretary Kendall. What we need fundamentally is for the 
contractor to deliver the capability that we have been 
promised.
    Ms. DeLauro. What are the obstacles to getting to block 
four?
    Secretary Kendall. The struggle with the technology, with 
the software in particular but also with some of the hardware 
involved in the--each major upgrade includes both hardware and 
software upgrades, and both have been a problem for this 
aircraft.
    I can't--as you said, it is classified. I can't go into a 
lot of details, but we can get you a briefing on the details if 
you would like to see that.
    And some of the subsystems are struggling as well. So it 
has been a combination of problems with different parts of the 
major upgrade.
    Ms. DeLauro. Thank you.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
    Mr. Womack.

                        FOREIGN PARTNER TRAINING

    Mr. Womack. Thank you.
    I am so glad you brought up the F-35 because I am going to 
throw a softball question at the Secretary.
    You know, we are not the only people that are going to be 
flying the F-35. We have got a lot of allies and partners 
buying it through the foreign military sales program, and after 
an exhaustive and very lengthy process, the decision was made 
to train foreign military pilots in my district, in Fort Smith, 
Arkansas.
    And I can tell all of you the river valley in Arkansas is 
very excited to hear the sound of freedom beginning this fall, 
I guess, when the Polish show up.
    Secretary Kendall, how important is it to get our foreign 
partners trained on this amazing airframe and the impact it has 
on national security?
    Secretary Kendall. It is critically important. I think one 
of the best testimonials to the value of the aircraft is that 
the number of countries buying it keeps increasing. You know, 
we started with seven partners, and now we have got quite a few 
additional people acquiring it.
    And it is critical for a number of reasons. A, it is 
cutting-edge technology, but, B, it allows us to interoperate 
very effectively, train with, and fight alongside of our 
partners in the same way to be as effective as a total force as 
possible and to integrate into the rest of the elements of the 
force.
    So we are delighted that we are moving forward on that and 
getting that under operation as well. That is going to be a 
major step forward to be able to train in the United States, 
which is what we have planned.
    Mr. Calvert. General Allvin.
    General Allvin. I was just going to second what the 
Secretary said about the value of the being able to hold 
training on fifth generation platforms, and I am a little bit 
biased, but I would say we have the best pilots in the world. 
And, if you are going to train, you want to train with the 
best.
    And I just think that helps our combat capability as the 
United States Air Force, as the Department of Defense, and as a 
Nation, if we can maintain the ability to train in the common 
tactics, techniques, and procedures and be able to proliferate 
that throughout like-minded nations, I think that is a value 
proposition that makes the foreign military's training in the 
United States that much more.
    Mr. Womack. To stand up a mission like that is not easy. 
There are facility improvements that need to be made, and this 
committee has been very good to help us fund those. And all of 
you have a standing invitation to come down and see the work 
that is going on and to see some of that training once it 
commences a little bit later on this fall.

                      PACIFIC AIR FORCE EXERCISES

    I want to ask you a question about exercises because I note 
that there is an unfunded requirement amount of nearly a 
quarter of a billion dollars for the pacific Air Force 
exercises.
    General Allvin, help me understand the importance of 
conducting these theaterwide exercises. How do they help our 
formations? How do they help us integrate at scale and across 
domains?
    General Allvin. Thank you for that, Congressman.
    We certainly are looking to change the manner in which we 
do exercises. We have done exercises in bits and pieces, and a 
lot of the exercises are done on the backs of the wing commands 
who understand how they want to try and get their formations 
within their wings more ready for their piece of the fight.
    But, if we are going to enter a fight in the Indo-Pacific 
where we have to do agile combat employment, complex situations 
where we need to be able to aggregate for effect and 
disaggregate for survival, that is complex and that takes 
training at a larger scale.
    If you just do it in bit pieces, you won't find out where 
the holes in your swing are. You have to understand fitting it 
together in something that looks more like you may actually 
have to experience in combat before you will do that.
    So the increase in being able to do larger scale exercises, 
that is where you are going to find out where some of your 
weaknesses are. We haven't had the ability to do that as much 
as we would like to. And so, moving forward, I think that will 
help us advance our capability more effective in the Indo-
Pacific fight.
    Mr. Womack. Yes.

                                 LP 480

    Finally, Mr. Chairman, you know, I am going to reserve, you 
know, an opinion on this whole LP 480, this legislative 
proposal that Ms. McCollum brought up. I do think it is a bit 
dangerous, though, for us to enter into an era where we are 
usurping the authority of our Governors. Forty-eight of them 
have expressed some discontent with the proposal.
    There is the option of status quo, and I don't know--you 
know, I have not thought through it completely, but as a 
guardsman, as somebody who has some unique insight into the 
dual mission of our Guard, I guess I would say this. I am a 
little concerned. I saw some numbers on polling among these 
personnel. We are talking about a thousand people here, and the 
prospect of some of them looking for other missions so that 
they can remain part of the Guard is a bit of a concern for me.
    So I guess my last question would be, are we going to 
create a gap in here in capability? That would ultimately be my 
biggest concern.
    Secretary.
    Secretary Kendall. There has been a lot of confusion I 
think about this. First of all, we deeply value the Guard 
itself. It is an enormously important component of our overall 
force. And we deeply value these people and the units that they 
are in. There are only about 578 people that will be affected 
by this. You know, the Guard is over 100,000. So it is a very 
small fraction.
    This is a very unusual situation we have. We created this 
Space Force, and we took people out of the Air Force and other 
services, and we are taking people out of the Reserve 
component.
    And under the act we just passed last year created a 
personnel management system for the Space Force so they could 
have full- and part-time people and manage that very small 
force as efficiently as possible.
    We have got 578 people in the Guard, in the Air Guard who 
are, essentially, orphans right now, and they really need to be 
integrated into the Space Force. The attempt is to integrate 
them exactly as they are, to keep them in place, keep them in 
the same job, serving the same way, doing the same thing. So 
there is not going to be any change here.
    This is also--this is not a precedent for anything else. 
This is a very unusual, unique situation that we created 
because of the creation of the Space Force. So we are trying to 
essentially clean up the battlefield and fix this loose end, if 
you will, in the creation of the Space Force.
    General Saltzman has a very small entity--I don't mean to 
say that in a derogative way--but a very important one. His 
mission is absolutely critical in the country, and he needs to 
be able to manage that force, including the personnel in that 
force as efficiently and effectively and with little 
bureaucracy as possible.
    So we don't want to go in the opposite direction that the 
Congress went in last year of giving the opportunity to do that 
under the Space Force Personnel Management Act by creating a 
whole new entity or by leaving, for that matter, the people in 
the Air Guard where we can work that out. We can make any of 
these things work if we have to, but, by far, the best solution 
is to actually integrate these people into the Space Force.
    And, again, this is not an attempt to undo the Guard. It is 
a very small number of people. It is only six States that are 
affected. It is not a precedent for anything else. It is just a 
way to make the Space Force into the entity that it needs to be 
to be effective.
    Mr. Womack. Thank you for clarifying.
    I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
    By the way, I have got to leave here in a minute and go 
meet with the city of Fort Smith board of directors who are 
here today, and I am sure the first thing they are going to ask 
me is, how is our F-35 mission coming? So thank you so much.

                            UAE ACQUISITIONS

    Mr. Calvert. Since you brought up the F-35, just really 
quickly, what is going on--since I heard from some of our 
friends on UAE the other day, what is going on with the 
proposed purchase, UAE acquisition of the F-35? Any progress on 
that?
    Secretary Kendall. I don't have anything new on that. Let 
me take that and get back to you, Mr. Chairman. As far as I 
know, there is no obstacle that I am aware of right now.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.

                            PILOT RETENTION

    Mr. Ruppersberger. Secretary Kendall, as you are well 
aware, the Air Force is having trouble retaining as many pilots 
because of the private sector paying so much more money, better 
benefits, and those type of issues. The Air Force is competing, 
and I don't know how they can continue to compete. So it is a 
major issue that we have to deal with.
    What are the incentives that we have, if any, that they can 
do that? There are people that can leave the Air Force, fly, 
and then also be in the Reserves or National Guard or whatever 
you would call that. Have you seen any an improvements over the 
last 2 years of this issue?
    And then, finally, what about the percentage of pilots who 
leave active duty for private sector and--I have asked this 
before--joined the Reserves or National Guard?
    Secretary Kendall. We can get you some numbers on that. We 
do have a shortage of pilots, and we have been working to 
reduce that. The greatest obstacle to higher pilot production 
is the pipeline, particularly the availability of training 
aircraft. And that is one of the reasons we need to get the T-7 
fielded to have a more reliable aircraft.
    So I have been visiting the contractors involved in the 
maintenance of the T-38, and just it is a constant struggle to 
try keep those airplanes flying and get people through the 
pipeline.
    We are using bonuses very effectively. The Congress just 
gave us the authority to increase our bonuses for pilot 
retention, and I think that was just put in place. And I think 
early indications are that that is going to be effective.
    We have a lot of pilots who are in the Reserve and Guard 
who are commercial pilots, you know, during their civilian 
lives and then still remain in the service part time. And that 
is a very effective way to retain those people as well.
    Do you want to add something?
    General Allvin. I would just add to the retention 
initiatives, you know, we have often offered the incentives for 
reenlistment or retention bonuses. What we have done, though, 
is we have actually taken some data. And it turns out that the 
way we have done it in the past, sometimes we ask those who are 
eligible for it maybe within a year or a year and a half of 
when their sort of commitment is up, and we found out after 
lots of surveys that they may have already sort of made up 
their mind by that time.
    So, in working with Congress, this new incentive program 
allows us to actually request it earlier, and they can help 
shape their future rather than be shaped by a decision at the 
last minute. And we also find that it is not just about the pay 
for them. There are opportunities where, depending on where 
they are in their life, with their family, the opportunity to 
perhaps get a preference for getting stationed somewhere or not 
moving, that is an alternative for them. They value that over 
the actual financial incentive.
    And we are starting our second year of doing that. So we 
are doing a longitudinal analysis. As the Secretary said, the 
early returns are good, but we are finding out that we can just 
find more creative ways to meet them where they are at. And it 
is not just about the dollars and cents, because they love to 
serve. We are going to continue to seek those to be able to 
maintain the retention.
    I will add that, while we do have retention issues, we are 
still filling 100 percent of our combat cockpits. Those are 
being filled as well as our training. Where we are taking the 
risk in mitigating is in the rated staff positions and some of 
the other, but we still do need to plus up and retain as many 
of those pilots as we can.

                         PILOT TRAINING BACKLOG

    Mr. Ruppersberger. On the other hand, there is also a 
training backlog for pilots. What are the root causes of this 
backlog, and how are you addressing it, and what additional 
resources do you need from us? 
    General Allvin. Well, thank you, Congressman. As the 
Secretary said, it really has been getting them through the 
pipeline because of aging aircraft. So the T-38, much older, 
and we had issues with the J85 engine. And, as the Secretary 
said, getting that T-7 here as soon as possible with the 
aircraft that we need is really what we are focusing on with 
the contractor.
    We also are looking at new ways of doing pilot training and 
understanding ways that we can get them through the pipeline 
faster. And those are things like, if you have a multiseat 
aircraft where it is more like what the airlines do as far as 
the training, you can do more in the simulator. If you can do 
more in the simulator, you can preserve the pilot's time, fewer 
aircraft hours.
    So we are seeing those. We are seeing gains there. But, 
unfortunately, they have been masked by the supply issues and 
supply chain issues that are limiting the availability of the 
aircraft. So, if we can get through those supply and supply 
chain issues, I think that is where we are going to see the 
fruits of the labor of these other initiatives that, on their 
own, are increasing the number of throughput pilots that we can 
get.
    Mr. Ruppersberger. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Aderholt.

                         SPACE COMMAND LOCATION

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to 
mention, you know, that Congress has remained troubled about 
how the Space Command location was selected and as you saw the 
language in both the NDAA and the fiscal year 2024 budget.
    Mr. Secretary, I just wanted to get your commitment that 
you will continue to follow congressional intent, as expressed 
by the laws that we passed, and especially let the independent 
investigation run their course on this.
    Secretary Kendall. I am obviously very familiar with the 
issue, Congressman. And we will certainly follow the law and 
cooperate with the investigation the entire way.

                 SPACE ACCESS, MOBILITY, AND LOGISTICS

    Mr. Aderholt. Thank you. I appreciate that. And let me ask 
about the Space Access, Mobility, and Logistics. In recent 
testimony, General Saltzman, to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, you talked about $20 million in this year's 
President's budget for Space, Access, Mobility and Logistics, 
and said the funding would be, quote, ``used to study and 
figure out if there is military utility for much-needed 
capabilities like in-space refueling.''
    According to public reports, China has already found 
utility for in-space refueling and have demonstrated this 
capability in 2021 and 2022, and have integrated lessons 
learned into military doctrine.
    So would it be accurate to say that the DOD is going to 
study a capability that our adversary is already executing, and 
could you talk about that?
    General Saltzman. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I 
have two things to say on that. One is we are evaluating the 
military utility. As Secretary Kendall mentioned, we want to 
make sure that our S&T budget goes as far as we possibly can. 
And we want to make sure, if we are going to pursue a 
technology, there is a pathway to fielding an operational 
capability. So that is part of the assessment.
    And then, from a mission standpoint, we are rapidly trying 
to shift from large satellites in geosynchronous orbit whose 
lifespan requires them to have a lot of fuel where refueling 
could be valuable. We are shifting from that kind of 
architecture into a proliferated low Earth orbit set of 
constellations.
    We are talking hundreds of satellites much smaller and more 
easily to replace. So the idea is that you wouldn't need to 
refuel them, because you are trying to replenish that 
proliferated constellation on a more frequent basis. So 3 to 5 
years on orbit, replace it with updated technology, wouldn't 
necessarily require the same level of servicing on orbit. So we 
are trying to get the balance just right and make sure that all 
the dollars that we invest will be properly utilized.
    Mr. Aderholt. Secretary Kendall, do you have anything you 
want to add to that?
    Secretary Kendall. I think General Saltzman had it just 
right.
    Mr. Aderholt. How would additional resources for the Space 
Access, Mobility, and Logistics be helpful and ensure the 
continued U.S. space superiority?
    General Saltzman. Well, one area, of course, is the launch 
infrastructure. A lot of this comes--when we talk about Space 
Access, Mobility, and Logistics, one of the key pieces is space 
lift infrastructure.
    And the dramatic increase of commercial launches at our two 
primary launch locations near Cape Canaveral, at Patrick's 
Space Force Base, and out at Vandenberg, that is taking a toll 
on its infrastructure, and we need to recoup that and keep that 
up.
    So keeping that infrastructure current and capable of 
supporting the ops tempo is going to be a primary resourcing 
concern.
    Secretary Kendall. I would just add to that that the 
biggest--and General Saltzman should comment on this too. Our 
greatest regret, if you will, in the constraints that we had 
this year was we couldn't more forward more quickly on counter-
space capability in particular.
    Our pacing challenge is fielding a number of systems that 
threaten the joint force and that essentially are targeting 
assets like aircraft carriers. We need to have the capability 
to do something about those assets so that they can't provide 
that targeting service to the Chinese military.
    And that would be the highest thing on our list of things 
that we aren't able to move forward as quickly as we would like 
to on.
    Mr. Aderholt. I see my time has gone out. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Mr. Case.

                           BUDGET REDUCTIONS

    Mr. Case. Thank you.
    General Saltzman, your budget came to us at a reduction of 
2 percent after, of course, 4 years of significant growth, but 
we would expect that growth, given that you are 5 years old. So 
we are trying to obviously ramp up as fast as possible.
    And, although I guess you could say a 2-percent budget 
reduction is--well, thanks for that, because we got a lot of 
demands. Still, it begs the question of what risks we are 
accepting in your trajectory to get you there as fast as 
possible.
    Now, I understand that, I mean, the reason advanced really 
for the budget reduction has been a lower pace of space 
launches. And one of the questions is, what kind of risk does 
that present? But I also just took a look at your unfunded 
priority list, because the real concern here is that, in a 
budget-pressured environment, where the real consequences is 
being taken is in some of the baseline infrastructure.
    So, you know, staff training, infrastructure capability, 
MILCON, training facilities, exercises. So, you know, your UPL 
list does have some of that. It looks like some MILCON, some 
training exercises.
    So I guess my real question is, other than for us to just 
say okay to the 2-percent reduction, I mean, what are we 
actually doing here? What is this going to do to the direction 
you are trying to take? Because we are trying to get you to 
somewhere as fast as possible.
    General Saltzman. Well, I think you got it just right. And 
I think Secretary Kendall mentioned that the biggest regret, of 
course, is the lack of counter-space capabilities.
    So the budget includes a pretty substantial investment in 
this shift to more resilient architectures. So we are on a good 
path there. It has good investments in operational test and 
training infrastructure. So I like the idea of training our 
operators against a thinking threat.
    What I am most concerned about is how fast we are able to 
put those counter-space capabilities to hold that risk, the PRC 
targets that Secretary Kendall mentioned, the ones that can--it 
is space-enabled targeting of the joint force.
    That is the biggest concern, and what this budget needed to 
do was slow that acquisition down. So the programs are still 
there. We are still making progress. We are just not putting it 
in place as fast as possible.
    Mr. Case. Okay. I am sorry. Secretary, anything to add?
    Secretary Kendall. No.
    Mr. Case. Okay. General, some of the same questions to you 
just in terms of your budget and taking a look at your unfunded 
priority list. Mr. Womack I think talked about your exercises. 
You are not adding some exercises in PACAF, specifically in the 
agile combat space, that you would otherwise want to do, right?
    But the one that really kind of--and you have got a MILCON 
of $1.115 billion. And I think we all know that your MILCON is 
a huge gap right now, especially if you take a look at your 
agile combat plans out in the Pacific. You just saw that again.
    The one that really struck me when I took a look at it was 
spare parts $1.566 billion. And it says here funds single 
spares, restock for aircraft projected to be grounded due to a 
lack of spare parts. I mean, that sounds pretty serious, 
actually, to me, to be in a UPL list, number one. And then, 
number two, we have had a lot of discussion on the committee 
about just basic, you know, industrial base ability to produce.
    Is this an issue of a supply chain disruption, or is this 
the parts are available, we just don't have the money to buy 
them?
    General Allvin. Congressman, I think it was more of the 
latter, but the Department of Defense did put an emphasis 
during the budget submission and the contemplation about 
readiness. So I did not want this committee to believe that DOD 
ignored readiness.
    But what happened is, this year, as we looked at some of 
the continued erosion and we looked at the strategy that we 
talked about, I went to our Air Force Materiel Command 
commander A4 and asked him to do a sprint. Let's deep dive into 
some data-driven analysis that can drive from inputs to 
outputs, where you can say, if I put a dollar in here, in this 
spare part, what can it deliver out there?
    And we have really just developed the data platforms to be 
able to do that with rigor. And so that happened during the 
summer and the fall. And we focused on aircraft and weapon 
systems that we had more control of all of the organic 
aircraft, the C-130s, the B-52s, those where we had a lot more 
control over that entire supply chain process and the supply 
parts where we could visualize throughout the system, and then 
looked at which of those which we knew had limitations because 
of spare parts, because we have that across our Air Force, 
which ones would drive the biggest change.
    And, when we saw that, they came up with that analysis and 
it was complete, but it wasn't complete in time for the budget 
submission. My sense is, if it had been done earlier, I would 
have gone to Secretary Kendall and said, ``Maybe perhaps we 
could put this in.''
    But, when I saw the potential output, it didn't seem like I 
could wait another year for the next budget submission. So it 
really was a matter of sequencing, because we didn't want to 
just put in a wedge and say, ``Give us more money for parts.'' 
I wanted to be able to have some specificity to show the drive, 
the input to the output.
    And I feel like we had confidence enough to where I could 
submit that in my unfunded priority list, because I would 
rather not wait another year to fight in the submission.
    Mr. Case. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
    Next, Judge Carter.

                         SPACE FUTURES COMMAND

    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    General Saltzman, the Space Force recently announced the 
creation of a Space Futures Command. Can you talk about the 
goals of this command and its timeline, and can you give us 
examples of what types of missions this command will look at?
    General Saltzman. Thank you, sir.
    I appreciate the question. The Futures Command came out of 
our analysis associated with optimizing for great power 
competition. And we became aware of the fact that, while there 
was a lot of disaggregated activities across the entire force 
and the entire Department, quite frankly, associated with 
trying to build the force that we are going to need in the 
future, it wasn't coherent enough so that we could understand 
what the second and third order effects of any one decision 
were.
    So what Futures Command does is it aggregates all those 
capabilities together. It will look at operational concepts, 
which technologies will be most likely to be used against us or 
that we can leverage against future threats. What are the 
missions that are going to be expected of us in the future?
    It will evaluate all those operational concepts, war game 
them, do tabletop exercises, do some experimentation to 
validate those concepts, and then finally do the real hard core 
data analytics that results in a force design so that we can 
build the requirements and buy the kinds of capabilities that 
we know we are going to need in the future. All of that would 
fall under one field command.
    Mr. Carter. And when do you expect to stand this up?
    General Saltzman. I am hoping that, from a process 
standpoint, later this summer-early fall, we are actually 
working through the processes. It is going to take me a while 
to put a command structure in place.
    There could be basing decision, and that will take a little 
more time to put in place. But process-wise, because a lot of 
these are already occurring across the Space Force, we will 
pull them together coherently and work the processes later this 
fall.
    Mr. Carter. Is there going to be an issue of location?
    General Saltzman. We are going to have to look at that as a 
part of a basing process.

                 COLLABORATIVE COMBAT AIRCRAFT PROGRAM

    Mr. Carter. The Air Force recently announced the next phase 
of the Collaborative Combat Aircraft program. And I understand 
that you are exploring international partnerships as part of 
this program.
    Can you elaborate on what it would look like and the 
benefit that this partnership might bring to further 
development of the program and the utility of it across our 
partners and allies?
    Secretary Kendall. The Collaborative Combat Aircraft 
program is the uncrewed, you know, companions, wing men, if you 
will, to manned aircraft. It started out as a companion for the 
Next Generation Air Dominance platform, but also could be used 
by NF-22, RNF-35 or RNF-15.
    And we just down-selected, as you mentioned, Congressman, 
to two companies for the first increment. The way the program 
is structured, it has multiple increments. They are about 2 
years apart. And the first one will go quickly to production.
    We expect to have those aircraft in production within the 
next few years and have deliveries before the end of the 5-year 
plan. They are going to allow us to learn a lot. They will give 
us an operational capability. I mentioned earlier that we are 
trying to make sure we field meaningful operational capability 
as quickly as possible.
    So that first increment will give us some degree of 
capability. There will be a second increment coming along a 
couple years behind that one. And we are particularly looking 
for international cooperation with that second increment.
    We have had talks, General Allvin and I both have had talks 
with several of our partners, our closest partners, who are 
very interested. So it is early stages, but we would like to go 
in that direction. We think this will be something that could 
have great value to all of our partners and enhance our 
capabilities, you know, particularly in partnership with our 
closest allies.
    Do you want to add anything to that?
    General Allvin. The only thing I would add is the secret 
sauce there that I think will enable us to be more rapidly 
integrating with our allies and partners is part of this entire 
concept is a government-owned reference architecture, something 
that we control.
    And so, as we are seeing advancements in the technology, we 
can maybe set the pace for how we can integrate and work with 
our allies and partners, and I think that is one of the big 
things that can let us go faster.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Just following up on the Judge's question, on 
this aircraft, the collaborative aircraft, what do you 
envision? How many aircraft are we talking about here in the 
next 5 years?
    Secretary Kendall. We will have over a hundred on order or 
delivered by the end of the FYDP. That is for increment one. 
The planning figure I have given people to use is a thousand, 
and that is just really to reflect the fact that we are serious 
about this is going to be a significant part of our first 
structure.
    The ultimate number is going to depend upon cost, 
affordability, and a number of other factors. But this is a 
fairly transformative change to going away from individual 
fighter pilots all out there at risk together to giving our 
fighter pilots a wing man that can be attrited to a degree. It 
is intended to be survivable, but attritable. That will give us 
a wide range of tactics and techniques that we currently can't 
utilize. So it is going to become a mainstay part of the force.
    Mr. Calvert. So each, say, F-35, for instance, how many 
collaborative aircraft do you think would be attached to a 
single F-35?
    Secretary Kendall. We won't do it for every single fighter 
probably, at least not initially, but nominally two to five, 
for example, under the control of an individual pilot.
    Mr. Calvert. And the cost I read in the press reports are 
approximately $30 million apiece. Does that sound about right?
    Secretary Kendall. We are looking for something that is a 
fraction of the cost of a fighter.
    Mr. Calvert. So hopefully less----
    Secretary Kendall. So on the order of $25 million or $30 
million apiece would be kind of what I would consider 
personally an upper bound.
    Mr. Calvert. Yeah, I would hope so. I would hope that cost 
could come down considerably. Thank you.
    Ms. Kaptur.

                       UKRAINE THEATER OPERATIONS

    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, Generals, welcome. And, to all your staff, 
thank you for the patriotic job that you all do.
    I wanted to go to General Allvin first, if I might. What is 
the Air Force learning from the Ukraine theater and operations 
there that would inform our posture toward future flight and 
future fights?
    General Allvin. Thank you. And I hesitate early on to talk 
about lessons learned. We certainly want to learn what we can, 
but understand the context is important.
    I believe that there are a couple things. As an airman, it 
reminds me I don't think you want to fight without some level 
of air superiority, because that is where we are right now, and 
that is painful for both sides.
    But I think the advancements in the UAVs and the drones and 
what that means for a change in the ability to retain air 
superiority long enough to be able to have those, the overall 
combat objectives, is a little different, depending on where 
you go.
    We want to make sure that, even though we have massive, you 
know, swarms of drones, that works in the European theater. 
When you have a different theater, you have to think of a 
different context, because there is much more range and so you 
wouldn't be able to use them the same way.
    But I think that the idea that the electromagnetic spectrum 
may be one of the biggest lessons. That still matters more than 
we did before, because the ability for those crewed or uncrewed 
aircraft to be effective in there really depends on how well 
they can defend against--they can jam against--or defend 
against jamming and survive in the electromagnetic spectrum.
    That and the innovation that is happening within the 
conflict I think are things that we need to be prepared for. We 
need to solve for agility to make sure that we can adapt to 
those maybe lower cost but asymmetric capabilities that pop up 
early in wartime.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you very much.

                             CYBER TRAINING

    Let me ask any one of you if the Boards of Education that I 
represent across northern Ohio and our community colleges 
wanted to connect to any of your cyber training or cyber 
possibilities for younger people that holds a potential for 
recruitment as well as workforce development on the private 
side, if we have interested teachers and their students, who do 
we contact?
    Secretary Kendall. We will get you someone to talk to about 
that. We are very interested in that. You may not be aware of 
it. We just created a new category of airman warrant officers 
in the cyber and IT field.
    So we are very much interested in expertise in that area 
and having people come in who want to work in that area and 
stay in that area during their career. So I will get you a 
point of contact, and we will have someone work with you on 
that.

                           FUEL CONSERVATION

    Ms. Kaptur. I hear there might be a Cyber Command that was 
established in Cincinnati. I am not sure who that is done 
through, whether it was Wright-Patt or--I don't know the 
university there, but it is not connected to the places that I 
represent.
    So I am just curious to be connected to the right place at 
Air Force. Ohio is the State of flight, so we have to protect 
our own, and we want to engage our educational community in 
that effort as well.
    Twenty years ago at the 180th Fighter Wing in western Ohio, 
a biofueled F-16 was flown successfully.
    I am interested in how you, Mr. Secretary, or any of you, 
think about fueling the future and in craft that are airborne, 
just curious how you think about that.
    General Allvin. I think in general, Congresswoman, the idea 
for us is fuel conservation is not only just good for the 
planet; it helps us in our mission as well.
    So anything that we can do that can preserve duration, 
endurance, regardless of the type of fuel, that is what we are 
looking for. But, before we transform sort of the fossil fuel 
platforms that we have into something into the future, we need 
to ensure that it is sustainable, and it is something we can 
take with us into combat.
    But the idea that we would always be looking at operational 
energy and being able to better use that, it actually enhances 
our combat effectiveness as well.

                      CURRENT AIR RESPONSIBILITIES

    Ms. Kaptur. Should we be apprehensive about the Space Force 
and the current air responsibilities that our region holds with 
F-16s and potentially F-35s, because of the dawn of Space 
Force, or do we have reason to be worried that we are going to 
lose our fighter wing?
    Secretary Kendall. I am not aware of any reason why you 
would be.
    Ms. Kaptur. All right. Well, that is good news. Finally, 
what about the balloon that flew over the country? What did we 
decide that was?
    Secretary Kendall. There was a Chinese balloon that came 
by. And I am not sure how much I can say without getting into 
classified. You know, it was very visible. People, you know, 
were aware of it. It was shot down. The Chinese claimed that it 
was not intentional on their part. I am not sure that we 
believe that.
    I think we have raised the awareness of that kind of threat 
quite a bit, and we are on the alert for that, because we have 
seen some other cases where balloons have come close if not 
come over the United States.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Secretary Kendall. We could give much more at a classified 
level.
    Ms. Kaptur. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, I don't know why 
they don't just put that debris on display someplace and let 
the American public look at it and make their own decision. I 
think we all know what that decision would be.
    Mr. Garcia.

                            T-7 ACCELERATION

    Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I thank the three of you for being here today. Thank you 
for your service to our beautiful country.
    Mr. Secretary, congratulations on CCA, two outstanding 
choices there with Anduril and General Atomics and looking 
forward to seeing that program accelerate. And, actually, it is 
a paradigm-breaking acquisition model as well as a source 
selection. So really appreciate it.
    Survivable but attritable was actually my call sign in the 
Navy, so that is a good thing to see. Hopefully, that is not a 
black cloud for CCA.
    We are in a unique era right now where you are trying to 
balance capability with capacity. I have been very adamant that 
I don't know that we have a capability gap relative to China. I 
think that is a fight we always keep fighting, but I think we 
do have unique capabilities, high-end exotics, but the capacity 
is the challenge with a force projection of, you know, three or 
four thousand miles and not in our backyard, like what they 
enjoy.
    So now we are in an era where you see, you know, the first 
flight of B-21 happened this year, but also the service life 
extension of B-52 out to be a hundred-year-old platform with 
new radars, new sensors. You see Teddy Roosevelt's vision of F-
35 finally being realized with a tech refresh, and now also F-
15EX capacity supplementing that capability. I think these are 
good things. JADC2, ABMS maturation and some classified 
programs.
    So I don't envy your jobs, but I think overall, at the 
macro level, the Air Force is doing a good job of executing 
that pivot to the Pacific and maintaining the capability 
advantage while also addressing the capacity challenges that we 
have. So I just wanted to give you kudos for that.
    My concern is around the T-7 and how we can go faster. I 
have been asking this question for a few years. Mr. Ellzey and 
I lost a good friend in the T-38 accident back in 2019 out of 
Enid, Oklahoma, a 47-year-old Naval aviator who did an Air 
Force transition. He was in the back seat.
    That T-38 aircraft was not a good trainer in the sixties or 
seventies. It sure as hell is not a good trainer today, and it 
is the widow maker. I think it has killed about 149, 150 
aviators--or pilots since it has come online.
    So what are we doing? Is it a Boeing limitation? Is it a 
materiel limitation? What can we in Congress do to help 
accelerate the T-7 to avoid T-38 deaths in the next call it 2- 
to 4-year period?
    Secretary Kendall. I am not aware of anything you can do to 
make the program move faster. We had to set production out a 
year because of trying to negotiate and get the cost down and 
deal with some difficulties that have occurred in development.
    You may be aware we have had problems with the ejection 
seat and the ejection system and with some of the controls. I 
think that we are working our way through those. I could get 
you a more detailed report. General Allvin may have more 
information than I do.
    General Allvin. I think some of it is in general. And I 
don't want to speak for Boeing specifically, but there are some 
growing pains when you start with sort of a new way of building 
and designing, started with more digital engineering.
    And so there may have been some things associated with that 
that sort of hindered the pace of the development. I am 
encouraged the fact that it is in flight tests now. I think 
this is where we can perhaps accelerate.
    But, as the Secretary said, it really is just about getting 
it through its developmental testing and buying the first ones 
next year.
    Mr. Garcia. Okay. Well, I would just encourage you if you 
see any opportunity to accelerate, either through parallel risk 
reduction--I know there are going to be concurrency risks that 
come with that. This isn't as exotic as the F-35 so those 
penalties won't be as severe.
    But, you know, Matt Kincade's widow is out there in 
Oklahoma still, and she is looking at this very closely. And I 
think it will save lives if we can go faster.
    My last request, General Saltzman, if we can get in the 
SCIF at some point. You mentioned a program today that we as a 
committee have grave concerns over, but we can't talk about it 
here, that is very relevant right now. And very timely 
discussion I think would be needed in the SCIF if we can at 
some point.
    General Saltzman. Happy to do that.
    Mr. Garcia. I took a brief at Space Command. I think 
actually the chairman was there as well in El Segundo about a 
year ago now when you were promoting Buzz Aldrin. And I want to 
follow up on that if we can at some point.
    But I think it would behoove, Mr. Chairman, for the whole 
subcommittee to hear what is going on there.
    But, with that, I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I remember that meeting with 
General Aldrin very well, as we can call him now, with the 
Secretary's help, by the way. I appreciate that very much.
    Mr. Ellzey.

                                  V-22

    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here today. It is nice to see you. 
General Saltzman, are the lights in here in this windowless 
room okay for a missileer? Okay. All right.
    I would like to thank you and your fellow missileers for 
what you do. There is no way in Hades I could do that. So thank 
you for taking the strain. You are the perfect guy for this job 
right now, expanding space capabilities.
    And, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. We never met 
before, but I just would like to ask what is wrong with the Air 
Force Academy that they can't find the Secretary of the Air 
Force for themselves that would require a West Pointer? It 
defies logic, but glad you are here. And, of course, from your 
years in acquisition, you are the right guy for these times as 
well.
    And, General Allvin, your history as a heavy guy hauling 
logistics, you are the right man for that job right now too. So 
it is a pleasure to be with you guys. Thank you very much.
    General, I would like to start with you. And, by the way, 
some day it is going to be Admiral because, you know, Star 
Trek, it was the fleet, Star Fleet.
    Mr. Garcia. We are going to make that change.
    Mr. Ellzey. We are going to do that before I leave 
Congress.
    Sadly, on November 29, 2023, we lost a V-22 from AFSOC. And 
then, on December 6, 2023, after watching the video, the AFSOC 
commander downed the whole fleet. There were some issues with 
it, which I won't go into here that led to that mishap and 
varying mishap rates between the different services.
    On March 8th, the Naval Air Systems Command deemed the V-22 
safe to fly, based on a meticulous and data-driven approach 
that prioritized safety. And then, just days later, the Marine 
Corps and the Japanese started flying them, and the Navy has as 
well.
    We talked to the SOCOM commander a couple of weeks ago, and 
he said their operations have been severely impacted--in this 
room that is where I will leave it--because of the V-22 
grounding.
    So I have spoken to the AFSOC commander, and he can't give 
me a timeline for return to flight. It has been 6 weeks since 
the Marine Corps and Japanese started flying as well as the 
Navy. That is a long time, considering the operational impacts. 
And I want to know when the V-22 is going to start flying 
again.
    General Allvin. Well, again, I know--and the AFSOC 
commander, General Bauernfeind, spoke with me as well, and we 
keep in touch very frequently about this.
    So I can tell you right now that three of the platforms 
have gone through FCFs. They have gone through the functional 
check flights. And so we are making a deliberate approach, but 
it is a comprehensive approach because the manner in which, as 
you know, the CV-22 used in the Air Force is really much 
different.
    And so he is in lockstep with the Joint Program Office and 
his sister services in understanding how and why they are 
returning theirs to fly, but he is taking AFSOC in a deliberate 
manner to ensure every one of the maintenance records are 
checked and every one of the crews are ready to fly.
    And so he is taking a deliberate approach and a 
comprehensive review on the weapon system, on the crew 
complement, on the mission set, and how it is unique to the Air 
Force and AFSOC.
    Mr. Ellzey. Okay. Well, I got the same answer from him and, 
quite frankly, how he downed it based on a video that was 
preemptive to a mishap investigation. I was a mishap 
investigator. I flew helos and jets.
    Quite frankly, the decision to do that should not have been 
approved, and it hurt our national security. That is my take on 
it. We will move on to a different issue.

                        ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS

    Let's talk about acquisitions. And, like I said, Mr. 
Secretary, you are the right guy for this, but it seems like we 
keep making these mistakes over and over and over again. And, 
you know, the B-21 is a great program. The F-15EX was a great 
program. Future long-range assault aircraft is on timeline. 
But, when we talk about Nunn-McCurdy and the 139 Gray Wolf, it 
is a helicopter. The Sentinel, which I know is a lot more 
complex. But, in our own service the FFG, the DDG-1000, the 
LCS, the Presidential helo, Air Force One. The Ford is 3 years 
behind. The F-35 got cut, F-22 got cut, and T-7 is behind the 
timeline.
    So my question--and I am asking this in a way that is 
completely innocent. I have no agenda here, but I really want 
to know that, after decades of doing the wrong thing do we have 
a requirements issue? Because I think in my service, we do. Are 
we underestimating supply chain issues, and we are just 
catching up to them? Or is it a lack of business sense in 
acquisitions? And I am not trying to lead you down the right 
answer. I really just kind of want to know.
    Secretary Kendall. How long do you have, Congressman?
    Mr. Ellzey. Forty seconds.
    Mr. Calvert. I will give you an extra minute.
    Mr. Ellzey. Oh, good, we get a minute extension. 
    Secretary Kendall. I have got 50 years of experience with 
new product development, basically, and I have seen us get in 
trouble the same way over and over. And you have the list. It 
is not always the same. But unrealistic requirements, 
unrealistic schedules, lack of appreciation of technical risk. 
I mean, all these things.
    And there has been an effort to chase I think what I call 
acquisition magic a few times, which is somebody comes up with 
a new idea they think about how to do it. Usually, it involves 
taking extraordinary risk, and then we pay the price for that. 
Putting amateurs in charge doesn't work very well.
    The things we ask people to do to develop new weapon 
systems for the United States are hard things. We are asking 
them to build weapon systems that are a generation ahead of 
anything ever built before. There is inherent risk in that, and 
you have to plan and manage that risk.
    You have to take risk mitigation steps. You have to 
understand deeply what those technical risks really are and 
then what is appropriate to try to reduce that risk or to 
manage it, so you have alternatives if you encounter it.
    There is no substitute for professionalism. There is this 
idea that we are--we can go much faster if we just, you know, 
somehow waved our arms and create a different set of 
structures. That tends to just get you in trouble.
    You can be overly conservative, but I think that is the 
exception. Most of our programs overrun in development by about 
25 percent. That is the average. In early production, they 
overrun by about 10 percent.
    And, when I was running the acquisition for DOD, we were 
able to drive that down. But, you know, you mentioned a couple 
of programs. B-21 is one that Dr. LaPlante, who is now the A&S 
Under Secretary, and I put together. But when we take wild 
chances, we get the result you should expect. So that is very 
in a nutshell.
    So we don't want to be--I would tend to structure programs 
to be somewhat aggressive but not so much so that you are 
guaranteeing failure. That is really the key to success. But 
you got to really understand what you are doing. There is no 
magic answer.
    Mr. Ellzey. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Just to put my two cents into this, and I have 
been here for a while, 30-some years. And I was here when we 
started the F-35 program. I remember the people bringing in the 
PowerPoints and saying, ``This is going to be the Swiss Army 
knife of all fighter planes. We are going to have a single 
frame, three variants. They're going to use a single engine. It 
is going to bring down our maintenance cost, our hourly cost, 
our per-unit cost and all that. And we are going to get rid of 
the F-16. We are going to get rid of the F-18. We are going to 
get rid of the F-15. We are going to get rid of the A-10. You 
know, this is going to be it.''
    And we are building more F-18s. We are building F-15X. They 
got an upgraded F-16. So it didn't quite work out the way we 
thought.
    And my thought on this is, and this is a serious question: 
How many program managers have we had on the F-35 since the 
inception? Does anybody know the answer to that question?
    Secretary Kendall. Several, only one of which I can think 
of that was fired.
    Mr. Calvert. But, you know, years ago, and it may be not an 
ample comparison. But Admiral Rickover started the submarine 
program with a Nautilus program and stayed with it until God 
knows he was how old and took responsibility for every single 
submarine and every single submarine program, and everyone knew 
who to call if there was a problem.
    And, right now, you know, some of these programs, if we put 
a young officer and say, ``Look, you are going to be with this 
program until you leave, and you are going to get all your ups; 
you are going to get all that.''
    But I think there has got to be a better way to do this, 
because what we have been doing hasn't been working. So I just 
want to throw my two cents in on that. And I know you put a lot 
of thought in that, and everybody else has, but it is a 
problem.
    Okay. Mr. Aguilar.

                    HYPERSONIC GLIDE VEHICLE TESTING

    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Kendall, I understand there have been some 
critiques of the Air Force's testing on hypersonic weapons due, 
in part, to the low number of glide vehicle test events, along 
with limited availability of hypersonic flight corridors, 
target areas, and test support assets.
    Is this true? And, if so, what resources are necessary to 
increase the capacity for hypersonic glide vehicle testing?
    Secretary Kendall. We do have issues with test capacity and 
availability of ranges essentially to do some of our hypersonic 
testing.
    I don't have any details for you, but I know there has been 
a substantial investment in improved infrastructure to support 
hypersonic testing. I would have to get you an answer for the 
record on the content of that. I haven't followed that that 
closely myself.
    Mr. Aguilar. I appreciate it.
    General Saltzman, we are investing significant resources 
into space-based tracking of hypersonic threats, and this is 
critical for our defense capabilities.
    It would be logical that such a system would be trained 
against real world scenarios. Given what the Secretary has 
indicated, how do we test these tracking capabilities under 
your programs, and where do these priorities kind of reconcile 
and where do they meet?
    General Saltzman. That is a great question. I would say we 
have a three-pronged approach to that. Anywhere we can use 
digital simulations, we are leveraging that to the max extent 
possible. There will be some range testing to try to calibrate 
the systems as they go into orbit. And real world live events, 
we never miss an opportunity to take advantage of those. And, 
unfortunately, these days there are those events to look at.
    So we don't have all the complement on orbit yet to be able 
to fully test that as an operational capability, but we are 
going to rapidly get there in the next year or so.
    Mr. Aguilar. When do you expect a more robust kind of 
launch ability to----
    General Saltzman. The Proliferative Warfighter Space 
Architecture that our Space Development Agency is putting 
together is the sensors that will be able to track the 
hypersonics.
    We are going to start tranche one delivery later this year, 
and by fiscal year 2026, we should have enough on orbit to be 
able to demonstrate the capability.
    Mr. Aguilar. And we will have enough data to make that 
decision?
    General Saltzman. We will be testing. Every time there is a 
launch, in checkout we test that information. We test the data.
    Mr. Aguilar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Since Mr. Aguilar brought up the hypersonic 
program, just a real quick comment on that. You know, we have 
the Navy program, obviously. We have the Army program. We have 
the Air Force program. Lockheed has the interest in all three 
of the programs.
    And, obviously, from our perspective, it has been somewhat 
frustrating. I think, so far, in all three programs, we have 
been spending about $3.5 billion a year to get to a hypersonic 
missile, and we have yet to get there on any of the programs.
    And, as far as I know, it is a classified number, but the 
Chinese, let's just say at least a thousand hypersonic missiles 
that are maneuverable. And, you know, I was around when Mike 
Griffin did the first test. I think you were around too at that 
time on the hypersonic program back in 1996, when we did the 
first hypersonic missile test and got to speed. It was a 
successful test. We offered it to the Air Force. They turned it 
down. The Chinese stole the technology, perfected it, and 
deployed it.
    You know, I had to get my frustration out, but here we are, 
spent I think well over 10-, $12 billion, and we are yet to get 
there. So it is not good.
    Mr. Fleischmann.

                       LEGACY SYSTEM REPLACEMENTS

    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Secretary Kendall, General Allvin, and General Saltzman, 
let me join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for well-
deserved accolades to all of you all. Thank you for your 
tremendous service to our Nation. It is a privilege to be with 
you today.
    Gentlemen, as you may be aware, I chair the Energy and 
Water Subcommittee of Appropriations. And I am well aware that 
the highest priority of DOD and NNSA is completing the Nuclear 
Recapitalization Program of Record.
    We recognize the Air Force has a tremendous role, with 
responsibility for both the ICBM and strategic bomber legs of 
the triad as well as the NC3 infrastructure, along with the 
Space Force and the Navy.
    I want to thank all the airmen, missileers, submariners and 
guardians that protect our Nation and our allies every day.
    Unfortunately, we are experiencing schedule delays and cost 
overruns that have become all too common with major programs. I 
recognize the greatest challenge we face is probably workforce, 
as with military recruitment we have a shortage in the 
necessary skilled personnel, from program managers to engineers 
to technicians and tradesmen.
    After decades of underinvestment, we are now paying to 
relearn costly lessons. All the while, the Russians have 
suspended New START. Even though they seem to be keeping to the 
treaty limits for now, it expires in less than 2 years. China 
is meanwhile rapidly expanding its nuclear forces and could 
catch us within a decade.
    We are entering uncharted territory, dealing with two peer 
nuclear adversaries, as we are in the middle of recapitalizing 
our entire deterrent with just a time of schedule.
    Question: What is the Air Force doing to keep Sentinel and 
B-21 schedules from slipping further, and how can Congress 
better help ensure that there is not an unacceptable dip in 
force structure once we begin replacing legacy systems?
    Secretary Kendall. B-21 is roughly on schedule. It is still 
in development. It is in test flight. I wouldn't make any 
commitments or promises about what will happen going forward, 
but to date it has executed fairly well.
    Sentinel is the opposite story, basically. I am recused on 
Sentinel. I will let General Allvin talk about that. It is 
going through the Nunn-McCurdy. And General Dr. LaPlante is 
running that process, and we will come out of that with a 
recommendation about how to proceed on Sentinel. But I think I 
am pretty comfortable, as much as one can be at this point in 
time, with where B-21 is.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.
    General Allvin. The only thing I would add is on Sentinel, 
again, it is one of those--Secretary Kendall talked earlier 
about some of the challenges in the acquisition process. And 
some of those is maybe underestimating what some of the 
complexity is. And I think perhaps we will discover that the 
two parts of the Sentinel program, one is actually the 
technology and the missile and all that, and the other was 
actually the scope and scale of what is really the largest 
civil works program that we have had in the Department of 
Defense for a long time.
    Maybe there was an underappreciation of that. So the 
drivers of the cost is something that Dr. LaPlante is going 
through in the Nunn-McCurdy review.
    And, again, the point you made, your opening point is the 
right one, Congressman. We have to be committed to a safe, 
effective, and reliable triad. So, whatever the Nunn-McCurdy 
review delivers for us, we are going to be supportive and we 
are going to deal with that, because, as you mentioned, the 
threats are not sitting idly by while we sort out what we do 
with our triad.
    Mr. Fleischmann. Thank you, sir.

                          NEW START COMPLIANCE

    A followup question: With the expiration of New START in 
less than 2 years, can you commit to this committee that the 
Air Force is preparing contingency plans now, in cooperation 
with NNSA, to upload Minuteman III and recertify more B-52s for 
nuclear missions?
    Secretary Kendall. There are some discussions happening in 
the policy framework, what will happen if Russia does not stay 
in compliance and also to react, as you mentioned, to China's 
growing arsenal.
    At this point in time, we don't have any specific plans in 
place or any specific intentions. But I think we would have to 
get into a classified forum to talk about those options in any 
more detail.
    Mr. Fleischmann. I understand. Thank you for your answer.
    Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    Ms. McCollum.

                             SERVICE AUDITS

    Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
    As I mentioned in my opening statement, climate change is a 
costly impact to our national security. It shows up in cracks 
in cement, large temperature swings, from cold weather to warm 
weather, soil erosion, leading to sinkholes, damage from 
significant weather events. It is an environmental stressor on 
our infrastructure, and the Department has long recognized 
this.
    In addition to the operational stress of more frequent 
rocket launches at launch sites, General Saltzman, you are now 
working through a plan to collect fees from industry to recoup 
some of the indirect cost for operations at the launch pads, 
and implementation could start as early as this summer.
    Now, from an appropriations standpoint, we will want to 
have visibility on how and where such funds are spent. The 
chairman and I served on the Interior Committee, where there 
are fees collected. I know that when they decided to collect 
fees on passports, we have seen, except for during COVID and 
some of the challenges we had with that, we have seen great 
success in passport things.
    So these can be a really good thing to happen. But I think 
we need to clarify the language, and we need to work on that 
together. I think it is important that those fees be clearly 
reinvested in the facilities, both to improve their resiliency 
and to handle the workload. And that is what the industry is 
going to expect.
    So that means transparency, proper accounting on these 
collections and expenditures. So I would like to learn more, 
and I am sure the committee would too on that. And along with 
that comes when you and I met earlier talking about a clean 
audit, this might be a great place to start to get a clean 
audit.
    So we have got the Marine Corps. We have got one of our 
other intelligence agencies doing it. And I think Space Force 
can be next. So any comments you want to make, sir?
    General Saltzman. Yes, ma'am. We definitely owe you a plan 
for how we plan to utilize those indirect costs, the 
authorities that we have been given. It is up to $5 million I 
think is the cap per provider. But we owe you that mechanism, 
and we will come back to you and show you exactly how we plan 
to exercise those authorities.
    And I left the Hill the other day after you talked to us 
about the audit. I went straight to the Vice Chief of Space 
Operations, and I said, ``Tell me what it would take to give us 
a clean audit.'' And so they are going through now in detail to 
try to figure out what the LIMFAX (ph) might be.
    Mr. Calvert. I almost forgot you, Mr. Joyce. I would never 
want to do that. But you are recognized.

                         REOPTIMIZATION EFFORTS

    Mr. Joyce. You are very kind, Mr. Chairman. After Mr. 
Aguilar came in and took over, I figured that I was back to the 
bottom of the list.
    But thank you all for being here. And thank you, especially 
the men and women in the back row as well, for your service to 
our country. And I apologize. When I saw my wife texting me, 
that is when--and then somehow I hit--I don't know what the 
hell I hit, but it started playing that funky music. So I 
apologize for that.
    Secretary Kendall, Youngstown Air Force Reserve station is 
in my district, and we also have four active Air National Guard 
wings in the State of Ohio. In February, you unveiled your 
planned reoptimization efforts for the Air Force and Space 
Force.
    Can you share your insight on how the Air Force plans on 
incorporating the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard 
bases into the new proposed reorganization of the service?
    Secretary Kendall. The overarching answer is that no major 
changes should be expected, that what we are doing is to try to 
ensure that we are focused on the pacing challenge, the threat 
that is most dominant right now, and ensuring that we have in 
place organizational structures, mostly in the active Air Force 
and the Space Force, that are focused on keeping us competitive 
over time and keeping us as ready with the current force as we 
can be at all times.
    The Guard and the Reserves are both very much a part of 
that readiness equation. And what will probably happen is there 
will be a look at how readiness is assessed for those units to 
ensure that the right standards and so on are in place and the 
right assessment mechanisms are in place.
    We want to make sure that our units that are intended to be 
deployable to support an operations plan have everything they 
need so that they can go do that and that they are really ready 
to go deploy. And that would apply to some of those units as 
well.
    So there are some things on the margin that might change 
because of this, but I don't think anything fundamental is 
expected to change.
    General Allvin, do you want to add anything to that?
    General Allvin. No, I think the Secretary has it just 
right. I think when we look at the manner in which we are to 
look at changing how we are going to present forces to the 
combatant commands, it has been different. For the last 20 
years, we have been sort of crowdsourcing our Air Force, and we 
have sort of been privileging the preservation of the 
installation at the expense of perhaps the combat unit they 
sort of need over there in theater. We can't do that in the 
Indo-Pacific.
    And so, as we change that, we need to understand what 
exactly is it going to take for a unit that sits together 
behind the fence line in a given installation or a wing, what 
do they need, as the Secretary said, to be able to pick up, 
deploy on short notice, go someplace, generate combat power, 
sustain that combat in a way we haven't done that before.
    So General Loh and General Healy were there at the 
inception of this. And I asked them. I said, ``How do you see 
the Guard and the Reserves playing into this?'' And they said, 
``We see ourselves perfectly, because we were designed to be 
that.''
    We all sort of were designed to be that way. We just sort 
of started presenting forces differently. And so we are looking 
as we start doing our exercises how we can include whole Guard 
units with whole Reserve units in a manner that is consistent 
with their volunteerism but will still enable them to do the 
training just like the Active Duty force to be these deployable 
combat wings and go and exercise against what we think the 
pacing challenge is in the Indo-Pacific.
    Secretary Kendall. One of the things we discovered we were 
doing is we were crowdsourcing in order to deploy units. We 
would send, say, a fighter squadron to the Middle East 
somewhere. And all the supporting functions that had to go with 
it to make it, you know, fully functional we would crowdsource 
across the Air Force, including elements out of the Guard and 
Reserves.
    So we were picking a few people here, a few people there, a 
few people there. That is not the way you want to go into a 
combat zone, into a war. You want to have a unit that is 
cohesive, that has trained together, that is ready to go deploy 
together and fight together.
    And we got away from that for efficiency reasons, because 
the environment we were deploying into wasn't a combat zone. It 
was essentially a relatively benign area. So that will be a 
change that people may see, that those opportunities to do 
individual or just a few people kind of deployments may not be 
there anymore, because we are trying to have units that can 
deploy as opposed to pickup games, if you will, that we put 
together at the last minute.
    Mr. Joyce. Fair enough.

                           FLEET FUNDING CUTS

    Secretary, the Air Force is expecting its fleet to drop 
below 5,000 aircraft in fiscal year 2025. Your budget proposes 
cutting hundreds of aircraft and repurposing those funds for 
research and development. Are you concerned that the Air Force 
is prioritizing quality over quantity with aircraft and that we 
can still deter our adversaries with a fleet of less than 5,000 
aircraft?
    Secretary Kendall. We are making some difficult tradeoffs, 
and both capacity and capability matter. Congressman Garcia 
talked about that earlier.
    The aircraft that we are retiring or divesting are aircraft 
that are generally reaching the end of their service life and/
or they are no longer effective against the pacing threat. And 
so retaining those aircraft and carrying the cost of sustaining 
them really would keep us from moving forward as fast as we 
need to.
    So I think we have got the balance about right. I will let 
General Allvin add to that.
    You know, if we had more resources, I think I would be 
prioritizing modernization still over retention of older force 
structure that is not going to be effective against the pacing 
challenge.
    General Allvin. I would just add numbers for numbers. This 
year specifically, about 250 we are divesting. Of those, 56 are 
A-10s, 65 are the F-15Cs and Ds, because those are sort of 
running out of service life as well. Twenty-two are in the T-
1s. We talked about how we are shifting to simulator from the 
aircraft to be able to increase velocity through the pipeline. 
The C-130s are transitioning one for one. The KC-135s are one 
for one with KC-46. And the EC-130, we are losing one EC-130. 
We are gaining an 85 E-837 (ph).
    So, as we look at the overall quantity for quality, I think 
I would rather have a smaller number of aircraft that maybe can 
win than a larger number of these F-56, A-10s that probably 
aren't going to help against a China fight.
    Mr. Calvert. I know who will take those A-10s.
    Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
    One quick comment and then I think I will wrap the hearing 
up unless Ms. McCollum has any additional comments.
    As you know, as we all know, back in the old days, the R&D 
budgets were in the U.S. Government. I mean, that was where 
everything happened. So all the bells and whistles were over 
there. But nowadays the commercial side, quite frankly, are the 
ones that are coming up with the primary innovations, and we 
adopt those innovations in the Department of Defense.
    So certainly in the communications, satellites, on down the 
road--especially, I think this applies to the space side--I am 
certainly encouraged by your emphasizing leveraging these 
commercial capabilities, because we need to take advantage.
    This Nation, we are still ahead on many things. And so we 
need to do that. And I will be concerned about how much funding 
we have in fiscal year 2025 in that commercial arena.
    But, before we conclude, I want to thank the witnesses for 
their testimony today.
    The subcommittee members are welcome to submit questions 
for the record. I ask that the witnesses respond in a 
reasonable time.
    And, with that, the subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
                            [all]
```