Month: August 2022

Source: United States Navy

Below is a transcript of the hearing:

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

This hearing will come to order. This hearing is virtual, and as usual, we’ll go over a couple of housekeeping matters. For today’s — someone needs to mute. For today’s meeting, the chair or the staff designated by the chair may mute participants’ microphones when they are not under recognition for purpose of eliminating background noise.

Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves. If I notice you have not unmuted yourself, I will ask you if you’d like the staff to unmute you. If you indicate by nodding for approval, the staff will unmute you. I remind all members and witnesses that the five-minute clock still applies. If there’s a technology issue, we will move to the next member until the issue is resolved, and you will retain the balance of your time.

You will notice the clock on your screen, and that’s showing how much time is remaining. At one minute, the clock will turn yellow. At 30 seconds remaining, I will gently tap the gavel to remind members that their time has almost expired. And when your time has expired, the clock will turn red, and I will begin to recognize the next member.

In terms of speaking order, we will follow the order set forward in the House rules, beginning with the chair and the ranking member. Members present at the time when the hearing is called to order will be recognized in their order of seniority. And finally, members not present at the time the hearing is called to order.

Finally, House rules require me to remind you that we have set up an email address to which members can send anything they wish to submit in writing at any of our hearing markups. The email address has been provided in advance to your staff. So, members of the subcommittee, we’ll fully come to order now that we took care of the housekeeping.

First and foremost, I wish you all a good new year and hope that your families are doing well and that they are safe from COVID. What we’re going to do this morning is we’re going to receive testimony on the impact of the continuing resolution on the Department of Defense and Services. And we’re joined by Mike McCord, undersecretary of defense; General David H. Berger, commander of the United States Marine Corps; Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations of the United States Navy; General Raymond — excuse me, General John W. Raymond, chief of space operations for the United States Space Force; and General Charles Q. Brown, chief of staff for the United States Air Force; and General Joseph M. Martin, vice chief of staff for the United States Army.

I want to thank you all for attending. And I would like to mention that chief Army staff, General McConville, is not with us today because he is attending General Odierno’s internment today. General Odierno is a remarkable leader. And, General Martin, I want to thank you for appearing on behalf of the Army today.

It has been the case far too often in recent years that the government once again is operating under a continuing resolution. Today’s hearing will explore the impacts of CRs on our national security, particularly the problem that would be created by a yearlong CR for fiscal 2022. When our subcommittee writes a full-year bill, even that the year-over-year total remains the same, we increase and decrease funding for hundreds of specific activities that are essential to our national security. 

Under a CR, none of this occurs. We do not cut spending in areas where it’s no longer needed like sunsetting legacy platforms or inefficient programs that are no longer survivable in a high-end fight. Simply put, CRs are bad for our national security. They increase inefficiency. They waste taxpayers’ money. 

They also signal to our troops and the millions of workers in the defense industry that their needs are just not a priority. At a time when Putin is threatening to invade Ukraine, China continues to be a pacing threat. We do not have time to waste. Our national security cannot afford more CRs. Now, among the members of this committee, I want to be perfectly clear.

I know each and every one of you all wants a new fiscal year 2022 defense bill. But I have to tell you, it is frustrating to read quotes from one House Republican published in December, and I’m going to quote directly. “Republicans should be in favor of a CR until Biden is out of office. It would be the proper Republican thing to do, and everybody saying otherwise is foolish.” Well, that type of thinking, that’s what’s foolish. 

And I believe it’s dangerous. I’ve heard similar comments from other Republicans in recent months. The least we can do is to get funding bills done. And I thank Chair DeLauro for trying to do just that for months now. I urge my Republican colleagues to continue to come with us to the negotiating table so we can fund the entire government.

But because America’s national security is more than just about dollars that we provide the Pentagon, it’s part of the reason why we’re having this hearing. We also need to make the necessary investments in diplomacy; development abroad; and, most importantly, education, health, and America’s economy here at home.

They all impact our national security. So, today, I look forward from hearing to our witnesses about how a full-year CR could affect modernization, slow our ability to retire ineffective programs, and how it would be an inefficient use of taxpayers’ dollars by directing billions of dollars to purposes that are out of date such as a war in Afghanistan, which we’re no longer fighting.

We have a lot to cover. And so, now, I will turn to the gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Calvert, for his opening remarks. Mr. Calvert.

KEN CALVERT:

Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and happy new year. And I also want to recognize General Odierno. Not only was he a great patriot, a good friend of this committee, and we certainly thank him and his family for his lifetime of service. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. While I look forward to hearing from the senior leaders here today, I’m disappointed there’s a need to have this hearing.

Since I’ve joined the subcommittee, I’ve been very vocal about the damage done by our inability to pass defense appropriation bills on time. When we’re able to carry out the most — when we’re able — unable to carry out the most fundamental constitutional responsibility, we create self-inflicted wounds that are difficult to recover from.

Typically, as appropriators, we’re able to negotiate in good faith, reach a bipartisan deal. Unfortunately, my friends on the other side of the aisle have decided they’re more committed to the progressive wing of their party than to the responsible governance of this country. We have offered to start negotiations as long as we work under the same-terms negotiations that we have worked for in the past two years.

They are simply no poison pills, and we retain all legacy riders. We’ve also made clear that in order for us to support these bills, domestic spending must come down and defense spending must go up. It should be noted that the HAS, SAS, and the Senate appropriations all have agreed to a higher defense number.

This committee is a long holdup. It is disappointing to watch the majority try to blame Republicans, who are the minority party in both chambers, for being at this unfortunate place, especially when it’s their leadership that has failed them. May I remind people, the Democrats were unable to pass their version of the fiscal 2022 defense appropriation bills on the House floor.

And today, under the guise of caring for our men and women in uniform, they’re attempting to use the Department of Defense as a means to an end, with the hopes of passing radical, irresponsible policies that will harm the American people. It’s disingenuous at best, and it breaks a longstanding tradition of bipartisan cooperation that has made this committee, and especially this subcommittee, specifically so effective.

Excessive spending on the domestic bills is irresponsible and will dangerously add to our national debt, which former chairman of the joint chiefs, Admiral Mullen, called top threat to our national security. These increases are also in addition to the massive spending spree that the Biden administration and this Congress have been on, which has directly led to massive inflation.

As a matter of fact, the number came out this morning, seven percent inflation this year, the highest number in almost 40 years, which is harming American families and, certainly, harming the Department of Defense. I’ll remind everyone that inflation is drastically harming DOD’s own buying power. When your account for COVID spending — when you account for COVID spending on national security — a national — on our national security, our entire — our entire spending on national security is 10 percent of that allotment, 10 percent.

The overwhelming majority of our spending goes towards domestic programs. As a ranking member of this subcommittee, I’ve remained firm in my resolve. We will fight to ensure a proper funding for the Department of Defense. It’s encouraging to hear reports that the majority is now considering supporting additional funds above the president’s misguided request for fiscal year 2022. It’s my hope we can avoid devastating impacts of — of — of a CR. We’ll hear about this today.

Committees — this committee’s storied reputation of bipartisan commonsense governing, I hope, will continue. Thank you for your service, and I look forward to your testimony. And with that, I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you, Mr. Calvert. And I certainly know that the words that you said were heartfelt, but I don’t think you meant to imply that any of us on this committee from the other side of the aisle are disingenuous. I would now recognize Chair DeLauro.

ROSA DELAURO:

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I want to thank you and the ranking member for holding this important hearing on the impact of continuing resolutions and what they have – – the kind of impact they have on the Department of Defense. I first want to just say a thank you — and Secretary of Defense Austin is not here this morning, but on December 6th, he issued a statement about the content of what we’re speaking about today and what the — how — what he described fiscally unsound way of funding the Department of Defense and government as a whole.

So, please, convey my thanks to him. I want to say a thank you to all of our witnesses today. It was amazing to me in reading through the testimony of the consistency of — of message here about what, in fact, occurs when we engage in continuing resolutions. If I might, and I don’t mean to slight the others, but, General Brown, thank you for your authorship of the book, “Accelerate Change or Lose,” that we must change so that we do not go backward.

The time for us has come. We need to go faster, and the time is now for us to be able to do that. And I appreciate the witnesses and their distinguished leaders of the military, coming to explain the consequences of what are, quite frankly, Congress’ failures. Madam Chair, you and I have worked closely for months to enact the defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2022.

But while — and- I, too, would agree with you that the members of this subcommittee are committed to a moving forward on the defense appropriations bill. But while the Democrats are ready to negotiate and complete our work, a number of our Republican colleagues have — they have not even — leadership hasn’t even offered a proposal of their own. And just — I have to say this, I wasn’t going to, but just to clarify the record, the fact of the matter is in the history of appropriations bills, the issues on whether you call them policy riders or poison pills or legacy riders, whatever you want to call them, that has been debated at the end of the process, that there has been the willingness on the part of Democrats and Republicans to come together and say, “Let us talk about the top line.

Let us move programmatically.” Because in order to achieve a bicameral bipartisan piece of legislation, those issues will be — will have to be resolved. So, the fact of who is — it’s not a question of pointing fingers, but they — Democratic proposals are out there. To date, there has not been one single document that outlines where our Republican colleagues want to go.

President Kennedy once said, “There are risks and costs to action. But they are far less than the long-range risks of comfortable inaction.”

We need action on full-year spending bills — funding bills now. The longer our colleagues get comfortable in their inaction, the greater the long-range risks will be for our nation. And as you are, Madam Chair, I’m particularly alarmed by the suggestion of some that they would prefer to fund the government under a full-year continuing resolution.

This would harm our military, stalling modernization efforts, readiness, capacity, recruitment, operation, and maintenance, impacting pay for our troops, and wasting billions in taxpayers’ dollar on capabilities we no longer need. After 20 years of war in Afghanistan have ended, we need to prepare for the security challenges of the future by modernizing weapons systems such as strengthening our hypersonic weapons and artificial intelligence capabilities.

A continuing resolution would have severely curtailed the transition to these modern high quality tools. Readiness is essential to the strength of our military. But as the testimony from our witnesses affirm, extended CRs, full-year CR would greatly impact our troops, their quality of life, their health care.

Under a continuing resolution, services would have to significantly curtail other personnel expenses, including potentially slashing the number of new recruits to provide a statutorily authorized pay raise. The witnesses in their testimony, they lay out, as I mentioned earlier, a consistent message that asserts that, already, there are serious consequences to the four-month delay of a budget agreement.

A full-year continuing resolution would keep platforms and systems that are no longer necessary in service, while blocking the start of new projects. It would reduce the buying power of the Defense Department, lock the Pentagon into last year’s spending such as for a war in Afghanistan we are no longer fighting.

There are few dollars, more egregious ways to waste the Americans — people’s hard-earned tax dollars. Finally, I’m deeply concerned about the impact of a full-year CR on the millions of jobs the defense industry sustains across the United States, and I ask unanimous consent to insert into a — into the record a letter from 11 defense trade associations, which puts the harmful consequences of a full-year CR in stark terms.

And I quote, “Defense industry workforces are subject to seemingly endless stop and start contract cycles, creating inefficiency and disruption that ripples through the defense supply chain with disproportionate effects on smaller companies.” The consequences of a full-year CR are simply unthinkable. To protect our national security, sustain American strength vis-a-vis China and Russia, and further American leadership around the world, we need a government funding agreement.

We need it now. And it is time for our Republican colleagues to join us, negotiate a bipartisan, bicameral funding agreement. I thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing, and I thank our witnesses once again. And I won’t deal with the quote now because I’ve already gone over my time, but I’m hopeful that Assistant Defense Secretary McCord will speak about this issue.

He has a great quote in his — in his testimony about our competition with Russia and China and what they do in terms of being competitive and what we do not do. I say thank you, and thank you to my colleagues for being here this morning, and I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you, Chair DeLauro. You had, you said, 11 letters to enter for the record?

ROSA DELAURO:

No. One letter that has been signed by 11 heads of the trade association.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

OK.

ROSA DELAURO:

Aerospace, air force.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

I just wanted to make sure I said the amount of letters correctly.

ROSA DELAURO:

That’s helpful.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

So, without objection, we will be entering that letter into the record.

ROSA DELAURO:

Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Now, I turn to Ranking Member Granger from Texas for her opening remarks. Ms. Granger.

KAY GRANGER:

Can I speak now? OK. Thank you, Chairman McCollum. As a longtime member and a former chair of this subcommittee, I’ve been proud of its history of bipartisanship. The members of this subcommittee care deeply about our national security that have been able to put partisan politics aside in order to ensure we provide the funding needed to protect our great nation.

Unfortunately, the Defense appropriations bill has fallen victim to partisan politics. I think we would all agree that no one here wants a continuing resolution, no one. That’s not our goal. However, Republicans will not allow the majority to ram through irresponsible spending and harmful policies in other parts of the government by using the Department of Defense as a political weapon.

My position should not come as a surprise to anyone. During Full Committee and subcommittee markups, I made it clear that House Republicans would not support any bills unless the majority remove poison pills, reinstated long-standing riders, and address the disparity between defense and nondefense spending.

Those two — three issues have been for the past two years as a part of this. But instead of working across the aisle to get our work done, the majority drafted unrealistic, irresponsible appropriations bills, many of which contain the most partisan policies I have seen since I have been in Congress. For example, the FY ’22 Labor, Health and Human Services bill includes a staggering 36 percent increase over current levels.

The majority also remove long-standing bipartisan pro-life protections that have been included for decades. The list goes on and on. As appropriators, we know it takes bipartisan cooperation to craft spending bills that will be signed into law. Counter to what the majority has said, Republicans are ready and willing to negotiate.

We simply asked that the majority agree to the same terms that it will — have allowed us to complete our work quickly in the past, draw a controversial language and restore long-standing provisions. If majority would agree to these terms, I will clear my schedule, and I’m happy to begin negotiations immediately following this hearing.

Madam Chair, I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Bottom line is people need to get to the table and talk to each other, and that — that — that is leadership in both the House and the Senate. So, I’m going to turn to our witnesses now, and I — we don’t pick favorites. I don’t pick favorites, especially on my side of the family. When my father was Army Air Corps, I never picked a favorite between the two of them.

So, we’re going to start with the service chiefs. We’re going to go in alphabetical order then followed by the Vice Chiefs Martin and McCord. Your full statements are going to be entered into the record, so I ask you to limit your remarks to no more than five minutes. Undersecretary McCord, you are first.

MIKE MCCORD:

[Audio gap] and also Chair DeLauro and Ranking Member Granger. Thank you, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today along with our leaders from the services on the importance of getting full-year appropriations rather than seeing continued extensions of the current continuing resolution or CR. In particular, I want to express our concerns about the potential for a full-year CR, which is something the department has never been forced to operate under.

Our military leaders are going to speak in more detail about specific impacts on their services and their people. But let me begin with some points that are of concern across the department to amplify the point Secretary Austin made in his statement of December 6th, 2021, which I would ask the chair that you allow it to be inserted in the record of this hearing also.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Without objection.

MIKE MCCORD:

Thank you. A full-year CR, Chair and members, would — would move us in the wrong direction and leave us stuck in the wrong place. First, if you want us to be more competitive with our adversaries, it’s going to make us less so. If you want us to be more agile, a CR has the opposite effect. It would undermine our — your support of our men and women in uniform and their families.

Finally, Congress, in passing the recently enacted FY ’22 defense authorization bill was voting in part to increase DOD funding. If that is what Congress wants, enacting a full-year CR would send our — our top line down, not up. Let me now briefly expand on a few of these concerns. First, as I believe you are all aware, a full-year CR would reduce our funding level below what we requested than what we believe we need.

On the surface, at the department level as a whole, the reduction to our accounts would appear to be about $8 billion below our request, which would be significant even if that was the only impact. The actual reduction in practice will be much greater because we would have significant funding that’s misaligned trapped or frozen in the wrong places and unusable because we don’t have the tools or flexibility to realign funds on anything like the scale we would need to fix all the problems that the chiefs are going to describe.

To cite one major example, although it’s a different subcommittee, I know all of you are very familiar with the fact that virtually all military construction projects in each year’s budget, including the FY ’22 budget, are new stars that cannot be executed under a CR. In this specific case, that’s over 100 projects and over $5 billion in funding that would be unusable.

So, that’s one example of — on top of the 8 billion that it looks like at — at the gross level when you get down in the details. If you add the impacts of this unusable funding to the straight loss of purchasing power under a CR, the real impacts on our operations probably will double or triple the impact of the cuts as we go into the procurement and the research and development accounts to calculate all the funding tied to individual program rate increases or new starts that we would not be able to execute leaving those funds stranded.

Not every acquisition program would be restricted, and impacts would be very uneven. Some programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent would be delayed significantly by the cuts imposed by a CR, while others such as the procurement of two Virginia-class submarines might be relatively unaffected.

The most damaging impacts would be on those who deserve it least — our servicemembers and their families. The biggest tolls would be in our military personnel accounts and our training and readiness accounts. Our military personnel accounts will be funded $5 billion below our requested level under a CR. Yet, inside those flat funding levels, as several members have noted, we would have to absorb the cost of a well-deserved pay raise and other statutory housing and subsistence increases for the troops. 

This means that within — within a flat number absorbing a pay raise, we will be forced to take actions such as delaying and suspending permanent change of station moves for our people, and delaying accessions of new troops, which would disrupt our training pipeline. In the operating accounts, where a CR would leave us another 5.3 billion below our requested levels, we would almost certainly have to defer training and readiness and take greater risk in our facilities maintenance, especially if we endeavor to avoid any furloughs of our civilian workforce because civilian pay is a very large part of the operating accounts.

We also have an issue with military health care. This account would be short by over a billion dollars compared to our request. Yet, we have no ability to control the demand for health care by our beneficiaries, nor would we wish to, especially during a pandemic. So, people show up to the doctor, we have to pay that bill.

Some might ask, well, can’t we address these issues by reprogramming funds to solve our biggest problems? First, the committees have never approved a reprogramming during a continuing resolution. If we get past that issue, as we would need to, under a yearlong CR, just to fix one high-impact problem such as the billion-dollar shortfall in the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent program, would consume 25 percent of the $4 billion in transfer authority available to me for the entire department for the entire year.

And yet, I would still have dozens of other CR-imposed problems to address. The idea that being under a continuing resolution into January or February is not unusual, and that a full year CR is now considered a serious possibility, did not come from nowhere. And I believe it’s important just to take a moment to step back from this current situation and look at the broader context.

We’ve been slowly boiling this frog for a number of years, and we may not fully appreciate what’s been happening. For the 20 years that followed the end of the Cold War, from fiscal years 1991 through 2010, the date of enactment of the defense appropriations bill averaged 24 days into the fiscal year, or less than a month late.

But since the enactment of the Budget Control Act in FY 2011, the 10 years of the BCA that then followed that enactment, and now this first year after the BCA, that average has ballooned to 118 days late over the last 12 years, assuming that we can land this plane on February 18th this year. The sixth longest CRs in the history of the Defense Department have all occurred in this last 12-year period.

We have turned a 12-month fiscal year into an eight-month fiscal year in terms of our ability to initiate new starts and enter contracts. This should be unacceptable and not the new normal. It’s hard to see this full impact because — or the inefficiency from looking from outside because the organization has, of course, adapted to its circumstances, just as organisms do. Nobody plans to enter into contracts in the first quarter of fiscal year now because the odds that we would actually be able to do so are so low.

Therefore, we, in turn, have no significant contract delays to report to you when we’re under a CR. In addition to the direct consequences of a CR, including with the inefficiency, the disruption to our people and our operations, and reduction in the resources that I have described, we should not forget that inflation is also eating into our funding while our funding remains on hold, as Mr. Calvert noted.

For example, I’ve had to improve — approved two increases in our fuel prices this year already, first on October 1st and the second one on January 1st, in order to keep our — our working capital fund solvent. So, this has created a bill of $1.5 billion to the services for FY ’22 in addition to the reductions that we already have described.

And finally, to be clear, the department is not alone in this regard. We recognize that. In fact, we have been treated better over the years than some other agencies. The Department of Health and Human Services is on the front lines against the COVID-19 pandemic. We have a tax on our critical infrastructure and natural disasters that we expect the Department of Homeland Security to respond to. We have to ensure our children get the quality education they need to become the trained and capable workforce of tomorrow.

So, we can’t afford to run the federal government, any agency on a long year — on a yearlong CR. Our competitors, China and Russia, in particular, use all the pieces on the chessboard to compete with us, not just their military assets. We’re competing on the diplomatic front, the economic front, the military front, innovation, and technology.

If we take this competition seriously, as we should, and as our adversaries do, then we cannot afford to continue acting this way. Time is money, and year after year, we’re giving away time in these lengthy CRs. We do not have such an insurmountable edge on our competitors that we can afford to keep doing this.

Let me close, Chair, and turn over to our military leaders for more specifics by quoting what Secretary Austin said last month, “I strongly urge Congress to seize this opportunity to sustain American competitiveness, advance American leadership, and enable our forces by immediately reaching a bipartisan, bicameral agreement on full-year FY ’22 appropriations.

It’s not only the right thing to do but it’s the best thing that they can do for our nation’s defense.” With that, I look forward to your questions once all the witnesses have concluded their statements. Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you very much and thank you for the accessibility. Our office — and I know other offices that serve on this committee have had questions, especially during the seriousness of the Afghan refugees. Thank you very much for your — your work and your professionalism. General Berger, your next.

DAVID BERGER:

Chairwoman McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, Chair DeLauro, and Ranking Member Granger, and the other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thanks for the opportunity to appear before you today. Last spring, at the FY ’22 Posture Hearing, I updated this really on force design effort. The Marine Corps began in 2019. We’re now two and a half years into that major effort.

Force Design 2030 is how your Marine Corps is adjusting for the future in order to match the operating environment and withstand kind of our adversaries. With that in mind, I’d offer three ways that a yearlong continuing resolution, which as noted, we’ve never had before, would have a much greater adverse impact than the previous year’s continuing resolutions, and I’ll start with people, your Marines, and their families.

Now, if we were in a conscript course, we wouldn’t worry much about the impact of an extended CR. An all-volunteer force, on the other hand, relies on volunteers. Volunteers to enlist, volunteers to stay in service. CRs eat away at the trust those Marines and their families have in their government. With no appropriations, I will have to delay and cancel some transfer orders; the incentive pays and bonuses reduced; families won’t know whether to renew their housing leases; spouses won’t know whether to accept the job offer they got last week all due to uncertainty.

The impacts on recruiting and retention will last, I’m confident, well beyond 2022 because you cannot rebuild trust in a week or a month or a year, not in an all-volunteer force. Second, for the Marine Corps, impacts on modernization and the industrial base were especially acute, as a result of force design decisions I’ve taken over the past two years.

We’ve already divested [inaudible] and begun to reinvest in them, which was a prudent plan that this committee recommended I take, and each of you has fully supported to date. Continuing resolutions, however, look in one direction backward. They execute last year’s budget against this year’s priorities. CRs effectively prevent modernization at speed, the speed required for us to keep up the pace that our adversaries have set and sustained.

And here’s the thing about that. We actually stand to be outpaced by China, not because of their speed but because of our failure to comply with our own budgetary processes. Time is the one critical resource, as the undersecretary pointed out, we need to effect real change, and no amount of resources in the future can fight back lost time.

Under a full-year CR, we will delay acquisition of critical Marine Corps Force Design programs. MQ-9A procurement won’t happen. Production increases for F-35Bs, KC-130Js, CH53K aircraft. The Amphibious Combat Vehicle won’t happen. Workers in Southern California; York, Pennsylvania; Dallas-Fort Worth; Camden, Arkansas; Tucson, Arizona; Stratford, Connecticut; and a dozen other locations will be affected. 

Those workers need predictability. Actually, there is one predictable outcome of a yearlong CR, and that is that those workers will go elsewhere because they have families to support. Third, we face the prospect of losing the trust and confidence of our allies and partners because commanders will have to scale back its scheduled exercises they have for this year.

And in some cases, they’ll need to cancel. Well, that’s only relevant if your national security strategy depends on allies and partners; ours does. Trust is a big part of what keeps the door open with our partners. Once that door closes, it’s really hard to recover from the damage done to the military relationships.

We should anticipate that some of them will begin to look elsewhere for more reliable, dependable partner. One final point. Sadly, as pointed out, as a military, we’ve become accustomed to a process that fails to deliver a budget on time. And over the past decade of CRs, we’ve learned how to adjust our operating and contracting practices for the continuing resolution that we just assume is going to happen [Audio gap] at behaving badly.

If the past 10 budget cycles are prolonged, we’ll be meeting here again next year to talk about the same things. During that time, the Chinese will launch more than a dozen new surface combatants. They’ll launch patrol craft carrier, capable of carrying long-range anti-ship cruise missiles. They’ll field additional squadrons of fifth-generation aircraft.

We can’t afford to have that meeting here next year. Service chiefs need sufficient, stable, predictable funding to stay in front of our pacing threat to deter our adversaries, and if need be, to fight and win. We haven’t taken any of these extreme actions, not yet. This train wreck in front of us is entirely preventable.

Again, thanks for the opportunity to appear here this morning, and I look forward to your questions.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you, sir. Admiral Gilday, you’re up next, please.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify with my fellow service chiefs this morning. And Mr. McCord as well. The peace dividend has long passed. We are now in a relentless race with peer competitor.

Every day matters in this critical decade. In the face of a rising China, Navy’s top line, in other words, our buying power has been relatively flat for more than a decade. A yearlong CR will cost us time that can’t be recovered and have irreversible impact to some of our most important programs. This is exacerbated during a time when we’re still fighting the pandemic, as well as, as Ranking Member Calvert mentioned, a seven percent inflation rate on a budget, 60 percent of which already rises above the rate of inflation.

I’d like to briefly summarize what I see as the major impacts in three areas. The first is strategically, the impacts of a yearlong CR will further erode our ability to credibly deter our adversaries. A yearlong CR will yield a smaller, less ready, less capable, and less lethal United States Navy. It will have significant impacts to readiness, modernization, and shipbuilding.

The work that we are pursuing, the once-in-a-century work on our public shipyards will come to a stop. The work that we are doing to invest in a new SSBN, the most survivable leg of our strategic triad, will be put at risk. This [Audio gap]

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Sir, you’ve lost your audio, if you can hear me.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Can you hear me now?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

I can hear you now. Thank you.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

I mentioned the impacts on the Columbia program, our SSBN, the most survivable leg of the triad, and the fact that that program has no margin as it replaces submarines that have been in the water for four decades. And lastly, importantly, game-changing investments that we’re making in hypersonics and laser weapons will also be impacted.

The second area the commandant covered, I’ll briefly cover as well and that’s people, will reduce the sections by almost 75 percent and will delay or cancel a change of station moves by more than 50 percent. As the commandant mentioned, families have already been planning for that. Spouses have already been accepting jobs or planning to relocate.

We will withhold reenlistment bonuses and special incentive bonuses that keep our best sailors and their families in the United States Navy. And importantly, we will exacerbate a say-do gap that risks breaking trust, that further risks breaking trust with sailors and their families. And the last area that I think is important to highlight at least for the Navy is the impact on the defensive industrial base.

The impact of COVID and inflation, as I’ve already mentioned, will be magnified by a yearlong CR. It’ll hurt shipbuilders, it’ll hurt aircraft manufacturers and small innovative high-tech companies in all of your districts that have made significant investments on their own in both infrastructure and their workforce to make us a stronger, more capable military.

As others have stated, we are well accustomed to adjusting to short-term CRs as much as they are inefficient and costly, but we’ve become good at it. A yearlong CR is a completely new territory that we have not dealt with before. It will have significant impacts across our military. Our Navy is grateful for the subcommittee’s support, and I look forward to fielding your questions. Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you very much for your testimony. General Raymond, please.

JOHN RAYMOND:

Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify virtually with Mr. McCord and my fellow service chiefs. I also want to thank this committee for your continued leadership and support of the guardians, who I’m privileged to serve alongside with.

The primary focus of the Space Force is to deliver capabilities that give our forces the freedom to maneuver in the time, place, and domain of our choosing. That includes land, sea, air, cyber, and space. We are working to do this at speed, focusing on our core missions and working closely with this committee as we stand up this force.

As you know, space is a contested domain. Threats are increasing and adversaries are challenging our dominance. China recently launched a hypersonic glide vehicle and a fractional — in a fractional orbit, likely capable of delivering weapons. If we can’t track it, we can’t defeat it. Russia’s recent anti-satellite test, which shattered a defunct Russian satellite into thousands of pieces of debris, also threatened the freedom of our forces to operate in the time and place of our choosing.

Our adversaries are accelerating. This is not the time to be slowing the development and fielding of modernized capabilities for our forces. Please allow me to detail how a long-term CR will hurt our ability to address these and other threats. A yearlong CR would reduce the Space Force’s top-line budget by $2 billion, slowing modernization, decreasing readiness, and impacting our ability to compete and deter with China and Russia.

It would decrease research and development for resilient missile warning and missile tracking. It will — and for space domain awareness, protected satellite communications, and precision navigation and timing, all of which are critical capabilities that the joint force needs to operate effectively. It would slow our ability to manage risk and inform future force designs, delaying our ability to modernize to resilient and more mission-capable architectures in the face of growing threats.     

It would cut the procurement of two of five planned national security space launch missions, delaying our ability to place previously acquired capability on orbit and putting at risk the cost savings of the National Space Launch Program. It would cut — excuse me, it would cut $800 million intended for the development of classified operational systems designed to deter China and Russia and respond if deterrence fails.

And I can fully describe these capabilities in a closed session. And lastly, most important, it would break trust with our guardians and their families. Because we were established as a lean, mission-focused force, we continue to rely on the Air Force’s airmen and family programs to support our guardians.

General Brown will describe negative impacts to pay, recruiting, retention, airmen programs, all of which would have long-term lasting effects on our guardians and their families as well. A continuing resolution will undoubtedly have negative impacts across the entirety of the joint force, but the effects of the Space Force are particularly acute as we stand up. It would seriously compromise our ability to enhance unity of effort and efficiency, generate mission-ready forces, and deliver the new capabilities the joint force needs to deter and prevail.

Thank you for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you very much. We will now turn to General Brown. General Brown, please.

CHARLES BROWN:

Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, Chair DeLauro, Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify with Mr. McCord and my fellow service chiefs and to testify on behalf of the 689,000 total force airmen of the United States Air Force. As the nation’s 22nd Air Force chief of staff, I’m humbled to uphold my responsibility to ensure our airmen in our Air Force remain the greatest in the world, both today and tomorrow.

So, actually in my position, I wrote “Accelerate Change or Lose.” Over the last 17 months, I’ve made collaboration a priority to enable acceleration. Back since August of 2020, I’ve engaged with Congress members and staffers nearly 200 times because I believe we must work together on our Air Force’s future and our nation’s security.

I’m pleased that Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act made significant progress. But as you understand, the goals of this important policy will be unrealized absent the dedicated service of this committee and their counterparts to pass an appropriation bill. Unfortunately, a yearlong continuing resolution would stall progress towards today’s readiness and tomorrow’s modernization.

Bottom line, it would have devastating impacts on the Air Force’s ability to retain quality airmen, maintain our readiness, and modernize for tomorrow. Specifically, we would lose $3.5 billion in purchasing power if held to fiscal 2021 budget policy. As much as this affects Air Force physically, the impact it has on our rate of change is more shattering.

Time is irrecoverable. And when you’re working to keep pace against well-resourced and focused competitors, time matters. The yearlong continuing resolution would hinder our airmen’s readiness, resilience, and retention. If held to fiscal year 2021 funding, the Air Force’s military personnel account could lose up to $1 billion.

Critical annual and professional military training for gun reserve airmen will be curtailed or canceled. Vital funding for airmen and guardian programs, programs addressing sexual assault and harassment, suicide prevention, diversity, and inclusion can also be eliminated at a time when they’re most needed.

Additionally, it can eliminate central incentive and retention bonuses, eroding airmen’s trust across current and future multiple-year groups. The yearlong CR could force reductions in our flying hour program, weapons systems sustainment, and facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization accounts.

It can also slow down and/or freeze hiring of civilians, all impacting Air Force capability, capacity, and readiness. The yearlong CR could impact billions of dollars in worldwide military construction, 78 new start programs for active guardian reserve components for programs such as the Ground Based Strategic Deterrent, B-21, KC-46, F-35, F-16, and C-130. Further, it will affect vital mission growth at the Air Force base in four states, Air National Guard location across nine states.

Four areas of modernization I want to highlight are the nuclear enterprise, advanced weapons, air dominance platforms, enterprise information technology structure. A yearlong CR could irreversibly delay Ground Based Strategic Deterrent’s initial operating capability past 2029, Long Range Stand Off Weapon by over a year, and the conventional initial operating capability and nuclear certification of the B-21 up to a year.

Additionally, the advancement of our two conventional hypersonic weapons could be prevented. I’d like to point out that our pacing challenges have either modernized our nuclear enterprise and/or our fielding hypersonic systems. Meanwhile, we are still in the beginning phases of both. Moreover, funding for Next Generation Air Dominance, our sixth-generation tactical aircraft system, enabling future air superiority could be reduced.

Finally, vital funding to enterprise information technology modernization could be eliminated, increasing network vulnerability and impacting our contribution to Joint All-Domain Command and Control infrastructure. Although a yearlong CR would decrease our funding, the greater loss will be time. Time that can — we could have spent accelerating today’s readiness and tomorrow’s modernization.

Meanwhile, our competitors’ rate of change is enabling them to approach parity with many of our warfighting capabilities and concepts. A yearlong CR will further erode our advantage and impede the Air Force’s acceleration towards the force of tomorrow. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today, and I look forward to your questions.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you so much, General. And now, we will hear from General Martin. Please, sir, the time is yours.     

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Chair McCollum, Ranking Member Calvert, Chair DeLauro, and Ranking Member Granger, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, on the behalf of the secretary of the Army, the Honorable Christine Wormuth; and the chief of staff of the Army, General James McConville, thank you for inviting me here today to testify and discuss the impact of continuing resolutions under the part of the Army.

And I also want to especially thank you for recognizing the service of General Odierno. It’s a huge loss. The Army, by doctrine, is the nation’s initial response force to emerging threats. Last year, the Army contributed over 50 percent of the joint forces provided to combatant commanders and 66 percent of the composite directed readiness tables supporting operational planning requirements.

This included responding to and providing continued support through the COVID-19 pandemic, civil unrest, natural disasters, support of our southern border, and the security of the national capital. Total joint emergent costs to the FY ’21 Global Force Management Allocation Plan were $2.8 billion, of which the Army contributed $1.6 billion or 56 percent of the total emergent costs.

The Army responded to these unforeseen requirements, all while continuing to deter aggression abroad, strengthen relationships with allies and partners, conduct counterterrorism operations around the world, and maintain the readiness of our soldiers and our DAC civilians in preparation for the next mission whatever that may be. Simultaneously, to keep pace with any potential adversaries, we’re currently undergoing the most significant transformation effort in the past 40 years to provide the joint force with the most capable and lethal land army in the world.

The ability of the Army to accomplish these diverse tasks wouldn’t be possible without the support from Congress, and we sincerely thank you for that. However, readiness is fragile, and I can’t emphasize enough how important timely, adequate, predictable, and sustained funding is to keeping the Army at the highest state of readiness possible because who knows what tomorrow will bring.     

Over the past 10 years, the Department of Defense has started all but one fiscal year under a CR. Although we’ve adapted our business practices to maneuver through this fiscal uncertainty and the effects of the short-duration CRs, a full-year CR would adversely affect our soldiers, our readiness, our modernization program, and our infrastructure improvement efforts.

Monetarily, we assessed that total impact of the Army under a yearlong CR could be as high as $12.9 billion. The impact is even larger when considering the effects of inflation. Included in this number are misaligned funds, as well as funding spread across military pay, research, and acquisition programs, military construction projects, and family housing initiatives.

A few impacts to readiness include pilot readiness due to reduced aviation flying hours, also to base operations support, and a decreased ability to send soldiers to professional military education and properly maintain proficiency in our formations and maintain the readiness of the equipment that they use.

A full-year CR would severely impact our ability to modernize to meet tomorrow’s challenges. The combined effect of delays in procurement and prototype advancement on top of a disruption in timelines for development and construction of critical army and joint technologies may very well create a cumulative impact to our modernization initiatives that would be difficult to overcome.

This includes potential impacts to modernization of our organic industrial base. In summary, a yearlong CR would cause severe impacts to the Army’s ability to care for our soldiers and our families, to our readiness and capability to respond to emerging operational requirements, and to our ability to make the necessary funding decisions required to modernize our force.

The Army strongly urges Congress to pass all FY ’22 appropriation bills to avoid the complex and undesirable effects of a yearlong CR. Again, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify before you today, and I look forward to answering your questions.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you so much, General Martin, and thank you for stepping in. Once again, I just want to reiterate, I truly believe it is the wish, the desire, the — the commitment from our entire committee, both sides of the aisle, not to have a yearlong CR and to get our job done. Before we turn to other member questions, I want to enter into the record Secretary Austin’s statement from December, as well as a letter from several defense trade groups, a statement from the Aerospace Industries Association, a letter from the National Defense Industrial Association on the harmful impacts a full-year CR would have on our national security.

So, without objection, those letters will be entered. Now, I’m going to turn to questions, and, as has been the custom and usage, the ranking member and I sometimes go a little over five minutes. So, we haven’t had a timer on, but I do have the timer running on my — my iPhone, so I don’t abuse the — the opportunity that our other committee members have given Mr. Calvert and I. And I’m going to extend that same courtesy to the Full Committee chair and to the Full Committee ranking member when we start with questions.

So, I’m going to start first. And the top line to a full CR would technically stay the same as has been pointed out, but things like pay raises and inflation, as long with funds, that simply could not be spent in 2022, such as $3 billion for Afghan security forces mean that DOD and the services would actually face substantial cuts from 2021 to 2022. And you’ve had that in your testimony, but I just want to reiterate it. A full yearlong CR is a cut, and none of us on this subcommittee want that to happen in such a callous way.

Additionally, the department would lose out on the substantial increase that would be negotiated by a full-year omnibus bill, and I believe we would have a bill that we would all be proud of and would serve the service as well. Undersecretary McCord, I would like to ask you. Does the department have an estimate as to how much funding would essentially be lost under a full-year CR due to cost increases and funds that would not be spent?

MIKE MCCORD:

We would estimate that the lost purchasing power is more on the order of triple the $8 billion account level, only for the reasons that you cite, the military construction, the Afghanistan, other funds that some of the witnesses have to — have included in their testimony that are estimated to be misaligned.

It is very difficult to get a precise number because you have to go down to a program level all across the department. But at the — at the more general level, about triple the $8 billion.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Generals and Admiral, in some of your testimony, you mentioned how this would really affect modernization and our capabilities vis-a-vis Russia and China, as well as our inability to reduce funding for weapons systems that you would prefer to ramp down spending on 2022. Would any of you like to take another minute to either reemphasize or add to your testimony on that?

JOSEPH MARTIN:

This is General Martin, vice chief of staff of the Army. I’d be happy to.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Please, sir.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Specifically, as it pertains to modernization, a yearlong CR would delay modernization to counter Russia, China persistent threats, and impact our industry partners, and delay modernizing our industrial facilities. There’s second, third effects when you talk about supply chains and everything else.

But for new starts, we have 71 programs that’ll be affected by a yearlong CR. For procurement delays, we have 29 and at developmental days — procurement delays — those are equipment that we planned on procuring. And then developmental delays, research and development activities associated with programs, there’s 32 of them.  

Additionally, there’s an impact to the Army-owned industrial facilities where we had planned on modernizing our organic industrial base as part of a 15-year plan. And those activities for this year would not be able to happen and would subsequently be delayed. And so, that would be deferred work. But I’ll tell you, it’s a compounding effect because, Chair, we also would have to, next year, re-prioritize those projects, which means that they could potentially bump another project.

So, it’s almost a double effect on the industrial base, and for that matter, all of those programs that I described. Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Is there anyone else who briefly would like to add something? We do have your full testimony, or you can submit something for the record later.

CHARLES BROWN:

Chair McCollum, General Brown. We have so many new starts for the Air Force, but I would highlight particularly our nuclear portfolio, each of the key aspects, the GBSD, LRSO, the B-21, will be delayed anywhere from a year up to 24 months. I would also add our Next Generation Air Dominance would — delayed by about two years.

It’ll also impact F-35 by a year. And so, it’s a — it has a compounding impact, just as General Martin described, not just to us but also when you think about what our adversaries are doing and how they’re pacing out. It’s important that we stay on track.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. And as Mr. McCord pointed out, all these delays will end up making things cost more, and it’s an inefficient use of taxpayers’ dollars. I’m going to move on to the president’s pay proposal, the 2.7 percent for all military personnel that went into effect on January 1st. The cost of the pay increase across the services is more than $2 billion in 2022. And the military pay raise is an — is — automatically went into effect at the start of the calendar year.  But under a full continuing resolution, that’s not budgeted for. But for the record, both Democrats and Republicans on this subcommittee fully support, and we have in — in my bill the cost covered for the bill for the pay raise. Could you speak briefly to what the military pay raise, by doing that, how that’s going to really impact you under a full year?

Because not only some of you mentioned that they’re going to get the raise, but the other things that go along with the job that they’re looking forward to are going to be delayed because of the CR. And how that would affect recruitment and retention, which, as was pointed out by General Berger, is very important to an all-voluntary army.

MIKE MCCORD:

Chair, let me just make a brief comment that — because of this problem is pretty consistent across the services before I ask them to comment any other detail. Exactly as you state, the – – by definition, under a CR, the amount and the personnel accounts is flat. And so, the pay raise costs have to be absorbed.

The accounts themselves are flexible, but that doesn’t mean that we have good choices within that flexibility. We’re going to have to look at accessions as have been mentioned. And PCS moves for our troops is probably the first and least disruptive things we could do. And then some of the chiefs have mentioned, there’s other things that might be the next things that we’d have to do that are more distasteful, the bonuses.

But again, within a flat account, we have to do something within — within the personnel accounts to absorb costs and find some other way to save money. And that’s going to have to be impacting our troops in another way.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. If any of the other gentlemen would like to add something, that’s fine. Other than that — yes? Did somebody wish to be recognized?

JOHN RAYMOND:

Chair McCollum, this is General Raymond.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

General Raymond, you’re recognized.

JOHN RAYMOND:

You know, one of the — one of the biggest benefits that we’ve realized after establishing the Space Force is our ability to attract incredible talent. This talent is highly technical. It’s highly educated, and it’s sought after. And they have other options. And if we enter into this delay and have to reduce accessions and put hiring freezes in place to help pay for the muchneeded and deserved pay raise, they’re going to go to other places.

And those are people that we will not be able to get back. So, to do that, we’re going to have to come up with ways as discussed — putting hiring freezes in place, potentially, reducing accessions, cutting PCS travel. It’s going to impact not just the guardians but also their families.

Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. And I think you all did a great job of mentioning that. With that, I am going to turn it over to Ranking Member Calvert with the notion that I had — I was six minutes and — well, I’m going to round up. I was about seven minutes. So, that — that’s going to be the max for — for the next three speakers, questioners. Mr. Calvert.

KEN CALVERT:

Thank you, Madam Chair. And for the record, I’d like to say that BCA was certainly a disaster for the Department of Defense. And two, no one wants a CR. And I know you don’t.  I don’t. Most responsible people don’t. And we’d all want to get this done by February 18th. I think that’s — I think that, at the very latest, we need to get this done.

So, I’m going to emphasize again, let’s strip these poison pills, let’s put the legacy riders back in, and let’s just talk about numbers. Higher defense number, lower non-defense discretionary account — let me define pay raise as we talk about that. Obviously, the pay raise that we — that we’re anticipating is really a down payment on inflation because, let’s face it, we’re not keeping pace with inflation with a seven percent inflation rate and rising.

We may end up with eight to 10 percent inflation in the next — in the next year according to some economists. So, let me get to what’s happening to — to our defense spending. It’s no secret. This hearing is at — is, obviously, on an unclassified level. It’s broadcast on the internet. There’s no doubt that our enemies are watching at the present time.

While we are frozen, unable to properly provide for our nation’s defense, our adversaries are planning to react accordingly. Admiral Gilday, please give this committee your assessment, a probable Chinese activity regarding Taiwan over the next year and what an invasion of the island would mean for the — for America and its allies.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Ranking Member Calvert, thank you. So, I mentioned up front in my comments that what the CR does — what the CR yields for the nation is a smaller, less-ready, less-capable, lesslethal Navy. We need to be forward to matter. We need to be in the way to matter. That means we need to be in the western Pacific, and we need to be there in numbers.

And so, being able to sustain the numbers that the INDOPACOM commander needs in a day-to-day basis, both Navy and Marine forces, as well as the other services, is going to be challenged by cuts to our operation — operations and maintenance accounts. I’d also say that there are some risk there when we talk about — for example, one of the chiefs talked about cuts to flying hours.  With that usually comes an increase in mishap rates. So, the less you train, the more likely you are to make mistakes. And so, there’s compounding problems here that we’re going to have to deal with. But I think — you know, I also talked about the fact that this makes us a less-credible — it presents a less-credible deterrent to any type of opportunistic behavior by Russia and China.

And it’s not just China in the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, but we just have to look east right now to what’s going on on the Russian — Russia-Ukrainian border and the potential for significant activity there as well.

KEN CALVERT:

Yeah, I was glad you brought that up, Admiral. I was going to ask General Martin to give the committee his assessment on probable Russian activity regarding Ukraine over the next few months and what further invasion into the country would mean for America and its allies, especially the first ground war since the end of World War II.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Congressman, thank you. What I’ll tell you is we’re in the business of making sure that never happens. And so, to do that, we need predictable, adequate, timely, and sustained funding over time. And in order to do that, we’ve got to have soldiers who are ready today for tomorrow’s challenges.

Who knew that we would be conducting the NEO operation out of Afghanistan last year? Who knew that we’d be in Ethiopia this year? Who knew that we’d be doing Operation Allies Welcome? Those are all expressions of the Army’s ability to provide ready forces to respond to things that happen in the world. As it pertains to securing this nation’s interests, we need a ready army. And so, we need that consistent, predictable funding in order to be able to do that.

For our readiness accounts, we’ve asked for more money in ’22. And many of these subactivity groups that we did in ’21, we won’t be able to use that money to do that. And so, our units as we speak in month four of a 12-year plan — budget are — are executing their training, but it’s not at the level that we planned on doing because we don’t have all of the funding that we should have gotten with the ’22 budget.

So, even right now, if we stop the CR today, there’s been a four-month impact in the United States Army. There’s also the — the — the supply chain that provides parts to our forces that’s impacted by this because they expected to execute so many — so much operational activity this year. And with that decrease, there’s an impact on our ability to forecast sales within the working capital fund and make contracts between that entity and contractors and suppliers across this country.

And so, it’s a huge impact when we can’t predict accurately, exactly how much money we’re going to have, and we change what we’re planning to do because we’re all about building readiness in the United States Army, Congressman.

KEN CALVERT:

Thank you. Lastly, General Brown is [inaudible] referred to Rummel. I read the book, and I read — in the process of reading your book, “Accelerate Change or Lose,” we’re clearly not accelerating. So, what’s at stake, and how are our adversaries are taking advantage of our inability to adapt to the current threat environment, especially in space?

CHARLES BROWN:

I’ll actually probably have to defer to General Raymond on space, but I’ll just tell you from — from the Air Force perspective, the thing I do think about, Ranking Member Calvert, is the aspect of our adversaries are increasing their capability. It puts us at a disadvantage. And — and by slowing down our pace of acquiring capability, maintaining our readiness, taking care of our airmen and families has an impact to be able — to be able to [inaudible] we don’t get the situation that General Martin just described vis-a-vis Russia and Ukraine.

I’ll just — if you don’t mind, I’ll turn to General Raymond on space.     

JOHN RAYMOND:

On the space capability, sir, we’re — we remain the best in the world in space. We’ve got incredible, exquisite capabilities, but they are built for a different domain. They’re built for a benign domain without a threat. The domain that we see today is — is threat from a full — full spectrum of threats, everything from a reversible jamming to kinetic destruction as demonstrated by Russia.

We have to modernize. We have to make that shift, and we are losing time. That’s why this — not having a CR is so critical to us. We have to move out, modernize a more resilient, defendable architecture that can meet the demands of a contested domain.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

KEN CALVERT:

Thank you. I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

And, Mr. Calvert, you and I were — we’re right — right in the sweet spot with the same amount of time. So, now I will turn to full — full chair of the Appropriations Committee, Ms. DeLauro.

ROSA DELAURO:

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to make a comment first before my questions. The debate over riders is going to occur, and as far as I know about negotiating, an ultimatum is not — is not negotiating. As has been in the fast — in the past, there will be a very robust debate around policy issues and riders.

And, you know, the fact is I may not get everything that I want, and you might not get everything that you want. But that is about a negotiation, and that means that you need to come to the table to have that conversation. And as I said, to date, there has not been a single piece of paper outlining what it is that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle would like.

There has to be a discussion, especially, and looking at why would we jeopardize our national security. There’s already been a four-month delay and, as has been described, causing serious consequences and our adversaries gaining an advantage. And with that, let me ask those who have not really addressed the issue of the importance of recruiting and retraining and — in order to recruit and to retain the best fighting force.

We — when we talk about military readiness, each of the services faces a unique challenge on the military personnel side, whether you’ve got a pilot shortage or appropriately manning ships. So how would — and I want to ask those who have not answered this question. How would a full year see or impact the services — your services’ ability to recruit and to retain the force you need to meet the challenges that our nation is facing?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

[inaudible] being respectful of one another, so who would ever like to go first.

ROSA DELAURO:

That’s right. Don’t be shy.

DAVID BERGER:

Ma’am, this is General Berger.

ROSA DELAURO:

Yes.

DAVID BERGER:

I think probably for us, no different than the other services. If you have a fixed bank account and you — you have the force that you have, the inflation has gone up, and you have a pay raise, then you’re going to slow down recruiting. And what does that mean? That means that the recruiter in Iowa or Colorado or Pennsylvania is going to have to tell the people that they’re working with, “I can’t bring you onto — I can’t bring you onto active duty.

I can’t recruit you now. Can you please wait eight, 10, 12 months? And then we can bring you on.” And as my peers mentioned, of course, they can’t wait. They’re — you know, they need jobs. They’re going to go look for work elsewhere. So, they’re very — the war for talent, the -that is the — that is the world today.

They are not going to wait, just as General Raymond said. But I think the recruiter — at the recruiter level, at the bottom level, they’re going to try to hold onto their pool and tell them to wait, wait, wait, and those — those — they are the high school graduates. The college graduates are not going to be able to wait.

So, a year from now, in other words, when — when we do have appropriations, and we can’t afford to start recruiting in the numbers we need, the quality won’t be [inaudible]. So, the recruiters will have to look at different directions just to fill the ranks, the holes that we have. Retention, I think, will be the same way.

If we have to go the route of bonuses, if we start to affect retention, then the same war for talent exists for those who have six, seven, 10 years of experience. They’ll leave. They’ll leave because they have to support their families, and they need some confidence that their — their employer has their back and is going to compete in that market.

If that’s not the case, they’ll leave. Now, I’ll turn it over to my other peers.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Ma’am, this is Admiral Gilday. Let me just also tie together accessions and retention real quick. As Secretary McCord mentioned, the way we’re going to pay for that 2.7 percent pay raise is through cutting accessions, cutting reenlistment bonuses, incentive bonuses, and also by reducing permanent change of station moves.

So for the Navy, we’ve got about 145,000 sailors at sea. Over the past year — a year ago, we had 10,000 of those billets that were gapped. We’ve been able to cut that down by more than half. So about three percent of our billets at sea right now are gapped, and we adjust to make up for that.

If we cut our accessions by 75 percent, that — that’s 23,000 sailors. We are, again, going to exacerbate that gap at sea in a place where we need it least. At the same time, we’ll try to entice sailors, our best sailors, to stay in the Navy. So, we’re cutting those — and their families. We’re not just retaining sailors.

We’re retaining families. We’re going to have to cut reenlistment bonuses, incentive of bonuses to keep the best in. So, that’s also going to exacerbate that — those gaps at sea again, where we need those people and most — at the tip of the spear. And then with respect to PCS moves, so we’re going to reduce those by, we think, around 37,000, which is about half of our moves for next year.

Those are families — as the commandant so eloquently articulated earlier in his comments, there are people that have already taken jobs, spouses that are already planned on taking jobs, school plans that have been made that are going to have to be — they’re going to have to be curtailed. And then we, again, risk breaking faith with our sailors and their families.

Thanks for the opportunity, ma’am.

ROSA DELAURO:

OK.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Chair, may I say a couple of things, too?

ROSA DELAURO:

Please, yes. Thank you, General.     

JOSEPH MARTIN:

So, I agree with everything that General Berger and Admiral Gilday said. These are measures that we may have to do in the United States Army. But I can tell you that there’s a couple of things I know for sure that are going to happen as a result of this. And once again, we’ve got eight months left in the year.

We’ve got to — we’ve got to watch things very closely, prioritize, but God forbid if we have to do it. But — so, we’re going to — we’re going to bring in a full cohort of our second lieutenants out of ROTC and West Point. But as it pertains to ROTC, about 25 percent of them are not going to start their initial entry training as officers until the beginning of the fiscal year because we won’t have enough MTSA funding.

This is funding used to travel to professional military education available. Additionally, a 10 — one of those sub-activity groups I talked about with the misaligned over resources is one that pertains to funding basic training. And so, we’ve got a $10.2 million reduction that’s going to lead to a degradation of the quality of our basic training.

And we see that as significant because of how important initial entry training is. But those are the two additions I wanted to make to the previous statements of my other fellow colleagues.

ROSA DELAURO: Thank you.

CHARLES BROWN:

And Chair DeLauro, I’ll just make one additional comment. I think the thing that — we talked about some of the near-term impacts, but — when we [inaudible] the Air Force will be about 50 percent of our accession. But what you’ll see that it’s not just the near term. It’s a long-term because you will have a bathtub of airmen that will not be here throughout a 20- year career.

And that’s something we’ve got to pay attention to as well anytime we have these types of delays in accessions. Thank you.

ROSA DELAURO:

Is there anyone that we missed in terms of asking that — answering that question? If not, thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

I’m looking at the layout here to see if maybe she’s just muted here. Is she — Ms. Granger, it’s your time for questions. We cannot hear you, however. KAY GRANGER: OK, we’re fixing that.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

It’s good now.

KAY GRANGER:

Mmm hmm.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

You magically fixed it.

KAY GRANGER:

One thing that I want to start out with, it’s just — I think there’s a misunderstanding about where we’ve been. We are not saying we want a continuing resolution. We’re saying how do we get this done. But it concerns me. We gave you an offer. Just because you didn’t like the offer doesn’t mean that we didn’t give an offer, and we did, and then it just stopped. And so, a way forward is to get back together and say, “All right, how do we work this out?” But I am concerned that there’s a misunderstanding about — about the offer that we had and the way forward.

UNKNOWN:

And then you can ask your question.

KAY GRANGER:

What?

UNKNOWN:

You can ask your question.

ROSA DELAURO:

Madam Chair, in fact, there has not been an offer. So, they have to correct the record.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

There’s not been an offer of money on the table. That’s correct. Ms. Granger, do you have a question?

UNKNOWN:

Yeah, just go ahead and ask your question.

KAY GRANGER:

OK. My first question. Every member of this subcommittee is greatly concerned about China’s rapid military modernization. Could each of the services share how long-term CR would inhibit our ability to compete with adversaries like China?

UNKNOWN:

The purpose.

KAY GRANGER: 

Are they still available?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

They’re still available. I haven’t been calling on them. They’ve been kind of volunteering on their own. This one — I’m a — I’m a former substitute high school teacher. I can start calling on you, gentlemen, if — or Ms. Granger.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

I will first — Chair, if you’d like.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Certainly. Good to see you, Mr. Martin

JOSEPH MARTIN:

OK. As — as it pertains to China, it’s the same as Russia. It’s the same for any adversary that’s threatening the security of this nation. Long-term CR will impact our ability to provide ready forces today, make sure that we could take care of our soldiers and their family members and our civilians and the infrastructure and the ecosystem that surrounds them.

It’ll impact our ability to modernize. For the Army, it’s 71 new start programs, 29 procurement delays, 32 developmental delays, and several items in the organic industrial base that we will not be able to modernize. We — it impacts our ability to compete today and compete tomorrow. And so, a long-term CR has a significant impact on the United States Army.

Thank you.   

KAY GRANGER:

Thank you.

CHARLES BROWN:

Ranking Member Granger, General Brown from the Air Force. I would highlight that, you know, when I think about the PRC and what we’ve seen them do over the course of the past several months in relation to their nuclear portfolio, this has an impact — a yearlong CR impacts our nuclear portfolio by delaying GBSD by a year, LRSO by 18 to 24 months, the B21 by about a year, and the modernization of the B-52 by a year as well.

I’d also add to that the slowdown of the F-35 by about a year, which will be very important to any type of deterrence and/or capability. I would say the same thing with NGAD. It would delay it for at least two years. And so, what you see is a series of capabilities that would actually provide us [inaudible] advantage, ensure we maintain, at least, you know, advantage if not parity in certain key warfighting capabilities and concepts.

And a yearlong CR actually allows our adversary just to continue their acceleration while we are, I would say, stuck in neutral. Thank you.

JOHN RAYMOND:

I would — this General Raymond from Space Force. I would add as it relates to China. China has gone from zero to 60 in space. They are moving at incredible speeds and doing two things: one, building space capabilities for their own use to have that same advantage that we currently enjoy; and two, developing capabilities to deny us our access.

As I mentioned in my opening comment, we — we view our ability to provide space capabilities and the advantage that they provide to our joint forces a sacred duty. And you can’t take that for granted anymore. The continuing resolution is going to impact our ability to modernize our forces to be — to be there in the face of a growing threat or reduce our readiness and will hinder long-term impacts to our guardians and their families.

Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Anyone else wishing to comment?

DAVID BERGER:

Yes. This is General Berger. Just perhaps one or two things, building on what my peers have stated.

KAY GRANGER:

[inaudible]

DAVID BERGER:

We’re going to treat — we’re going to treat it like — like probably a surgeon would treat a patient, in other words, treat us. You have to put the forces forward that can handle a crisis of the moment. You’re going to take risk in areas that this budget — that increase of research and development, things like that, that [inaudible]. And your peers are going to — your peers are going to go ahead.

The competition is going to make that investment. You’re not. So in terms of relative pace, they’re going to move forward quickly because they’re stealing our technology, plus they’re investing fully in research and development. We’ll be at — we’ll be at flat. And we cannot make that up, that research and development time lost.

You can’t make that up with money a year from now. That’s time lost you cannot catch up because the laboratories — research and development, you just can’t accelerate it by so much. I think we approach it like you would a patient. We’ll have the — they’re least ready when the nation — the most ready when the nation is least ready.

We’ll put that forward. We’ll hold the door best we can, and we’ll fall farther behind in areas where we should be, at least [inaudible] should be and actually should be in front. That’s where we’ll pay a price. We can’t — we will not be able to catch up.

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Ma’am, this is Admiral Gilday. Adding on to the other — what the other two have said. They’re accelerating. We are decelerating, right? So, in areas where we want to — we want to close on known gaps with China, as an example. Hypersonics would be a really good example of that, right? The Army wants to fill the system in ’23. The Navy wants to follow along with that same system shipboard based in ’25. We are going to slow that program down if we can’t move money around to keep it alive.

Another area where we have over match right now, where we want to maintain that over match would be in the undersea, right? And so, we want to keep on building submarines. And the submarines that we have, we want to be able to continue to maintain them, to sustain them.

So, based on a yearlong CR, we will delay doing maintenance on 10 percent of our submarine force. That’s five submarines. We’re not going to do maintenance on them. We’re going to move it. We’re going to push that down the road. We know what the cost has been to that in the past, and we’re going to do it again.

We’re going to do the same thing with two aircraft carriers. We need those carriers in the water, and we need them forward, you know, fully maintained, but we’re going to stop that. In areas where we have gaps, we’re trying to catch up. Another good example would be weapons with range and speed. That’s where we’re putting money.

But we’re going to slow that down and important areas where those gaps are going to be exacerbated as the Chinese continue, as General Berger said, to do their R and D and increase their production lines. And I’ll pause there.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Thank you all very much. Next, we have up Mr. Ryan, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Cuellar, and Mr. Cole. Mr. Ryan? And the five-minute clock will start.

 TIM RYAN:

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. Just a quick comment. You know, all the discussions around the budget and the appropriations and that be — in the context of us trying to compete and outcompete China. I mean, it’s very, very clear that these conversations we’re having around defense, technology are critically important.

But there’s no way you outcompete China when our kids are going to McDonald’s to download their homework because they don’t have access to quality internet. There’s no way we’re going to be able to outcompete them if they’re producing 600,000 STEM graduates a year, and we’re producing 60. And that’s why the investments that — that we’re trying to make here are critical for us to be able to outcompete them.

And you’re just not going to outcompete China by cutting taxes for the top one percent and hoping that somehow, someway, we’re going to have 330 million people healthy, educated, skilled, and innovative to take them on. It’s just not going to happen. We’ve tried it for 30 or 40 years, so to me, there’s got to be a whole-of-government approach.

And I think it’s important for us to keep that in mind. I’ve got a couple of questions that are local to Ohio that I would love to get answers to. One of them is the procurement of additional M1A2 SEPv3 systems. The M1 Abrams tank provides the lethality and sophistication necessary to counter Russia and the Chinese Communist Party.

Their third-generation platforms enhance readiness to our military while providing economic stability to the state of Ohio. And the Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio, provides nearly 1,000 jobs within the local community, generates millions of dollars in economic growth, and involves over 700 different Ohio-based suppliers in the manufacturing process.

And the provisions of the FY 2022 defense bill would procure 70 additional tanks and variants and strengthen our ability to counter near-peer adversaries. So, this is a critical thing that I’m really worried about with the CR. So, I would like to ask General Martin. What role does this funding instability and unpredictability play in your resourcing decisions on programs like the Abrams upgrade?

What are the strategic implications of delaying manufacturing as a result of the CR? And additionally, I know Poland announced plans for FMS procurement of 250 tanks to counter Russia aggression within the region. Can you provide an update to the status of that request?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you, Mr. [inaudible]

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Thank you for your question, Congressman. What I can tell you, comparing ’21 and ’22, there will be no significant impact to our plan to produce the Abrams SEPv3 vehicles — A2 SEPv3 vehicles at JSMC. And I’ll also tell you that we are not anticipating any related impact to the workforce. There is an impact that I’d like to discuss that I think is worthy of your awareness.

And that is we had two organic industry-based improvement projects planned for ’22 — that would start in ’22. They’re new starts, and so they’ll have to be delayed by a year and then compete against other demands across the board. But it was to modernize some of the infrastructure to support not only tank but also striker production, but also to improve the heating and cooling system or the HVAC system.

So, those will have to be delayed. As it pertains to Poland, we’re in the process of talking to Poland, and we’re looking how we can best meet their needs. Thank you, Congressman.

 TIM RYAN:

I’m sorry, you’re breaking up there, General. Can you — what was that you said at the end about Poland?

JOSEPH MARTIN:

We’re in the process and we’re considering — we’re discussing this with them. We’re considering the best way to meet their needs. That’s where we’re at right now, Congressman.

TIM RYAN:

OK. Thank you. A couple of questions, just kind of — that are very local in nature. At the Youngstown Air Reserve Station, for our friends in the — in the Air Force, we had $8.7 million to expand the Air Reserve Station assault strip, which provides infrastructure to support C-17 and C-130 aircraft, which is critical to maintaining readiness, as you know.

How would the CR impact the viability of the air station and its operational capabilities should the infrastructure project be delayed further? And then also, the issue with the C130J platform integration, we’ve been talking about this for years. And as you know, the C130J platform provides additive capabilities, enhancing the system’s aerial capabilities in support of its global mission.

The ’21 defense bill provided two C-130J platforms for YARS, and the ’22 bill would secure four additional platforms. How does any further delay in the procurement of C-130J aircraft affect the specialized mission of the 910th Airlift Wing and their aerial spraying mission and the longevity of YARS as a combat multiplier?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Sir, you have about a minute to answer that great question from Mr. Ryan.

CHARLES BROWN:

Sure. On the assault runway project, well, it does impact the training rounds for — not just for Youngstown but, really, for a number of training units around the Northeast. The challenge here is that we won’t get — gain that savings as far as fuel and time-distance for training. At the same time, with — with increased construction costs, it will be an issue because it’ll be more expensive in the long run. 

On the second question here, with the continuing resolution, what happens then is we do not have enough C-130s to actually start another basing action to — whether it’s there at Youngstown, with the great mission they do, or any place else just based on a CR not having enough C-130s to actually start a basing action going forward. Thank you.

TIM RYAN:

I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you.

TIM RYAN:

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Certainly. Mr. Rogers, you are now recognized. And after Mr. Rogers, over to Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Cole, and then Ms. Bustos. Mr. Rogers, you’re recognized as the former chair of this subcommittee.

HAL ROGERS:

Well, I thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for holding the hearing. Let me apologize to the witnesses. In this hearing, we require them to spend valuable hours doing research, but we all know what the answer is. I mean, there’s appropriators, especially members of this Defense Subcommittee. We know that CR is not good for the military, exhibit A. It comes as no surprise then that their — their testimony will say that CR is not good for the country.

Bad for our servicemembers, they are bad for our readiness, for research, development, for the procurement of new systems, for our industrial base, and everything in between. CR is for our national security. We all know that. So, why have a hearing on something that we all know is — should be admitted?

BETTY MCCOLLUM: [inaudible]

HAL ROGERS:

So, this — this hearing was called to score political points, try to bring pressure on the Republican side of the aisle, but this would harm the military. Well, surely it does. But it’s the Democrats who are in charge and causing it, including taking all this valuable time from very important people to tell us what we already know.

It’s surprising, and honestly, it’s disappointing. So, I apologize to all of you in the Pentagon that are being used as pawns in these budget negotiations. And I can certainly think of better uses of your time and ours. Well, thank you for all your lifetimes of service. Rest assured that we share the same goal of preventing another CR. Let’s be clear, Madam Chair, that the framework for success in this business we’re in has always been no poison pills in these bills and restore legacy riders.

 I’ve been at this a long time. So, let’s not have any revisionist history. This is what we’ve always done. You’re not doing so far on this bill. This is about decreasing domestic spending and increasing defense spending. Well, Madam Chair, that’s all I have, and I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. And you know how much I do respect you, but this was not my effort to take political shots. This was my effort to quash those who are — are talking about yearlong CRs. No one, no one on the — on the Appropriations Committee is, yet you see things in the news. And unfortunately, sir, it’s usually from your side of the aisle.

And I’ll quote again, and it’s a December 1st quote, and I can get you the gentleman — the person who said it. “Republicans should be in favor of a CR until Biden is out of office.” So, they’re not even talking about a one-year CR. “That would be the proper Republican thing to do, and anybody saying otherwise is deeply foolish.” I know you and I, sir, do not agree with that sentiment, and my — my — my goal here is to educate other members who don’t understand the appropriations process as well as you and I and many other of our colleagues that we serve alongside with.

So, I understand your frustration, but I want to — I want to be clear what my — my intent was, and I wanted that on the record. Mr. Cuellar.

HENRY CUELLAR:

Thank you, Madam Chair, and to all our witnesses, thank you for being here with you all. You know, when you look at — we don’t like CRs. We don’t want to see a CR. We want to make sure that we — as appropriators, I think both sides want to make sure that we do our work and at the money. But the military has operated under CRs in the past, short-term CRs, but it’s operator of CRs. Are there any strategies that any of the services plans to implement to minimize the effects of the CRs on our ability to maintain the readiness of our troops? You know, it’s — we learned some lessons. We don’t want to see another CR. I think none of us here want to see another CR, definitely not a long — a yearlong CR. But are there any lessons learned that we have taken from past CRs?

MIKE MCCORD:

Congressman, let me just open with saying we have — as a number of members have — have stated, we have a lot of experience, sadly, now with CR. So, we certainly have some lessons learned. But in general, there’s no — there’s no strategy to combat math, right? If you don’t have enough money, you can’t — you can’t operate the way you need to. You can’t pay — you can’t pay the troops more pay raise with the same amount of money and not have an impact come out some other way.

Yes, we have adapted on the contracting side, and we’re thinking about prioritization. You’ve heard some of the chiefs mentioned, I would probably have to do A and do B and do C. But again, this is fundamentally a math problem.

HENRY CUELLAR:

OK. Let me ask this question. So, we’re looking at the CR from our perspective — a highlevel perspective. Tell me, from your experience or — and this applies to General Martin or anybody, tell me how that affects an enlisted person on a day-to-day basis under a CR.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Congressman, thank you. So, let’s talk about someone that’s at Fort Bliss, Texas, and they had planned to execute multi-echelon training and were unable to execute multi-echelon training because the resources were not there. We had to — we had to take the training, and we had to take it a level or two down from where it was.

So, where they were going to gain a certain amount of proficiency doing their military occupational specialty under the conditions of a multi-echelon training environment, they’re not going to have that opportunity to do that. In the Army, we’re not going to turn off CTC or Combat Training Center rotations because of the CR, but we’re going to have to take a hard look at what multi-echelon training we’re doing at home station, places where we build readiness each and every day.

And of course, as it pertains to that soldier, take that soldier 18 months from now, because of the impact of the metered funding and the less-than-anticipated funding going into our supply chains, there’s going to be an impact on our ability to provide that soldier a part on his vehicle 18 months from now that we would have been able to today if we had predictable funding because of the lagged effect it’ll have on an industry base and its ability to produce those parts for our soldiers of the future.

HENRY CUELLAR:

General, thank you so much. I appreciate that — that impact on the enlisted soldier down there, whether it’s Fort Bliss or Joint Base San Antonio or wherever it might be or somewhere close to Carter — John Carter’s area, Fort Hood also. Let me, before I close — because I got about a little bit over a minute.

You know, I lost one of my constituents, Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, in Afghanistan, you know, part of the 13 soldiers that got killed at the very end. The FY appropriations had certain funds toward Afghanistan operations. And maybe you all have answered this, but if you don’t mind repeating this again, what are those funds going to be used now?

How — what are the reprogramming of those funds? What are the priorities that we’re looking at if there’s a CR — yearlong CR?

MIKE MCCORD:

Congressman, the funding to support the Afghan military, the so-called ASFF training, those funds are basically not usable now because there is no — there is no, you know, Afghan forces that meet the legal standards. So, that money would basically be something that — if your committee writes a full-year bill, I would anticipate you would — you would take all the money and redistribute it to other needs.

But we are unable to do that for you or with you under a CR. Of course, there are reductions in other areas because we have less presence ourself within the Army’s account, in particular. But those things focused specifically on Afghanistan are just — that money is sort of sitting there frozen and not useful because it’s — we don’t have enough transfer authority to move all of that to other needs.

HENRY CUELLAR:

All right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you so much. Thank you to the witnesses.

BETTY MCCOLLUM: 

Thank you. We’re going to have Mr. Cole go next. After him, Ms. Bustos, Mr. Womack, and then Ms. Kirkpatrick. I recognize my friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.

TOM COLE:

Thanks very much, Madam Chair. And I want to begin by associating myself with the comments of Ranking Member Granger and Ranking Member Calvert in terms of their concerns. I think Representative Calvert pointed pretty well when he said, “Look, the outline of the deal here is pretty obvious. The defense number has got to go up, and the domestic number has got to come down to some degree.” Once the bill’s going to go out, Hyde has to go back in, and I think we all know that.

And I want to commend the chairwoman of the Full Committee because nobody’s worked harder to try and get everybody around the table than our chairwoman. And nobody’s been more aggressive about trying to be tough on datelines than our chairwoman, you know, trying to restrict the time, trying to make sure that we got this done in a timely fashion so that the folks at the Pentagon and every other agency of government could plan and use the resources we give them wisely.

So, I’ve got very little criticism for this subcommittee — none for this subcommittee; frankly, very little for our Full Committee. I will say this as a suggestion before I get to my — my question. Just, well, maybe beyond us, Madam Chair, we may need, number one, the leadership of both parties to sit down and get engaged from both the House and the Senate.

I know they’ve got a lot of different responsibilities, but I think their big one is funding the government. And I would say the same thing, with all due respect, and I mean this respectfully, for the president, the administration. The president has been a pretty busy guy. He got some things done, you know, the COVID relief bill, infrastructure bill.

He’s working on things now. He’s not having as much success on [inaudible], you know, changing the filibuster, voting legislation, Build Back Better bill. Maybe he needs to focus on funding the government that he heads, and maybe we need a White House convention here because we’re not going to get some of these decisions transcend this committee.

This subcommittee has very little to do with Hyde, you know, but Hyde certainly is going to impact our ability to get our job done. So, we’re going to have to get some people above our level engaged in — in the process. And the president, at the end of the day, is the commander in chief, is responsible for the military.

And we need some focus here, not on some of these other agendas that, frankly, are stalling out right now. Now, in terms of this specific hearing, let me ask a couple of questions. I want to go first to General Brown if I may. I’m fortunate enough to have Tinker Air Force Base in my district, and I know how important logistics are and just the maintenance of what you have.

So, I would like to ask you what a CR would do. Number one, we’re expanding capabilities down there for the KC-46 and for other potential missions, looking ahead, we might pick up. And then, number two, just the day-to-day maintenance of what’s, frankly, an aging air fleet. You know, what will a CR do in terms of your ability to take care of those kinds of problems?

CHARLES BROWN:

Thank you, Representative Cole. And, you know, specifically, I mean, very broadly, the CR will have a number of challenges that — for a number of our depots, and really, our weapons systems sustainment accounts will also be impacted. When you think, really, about Tinker, one of the things — when I had the chance to visit there was the site for the KC-46 aspects for the depot.

That — it will be one of those that would not get done if we had a yearlong CR. And that would get delayed, which would impact our being able to sustain that particular platform. I think the other aspect, we’ve looked at WSS and our depots. When you have this aging fleet that we do have, it does also impact the workforce.

And if you don’t have the funding there to balance that workforce to actually go against the platforms we’re trying to work through, in addition to the parts and the spares and supply chain, all those things kind of come together that have an impact. And then the other part of a CR also offer the investment not only with the Air Force but also with our industry partners and the small business and vendors that help support us. They don’t have a predictable funding flow, and so you don’t bring on the workforce.

You don’t bring on the parts. It just slows everything down for us. It’ll have a huge impact on our readiness across the Air Force. And then a lot of that will end up going on the back burner. And we don’t want that, and then it becomes a retention issue. So, it just — there’s compounding impacts with a yearlong CR. Thank you.

TOM COLE:

Appreciate that very much. And, Madam Chair, I may be out of time. If not, I’ve got a quick question for General Martin, which he partly covered earlier, but I also –

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thirty seconds. Go for it.

TOM COLE:

OK. Thank you, Madam Chair. Also privileged to have Fort Sill in my district and a couple of the modernization missions that have been laid out by the Army or our base there. And, General Martin, from a modernization standpoint, I know we are in a very serious contest with near-peer adversaries. What would a CR do in terms of setting back your efforts to have the force ready to deal with, God forbid, you know, the kinds of adversaries that have — well, we haven’t fought in a long time, that have armor, that have air forces, that have comparable technical capabilities to what the United States military has?

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Congressman, it’s good seeing you again, and thank you for the question. I’ll just — I’ll try to put this as simply as I could. You know, our chief of staff of the Army, General McConville, stated previously that we’ve got 24 of our 31+4 signature programs are going to be, in some form or fashion, in the hands of soldiers.

Whether it’s in an operational testing environment, a soldier touchpoint, or actually fielding it, 24 of those programs will be out there by 2023. Well, without the funding that would be associated with the restraints of the CR, 19 of those 24 programs will be impact — the timing of those programs will be impacted.

So, that’s a huge impact. And once again, as my colleagues have all said so aptly, you can’t get back time, but it’s also — the resources that we could have spent this year, we’re going to have to spend next year, which means it’s twice the cost. And so, it’s a huge impact on our modernization and maintaining our ability to compete in the future.

Thank you.

TOM COLE:

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Ms. Bustos, Mr. Womack, then Ms. Kirkpatrick, and Mr. Carter. And I have to step out for a minute, so Mr. Cuellar has the gavel. Ms. Bustos.

CHERI BUSTOS:

Yes, thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I also want to thank you and the ranking member for having this hearing today. And I want to thank our witnesses as well for your service and your leadership. And certainly, during these uncertain times, obviously, I — whether we’re Democrats or Republicans, we can all agree that national security is critical to all of us, and funding the Department of Defense reliably and on time is something that, and I think we all know, is desirable.

Let me start if I could, please, with General Martin. I’d like to ask you a question about the modernization efforts at the Army. In the congressional district that I serve in Illinois, we are home to the Rock Island Arsenal. And as you know, that sits on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River, between the states of Iowa and Illinois.

And the arsenal is home to the Army’s Center of Excellence for Additive and Advanced Manufacturing. And right now, the Center of Excellence is working on, really, just some amazing new research into the next-generation combat vehicle. And it will soon be home to the world’s largest metal 3D printer that is actually being manufactured in the northern part of our congressional district out of Rockford.

So, that will go from Rockford being manufactured and then come down to the Quad Cities. But this program is critical to the future of the arsenal and, we believe, also to the future of the Army. So, General Martin, if you could share your thoughts about how a yearlong continuing resolution would impact major acquisitions and research programs within the Army and if any thoughts that you have specific to the Rock Island Arsenal as well.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Congresswoman, I am not tracking any direct impacts to Rock Island Arsenal, but what I’ll tell you is it’s a great example of the need and our executing a long-term organic industrial base modernization program so that we can meet the needs of the future. That being said, there are other organic industrial base modernization efforts that we are planning on doing this year but won’t be able to do it because we won’t be able to use the ’22 funds for a new start.

But across the modernization programs for the Army, new starts, 71 programs effected, where Rock Island Arsenal indirectly supports those programs? I don’t know, but I’ll bet there’s an impact. I don’t want to speculate, though. Procurement delays, 29, and developmental delays, research and development activities, 32 programs delayed.

So, there’s a huge impact across the Army there. And arsenals like the Rock Island Arsenal are a key component to our holistic organic industrial base, not only for today’s needs but also for the future. So, it’s very important that we continue to modernize them, and we don’t want to wait till next year to do that — what we plan to do this year.

Thank you.

CHERI BUSTOS:

Thank you, General Martin. I appreciate that. Just one more question, and I’ll be brief here. But, General Brown, it’s great to see you, even though it’s virtual. We so appreciated, out of Peoria, Illinois, that you came to the 182nd Airlift Wing this past summer, and we always welcome you back. And I know that Congressman Ryan already talked with you a little bit about the C-130s. I’m — you know, let’s — if you could drill maybe a little bit deeper on that.

Obviously, as we had this discussion about a yearlong CR and how that would affect Air Force acquisition and modernization efforts, you know, for the Air National Guard, you know, we’ve talked about providing upgraded technologies for the C-130Hs like the ones that are flown at Peoria. But any additional thoughts around — especially specific to Peoria, Illinois?

CHARLES BROWN:

What I’d tell you, it’s not just for Peoria and the work that they do, and I appreciate the opportunity to go visit, but it’s when you look at across the Guard because of the funding and the way they will have to dip into our — some of our other accounts, and it will curtail some of their trainings. So, you know, just for their day-to-day readiness as a C-130 unit, that will be impacted.

Then there’s also the individual training, so the professional involvement for those particular airmen that will continue to build up on their skill sets, that will also be impacted. I would also tell you, it’s a ripple effect. So, if you have — you know, you don’t get the full training when you deserve it and you’re supposed to be training someone behind you, then it just kind of — it kind of slides downhill, and it becomes this little bit of a slippery slope that we have to dig ourselves out of. And so, I have a concern not just about Peoria, but I really look across, you know, the Guard as a whole, the impact of curtailing or canceling training.

And you may miss those opportunities for those airmen. It’s tough to make up because you don’t get that time back. And so, it’s important that — and we want it — we want quality airmen. You want to make sure they have quality equipment to work with, and that’s why it’s important not to have a yearlong CR. Thank you.

CHERI BUSTOS:

Very good. Thank you so much, General Brown. And, Chairwoman McCollum, I’ll yield back. Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. And, Mr. Cuellar, thank you for being there. Mr. Womack, then Ms. Kirkpatrick, and Mr. Carter.

STEVE WOMACK:

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and my thanks to the witnesses that are here today. I’m going to be very brief. And first of all, I apologize to all of the witnesses today that we’re now two hours into this hearing. And I think we could have saved a lot of time on the part of these very busy gentlemen and ourselves, for that matter, by just being honest with ourselves and recognizing that a yearlong CR is bad.

And you can define bad a lot of ways, and we’ve seen and heard a lot of those definitions of what bad looks like. It’s just bad. But not only is it bad, it is embarrassing. It’s embarrassing that we, the adults in the room here on the Appropriations Committee, cannot get out of our own way. A couple of data points.

One, we didn’t get the president’s budget until May 28. And now, that’s not a dig on President Biden. It’s a new administration. I realize it takes some time. But we got the budget on May 28. And the budget was for $753 billion, thereabouts, which figured in about a 1.6 percent increase over the CR of about 740 billion, woefully short and unacceptable.

And it was known to be unacceptable when it was printed. So, here we are, looking at the prospect of having to deal with a full-year CR in the 740 range. But we have a bipartisan,  bicameral agreement on the NDAA of $768 billion. So, a lot of good bipartisan, bicameral work has already been done, and the number is pretty acceptable, I would say.

I’m not going to ask you, all the service chiefs, to comment on it, but 740, 768, I don’t think there would be any doubt where everybody would fall on that particular number, which kind of leaves us, I think, to the legacy riders, legacy riders that have been in these bills for decades that have always had bipartisan, bicameral support.

So, I am — frankly, I’m embarrassed as a defense appropriator and as an appropriator in general that we have allowed that discussion to keep us from doing what our constitutional duty is, and that is provide for the common defense. So, it’s a bad, bad situation that we’re in right now, and we’ve got to overcome it. And the sooner, the better.

I think we could get to work on it tomorrow if we could just get some agreement that things that have been in these bills for decades deserves to be back in those bills. And that’s the only way we’re going to get a passage on something other than a full-year CR. My only question, I’m going to direct to the undersecretary.

Back in 2018, another member of this subcommittee, Derek Kilmer, on the other side, and myself participated at a Joint Select Committee on Budget Process Reform. And we spent the better part of the entire year of 2018 looking at the budget process, which is, in fact, part of the problem right now. And we came up with a few ideas, and we got to the finish line in — even though our threshold for passage of anything was pretty high, five members on each side of the aisle to come to agreement.

And we didn’t get there, but that doesn’t mean that the work was for naught. So, my question for the undersecretary is simply this. One of the reforms that we advocated in that process reform and never got a chance to take to the floors of the House and the Senate was a biennial budget. So, my question for you is this.

Would changing the process and at least getting us to a point where we could do a two-year budget with, say, annual appropriations, even annual reconciliation, but a biennial budget, how would that help us get past what we’re doing here today?

MIKE MCCORD:

Thank you, Congressman. I do remember your service on that committee, and as I recall, defense per se was not a big player because it was more focused on something — some of the bigger movers on the entitlement side. But I do recall your work on that, and I thank you for it. Biennial budgeting was looked at, I know, early in my career on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate in the ’80s. We tried doing biennial authorizations once or twice, had limited sort of consensus with the Appropriations Committees at that time between the appropriators and authorizers, and it kind of petered out, honestly.

It does offer potential. I would love to see us master the art of annual budgeting first because biennial budgeting is a little harder, you know, but I recognize that many states do it, and it can be done. We would certainly be open to looking at that. I know that there’s a commission that has been created by the new authorization bill, newly enacted authorization bill on PPP reform, which is a subset sort of focused on the internal Pentagon part of the process, a little different than what you’re saying but related.

I think ironically, we won’t be able to support the standup of that commission under CR until that — this issue is resolved. But there is some movement afoot, I think, on that front, and that commission may well want to expand its purview a little bit beyond the internal Pentagon part of the budget process to take on the very idea that you’re mentioning.

It might be good work for that commission to take a fresh look at also.

STEVE WOMACK:

Well, we would like to continue to elevate that discussion because anything is better than where we are today, and hopefully, we’ll eventually get there. Anyway, I thank — my thanks to the panelists today. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity. I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

You are so welcome. Ms. Kirkpatrick, Mr. Carter, and then Mr. Kilmer.     

ANN KIRKPATRICK:

Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member, for having this hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses who have taken the time to appear before the committee. I appreciate your testimony. I appreciate the time that you spent with us. You know, this is a really important hearing in terms of my district. Admiral Gilday touched on hypersonics, and I understand that the Army expects its hypersonic weapon to be ready by fiscal year 2023 and is investing significant resources to make that a reality.

Important research and development activities for hypersonic weapons are conducted in my district, and our committee appreciates how critical these programs are for our national security. So, General McConville or General Martin, either one of you, the entire department has focused on increasing resources on hypersonic weapons in recent years.

I know you are on an aggressive track to field the first system by fiscal year 2023. So, can you please describe to us what a delay in appropriations does to your schedule?

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Congresswoman, thank you. So, as it pertains to the first battery — the first battery field in 2023, no impact. However, $100 million — $111 million shortfall in ’22 resulting from the CR will delay the initial operating capability of our second battery from 2025 to 2026. In addition, the Army won’t have the necessary funds to produce this year, as we planned, the training rounds, think — just the training rounds so that the units can use those rounds to train on in preparation for executing their jobs in a live environment.

And so, there would be a delay on that as well. But those are the two significant delays to the hypersonics program in addition to what Admiral Gilday described previously in his testimony pertaining to the technical delays.

ANN KIRKPATRICK:

So, now I just want to shift gears just a little bit to the Next-Generation Interceptor. The Next-Generation Interceptor program is required to provide the United States homeland coverage from incoming intercontinental ballistic missile attacks in the 2030 time frame. These are ground-based. So, Undersecretary McCord, in the case of a yearlong CR, how would programs like NGI have to pivot and adjust?

And then my second question for you is give us an understanding of how contracts might need to be modified to reflect less funding and what impact that would have on the bottom line of these programs.

MIKE MCCORD:

Thank you. Thank you. On the Next-Generation Interceptor, since that program is in a somewhat earlier stage, it’s got the — the flexibility that R and D has if there is not a new start involved. And I would have to — I will give a response to you for the record as to whether there’s a new start issue specific to that program.

With respect to contracting, the — probably the most common thing that people do is either delay a contract award until — if there is a new start issue, they have no choice but to delay a contract award, or to shorten a period of performance. So, there are ways that basically, it’s part of the hidden inefficiency of this — of the CR processes, the workarounds.

You know, the job will get done in a less efficient way and possibly more costly way. But there are contracting modifications. Contracting and budgeting, of course, are — you know, our process is a little bit — two separate things, and there are multiple ways that one can contract for something depending on — you know, on the circumstance.

But the lack of funding is something that no contracting mechanism can — can, by itself, overcome.

ANN KIRKPATRICK:

OK. Thank you. And — and can you — can you address a little bit how this is going to affect the bottom line of these programs?

MIKE MCCORD:  

Well, both with respect to hypersonics — and I think General Raymond also made some great points in his opening statement about — about the Space Force generally. The areas where you’re trying to go the fastest to where you have the most change or what’s — or what is impacted the most by the requirement if you do what you did last year, at the rate that you did it last year, at the funding level that you did it last year.

So, hypersonics is a great example across several of the services, and I think several of the chiefs could probably respond to this with respect to their own program. Where — the fact that we’re trying to make more progress, that’s where we’re hurt the most.

ANN KIRKPATRICK:

Thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Next, we go to Mr. Carter. Mr. Carter and then Mr. Kilmer. And then to close up, it’ll be Mr. Diaz-Balart and Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Carter.

JOHN CARTER:

Thank you, Madam Chairman. You know, we’ve got some members of Congress that don’t know comeback from [inaudible] about the appropriations process. They make stupid comments about what would be good for this country. That may be the purpose of educating them this particular year. And everyone in the Appropriations Committee, we do not like CRs, and we do not want long- or short-term CRs. We like to finish our work on time and put together our product for the benefit of the country.

I think that when somebody’s reading the newspaper, he shouldn’t be driving out [inaudible]. But I want to thank all of you for being here. You know, [inaudible] and I want to thank you for telling everybody about the importance of training. Training keeps soldiers alive, and the inability to train makes those soldiers not as prepared, and that’s very important. 

You know, we’ve got to try to rebuild the modernization of the United States Army. Today, we’re looking into the big six priorities of long-range fire; next-generation combat vehicle; future vertical lift; network, air, and missile defense; and soldier lethality. Tell me, in this — do you realize that nobody wants a CR? [inaudible] CR do the same? General Martin.

JOSEPH MARTIN:

Thank you, Congressman. It’s good to see you as always. So, everyone — well, like I — like I – – there’s 24 programs that were supposed to have in their hands, in one form, fashion, or another, in 2023. Nineteen of those 24 programs, the timeline for those activities to land those in formations would be affected.

So, it’s a huge effect to our modernization effort. You know, you’re from the state of Texas, and you know all about Army Futures Command, and you understand what they’ve done with Project Convergence in 2021. We’ve got a lot of momentum going with that with the joint force. And next year, we’re to focus on multinational partners.

Our efforts would be severely impacted with a CR because there’s funding that we’ve asked for ’22 that will help us set conditions to execute Project Convergence ’22 that we won’t be able to put our hands on. And so, all the progress we’ve made over time for the past two years will be slowed at best, could be potentially stopped.

And as my colleagues have said multiple times, our adversaries are not having the same problems with consistent, predictable, timely funding for these various programs. And so, Project Convergence is huge for the United States Army, and we’ve got to have the funding to be able to do that. And without any anomalies and the ability to reprogram, it will — it will be virtually impossible to do that.

And so, I look — I sincerely urge Congress to move forward with appropriating the FY ’22 budget. Thank you.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.

JOHN CARTER:

Can you hear me?

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Mr. — you’ve got a minute left. I thought you said you will –

JOHN CARTER:

OK. I accidentally hit the wrong button.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

OK. I can hear you now.

JOHN CARTER:

I just want to say that the Odierno family are in our thoughts and prayers. The family has given an awful lot to the United States and all throughout the United States Army. And we all should be thinking about the sacrifices the entire Odierno family has given for our nation. I’m proud to call them my friends.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

I reflect those words. Well said, Mr. Carter, and thank you so much for saying that. Appreciate it. Mr. Kilmer.

DEREK KILMER:     

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all the witnesses for being with us. I had two questions, and they’re both for Admiral Gilday. First of all, I know I don’t need to emphasize to you the importance of the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program, or SIOP, Navy’s 20-year, $21 billion effort to upgrade and modernize our public shipyards.

I very much appreciate your past statements in support of this program. I applaud the Navy for appointing Rear Admiral McClelland as the head of the SIOP program office. I was lucky enough to meet with him earlier this week. He provided some valuable insights into the program, and I’m glad to see the Navy showing its commitment to the SIOP with his appointment.

I think it’s a big deal as we look to restore and reinvest in our public shipyards, including Puget Sound Naval Shipyard in my neck of the woods. And knowing the importance of the SIOP and also reading all of your testimony about the impact and the potential impact of a CR, not just on operations but on military construction as well, I worry that any CR-related impacts to the program can lead to a situation in which maintenance drives operations instead of maintenance supporting operations.

So, with that in mind, can you just share what impact the — a full-year CR would have on the SIOP?

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Yes, sir. There’s a — there’s a few areas we’re going to see impacts. The first would be in the ongoing project at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard up in New Hampshire and Maine. And so, in my unfunded list, I requested $225 million for a base project up there, for a dry dock that needs to be revitalized because there are actually single-digit days a year we can bring your ship in and out of dry dock there.

Our dry docks, the 18 of them across our four shipyards, the average age is 97 years old. We haven’t touched them in a century. This is once-in-a-century work. The new Virginia-class submarines that we’re building, they’re longer. They have a payload section in them that brings considerable lethality to the fight.  

And so, because they’re bigger and the dry docks — they — they’re too large for the dry docks. And so, for that particular dry dock up there in Portsmouth, we need to finish that project in time for ’28 to get the first subject — the first Virginia class in the East Coast in maintenance, and that will be delayed.

And we’re not sure how specifically we’d be able to mitigate that delay. Separately, we’re in the process of identifying and hiring 42 subject matter experts who are coming from industry, real patriots, to join this effort, and the hiring of those individual — individuals will be delayed. We do the best we can to try and — to try and entice them to stay with us, but I think it’s going to be difficult.

As you’re aware, besides a dry dock work, we’re also trying to accelerate infrastructure work. So, these are — these shipyards, because they’re over 100 years old, are like Frankensteins in a way that we just added buildings. And so, they’re very inefficient with respect to workflow of pump work, valve work that flows through these yards.

And so, we’re taking a look at through modeling how we can best recapitalize this infrastructure in a way that — that accelerates — that gives us the best efficiency, the best optimization. And it’ll delay that work that we’re trying to do for infrastructure. So, this is MilCon and also projects that fall below the MilCon level that would allow us to reinvest in critical infrastructure.

It’ll delay that as well, probably one to two years, and I’ll pause there.

DEREK KILMER:

Let me — if I could, Admiral, in your written testimony, you also mentioned the impacts of a CR on the operations of our public and private shipyards and specifically referenced some of the potential delays or cancelations of maintenance — maintenance availabilities for five attack subs, two carriers, and just the cascading impacts that will have on our shipyard maintenance availabilities well into the future.

I hope you could just expand on some of those written comments and provide the committee some additional insight into those future delays to maintenance availabilities under a potential yearlong CR. How will these maintenance availability delays and cancelations impact our capability to compete with China and other near-peer competitors?

MICHAEL GILDAY:

Sir, you — you said it very accurately when you said that it would create a situation where you have maintenance leading operations. It’s not where you want to be. And so, our availabilities — our maintenance availabilities for those nuclear-powered vessels are really planned toe to heel. As soon as we’re done with one, we’re bringing in the next.

That’s the way the production line works. That’s how we’re most efficient. And this is going to cause a perturbation. And we saw this during the sequestration, and we’re still catching up a decade later. We can’t afford to do that based on where we are now with China for all the reasons my contemporaries in the sector and reports stated earlier.

And so, this is going to — this is going to cause a perturbation that we’re yet — we’re still unraveling in terms of operational schedules to keep carrier strike groups and amphibious ready groups on point in the Western Pacific and beyond. I’ll pause there, sir.

DEREK KILMER:

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. I was looking on the screen to see Mr. Diaz-Balart. Mr. Diaz-Balart, are you present to ask a question? Sometimes, people turn their cameras off. We’ll give him another minute. Or Mr. Aderholt, if you’re there, you can certainly go. It appears, Mr. Calvert, that those members are not there. Do you — do you confer with that?

KEN CALVERT:

Apparently not. So, Madam Chair, I would you like to —     

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

So, if you’d like to make a closing summary statement, I’ll make — I’ll make mine, sir.

KEN CALVERT:

Sure. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate the witnesses being here today, and we’ve — we’ve had a lot of difficulties of late in trying to get these appropriation bills complete. And that’s unfortunate. And while we’re doing that, we’ve seen our adversaries become bolder because weakness is provocative. Certainly, our hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan was a signal to the world that this administration will abandon our allies, risk the lives of US servicemembers, and even leave US citizens behind

It was a very unfortunate situation. And now, we’re facing an unfortunate situation both in Europe and in Taiwan. And as I think our friend, Mr. Churchill, said many years ago, “The worst two words in the English language is too late.” So, we have a responsibility to get this – – get this bill done. I know we all want to get it done.

And the people say there’s not any offers on the table. Well, let me — let me reiterate what the former chairman of this committee said about revisionist history. We all know that this – – the framework has always been that these legacy writers remain, and these poison pills go out. That’s what happened last year, year before that, and the year before that.

And so, I would hope that that understanding we can get to the table and negotiate this bill bring the defense numbers up, the non-defense discretionary down. Let’s get this done by, at least, February 18th for the men and women who serve in the United States military. With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.

BETTY MCCOLLUM:

Thank you. And I — I am not in a position to disagree with everything that’s happened in every Appropriation Committee in the history of humankind here in the United States Capitol. But the — the conference committees I’ve been involved in, the writers were left to the end. We had our budget agreement for what our new target was between the House and the Senate that we had to spend up to. And so, I — you know, everybody has had different experiences up here, and I just have to say that those have been my experiences.

Another point I’d like to bring out and — yes, President Biden’s budget came out on May 28th. That was his first budget, his first year as president. President Trump’s budget came out on May 23rd. That’s a five-day difference, but President Biden was dealing with an assault on our Capitol on January 6, as well as COVID, in preparing his budget.

So, I — I just wanted to make sure that everybody understood that all president’s first-year budgets come out a little late. Today was an opportunity not only to recommit ourselves as appropriators on this subcommittee but on the Full Committee which we all serve to get our job done on time and — and now to really push leadership to make sure that we finish this appropriations process by the February date that we’ve agreed to. I want to also say that this was an opportunity, I believe, to educate our colleagues, those who don’t understand the work that we do, the impacts that CRs have.

And as many of my colleagues on the other side said, CRs are just not a good idea. We are all in agreement with that. Gentlemen, I want to thank you all for being here today. I want to thank you for your testimony. I also would like you to pass on our thanks to those who serve in uniform and the civilians who serve alongside of you.

Your work is very much appreciated, and we know that the work you do keeps us safe here at home and keeps democracy’s beacon abroad lit well. This concludes today’s proceeding. And as I said, once again, from all of us, thank you to all of our witnesses and members for an enlightening discussion, and let’s get the bills for appropriations passed this February.

Thank you very much. And with that, the meeting is adjourned — the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.

List of Panel Members and Witnesses:

PANEL MEMBERS:

REP. BETTY MCCOLLUM (D-MINN.), CHAIRWOMAN

REP. TIM RYAN (D-OHIO)

REP. C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER (D-MD.)

REP. MARCY KAPTUR (D-OHIO)

REP. HENRY CUELLAR (D-TEXAS)

REP. DEREK KILMER (D-WASH.)

REP. PETE AGUILAR (D-CALIF.)

REP. CHERI BUSTOS (D-ILL.)

REP. CHARLIE CRIST (D-FLA.)

REP. ANN KIRKPATRICK (D-ARIZ.)

REP. ROSA L. DELAURO (D-CONN.),

EX-OFFICIO REP. KEN CALVERT (R-CALIF.),

RANKING MEMBER REP. HAROLD ROGERS (R-KY.)

REP. TOM COLE (R-OKLA.)

REP. STEVE WOMACK (R-ARK.)

REP. ROBERT B. ADERHOLT (R-ALA.)

REP. JOHN R. CARTER (R-TEXAS)

REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART (R-FLA.)

REP. KAY GRANGER (R-TEXAS),

EX-OFFICIO WITNESSES:

UNITED STATES ARMY VICE CHIEF OF STAFF JOSEPH M. MARTIN

UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE COMPTROLLER MIKE MCCORD

UNITED STATES NAVY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS MICHAEL GILDAY

UNITED STATES AIR FORCE CHIEF OF STAFF CHARLES Q. BROWN

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS COMMANDANT DAVID H. BERGER

UNITED STATES SPACE FORCE CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS JOHN W. RAYMOND

Source: United States Navy

Below is a transcript of the hearing:

TESTER:

The subcommittee meeting, order. Let me begin by welcoming our witnesses. Acting Secretary Harker, this is your first appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee, and I welcome you. Admiral Gilday and General Berger, you were both here last year for the last live hearing before the pandemic, so welcome back.

It’s good to host you in person. I think we can all agree that China is a current pacing threat. And that pace is a run if not a full-out sprint. So how are we keeping up? The Navy and Marine Corps are facing the current challenges with different approaches. On one hand, the Marine Corps has taken major steps to reshape its force for the future based on General Berger’s strategy to self-fund the reforms.

On the other hand, the Navy is faced with the balancing act between the substantial cost of maintaining a fleet of nearly 300 ships and the additional cost of modernizing to meet the threats of the future. The Navy’s 2022 budget protects readiness in order to deliver a combat credible force. As for the future, the path is less clear.

Secretary Harker has reported — has reportedly found that plans to design new destroyers, submarines, and jets all at the same time are unaffordable. So how do we increase our pace to keep up with the threat? For the Navy, I understand there are ongoing reviews on what the fleet of tomorrow should look like.

I would add that no matter what you find in those studies, holding people accountable, whether it’s government or civilian, for delays in ship deliveries or increase in weapons costs has to be part of that solution. The committee is eager to work with you to find the right balance between modernization or between modernizing and maintaining the force and fleet that we have.

Once again, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony that they’re about to give today and look forward to hearing from each one of them. With that, I’ll turn it over to you, Senator Shelby.

SHELBY:

Thank you, Mister Chairman. I’ll try to be brief. Welcome. I welcome you, too, Mister Secretary, Admiral, General Berger. Thank you for being here. We all look forward to hearing about the Navy and the Marine Corps’ budget proposal for 2022. This discussion is particularly important, I believe, because the Navy’s budget proposal reflects a meager 1.8percent increase from fiscal 2021 while reducing end strength and procurement investments.

The reductions are proposed despite the need to maintain readiness and make progress on key modernization priorities like the Navy’s leg of the nuclear triad and the introduction of a new weapon system. In addition to other deficiencies in the Navy’s budget proposal, I believe this budget fails to include funding to support the multiyear procurement contract for the DDG-51, which reflects poorly, I believe, on the department’s view of its commitments to Congress and its long-term shipbuilding plans.

It also calls into question the seriousness with which this administration approaches defense-related funding decisions given that the DDG-51 appears as the Navy’s top priority on its unfunded requirements list. You’re all very well aware that our adversaries, including China and Russia, pose new and increasing threats.

And they will grow. They’re making unprecedented investments in their capability and capacity. Investments that this budget does not even come close to matching. I believe that this budget, which fails to even keep pace with inflation, sends the wrong message to our allies and our adversaries. I’m interested in hearing how the 2022 budget request fully meets, if it does, the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps while maintaining our advantage over our adversaries.

It’ll be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Shelby. We’ll start out with you, Secretary Harker.

HARKER:

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Shelby, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for your bipartisan support of — on behalf of our sailors, Marines, and civilians. I’m honored to be here with General Berger and Admiral Gilday. I support their eff orts to build a more integrated, all-domain, naval force through the Nav Plan and the Force Design 2030.In order to move these plans forward within existing resources, we’ve had to make some very hard choices in this budget.

But that’s exactly what the American people expect us to do. Every dollar is a strategic asset that must be maximized to stay ahead of the pacing threat of China and the many other challenges facing our fleet and our nation. Every investment must be done in a balanced and sustainable manner to ensure we maintain the readiness of our current fleet while building the capacity and the capability we will need in the future.

The cost of readiness is increasing. Personnel and maintenance costs have grown at a rate that is well above inflation. This growth squeezes the rest of our budget. In order to maintain our readiness, we’ve had to delay some of our planned ship purchases to future years. In order to invest in a superior future force, we’ve had to divest of less capable assets.

These were not easy choices, but we cannot create a hollow force that does not train our sailors or Marines or which leaves holes in units or does not provide for sufficient crew rest. We have learned those lessons through the tragic mishaps that have occurred over the last five years. In order to ensure future availability and readiness of our fleet, we are prioritizing investments in our physical infrastructure, including full commitment to the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program.

I have visited all four of our public Navy shipyards, as well as most of the private shipyards and other commercial facilities. It has been an inspiration to shake the hands of the men and women who are building and maintaining our fleet. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with every level of labor and management about the issues they face and the need for consistency in funding and demand.

That’s why we’re increasing the capability and resiliency of these century-old installations, increasing the size and capability of our dry docks, and equipping our 40,000-personworkforce with the tools they need to maintain our new, more lethal assets. To ensure our resources reach the warfighters who need them, we’re demanding rigorous self-assessment and responsive accountability in every part of our enterprise through the Performance to Plan initiative.

This eff ort has improved our readiness of our strike fighters and is being rolled out successfully across the fleet in other areas. As good stewards, we are on the right path towards obtaining an audit opinion for the Navy and Marine Corps General Funds and the department’s working capital fund. We are the only military department that has eliminated audit material weaknesses, three in the Navy, one in the Marine Corps, and are leading the way in this critical effort.

This has enabled us to improve cybersecurity in our business systems. Since 2017, the Marine Corps has closed 41 out of 110 IT findings, 17 of which were cybersecurity-related. We are also increasing investment in the department’s oversight functions while maximizing the return on our investment in the performance audit process.

Effective use and management of data is key to our digital transformation and will change how we will fight and win at every level. This requires the modernization of our information technology infrastructure, which is a critical warfighting priority for our department. We’re also prioritizing the mental health of our force, speaking out at the senior level about the benefits of counseling, and ensuring the availability of counselors, chaplains, and other professionals.

We appreciate the committee’s attention to this vital issue and your support in providing additional mental health support to our sailors and Marines and our forward operational units. We’re fighting the scourge of sexual harassment and sexual assault through efforts like the Watch List, a tool that uses Navy and Marine Corps data to alert commanders to conditions in their units that may lead to these toxic behaviors.

We are increasing investment in this area, focusing on the prevention of and response to sexual harassment and assault. In this FY ’22 budget, we’ve added over 200 personnel across the Navy and Marine Corps focused on prevention. The majority of these personnel will be placed at Navy and Marine Corps installations, working with sailors and Marines.

We’re also adding an additional 80 sexual assault response coordinators for the Marine Corps, as well as 18 Navy criminal investigative service personnel dedicated to sexual assault, prevention, and response. Secretary Austin’s 90-day Independent Review Commission has completed its work and we look forward to implementing the secretary’s forthcoming recommendations to make meaningful and lasting progress in this area.

Around the world and around the clock, the sailors, Marines, and civilians of our integrated naval force stand the watch and execute the mission. On behalf of each of them and their families, I thank you for your time, oversight, and appropriations. I look forward to your questions.

TESTER:

Secretary Harker, thank you for your statement. Now, we’ll go to Admiral Gilday.

GILDAY:

Chairman Tester, Vice Chairman Shelby, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today along with Secretary Harker and General Berger. I am thankful for the enduring support that this subcommittee provides the United States Navy. I believe that this hearing comes at a critical time in our country.

The competition at sea is intensifying. China and Russia are rapidly mobilizing their militaries. They are attempting to undermine our alliances and degrade the free and open order. The Chinese battle force is the largest in the world, and it is growing. Backed by a robust industrial base and the biggest shipbuilding infrastructure in the world, they command a modern fleet of surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and next-generation fighters.

Furthermore, they are strengthening their space capabilities and stockpiling an arsenal of long-range missiles to hold us and our allies and partners at risk. China is deliberately modernizing for the 21st century, building all-domain capabilities that rival our own. Make no mistake, our fleet, your fleet can control the seas in conflict and project power ashore today, but we will be increasingly challenged to do so in the future unless difficult choices continue to be made.

The results of analysis over the past five years inside and outside the Pentagon have been consistent and they’ve been clear. America needs a larger, more capable fleet. Importantly, our latest study gave us the headlights not only for the size but also for the composition of that force. We need to transition away from older, less capable platforms and deliver the platforms, weapons, and systems that provide overmatch.

At the same time, I think that we need to grow. However, the Navy currently faces the task of recapitalizing our strategic nuclear deterrent, something we have not done in four decades, making a once-in-a-century investment in our public shipyards and preserving the current readiness so that our fleet can confidently operate forward and be relevant.

Nearly 70 percent of the ships that we have today will have a decade from now. We have to take care of the ships that we own, but the price tag and that readiness is rising. Over the last20 years, manpower operations and maintenance costs, which make up over 60 percent of our budget, have grown at a rate 2.4 percent above inflation.

Meanwhile, our buying power is less than it was in 2010. Back then, we had 288 ships. Today, we have 296. Given these factors, if the Navy’s top line remains flat or goes down, the size of our fleet will shrink. Nevertheless, we are determined to deliver the most ready, the most capable, and the most lethal Navy we can with the budget that we are given.

To do this, we are improving maintenance in our shipyards and aviation depots. We are ensuring our ships are properly manned. Our magazines are filled with ammunition. Spare parts are in our storerooms. And our sailors are getting the steaming days and the flying hours they need to hone their skills. We are working hard on a more robust, resilient network infrastructure as part of JADC2. We’re investing in long-range precision fires like hypersonics and tactical Tomahawk, and we’re developing directed energy systems, lasers to improve fleet survivability.

Our eye is on the larger hybrid fleet. We’re determined to build affordable capacity, including a deliberate approach to uncrewed vessels. And we’re making sure every sailor can outthink and outfight any adversary by scaling our 21st-century training framework, Ready, Relevant Learning, as well as our investment in Live, Virtual, Constructive training.

Senators, the average age of a Chinese fleet is 11 years. Ours is 21. It’s time to move decisively and build the future Navy. We must modernize now in this decade or risk falling behind while we maintain a forward posture that keeps America safe and prosperous. I’m extremely proud of our sailors, our Navy civilians, and our families who’ve endured sustained historic high up-tempo in the midst of this pandemic.

They are the source of our strength. As are the patriots in our shipyards and our aircraft depots and our partners in industry, companies large and small, who keep the production lines moving. Again, I am grateful for this subcommittee’s support to our Navy and Marine Corps team, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

TESTER:

Thank you, Admiral Gilday. Next up, it’s you, General Berger.

 BERGER:

Chairman Tester, Ranking Member Shelby, and distinguished members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the posture of your Marine Corps this morning, our priorities and the resources required to fund it all. Over the past two years since becoming commandant, I’ve come to better understand and appreciate the bipartisan support of this committee, which I think is critical to creating and sustaining the force we have today but also the force we’re going to need for the future.

I realize they’re competing national priorities you must wrestle with, and that’s going to put pressure on defense budgets. But I’m also confident that you appreciate the severity of the security environment today. The global competition, which the chairman and ranking both mentioned, with China and Russia is accelerating.

Your military is going to need more advanced capabilities to effectively compete to reassure our allies and partners, and to deter war. Force Design 2030 is the Marine Corps’ answer to creating the cutting-edge capabilities that’ll better enable the fleet and the joint force to deter, to compete, and to respond with ready forces to any crisis anywhere on the globe We’re roughly two years into our Force Design effort.

And while I’m encouraged by our progress, I’m not satisfied by the pace of change. We must move faster. To accelerate our modernization, we as a service need to do a better job of explaining the details of Force Design 2030, yourselves, and to your staff. And that is my responsibility as your commandant.

It’s important that this committee understands that the capabilities we seek are not the stuff of science fiction. They are already programs of record based on proven technology. And while we don’t have sufficient time this morning to address the full scope of our Force Design eff ort, I do want to highlight three key capabilities.

First is long-range precision fires for sea denial and sea control. Over the past several years, we’ve proven that our existing HIMARS vehicles can hold naval vessels at risk with ground-based anti-ship missiles. Through aggressive experimentation, we can — we have further enhanced that capability. This year, we successfully launched a naval strike missile from a modified unmanned Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, hitting a target at sea underway.

This system which we call the Navy and Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, or NMESIS, is exactly the type of capability that combatant commanders are calling for to enhance their deterrent posture. Second is unmanned ISR. In 2020, we began to transition to a mixed capability of long-range ship and ground-based unmanned aerial systems to include the MQ-9 Reaper.

The Reapers have proven capability that’ll significantly expand our organic ISR and enable us to better support fleet and joint operations, including anti-submarine operations. We’ve also initiated a partnership with the industry to develop a future autonomous, long-range, unmanned surface vessel that’s going to significantly improve the reconnaissance capability of our Marine Expeditionary Units or MEUs. Third, we’re investing in loitering munitions.

These swarming aerial munitions, which employ automatic target recognition have proven exceptionally lethal in recent global conflicts, most recently in Europe. Our own tests have also demonstrated this technology to be effective with five of five successful shots during testing. We plan to equip our infantry and reconnaissance Marines with this loitering capability mounting those munitions on both ground vehicles and long-range unmanned surface vessels, the one I mentioned earlier.

And we will make a final decision on vendors this year. And with that brief update in mind, a fair question I think might be to ask, how do you plan to pay for all these new capabilities and other force design investments? Recognizing today’s budget environment, the Marine Corps has, for the past two years, and we will continue pursuing a cost-neutral approach to Force Design We will self-fund our modernization.

To ensure the success of this approach, I will ask for your support in reducing the total procurement of some platforms commensurate with the recent reductions in our end strength. The fact is today’s Marine Corps is significantly smaller than it was a decade ago, about 24,000 Marines smaller. That means we won’t need as many ground vehicles.

We won’t need as many aircraft as we thought we did when the initial procurement decisions were made decades ago. It’s just simple math. And with the reductions outlined in our Force Design report, I believe we will have sufficient resources to create the modern capabilities required for competition, deterrence, and crisis response without a further reduction in our end strength.

That approach, however, relies 100 percent on this committee’s confidence in allowing the Marine Corps to retain and reallocate the internal resources we generate through end-strength reductions, cutting legacy platforms, and rightsizing previously set programs of record for new capabilities like the F-35, the CH-53K, and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle.

My promise to you as commandant is to remain the very best steward of taxpayer dollars. And I ask for your continued support to ensure your Marines, which are the nation’s force and readiness, remains ready to respond to any crisis anywhere in the world today and into the future. Like the acting secretary mentioned, I welcome the opportunity to work with this committee and I look forward to your questions, both in this hearing and in the weeks to come.

TESTER:

Thank you, General Berger, and I appreciate all three of your statements. I think it is critically important that you continue to communicate with this committee so that you’re prepared to fight the next conflict, not the last one. So, thank you all very much for your statements. General Berger, your top priority has been the implementation of Force Design2030. You’ve talked about it in your opening statement as a plan to modernize the Marine Corps and ensure it remains the world’s most effective naval expeditionary force.

When we consider what it will take to serve as a credible deterrent to China, and if necessary, fight and win future wars, it is essential that our Marine Corps can successfully modernize and meet the challenge. This subcommittee is strongly supportive of the strategic concepts associated with Force Design.

We must ensure that the Force Design priority program stays on schedule and responsibly use taxpayer dollars. So here’s my question, General Berger. Your unfunded priorities list contains several items that would accelerate the Marine Corps’ long-range fires program, increase troop mobility, improve command-and-control capabilities, where does the unfunded priority list provide us opportunities to accelerate Force Design implementation?

BERGER:

Part of the challenge, Chairman, as you are well aware, is that in a pacing-threat environment like we’re at right now, both of us are moving. Add to that the speed at which technology is developing. So, the items on our unfunded priority list, as you mentioned, Chairman, that’s what we need to ensure we stay in front.

We’re very ready today, but those items will allow us to be ready in the future in front of our adversary with some margin of error, which I believe we must have. So, things like ground-based anti-ship missiles, the G/ATOR radar, the CH-53K. Those — the MQ-9 Reaper. Those will allow your forward force, your stand-in force to deter effectively forward in the future as well.

TESTER:

Are you confident the programs you’re requesting funding for in FY ’22 can deliver results quickly?

BERGER:

Absolutely, yes.

TESTER:

OK. And how are you balancing the need to move quickly on strategic concepts while keeping those costs affordable?

BERGER:

We’re small enough that we could not set aside an experimentation force in the Marine Corps. So for example, Chairman, what we did is — we have three Marine divisions in the Marine Corps. We pick one battalion in each division, outfitted differently, organized differently, equipped differently, trained differently.

And for the next 18 to 24 months, we’ll experiment with all three. And the rationale behind that is that’s how we’re going to learn faster, that’s how we’re going to introduce the results of experimentation in wargaming into our Force Design process at speed.

TESTER:

Thank you. Admiral Gilday, recent media articles suggest that the Navy is expecting to face a challenge in next year’s budget request and will have to make some difficult funding decisions on how to proceed with the Navy’s Modernization Act. These funding decisions will only become more difficult in the future as the Navy continues to modernize and introduces new weapons systems, and programs like next-generation submarines, surface combatants, and aircraft.

So Admiral Gilday, we never are going to have enough money to do everything that we’d like to do. That’s a fact. Which generation systems and programs should be prioritized in the upcoming budget request?

GILDAY:

Sir, thank you. So big picture, what my intention — or our intention to do with our investment strategy is to afield the most capable, most lethal, most ready force that we can, given the top line that we have. And so, we have not come off of our priority to continue to invest heavily in the readiness and training of the force that we have today because that force needs to be forward to be relevant.

With respect to modernization, key programs include hypersonics. We have doubled our investment in hypersonics and R&D. I think that is a very reasonable investment strategy based on the fact that we are ahead or on track with every milestone in that program, including a very successful multi-thousand-mile test last year, and a successful new-generation engine burn just a month ago, working very closely with both the Army and the Air Force on that particular project.

Likewise, on the defensive side, directed energy is an important investment for us with respect to fleet survivability. I mentioned upfront in my opening statement that the major investments by the Chinese are in space and missiles. We have to have a way to — we have to have a way to defeat those missiles.

And I think an afford — the most affordable way to do that is a Defense in Depth-type of framework that includes laser energy. We have those systems now at sea and are fielding them.

TESTER:

So, I just want to flesh that side just a little bit more. All four — all four defense committees are going to be making decisions soon on what changes we’re going to make to the 2022budget request. What views do you wish to share about your investment priorities today, so that we might avoid disagreements on what systems deserve more funding?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. So if I start in the undersea, that’s our most survivable strike platform in the United States Navy, and arguably, in the U.S. military is our underwater superiority over the Chinese. We must maintain that overmatch. With respect to surface, continuing investment in new ships. We know that we — we know that our cruises are nearing 35 years old.

We need to replace those. We’re going with a smaller, more distributed force. The frigate investment is really important, as are the long-range weapons we’re investing to put at sea, and hypersonics on our first — on our Zumwalt-class ships by ’25. If I — it needs to be balanced across the three domains, sir.

Under the sea, on the sea, in the air. The fourth and fifth-generation mix of aircraft that we’re fielding by — we’re fielding now this summer with our first deployment. But by 2025, we’ll have five to six squadrons, and by the end of the decade, we’ll have all nine squadrons that have that mix of fourth and fifth.

We want to keep that on track as well.

TESTER:

Thanks, Admiral. Senator Shelby.

SHELBY:

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Harker, the administration’s budget proposal includes a request for a new language to authorize multiyear procurement contracts for multiple ship classes, including the destroyer, while at the same time breaking the current multiyear contract for the destroyer.

The question is this, how does the Navy, sir, plan to measure the impact of its proposal to breach the current destroyer multiyear contract on the cost to future multiyear procurements? In other words, how can Congress and the industrial base trust the Navy to fulfill its commitments to multiyear contracts, which I think are important?

HARKER:

Thank you, sir. Yes, multiyear contracts are very important to us. We do intend to sign another multiyear for DDGs starting in ’23 through ’27 and continue that procurement into the foreseeable future. DDG-51 is a very valuable asset for us. We really struggled with the decision to take that out of this year’s budget.

It was the hardest decision we made, and we would love to have been able to include it going into this next year. We are committed to multi years for our submarines and for DDGs. The — over the last multiyear period, it was a 10-ship multiyear over a five-year period. With the assistance of the committees and the Congress, we were able to purchase 10 ships, so the one that’s in our budget this year will be an 11th ship.

That gave us the ability to not buy the DDG this year, but it was a very difficult decision for us, sir.

SHELBY:

Sir, do you believe it’s very important for the industrial base to believe that the Navy is going to fulfill their contracts?

HARKER:

Yes, sir. I do. Very much so. It’s critical for our industrial base, and we believe that we have a strong working relationship with them.

SHELBY:

Sir, in the final year of a five-year multiyear procurement contract for Arleigh-Burke class destroyers, this subject here. Despite the multiyear contract, in 2022, the budget request includes only one destroyer, rather than the contracted two. This is perplexing because of the Navy’s No. 1 unfunded requirement is $1.7 billion for the second destroyer.

Seems like a contradiction. Admiral Gilday, why did the Navy remove one destroyer from its’22 budget proposal? Is it no longer needed or is that just playing with the budget and the numbers?

GILDAY:

No, sir, it wasn’t playing with the numbers. So I go back to the thesis of our budget proposal, which is to feel the best, most capable, and most lethal fleet that we can, that’s 296 ships, and make it the best that we can, including a modernization plan that gives us increased capabilities and then growing the Navy at an affordable rate.

And so it was a balance across those three areas, sir. And as the secretary said in his opening statement, based on incidents like the collisions in ’17, we are unwilling — at least my best advice, sir, to continue to prioritize training and readiness is our top priority.

SHELBY:

I believe it’s a given by this Committee on Appropriations Defense to not to shortchange the Navy, not to shortchange readiness and also future weapons. And if we do it, we do it at the peril of the — of this country. Would we not?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. I believe so.

SHELBY:

General Berger, I’ll direct this to you, sir. In 2019, the U.S. Marine Corps’ unfunded requirements list totaled $235.9 million. In 2020, it was $2 billion. In 2021, it is 769.8million. This year’s unfunded requirements list from the Marine Corps is as much as all three years list combined, totaling nearly $3 billion according to our committee.

General Berger, has the Marine Corps been resourced adequately to support your force design and maintain pace on modernization priorities and readiness? In other words, sir, what is the impact of such a significant unfunded requirements list to the Marine Corps if left unfunded?

BERGER:

If left unfunded, I think for all of our unfunded requirements list, it equals risk, probably the simplest way to categorize it. We are learning as we go with Force Design. We didn’t know two years ago exactly what the Marine Corps would need to look like a decade out. We have a much clearer picture now.

So in order to give the committees a larger menu to select from — with a clear picture of where the Marine Corps is going, we added to the unfunded priority list, but those things near the top that are not funded equal risk — equals strategic risk.

SHELBY:

And I’ll direct this — my last question to you, Admiral Gilday. The submarine industrial base topic. Construction of the new Columbia-class submarine is now underway at shipyards that are already working on the Virginia-class submarine. You know all of this. The schedule for the Virginia boats has fallen off of the two-year period delivery cadence of the Block III boats and current ships under construction are as much as two years behind delivery.

So, I don’t understand it. Admiral, what is the Navy doing to get to delivery cadence of the Virginia back on track as work on the Columbia begins to pick up? And has this – the investment in the so-called integrated enterprise plan paying off in terms of industrial base readiness and cost reduction to our submarine program?

GILDAY:

Sir, in terms of capacity, I think it’s fair to say that our submarine industrial base has probably never been as busy as they are today. We have 12 boats under construction right now. We’re going to deliver two this year. I think we’ll [Inaudible] over by the end of July. Right now, we are moving at a pretty good pace to put — to build two per year in terms of subcomponents.

That then needs to go to the larger components, and they need to be able to build at the rate of two submarines a year as well. The investments that the private yards are making include hiring more people, the training that’s associated with that, the advanced funding that the Congress has given us that’s allowed us to buy spare parts and materials to help neck down or reduce that delay in those submarine builds.

We are watching a Block IV Virginia-class very closely. Those delivery dates are not where they need to be, but they are moving in the right direction to the left.

HELBY:

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Shelby. Senator Schatz.

SCHATZ:

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you all for your service. Good to see you all. I’m going to start with General Berger and talk a little bit about Marines in the Pacific as part of the Defense Policy Review Initiative. The plan to realign Marines began with a series of conversations between the U.S. and Japanese governments in 2002. It became official in2006. There were some changes in 2012. And stipulating to the fact that as Senator Mike Mansfield says — said, excuse me, that the bilateral relationship between the United States and Japan is the most important bilateral relationship that we have, bar none, and that we should keep our commitments to our greatest ally in the region.

It still seems to me that whether it’s Lift, whether it’s the difficulty in finding a Futenma replacement facility, whether it’s the challenge of construction on Guam, whether it’s beddowns on Oahu, that — and maybe more importantly, that the whole region has changed. I would like to be reassured that we’re striking the right balance between maintaining our ironclad commitment to the Japanese government and still maintaining the flexibility to make sure this thing makes any sense at all.

BERGER:

I think, Senator, your characterization, I would see it exactly the same way. That agreement that was made nine years ago did not account for, to your point, where the world is right now. I think this is the driving force behind the secretary’s eff ort right now to do a global posture review because it’s not set right for the future.

I think he senses that, and he’s driven us to undertake a global posture review. Within the Pacific, I think the view from Japan, to your point, and the view from the U.S. is the threat from PRC from the PLAN, their military, is significantly different than it was in 2012. We have to have forces stationed forward and deployed forces if we’re going to have a best chance of preventing the next conflict.

But the laydown of DPRI is worth revising, is worth looking at because it was set under different conditions. This is going to be led, as you know better than me, by diplomacy, by an eff ort with the State Department to work with Japan on what’s the best way forward. 

SCHATZ:
Thank you very much. And Secretary Harker, the Navy’s reliance on fossil fuels contributes to a vulnerability. The president issued an executive order to all federal agencies, including the DOD, to use their procurement authority to move the country towards carbon-free electricity by 2035. So can you talk about the new things that the Navy is doing pursuant to that?

And as you probably know, I’ve been tracking this issue for a while, so I’m not as interested in pilot projects or separate programs related to clean energy, but more importantly, how we’re integrating the president’s EO in all aspects of bases, installations, fuel, forward deployments, the smart grid, all of that.

And I think it’s really important that we don’t silo clean energy into some space called pilot projects and environmental initiatives, and bases, and installations and environment, but rather to understand this as core to the mission and therefore core to the way we do our procurement. I’m wondering if you can comment on that.

HARKER:

Yes, Senator, definitely. I — I’ve looked into this since taking this job, and I’ve been to several of our bases where we’ve done a lot to improve our ability to provide a carbon-free energy footprint and to take more advantage of things like solar and wind generation. I was down at Parris Island on a trip there.

They’ve got a huge solar energy capability there that they’ve built on some old, abandoned runways. We’ve got other bases that have been doing that. It’s something that we’re focused– where each installation has a climate installation plan focused to try to improve how we’re doing in this area.

SCHATZ:

And are you integrating that into your requirements when you do the procurements of energy more generally? Again, establishing like a climate person at each base and installation, that’s great. But what matters is your RFIs, your RFQs, your RFPs.

HARKER:

Yes, sir. I know there’s projects that focus on this on the R&D side, and we are including it in future requirements.

SCHATZ:

OK. And final question. I want to talk to you about operational energy. What are we doing to make ship hulls more hydrodynamic and our combat aircraft more fuel-efficient?

HARKER:

So I’m going to ask the CNO to help you on that.

GILDAY:

So, right now, we’re collaborating with industry on a new design for DDG(X), and then it will include taking a look at the latest industry best practices with respect to improve hull forms. It’s the same thing as we look at a new class of submarine, we call SSN(X). The initial R&D that we’re putting against that project, again, collaborating very closely with industry, is to look for a submarine that will travel higher speeds, and part of that is based in the shape of the hull.

SCHATZ:

Thank you.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Schatz. Senator Collins.

COLLINS:

Thank you, Mister Chairman. Secretary Harker, Admiral Gilday, let me start by thanking you both for coming to the great state of Maine to visit Bath Iron Works and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. I know that you saw that they are outstanding assets that are critical to the Navy and our industrial base. Nevertheless, let me be blunt in my assessment of this budget.

It is not close to adequate to meet the challenges that we are facing around the globe. It does nothing to help us counter the increase in the Chinese fleet. In fact, it goes in the opposite direction and the disparity will be even greater. And third, it jeopardizes our industrial base where we have only two yards building large surface combatants.

And the information I have is that if this budget is enacted, that 500 skilled jobs will be lost next year at one of those yards, and even more in subsequent years. So my question to you is also blunt and that is, was the DDG excluded from the budget simply because you were given an inadequate top line that you had to meet?

Secretary Harker, we’ll start with you and then Admiral Gilday.

HARKER:

Thanks, Senator. I really appreciated the opportunity to tour both Bath Iron Works and the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard with you. The workers there were outstanding. The integration between labor and management at Bath Iron Works and at the shipyard was just a model for all of our shipbuilding and ship maintenance facilities.

And that’s something that we definitely want to keep and invest in. We were unable to procure the DDG because of funding challenges. We did not have sufficient funds in the budget for us to be able to meet the balanced needs of providing a ready force today, the capability that each of the ships needed, and then the capacity of adding that additional destroyer.

So as we went through and we balance things out to provide the best budget we could, we did not have room for that destroyer in the budget.

COLLINS:

Admiral Gilday, do you have anything to add to that?

GILDAY:

Yes, ma’am. It was absolutely an affordability issue. We fought for that hull right to the bitter end. And if you take a look at where the money would come from to pay for that additional destroyer, we’re decomming, or our proposal is to decommission 15 ships, old cruisers primarily, or we’ll be taking money out of manpower, out of spare parts, out of ammunition.

And we’ve learned those lessons in the past that that’s a bad place to take that money from. And so it really did come down to priorities. As difficult as it was to break the multiyear and to send mixed signals to industry, it really did come down to prioritizing the investments that we had to make right now in the fleet that we have today.

COLLINS:

And our job, I would suggest to the chairman and vice chairman, is going to be to look across the entire government and every department’s budget as the full committee because when you see the double-digit increases for all of the civilian agencies and then you get to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security and essentially see a cut in real terms, it’s just our priorities are out of whack here.

And I hope that we can remedy that. I just, Admiral Gilday, want to quickly touch on the shipyard infrastructure optimization plan that includes 250 million for the second increment of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard’s multinational Dry Dock No. 1 project. And that is really important as well. Could you explain to the committee what will happen if we do not provide that funding in terms of the ability to return submarines and sailors to the fleet?

GILDAY:

Yes, ma’am. It’s my judgment that if we don’t fund that project in ’22 adequately, they will put at risk the ability to do our first availabilities on Virginia-class submarines beginning in FY ’26. The project up there in Kittery — at Portsmouth is absolutely critical for us to have that East Coast capability, we’re simply not going to have it. We don’t have dry docks large enough to put those ships, to put those holes in to do the maintenance on that –maintenance on them that’s required.

COLLINS:

Thank you.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Murray.

MURRAY:

Thank you very much, Mister Chairman. Thank you to all of you for being here today. Secretary Harker, let me just start with saying — by saying that I was really pleased that the Navy decided to base the first new Constellation-class frigates at Naval Station Everett. As you well know, Everett is a really important base for the Navy, and we’ve got to continue investing in that base and the community for the long term.

I wanted to ask you today what additional investments at Everett are going to be necessary to accommodate those new ships or additional sailors and their families?

HARKER:

I don’t have that information with me, ma’am, but I know we’re committed to making sure that we don’t send our ships out there without the additional crew facilities necessary for both the crew and the families and so on. Sir, you may have additional points.

GILDAY:

Yeah, absolutely. So that work is ongoing right now. The holes go in the water in — the first hole will be delivered in 2026, ma’am, in addition to things like housing, child care, training facilities that will need for those crews as well. So we’ll look at it holistically so that we don’t– so that they don’t cut those crews and their families short.

MURRAY:

Good. All right. Well, I look forward to working with you on that as it continues. General Berger, I did want to ask you, you are proposing the boldest rethinking of the Marine Corps role and structure in decades. And as part of that, you’re proposing to cut and strengthen, have smaller units operating from inside the area our adversaries can strike.

How will training need to change to prepare our Marines for those missions?

BERGER:

Training will have to, one, take the individual Marine to a higher level than they are right now from recruitment. In other words, through their entry-level training to their first unit, we have to raise the bar because we’re going to expect noncommissioned officers and
junior officers to make decisions.

That’s two levels up they’re making today. When we’re more distributed, we’re more spread out, then junior leaders are going to make the calls, especially if you’re in a high-threat environment where they’re kind of challenge your communications. They’re going to make their decisions independent of probably great communications with their higher headquarters.

So our training for them has to get higher. We’re lengthening, for example, infantry training right now by 50 percent this year. It has to be longer. It has to get them to another level. The same individual that now maybe three people have three different skill sets. We got to make sure one person has three skill sets, if you follow me. So that one person is in a car, and one person isn’t a machine gun, and the next person is a sniper.

We got to have people with multiple skills. So I think we will rate — we will raise the bar and in training to make sure that we can empower and train them to a level where they can make the decisions on the spot.

MURRAY:

How do you expect this to increase the operational tempo, and how are you going to support Marines families during more frequent or longer deployments that you envision?

BERGER:

A separate issue on the frequency of deployments, and that’s really driven by what the nation needs year to year. But the difference in Force Design, ma’am, is from the beginning, our premise was we’re going to build a force that’s manned at 100 percent in the fleet Marine force. That’s not the case right now. We take risk.

In other words, we man them at less than 100 percent, but we are buying — we are building the Marine Corps manned at 100 percent. When you do that, then you can accept an increase, a surge for periods of time. But your point on the stress on the families, absolutely, so when we deploy forces, like we have right now, onboard naval ships, and it’s a plan six or seven-month deployment, you know, that’s tough.

When it’s extended, it’s to a whole other level because then you’re into unpredictable land for them. All of which is manageable, but we need to run the machine at a pace we can sustain, which I think you’re highlighting, ma’am.

MURRAY:

Thank you. And finally, of those on calls — so let me just say this Secretary Harker, the Department of the Navy has been pursuing a number of actions that are — I’m concerned are very harmful to workers in my home state of Washington, and which jeopardize the stability of the industrial base, and those include proposals to divest UAV and virtually brand new patrol boats, changing shipbuilding specifications to circumvent by America requirements in the corporation’s law and a lack of clarity on the disposition of a dry dock.

I haven’t gotten satisfactory answers on that. There’s no time right now, but I want to know if there’s — what reasonable alternatives are considered, and I’d like to follow up with you and my staff on that.

HARKER:

Yes, ma’am, definitely. I’ll follow up with you on that. I know I’ve been out to the dry dock there over in Bremerton, and I’ve talked with the shipyard commander there, and I’m fully committed to the shipyard infrastructure optimization eff ort to renew — replace that drydock, and part of our eff ort to modernize that.

And then on the other areas, will definitely get back to you, ma’am.

MURRAY:

OK. I appreciate that. Thank you.

TESTER:

Thanks, Senator Murray. Senator Baldwin.

BALDWIN:

Thank you, Mister Chairman. We are very excited to be building the new frigate in the state of Wisconsin. However, even though this ship is based on proven hull design, new ship classes often experience is experienced challenges related to technical concurrency, cost overruns, or schedule slips. As you know, it’s important that our acquisition programs account for these challenges, which means requiring things like technology maturation, systems integration, and full-ship tech data.

I believe these milestones should be achieved prior to bringing on any additional shipyards should the Navy want to increase thereby down the road. Similarly, to avoid affecting the production ramp-up, we must avoid any gap-year funding for the frigate. So can you — this is to Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday.

Can you commit to requiring these technical milestones are met prior to bringing on a second shipyard, and can you also commit to avoiding gap years in the procurement profile?

HARKER:

Yes, ma’am. So first, I’ve been out to Marinette and have been working with that shipyard for probably 20 years since I was back on the Coast Guard as a business manager for the buoy tender acquisition project. So I’ve got a lot of great experience, a lot of respect for the people that work at that shipyard.

As we go forward, it’s definitely something that we want to do is make sure that we don’t make mistakes by delivering ships that aren’t fully mature and proceeding down that road. So I think there’s definitely a need to make sure we get the technology mature and that’s something that I believe just, you know, have some thoughts on it as well.

GILDAY:

Yes, ma’am. So we are — with respect to risk and building that ship, I was just on a FREMM class over in Europe three weeks ago — really, really impressive hull. So we’ve done this before to minimize risk where we’ve taken an existing hull and put a known combat system — a weapon system on it. We did this back in the 80s and it worked out really well between the Ticonderoga-class cruisers in the Arleigh Burke DDGs. It’s the same type of approach that we have up in Marinette.

I went to Marinette myself, that was, you know, it was a great trip. Number one, I got to talk to the ship workers, but I will say that that risk is something that we are carefully trying to manage. We are not introducing new systems, trying to create success and miracles that have to all line up before the ship delivers in ’26. So I’m highly confident that both the Navy and the shipyard are working very closely together to make sure we’re not introducing any additional risk into that bill.

With respect to moving to a second yard, I am taking a very conservative approach myself with respect to anything that we would do in that regard. I understand the benefits of the industrial base, but we have to get that right and we have to leverage what we’ve learned from other builds like the LCS to make sure that we get that right.

The last thing I would say is that predictability with respect to budgets, especially shipbuilding is really important for the industry, and I recognize that. One of the things that struck me at Marinette was the amount of infrastructure that they’re building to support the Constellation-class frigate. So if we change those numbers that — those investments are going to be a waste.

I recognize that, ma’am, and again, take the formulation of the budget very seriously in terms of how I — how we prioritize and the message that we send to the industry.

BALDWIN:

Thank you. I appreciate that focus on the industrial base. And I think we’ve observed that the shipbuilding industrial base has become more fragile over the last 25 years. Congress has invested significant additional funding to support submarine and ship-specific workforce and supplier expansion programs, which has really paid off for programs like Columbia, Virginia, and DDG-51. The same rationale for those industrial base programs holds true for the frigate.

So do you believe that these types of Congressional investments have benefited the Navy fleet, our industrial base, and our national security? And if so, do you agree that similar investments into the frigate industrial base and workforce will have the same positive results? And again, to you, Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday.

HARKER:

So yes, definitely, investing in our industrial base is something that’s critical for us. We use funds from the Defense Production Act authority to invest $50 million. And also, we’ve invested money in other places, and we’ve worked with the shipyards and other sources of funding to continue to invest in the industrial base.

We believe in a strong industrial base, and that’s critical to our needs.

BALDWIN:

Thank you.

GILDAY:

Ma’am, as I answer this question, I’m going to speak more generally and not to Marinette, in particular. I do think that those investments are important. However, I also think it’s important to set expectations. So you mentioned — let’s say, the Columbia class, which will be building out to 2035, or Virginia class, which we’re going to be building out to late 2020.So when you have — when the industry has that kind of set of headlights, as does Congress.

With respect to a commitment to building that many ships in the class for that long a period, I think it then becomes easier to justify those investments in private yard infrastructure. And so I think that they should be tied together so we shouldn’t kid ourselves in terms of putting money down that we’re not going to reap the benefits of.

BALDWIN:

Thank you.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Moran.

MORAN:

Chairman, thank you. General Berger, as you look to shift the Marine Corps’ focus from counter-insurgency eff orts to its original mission of naval expeditionary force, logistics will play a major role in the force structure. Your current CH-53E fleet continues to struggle with readiness issues, so I want to be certain the Marine Corps is prepared for a near-peer fight.

Can you describe the new CH-53K heavy-lift helicopter’s contribution to your force structure redesign, particularly as it pertains to distributed maritime logistics and in a contested environment?

BERGER:

I can, Senator. It’s a phenomenal aircraft. I flew on that aircraft maybe three months ago this past spring down in North Carolina because growing up in 53Ds and 53Es, you kind of knew what that platform was like. Hadn’t been on a 53K other than in a simulator. A simulator doesn’t do it justice. It is an incredible aircraft — speed, lift capability, reliability, its fly-by-wire.

He hovered and picked up a weight hands-off. I mean, it’s that kind of technology, it’s a glass cockpit. Now, we just have to right size it for what we need. But distributing the force the way the CNO and I have in mind — we’re going to need the 53K, we’re going to need the light amphibious warship in order to move the troops, supplies, and lethal aspects around.

It’s critical.

MORAN:

How is this helicopter currently performing in preparation for the initial operational test and evaluation in July?

BERGER:

Probably like most programs in the areas we look closest to, it’s performing — it’s meeting the requirements. There are some areas where flight crews have suggestions on how to improve it, as you would expect. But so far, on track, sir.

MORAN:

Great. Thank you for your answer.

BERGER:

Yes, sir.

MORAN:

And thank you for your service, all of you.

TESTER:

Thank you, Senator Moran. We appreciate all of your testimony here today and the answers to the questions. Senators may submit additional written questions, and we ask you to respond to them within a reasonable amount of time. This committee stands in recess.

List of Panel Members and Witnesses

PANEL MEMBERS:
SEN. JON TESTER (D-MONT.), CHAIRMAN
SEN. RICHARD J. DURBIN (D-ILL.)
SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT.)
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN (D-CALIF.)
SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-WASH.)
SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.)
SEN. BRIAN SCHATZ (D-HAWAII)
SEN. TAMMY BALDWIN (D-WIS.)
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.)
SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY (D-VT.) EX-OFFICIO
SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY (R-ALA.), RANKING MEMBER
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY.)
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS (R-MAINE)
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI (R-ALASKA)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.)
SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO.)
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KAN.)
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN (R-N.D.)
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN (R-ARK.)
SEN. RICHARD C. SHELBY (R-ALA.) EX-OFFICIO
WITNESSES:
Acting Secretary of the Navy Thomas W. Harker
Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Mike Gilday
Commandant of the Marine Corps Gen. David Berger.

Source: United States Navy

Below is a transcript of the hearing:

REED:
I like to call the hearing to order. The committee meets today to receive testimony in the plans and programs of the Department of the Navy and review of the president’s fiscal year 2022 defense budget request. I would like to welcome all witnesses, acting secretary of the Navy, Thomas Harker; chief of naval operations, Admiral Michael Gilday; and commandant of the Marine Corps, General David Berger.

We are grateful for your service, to the service of the men and women under your command, and for the support of all Navy and Marine families. The administration’s defense budget request for the fiscal year 2022 includes approximately $211.7 billion in funding for the Department of the Navy, an increase of $3.7 billion from the fiscal year 2021 enacted budget.

As the leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps, you face significant challenges as you strive to balance the need to support ongoing operations and sustain readiness alongside the need to modernize and sharpen the technological edge that is so critical to our military success. I would welcome an update from all of our witnesses on how they are balancing new concept implementation with the procurement of new systems and the upgrade of existing platforms, or by meeting current operational needs.

Our naval forces are maintaining an extremely high operations tempo across all areas. Demand is overwhelming for attack submarines, air-and-missile defense cruisers, destroyers, and strike fighter inventories. The Navy is now in its eighth year operating with fewer than the legally required 11 aircraft carriers.

The USS Gerald Ford is listed in the Navy inventory, but that carrier is more than six years behind schedule and not yet ready to deploy. While the Ford has been playing an important role in training aviators by conducting carrier qualification operations, she will not be ready to deploy for several more months.

However, I’m glad to see that the Ford has begun conducting full-shift shock trials, an important step in the process for ensuring she’s ready to engage in unrestricted operations. Looming on the horizon during the next decade, the Navy will also need to buy a new Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines to replace the Ohio-class fleet.

This is an expensive undertaking on a very tight schedule, and I trust the Navy is making every effort to keep this program on track, and I ask for our witnesses to give an update. The Navy is using tools such as multiyear procurement authority to conduct its modernization
programs more efficiently. Congress has approved a multi-year procurement authority for both attack submarines and Aegis destroyers.

These vessels represent the largest inventory shortfall against the goals of the 2016 force structure assessment with the actual Navy fleet 15 boats below the attack submarine goal and 14 below the goal for destroyers. With that in mind, I am concerned that the Navy is breaking faith with Congress by submitting a budget that would break the multi-year contract for the DDG-51 destroyers.

I understand that the No. 1 item on the CNO’s unfunded priority list is the second aegis destroyer in FY ’22. The Navy took a similar approach in FY ’21 by asking for only one Virginia-class submarine and then making the submarine the No. 1 item on its unfunded priority list. That year, the second submarine was merely an option on the underlying multi-year contract.

But in this case, the absence of the second destroyer in the FY ’22 budget would violate the terms of the current destroyer multiyear procurement contract. I’d appreciate an explanation of this decision and assurances that such actions of cutting a ship only to put it on the unfunded priority list is not a trend.

The Marine Corps is restructuring around two concepts, littoral operations in a contested environment and expeditionary advanced base operations. The key element of these concepts is a more flexible, amphibious force that can support a broader naval fight once ashore. Rather than simply acting as a landing force, the Marine Corps hopes to help control the sea and air around them in support of the Navy.

To accomplish this, the Marine Corps is prioritizing modernization of its ground vehicles, including a partnership with the Army on the joint light tactical vehicle or JLTV to replace the Humvee, and targeted investments in the high-mobility artillery rocket system or HIMARS to provide Marines with ground-based indirect fire support.

In addition, programs like the amphibious combat vehicle, ground-based anti-ship missiles, and long-range precision fires will provide critical modernization, increase force protection, and enhance lethality to Marines. General Berger. While this restructuring has been ongoing for many months, due to COVID, you have not really had an opportunity to explain it to a wide audience and I invite you to do so at this hearing.

Finally, in 2016, Admiral Richardson released a force structure assessment that has identified a new force structure goal: a fleet of 355 ships. Last year, we received from Sectary Esper what was portrayed as an updated assessment, which calls for expanding the goal for the Navy fleet to include between 400 and 500 ships, with roughly 100 of these vessels unmanned.

I would like to know how the Navy intends to maintain a fleet of 355 ships or even 400 to 500 ships when it is frankly unable to maintain the current fleet of 294 ships on a consistent schedule, deferred ship maintenance, reduced [Inaudible] flying hours, and canceled training and deployments have created serious readiness problems within the Navy.

We remember too well the collision of the McCain and Fitzgerald, and the loss of life that resulted. So, I’m interested in hearing about the progress the Navy is making and continue to implement changes that will ensure such incidents will not happen in the future. Again, I want to thank the witnesses for appearing today.

I look forward to the testimonies, and now let me recognize the Ranking Member Senator Inhofe.

INHOFE:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. I thank all of the witnesses for being here, for the great job they’re doing. You know, as we’ve said before, this is a lousy budget. But it’s not the fault of these three people who are here today. They don’t have a choice. They are doing what they are ordered to do, and I don’t like it and not many members of this committee like it, because this budget doesn’t keep up with inflation, much less the 3 percent to 5 percent. If you read the book, we all — this is our — what we go by and we have since ’18 and it’s very clear where we should be today.

We — our increases in the military should be between 3 percent and 5 percent. It’s been there, we’ve talked about this for a long period of time, we’re there, and we’re not doing it. So, a budget like this sends China and our other potential adversaries the wrong message. They’re not willing to do what it takes to defend ourselves, our allies, and our partners.

That’s the message they’re getting from us. And we should be worried about China for a multitude of reasons, but looking just at their Navy, they passed our fleet size target of 355 ships last year and will reach 460 ships in — by 2030. They’re on schedule to do that. That’s an increase of 105 ships in ten years.

Meanwhile, this budget supports at best the status quo of U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Our
Navy is under 300 ships today and there’s no growth. In fact, while China is growing its
fleet, our Navy is struggling to avoid shrinking. Because right now that’s what it is and —
along with the rest of the military.

It’s an unacceptable situation because our military is not given — being given the resources it needs. And as I’ve said, this budget makes bad choices, not hard choices. For example, Admiral Gilday’s forced to cut the destroyer not because he doesn’t need it and doesn’t want it. He wants it, but he’s forced to cut it, didn’t have a choice.

The budget also proposes to inactivate 15 ships, 10 of which have more than — more years of service that it buys six fewer F-35C Joint Strike Fighters than required, divest all 12 patrol craft, cuts Navy and Marine Corps munitions by roughly 10 percent. As bad as this budget is, I’m concerned next — about next year that it would be worse.

Secretary Harker, on June 4, you directed the Navy to defund the nuclear sea-launched cruise missiles and prioritized the modernization of aircraft ships. You have to make a choice between aircraft ships and submarines. China doesn’t have to make a choice between aircraft ships and submarines. So, we got a lot of work to do, we got a problem, and I think we all understand this.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

REED:
Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. Mister Secretary, your testimony, please.

HARKER:
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished members of this committee, thank you for your bipartisan efforts on behalf of the sailors, marines, and civilians in the Department of the Navy. I’m honored to be here with General Berger and Admiral Gilday. I support their efforts to build a more integrated all-domain naval force through the Nav Plan and Force Design 2030. In order to move those plans forward within existing resources, we’ve had to make some very hard choices in this budget, but that’s exactly what the American people expect us to do. Every dollar is a strategic asset that must be maximized to stay ahead of the pacing threat of China and many other challenges facing our fleet and our union.

Every investment must be done in a balanced and sustainable manner to ensure we maintain the readiness of our current fleet while building the capacity and capability we will need in the future. The cost of readiness is increasing. Maintenance costs have grown at a rate that is 2.5 percent above inflation. Personnel costs are also growing at a rate greater than inflation.

This growth squeezes the rest of the budget. In order to maintain our readiness, we’ve had to delay some of our planned ship purchases to future years. In order to invest in a superior future force, we had to divest off less-capable assets. These were not easy choices. In order to ensure future availability and readiness of our fleet, we are prioritizing investments in our physical infrastructure, including full commitment to the shipyard infrastructure optimization program.

I have visited all four of our public shipyards, as well as most of the private shipyards, and other commercial facilities. It has been an inspiration to shake the hands of the men and women who are building and maintaining our fleet and to speak with every lever of labor and management about the issues they face, and the need for consistency in funding and demand.

That’s why we’re increasing the capability and resiliency of these century-old installations, increasing the size and capability of our drydocks, and equipping our 40,000-person workforce with the tools they need to maintain our new, more lethal assets. To ensure our resources reach the warfighters who need them, we’re demanding rigorous self-assessment and responsive accountability in every part of our enterprise through the Perform to Plan initiative.

This effort has improved the readiness of our strike fighters and is being rolled out successfully across the fleets. As good stewards, we are on the right path towards obtaining an honored opinion for the Navy and Marine Corps general funds, and the department’s working capital fund. We are the only military department that has eliminated audit material weaknesses, three in the Navy, one in the Marine Corps, and are leading the way on this critical effort inside the department.

This has enabled us to improve cybersecurity and our business systems. Since 2017, the Marine Corps has closed 41 out of 110 IT findings, 17 of which were cybersecurity-related. We are also increasing investment in the department’s oversight functions while maximizing the return on our investment in the performance audit process.

Effective use and management of data is key to our digital transformation and will change how we fight and win at every level. This requires the modernization of our information technology infrastructure, which is a critical warfighting priority for the department. We’re prioritizing the mental health of our force, speaking out at the senior level about the benefits of counseling, and the availability of counselors, chaplains, and other professionals.

We appreciate the committee’s attention to this vital issue and your support in providing additional mental health support to our sailors and marines in our forward operational units. We’re fighting the scourge of sexual harassment and sexual assault through efforts like the Watch List, a tool that uses Navy and Marine Corps data to alert commanders to conditions in their units that may lead to these toxic behaviors. We are increasing investment in this area, focusing on the prevention of and response to sexual harassment and assault. In this FY ’22 budget, we’ve added over 200 personnel across the Navy and Marine Corps focused on prevention. The majority of these personnel will be placed at Navy and Marine Corps installations working with sailors and marines.

We are also adding an additional 18 sexual assault response coordinators for the Marine Corps, as well as 18 Navy Criminal Investigative Service personnel dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response. We look forward to the findings of Secretary Austin’s 90-day independent review commission and are committed to making meaningful and lasting progress on this issue.

Around the world, around the clock, the sailors, marines, and civilians of our integrated force stand to watch and execute the mission. On behalf of each of them and their families, thank you for your time and dedicated oversight. I look forward to your questions.

REED:
Thank you very much, Mister Secretary. Admiral Gilday, please.

GILDAY:
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today alongside Secretary Harker and General Berger. I’m thankful for the enduring support that this committee provides the greatest navy in the world. I do believe this hearing comes at a critical time for our country.

The competition at sea intensifying. China and Russia are rapidly mobilizing their militaries, attempting to undermine our alliances, integrating the free and the open order. The Chinese battle force is the largest in the world and it is growing. Backed by a robust industrial base and the biggest shipbuilding infrastructure in the world, they command a modern fleet of surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, and next-generation fighters.

Furthermore, they are strengthening their space capabilities and stockpiling an arsenal of long-range missiles to hold us and our partners — and our allies and partners at risk. China is deliberately modernizing for the 21st century and is building an all-domain capabilities to rival our own. Make no mistake, our fleet can control the seas and conflict, and project power ashore today, but we will be increasingly challenged to do so in the future unless hard choices are made.

The results of analysis over the past five years inside and outside the Pentagon have been consistent and they’ve been clear: America needs a larger, more capable fleet. Importantly, our latest study gave us the headlights not only for the size but also for the composition of that force. We need to transition away from older, less-capable platforms and deliver the platforms and systems that provide overmatch.

At the same time, we need to grow. However, our Navy faces the task right now of recapitalizing our strategic nuclear deterrent, something we haven’t done in 40 years. And we’re making a once-in-a-century investment in our public shipyards, long overdue, while preserving our current readiness so the fleet can confidently operate forward and be relevant.

Nearly 70 percent of the ships that we have today will have a decade from now. We have to take care of the ships that we own, but the price tag on that readiness is rising. Over the past two decades, manpower, operations, and maintenance costs, which make up almost 60 percent of our budget, have grown at a rate, as the secretary mentioned, 2.5 percent above the rate of inflation.

Meanwhile, the Navy’s buying power is less than it was in 2010. Back then we had 288 ships, today we have 296. Given these factors, if the Navy’s top line remains flat or if it goes down, the size of our fleet will definitely shrink. Nevertheless, we are determined to deliver the most ready, the most capable, and the most lethal Navy we can with a budget that we are given.

To do this, we are improving maintenance in our shipyards and aviation depots. We’re ensuring our ships are properly manned, that our magazines are filled with ammunition, spare parts are in our storerooms, and our sailors are getting the steaming days and the flying hours that they need to hone their skills.

We are working hard on a more robust, resilient network infrastructure as part of JADC2. We’re investing in long-range precision fires like hypersonics and tactical tomahawk. And we’re developing directed energy systems to improve fleet survivability; our eye is on the larger, hybrid fleet. The investments in our shipbuilding account reflect a rigorous analysis we conducted last year, as well as the needs of our combatant commanders.

We are determined to build affordable capacity, which includes a deliberate reproach to un-crewed vessels. And we’re making sure that every sailor can outthink and outfight any adversary by scaling our 21st-century training framework, and also our live virtual constructive training. Senators, the average age of the Chinese fleet is 11 years.

Ours is 21. It’s time to move decisively and fuel the future Navy. We must modernize now in this decade, or we will risk falling behind. We need to keep a forward posture that maintains America’s safety and prosperity. I am extremely proud of our sailors, our Navy civilians, and our families whose who sustained a historic high up-tempo in the midst of this pandemic.

They are the source of our strength as are the patriots in our shipyards and our aircraft depots, and our partners in industry, companies large and small who keep the production lines moving. Again, I am grateful for this committee’s support of the Navy and Marine Corps team. I look forward to answering your questions.

Thank you.

REED:
Thank you very much, Admiral Gilday. General Berger, please.

BERGER:
Chairman Reed, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished members of the committee. Over the past couple of years since becoming commandant, I’ve come to better understand and appreciate the bipartisan support of this committee, which is critical to creating and sustaining the force that we have today but also to build the force that we’re going to need for the future.

And I realized as we all do that, they’re competing national priorities that you have to wrestle with, and that certainly puts pressure on defense budgets. But I’m also confident that you have a clear view of the severity of the security environment around us. As the secretary  mentioned, the competition with China and Russia is increasing and it’s accelerating, and your military is going to need more advanced capabilities in order to effectively compete to reassure our allies and partners, and to effectively deter war.

Force Design 2030 is the Marine Corps’ answer to creating the cutting-edge capabilities that will better enable the fleet and the joint force to deter, to compete, and to respond with ready forces to any crisis anywhere on the globe. To be clear, Force Design is the centerpiece of a broader, systemic modernization effort as the chairman pointed out across the Marine Corps.

One that improves more than just our equipment and our warfighting formations, but also our personnel systems, our training systems, and our family programs as well. We are roughly two years into this modernization effort, and I feel I owe this committee an update. And while we don’t have sufficient time this morning to address every detail, I do want to touch on three areas that are key.

First, we’ve improved the operational reach and the efficacy of our naval expeditionary forces, and this includes the Marine Expeditionary Units, the MEUs, which are — remain the crown jewel of the force. Beginning last year, we started our transition to a mixed capability of long-range ship and ground-based unmanned aerial systems, including the MQ-9 Reaper.

This will significantly expand the organic ISR capabilities, and it’ll enable us to support both naval and joint operations, including antisubmarine warfare. We’ve also initiated a partnership with the industry to develop a future autonomous long-range unmanned surface vessel. That’s going to extend the reach of our MEUs. That vessel will give us a new tool for maritime gray zone competition, and it’ll help in thickening the C5ISR network as we call it, and it’ll help us in conventional deterrence, naval deterrence using loitering munitions. 

Lastly, we’re aggressively pursuing organic precision fires for our infantry, also with loitering munitions. And we’ll make a final decision on vendors this year. Second, we’ve made significant advancements across our training and education enterprise. In the past 16 months, we released the first new doctrine we’ve published in 20 years.

Actually, two publications: one on learning and one on competing. We’ve also significantly advanced the intellectual framework for some of our future operating concepts. Earlier this year, we published a tentative manual for expeditionary advanced base operations, and we will use that to inform our exercises, our experimentation, and our training.

We’ve significantly expanded the resources we tied to wargaming and to experimentation. Last month, down in Quantico, Virginia, we broke ground on a new state-of-the-art wargaming center that we’ll use in the future. And finally, we dramatically enhanced both the quality and the duration of training for our infantry marines.

Infantry training is now 50 percent longer and we added new modules to increase lethality. Third, we’ve taken some important initial steps to improve our personnel system and our policies. To continue attracting the highest quality men and women into our Marine Corps, we raised both the AFQT standards for enlistment and the ASVAB requirements for the infantry.

Our enlisted performance evaluation system was antiquated, it was subjective, it was completely manual. We’ve now replaced that system with a cloud-based system, where marines are evaluated now based on clearly defined objective standards that are under their control, and they can see across the force. We revised our retention policies.

Now, qualified marines can reenlist a full year early and I’ve delegated two commanders in the field the authority to reenlist qualified marines on the spot. Recognizing the strong connection between the health of our force and the support of our families, we revised our parental leave policies. Now, they include adoptive and same-sex parents, and I’ll continue to push for extend — expanded maternity leave for all marines.

And while it may seem like a modest accomplishment to some, this year, we updated our maternity uniforms to improve both our utility and their professional appearance. So, while I’m encouraged by the progress of Force Design, as well as our other modernization initiatives, I am not satisfied with the pace of change.

We must move faster. To accelerate our programs, we as a service need to do a better job of explaining the details of Force Design 2030 to members and to your staff. And that’s my responsibility as your commandant. Last week, I offered to the House Armed Services Committee that I would be willing to testify on Force Design before the full committee, as well as the Appropriations Committee, if committee chairs would find that valuable, and I make the same offer here, Chairman.

It’s critical that we build a shared understanding about where your Marine Corps is headed and why and how your support is absolutely essential to our success. Equally important, I believe is explaining how we’re going to pay for it all. During a recent speech at the Ronald Reagan Institute, Chairman Reed noted that belt-tightening in any department is always a challenge, but it also provides an opportunity to evaluate what is necessary, and I agree.

Today’s challenging budget environment, the Marine Corps, has pursued a cost-neutral approach for the last two years to Force Design. We have self-funded our modernization. To ensure the success of this approach, I will ask your support for reducing the total procurement of some platforms, commensurate with the current reduction in our end strength.

The fact is today’s Marine Corps is significantly smaller than it was 10 to 12 years ago, almost 24,000 marines smaller and we simply won’t need as many ground vehicles, won’t need as many aircraft as we did when the initial procurement decisions were made a decade ago. It’s simple math. So, with the reductions outlined in our Force Design report, I believe we will have sufficient resources to create the modern capabilities required for competition, for deterrence, and for crisis response without a further reduction in our end strength. 

I welcome the opportunity to work with this committee, and I look forward to your questions both in this hearing and in the weeks that follow. Thank you, sir.

REED:
Thank you very much, Senator Berger. Secretary Harker, would you give us some insight as to why the Navy chose to cancel the DDG-51 multiyear procurement of the second ship and then added as your first unfunded priority?

HARKER:
Thank you, Senator Reed. That was the most difficult choice that we face this year as we looked at trying to balance readiness, capability, and capacity. Taking that DDG out of the budget was the most difficult choice that we faced, and it was something that we wish we could have afforded. After visiting both shipyards where we build DDG-51s, I have the utmost confidence in those shipyards’ ability to deliver another DDG-51 if we had been able to afford it in the budget, but it was, unfortunately, a challenge for us.

REED:
Thank you. Admiral Gilday, we frequently sort of focus on the number of ships as the most important metric. But it seems to me there are other factors, for example, communications, concealment of vessels, operational readiness of vessels, where you can have a 500-ship fleet with only 100 able to sail. And then now, with the ability to match autonomous vehicles to manned vessels, unmanned autonomous vehicles. Is this notion of a fixed number of ships consistent with actual operational needs?

GILDAY:
Sir, I’d like to answer your question in three parts. First of all, with respect to numbers, it is one metric. And if we’re going to fight as a distributed force against a military as robust as China, as an example, we’re going to need a bigger Navy. I believe that the analysis has been consistent in that regard since 2016. However, I do think this is really all about capabilities and joint capabilities in terms of what the Navy brings to the fight for the joint force.

So, one of the things that I think that the analysis that we did last year was particularly helpful is not only  talking about the size of the fleet as you mentioned but most importantly, the composition of the fleet, submarines being right at the top of the list in terms of — you hinted to this in terms of concealment, right?

In terms of our most survivable strike platform, where we have overmatch right now against any adversary, and we want to maintain that. Aircraft carriers, the most survivable airfields in the world, quite a platform, the USS Enterprise, which was our first nuclear-powered carrier and was around for 50 years had 59 different type series aircraft that flew off the deck of that aircraft carrier. 

There’s incredible flexibility here, particularly, sir, as you hinted at un-crewed or unmanned in the future. Our shipbuilding plan begins to touch that, and we are in a very deliberate path. Some of it is based on the feedback from this committee that we solved two key problems with respect to unmanned before we make a decision to come to you for money to scale.

The first is the reliability of those platforms at sea, that they can sustain themselves — be self-sustaining at sea for long periods of time. And the second is the ability to be able to command and control them with a high degree of confidence. And so, sir, I hope I’ve touched on your point adequately.

REED:
Thank you, Admiral. General Berger, the littoral operation in contested environment doctrine, the expedition advanced base operations, essentially what you’re talking about is, as I sensed, it was a widely distributed environment for marines, that they would be separated in small — relatively small detachments across a broad area. Is that a fair estimate? So, that raises the issue of how do you supply logistics support to widely dispersed elements in contested environments?

BERGER:
I would agree with that. We have not had our supply chains challenged in — since World War 2. We’ve had assured supply lines for 70 years, said in another way. We have to focus now on tactical operational, strategic, logistics. If we don’t, then we’ll have the very best capabilities that we can’t sustain for. We’re not going to allow that to happen. Logistics is key. We — within the Marine Corps, we view it as our pacing function right now.

REED:
Thank you very much. I’ve been informed that a quorum is present. And since a quorum is now present — excuse me, before I recognize Senator Inhofe. I asked the committee to consider a list of 2,932 pending military nominations. Of these nominations, one nomination is one day short of the committee’s requirement that nominations be in committee for seven days before we report them out.

No objection is raised to this nomination, and I recommend and waive the seven-day rule in order to get confirmation of the nomination of this officer before the Senate recesses for the July 4 recess. In addition, since a quorum is now present, I ask the committee to consider
five civilian nominations plus the list of 2,932 pending military nominations.

First, I ask the committee to consider the nominations of Honorable Caroline D. Kass — Krass, rather, to be general counsel of Department of Defense; Miss Gina Ortiz Jones to be undersecretary of the Air Force; Doctor Ely S. Ratner to be assistant secretary of Defense for Indo-Pacific Security Affairs; Miss Shawn G. Skelly to be assistant secretary of Defense for Readiness; and Miss Meredith A. Berger to be assistant secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment.

It is a motion to report the military nominations and the five civilian nominations. Is there a second? All in favor, please say aye.

UNKNOWN:
Aye.

REED:
The ayes have it. Thank you very much. Senator Inhofe, you’re recognized.

INHOFE:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. I — first of all, before asking a question, I’m going to ask Admiral Gilday to share with the committee what happened last Friday and the significance of that.

GILDAY:
So, last Friday, we conducted our first shock trial on the USS Gerald R. Ford. The 2016 NDAA requires that those shock tests be conducted as series of three tests over the next couple of months before we operationally deploy that vessel. Our intent, Senator, is to deploy that vessel in 2022. And right now, we remain on track to do so.

INHOFE:
Are the catapults and — how many elevators are working?

GILDAY:
So, right now, we’ve accepted seven of 11 elevators. I expect the remaining — that we’ll
accept two by early fall and the remaining two by the end of the year.

INHOFE:
Well —

GILDAY:
But due to shock trials, the ships will go into a maintenance availability. We’ll finish up those
last two elevators, and then we’ll get her out to deploy in ’22.

INHOFE:
Yeah. We’ve heard a lot of things. As I recall, the deployment date would have been 2017, initially. And a lot of people have reasons to believe that there is that — there’s justification for a lot of the stalls. I don’t agree with that, but I certainly agree with you that you believe that it’s going to happen.

I hope you’re right and, you know, we’ve had a lot of problems with that particular piece of equipment, and it’s been very, very expensive. So, anyway — and I’ll go with as I said in my opening statement. We have a 355-or-more ship goal, yet this budget is only enough for a status quo 300-ship navy. Hopefully, get the money needed to build the Navy and no — none of the three of you agree, you will say it, but I will say it, you’re not getting an adequate budget and I can say it and you can’t. But anyway, we’re going to do everything we can to try to make this happen.

Cutting a new destroyer, retiring 10 ships early, fewer F-35Cs, these don’t seem to be strategic choices but rather last-minute haphazard cuts. So anyway, that’s what we’re faced with right now. We have often said the world’s at most dangerous right now than any period in my lifetime. And since the release of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the threats have only gotten worse.

In fact, the NDS commission said that we need 3 percent to 5 percent real growth. And this is overall not just the Navy growth this particular year. And obviously, that’s not going to happen. It’s going to be something less than a breakeven of 1.6 percent, I believe. So Admiral Gilday and General Berger. If I were to ask you who in the Department of Defense is best positioned to set forth structure requirements for the Navy and the Marine Corps, I think it is the CNO and the [Inaudible]. And I think you would agree with me the difference is I can say it and you can’t, but nonetheless we do have serious problems that we’re facing right now.

And I just — your unfunded — your list of unfunded requirements amounts to 9.3 billion. This amount shows the difference of three — between, what, 3 percent to 5 percent increase instead of 1.6 percent decrease makes in developing a defense budget. Some call this, the things that we’re asking for right now, a wish list. I don’t call them a wish list.

I call them a risk list. We have to remind ourselves and you folks, the three of you know this better than anyone, that it is the risk that takes lives, and we’re I believe in an acceptable area. So we’re going to do the best that we can to increase and to develop a budget that is going to be — that we can be proud of and you’ll be an important part of that.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. Senator Shaheen, please.

SHAHEEN:
Thank you, and thank you to each of you for your testimony this morning and for your service to the country. Admiral Gilday, I’d like to begin with you, and I appreciated your — our call last week. You said in your opening statement that we are making now once in a century investment in our public shipyards.

And there’s no doubt that the investments through the shipyard infrastructure optimization plan are really important at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard where we are one of the first to get those investments. We have seen significant cost overrun in the multimission dry dock project, which has to be done if we’re going to ensure that our submarines are able to be maintained and ready when they’re needed.

So when we talked, you discussed two major causes for that overrun, as I recall. One was the increased cost of supplies because of the pandemic, but the other one was sort of inaccurate estimates by those who were making projections for what the costs of the project would be.
So can you talk about whether that’s accurate?

Are those the two major costs? What else might be contributing to those overruns? What we’re going to do about it? And where are we going to get the money to make sure that that project stays on time?

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am., I do think that’s accurate. So in terms of raw material, we saw significant growth in cost for lumber, for cement, and for steel. And that’s been pretty steady through the pandemic, although it’s beginning to level off now. I think construction companies have had the same challenges. The initial estimate was done two years ago.

And so that was a factor. The second I think more importantly was the complexity of that work. And so what we’ve learned from that, and I had a discussion with Senator Hirono recently, as we look to a multimission dry dock in Hawaii is that we are now bringing an industry before we make the estimates so that we have a better-informed idea of the complexity of the job.

As an example, at Portsmouth, it makes more sense for the contractor to do the foundational work with respect to the fabrication and then to ship it down to the site rather than to do it in the shipyard. It is my No. 1 unfunded on the list that came in about the same that estimate — or the estimate from the — in the bidding process.

And we’re still in that sensitive bidding acquisition time frame right now. And I put it on my unfunded list because it’s vitally important that we keep the progress of that project on pace for the first Virginia class availability in 2026. So, ma’am, I asked the committee’s support on that unfunded item, but nevertheless, we are — I am committed to keeping that project on track for the very reason I just mentioned.

SHAHEEN:
Well, thank you. If it’s not on track, we’re not going to have the dry dock capacity that we need. Is that correct?

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am, that’s a correct statement.

SHAHEEN:
Thank you. There’s an article — I don’t know, maybe this is for you, Secretary Harker. There’s an article in Bloomberg this morning that says the U.S. Navy’s — the headline is The U.S. Navy’s deadliest new subs are hobbled by spare parts woes. And it goes on to talk about — have the Navy has swapped more than 1,600 parts among its new Virginia class submarine since 2013 to ease maintenance bottlenecks.

Can you talk to why that’s occurring? And I would just put it in the context of — in fiscal year 2010 NDAA. This committee put in language raising concerns about the supply chain and the potential for this kind of shortfalls. And we encouraged — I’m quoting from the language, “We encouraged the Navy to better communicate the capability of their submarine forecasting model.

The committee also encourages the Navy to communicate needs in a timely fashion and encourages the secretary of defense to support shipbuilding industrial base initiatives to maintain readiness in a strong submarine industrial base.” It appears that that encouragement hasn’t made much difference. We still have this problem. So can you talk to — what the Navy is doing about it?

HARKER:
Yes, ma’am. The Navy’s aware that there are some challenges with some of the Virginia class supply chain. There are parts on the Virginia class that we thought were going to be life of the submarine parts and they are filling more quickly than we had originally envisioned. And so we have to go back in and find alternative sources for those parts. And that’s not something that was —

SHAHEEN:
And I’m sorry to interrupt, but can you talk about why that’s happening? Why are they failing faster than we anticipated? Were our estimates bad? Are there problems with how they’re being fabricated? What’s going on?

HARKER:
I’ll have to get back with you on that, ma’am.

SHAHEEN:
I would ask Mister Chairman that they report back to the committee on exactly what’s causing that shortfall. That would be very helpful, I think.

REED:
I would ask that the secretary and the CNO report back promptly.

GILDAY:
Yes, sir.

REED:
Thank you very much. Senator Wicker, please.

WICKER:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Mister Chairman, before I begin my questions, I’d like to put two letters in the record, a letter from me dated June 16, 2021, to General Berger and his response to me dated June 21. I’d like to ask that they [Crosstalk]

REED:
Without objection. Go ahead.

WICKER:
General Berger, thank you for your service. You’ve been in the military now for over 40 years, is that correct?

BERGER:
That’s correct, sir.

WICKER:
Well, I appreciate your service and I appreciate you giving us straight advice. Now, during House Seapower subcommittee hearing last week, Lieutenant General Eric Smith testified that a joint Navy and Marine Corps study determined that the requirement for traditional amphibious ships is 31, including 10 big decks and 21 LSD/LPDs. Is that your assessment also?

BERGER:
It is, sir.

WICKER:
And it is a matter of fact, you stated that in the letter that you sent to me only yesterday. Is that correct?

BERGER:
That’s correct, sir.

WICKER:
And so I am disappointed, shocked, in fact, that the so-called 30-year shipbuilding plan released last Friday calls for a range of 16 to 19 LPDs. It seems to me that the Office of Secretary of Defense has some bureaucrats in there that are taking over the Pentagon requirements and putting armchair opinions on warfighting above those of the men and women like you with decades of experience in uniform.

Now let’s do the math. Based on the current amphibious ships under construction and the most recent decommissioning planning guidance provided by the Navy by the end of FY 2023, the Navy will have a total of 21 LSD LPDs instead of the 21 LSD LPDs that you say we need. Move ahead then to 2025, based on the same guidance, the Navy will have only 17 LSD LPDs. This falls short, of course, of the 21 that you and General Smith have said we need.

And then, based on the current ships under contract, once all of the legacy LSDs have been decommissioned, the Navy will have only 15 LPDs. Of course, this falls short of the 21 that we are being told by the greatest experts that we rely on as a requirement. Now, this committee last year and the Congress of the United States passed, and it was signed into law by the president of the United States.

The NDAA in Section 124 provided the Navy with a mechanism to procure two more LPDs to fill this gap. If OSD executes this authority, it would save the taxpayers over $700 million. General Berger, you have a need for more LPDs. Does the amphibious ship authority provided you and Section 124 helped you meet your warfighting requirement?

BERGER:
It would do both parts of what you mentioned, Senator. It would meet a warfighting requirement and the — it would save 700 — estimated $722 million, correct?

WICKER:
You know, I appreciate you being honest and speaking truth to this committee and to the Congress. And I would just say in response, I don’t have time to engage Acting Secretary Harker in this. But basically, the regretful answer that was given today of true it was hard not to make that decision to do this multiple ship procurement, but we just couldn’t afford it.

The fact is we couldn’t afford it because somebody in the Office of Management and Budget sent word to the Pentagon that they weren’t going to give you enough money.

I totally agree with Senator Inhofe that we need to reverse this. And I would point out to my colleagues what the chief of naval operations has told us today. Numbers are an important metric. And clearly, in response to what the chairman asked, they’re not the only metric, but
they’re an important metric.

And also, we’re told by our leading sailor in the country, if we’re going to meet the challenge, we’re going to need a bigger Navy. I’ll just say to the people at — here on the Dyas and our witnesses today, they’re doing the best they can. We have an obligation under the Constitution to defend the United States of America and to provide the numbers and financing to do that.

And I totally agree with those on both sides of the Dyas (ph) that this is a crying need that we have to meet. And I yield back, Mister Chair.

REED:
Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. Senator Gillibrand, please.

GILLIBRAND:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you all for being here and for your sacrifice and service. As you know, I’ve been working on this issue of trying to reduce sexual assault in the military and to try to create a military justice system that’s worthy of the sacrifice our men and women make. And through the work with a number of people on this committee, we’ve put together legislation that now has 66 cosponsors.

And that legislation essentially says that for all serious crimes, except for uniquely military crimes, that the decision about whether to prosecute will be taken out of the chain of command and given to trained military prosecutors. We believe that that one change will professionalize military justice. We also think that one change will change the view of both survivors and defendants that the system is less biased because it will be a review by the most highly trained individuals who don’t necessarily know the plaintiff or the defendant.

And we think it cures two defects in the military justice system today. The first is how it handles sexual assault cases. Very few are going to trial and even lesser ending conviction. It was about 20,000 cases estimated by the DOD in the last couple of years. And in the last three years, approximately 200 have ended in conviction.

So each year, we’re just not getting better. We also have data over the last four years developed by the DOD that shows there’s racial bias, that in fact if you are a black service member, you are more likely to be punished in the Navy. For example, you are — the average of the last several years, the last 15 years, is you are 1.4 times more likely to be punished in the Navy, and in the Marines, you are up to 2.61 times more likely to have a general court-martial.

So these are just — this is data that the DOD has collected. And so we believe this one change could change how the justice system is perceived. Many survivors of sexual assault do not believe that justice is possible in the current system. And amongst black service members, I think 60 percent do not believe that they will have a fighting chance or the same chance as a white service member to get justice.

So I’d like to know for each of you what’s your perspective on this issue. Do you remain open-minded on what solutions would be the best to handle this? As you know, this committee has studied this issue for a decade. We’ve passed nearly 250 reforms to improve the military justice system as a committee, all of which have been supported by the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, none of them have moved the ball and none of them have instilled confidence in the system. So I’d like to know if you have an open mind in reviewing this data and information as we begin to try to end the scourge of sexual assault and try to remove bias within the military justice system. And each of you can answer.

HARKER:
So, ma’am, I’ll start. For me, I definitely have an open mind. We’ve invested a significant amount of money in this current-year budget to increase the size of both the prevention and the response side for this important issue. And it’s something that we believe, you know, is important for us to change.

GILDAY:
Ma’am, I’m definitely open to an evidence-based approach to the best way to get after this. I have seen much of the data, not all of it with respect to the racial inequities that you pointed out. I think the key problem to solve with respect to sexual assault is one of trust. And I think that if service members don’t trust the system that we have in place, then I think that I think it is a readiness problem for us because we have victims that aren’t going to report. They’re not going to receive treatment, and then we have perpetrators that essentially who are not going to receive due process. So I am, ma’am, open to new ways of looking at getting after it. 

GILLIBRAND:
Thank you. Admiral?

BERGER:
Remain open-minded. As you point out, I think we have the same goals that you highlight. We have to reduce the number of sexual assaults. We have to restore the trust between victims and their chain of command.

GILLIBRAND:
Thank you.

BERGER:
And third, we have to retain the authority of commanders to do what they need to do in combat. So I think the objectives are the same.

GILLIBRAND:
I agree. Secretary Harker, the Navy has created a military justice track. My understanding is that it’s been in practice for the last 10 to 15 years. My understanding is that there are currently 95 military justice litigation career track practitioners, 80 percent of whom are in designated litigation billets at any given time and half of those are prosecutors.

Have you had a problem of being able to fill those roles? And in your opinion, has this program created a more professional military justice system? Would you recommend it to other branches?

HARKER:
Ma’am, based on my limited experience, I don’t think we’ve had any problem in filling those roles and it has been effective. I think it’s something that would be useful for others to consider, and it’s part of what’s being considered as the secretary looks at all the various options during this independent review.

GILLIBRAND:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you all.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Let me now recognize Senator Cotton.

COTTON:
Thank you. Admiral Gilday, I want to talk about your choice to include books like How to Be an Antiracist and The New Jim Crow on your professional reading list. We discussed this last week in our phone call. Normally, I wouldn’t disclose that conversation, but you said the exact same thing from the Armed Services Committee in the House last week, which I found deeply disappointing.

When you’re asked questions about this, you characterize it as a criticism of sailors for being weak. That is a straw man. It’s not a criticism of sailors being weak. It’s a criticism of your decision to include these books on your professional reading list, which ensigns and sailors across your service take very seriously.

So, I just want to give you a sampling of some of the things that are included in books like this that the notion that capitalism is essentially racist and racism is essentially capitalist, that the only remedy for past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy for present discrimination is future discrimination.

That some individuals by virtue of his or her race are inherently oppressive or privileged, while others are victimized or oppressed, that individuals can bear some kind of collective responsibility or collective guilt for the actions committed by members of his or her race. Admiral Gilday, how did these books go on your reading list?

GILDAY:
Sir, I chose a variety of books. There are over 50 books in my reading list to give our sailors a wide range of information from which I hope they can make facts-based decisions on both their ability to look outwardly at potential aggressors like China and Russia, as well as looking inwardly and being honest with ourselves in areas that we need to improve.

In talking to sailors over the past year, it’s clearly obvious to me and others that the murder of George Floyd and the events surrounding that, the discussions in this country about racism, which go back for years and years and years, are still a painful part of our culture, and that talking about them, understanding them is the best approach, and then offering books like Kennedys for people to read.

And they don’t have to agree with every assertion that Kennedy makes. I don’t accept every assertion that Kennedy makes. And I wouldn’t think that all sailors would as well, but they need to be exposed to it so that they’re making facts-based. We need critical thinkers in the
Navy and throughout the military.

In our enlisted force, again, we not only think outwardly but inwardly so that they make objective ??” hopefully, objective facts-based decisions in a — or draw conclusions in a world that it’s increasingly more difficult to get an unbiased view at a really tough problem. Even if they’re looking at things on social media, artificial intelligence associated with those platforms feeds them more of whatever they tend to look at. I’m offering them one book among 53 as a different perspective.

And it’s what —

COTTON:
And you’re saying — yes, I agree there’s a lot of information like that on social media and in our culture. And you’re saying as a senior leader of the Navy that you want 18-year-old sailors and 22-year-old ensigns to read a book that asserts that capitalism is essentially racist. Do you agree that capitalism is essentially racist?

GILDAY:
Sir, with all due respect, I’m not going to engage without understanding the context of statements like that, but these are the same [Crosstalk]

COTTON:
Admiral, I’m sorry, our time is very limited here. I know you said this in the House Armed Services Committee last week. In what context could the claim that capitalism essentially racist possibly be something with which you would agree?

GILDAY:
Sir, I have to go back to the book to take a look at that. But again, this comes down to trusting sailors who are running nuclear power plants and submarines at hundreds of feet under the water, under the polar ice cap that are maintaining the highest — the most complicated and complex jets in the world.

We put them in harm’s way every day. I think, sir, I believe that we can trust them to read books like that and to draw a reasonable conclusion.

COTTON:
Well, it’s not just a matter of trusting them. It’s a matter of how they spend their time. And you, as the chief of naval operations, are suggesting in your professional reading list that it’s a worthwhile endeavor for our sailors and ensigns to spend their time reading books like these as opposed to, say, books on maritime strategy or basic seafaring skills, which also are included on your list?

But there’s plenty that are not included on your list that I think would also benefit them. I mean, the Navy has had genuine cultural problems now for many years, whether it’s the McCain and the Fitzgerald having collisions in the Western Pacific, the Bonhomme Richard catching fire in port, the Fat Leonard scandal, a Navy SEAL team being recalled from Iraq because of a breakdown in basic military order, patrol boat in the Persian Gulf were surrendering to what is little more than Iranian fishing boat.

The Navy has had some genuine cultural problems and drift and lack of focus that it needs to address. Assigning books like these and encouraging our sailors to take the time to do so is not a way for the Navy to regain its focus, Admiral.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Cotton. Senator Blumenthal, please.

BLUMENTHAL:
Thanks, Mister Chairman. Thank you both. Thank you all for your service and for being here today. I want to begin by Admiral Gilday. I know from your visit to Connecticut electric boat, General Dynamics, the boatyard there that you’re a strong believer in our submarine program. I was pleased to see that the Navy has requested two Virginia class submarines in the FY ’22 budget proposal and has exercised the option to build a 10th Virginia class submarine, recognizing how important this amazing technology is to our national defense. I’m hopeful that you continue to strongly support this program.

GILDAY:
Yes, sir. Consistently, the analysis that we’ve done, the wargaming, the exercises, the deep analysis that the Pentagon has, and analysis inside and outside the Pentagon has placed a high value on attack submarines with respect to survivability and lethality as our nation’s best-trained platform.

BLUMENTHAL:
Thank you. On June 15, just days ago, the Associated Press reported that the United States military has had losses of 1,900 lost or stolen weapons over the past decade. This staggering number is probably only a fraction of the total. It included assault, rifles, fully automatic machine guns, armor-piercing, grenade launchers.

Some of these weapons have been found in connection with crimes committed with them. I hope you agree that this kind of lost or stolen weapon has to be stopped. Can you tell me how many weapons similar to the ones I’ve mentioned have been lost or stolen from the
Navy or Marine Corps armories in the last 10 years?

GILDAY:
Sir, based on the results of — the initial results of the investigation that’s ongoing, it’s about 240 weapons for the Navy. I’m interested in learning deep. Our investigation continues along with the other services to find out what labs and accounting led to those losses. Some of them might have been training losses, but specifically, the root cause so that we can get after it and correct it.

BLUMENTHAL:
Do you have a number for the Marine Corps, General Berger?

BERGER:
Sir, I don’t want to give you an inaccurate number, but I will get you that number. If 10 years is the horizon you’re looking at, we will get you that accurate number.

BLUMENTHAL:
Thank you. Can you tell me, perhaps both you Admiral and General, what is the system for the Navy and the Marine Corps tracking and accounting for conventional arms, ammunition, and explosives that may be lost or stolen?

GILDAY:
Sir, I can say with a high degree of certainty, it’s done at the individual unit level. So in the case of the Navy, specifically at each ship, I can’t speak with a high degree of specificity of the tracking beyond — when a weapon is lost, there are reports that are made, there are investigations that are done.

But how that’s tracked in the aggregate, I don’t have a good answer for you at the moment, sir.

HARKER:
So sir, if I could add in, this is something that’s actually looked at during our financial statement audit every year. Our independent public accountants from — that are working for the Department of Defense OIG go out and do inventory testing on the accuracy of our inventory around our small arms or ammunition, that type of thing.

So it is something that’s tested annually. Both the Navy and Marine Corps have done better than our peers in the Army and Air Force. And it’s something that we do take very seriously.

BLUMENTHAL:
Thank you. I’d like to follow up on that area, but in the remaining time that I have, I wanted to ask about a study that was released yesterday. Brown University’s Costs of War Project reported that the number of veterans and service members who have died by suicide since September 11, 2001, is more than quadruple, the number who died in the wars during this same period.

The study estimates that 7,057 service members have been killed in post-9/11 war operations while 30,177 active-duty service members and veterans have died by suicide quadruple. That is really an astonishing number. It goes on to say the average suicide rate for post-9/11 veterans between 18 to 34 was 32.3 per 100,000 between 2005 and 2017, but it rose to 45.9 per 100,000 in 2018. That’s about 2.5 times the rate in the general population.

There is no way that we can adequately address this topic this morning, but I would like an explanation from everyone on this panel as to what you think the causes are or is a phenomenon which is so deeply concerning and what we can do about it. I know this topic has been a longstanding issue for all the services.

And I think that it has to be raised to a much higher priority than it’s been given so far.
 

HARKER:
Yes, sir, this is something that we are investing significantly. And in this year’s budget, we’re putting 22 more — $22 million towards mental health. Our FY ’21 amount was 21 million. We’re more than doubling that going into this current budget cycle because we believe that embedding mental health practitioners at the front with sailors and Marines is probably the best way to get at this.

We’re also increasing the number of chaplains and the number of clergy members that are there to provide support as well. So this is something that we take very seriously and we’ve been working to both destigmatize getting treatment, as well as providing additional services for our sailors and Marines.

BLUMENTHAL:
Thank you. I would just suggest that more of the same is not going to work. It has to be a reinventing, a reenergizing, reimagining of how mental health is addressed in the military. But again, I’m no expert, and I really welcome a thorough study and action. Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator Rounds, please.

ROUNDS:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Gentlemen, let me begin by just saying thank you for your service to our country at a time like this in which we’re looking at a budget which, to me, appears to be a little bit on the disingenuous side. I’d like to just point out one item with regard to previous contracts. And then Acting Secretary Harker, I’d like to have your response. 

The Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget — and by the way, I come from South Dakota where we don’t build ships, but I care deeply about making sure that we have a consistency in our national defense. The Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget decreased in this budget by $700
million from 23.4 billion to 22.6 billion.

But the budget includes purchase of one Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Previously, it had been planned to purchase two. In fact, the government has already agreed to purchase just the one it would, in this particular case, it would breach a contract that the government had previously agreed to with Ingalls Shipbuilding and General Dynamics ??” Bath Iron Works back in 2018. At that time, the government had agreed to buy one destroyer from each shipyard per year including FY ’22. A second Arleigh Burke destroyer at 1.6 billion is at the
top now of the Navy’s unfunded requirement list.

Recognizing that there was already a contract in place and that we’re trying to rebuild a supply chain and trying to, at least, get some consistency so that these shipyards are maintained, what is the logic in a budget which has an unfunded request attached to it when you already have a contract that says that you’ve agreed to purchase two instead of one?

HARKER:
Sir, that was our biggest regret going through this budget process.

ROUNDS:
I’m sorry, could you say that again?

HARKER:
That was our biggest regret going through this budget process was that we could not fit that destroyer into our budget. As we looked at the balance between readiness and the cost of operations, maintenance, personnel going up and the challenge with new capacity, and then also maintaining the current capacity, we just could not afford to put that destroyer into the budget.

ROUNDS:
Admiral Gilday, naval fighter aircraft are among our most important frontline weapon systems in confronting China. And this budget proposal cuts their procurement by 15.6 percent. As the Navy cuts its number of operational F/A-18s from 150 to a proposed 50, and I recognize that the year in which we achieved 50 has not yet been released, how do we fill the gap, which is created in readiness, especially considering that the Navy has only requested this year, 20 F-35Cs instead of what had been anticipated at least as last year, 26? So we’re going down in the number of fifth-gen aircraft that we’re purchasing, and at the same time, we’re anticipating that our fourth general craft and hornets, we’re talking about decreasing them from 150 to 50 operational units. How does that jive?

GILDAY:
Sir, on the — the Navy’s goal is to have a mix of fourth and fifth gen and will be at five squadrons that have that mix by 2025. Right now, we have over 500, 543, I think Super Hornets. And that number goes above 600 when we compete the — when we complete the latest procurement and delivery. That was in the 2021 budget.

So what we’re doing with the Block, our older Block force is we’re actually increasing the life on those jets by five or six years. We’re upgrading the computer systems on them and upgrading their range with respect to fuel. With the fifth gen, one of the regrets is the number that we’re purchasing this year.

However, on my unfunded list, I have five more. And so I’m a believer in the fifth-gen aircraft, I’m a believer in the mix. Consistently, the studies in the wargaming that we’ve done has shown that the fourth and fifth-gen mix is a winner in the battlespace. 

ROUNDS:
Thank you. Mister Chairman, I’ve got some other questions, but I will leave them for the record at this time. My time is expiring. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. Senator Hirono, please.

HIRONO:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Before I begin, I would like to state for the record, Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday, I remain concerned about the safety of the fuel tanks at Red Hill facility, especially after the recent release of 1,000 gallons of fuel. And it is imperative that the Navy is transparent on this issue and provides open and frequent information to Congress and the public because of course, people on Oahu are very concerned about contamination of their drinking water due to these situations that occur at Red Hill. So I expect that you share my concern.

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am.

HIRONO:
That’s fine. Thank you. I also would like to note that I support efforts to more effectively prevent sexual assault and harassment in the military and the changes to the UCMJ that will get us to that point. And of course, I very much thank Senator Gillibrand for her leadership. I would like to get to the shipyard modernization issues that Senator Shaheen mentioned.

I share her concerns. So for Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday, I would like to get you both on the record that the construction of the new dry dock at Pearl Harbor will begin in the fiscal year 2023. And why is that important? Because you’ve — I have been told that it will take five years where this dry dock to be built and that’s about the time frame.

That is the time frame when the new Virginia class submarine is delivered. So can I get your commitment because of — the concern is that with the kind of cost overruns that are already happening at Portsmouth that, you know, I want to make sure that Pearl Harbor will be timely address.

HARKER:
Yes, ma’am. We are committed to the shipboard infrastructure optimization plan, especially all the improvements of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard was the first one that I ever visited in my tenure, and I’m very committed to improving.

HIRONO:
The timing of it, of course, is really important. So Admiral Gilday?

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am. It honestly is at the top of our priority list as we go into the FY ’23 budget bill for Milken. I think the — as I mentioned earlier, we’re about to have a conference with industry out in Hawaii early next month to get a better understanding of the scope. The estimate — and we think right now that that project is probably in the six-to-seven-year time frame based on the phasing.

But we would like to get rolling as soon as possible in that effort.

HIRONO:
Yes, because the timing of that dry dock has to be pretty much in conjunction with the delivery of the Virginia class submarine.

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am.

HIRONO:
Thank you, and I’m glad that you are meeting with the industry because one of the explanations of what’s happening in Portsmouth is that you do not really deal with the complexity of the work. And so I’m glad that is definitely a lesson learned. We don’t want to see the kind of cost overruns that — at Pearl Harbor that we saw — that we are seeing at Portsmouth.

It is my understanding, Secretary Harker, that Secretary Hicks has ordered 11 missile interceptors transferred from research and development for deployment on Navy ships in the Pacific after a test to simulate an attack at Hawaii by North Korea in November, indicated that they could stop an ICBM. Although current sensors were adequate to intercept this one shot, we know from MDA and CAPE that current sensors will not be adequate for the future capabilities of our adversaries.

Will these ships — ship-based interceptors need a more advanced radar to combat future capabilities such as HDH Hawaii? Secretary Harker?

HARKER:
Yes, ma’am. We are all experts in all of the MDA pieces. I do understand the need for that.

HIRONO:
For —

HARKER:
For the —

HIRONO:
HDH Hawaii?

HARKER:
Yes, I understand the requirement.

HIRONO:
Thank you. As you probably know that I’m very concerned about the fact that there is no funding for HDH Hawaii in this year’s budget, and we need to keep this project going if we are going to be prepared for a scenario where our adversaries, particularly North Korea, will be developing their capabilities.

Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Hirono. Let me recognize Senator Tillis, please.

TILLIS:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. And General Berger, thank you for the time that we spent at breakfast a few weeks ago. Secretary Harker, I would like to start maybe with just a general statement, and I don’t expect you to respond to it. But on the subject of military, sexual assault, and really more of a broad-based change to the UCMJ, I think it’s very important for the service secretaries and those who are vetting the commission report to get us information as quickly as possible now we’re less than three weeks away from beginning the end-day markup.

And the only thing we have now is something that I’ve heard from the DOD that they’ve expressed concerns with the scope and the technical challenges of a six-month implementation. But we really have to get the leaders or in the DOD to get us information quickly, are simply not going to be considered before you may have an entirely new framework foisted upon you.

But I do want to ask you all, Admiral Gilday and Secretary Harker, about FRCE. I know General Berger went down there and visited recently at a lot of the underlying facilities were established about the same time Buddy Holly was topping the charts and their antiquated facilities. It’s like a Rubik’s cube when you’re moving equipment around to actually do servicing.

And so much so that I think Lockheed Martin is talking about or considering their own depot maintenance facility. There are over 4,000 people that are employed down there. They’re doing great work. We have done work like getting the money for the security fencing down there, the securing in FY ’18, the Lifan facility funding.

But these projects are not online yet, and I don’t think the Lifan facility is under contract. So do — am I reading it right that FRCE is still considered to be an important part of airframe maintenance facility — the airframe maintenance for all several lines of service, and certainly, they’re a key for the B variant for the Joint Strike Fighter?

What should I read, and some of these projects shifting to the right or are not moving ahead?

HARKER:
It’s definitely an important base for us and an important place where we do deeper maintenance. I think the —

REED:
The microphone is —

HARKER:
Something that’s tied to the funding constraints need to fit things into the budget.

TILLIS:
Admiral Gilday, anything to add?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir. Similar to the PSYOPS for shipyards, we have the PSYOPS for fleet repair facilities, and we just started that effort, and we’re prioritizing those projects. I owe you a better answer, sir, and we’ll come back with what those — what the potential timelines look like and, of course, how they might play out as we get into the ’23 budget bill.

TILLIS:
Yeah, you know, I understand you all, and you’ve got competing priorities and limited funds. So I understand but will be submitting for the record some of the specific projects that are required now in a matter of less than two years that haven’t even started. So we know that things are going to shift to the right.

So I’d like to get an update on those. I won’t run through the details here, but we’ll submit them for the record. I also want to ask a question about personnel shortfalls for Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday. The Government Accountability Office released a report on crew fatigue in the surface force that found crew shortfalls were worse than previously reported.

GAO reported that until recently, the Navy measured shortfalls based on the number of funded possessions rather than the number of actually required for the safe operation of a vessel. The study also found an inconsistent implementation of fatigue management measures. So how are you working to ensure a safe and adequately crewed surface force for our sailors?

What are we going to do differently? And I know you’re new under the role, so you’re — looking back, what do we need to do differently, or looking forward, what are we going to do differently?

HARKER:
So the report — we’re still working on our response to the report, but I think some of the things we’ve done is we’ve shifted how we track things from, as you said, the number of funded billets to the actual number of required billets. So that’s something that we’ve shifted as we track and measure things going forward.

We’ve also increased the number of billets on our seagoing ships and invested in filling those billets and improved the fit-fill ratio. Sir, you want to add anything?

GILDAY:
So over the past three and a half years, we’ve increased our at sea — sailors at sea by 23,000. We have more sailors at sea today than we had in 2014. The gaps that we see right now and the data that I look at is less than 5 percent of our billets at sea or gap. That’s not satisfactory, it needs to be zero. What led to this effort to fund all those billets and why it’s so important goes right back to what we learned from those collisions in 2017. So it is a priority for us. The secretary said in the beginning, in terms of prioritizing, current readiness is our top priority that gets right to manning, equipping, and training the force at adequate levels.

TILLIS:
Thank you. And General Berger, I’ll be — I’m out of time, but I’ll be submitting a few questions. It has more to do with some of your strategy and the future of the Marine Corps’ rightsizing. But thank you all for your service and look forward to speaking with you individually.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Tillis. Now, let me recognize Senator Kaine.

KAINE:
Thank you, Mister Chair and Ranking Member Inhofe. Admiral Gilday, I was going to ask other questions, but I’m sort of inspired to follow up a little bit from Senator Cotton on your reading list because when I saw that there was controversy about it, I pulled up the reading list. And Mister Chair, I’d like to introduce the CNO’s 2021 reading list into the record.

REED:
Without objection.

KAINE:
So as I look at it, there are 53 books on the reading list, which would probably be, you know, tens of thousands of pages. And I read your intro statement about the Navy history of beginning with every ship, we have 37 books on it that would be recommended to sailors, and this is a voluntary reading list to basically train leaders.

And I think the motto that you use to kind of summarize this is read well to lead well. Isn’t that right?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir, it is.

KAINE:
And as I look at the list, it is a pretty remarkably broad category of books. There are books about naval history, there are books about particular naval operations — SEAL Team Six, there are books about particular weapons systems like autonomous, aerial, or marine vehicles, or robotics, or the use of artificial intelligence.

There’s a lot about kind of naval history and weapons system, a lot about strategy. A lot of the books are about sort of individual leadership traits, maybe specifically to the military officers eat last, but also a lot of books that are not military at all, that are really about leadership traits, as I look at the list.

There are books that tackle contemporary issues in society like racism or the second-class status that many women have perceived throughout history. And those seem to be designed to make people maybe think put themselves in somebody else’s shoes and think about somebody else. Those don’t seem that controversial to me. There’s nothing in the intro to the reading list where you’re saying, you know, I agree with every assertion made in each of these 53 books.

And the list is not offered as any kind of mandate or you know, thought direction. You’re just wanting people to make sure that they consider broadly that both strategy in history and the perspectives of others as they tackle the important and patriotic tasks of being military
leaders. Isn’t that right?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir. And if I could say on the book in question by a gentleman named Kennedy, the reason why that’s in the list is because we set up a task force called Task Force One Navy after George Floyd’s murder. And that was — that essentially came down to conversations in small groups at every command in the Navy, so that people could tell a story courageously come forward and tell their stories.

And so Kennedy tells his story as a Black American growing up and the challenges that he faced, but he’s also very self-critical. And I don’t agree with every assertion that Kennedy makes in every conclusion that he draws, but I did find it to be a very helpful read, particularly in light of those conversations that we were having, and that’s why I put it on the recommended list.

And I know that some question that choice. But it really does get critical thinking as I spoke to earlier in a day and age where it’s really difficult sometimes to get right to the facts and for people to make value judgments.

KAINE:
And you even have a book on the list that I thought was an interesting one. I can’t remember the title, but it was about how to talk about difficult subjects in a really easy way. So it’s kind of like you can’t talk about that at work — how to talk about race, politics, and religion.

Because in many workplaces, those can be divisive, and they’re divisive if you don’t talk about them or they’re divisive if you talk about them in the wrong way, in a military composed of the entire spectrum of American society.

It’s good to be able to talk about tough issues and talk about them in a way where people are respectful and listen to one another. Isn’t that true?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir. And so back to the conversations we were having, specifically on ships, some people need to understand how to get the ball rolling. You know, how to face — how to introduce these conversations in a way that wasn’t controversial and provocative, but in a useful kind
of way to learn from each other.

We think it’s been helpful. We’re trying to continue it. And so thanks for deepening the discussion on this.

KAINE:
Yeah, there’s deepening the discussion. One of your books is called Deep Thinking, it’s by Garry Kasparov, and it’s about how human creativity is even more powerful than the most advanced automation or computers. And so you know, look, the military has got to defend this country. And even though that depends to some degree on platforms, it still depends most on people, and not people working in their own little sphere, not connected to other people working in groups.

And if people are going to work in groups in a diverse society, there’s going to be a lot of people in the group who aren’t exactly like them. And books that help you understand other’s perspectives are even books that make you feel uncomfortable. My favorite book is The Bible, but I don’t like the last shall come first and the first shall come last, that makes me a little bit uncomfortable.

I’m not sure there’s a good book — a really good book in the history of the written word that had made some people uncomfortable, and a book that just made everybody feel completely comfortable. And I’m not sure it lands on any great books list at all. So I don’t discourage you from what you’re trying to do to enable people to read broadly and then see the world through each other’s perspectives so that they can work better together as a unit to defend the nation.

Thank you, Mister Chair.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Kaine. Let me recognize Senator Cramer, please.

CRAMER:
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and leave it to Senator Kaine to change the topic completely.  But I can’t resist one of — in these times we were going through where it’s difficult to start a discussion to your point and your reference to scripture, I’m reminded that scripture tells us not — doesn’t tell us to be careful, it tells us to be careful how we treat people, but it also tells us to stop being offended so easily.

And I think part of the problem — and Admiral, I admire you for wanting to enhance critical thinking, but to have critical thinking you have to have critical conversations. And so anyway, good work. I applaud you for it. And I’ll leave it at that. But you never know what’s going to go on with that, right, guys?

But back to the other topics, and thank you all for being here for your service, of course. When we talk about the goal of 460 ships, the Chinese go 460 ships by 2030, we’re not even really considering the — their militia or the Coast Guard, which it’s — my understanding basically doubles that number of assets available to them.

If we had to forcibly maintain freedom of navigation to locations like South Korea, or Taiwan, or any number of others, how much of an additional problem is the militia assets in the Coast Guard assets? And I’ll start with you, Admiral.

GILDAY:
Sir, I think the problem — just in terms of numbers, but what we have in our favor besides a pretty robust forward-deployed force that we have, a really strong network of allies and partners and that network is growing. The Brits, their first carrier in a generation are now headed over to the Western Pacific.

We worked very closely with the French, with the South Koreans, with the Japanese, with the Australians, with the Canadians, and the list goes on and on. And so we’re sailing with them, operate with them every day. And I think that’s something that China doesn’t have, and they wish they did. And we really do value it. I just had the Dutch CNO over for dinner the other night, I’ll meet with another head of a navy next week.

I was just in Denmark, and I was in Toulon, France with both the first sea lord from the Royal Navy and also the chief of the navy from the French Navy. And those partnerships are just key.

CRAMER:
Great reminders. Secretary, did you want to add anything to that or just agree?

HARKER:
I’m sorry, sir?

CRAMER:
Did you want to add anything to what the admiral was saying or just agree?

HARKER:
No, sir. I believe that we have the power and credibility to deter our enemies over there.

CRAMER:
So I want to go next, and this may be a little less conventional, and this is really important back home. So here I come from this agricultural state in the middle of North American continent, right, we’re taking the Navy guys. In 2020, U.S. agricultural exports to the Pacific include $11.7 billion to Japan, $7.7 billion to South Korea, $3.4 billion to Vietnam, $3.3 billion to Taiwan, $3.2 billion to the Philippines, and $2.8 billion to Indonesia, and on and on it goes, obviously a lot of hungry people.

A lot of hungry people in the Pacific that like what we grow in places like North Dakota and throughout our country. In this 2030 scenario, could we guarantee we’d have shipping access to all or any of these important trading partners?

GILDAY:
Sir, I think that’s the crux of the issue with respect to our investment — sir, that’s the crux of our investment strategy to make sure that we can keep a Navy to be relevant. So at any given day, we’ve got about a third of the Navy at sea. We think that’s what we need, and not only training but also deployed to have that presence forward to maintain those open sea lanes and keep that trade flowing.

We saw what happened in the Suez recently, and that should be a lesson for all of us, it cost $9 billion a day. It doesn’t take much to upset global trade, do those key choke points.

CRAMER:
Well, to your point you made just to the previous question regarding the important partnerships, obviously, we have to always be reminded that because when you look at just the volume, as you said, the assets that they have, the shipyards that they have both commercial and naval, obviously, it can be a little bit overwhelming.

But anyway, getting off on the reading list tangent cost me a little bit of time, but it was all worth it. Thank you all. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Cramer. Senator King, please.

KING:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. I think the most telling chart in the presentation that you gave us this morning is on Page 6. It’s the Department of Navy Total Obligation Authority. And the telling line is the yellow line, which is constant dollars. And what it shows is that we’re actually either flat or slightly below, you saw me trying to figure it out here.

We’re slightly below the level of expenditure for the Navy as in 2010. Admiral, the strategic challenge to this country has changed dramatically since 2010. Has it not?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir, it certainly has. I agree with that.

KING:
And it’s changed from the global war on terror to near pure competition, particularly with China and Russia, which is a more conventional kind of adversarial challenge. Is that correct?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir, but the only thing I’d add is that the character of conflicts changing with our focus on space and cyber, as well as the conventional domains.

KING:
But still, the point is it’s difficult to argue that a flat budget since 2010 to today, given the rise of the Chinese navy, for example. It seems to me that’s tough to justify, and I know that these weren’t your decisions. I want to go back to something Senator Brown’s asked about
the DDG. Just let’s get on the record.

If that multiyear contract is breached, the government will have to pay a $33 million penalty. Is that not correct, Mister Secretary?

HARKER:
Yes, sir, it is.

KING:
And you have told me both in the hearing today and previously that this was the toughest decision that you had to face. The point I want to make about this is not only the lack of the destroyer but the impact that this decision has on the industrial base, not only in the
immediate future in terms of how many people do you need to build the ships, but also the principle of breaking a multiyear, I would argue, sends a shudder through the industrial base in terms of the investment they need.

If they’re going to make major $100 million investments in shipbuilding capacity and also in training of new shipbuilders, they have to have some confidence that there’s a stream of demand coming. Mister Secretary, you understand that. I’m sure.

HARKER:
I do. Yes, sir.

KING:
And, Admiral, you saw at Bath Iron Works the number of people that they’re hiring and the problem of the cliff in terms of future production. Now, I understand you can’t guarantee ships into the indefinite future, but you understand the impact of the sort of chilling effect of the breaching of the multiyear might have on investment and on workforce.

GILDAY:
Absolutely, sir. If I take a look at, as an example, Columbia class, we know we’re going to build X amount of submarines. And so that gives those companies a clear set of headlights in terms of where are we going so that they can make infrastructure investments with a high degree of confidence. We saw what happened in Bath with the Zumwalts, we only build three, we thought we were going to build 30, and they made significant investments that never panned out.

And so that is a — it’s not lost on me, the significant negative impact on the industrial base with decisions like this, sir.

KING:
Well, the problem is, as you know, I live near Bath, you can’t turn the industrial base off and on. If it goes down, you’re talking about welders going somewhere else. And in this economy, they’re going to go somewhere else. And so I think that’s the national security challenge involved here. The other piece of the challenge of this budget is this has occurred to me for a long time.

We’re having a total rebuild of our nuclear deterrent capacity, at the same time, as a 100- year rebuild of our depot maintenance capacity. And the problem, those are two sort of one- time expenditures that are sort of varying or altering the — what would otherwise be a normal budget. I call them the pig in the python of the Navy budget.

There’s a bulge that we’re having to deal with. And that’s constraining everything else. Mister Secretary, is that true?

HARKER:
Yes, sir, that’s giving us unprecedented challenges to try to recapitalize the Columbia, as well as the shipyards, and grow the Navy.

KING:
And I think we should look on these as sort of one-time events rather than business as usual because we’re not going to recapitalize the strategic deterrent every five years and we’re not going to recapitalize the shipyards. Final point is on the DDX planning, we’ve talked about the Ford today. We had a full hearing on the Ford a couple of years ago.

And what — one of the principal things that we learned from that hearing was don’t do R&D while you’re building the ship. And because the catapult and the elevator were both new, and here we are, still dealing with the elevators. So I hope to both of you that you will work with the shipyards to minimize what I call the first ship premium.

If the more fully developed the plans and requirements are before the contracts or bid, the better you’re going to do in terms of price and performance on those ships. That’s just based on what we’ve seen in the past. Admiral, I do hope that you’re going to follow a course of working with the ship — the shipyards and have the engineering as complete as possible before we force these shipyards to bid with considerable risk built there.

GILDAY:
Sir, that’s the plan. In fact, we’re talking to both Bath and Engels right now, everybody — all stakeholders in the same room as we talk about the design of that ship. So similar to what we did when we went from, let’s say, when we went from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser to the Arleigh Burke destroyer, we are changing the hull, right, but the combat system is going to remain the same.

So we are meant — to the point you made about Ford, we’re not looking for a build, we’re going to have to pull off successive miracles to get a ship to see it on time.

KING:
Thank you very much for your service, all of you. Thank you, gentlemen.

REED:
Thank you, Senator King. Let me recognize Senator Sullivan, please.

SULLIVAN:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. And gentlemen, thank you for your testimony today and your service to our nation. Look, I want to agree with Senator Inhofe here. There’s a lot of discussion about difficult choices. Actually, it’s in — you are up here, and you can’t admit it, but you don’t like this budget, you know that.

I don’t like this budget, this isn’t a difficult choice, this is a bad choice. If you look at where the Biden administration is prioritizing our military, it’s dead last. That homeland security after inflation, it’s actually cut. Every other agency gets a double-digit increase. But for the military and defense of our nation, it’s dead last.

Now, this is not — this is a very bipartisan committee and I want to thank the chairman because I think he’s doing a great job. And I want to thank my friend, Angus King, because I also think he’s doing — but I’m going to ask my colleagues, particularly my Democratic colleagues, for help. Let’s see that one in China.

Because at the national Democratic level, whether it’s Chuck Schumer and Bernie Sanders with their defund, the Pentagon amendment last year to the NDAA — that was 14 percent across the board cuts, or that budget, or what we’re doing competing with China, that shows China increasing its defense budget about on average 10 percent a year over the last decade, we have decreased the Obama-Biden to 25 percent cuts.

Twenty-five percent cuts in the second term, that’s just crazy. We try to rebuild it when the Republicans were in power, now we’re cutting again. We can’t do this, can’t do it. So my colleagues ask and help us, that’s the trend. So let me just ask Admiral Gilday, General Berger, if these trends continue — I’m not going to ask you to comment on the budget, but, Admiral, I was very appreciative of your statement.

If the Navy’s top line remains flat, the fleet will decrease, but we need a larger more capable fleet. If these trends continue, flat or actually this is a declining military budget. Again, if you’re Homeland, if your Department of Education, you get a 40 percent increase to your budget. You guys get a 4 percent cut. If these trends continue, what will this do, specifically, Admiral and General, to our ability to compete against China in the long term?

And I’m not asking for you to comment on this budget. I’m asking you, declining budgets, what will that do, sir?

GILDAY:
So it’s going to cause us to make some difficult choices in terms of priorities, and it’ll be that tension between current day — current readiness and modernization, and making tough choices in terms of where the —

SULLIVAN:
More directly, if we are — sorry to interrupt, if we have declining budgets which the Biden administration clearly wants, OK, that’s what they do. No offense. My national Democratic – – not the ones here on this committee, but overall. Go look at the chairman of the Budget Committee right now, he wants a 25 percent cut to the U.S. military, Bernie Sanders, if our ability to compete with China will be dramatically diminished, won’t it?

GILDAY:
So I think that the chiefs have been consistent about — we believe — our best advice is a 3 percent to 5 percent growth profile to put us in a place where we think we need to be to both compete to turn and win if it comes to a conflict.

SULLIVAN:
Thank you. General, you have a view on this, again, if the trends continue? I’m not asking you to comment on today’s budget. I know it’s difficult for you — the witnesses because you don’t like this budget, I know you don’t like this budget. I can’t stand this budget, but what do you think, General?

BERGER:
What has remained consistent is the notion of a pacing threat as you highlight, Senator. That means, they are moving, we’re moving. The trends continue, as you point out. If they continue to invest in the — at the rate that they’re going and we don’t maintain pace with that, then we’ll widen a gap, in other words, increases the risk strategically to our country.

SULLIVAN:
Let me ask one more specific thing, and it’s really a joint thing between the Navy and Marine Corps, and General Berger, again, I really appreciate all you’re doing on the force design, and you’re very strategic and innovative thinking with regard to the Marines. What sea denial capability does the Marine Corps currently have, and what capabilities will naval strike missile and tactical Tomahawk give the Marine Corps?

And, Admiral, to you, how important is it that you — to you that the Marine Corps be able to conduct these sea denial missions to support the Navy? This is a really integrated element of your strategy. It’s Marine Corps and Navy, and I think a lot of people — I know the Congress cut this last year, and I think it was a mistake.

To the two of you, do you have a view on that?

BERGER:
Today, we have a limited — very limited capability. I mean, you could — probably, on the — one hand, less than four or five the capabilities that contribute directly to sea denial. We need a ground-based, anti-ship capability so that we can lock down certain, especially key choke points that the fleet commander — the joint force commander needs to control.

The anti-ship missile, the nemesis, the naval strike missile, and the larger, longer-range — the Tomahawk — maritime strike Tomahawk, those give us the ability to control straits to lock down an area that the fleet commander needs to control.

GILDAY:
Sir, I agree with the commandant. And I think that the analysis that we’ve done, and we presented, it requires a different mix of both traditional battle for ships, but also new amphibious ships and combat logistics ships in order to yield more combat power in a distributed way. We understand how we think, we need to fight in the future, and a plan that we have presented, the analysis that we based, the analysis that we’ve done, I think, puts us on a path to yield the kind of power that the comment — you introduced in the comment I followed up.

SULLIVAN:
Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator Warren is recognized via Webex.

WARREN:
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you all for being here today. Admiral Gilday, I’d like to address the Navy’s efforts on producing more fuel-efficient engines for the surface fleet. One of these technologies is the hybrid electric drive, HED, system, which uses an electric motor to improve the ship’s overall fuel efficiency, consuming less fuel and lowering its total costs.

A GAO report on November 2020 detailed how the Navy had decided to suspend the HED program and pursue a different research effort — the propulsion drive ship service, PDSS. The report also stated that the Navy didn’t fully assess the costs and benefits or complete the testing of the HED system before making its decision and could not provide any information on why it is necessary to suspend the HED program in order to pursue the PDSS research effort.

So, Admiral Gilday, after spending over $100 million of taxpayer money on the development, purchase, and upgrade of six HED systems, would you say that the Navy made the right decision in suspending the HED program?

GILDAY:
Ma’am, I’m familiar with the report, but I really need to go back and take a look at the conclusions and then the recommendations, and I like to come back with you — come back to you with the details.

WARREN:
What can you say something about what factors went into the decision for suspending the system?

GILDAY:
Ma’am, I can’t, with the degree of specificity, that I think this topic deserves.

WARREN:
Well, you know, Admiral, the GAO report mentioned that the system requires little maintenance per the commanding officer and crew of the USS Truxtun and senior Navy engineers. And also, according to the Navy’s January 2020 report to Congress, this system was designed for low-speed operations, which comprise more than a third of a typical HED operating profile.

So the report I’m reading — and it doesn’t match up with the conclusion here, so it’s my understanding that the PDSS is still in its infancy stages with quite a lot of time before it reaches full operational capability. Is that correct, Admiral?

GILDAY:
Ma’am, I don’t mean to be evasive. I just really need to dig into that report more deeply and get briefed on it, and I am committed to come back to you with a thorough answer to your question.

WARREN:

All right. And one of the questions I’m going to ask you about is whether or not the money dedicated to the HED system is going to the PDSS system or if it’s something else here? You know, I’m glad that the Navy is prioritizing research and development on fuel-efficient ship engines and that it thinks that there are even better technologies that can outperform the HED. But I’m really concerned that abandoning a good system now in favor of a better but not yet close to an operationally ready system is a good idea.

It’s critical that investments in improving fuel-efficient ship ending — engines be made reliably and with transparency. You know, these technologies ensure that the Navy remains flexible and agile for the future and reduces its dependency on a potentially vulnerable fossil fuel supply chain and that it builds public trust in how money is being spent.

So I’m going to look forward to hearing more from you on these questions. I really want to understand where the Navy is on this.

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am.

WARREN:
Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Warren. If Senator Scott is ready, he could be recognized.

SCOTT:
Well, thank you, Chair Reed. I want to thank you for [Crosstalk] your service and what you do every day. I guess the first question is, do we all agree that we’re, you know, facing increasing threats from our adversaries all across the world?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir.

HARKER:
Yes, sir.

SCOTT:
And do we have any feeling that communist China is going to slow down in building up their military and doing everything they can that causes problems in the Indo-Pacific?

GILDAY:
No, sir, there’s no indication of slowing down.

SCOTT:
And do you believe that as they build their economy, they’re going to continue to invest — communist China will continue to invest more and more into their military?

GILDAY:
I think that’s one of the projected ways forward, sir, that their funding lines would continue to trend upward.

SCOTT:
So if we believe all that, then if you look at these budget numbers, we’re seeing — as Senator Sullivan has pointed out, and when you look at inflation, we’re seeing less money invested in the military. We’re not even staying up with inflation. How does that make any sense? How can we believe that we can do our job if we’re not even going to stay up with even inflation in defense?

GILDAY:
So I’ll just say that I am grateful for the top line that the Navy has, and I’m committed to making every dollar count so that we’re feeling the best force that we possibly can. And so I think that that’s my responsibility, is to take the top line that we have and to fill the best force that we can, the best — the most ready, the most capable, the most lethal.

And that’s how I — that’s how I’m proceeding with respect to how we’re investing our money.

SCOTT:
So you’re not defending whether it’s the right number or not. You’re just saying I got stuck with this number, and so I’m just going to — whatever I get stuck with, I’ll do my best.

GILDAY:
Sir, that’s what I have to do. It has to be — my — the — my way forward has to be budget informed and I have a responsibility to make sure that the force that’s out there today that I’m serving, not only the nation well but I’m serving the sailors that are on those ships, that they have what they need to be a credible fighting force. And I think we can do that.

SCOTT:
So everything I read and like — is that when the U.S. plays war game scenarios in the Indo- Pacific, especially over Taiwan, we lose. Is that the war games you fight or do you have a different [Crosstalk]

GILDAY:
Sir, I have a different view. It depends on the game. It depends on the approach. Those war games, even the ones where we get beat, we learn a whole lot in terms of honing our skills or concepts and giving a better understanding of what we need to win with respect to kit.

SCOTT:
Do you believe that we have the Navy that’s going to deter communist China from invading Taiwan today?

GILDAY:
I do. I don’t think we’re doing it alone. I think we’re doing it with allies and partners, but I think we have a credible force forward right now.

SCOTT:

Thank you. Gen. Berger, I’ve — can you give us a little more information on your re-envision of the Marine Corps and what you’re doing and how that’s going to help us deal with communist China?

BERGER:
Sir, the Marine Corps for the past 20 years largely has been in the Middle East doing what the nation needed it to do. But going forward, it needs to do something different. To deter the PRC, the PLAN, and to be ready to respond to any crisis, we have to go back to our naval
roots. We have to become expeditionary once again.

We have to fit into a joint force, as CNO answered to the — your first question, as a joint force that can work with our partners and allies to first prevent a crisis. But if there is one, be ready to respond quickly.

SCOTT:
Do you believe today that your understanding of — if you were involved in trying to deter or defend Taiwan — I mean, defend, could you do it?

BERGER:
That’s a simple question to ask. As you pointed out, sir, it’s a very complicated one to answer because on different classification levels and different scenarios, the outcome is different.

SCOTT:
So what do you personally believe? Do you believe that we can defend Taiwan today?

BERGER:
I believe we need a margin of error so that it’s not even close.

SCOTT:
Do you think we have it?

BERGER:
It depends. Conventionally, turns is in partly in the mind of the adversary. Do they believe we have the capabilities, and do they believe we have the will to use it? I can’t — I can answer the first one, not the second one.

SCOTT:
Do you think having a defense budget that doesn’t stay up for inflation gives them the belief that we’re committed?

BERGER:
I think back to the pacing part of a pacing threat, there’s a degree of strategic and operational risk that we need to understand. The budget is part of that.

SCOTT:
All right. I thank each of you. Thank you, Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Scott. Senator Peters, please.

PETERS:
Thank you, Mister Chairman, and thank you to each of our witnesses for your service to our country. Admiral, my question for you is I’d like to return to the GAO report that Senator Tillis addressed earlier, and specifically its finding on fatigue. Shifting [Crosstalk] shifting away from optimal manning process to better account for ship workload will certainly help in the long run.

But my question for you, sir, is what are you doing now to combat fatigue in the fleet?

GILDAY:
Sir, making great gains to make sure that everybody on ships gets seven to eight hours of uninterrupted sleep at night. And so that’s a challenge. We learn — we’ve been learning a lot. We have medical experts who are helping us design a program. We’re assessing that
program. We just came out with a revised instruction based on our assessment a few months ago.

We continue to learn, but I’m confident they’re in the right track and we’re committed to this, sir. Again, tied to those collisions at ’17.

PETERS:
All right. Thank you, Admiral. General Berger, the Marine Corps just awarded a contract for the organic precision fire-mounted system. This type of investment in loitering munitions will certainly be a key to ensure that the Marine Corps is properly equipped for those fights in the future. My question for you is, could you discuss how the fiscal year ’22 budget actually reflects these modernization priorities in unmanned systems?

BERGER:
Both in the air and on the surface, as you highlight, we’ll — we will triple the number of unmanned aerial systems, aerial squadrons that we have, and they’ll be a mix of those that collect, those that are lethal, those that provide logistics, those that fuse information and move that information. On the surface, the — to an earlier discussion, the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, for example, we’re using it in a configuration now with the naval strike missile where it’s a combination of manned and unmanned teaming.

Some vehicles, crewed, some uncrewed. And that allows the tactical commander to spread his forces out and pose to adversary a threat from multiple vectors, which is what we need to be able to do.

PETERS:
All right. General, in — Berger, again, in April, the Marine Corps Gazette, the — there was a story talking about the Second Marine Information Group, and the commander offered several recommendations for operating in the information environment, focusing entirely
on both individual and union or and unit mindsets.

That certainly makes me wonder about the intangible components of Force Design 2030. So could you talk to the committee a little bit about what you believe every Marine should know about information and how to operationalize it, as well as what every commander
should know?

BERGER:
My assumption is that you’re going to want your Marine Corps and your Navy far forward. That’s the best chance you have to deter. That’s the best chance you have to respond to a crisis. If you’re far forward, then you’re closest to the adversary. And what information goes
back and forth, what messages you’re sending, what you’re collecting and moving within your force matters.

I think the joint force commander, the combatant commander that the CNO talked about earlier is going to rely very heavily on the Marine Corps and the Navy forward to paint a picture of what’s in front of them and to move that information and to call out an adversary’s actions to make it public. Every Marine then who’s forward has to understand that as lethal as we are, and we are very lethal, the information part of that is extraordinarily important.

We have to understand that. That every individual becomes a cog in a bigger system of what do they see in us, what do we see in them, how are we trying to defeat their reconnaissance of us, what do they understand about us. So it’s a higher level of understanding for Marines
and sailors, I think, forward that hasn’t been necessary in the past but will be critical moving forward.

PETERS:
Right. Thank you, General. Thank you, Mister Chairman.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator Tuberville, please.

TUBERVILLE:
Thank you very much. Thank you for your service. Admiral, I want to revisit your statement that numbers matter. China’s Navy is bigger. Not only bigger but geographically concentrated. Almost all PLA Navy ships are in the South China Sea. Do you believe the United States maintains naval superiority within 1,000 miles of China?

GILDAY:
Sir, right now, we do. If we need to respond, we could, and we could respond with overwhelming force. And then surge additional forces forward.

TUBERVILLE:
OK. General Berger, Iwo Jima midway Pearl Harbor, a fight in the Pacific falls on the Navy and the Marine Corps. If we have a conflict with China, our nation will look to you. But if this budget passes, the Marine Corps’ end strength of FY ’22 down by 2,700. You’ve worn the cloth of our nation for 40 years and I know have the courage to answer this question like a Marine.

Is it responsible to shrink the Marine Corps as the nation pivots into the Indo-Pacific?

BERGER:
When you say — just to clarify, sir, shrink the Marine Corps, are you talking about end strength, just to make sure, the structure of the Marine Corps?

TUBERVILLE:
Yes.

BERGER:
I will trade size for quality if we have to. I think the — all the service chiefs would like to never cut their end strength given an unrestricted unlimited set of resources, but that’s not the world that we live in. So we will reduce the end strength. We have reduced the end
strength in order to fund our own modernization for the future.

TUBERVILLE:
Thank you. You know, our military is built on, obviously, recruitment because we are a volunteer military. I just don’t want us to get into this extremism in which we know we have problems in a lot of different areas, you know, being a football coach for years. I brought people in and they went my way or they went the other way because you got to build a team.

But, you know, you see things like, Admiral, you know, in your department, you know, we — I saw on social media, we had a pride flag on your social media on an aircraft carrier. I have no problem with that because, you know, I have young men that were gay that played football for me. I mean, I — you know, you take everybody.

And it takes everybody in the military, but we can’t separate. We can’t separate. To me, it’s the bigger cause that all these young men and women fight for our military. It’s not individual sport. It’s not golf, it’s football. I mean, you got to — we got to build a team. So I just — and I’ve asked the same thing of Secretary Austin and the others, we just need a commitment from everybody to kind of calm down on all this, so we can build a military that believes in one thing, our country.

And we believe in it together. If we keep dividing our country, we’re going to continue to have problems. And I think it’s something we just need to all be really careful of in the future because we — we’ve got the greatest country on the face of this earth, and we don’t want to destroy it. But individualizing and make an individual sports out of everything we do, especially the military, especially the military.

So I just need to make that statement. Thank you, Mister Chairman. Thank you very much.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Tuberville. Senator Duckworth is recognized via Webex.

DUCKWORTH:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. And as someone who served 23 years on our military, I can tell you, it is one team, one fight, regardless of who is in the aircraft with you. I would tell you that when I was bleeding to death in my helicopter, I didn’t ask what their — somebody’s background was. I only care that they had an American flag on their shoulder and went there to rescue me. So our military truly is united, and that oath of office is what unites all of us. Good morning, gentlemen.

Thank you for being here and thank you for your service to our nation. I am very encouraged to see the development of unmanned naval platforms such as the MQ-25 aerial refueler, which will provide essential logistic support to our maritime forces. The MQ-25 conducted their first-ever aerial refueling between a manned aircraft and an unmanned tanker on June 4 from MidAmerica Airport in my home state of Illinois.

It will be the world’s first operational carrier-based unmanned aircraft providing aerial refueling and ISR capabilities for carrier strike groups. MQ-25 integration will extend the range of our aircraft carriers and lay the foundation for all future carrier-based unmanned systems. Admiral Gilday, could you speak to the impact of unmanned programs such as the MQ-25 have on our ability to provide essential logistics in contested environments and the importance of continued investment in unmanned systems for the Navy’s future force design?

In particular, how do you plan to employ this capability to support our operational plans in the Indo-Pacific region where the tyranny of distance is something we’ve already discussed?
Thank you.

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am, thanks for the question. I think that the impact of the MQ-25 and our experience is that we’ve seen out at sea and again with the aerial refueling that you mentioned two weeks ago, I think the effects are profound for not only the Navy but our military. It’ll change the dynamic of the carrier air wing.

You mentioned increased ISR capability, increased range, increased lethality. I also think it’s going to change the way that we employ the air wing where you’ll have manned and unmanned operating together. And the MQ-25 is our first look at how we’re going to do that going into the 2030s. That particular platform, we have a high degree of confidence in right now, and that’s only growing day by day as we operate it. And so as we move forward, ma’am, what we’re learning from the MQ-25, we’re not only applying that to other aerial vehicles, but we’re also applying it to the work that we’re doing on unmanned surface platforms and unmanned undersea platforms as well.

DUCKWORTH:
Thank you, Admiral. I was pleased that you released the Department of the Navy’s Unmanned Campaign Framework, which outlines a holistic approach to developing and deploying unmanned systems and ensuring that individual technologies can operate within a broader architecture of networked warfighting systems.

I believe unmanned systems will play a key role in future distributed marine operations, littoral operations in a contested environment, and expeditionary advance-based operations. However, these platforms won’t provide maximum capability for our forces if they are not fully integrated with other important systems.

And I’m so glad to hear in your earlier answer that you’re integrating these systems in. I do understand that you need to develop a manned-unmanned teaming solution in order to effectively employ the MQ-25 in some situations. Can you please just walk me through your plans for this solution and what resources you might need to develop this enabler so we can get the most use out of an important capability like the MQ-25?

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am. So first of all, on a campaign plan, I’d also like to mention that the commandant, General Berger, also signed that framework with me. So the Marine Corps and the Navy are working because we have to hand in hand as we proceed forward with unmanned. So conceptually, ma’am, we — what we believe for some period of time is it this will be a phased approach with respect to unmanned where for a certain period of time there will be — there needs to be a man in the loop.

And so eventually, we’ll have artificial intelligence technology, machine learning that allows us to continue to increase the amount of autonomy that we employ with these vessels. But I think that we have to be smart about this and understand that this is going to be a phased approach. But there’s still a lot of power there even in a phased approach if we take a responsible way to keep a man in the loop as we leverage the unmanned and uncrewed vessels.

DUCKWORTH:
Thank you. I like to chat a little bit about the Indo-Pacific region. You know, I think we are clear that our alliances and partnerships provide the United States with a clear asymmetrical advantage against potential adversaries. I would love to — I know I’m out of time. General Berger, I’d like to submit a question for the record to ask you, really, how would the Marine Corps balance the need to invest in modernization with resource and critical readiness and mil-to-mil initiatives with our partners and allies, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region?

I’m talking specifically about building trust and interoperability by actually having a presence in the Indo-Pacific on the ground in the region to basically, bottom line, enhance relationships and increase deterrence and open doors. You know, finding new friends, maybe not necessarily allies but people who are just happy to have us there to enforce the rule of law and international norms and behavior.

So I submit that for the record and I hope that you’ll send me an answer. Thank you, General Berger. But I’m over time, Mister Chairman. Thank you.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator Blackburn, please.

BLACKBURN:
Thank you, Mister Chairman. Admiral Gilday, I want to come to you if I may. Naval support activity, mid-south in Millington there in Tennessee, and of course, we have some of the best personnel there for Navy Recruiting Command and Navy Personnel Command. And we’re just so honored to have them there and appreciative of the work that they do. I want to talk with you a little bit about the newly transformed model of recruiting, which you have really pushed back and away from the legacy model and where you had one recruiter for every job.

And I like what you’re doing with the 1,100 talent acquisition stations supported by 64 talent acquisition onboarding centers and 26 Navy talent acquisition teams. And I understand that this is fully operational now in 2021 when your start date and your target date had been 2023. So it is wonderful to see transformative change being implemented and ahead of schedule.

And the men and women that have worked on that really deserve a lot of talent. So talk a little bit about how this transformational model with basically the three-person team with the recruiter or the scout, the assessor, and the on border, how that is working, and how you implemented that?

GILDAY:
Ma’am, thanks for recognizing our teammates out of Millington, really, really a terrific, terrific group of innovators out there. I’d say two things upfront that allow us to take a look at how we reimagine recruiting. One was the pandemic. And so we were challenged when we fa — with respect to face-to-face contact.

And so we began to rely on the digital that much more. And we already had an idea how we were going to do this in terms of, as you described, transforming the organization. Based on funding from Congress, we were able to accelerate that by three years. We couldn’t have done that without the help of this committee and others.

And so that is I think a real model for when Congress believes we’re in the right track here and they allow us to fund it, that we can make fundamental changes. Under this new system, we have recruited 54,000 new sailors into the Navy. We have met and exceeded our goals even during the pandemic. So it’s relying on small teams that work together very closely.

And also, we’re leveraging social media and the digital, as well as e-teams that compete out there where the potential recruitable population hangs out, which is in the gaming — on the gaming sites.

BLACKBURN:
All right. And I want you to drill down a little bit on two things. Number one is how this is helping you get the skilled talent you need for 21st-century warfare? And second, how you have used bots and data to help target and to be effective?

GILDAY:
So the data has allowed us to understand where the recruitable population resides, not physically, but virtually in cyberspace. And so when you think about the gaming community, which is pretty big among — I have sons that are in college, and it’s a pretty big – – it’s millions of young people that play these games online.

And so we’ve created Navy teams that are out there playing and can answer people’s questions when they have one. We found, in particular, with respect to those that are interested in the cyber field of study that I have to be less lot — rely less on their being a college graduate than the fact that they’re a good gamer or a good hacker and just are interested in how they can apply their skills in a place like the Navy where they can do some pretty exciting things with — if they have the right authorities to do so and that’s classified, but that gets in a higher classification.

But we have been able to attract, as you mentioned, ma’am, some really sophisticated and dedicated patriots into the Navy.

BLACKBURN:
And I would assume utilizing that type of artificial intelligence, you’ll be able to apply that to things such as promotion boards to eliminate bias and to —

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am, that’s a good goal. I would just say that I think it’ll take us some time to get there before machines can make those kinds of, in some cases, subjective judgment calls, whether it’s on the battlefield or whether it’s in a promotion board. But I certainly think that’s in our future and that’s a path that we’re on.

BLACKBURN:
I appreciate that and I commend you and the team at Millington for the way forward on this. General Berger, I’m going to submit questions for you dealing with China. Secretary Harker, I also have some questions pertaining to China, and I will submit those for the record. Mister Chairman, thank you.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Rosen, please.

ROSEN:
There it is. Thank you, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe, for holding this hearing. And thank you so much for your service and for being here today. Of course, in Nevada, we have our wonderful Fallon Naval Air Station and we’re proud to host it. It’s home to TOPGUN, our nation’s premier carrier air wing.

It’s home to the SEAL — Navy SEAL Training Center. And so last year, the Navy requested an expansion of over 600,000 acres of federal land and over 65,000 acres of nonfederal land, which would expand Fallon training complex to about 900,000 acres. Federal land managers currently allow access to the public for much of the proposed expansion area for grazing, for hunting, for mineral exploration, and geothermal development.

And the Navy’s proposal would curtail many of these activities in addition to restricting tribal access to some of our most important — some of their most important cultural sites. The FY ’21 NDAA included a provision that Senator Cortez Masto and I offered that mandates the creation of an Intergovernmental Executive Committee, or IEC, to allow local, state, and tribal governments a public forum to collaborate with the Navy to provide advice and exchange information.

In doing so, we hope we can support the Navy’s modernization requirements and keep up with all, of course, our current emerging threats, technologies while maintaining Nevada’s natural resources and cultural resources. But the Navy sent over a legislative proposal to this committee almost identical to last year, unfortunately, and it didn’t incorporate any of the suggested changes or feedback from our local stakeholders.

So, Admiral, I’m really pleased that you did your IEC right away. But why hasn’t the Navy’s proposal been modified to incorporate some of these?

GILDAY:
Ma’am, I think for the very reasons that you mentioned with respect to — there are a number of stakeholders involved here. As you know, we’ve had over 300 engagements with the Native American tribes to try and work through some of those difficulties. There are other difficulties that may or may not coincide with their — with the tribes that involve the county. 

There’s also the state. And so — and there’s also the Department of the Interior. So the IEC, we’ve had two meetings so far. The Walker Paiute Tribe is a vice-chair, as well as the county commissioner. The county commission is also the vice-chair. And I think the way forward here that I’m optimistic about is we are now getting all the stakeholders in the same room together so that we can work through all of these issues in a way that allows us, we hope in the end, to modernize the range.

We haven’t done so since the mid-’80s. We’re two generations behind with respect to

aircraft. We’re facing a problem now where if we don’t modernize this range, the first time F- 35s will be able to employ their full capability will be in combat. We’re building wind farms off the California coast that again cut into our training ranges. And so we’re running out of space to train. But we’re using, you know, for some years now, precision weapons, GPS-guided weapons with longer ranges, with sophisticated aircraft, and we can’t train our pilots and our aircrews to their full capabilities. So again, very enthused, ma’am, by the IEC. I’m meeting here next Monday.

It’s the next one. Tracking it very closely. And of course, I very much appreciate your support as we work through this.

ROSEN:
Well, thank you. I look forward to working on that with you and all the allies and partners. I want to just quickly talk about the Fallon’s B19 range. And — because in 1959, the Navy did drop live, inert ordnance right outside of there, speaking of the Walker River Paiute Tribe, and that’s nearly 6,000 of their acres where you drop this ordnance.

And so it contaminated all of that. And so will you commit to working with me in the Nevada delegation on ensuring that the tribe is fairly compensated for this contamination?

GILDAY:
Yes, ma’am, you have my commitment.

ROSEN:
Thank you. And I’ll submit this for the record, but Senator Blackburn and I — she talked about the skilled workforce. We actually have a bill called the Cyber Security Reserve Act to establish a civilian cyber reserve corps, modeled after a recommendation from the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service report that will help in surge capacity and training, giving people on-ramps to serve their government like the other reserve course do, and I look forward to talking with you about that in another time.

Thank you.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Rosen. Senator Kelly, please.

KELLY:
Thank you. Thank you, Mister Chairman. And Mister Secretary, Admiral, General, thank you for joining us this morning. This past weekend, I visited the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, a school that gave me the foundation to succeed in the Navy and then later at NASA as an astronaut. While the Merchant Marine is overseen by other committees, I want to acknowledge the important contribution it makes to our total sealift capability.

This is critical. In order to sustain our forces, we need to ensure robust and reliable sealift capacity. Competition with China is increasing, and projecting power to WESTPAC places a demand on our sealift capability that simply were not a factor in the Middle East. Our witnesses mentioned earlier and all of you indicated in written testimony for this hearing your concern about threats to our supply chains and global sustainment networks.

General Berger, can you expand on any concerns you may have about our sealift capability today, and what more does the U.S. need to do to ensure that we have a ready force of sufficient capability?

BERGER:
Sir, like a lot of other people wearing the uniform, the first time I got familiar with sealift capability was 1991 in Saudi Arabia. Sailed them into Al Jubail Port, offloaded ships for probably two, two and a half weeks. That’s where we got our equipment from. And we flew from CONUS and linked up with our equipment there.

That was my first exposure to sealift. But that was assured. Sailing those ships in and out of there, they were protected, they were secured. Nobody was threatening those lines at all. A very different picture, as you point out, from the Indo-Pacific where the Chinese Navy is stretching out. It’s gaining a marine and a naval force projection capability that they haven’t had.

They want to control the same straits that we need to keep open. Sealift now becomes a major concern. In other words, a handful of large ships with a lot of gear on them now becomes vulnerable. We need to disperse that. So I think military sealift going forward is not the same variant as 1991 where there’s three or four ships or five in a squadron and they’re loaded to the gills with equipment and you can sail into a secure port and offload it.

You’re — own your timeline.
That’s not going to be the case.

KELLY:
Well, thank you. Admiral or Secretary Harker, would — any additional comments on our
sealift capability?

HARKER:
We definitely need to recapitalize our sealift capability. We’re working to do so. And it’s something that we believe strongly in investing in new or in used ships because that gives us the biggest bang for our buck.

KELLY:
Admiral?

GILDAY:
And yes, sir. If I could just mention something or expound on something that General Berger mentioned. I think that as we — as the department looks at this new joint warfighting concept and as we think about how we’re going to fight differently in the future, I mean, it’s exactly what the commandant was getting to with respect to one area would be sealift in terms of the capacity that we need based on the way we’re going to fight.

What the Navy’s doing right now, we know that we’re behind on recapitalizing sealift. The Congress has given us authorities to buy used sealift. So we’ve done the market analysis and we’re currently purchasing five additional ships, nine total, at about a tenth of the cost to build a new ship. So we do some minor modifications in a U.S. shipyard that gives us a RoRo capability as an example.

Secondly, what we’re doing in this budget particularly, we’ve got 16 additional life extension plans for existing sealift. We’re not satisfied with where we are right now, sir. But I think we’re headed in the right direction with both — I just spoke to recapitalization and repair.

KELLY:
As you get those new ships, do you feel like you can find the officers and crew to man them?

GILDAY:
Yes, sir. And so one of the national treasures we have is our Merchant Marine force, and they’ve been great.

KELLY:
Well, thank you, and willing to work with you on going forward on any further ideas on how we strengthen that capability. It’s critical to maintain these supply lines. And, General, as you pointed out, it’s much different than what we dealt with in 1991 in the first Gulf War. Thank you. And Mister Chairman, I yield back.

REED:
Thank you, Senator Kelly. Mister Secretary, Admiral, General, thank you for your testimony today, and thank you for your service in the nation over many years, and please relay our thanks to the men and women of the Navy and the Marine Corps and their families. With that, I will adjourn the hearing.

List of Panel Members and Witnesses

PANEL MEMBERS:
SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.), CHAIRMAN
SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.)
SEN. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND (D-N.Y.)
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CONN.)
SEN. MAZIE K. HIRONO (D-HAWAII)
SEN. TIM KAINE (D-VA.)
SEN. ANGUS KING (I-MAINE)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MASS.)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MICH)
SEN. JOE MANCHIN III (D-W. VA.)
SEN. TAMMY DUCKWORTH (D-ILL.)
SEN. JACKY ROSEN (D-NEV.)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-ARIZ.)
SEN. JAMES M. INHOFE (R-OKLA.), RANKING MEMBER
SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MISS.)
SEN. DEB FISCHER (R-NEB.)
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-ARK.)
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-S.D.)
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IOWA)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-N.C.)
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN (R-ALASKA)
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-N.D.)
SEN. RICK SCOTT (R-FLA.)
SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN (R-TENN.)
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO.)
SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-ALA.)
WITNESSES:
CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS MICHAEL GILDAY
COMMANDANT OF THE MARINE CORPS DAVID BERGER
ACTING SECRETARY OF THE NAVY THOMAS HARKER

Source: United States Navy

Below is a transcript of the hearing:

SMITH:

[Inaudible] call the committee to order. This is our first day under the new old rules — old new rules, [Inaudible] Capital or whoever it is, who’s in charge has told us that we can be back in the committee in person in full numbers without masks or social distancing. That announcement has just been- I missed you too.

That other announcement was just made last night, so, you know, we’re scrambling around this morning to let people know that the new rules are here, so members will be drifting in. But from this point forward, you know, we will be in the committee hearing. No social distancing. Do not have to wear a mask.

Now, there’re — people are still going to be allowed to participate remotely. There’s a very long CDC speech to explain that, which I won’t get into. It didn’t makes sense. So, unfortunately, the one feature of the old rules that applies as you still get to hear me read the statement. So, I’ll try to do it as quickly as possible and we’ll move on. Members who are joining remotely must be visible on screen for purposes of identity verification, establishing and maintaining a quorum participating in the proceeding and voting.

Those members must continue to use software platforms, video function while in attendance unless they experience connectivity issues or other technical problems that render them unable to participate on camera. If a member experiences technical difficulties, they should contact committee staff or assistants, video of member’s participation will be broadcast in the room and via the television/Internet feeds.

Members participating remotely must seek recognition verbally and they’re asked to mute the microphones when they are not speaking. Members who are participating remotely are reminded to keep software platforms video function on the entire time they attend the proceeding. Members may leave and rejoin the proceeding.

If they depart for a short while for reasons other than joining a different proceeding, they should leave the video function on. If members will be absent for a significant period or depart to join a different proceeding, they should exit the software platform entirely and then rejoin it if they return. Members may use the software platform’s chat feature to communicate with staff regarding technical or logistical support issues only.

Finally, I’ve designated a committee staff member if necessary to mute unrecognized members microphones to cancel an inadvertent background noise that may disrupt the proceedings. So, we will continue to do that for a while to allow members to participate remotely if they so choose. So, our hearing this morning is full committee hearing on the Department of the Navy fiscal year 2022 budget request.

We have the Honorable Thomas Harker, acting Secretary of the Navy with us this morning as well as Admiral Michael Gilday, chief of naval operations and General — sorry, I got to slow down. I was in my — I was at my [Inaudible] could that thing mode. Now, I guess [Inaudible]. And, General David Berger, commandant of the Marine Corps.

And we, thank you, Gentlemen, for being here. We look forward to your testimony. These are very, very challenging times in our country for a variety of different reasons. But within the military, there’s huge transformations going on and huge challenges going on at the same time. I’ve met and spoken with all three of you about your approach to that.

And at the outset, I just want to say thank you. I think you are doing an outstanding job of confronting those challenges and it’s not easy. You have to do so within a finite budget environment. Number one, we still have the complex threat environment that we’ve had for a while with Russia and China with North Korea and Iran and transnational terrorist groups and trying to figure out how to manage our resources and meet all those threats and meet the needs of our National security continues to be a challenge.

We are still working our way through COVID. Obviously, vaccination rates little troublesome within the military. You got to get those up higher and then of course we have the global challenges that come from the fact that much of the world does not have access to the vaccine. And there are many places where it’s spreading.

But the transformation that is really interesting is what you’ve been working on in terms of building the force to meet the challenges of today and to meet the information warfare scene that we face. And the simplest way to explain this is, you know, mostly warfare is about amassing as much firepower as possible and being able to get it to where you need to get it as quickly as possible.

And that’s still the case, but now information has become so key. The ability to access that information, the ability to find within the information exactly what you need and then the ability to get it to the people who need it in real time. So, that you know your — your front line, Marine, your ship captain, they have that information that they need about the adversary and about the environment.

And then to protect that information. As we have seen in recent days and many different ways, if adversaries can cut off our information, cut off our flow, attack us in a cyber way, that can really render all of that firepower useless. So, how do we protect it? And then how do we make it survivable? The systems have to be survivable wherever they go, and that is a big change from the military that we built.

So both — all three of you have to wrestle with that. What systems do you continue to fund, what do we need to add funds to? It’s a huge set of challenges that I know all three of you have confronted and we’re very anxious to hear today, you know, how the President’s budget reflects that and what do you think we need to do here on this committee to help enhance your efforts to — to make those changes.

I guess the two big things that I would mention before I turn over to Mr. Rogers, you know, one in the infrastructure side, there’s been a lot of focus on the Navy side on the shipyards and our maintenance requirements. As you well know, one of the big problems with having our assets available is hitting the maintenance schedules.

You know, ships have to wait an extended period of time just to get access to a shipyard, to get the maintenance they need to continue. What sort of upgrades do we need? What’s the best way to go about doing those upgrades? And on the Marine Corps side, I know, General Berger, you have made some — some big strong statements about how to transform the Marine Corps.

The idea of amassing and fighting on the battlefield is different now. You need different systems to support the mission. The Marine Corps is going to face fundamentally different than what you’ve been doing throughout most of your 200-plus year history. I know you’ve done a lot of work on that. We’re anxious to hear about that.

I guess the last comment I make is I mentioned that 200-plus year history. Our staff, sort of, I guess messed up on the schedule because it’s the Army’s birthday today, but here we are. So, we wish the Army birthday, even — even though they’re coming, I think, next week. So — but we appreciate all of your service and all the hard work you’re doing in these very difficult times.

And with that, I will turn it over to Ranking Member Rogers for his opening statement.

ROGERS:

Thank you. And it’s not just the Army’s birthday today. I think the rest of the committee will join me in wishing the chairman a happy birthday and I hope it’s your best year ever.

UNKNOWN:

[Inaudible].

SMITH:

Thank you. I appreciate that. We have to mention it is also Rick Larsen’s birthday today.

ROGERS:

All right.

SMITH:

That is the — the little-

LARSEN:

Applause.

SMITH:

And that’s a little known fact. Yes, we [Inaudible].

ROGERS:

All right.

SMITH:

Rick and I were actually born on the exact same day. [Inaudible] exact same day.

ROGERS:

These Washington state had some activity going on at that.

SMITH:

But I was born in D.C., but that’s story. The time is yours. I apologize. Thanks. Go ahead.

ROGERS:

I do want to thank the witnesses for being here and the time it took to prepare for this. I know it’s a — it’s a pain, but we really appreciate it. I appreciate your service to our nation. At his confirmation hearing, Secretary Austin said that China presents the most significant threat going forward and that China should be viewed as our national security quote pacing threat close quote.

I wholeheartedly agree with that. I was optimistic that the President — the President would hear that rhetoric from the Secretary and turn it into action. Unfortunately, I was being na??ve. Rather than keeping pace with the threat from China, the President’s budget recommendation would let us lap them or let them lap us. We need not look much further than the request for the Department of the Navy.

The President requests a paltry eight battle ship — battle force ships, two of which are tugboats. At the same time, the President wants to retire 15 other battleships, including seven cruisers. Those seven cruisers provide more afloat missile capability than almost the entire British fleet, but the cuts don’t end there.

The budget would break a multiyear destroyer procurement, truncate key developmental programs like railgun and pass on critical munition investments like Tomahawk missiles and heavyweight torpedoes. This budget is throwing the shipbuilding industrial base further into disarray. Shipbuilders are laying off workers because of the lack of Navy vision and chronic underfunding.

Even strategies that save money beyond the ability of the — are beyond the ability of this administration to support. Despite testimony that smart amphibious ship acquisition would lead over 700 million in cost savings, the administration has elected to take a pass. While this administration dithers, China’s rapidly growing and modernizing its navy.

Our fleet of 296 ships has already been eclipsed by the Chinese fleet of over 350 ships and submarines. China has more than 1250 ground launched ballistic missiles and ground launched cruise missiles with ranges between 200 and 2000 miles. The United States currently fills just one type of conventional ground launched ballistic missile with a range of 30 to 120 miles.

I’m also concerned with the strike fighter gap. This budget fails to fund additional Super Hornets or F-35 for the Navy. That leaves us with critical capability gap in the near term that Congress will have to fill. Setting back our credible deterrent even further is Acting Secretary Harker’s call to eliminate the nuclear sea launched cruise missile.

The DNI recently reported that China is fielding a full nuclear triad and is expected to reach 1,000 warheads by 2030. In light of this growing threat, the recommendation to end [Inaudible] is both short-sighted and dangerous. It’s almost as if the President developed this budget with little understanding of what is required to deter conflict if necessary when a war.

Quite simply this budget has little to do with pacing China and I refuse to support it. We should be expanding and modernizing our neighbor capabilities as called for by the last administration. I’m disappointed with the Biden administration. It doesn’t see the threat from China the same way, but I look forward to working with the majority to pass a real defense budget that supports modernization and ensures credible deterrence.

That was — with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Harker.

HARKER:

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for your bipartisan efforts on behalf of the sailors, Marines and civilians that make up our Department of the Navy. I’m honored to be here with General Berger and Admiral Gilday. I support their efforts to build a more integrated All-Domain Naval force through the NAV plan and Force Design 2030. The President’s budget for FY22 reflects a balanced approach to ensure we have the capabilities, capacity and readiness needed to defend the nation and our interests.

It demonstrates our resolve to stay ahead of the pacing threat of China and other global challenges, making hard choices to divest of less capable assets to invest in a superior future force. The top priority for each of us will always be to ensure our sailors, Marines and civilians are prepared to execute the mission and return home safely to their families.

We’re prioritizing the mental health of our force, speaking out at the senior level about the benefits of counseling and the availability of counselors, chaplains and other professionals. We appreciate this Committee’s attention to that vital issue and your support in providing additional mental health support to our sailors and Marines in forward operational units.

We’re fighting the scourge of sexual harassment and sexual assault through efforts like the Watch List, a tool that uses Navy and Marine Corps data to alert commanders to conditions in their units that may lead to these toxic behaviors. We also look forward to the findings of Secretary Austin’s 90-Day Independent Review Commission and are committed to making meaningful and lasting progress on this issue.

To ensure our resources reach the warfighters who need them, we’re demanding rigorous self-assessment and responsive accountability through the Performance to Plan initiative. We are also on the right path towards obtaining an opinion, an audit opinion, for the Navy and Marine Corps general funds and the DON’s Working Capital Fund.

We are the only military department that has fixed audit material weaknesses and are leading the way in this critical effort. We are also increasing our investment in the department’s oversight functions while maximizing our return on our investment in the performance audit process. Modernization of our information technology infrastructure is a critical warfighting priority for the department.

Effective use and management of data is key to our digital transformation and will change how we fight and win at every level. I have visited all four of our Navy shipyards as well as most of the private shipyards and I am fully committed to the shipyard infrastructure optimization program and other vital physical and IT infrastructure investments.

These will increase the capability and resiliency of these century old installations, increasing the size and capability of our dry docks and equipping our 40,000 person workforce with the tools they need to maintain our new and more lethal assets. Around the world and around the clock, the sailors, Marines and civilians of our integrated naval force stand the watch and execute the mission.

On behalf of each of them, I thank you for your time and dedicated oversight and look forward to your questions.

SMITH:

Thank you. Admiral Gilday.

GILDAY:

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning along with Secretary Harker and General Berger. We all are thankful for the enduring support that this committee provides the Navy and Marine Corps team. This hearing, I believe comes at a critical time for our nation.

Competition on, under, and above the seas is intensifying. China and Russia are rapidly mobilizing the militaries, attempting to undermine our alliances and degrading the free and the open order. The People’s Liberation Army, Navy battle force is the largest in the world and it is growing. They command modern surface combatants, submarines, aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships and next generation fighters.

And their maritime ambition is backed by a robust industrial base and the largest shipbuilding infrastructure in the world. Put simply, China has designed a blue-water fleet to rival our own and America’s enduring advantage at sea is eroding. Make no mistake, our fleet can control the seas in conflict and project power ashore today, but we will be increasingly challenged to do so in the future unless hard choices are made.

The Navy currently faces the task of recapitalizing our strategic nuclear deterrent, which we haven’t done in 40 years. At the same time, we were making once in a century investment in our critical public shipyards as the Chairman mentioned. And at the same time, we’re trying to modernize our fleet for the potential future fight.

At the same time, we have a responsibility to our sailors and our nation to maximize the readiness of the fleet, can confidently operate forward and be relevant. Nearly 70 percent of the ships that we have today will have a decade from now. We have to take care of the ships that we have today, although the price tag on readiness is rising.

Over the last 20 years, manpower operations and maintenance costs, 60 percent of our budget have grown at 2.4 percent above the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, the buying power of our Navy is less than it was in 2010. Back then, we had 288 ships; today, we have 296. As you all know, the results of analysis done over the past five years whether inside the Pentagon or outside have been consistent and clear.

America needs a larger, more capable fleet. Our latest future force naval structure assessment provided the headlights not only for the size of our future fleet, but importantly for the composition of that fleet, the capabilities that it brings to the joint force. If the Navy’s top line remains flat or goes down further, the size of our fleet will definitely shrink.

Despite these fiscal challenges, we are determined to field a more capable, a more lethal and a more ready Navy for the joint force. To do this, we are improving our maintenance in our shipyards and aviation depots. We are ensuring our ships are properly manned, that our magazines are filled with ammunition and that we have our storerooms filled with spare parts.

And there are sailors are getting the steaming days and flying hours that they need to hone their skills. We are working hard on a more robust resilient network infrastructure. We are investing in long range precision fires like hypersonics and tactical Tomahawk and we’re developing directed energy systems to improve fleet survivability.

Our eye is on the larger hybrid fleet. The investments in our shipbuilding account reflect a rigorous analysis we conducted last year as well as a high demand from combatant commanders. We are determined to deliver the Columbia SSBN on time as we build affordable capacity, which includes a deliberate approach to unmanned.

And we’re making sure that every sailor can outthink and outfight any adversary by scaling our efforts for ready relevant learning and live virtual constructive training. Committee, the average age of the Chinese fleet is 11 years, ours is 21. It’s time to field the future Navy. We must modernize now for the looming competition ahead of us and maintain a forward posture that keeps America safe and prosperous.

I am extremely proud of our sailors, our Navy civilians and our families who have sustained historic high OPTEMPO in the midst of a pandemic. They remain the source of our strength as are the Patriots in our shipyards and aircraft depots and our partners in industry companies. Large and small who keep the production lines moving.

Again, we are grateful for this Committee’s support to our Navy and Marine Corps team. I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.

SMITH:

Thank you, General Berger.

BERGER:

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers and members of the committee, over the past two years since becoming commandant, I’ve come to better understand and appreciate the bipartisan support of this committee, which is really critical to creating the force that we have today, but also the force that we’re going to need for the future.

I realize there’s competing with national priorities you have to wrestle with and that’s going to put pressure on defense budgets. But I’m also confident that you all appreciate the severity of the security environment around the world. As the global competition with China and Russia increases and accelerates, I would argue your military will need to have more advanced capabilities in order to effectively compete to reassure our allies and partners and to deter war.

Force Design 2030 is the Marine Corps answer to creating the cutting edge capabilities and the ready forces that will better enable the fleet and the joint force to deter, to compete, and to respond with ready forces to any crisis anywhere on the globe. To be clear, Force Design is the centerpiece of a broader, more systemic modernization effort across your core.

One that improves more than just our equipment and our war fighting formations, but also our personnel systems, our training and our family programs as well. We’re roughly two years into that modernization program and I feel I owe this committee an update. And while we don’t have sufficient time this morning to go into all the details, I do want to highlight three key areas of progress.

First, we’ve increased the operational reach and the efficacy of our naval expeditionary forces to include our Marine Expeditionary Units, our MEUs, which remain the crown jewel of our force. Beginning last year, we started our transition to a mixed capability of long-range ship and ground-based unmanned aerial systems.

UASs including the MQ-9 Reaper. This will significantly expand our ISR capabilities and it’ll enable us to better support the fleet and the joint operational commander, including antisubmarine warfare. We’ve also initiated a partnership with industry to develop a future autonomous long-range unmanned surface vessel that will extend the reach of our MEUs. That vessel will give us a new tool for maritime gray zone competition.

It’ll help thicken what we call the C5ISR network. It’ll add to our conventional naval deterrent using loitering munitions. Lastly, we’re aggressively pursuing organic precision fires for our infantry. Those also have loitering munitions. And we’re on track to make a decision on the vendor, a final decision this year.

Second, we’ve made significant advancements across our training and our education enterprise. In the last 16 months, we’ve released our first new doctrine in 20 years. Actually, we released two, one on learning, one on competing. We’ve also significantly advanced the intellectual framework for some of our future operational concepts.

Earlier this year, we published a tentative manual for expeditionary advanced base operations and we will use that to inform our training, our wargaming and our exercises. We’ve substantially increased the resources we’ve dedicated to war gaming and to experimentation. Last month, we broke ground on a new state of the art war gaming center here in Quantico, Virginia.

And finally, we dramatically enhance both the quality and the duration of infantry training. Infantry training for us is now 50 percent longer than it was before. And we’ve added new modules to increase lethality. Third, we’ve taken some important steps to improve our personnel systems and our policies. To continue attracting the highest quality men and women for your Marine Corps, we’ve raised AFQT standards to enlist and we raised the ASVAB requirements for infantry.

Our enlisted performance evaluation system in the Marine Corps was antiquated, it was subjective and it was completely manual. We just replaced that old system with a cloud-based system where for the first time Marines are evaluated based on clearly defined objective standards that they have control over.

We revised our retention policies to the qualified Marines can now reenlist a year earlier than they could before and I’ve delegated to commanders the authority to enlist Marines on the spot. Recognizing the strong connection between the health of our force and the support of our families, we revised our parental leave policies.

They now include both adoptive and same sex parents and I’ll continue to push for expanded maternity leave for our Marines. And while it may seem like a modest accomplishment perhaps to some, this year we had updated our maternity uniforms to improve both our utility and their professional appearance. So, overall, while I’m encouraged by our progress on Force Design and the other modernization initiatives, I’m not satisfied with the pace of change.

We have to move faster. To accelerate our program, we as a service will need to do a better job of explaining the details of Force Design 2030 to members and to your staff. And that’s my responsibility as your Commandant. To that end, I’m prepared to testify before the Full Committee and the Appropriations Committee if committee Chairs would find such a hearing useful.

I think it’s critical that we develop a shared understanding about where your Marine Corps is headed and why. And how your support is absolutely essential to our success. Equally important is explaining how we plan to pay for it all. As Chairman Smith recently noted, we can and must make better choices to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars and I couldn’t agree more.

This is part of the reason for the past two years we’ve pursued a cost neutral approach to Force Design. From the beginning self-funding our modernization, not asking for any more funds. To ensure the success of that approach, I will need to ask for your support in reducing the total procurement of some platforms commensurate with the recent reductions in our end strength.

The fact is today’s Marine Corps is significantly smaller than it was 10 to 12 years ago, about 24,000 Marines smaller. We simply won’t need as many ground vehicles. We won’t need as many aircraft as we thought we did when we made this procurement decisions 20 years ago. It’s just simple math. With the reductions outlined in our Forced Design report this spring, I believe we will have sufficient resources to create the modern capabilities required for competition for deterrence and for crisis response without a further reduction in our end strength.

So, I welcome the opportunity to work with this Committee and I look forward to your — your questions both in this hearing and in the weeks to follow. Thank you, sir.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Secretary, how — how is the vaccination issue going? What percentage of the force has been vaccinated? How is that affecting your ability to get everybody back up and running as normal?

HARKER:

We’ve made progress on vaccinations. The Navy and Marine Corps have both issued [Inaudible]

SMITH:

I’m sorry. We’re having a hard time hearing you. I don’t know if it’s because it’s on or you’re too far back or.

HARKER:

Sorry, sir. We’ve made progress on vaccinations. Both the Navy and Marine Corps have issued policies that have increased the ability of sailors and Marines to have liberty in foreign ports or to do different-

SMITH:

Do you have numbers on that progress aside, you know, what percentage of your — of the Navy and Marine Corps have been vaccinated?

HARKER:

[Inaudible], do you have the-

GILDAY:

Seventy-five percent for the Navy are right now, sir.

SMITH:

That’s great.

HARKER:

[Inaudible]

SMITH:

[Inaudible]

BERGER:

We’re at 50 percent for fully vaccinated fully immunized.

SMITH:

And would you support once the FDA fully approves the vaccine, making it mandatory for service members?

HARKER:

Sir, we’re looking at that right now at [Inaudible] level. They’re coming up with guidance. I believe the secretary is considering making that decision to do so, but it’s not something that he has announced to us yet.

SMITH:

Okay. The only other question I have is on the unmanned systems. And General Berger, you alluded to it, but I’d like both — both of you to respond. You know, I know we’re making a big investment going forward and developing unmanned systems. It’s not — it’s still not 100 percent clear to me what — what the Navy’s vision of how unmanned systems will help you in your mission.

Could you just quickly sort of give us what that vision is, Admiral Gilday?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. We intend to use our fleet in a distributed manner and so these unmanned obviously give us give as volume, give us more ships that allow us to come at let’s say China or Russia at many vectors across many domains. We would be leveraging space and cyber as well. The two biggest challenges that we’re getting after on unmanned are one, reliability.

So, the engineering plants have to be reliable so they can operate most of the time unattended. The second is command and control and we feel like we’re on a good path on both. But we have not — we don’t have any intentions of scaling any of these efforts until we get to a place where we’re comfortable with both of those aspects.

If I could just say briefly, sir, in the last month we’ve had three big steps forward. One’s we’ve had the largest unmanned exercise in our history on the West Coast with unmanned under the surface, on the surface, and in the air with a Zumwalt class destroyer and LC-A ships and so this conceptually is helping us understand how we’re going to use those unmanned platforms in conjunction with the manned ships that we have today.

Separately, last Friday we had our first successful refueling of an F-18 Super Hornet from an MQ-25 drone that’s going to be a carrier based capability that will be IOC in 2025. And lastly, we had a surface unmanned make a make a transit of 4000 plus mile transit from the — from the Gulf Coast through the Panama Canal up to portray Hueneme, the third ship — third — third ship that’s done so, 98 percent of it done autonomously.

And so, we are making strides. I do think it’s a big step though. I think it’s going to be phased with respect to minimal manning before we ever get to a point where we use an unmanned completely unattended.

SMITH:

Thanks. General Berger, do you have anything to add?

BERGER:

I think you expect the Marine Corps to be your forward force, your stand in force, Chairman, though I’d say the role of UAS the vision you’re talking about probably four different parts, one intelligence collection and moving that information back to the fleet in the joint force. Second, I would say logistics.

The ability to move to distribute itself and sustain that, we’re going to need unmanned platforms to do that. Third, I would say lethality and some of these are multiplatform kind of aircraft, but third certainly is the — is the lethality and fourth would be the command and control aspect, the ability to fuse and move information laterally and back to the joint force.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Rogers, you’re recognized.

ROGERS:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, you painted a pretty ugly picture for the future of the Navy. Given that fact, do you feel like this budget is adequate to help you take on those challenges?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think it’s important to understand that that the base in the top line that we have, that we can afford a navy of about 300 ships. What we’re trying to do with our investment strategy is, is to balance those investments across the readiness of the fleet today. The modernization with new technologies and that’s reflected as an example with a 12 percent increase in R&D with an emphasis on hypersonics in the offensive and laser technology on the defensive to protect the fleet.

The third piece is capacity and so we’re growing the Navy at an affordable rate, although that is really a key-

ROGERS:

Let me — you said you’re growing the Navy? From what I’m reading, you’re — the Navy is shrinking under this budget.

GILDAY:

Sir, for the 2022 budget itself, the Navy — the Navy’s numbers are declining. That’s correct.

ROGERS:

So, how do you take on your challenges with a budget that’s diminishing?

GILDAY:

So, as I stated, sir, in my opening comments, the last several studies that have been done going back five years call for a larger, more capable fleet [Inaudible]

ROGERS:

And this budget doesn’t get you there.

GILDAY:

No, sir. It does not.

ROGERS:

Let me ask this, Admiral Davidson, the recent PACOM commander indicated that he expects the conflict with China in the next six years. In your best professional military judgment, do you agree with Admiral Davidson’s assessment?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think the key word that he used there was could and I think that that that potential always exists and I think we have to be ready any given day for anything.

ROGERS:

Well, if — you know, if you agree it could happen, I just don’t know why we would agree with anything that would reduce the force structure and induce a near term risk with China. Recently, we’ve heard from General Hyten at STRATCOM that the [Inaudible] is needed to increase deterrence. Do you agree with Admiral Richard and General Hyten that the [Inaudible] fulfills a critical capability gap for the Navy and would increase deterrence?

GILDAY:

I agree with that comment. I think it’s consistent with the new posture review that was done previously.

ROGERS:

And in recent years, the nonpartisan — the bipartisan Commission on National Security Defense recommended 3 percent to 5 percent increase in defense spending each year over inflation for the foreseeable future as we try to — to modernize our services. Do you agree with that recommendation by that commission?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. I think if you take a look at all the services unfunded requests together, they come up to about 3 percent to 5 percent.

ROGERS:

Right. Secretary Harker, has the administration completed its Nuclear Posture Review?

HARKER:

Sir, the nuclear posture review that is forthcoming has not been done yet.

ROGERS:

Okay. Has the administration completed its analysis of alternatives for the [Inaudible]?

HARKER:

No, sir.

ROGERS:

So, before the Posture Review and the analysis of alternatives are complete, why are you canceling the program that our best military minds on deterrence tell us that we need to deter Russia and China?

HARKER:

Sir, I’m not canceling the program. That program is in our FY22 budget. As we’re starting the planning process for FY23, we have a process that we go through inside the Navy and Marine Corps where we go in to determine which items to put in our budget. My initial guidance was based on the fact that that Posture Review — the overall Posture Review and the National Defense Strategy Update, have not been completed.

So, I didn’t want anyone to assume that that would be in until we had further guidance from the Nuclear Posture Review. Once that guidance comes, we will adjust accordingly, sir.

ROGERS:

General Berger, you submitted a list of Marine Corps unfunded priorities that total over $3 billion. Without funding these research and procurement priorities in FY22, will the Marine Corps be able to modernize in time to counter the pacing threat of China in the near term?

BERGER:

Sir, the items on the unfunded priority list will allow us to move faster. The answer to your question is really difficult because in a pacing environment like we’re in right now, it’s tough to forecast whether or not China will move faster on the same scale, on the same glide slope, they’re on. We’re self-funding our modernization, as I explained.

ROGERS:

Exactly.

BERGER:

The items on unfunded priority list would reduce the risk. It would allow us to move faster.

ROGERS:

So, you need them.

BERGER:

If we’re going to stay in front of China with a margin of advantage, then I think everything that we can do in the Department of Defense to buy down that risk is in our favor.

ROGERS:

I understand the pressure you all are under to — to support this President budget recommendation, but we count on your best military judgment and the fact is [Inaudible3757] are necessary and we need to fund them. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

SMITH:

Mr. Langevin is recognized.

LANGEVIN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for the testimony today. Let me start with this question. I’m really pleased that both the Columbia and Virginia class submarine programs receive full funding.

SMITH:

Hey, Jim, could you get closer to the microphone? I don’t know if that’s possible or not. You’re a little light. We’ll try to turn it up here as well.

LANGEVIN:

Okay. Hope that’s a little better. That’s about as close as I can get I think. I just want to start off by saying that I’m pleased about the Columbia and Virginia class submarine program received full funding. Secretary Harker, do you have any concerns with the Columbia or Virginia class programs given that there is no room for schedule to swap with the Columbia given the fact that the Ohio’s will be retiring and taking — be taken out of service relatively soon?

HARKER:

No, sir. Funding the Columbia and the Virginia class submarines was one of our number one priorities and we made sure that they were fully funded in this budget.

LANGEVIN:

Thank you. Admiral Gilday. Thank you for the phone call the other day. I’m sorry itgot cut short, but hopefully we’ll be able to circle back. But, Admiral, I wanted to applaud you with — with how enthusiastically the Navy has embraced directed energy technology. Your navigation plan included directed energy considerations for the next destroyer.

And I’m excited to get the directed energy campaign plan in the near future. How do directed energy weapons fit into the 2030 or 2040 ship fleet and does every shift in this future fleet have a directed energy capability?

GILDAY:

Sir, I can say with a high degree of confidence that those ships that have excess power generation capability — the Ford class aircraft carriers as an example generate three times the power of the Nimitz class. Our new DDG(X) Destroyer should have excess power generation capacity. The Zumwalt class destroyers have excess power capacity.

And so those would be the first candidates for directed energy system on a manned ship with high powered systems. And the key here is we want systems that can knock down missiles. We need an anti-ballistic missile defense capability that’s a lot cheaper than the missile defense capabilities that we have today.

I do think that if we’re optimistic about unmanned that we could look at a medium or large-sized unmanned vessel that could also have laser technology perhaps with a network with other ships and that could also provide for fleet defense. I think if we — if we’re going to have — if we’re going to defend the fleet in the future, a potentially larger fleet that’s dispersed, we’re going to have to look at directed energy as a potential — as a potential solution set.

And as I mentioned earlier, it remains on the defensive side, our top priority with respect to research and development and that that is proceeding at pace with industry.

LANGEVIN:

Thank you, Admiral. Let me turn to another emerging technology that I’ve been following for quite some time. I’m concerned that the Navy is trying to shelve the railgun. I view the weapon as an air defense capability that will be vital in the area — in the area of great power competition. It has a cost per shot advantage and it will deepen the ships magazine and it helps alleviate the Navy’s vertical launch cell shortage.

Why is the Navy giving up on the railgun and rail — and gun-based air defense capabilities?

GILDAY:

Sir, we’ve been chasing railgun for almost 30 years now and we just have not been able to develop a system — develop a system that can easily get aboard a ship, that would provide the kind of probability [Inaudible] that you speak to that we aspire to when we started doing the research years ago. I do have more — more confidence in the high velocity projectile that was used with the railgun that we think we can use and other guns that we have to provide us a layered defense along with some of the other kinetic systems we have now plus laser technology in the future.

I also say that that hypersonic missile technology and the standoff ranges that that both we and our potential adversaries face begin to make the railgun a less attractive option just with respect to range.

LANGEVIN:

That’s something I was — we’re going to have to continue to follow, Admiral. Last question, the degree to which you have high confidence on cyber security for the fleet and our weapons systems.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. You know, I always say that I never wake up in the morning completely confident that we don’t have somebody in one of our systems that we have to get after. And so, I will tell you that we are making a move at pace to cloud — to the cloud for all — across all the legacies.

SMITH:

I do apologize. For the gentleman’s time has expired, so the rest of that answer would have to be for the record if he wants to follow up. And I will try to keep us at five minutes because there’s a lot of members to get in today. Mr. Wilson is recognized for five minutes.

WILSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for the witnesses being here today. It’s so inspiring to see such confident and capable people to represent our country and work with our service members. For Admiral Gilday, in a prior hearing the Indo-Pacific theater posture, Admiral Phil Davidson testified to the — appreciated American territory of Guam significance as the Deepwater Strategic Port, fuel ammunition, logistical depot.

And it’s home to 170,000 patriotic American citizens and service members. He recommended deploying the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense facility to counter the Chinese missile threat, which would free up three Navy destroyers. In your assessment, how could we improve Guam’s defense strategy to limit its impact on strike power resources, which are already severely impacted by decommissioning plans?

GILDAY:

Sir, there’s a lot of work that’s behind Admiral Davidson’s requirement for missile defense in Guam. I think it’s a valid requirement. The only thing I’d add is based on the — on the last discussion I had, I think that we also want to look at laser technology. I think it’s even easier if it’s shore based rather than ship based with the real key is a power generation source.

I think you’re talking about a much more affordable system. I’m not saying that that you would have that in lieu of missile defense, but probably additive in some type of defense and depth construct. That’s the only thing I’d add with respect to that requirement.

WILSON:

And, Admiral, as you look at that, we need to always remember that the people of Guam have the highest percentage of participation of American military of any state or territory. And the people are so patriotic and so grateful for the liberation by the Marines. Previously, Admiral, I was fortunate to represent the Marine Corps Air Station in Buford, which is home to four Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet attack squadrons and two F-35B Fleet Replacement squadrons.

The budget request for the Navy does not include any funding for continued procurement of F/A-18E-F Super Hornet aircraft. How does the Navy plan to manage tactical aircraft inventory risk and reduce the current strike fighter inventory shortfall without increased procurement quantities of the F-35C above plans and noting that the next generation air dominance program has just begun efforts to define aircraft requirements and develop concepts.

GILDAY:

Sir, simply we have procured as many F-18 Super Hornets as we need. We have over 500 now when our — when our deliveries are complete, we’ll have about 640 Super Hornets. Many of those will be blocked, 3 Super Hornets which are the latest generation of Super Hornet capability. Our goal is to combine the latest F/A-18E Super Hornets with the F-35s to give us a mix of fourth and fifth generation fighters in our carrier air wings.

What we found from extensive analysis, the conclusions that we’ve seen in war games and in exercises have demonstrated that we benefit from a mix of fourth and fifth generation aircraft. And so, we are at the twilight of our — of our fourth generation purchase. We are still picking up the pace with — with fifth gen.

And by 2025, we will close the current strike fighter shortfall that we have of 42 aircraft and if we remain apace with respect to funding and get that fourth and fifth gen mix that we think we need.

WILSON:

Thank you very much. And Secretary Harker, the budget request proposes to cut 200 civilians from the Naval Audit Service and dramatically reduce its mission and scope. What rationale is driving this reduction and why shouldn’t naval order service be a quarter of the size of other services audit agencies?

HARKER:

Thank you, sir. As a former certified public accountant, I believe in strong oversight and we have six different organizations that provide oversight of the Navy and Marine Corps. Our overall budget request for that of those six oversight organizations has gone up by over 125 million from FY21 to FY22. So, we strongly believe in oversight.

The Naval Audit Service is one element of that. We are not eliminating of those jobs or getting rid of those people. We’re simply moving them to other elements within our oversight organization, sir.

WILSON:

Thank you very much. And I yield back Mr. Chairman.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Larsen is recognized for five minutes.

LARSEN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair and appreciate [Inaudible] coming out today. So, this is for I think Secretary Harker. You’ve got a really nice shiny new building at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island built for the Triton and it’s got that new car smell and — and no one’s in it. So, the question is about the timeline for the Triton and getting that not just — getting operational beyond the two that are out there and the budget again delays that for a year, so can you give us an update on when the timing is — what the timing is for the Triton?

And if you can’t, I will have Admiral Gilday next.

HARKER:

Sorry. I’ve to get back with you on that one [Inaudible]

UNKNOWN:

[Inaudible]

GILDAY:

Sir, just so that I understand you correctly, you’re talking about the new Columbia class that we’re bringing online in 2027?

LARSEN:

No. The unmanned aircraft at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir.

LARSEN:

There’s a building built MQ-4.

GILDAY:

The MQ-4.

LARSEN:

MQ-4.

GILDAY:

Sir, right now. Yes, sir.

LARSEN:

By the way, thank you, Representative Courtney.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, the — as you know, our MQ-4 is right now deployed — deployed to Guam and so we will be — we will be bringing them back at some point and rotating them in and out.

LARSEN:

But that’s just two of them. And I’m talking about the operators. Got a building built for the operators. It’s empty. So the VQ-1 squadron’s moving in before their decommissioning, but that’s just a matter of happenstance.

GILDAY:

Sir, I know you have-

LARSEN:

It’s built ready to go.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. We have our op-

LARSEN:

And we’re not going to be using it for three years?

GILDAY:

Sir, I’ll have to get back to you in the timeline for that transition with more details.

LARSEN:

Soon, please. When are we going to get these strategic lay down documents which were supposed to be here by the end of June 11th?

GILDAY:

Sir, our documents are being informed by the ongoing Global Posture Review, so the OSD just finished their task force China. They’re finishing up their Global Posture Review next month and that’ll inform the lay down for — for the — for the services.

LARSEN:

All right. The Navy announces plan to home port 12 new frigates at Naval — in Naval Station, Everett in my district, first two I think by 2025 or 2026 if I recall that right. How are you — how is the Navy approaching the MILCON budget to support that? Because all we — all we know now is of frigates, but we assume there’ll be something to support for that.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. We’re in the planning stages right now for that. As you know, we just recently settled on — on Washington as a home port and so that planning will begin to get funded and begin to be underway within the next year. I’ll get you more specifics on that timeline as well.

LARSEN:

Yeah. And then, Secretary, can you give us the status of the Department Navy’s Arctic strategy? I’m trying to put the pieces of this together between the services and so far, I don’t really have a broad view of how the Pentagon sees it. So, I’ve got to pick at each of the services that piece it together.

HARKER:

Yes, sir. We’ve worked with the Coast Guard, Navy, the Marine Corps to come forward with an Arctic posture review and that was completed over the winter and there’s ongoing work to fine tune that and look at what other elements will be included. I know the Coast Guard is moving forward with our polar security cutter and then we have all of our submarines up there and then we also do operations up in Alaska as well.

LARSEN:

All right. I will look forward to some more detail on that. Mr. Chairman, I want to just take the last bit of my time to as well wish you a happy birthday. And — and I think I speak for all of us right now. When I say who the heck are you all you people seeing over 15 months. It’s good to be back in — the back in the armed services room.

Yield back.

SMITH:

Yes, it will be — will be get — get — get back to normal here very, very soon. Looking forward to it. Mr Turner is recognized for five minutes.

TURNER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Harker, you’ve testified before Congress before, correct?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

TURNER:

You’re aware of your obligations in testifying before Congress that it’s not a press conference that you have no obligations for truthfulness and completeness in your answer.

HARKER:

Yes.

TURNER:

Great. Your background as you testified, is you’re a CPA.

HARKER:

I was a CPA. I let my license lapse recently because of the other [Inaudible]

TURNER:

You achieved the level of CPA. Your background is accounting.

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

TURNER:

Okay. I have your June 4th memo, which I’d like to enter into the record where you direct defund sea launched cruise missile nuclear development effort.

SMITH:

For just one second, if I get that into the record with, you know. I ask unanimous consent, the form you just said be entered into the record, hearing no objection, so ordered.

TURNER:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. The line says, defund sea launched cruise missile nuclear development efforts. You says that’s not canceling. The dictionary says that defund is to prevent from continuing to receive funds. Seems to be conflict. Mr. Harker, there are a lot of people in this committee who are staunch advocates against unilateral disarmament.

Unilateral meaning alone and disarmament mean where we eliminate a weapons system. We’re big fans of arms control negotiations where we actually get something for what we’re doing. I’m very concerned about this memo because your background is accounting. Now, Secretary of Defense Austin, Chairman Milley; and Admiral Richard and I’m going to guess with the question here, Admiral Gilday, where you consulted on this defunding of this missile?

GILDAY:

No sir.

TURNER:

No, sir. So, Secretary Austin has that experience, Chairman Milley has that experience, Admiral Richard has that experience, Admiral Gilday has the experience and you do not. Congress and two administrations including this budget funded it. Do you have the expertise to conduct the assessment of — the analysis of alternatives to the sea-based launched cruise missile, other than financial?

HARKER:

No, sir. I do not. There’s-

TURNER:

Do you have the expertise to conduct the Nuclear Posture Review?

HARKER:

No, sir, I do not.

TURNER:

So — but yet you have the expertise apparently to direct the defunding of a cruise missile. Now you said it was because you didn’t want anybody to assume it was in because the Nuclear Posture Review hadn’t been conducted. Why not all nukes, Mr. Harker? Why didn’t you direct them to defund all nukes? How did you choose?

And remember your obligations before Congress. How did you choose defund the sea launched cruise missile?

HARKER:

Sir, because of where we are in the budget process, we have about eight months before the President’s budget is finalized. [Inaudible]

TURNER:

But Mr. Harker, you had to specifically choose something. This is not a number that’s in this — this is a weapon system. So, Mr. Harker, I’m going to ask you, who did you discuss this with since you’ve already indicated, you don’t have the expertise to being able to make strategic nuclear weapons decisions?

Who in the Pentagon did you discuss this with before you put in your memo signed by you, defund the sea launched nuclear cruise missile. Who?

HARKER:

Nobody.

TURNER:

No one alone. So — again, you’re under — you know, you’re under your obligations of testifying before Congress. You spoke to no one in your decision to defund the sea launched cruise missile.

HARKER:

It was preliminary guidance and it was my decision and I took it based on [Inaudible]

TURNER:

Mr. Harker, I’m going to ask you to deliver to this committee all communications concerning the deliberations, advice, review, directions and analysis that were undertaken. It’s not classified. It’s budget materials that went into this item. You agree to deliver those to me?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

TURNER:

Excellent. Are you aware as you were drafting this memo that the President of the United States is sitting down with Vladimir Putin this very month and that — as all the headlines today because our President just landed in Geneva indicate that arms control negotiations is one of those subject matters?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

TURNER:

Do you realize the extent to which you have undermined President Biden and the United States in indicating that a weapons system that is nuclear is going to be unilaterally defunded without any negotiations or without receiving any concessions from Russia?

HARKER:

So, it was a preliminary internal document.

TURNER:

Are you aware of the extent to which your actions? Because I want this to be clear. It may be your own undertaking and it may be just that you have uninformed to do this — to undertaken this. But everyone at the Pentagon needs to understand the severity of the actions that you’ve taken and its implications on the United States for arms control negotiations and the impact on the President of the United States.

This is not an accounting decision, Mr. Harker. Do you note the extent to which you have undermined the President of United States in his arms control negotiations by undertaking what can only be described as a unilateral you alone having done it disarmament recommendation?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

TURNER:

I yield back.

SMITH:

Mr. Courtney is recognized.

COURTNEY:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to all the witnesses who and Seapower subcommittee worked together a lot and I’m looking forward. I think we are going to have more work to do. You know, one just sort of comment I want to make and then I want to ask Admiral Gilday a couple of questions, is that — you know, unfortunately when a budget comes over without a [Inaudible] and without a 30-year shipbuilding plan, it frankly makes your job a lot harder because in terms of trying to explain decisions particularly on shipbuilding, which is a long game.

I think as you all know it’s a one-year window or headlights is just not sufficient to sort of see the direction where we’re going. So hopefully — it’s my understanding that some of those documents and analysis may be on its way over here. And I frankly think that’s going to help everybody in terms of trying to get the right balance this year.

Admiral, on page 13 of your testimony, you state that our future fleet places a premium on expanding our undersea advantage during conflict, sea control and sea denial from beneath the waves are among the Navy’s core advantages. We cannot afford to yield any ground to our competitors. Again, this budget unlike last year’s budget fully funds that undersea advantage with construction of two Virginia class submarines, the payload modules that will go with that as well as R&D for the next version of our attack submarine fleet as well as our nuclear deterrence with full funding for the Columbia program which carries 70 percent of our nuclear warheads.

Could you just sort of talk about that priority in the context of China’s threat that you mentioned at the outset of your testimony?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. I think that with respect to our most survivable strike platform, and again this goes right back to why we have a Navy, this is about sea control and power projection. The ability to project power ashore. The submarines give us that greatest advantage. That overmatch that we have right now against China, we are unwilling to budge on. And so, as we take a look at our investment strategy and where we put our next dollar with respect to lethality, our mind always goes to the undersea, including the unmanned undersea.

With respect to — with respect to Colombia, this year, Colombia is about just over 20 percent of our shipbuilding budget. And so, in the future it will be over a third of our shipbuilding budget. It’s a huge commitment, but it has to be fenced off and we have to deliver that in 2027.

COURTNEY:

Great. And I would encourage my colleagues to come up to Rhode Island and Connecticut to see the eye watering infrastructure that is being built right now. Secretary Marty Walsh was up and — again as a building trades. He again was speechless when he saw the magnitude of the project that’s going on up there.

I mean, there is — this is really happening. This isn’t just sort of talk that’s — that’s going on. This is about the fourth or fifth year since I’ve been — fourth or fifth time since I’ve been on Seapower that a pretty aggressive decommissioning proposal has come in on the cruisers and there’s is — I think you all know Congress has sort of pushed back in past years in terms of trying to preserve that air defense command capacity as well as the missile tube capacity.

I guess if you could just sort of talk about the fact that whether or not, you know, this plan is trying to sort of sift out the — the platforms that are salvageable versus not. And also, how the decision to cut a DDG which is in my opinion Flight III are going to be the replacement of that Air Defense Command.

I mean, that’s where I think there’s the biggest sort of heartburn on this side of the room.

GILDAY:

Sir, I think the first thing I would frame it with kind of big picture is where are we headed? So, if I take a look at 2025, the questions came out earlier about Admiral Davidson’s testimony about six years of potential conflict with China. So, what — what do we plan to deliver in 2025 and 2026. So, if I take a look at the undersea, we will have delivered all of our Block III Virginias.

Will have delivered all of our block IV Virginias. We will be on the cusp of delivering block V. And we’ll have a longer range, more lethal undersea weapon. On the surface will be delivering the Constellation class Frigate. We will be — will be building DDG. Actually, we will be putting more Flight III DDGs in the water.

We have — by 2025, our plan is to have hypersonics in the Zumwalt class destroyers. We were making continued investments in weapons with range and speed. Think tactical Tomahawk. If I look at aviation, I talked about the fourth and fifth gen mix a few minutes ago that brings — that will have that and half of our air wings — six of our air wings more than half of our airwings by 2025 with longer range weapons with speed and so that’s-

SMITH:

Thank you, I again apologize. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Lamborn is recognized for finance.

LAMBORN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And General Berger, in a minute, I’m going to ask you about some armaments that are on the unfunded priority list but Admiral Gilday, I have to ask you about something first that I’m concerned about, many people are and a lot of people in the civilian world. I sent you a letter with two dozen people on it concerned that you had recently added several books to the Navy’s professional reading list, promoting critical race theory.

And one of these books is Ibram X. Kendi’s, How to Be an Antiracist and it argues that the entire American system is corrupted from top to bottom by racial prejudices, which account for all differences in outcomes in our society. And one sentence out of that book says the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.

The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination. Now, I understand that this is a voluntary reading list, but how does exposing our sailors to the idea that they are either oppressors or oppressed and that we must actively discriminate to make up for past discrimination, improve our Navy’s readiness and lethality for great power competition?

GILDAY:

Sir, initially you mentioned critical race theory, I’m not a theorist. I am the chief of naval operations. What I can tell you is factually based on a substantial amount of time talking to sailors in the fleet, there’s racism in the Navy, just like there’s racism in our country. And the way we’re going to get after it is to be honest about it, not to sweep it under the rug and to talk about it and that’s what we’re doing.

And that’s one of the reasons that book is on the list. Doesn’t mean I have any expectation that anybody believe or support everything that that Mr. Kendi states in his book. I don’t support everything that Kendi says. But the key point here is the sailors in our Navy have to be able to think critically.

They have to be able to look outwardly at China and Russia and they have to understand what those societies, why those societies are a potential danger to the United States. Inwardly, we We have to understand ourselves and we have to understand critically that we value diversity. And I think-

LAMBORN:

Okay. Admiral, I agree that we should have a robust and great discussion and any racism should be uprooted and taken away. I absolutely agree and I endorse that, but should we have future discrimination? You don’t endorse that particular statement, do you?

GILDAY:

Sir, I have to look at the context of it. I’m not trying to be evasive, but I — I don’t — as I mentioned, I don’t support everything that Kendi asserts. I don’t believe everything I read. I think that-

LAMBORN:

I hope ??” [Inaudible]

GILDAY:

I think everybody has to be in a position to weigh fact from fiction, even our sailors. They’re bombarded every day by misinformation. Much of it comes from China and Russia on this issue. That’s getting it our national psyche. I’m trying to get after it in the Navy.

LAMBORN:

Okay. Well, I hope that’s one statement you don’t — you don’t endorse and maybe we can follow up on that. Admiral — excuse me, General Berger, the number 1 and number 3 items on your unfunded priority list are naval strike missiles and tactical Tomahawks. If you don’t have those, what’s that going to do to the build-up of your plan for the Indo-Pacific?

BERGER:

Sir, those two are in the top for a reason as you highlight. That’s going to allow us to control straits, to control pieces of littoral areas from either ship or from shore in a — in an expeditionary in a light manner because it’s really a JLTV with a missile on the back of it that can — that can hold at bay, can hold at risk an adversary’s naval vessels.

Without it, we just allow them to maneuver with some freedom that we don’t want them to have. So, it’s important for distributed maritime operations. It’s important for our future role.

LAMBORN:

Well, I’ll try to help you work on getting that funded. I yield the the rest of my time to the gentleman Mr. Wittman.

WITTMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Acting Secretary of the Navy, Harker, I want to ask this. I could ask you about the Navy’s plan for negative seven ships. I could ask you about them taking out of the DDG. I could ask them about absolutely blowing up the multi-ship procurement for amphibious ships. But what I want to focus on is where we are in the fork of the road, I believe, with modernization versus generating current readiness.

And as Yogi Berra once said, when you get to the fork in the road, take it. I want to know what’s the Navy’s future plan and how do they make sure that we’re pursuing the necessary modernization elements, especially in light of a budget that seems like to me to be completely abandoning any sort of future modernization efforts.

HARKER:

Yes, sir. We tried to focus on modernization and to balance that with the need for current readiness and it made very difficult decisions for us.

WITTMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

SMITH:

Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Moulton is recognized for five minutes.

MOULTON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And first, I want to start by just thanking Admiral Gilday for — for defending basic American values of free and critical thought, which I think are one of the most important weapons we hold against adversaries like China. General Berger, to start with you. Last year, I asked you about the CH-53K requirement.

I regret using the word requirement as you responded that you need 200 aircraft per the established program of record. Less than 30 days after you testified, you released your Force Design report and stated that you needed fewer heavy lift helicopters. Then, in March of this year, you said that you do not need at least two full squadrons of heavy lift helicopters compared to your previous plans.

Thirty-two fewer aircraft creates a potential savings for the American taxpayer or for the Marine Corps of four $4.4 billion. So, if you were allowed to change the acquisition plan and recover those funds, can you please state how you would use those savings and why?

BERGER:

I think — I agree with the premise and I tried to address it in my opening comments. I think you look at us — you look to us to buy what we need, nothing more. So, we need to match the vertical lift capability to the size of the Marine Corps in the task we’re going to have in the future. I think the program of record is — I know it’s larger than we’re going to need.

I think we’re going to learn as we go through experimentation through wargaming, just how many we will need to reduce but that initial program of record was based on a much larger Marine Corps. Where would I redirect those funds. On things like the unfunded priority list that would help us accelerate Force Design, get us a bigger margin of strategic advantage over the PLA and faster.

MOULTON:

So, I want to make sure the ranking member and other members of this — other colleagues of mine on this committee hear this, which is that we need to listen to you and your requirements. If we want to fund unfunded requirements, we should start by saving money on things that you don’t need. That’s really critical.

Admiral Gilday, how are you addressing this same question? What is big Navy doing to make these important tradeoffs between old and new capabilities Because we simply don’t have the luxury of keeping all our older systems while also investing in new ones.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, and so as — as I mentioned earlier, we — we need — we need the Navy forward to be relevant and as Admiral David testified, as Admiral Aquilino testified, China is becoming increasingly a concern with respect to Taiwan. We need to be out there. And so I continue to fund the readiness of an aging fleet that, as I mentioned, is 21 years old.

It’s expensive, but that’s the Navy that I believe the nation needs out there on point. I’m investing heavily in new technologies, hypersonics as an example, directed energy on the defensive side as an example, as opposed to years ago, we are actually doing the maintenance on our ships. We’re getting better at doing that maintenance on time.

We’re not deferring the maintenance. We’re not kicking it down the road because we know that 70 percent of the force we have today we’re going to have in the future. Sir, it is a balance between being ready today and making those investments for a force just around the corner that we may need tomorrow. It’s base — it’s — it’s a — it’s a — it’s a risk issue and it also takes into account the industrial base.

MOULTON:

One of the clear conclusions of our bipartisan Future of Defense Task Force report is that we have to make these tradeoffs, but also that many of these new technologies and capabilities are actually less expensive than some of the big old heavy weapons systems that we are working so hard to maintain right now.

Just look at China for example, and we can see the kind of tradeoffs we can make. And that’s why our bipartisan task force was also able to recommend spending more money on fundamental investments in our national security like basic scientific research and stem education of our youth. Commandant, it sounds like this question of modernization and tradeoffs is critical.

Would you benefit from having a separate hearing to discuss this before the committee?

BERGER:

If it’s useful to the members and your staff, yes, I would agree with that. And I think the way that CNO and you and others have characterized it, I’ve heard Congressman Wittman and a couple of other members the same. On the one hand, you have combatant commanders who have a risk right now this afternoon-

MOULTON:

We’re just short on time.

HARKER:

Very well.

MOULTON:

General Secretary Harker, Admiral Gilday, would you agree to such a hearing?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir.

MOULTON:

General Berger, is it a problem that we lost the USS Bonhomme Richard for your China strategy?

BERGER:

This is a strategic problem.

MOULTON:

Admiral Gilday, we need to see the report on this. We need to see the report and we need to have a clear plan to replace this ship if it’s critical for our China strategy all the more so if the rumors are true that one of your sailors burned it down.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, I commit to providing the full report to the Congress [Inaudible] public.

SMITH:

Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Wittman is recognized.

WITTMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses again. General Berger, thank you again for all the work that you’re doing with Force Design 2030 for the Marine Corps, a very forward thinking. The exact direction I believe we need to go to make sure the Marine Corps is indeed that lethal fighting force at the tip of the spear that protects this nation at a moment’s notice and deters our adversaries around the world.

As we look at the things that are necessary in Force Design 2030, there’s a lot there. There’s a lot of modernization that needs to take place. There’s a lot of divestiture in existing platforms. There’s a lot of transition to new platforms to new capability. All those things I think are incredibly important.

The thing that I’m concerned about though is that Congress is looking at that gets lulled into a sense that the Marine Corps can do this by just in and of itself, retiring legacy systems and then taking those resources and putting them forward to modernization. But as we know you have to do the transition properly.

You can’t just get rid of everything and then have this giant gap in capability and say, well, now years from now, things are going to happen. I always tell folks I said, you know the dreams of our nation’s defense always happen outside the fit up and I don’t want to make sure that doesn’t happen in this particular case.

And what I want to make sure to is that we understand that we’re not taking on unacceptable risk in that transition. In other words, going through that bathtub. Can you give me your perspective because it seems like to me that the Marine Corps has always been noted for doing more with less. Seems like to me that as we modernize, we may be at a point of doing less with less if we don’t look at the funding perspectives as you modernize in addition to savings that you accrue by retiring legacy systems.

BERGER:

Sir, in my assessment we have rung just about everything we can out of the Marine Corps internally. We’re at the limits of the risk that you address. We’ve reduced in strength. We’ve divested off legacy systems. We’ve taken every measure we can to include a 15 percent cut in our headquarters. We’ve wrung it dry.

We’re driven by a pacing threat as several of you all have highlighted today that we don’t control the pace at which they go. And neither me nor the CNO want to transfer risk onto the backs of a combatant commander because we — as others have pointed out, we have a perfect record of getting — guessing where the next conflict is going to happen.

We got it wrong every time. We have to be ready every day, every week. And the best insurance policy we have is a naval expeditionary force that’s forward. We’re at the — we are at the limits of what I can do internally right now.

WITTMAN:

So, would it be correct to say then that you in order to get where you need to be with Force Design 2030, you would not only need the resources that you get from retiring older systems, but also some additional resources to make sure we’re on track, so we don’t take that unacceptable risk with the Marine Corps as you modernize.

BERGER:

I think that’s accurate. My — my only other option is to reduce the end strength of your Marine Corps even further and I think that’s unacceptable risk.

WITTMAN:

I agree. Admiral Gilday, let me — let me ask about the tension between the COCOMs and what the chiefs are asked to provide, specifically the Navy Marine Corps team as that demand signal continues to come in. As you look at the — the plans that our combatant commanders have and then the — the request for forces.

So, it’s always what do we do in for today’s risk And I understand the combatant commanders’ quandary there, but it seems like to me historically we’ve seen recently a significant increase in those RFFs. So, I think the question becomes, is the system broken? If all we’re doing now is seeing this constant procession of RFFs, is a system broken and should we maybe go back to the beginning and say what’s the real scope of threats and how do we do a better job to make sure that we’re not consuming so much resources today, to generate readiness today that we can’t do the modernization we need for years to come?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think in short — I think the process needs more rigor. And so those 15 requests for forces that extended 4 carriers in Central Command for almost a year came at a cost of over a quarter of a billion dollars that we can’t invest in modernization. If there’s a reason to keep the carrier there, then keep it there.

But if there’s not, use another element of the joint force to do the job and move things dynamically around. I think the current Secretary of defense recognizes that. He’s bringing the Eisenhower home. He’s swinging — he’s swinging the [Inaudible] from — from the Western Pacific. That is not an easy decision to make.

But on any given day today, the Navy has put 100 players on the field, the Secretary of defense gets to decide how those players are used and — and I just try to advise the judicious use of those forces so that we preserve precious resources. Thank you.

WITTMAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

SMITH:

Thank you, Mr. Wittman. Thank you, Admiral. Next up is Mr. Brown, who’s joining us from remotely.

BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, can you hear me?

SMITH:

We can hear it now.

BROWN:

Right. Thank you. And my question is for the Secretary. I’d like to ask you not about procurement and platforms, but about I think our most important asset and that’s you know, our people, our sailors and our Marines. In last year’s NDAA, Congress directed the Department of Defense and working with the service that the [Inaudible] to establish a [Inaudible] program, which aims to increase the diversity of our officer corps [Inaudible] that of our nation by fostering a more diverse leadership pipeline.

I think mentoring is critical when you have 43 percent of the men and women in the total joint force of brown, but there are zero four star admirals, the one four star general in the Air Force and one in the Army. I think mentoring is really important. Can you update us, Secretary Harker, on the Navy’s efforts to establish that mentoring program?

HARKER:

Sorry, sir. I’m hard of hearing and I couldn’t hear the entire question, so, you know, who’s going to help me with this one.

GILDAY:

Sir, I think the first thing I’d say is that — I think this — I think that I’m speaking for the Secretary when I say that he agrees that a Navy that looks like its citizenry is the Navy that is truly representative of who we strive to be as a nation. And so coming out of task force, Navy was about a six month effort where we — where we went out to the fleet.

We talked to sailors and we got a better understanding of issues related to racism, with respect to gender discrimination, with respect to ethnic issues. And we came back with a number of recommendations. To your point, sir, one of the key things that we’re doing is we’re doing — we’re trying to do a better job at talent management so that we can put people in a position to be promoted so that we can make them admirals or make them make — make them generals.

And so, in the Navy, I have — we have 17 officer communities and they have just now started to brief me individually on what they’re doing at the lieutenant and lieutenant commander level, so that we not only — so that we develop leaders that are going to be competitive with their peers and are going to promote at a rate equal to their peers so that we can have that more diverse leadership flag wardroom in the future.

BROWN:

Thank you and just — you know, just like to emphasize that that mentoring also needs to occur and you and I have had this conversation at the pre-commissioning training school and education like ROTC and the academies. And I’d like to ask the secretary about the question. Last year in the Defense Authorization you directed each service secretary of the [Inaudible] adviser for diversity and inclusion.

In fact, we work across the aisle with this service to ensure that we didn’t [Inaudible] chief diversity officer, but a senior advisor and their qualifications that they ran a management diversity, equity, and inclusion issues in personnel. What is the status of the senior advisor for diversity and inclusion in the Navy?

The senior advisor who reports directly to the service secretary.

HARKER:

Sir, we’ve hired a senior advisor to report to us on diversity equity and inclusion and that person just started recently. He is looking at the existing policies that are department wide and then also what’s in the Navy and the Marine Corps to come forward and make sure that we are aligned with the direction of the administration on this, sir.

BROWN:

Well, I appreciate that and if you — you know, take for the record, I don’t know if that’s the right language we use or the request, but if — if we could get the — the background, the publicly available information about the senior advisor, I’d appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

COURTNEY:

Thank you, Mr. Brown, for bringing that up. Again, that was a very strong bipartisan priority last year in the NDAA and I think we would definitely welcome that follow-up. Next up is Mr. Scott from Georgia.

SCOTT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Harker, before I move to the issue of readiness, I want to mention something to you and ask for your support in one thing. Four graduates from service academies have been allowed to forego their service commitment this year and play in the NFL. The Navy has a gentleman who I’ve never met named Cameron Kinley who asked for the same accommodation.

The — the others are from the different academies, Air Force and an Army but Malcolm Perry from the ??” who’s a Naval Academy grad and he was granted a request last year to forego his service briefly to play in the NFL. Cameron Kinley, to the best of what I’ve seen in my reading, is the only person that has been denied that request.

He was President of his class. He signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and then not only was he denied the request, he was denied the right to appeal and my question gets back to the appeal. I would appreciate it if you would allow him to appeal the decision and — and listen to the merits of his case. And if he’s able to make his case, then allow him to pursue both of his dreams to be a naval officer and play in the NFL. So, that is — my specific request is to — is to listen to his — allow him to appeal and listen to it. And the other statement I would make is that I’m not — I don’t know if it’s right or wrong, but I do know that there should be a uniform standard.

And if — if it is an accommodation that’s going to be granted to Westpoint Air Force Academy grads then it needs to be accommodated to Naval Academy grads as well in my opinion. And — and there needs to be consistency with the request. So that’s a general statement, but I would appreciate it if you would hear it — allow him to appeal the decision and listen to his appeal on the merits.

HARKER:

Sir, I understand there have been different laws at different points in time as well as different policies, some of them at the OSD level.

SCOTT:

Yes, sir.

HARKER:

I looked at this case. I looked at the significant investment that taxpayers make in every midshipman and our expectation and their expectation is that midshipmen will graduate and be commissioned with the Navy and Marine Corps. So, talked with the CNO, talked with the commandant and looked for their military advice and we went forward.

I made the decision to deny his request. The accommodation was made for Malcolm Perry, the accommodation has been made for four additional people. Why is — it seems to me that his is the only accommodation that has not been made. Why is he different? Why should he be given less of an accommodation than — than others have been?

I can’t speak for what the Army and Air Force secretary has decided. I did not have a conversation with them about this, but you know, looking at the two most famous Naval Academy graduates who played in [Inaudible]

SCOTT:

Roger Staubach.

HARKER:

They both served first.

SCOTT:

Roger Staubach served first?

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

SCOTT:

I didn’t know. That was a long time ago that.

HARKER:

Yes, sir. But I mean that’s — the legislation allows us to make exceptions when it’s a significant benefit to the servers and for us, David Robinson and Roger Staubach, they both served first and they were recognized as graduates who had served in the military and that added value to us.

FRANKLIN:

Well, I’ve spent more time on this than I intended to, but I would suggest to you that if you have an all-American athlete that comes into our offices and is trying to decide which academy they want to go to, then it would be a mistake for us to recommend that they go to the Naval Academy, if the Air Force and the and the Army are going to accommodate or be more accommodating to them.

Either way, I think there should be a uniform standard across the academies and so I’ll obviously, you know, I’ll tell you — I’ll — I’ll speak with Lloyd Austin about it as well. But I think there needs to be a uniform standard. Admiral, I’ll move quickly on this. On CNO’s unfunded priority list, you’ve got readiness shortfalls including aviation depot maintenance, ship depot maintenance and flying hour programs.

Could you speak to the issue of the balance between growing the Navy and sustaining the current Navy and what it does for readiness today?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. Current readiness has been and will be my number one priority. We need the Navy that needs to be forward and it’s ready to fight tonight. And so, I’m not backing off at all on our requirement I believe that serves our sailors well and now General Berger mentioned this a few minutes ago. When we start — when we start cutting away at current readiness, we begin to push that risk on the backs of commanders out there at sea and the people that work for them.

When we begin to man ships with less people because it’s always easy to take away people. That’s — that’s money in your pocket right off the bat or we — or we put less ammunition and magazines or less spare parts in supply store rooms or we cut back on training, then you have a Navy that begins to become irrelevant.

And that’s not a place where we want to be.

SMITH:

The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Garamendi is recognized.

GARAMENDI:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me, I was stuck on Roger Staubach with whom I had the privilege of playing against him twice during his career. So, memories. Mr. secretary, you made the right decision. Moving on, Admiral Gilday, where’s the five-year ship plan?

GILDAY:

Sir, the 30-year shipbuilding plan or?

GARAMENDI:

Ship improve — the shipyard improvement plan.

GILDAY:

Oh, the shipyard improvement plan. Yes, sir. We’ll have that by the end of the month.

GARAMENDI:

Good. Then we’ll have a hearing shortly thereafter. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. Commandant Berger, could you in four minutes explain the marine Corps of the Future and what we need to know to prepare for that in this year’s NDAA?

BERGER:

Sir, I offered in a separate hearing to lay it out in detail in four minutes or less. First, you need a Marine Corps today and until that point it’s ready, they can respond now. We can’t take it off the field as a couple of you have said, come back on the field three or four years later with the force we’re going to need.

We have to be ready every week. We will. We are ready today. The force that you need in the future. I think the best case you have for deterrence against somebody like the PLA and/or Russia is to have a very strong forward force that’s expeditionary, that has the ability to collect against, to deter to compete every day, every week.

You have the ability to — to work with allies and partners to build a network that will have the best chance of success of denying — preventing the next conflict from ever happening. But if it does, to be already forward so that they can respond quickly and decisively. That means we have to be lighter.

That means we have to be less of a land force like we have been for the past 20 years, supporting the operations in the Middle East and more of a naval force. You need us, expeditionary, you need us lighter, you need us able to sustain that force in a really distributed fashion. Plugged into a naval and joint architecture that can move information rapidly, make decisions quickly.

It’s the best chance you have of deterring and frankly, if a crisis happens responding quickly.

GARAMENDI:

Well, all that in two minutes. Well done, I do — I do agree with you. We need to have a full hearing on it. Of particular interest to my Subcommittee is the sustainment issues as well as locations from which you need to operate. So, thank you for that. Also, I understand that and this may have been asked earlier during my absence, if so, my apologies.

The AAV incident off the coast of California, the loss of nine — of eight Marines, one sailor. I understand that an additional action has been taken in the last week with regard to the command structure. Has that been a — could you please tell us where — what actions have been taken with regard to the command?

BERGER:

Once I reviewed the results of two investigations, the one safety investigation and then the first legal investigation. Once it was clear to me what we knew about the event itself and that day, there were still unanswered questions. So, we directed a follow-on investigation to look back six months to find out how was this unit formed and who made what decisions.

When that investigation came to me, it was pretty clear that the division commander at that time failed to uphold what we expect of a commander to do in providing a trained ready force. I pulled him out of his IG position and since that time I’ve administratively counseled him, formally counseled him. That’s a permanent part of his record.

GARAMENDI:

Which means what?

BERGER:

Most likely — it’s difficult for an officer, a general, to move forward with that and their record as a permanent basis.

GARAMENDI:

Very good, I appreciate your ongoing effort to deal with this tragedy and the necessary command. As I have said and others have said in the hearings in which we conducted on this, a culture of safety must be part of the Marine Corps’ ethics. Could you — Well, you won’t comment in the next seven seconds, but I’ll let that hang there and appreciate your efforts.

Thank you.

SMITH:

Gentleman’s time has expired. Dr. DesJarlais is recognized for five minutes.

DESJARLAIS:

Thank you, Chairman. Secretary Harker, last year the department deployed the W76 [Inaudible] warhead on some American [Inaudible] submarines. I believe the utility [Inaudible] something that deserves more attention. First, can you provide some facts for one [Inaudible] important in the context of what we understand escalate to win strategy?

SMITH:

I’m sorry. We’ve lost Dr. DesJarlais. Can’t — we cannot hear you. It’s getting cut off.

DESJARLAIS:

You can’t hear audio?

SMITH:

I’m hearing that, but you were like breaking up in between. So, give it give — it one more try.

DESJARLAIS:

Okay. Let’s — we’re talking about low yield, W76-2 missiles, Secretary Harker, as you know that they were placed on submarines. Can you explain why that’s important in the Putin escalate to win strategy, so could you give me some context of why it’s important that we have this?

HARKER:

Yes, sir. The low-yield nuclear weapons were something that was done previously, different from the sea launched cruise missile nuclear that was discussed a little while ago. From the warfighting value of that, I think the CNO is probably the best capable person to discuss the value of the low yield nuclear weapons.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. Low yield is based on the findings of the Nuclear Posture Review and the stated purpose of the low yield weapons was to close a deterrence gap against the Russians and the Chinese. And so, there is a — there’s a capability that — that the Russians in particular have and the NPR’s intent was to ensure that we could close that gap so that the Russians didn’t feel like they were in a position of advantage with respect to weapons with that kind of yield?

DESJARLAIS:

Do you feel that our current strategy is adequate?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think as we come up on this new Nuclear Posture Review, one of the things that that I’ve always find reassuring about these reviews is from administration to administration, they’ve been squarely focused on national security. Their recommendations tracked very consistently from administration to administration.

And so, I think taking a deeper look right now is a good opportunity and I think — I’m not trying to be evasive with your question. I just think that that the NPR will — will shed some more light in terms of where we need to go and why.

DESJARLAIS:

Okay. Well, I think it’s very possible that the next nuclear blast we see is, is likely to be a low yield and we have to have an adequate response. No, I don’t think that would be us making that first move, but I think it is an important deterrent. Admiral Richard’s assessment certainly feels that it would make conflict less likely.

Do you agree with that?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, I do.

DESJARLAIS:

Okay. And then the current system we have, of course, we can do it air launched, we have a submarine launched from a missile, but this could also be something that was used in the sea launched cruise missile that would be another method that now apparently may not be an option. [Inaudible] that possibly take away a strategic tool that’s very important.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. I think — technically, I think that would be feasible.

DESJARLAIS:

But considering what Putin has with Skyfall and other weapons as Mr. Turner pointed out earlier in the hearing, I think that that’s something that needs another look because obviously it’s easier — for the Russians, it’s probably easier to intercept a ballistic missile and certainly some low yield that was delivered or attempted to be delivered by plane may also be less effective than a cruise missile that’s launched from a submarine.

Would you agree with that?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think I think — at a higher classification, I think it would be worth a deeper discussion on — on that particular issue.

DESJARLAIS:

Okay. [Inaudible] the yield of these W76-2, how does it compare to say Hiroshima and Nagasaki in terms of kilotons?

GILDAY:

Sir, again, I think that — that that particular — those particular numbers exceed the classification of this hearing.

DESJARLAIS:

Okay. I mean you can Google it and read it on Wikipedia, so it may be for this hearing and I understand that’s different, but there’s been some argument made that our low yield-

SMITH:

Gentleman’s time has expired. Apologize. Ms. Houlahan is recognized for five minutes.

HOULAHAN:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, gentlemen for joining us today. I’m going to try and accomplish something which is within five minutes to talk about the future of defense and also child care. So, I’m hoping I’ll be able to have time. I want to start by reading an abridged version — version of an article by Christian Brose, who’s a former McCain staffer.

And he says many defense experts believe that the U.S. military abated and even encouraged by Congress continues to be focused on too many resources preparing for yesterday’s battles rather than the conflicts most likely to be seen in the future. While aircraft carriers, heavy tanks, fighter jets and nuclear weapons will continue to play a role in defending the homeland, many believe that the United States must shift its focus away from old wars and legacy weapons systems and focus more on asymmetrical threats such as biosecurity, cybersecurity, pandemics and even disinformation.

If a conflict occurred today, U.S. satellites would likely immediately be disabled and American ships would be rendered useless since they would be too vulnerable to precise hydrous — hypersonic missiles. So, consequently, the U.S. should follow the Chinese. Experts argue pointing to cheap unmanned weapons and cheap unmanned underwater drones.

With that in mind, my question for Acting Secretary Harker and Admiral Gilday is I wanted to follow up on Mr. Wittman and Mr. Moulton’s lines of question. I was really grateful to be part of that bipartisan future of defense task force. And I’m grateful that you all are willing to have another conversation about this, but it doesn’t appear that the Navy has conducted yet an analysis that looks simultaneously at the political ambitions of our two chief rivals, which are China and Russian and add emerging technologies for warfare.

Above all — I’m sorry. Above, at and below sea level and at the ability of the American and our allied industrial base to develop and put into production those affordable systems that are necessary for our allies and we to prevail at sea, both in peace and at war time. So, is it fair to say that there really hasn’t been a study or an analysis of the way that you all think about that path the fork to take?

And if so, how short of a hearing can we ask for and understanding and insight into how you think through these really important decisions?

HARKER:

Thank you, ma’am. We’ve actually done a lot of work around the unmanned systems and how to integrate those on with our force. As the CNO mentioned earlier, there was a significant exercise off the coast of San Diego last month. There was also then a lot of work with getting the F-18 in order to be able to do their refueling with the MQ-25. So, we’ve done a lot to bring that technology into our doctrine and warfighting capabilities.

There’s still room to grow. I know both this committee and the Senate Armed Service Committee have concerns with how fast we’re going. Some people think we’re not moving fast enough, others think we’re moving too fast and we’re trying to balance that with, you know, the requirements that we have in the budget we had.

HOULAHAN:

And with, Admiral Gilday, can I ask you as well for your reflections on that?

GILDAY:

So, ma’am, are distributed maritime operations’ concept in conjunction with the Marine Corps and how we believe we’re going to fight was the underpinning of the two latest assessments that actually heavily considered unmanned — unmanned vehicles in the air, on the sea and under the sea. Our investment strategy leads us to a hybrid fleet in the 2000s. Whereas I mentioned earlier, we want to make sure that we get the technology correct before we — we come to — we come to the Secretary and ask him and make a proposal to scale.

But we believe that about a third of the fleet would be unmanned by the mid 2030s if we stay on pace and by the late 2030s about 40 percent of our airwings at sea would be unmanned. So, we are moving in that direction. It’s critical that we do so.

HOULAHAN:

Thank you. And I look forward to further conversations on this and with my minute left that I would like very much to talk about child care. You have asked for a very modest increase in family child care homes, but the request for child development centers remains largely unchanged from year to year and neither of these requests have come close to the fiscal year 2020 funding level.

Can you give me some insight and context into the decision making of why child care portions of the Navy and Marine Corps budget requests are where they are when we have 7,000 children who still are on wait lists?

HARKER:

Yes, ma’am. There was a significant — significant increase in funding for child care. Last year, we had a MILCON project that’s going to increase and do repairs to the child’s facility in [Inaudible]. We also had five planning and design projects for 11 million which we’re executing this year as we look at how can we go forward with the MILCON necessary to continue to expand our child care capability.

At the same time, we’re also working to increase our child care in ways that don’t require MILCON. So, we’ve got a public-private partnership. We’re working with the Coronado Unified School District in San Diego to try to use some of their schools for after school care, so that we can free up space in our child development centers and be able to accommodate additional students.

This is definitely something we take seriously and we’re trying to handle that.

HOULAHAN:

I look forward to working with you on that. And with that gentlemen, I yield back and thank you, Mr. Chair.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Kelly is recognized for five minutes.

KELLY:

Mr. Secretary, what is the top-line budget this year as opposed to last year, just a dollar number?

HARKER:

This year’s top-line budget for the Department of Defense 700-

KELLY:

Not — not for the Department of Defense. For the Department of the Navy.

HARKER:

Two hundred eleven million, sir.

KELLY:

What was that?

HARKER:

Two hundred eleven million, sir.

KELLY:

And what was it last year?

HARKER:

206 million.

SMITH:

Billion. I think I am sorry. I think you mean billion.

HARKER:

Yeah.

SMITH:

Okay.

HARKER:

Yes, sir. Billion. Sorry.

SMITH:

Go ahead.

KELLY:

And my next question would be is — of that, how much is allocated to things other than building ship or doing personnel or how much of that is to climate change? How much of that is to renewable fuels? How much of those dollars of your budget are allocated to something other than building ships or training sailors or Marines?

HARKER:

The majority of our budget is focused on personnel [Inaudible]

KELLY:

I know the majority, but how much of it is not focused on that?

HARKER:

We have not previously tagged our budget for those things. And so, we’re going through the process of identifying what those specific dollars are right now, sir.

KELLY:

Okay. And there’s a $2 billion cut in shipbuilding next year, right? Two billion cut in the shipbuilding budget, is that correct?

HARKER:

Versus what we had planned in FY21. Yes sir.

KELLY:

Okay. And then so when do we expect the shipbuilding plan?

HARKER:

Shipbuilding plan is going through the clearance process right now. I hope to get it to you soon. I’d wanted to get it to you before this hearing and was unable to get the [Inaudible].

KELLY:

That was one of the only questions I asked Secretary Austin, would he commit to doing that since we did not get one last year? You understand that we can’t do our jobs if we don’t get that product from you all.

HARKER:

Yes, sir, I understand. We’ve committed to get it to you and we will get it to — you could not get it done [Inaudible].

KELLY:

It’s a little now though. We’re talking about the budget now and you understand that you’re asking us to trust your judgment in the future and your management of risk throughout our departments while at the same time failing to provide us any insight into what the future looks like. It’s one of those trust me.

HARKER:

Sir, the shipbuilding plan is something that is typically not delivered in the first year of a new administration. This year it is required and we [Inaudible]

KELLY:

But it’s a requirement under law, correct?

HARKER:

Pardon me, sir.

KELLY:

It’s a requirement under a law to provide that to us, correct?

HARKER:

Yes, sure it is and we are going to deliver that.

KELLY:

And you do understand that in Mississippi, you know, we build ships there and you visited there and I thank you for that. That shows that you are on the spot doing the things that you’re supposed to do and I really appreciate that, Mr. Secretary. But my question is during this budget, we’re asking to cut out one DDG.

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

KELLY:

Yet we had already committed in this plan to build two. So, we’re asking to cut one of those. So, so what do we tell those shipbuilders, what do we tell those employers? What do we do that labor force and when we have to build that DDG lighter, how much more will it cost the taxpayers because we didn’t do what we as a government agreed to do?

HARKER:

Sir, that’s — that was our biggest regret in this budget. I wish we could have fit that DDG into this budget and we are committed to building that next year. We’re also committed to doing a multiyear-

KELLY:

And those laid off workers — will that cost more once we lay off workers and aren’t able to do what they were committed to. Do you understand our industrial base.

HARKER:

Yes, sir.

KELLY:

When we have to lay off workers or they don’t have something to do, they have to be laid off. And you understand then that cost us the American taxpayers much more dollars to build the exact same thing because we have to regen a workforce.

HARKER:

Yes, sir, I understand and I was impressed with what you’re doing down in Mississippi with the partnership with the local high schools and with your community colleges to bring on a workforce and to maintain that workforce. And we believe that we can continue forward with providing the support for that industrial base.

KELLY:

And you know, here’s — here’s all I’ll tell you is we’re getting a defense cut. We’re getting a haircut this year. You can call it whatever you want, but it’s a haircut and it’s a significant haircut across the board. And I remember when we had ships crashing into each other, commanders being relieved, captains of ships or commanders at all levels, aircraft falling out air, vehicle turnovers that were killing Marines and Army kids, all these things happened because we had inadequate budget in order to do the things that are necessary today.

And I will argue if we’re not really, really careful, guys, we’re going to start having sailors crashing ships, airplanes falling out of the sky because of maintenance errors, untrained leaders who are not enforcing standards that should be. And I will just tell you, you guys need to really push back. This budget is not capable of doing what we need to do to protect the nation today or in 2030 or 2035. And I just ask, guys, that’s what we pay you big dollars for.

Please push back and let them know it’s not enough. You’re great leaders. You owe that to this nation. Thank you. And I yield back.

SMITH:

Ms. Slotkin.

SLOTKIN:

Yes, thank you for being here. I know we’ve had a lot of discussion about the top-line budget, about equipment, about hardware, about numbers of ships. But we’ve also heard in pretty much every one of our hearings, especially those of us on the bipartisan defense task force that it’s not just about hardware, it’s about our ability to quickly and efficiently acquire new technology, take the best from Silicon Valley and incorporate it into the Department of Defense.

And I know as I’m sure you do that it’s a laborious process to go from great idea to new weapons. China has no such problem. They have no such problem, no such three-year string. And while we can have a debate about the — the top-line budget in the hardware, I want to know what you all are doing to change the culture and climate around acquisition to make sure our smallest companies who have some of the best ideas are actually able to get the attention of the Department of Defense.

And as we’ve heard this valley of death that you can get money for a prototype, but you can’t actually turn it into a program of record. So, can I hear from both OSD as well as Admiral Gilday on this, please.

HARKER:

Yes, ma’am. This is something — something that we definitely are working to improve. We set up an organization called NavalX, which is focused on trying to identify those requirements and partner with industry in order to come up with quick rapid ways of meeting those requirements. So, that’s something that’s been set up in the last couple of years that has a really powerful capability that we’ve established both here in the D.C. area and then out at all the various [Inaudible] concentration areas.

And we’re working within the acquisition community as well as within the operational Navy and Marine Corps to try to facilitate quick dialog, so that we can go from requirement to delivery as quickly as we can. You’re absolutely right that there is a long valley of death in the current acquisition process and this is something that needs to change.

When you look at all of the different acquisition requirements, we’ve put in requirements and controls in place to prevent fraud, prevent waste, prevent abuse. But all of those requirements come at a cost and they slow things down. And we need to figure out how to maintain control over waste, abuse those types of things while enabling our acquisition community to work as quickly as they can.

SLOTKIN:

Admiral?

GILDAY:

Yes, ma’am. I’d like to thank the Congress for the — for the authorities that we have to accelerate — accelerate buys in the acquisition process. I’ll give you a couple of examples. We have a new deck crawler kind of machine that that cleans the holes of submarines when they go into drydock. A year ago, that would take us four weeks to clean the outside of the hull.

It takes us two — it takes two shifts to — to complete that work. We have headsets now that allow us to map a space on a ship digitally, so that a job that we give a shipyard worker to do is much more accurate in terms of its measurements, in terms of its 3D capability. Those returned very, very quickly.

Just a couple of examples, but another one is laser technology and so we’re trying to leverage small businesses as much as we can because — because of the power and the innovation that’s out there. But I’m not at all under the impression that we’ve completely solved this and there are companies that still can’t get to us and so we-.

SLOTKIN:

Yeah, I would say we’re pretty far from solving it since literally every hearing we’ve heard from these companies has talked about how difficult it is. And I would note that we did give you guys the authority actually even before I got here, this SBIR authority allows you to do this rapid acquisition and it’s less than 2.5 percent of your acquisition budget was through that program in 2021. So, I would just flag so it’s little cultural thing hearing from you all that people can try things and fail?

And Department of Defense doesn’t usually like that — that kind of thing. My second question is myself and Representative Gallagher have been running a supply chain task force here on HASC. It’s been a very bipartisan process. We all learned through the past year of COVID how difficult it is to have transparency on our supply chains, but how important it is, so we don’t get caught with our pants down if we’re sole source buying things from China.

Do you, Admiral Gilday, have transparency on supply chain that is needed for the Navy? If not, what is your plan to get that transparency?

GILDAY:

So, I would say that one of the silver linings of COVID has been the lifting of that opaque curtain on 395 between Crystal City and the Pentagon. We have much more visibility into the fragility of those supply chains, those single source overseas suppliers, because industry understands the risk both to them and to us if we can’t solve those problems quickly.

We’re in a better place now. And I — my hat’s off to industry and to our Undersecretary Geurts for making the effort to keep those communications on a weekly basis during the pandemic.

SLOTKIN:

Thank you. And I yield back.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Gallagher is recognized for five minutes.

GALLAGHER:

Thank you. Commandant Berger, do you share the concerns expressed by Admiral Davidson about a potential PRC action against Taiwan within the next six years?

BERGER:

I do sir.

GALLAGHER:

CNO, same question to you.

GILDAY:

Yes, sir.

GALLAGHER:

I think this gets to the fundamental dilemma that you’re hearing expressed on both sides with regard to the overall budget. We seem to be punting our larger Navy into the future on a 2045 timeline when really we need to be planning around a 2025 timeline and we need to be resourcing it accordingly. And that’s — the extent of frustration, I think that is the frustration or at least I don’t speak for other members, that’s the frustration and sense of urgency I feel.

There may be small ways we can start to get at it as we haggle over the bigger budgetary picture. Commandant, for example, last year this committee supported at least part of your request for ground-based anti-ship missiles and long-range fires. In a bipartisan manner, we endorsed your overall Force Design initiatives.

Regrettably, the appropriators cut your funding for [Inaudible] and zeroed out long range fires. Can you briefly describe the impact of that cut and the importance of those programs?

BERGER:

It reduced what we’ll have in the field in 2023. It’ll delay the feeling of the capability. It’s a proven technology and it set us back in time which equals four combatant commander equals risk.

GALLAGHER:

And then a bit more of a niche program. You also identified artificial intelligence enabled force protection as a capability for prioritized investment in your most recent Force Design Guidance, yet it’s not resourced in the FY22 budget submission. This was funded and developed by the Small Business Innovation Research Program, which is highly competitive subject to multiphase competition, very difficult to get to phase 3. In light of that that, that’s not in the budget, how does the Marine Corps plan to leverage this SIBR investment in resource and deploy this AI enabled force protection capability?

BERGER:

At our bases and stations, in my opinion — and I’m very familiar with the technology, it can actually reduce the number of military, police, security — civilian security that we hire right now. It’s also the kind of technology that will allow you to use it into the future. Won’t be obsolete two or three years from now.

It’s — baked into it is the ability to — to update the software inside it. For perimeter security, for monitoring the security of our installations, I think it’ll be a helpful capability and I think this year we’ll make a — we’ll make a decision on procurement and where to field it because we’ve already used it at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar and it’s proven its effectiveness.

GALLAGHER:

That’s good to hear and I hope members of the committee will work to give you the resources you need there. Admiral Gilday, we — I think we all agree we want the Constellation class frigate to be a success. We want it on time, on budget, sort of the logic of that was, it was a proven design. I think that’s what put Fincantieri in an advantageous position.

I understand the need for combat systems changes on that ship, but will you commit — you know, with the — with the lessons of the LCS in mind commit to minimizing changes to existing hull and machinery? I mean, why make any — any changes in light of just the urgency of fielding this platform on time and on budget?

GILDAY:

Sir, I agree with you. When I went up to the shipyard to visit, that’s one of the things I committed to that we would minimize any perturbations. We’ve got to lockdown what we want to put in that ship and go after it. Instead of as as you, as you allude to kind of drag it out over time and add uncertainty and risk to the — to the build.

GALLAGHER:

And I get that the — just sort of step back here in what time I have remaining. I get that a lot of the decisions that need to be made are in some ways even above your pay grade. In other words, any tradeoff between the services would have to be reconciled by the Secretary of Defense and the President for the budget.

You know, their overall tradeoff between nondefense discretionary spending versus defense spending is certainly something that only the White House can resolve. But given that the commitment to a 355 ship Navy is a statutory commitment, I mean what — what top line would you need in order to advance towards that objective more expeditiously?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir. The — the shipbuilding plan that we submitted last year that was predicated on 4.1 percent growth to get us to 355 in 10 years. And so that was to — to Mr. Courtney’s point, a clear set of headlights not only for the Congress but for industry when EB puts millions of dollars into infrastructure because they’re counting on building that Columbia for the next 15 years.

That’s the kind of predictability — predictability that we really need.

GALLAGHER:

Well, I support the ten-year time horizon as unrealistic as some may suggest and just in light of these warnings about something happening within the next five or six years, I think we all need to act with a greater sense of urgency.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Golden is recognized for five minutes.

GOLDEN:

Thank you. Admiral Gilday, during your recent visit to Bath Iron Works, you said that one of the most important reasons I’m in Maine today is to ensure that every person here knows their work is critically important to our Navy. DDGs are the workhorse of our fleet and simply put you can’t get to the fight if you don’t have ships to sell there.

To the entire workforce here at Bath Iron Works who are responsible for helping us generate warfighting readiness, you have my profound thanks. A few weeks later, the Navy delivered a budget request that would cut a DDG that’s already under contract. This proposed cut would result in about 500 laid off DDG shipbuilders and those are likely to be the youngest shipbuilders.

It takes about seven years to get fully proficient. So, those are your future shipbuilders. Those are your DDG-X shipbuilders. You mentioned the DDG is critically important to the Navy. It’s the most versatile ship in the fleet. It’s the principle for ballistic missile defense. It provides antisubmarine, anti-surface and anti-air capabilities in a single platform.

Since I became a member of this committee when asked, not one member of the Navy has failed to stress the importance of getting the Flight III out to sea. Now when we’re prepared to deliver the Navy this new capability, it’s proposed to reduce it. In front of the Senate last week, Admiral Kilby said the Navy needs the Flight II capability.

Same hearing, Mr. Stephany says that the Navy absolutely wants to do another multiyear procurement from 2023 to 2027, but we’re looking at a cut in FY22. This just doesn’t add up to me. The budget would take seven cruisers off line. The tradeoff generally understood that we replace them with a new DDG Flight III which has less missiles in the magazine, but great new capabilities with the SPY-6 radar.

But the proposal would reduce both at the same time. So where does the Navy plan to get the capabilities that the Flight III provides. You’re decommissioning cruisers. The new frigate can’t deliver the full capability of the DDG Flight IIA, let alone the Flight III. The 51 is the most consistent and stable surface combatant program in the Navy right now.

Compared to many of the Navy’s recent surface combatant programs, it’s a huge success. We can deliver on budget on time and the Flight III coming online now, it’s the most superior destroyer ever built. Last year, Congress expressed strong support for increased procurement of Flight III by including 130 million in the FY21 defense bills to support the procurement of an additional DDG in FY22. In other words, we told you to procure three DDG ships this year and instead the Navy has come back and requested one.

Congress bears a responsibility to provide and maintain a Navy and Congress gave the Navy direction last year that isn’t reflected at all in this budget proposal. Essentially, a two-ship reduction from the existing law which Congress agreed to this past December. Admiral, you talked about FY 2025 and 2026 in the fleet that you envision having out there and ready for the combatant commander.

Now you won’t be building DDG [Inaudible] in 2025. That is slated for FY28 at their earliest. You know, essentially, I think what you’re looking at is you’ll still be building DDG 51 Flight IIIs. I think that the last contracted one will be delivered an FY27 for a total of only 14 ships, roughly speaking.

So in 2025, thinking about that potential threat from China that everyone has been talking about, you’re going to have the flight III. You’re going to have the Zumwalt and you’re going to have the frigate. That’s what you’re going to have out there. I hope that by that time, we might have successfully equipped the Zumwalt with a hypersonic missile capability.

And I know that you have a March 18th solicitation on how to reconfigure the Zumwalt class to host larger hypersonic missiles in a new vertical launch system. As you’re looking at the DDG acts out into the future, I’ve seen Admiral Galinis talking about how it’s probably going to look maybe a little bit more like Zumwalt than Arleigh Burke and a desire to get the DDG-51 Flight III capabilities alongside the DDG 1000 integrated Power system, so given this concern about FY25 and 26, why aren’t we looking to focus on getting that Zumwalt equipped with the hypersonic?

Learning the lessons about how to blend the 51 with the 1000 pumping the brakes a little bit like Congress said. In the last Congress, quite clearly with the budget that it delivered essentially saying let’s slow down the DDG-X and let’s focus on the acquisition of the Flight III capability. With my remaining time, I look forward to the Navy’s responses on, you know, on the record after the fact that Secretary Harker, you have a June 4th memo where you talk about using existing authority such as multi-year procurements in order to be efficient with taxpayer dollars and provide stability to the industrial tax base.

That’s something that this Committee and the Appropriations Committee in the last Congress has already endorsed. I look forward to working with you on that and you know, as disappointed as I am with this budget request, you have a friend in trying to work with the Navy to get you your top priority for the [Inaudible].

SMITH:

Thank you. Gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Bacon is recognized for five minutes.

BACON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. Thanks for your leadership. I agree with the Ranking Member Mike Rogers and Senator Inhofe concerning the President’s defense budget request. The budget falls short of providing the resources, equipment and training that our service members are required to cut — confront threats like China.

We’ve heard today that China is our pacing threat. We’ve heard that China has the largest navy in the world. We’ve heard today that our Navy’s buying power is less than it was in 2010. These are compelling words. Yet while the non-defense budget from this administration is increasing by 16 percent, the defense budget is being cut when inflation is factored in. The Navy shipbuilding budget is being cut by 3 percent, the Navy’s aviation budget has been cut by 15 percent. That’s reality.

Those are — those are the actions by the administration and they don’t match the words. That’s really my main point here. The actions are not matching the words from the administration. It’s cognitive dissonance personified. And we’re not fooled by some good sounding words from the administration that China is pacing threat yet the defense budget is being cut at the same time.

So, I just want to make those opening comments. My first question’s to Admiral Gilday and General Berger. I’ve been a leading proponent of compelling the Department of Defense to establish not only in EMS strategy, but an implementation plan as well. It’s a priority. We have fallen behind in this area in electronic magnetic spectrum.

Have the Navy and Marine Corps published an electronic magnetic spectrum warfare strategy and if not, when could we see it? Thank you.

GILDAY:

Sir, I’ll have to get back to you on that specific strategy. I know that we have detailed concepts of operation in terms of how we use the systems tactically, particularly in the Growler and how we combine those with other joint assets in order — in order to increase our effectiveness out there in the Western Pacific.

But I’ll get back to you on the — on the strategy piece, sir.

BACON:

I would just point out after serving 30 years and be an electronic warfare guy, myself, the Navy has led the way and since the 1990s. So we appreciate it. But we do need a good strategy and we need a joint staff strategy that guides it. General Berger.

BERGER:

I understand the question and I agree with the priority on it. It’s an area of warfare, especially vis a vis Russia, PLA that we’ve got to maintain an advantage. And I’ll also ask you if I can check — I don’t know of a written Marine Corps strategy that we published in the past 24 months. It may exist, but not that I’m familiar with.

BACON:

Thank you. I just — I’ve been studying this for a while. We fell behind in the 90s. We didn’t have the right leadership at DOD and the Joint Staff on electronic warfare, electronic magnetic spectrum operations as it is called now. And we need to play catch up and starts with the DOD and joint staff level.

But we certainly need the services to be a strong part of that. Secretary Harker, do you support the funding of the Columbia class submarine out of the National Sea based deterrence Fund.

HARKER:

Sir, that’s one that you’ve given us the authority to do that and then the appropriators appropriated into SCNs, so we go ahead and we transfer the money from SCN into a national sea-based deterrence fund. And so that’s a process that we currently do in order to comply with the law.

BACON:

Are you — are you confident there will be fielding the Columbia class on time with our current budget and are things going as you — as you would like?

HARKER:

Yes, sir. We are moving forward with Columbia. It’s our number one priority. We have put additional funds into this year’s budget for a risk reduction on Columbia and so that was one of the areas where we invested funds and that is our number one priority and it will remain that way.

BACON:

Question for Admiral Gilday. The Navy didn’t request funding for continued procurement of the F/A-18 Super Hornet and has not increased to buy for the F-35. Are we putting ourselves at risk here with our tactical fighter inventory?

GILDAY:

Sir, right now we’re — we’re short 42 fighters. We believe [Inaudible] gets this — resolves that by 2025. So, each year as we continue to upgrade our — our existing F-18 Super Hornets to Block IIs to Block IIIs and then procure F-35s the pace from 15 to 20 a year, we’ll get to where we need to be with about 5 to six wings by 2025 that have their fourth, fifth gen integration.

BACON:

Thank you. And just a closing request for Mr. Harker. I sent you a letter last month. We had a World War II hero Petty Officer Charles French, an African-American sailor. He was on a ship that was sunk off the Solomon Islands in 1942. He rescued 15 sailors from capture and probable being killed by the Japanese at the time.

And he didn’t get an award. This would mean something for Omaha. He’s a favorite son of Omaha and his family. If you would look at that, I would be grateful. Thank you.

HARKER:

Thank you, sir. I’d be glad to look at it.

UNKNOWN:

Gentleman’s time has expired. The gentlelady from Virginia Ms. Luria is recognized for five minutes.

LURIA:

Well, thank you. And Admiral Gilday, in the interest of time, I’m going to ask them yes, no or short answer questions and you’ve already had the opportunity several times during today’s hearing to state that you agree with Admiral Davidson and Admiral Aquilino’s comments about the urgency of a potential attack by the Chinese on Taiwan.

I wanted to point out in your statement, you write that the Navy has studied, identified and prioritized the future capabilities we need to execute our evolving warfighting concepts and maintain a credible deterrent with respect to the PRC. So, what year do you expect to have the majority of those capabilities available operating and deployed to counter that threat?

GILDAY:

I think hypersonics offensively by — initially by 2025. That program itself is a is-

LURIA:

So, hypersonics. You’re talking about one thing. I mean this future fleet that you’re envisioning by 2025, you think that we’re going to have all of those capabilities?

GILDAY:

No, no, no, no, I don’t, ma’am. So, specifically, I mean, there are a number of different capabilities you’re talking about, including — including the networks we need to fight on-

LURIA:

Further out like not within the next five to six years in that timeframe.

GILDAY:

No by — no by 20. The majority of those systems, not by 2025.

LURIA:

Okay. And if the PACOM commanders are correct and I believe them to be and I think in your professional opinion as a surface warfare officer, you also, you know, believe that it’s not prudent to decommission 15 ships in the next year when China could invade Taiwan in the very near term. So, I understand you were given a pretty shitty top line by the administration and specifically the Pentagon.

So, you didn’t have a lot of good choices, but you did have choices. And so, I was looking at the words you used and you — you said that this budget is going to divest to invest. So that’s your strategy you’re using. And I look back over the last twenty years of budgets and saw that that was a very familiar term, especially in the 2004 budget where the Navy used that same divest to invest strategy, in its 24 — 21st Century Seapower 21. So, that was defined by Sea Shield, Sea Strike and Sea Basing all tied together by this network called FORCEnet.

And so, if we fast forward to today and we look at that future strategy at the time it was based on DDG-1000, LCS and FORCEnet. So with the DDG-1000, just a quick question, how many DDG-1000s at that point in time did we intend to build?

GILDAY:

Ma’am, I’d have to get back to you on the exact number. I know it might have fluctuated over time.

LURIA:

Around 30.

GILDAY:

Many — yes, about 30.

LURIA:

And we have built three.

GILDAY:

Right.

LURIA:

What was the planned procurement totals for the LCS?

GILDAY:

I don’t know.

LURIA:

It’s higher than what we’ve built. Obviously with these modular capabilities that we haven’t developed and what is the current status of FORCEnet? Is that a mature system that we’re operating today?

GILDAY:

No.

LURIA:

Okay, because I’m thinking Project Overmatch as I’m looking at FORCEnet going back.

GILDAY:

Right.

LURIA:

So, I think that we’re, you know, in a similar crossroads the divest to invest strategy. And, you know, as I’ve said many times as many of my colleagues have echoed today, you know, we’re looking at this battle for 2045, a plan that’s far off at 355 ship goal that we’re never going to get to when we decommission more ships every year than we actually build and it causes a great concern because I think there’s an urgency.

I mean, what are we going to do in 2025 to counter this threat? And you know, you very correctly stated, you know, spend a lot of time in your statement talking about how the United States is a maritime nation and how that’s been important since the founding of this nation. And the Navy has allowed us to maintain our role on the global stage as a global power to maintain free trade.

And some very good comments in there, but I don’t see what the Navy is doing today to accomplish that when we’re continuing to shrink and we’re continuing to divest to invest with strategies and capabilities that are just a hope for the future. You know, and the obvious thing is that, you know, we’re looking to develop a large unmanned surface vessel which theoretically would have 16 VLS cells.

We’re going to decommission seven cruisers that each have 2 VLS launchers with 122 cells each. You know, when you’re looking at that problem writ large, you know we are reducing our capability to counter the threat that we have today. And so, you know, I would just close by saying that, you know, I feel this budget is, you know, focused on a future hope for technology that we will have in order to counter a threat that might happen way out in the future.

And I think that many of us in this room here and during this hearing have reflected on the fact that we need that capability today. The one thing we can build with reliability on schedule is the DDG and we caught one this year and we’d even plan to potentially build 3 and then, you know, I think that the — what I would consider a modest current investment in modernizing the cruisers to operate for several more years with their sizable capability is something that we should maintain.

So, you know, I think that we’re creating a gap and I am really concerned that the Chinese will actually find a way to exploit that gap and so I yield back my remaining time.

UNKNOWN:

The gentlewoman yields back. I recommend everyone read the Texas National Security Review commentary that Ms. Luria presented yesterday was very impressive. We are now going to recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Banks for five minutes.

BANKS:

Thank you, Madam Chair. Admiral Gilday, I was glad to hear Congressman Lamborn ask you about your decision to include Ibram X. Kendi’s, How To Be An Antiracist in your recommended reading list. I was also relieved to hear you say that you disagree with Kendi and you do not support racial discrimination. That being said, the Navy recently completed a one day stand down to remove extremism from the ranks.

The chief of naval personnel explained quote, we will not tolerate extremist ideologies that go against our oath to the Constitution. In my view, Kendi has espoused extremist beliefs that clearly violate the oath to the Constitution that I took when I served in the Navy. Ibram Kendi, by the way, labeled Amy Coney Barrett a quote white colonizer and criticized her for quote cutting the biological parents of these children out end quote because she adopted two children from Haiti.

Yes or no, Admiral. Do you personally consider opposition to interracial adoption and extremist belief?

GILDAY:

[Inaudible] I said I do not support [Inaudible]

BANKS:

I just asked you, do you consider opposition to interracial adoption an extremist belief? It’s a simple question.

GILDAY:

[Inaudible]

BANKS:

Okay. Kendi’s book states that ??” Admiral, Kendi’s book states that capitalism is essentially racist.

UNKNOWN:

Admiral, your microphone isn’t on. I believe. Thank you.

GILDAY:

Thank you.

BANKS:

Kendi’s book states that capitalism is essentially racist and Kendi is clear that racism must be eliminated. So yes or no. Do you personally consider advocating for the destruction of American capitalism to be extremist?

GILDAY:

Here’s what I know, Congressman.

BANKS:

It’s a yes or no question.

GILDAY:

There’s no racism in the United States Navy.

BANKS:

Admiral, you recommended every sailor in the United States Navy read this book. It’s a yes or no question.

GILDAY:

I’m not forcing anybody to read the book. It’s on a recommended reading list.

BANKS:

Admiral, did you read the book?

GILDAY:

I did.

BANKS:

Okay. In college, Kendi stated that white people are a different breed of humans and are responsible for the AIDS virus. Yes or no. Do you personally consider the conspiracy that white people started AIDS to be an extremist belief?

GILDAY:

Sir, I’d have to understand the context of the statements that were made.

BANKS:

That is a simple question.

GILDAY:

I’m not going to — I’m not going to [Inaudible]

BANKS:

Admiral, this is a book that you recommend to every sailor in the U.S. Navy.

GILDAY:

[Inaudible] cherry picked quotes from somebody’s book. I’m not going to do that. This is a bigger issue than Kendi’s book. What this is really about is trying to paint the United States military — in this case, the United States Navy as weak as Woke and we’ve had sailors that spent 341 days at sea last year with minimal port visits the longest deployments we [Inaudible]

BANKS:

Admiral, I’ve met you. I respect you and I remain astonished.

GILDAY:

[Inaudible] strong in our [Inaudible].

BANKS:

Admiral, I remain astonished that you put this book on a reading list and recommended that every sailor in the United States Navy read it. I’m also surprised that you said you read it. But I’m glad you brought up this point.

GILDAY:

[Inaudible] advise you, sir. [Inaudible]

BANKS:

The Department of Defense — Admiral, the Department of Defense undertook the stand down because they understand that extremism detracts from military readiness. So, if sailors except Kendi’s argument that America and the United States Navy are fundamentally racist as you’ve encouraged them to do, do you expect that to increase or decrease morale and cohesion or even recruiting into the United States Navy?

GILDAY:

I do know this. Our strength is in our diversity and our sailors understand that. Race is a very — racism in the United States is a very complex issue. What we benefit from is an open discussion about those issues that we don’t try to ignore or rewrite it but we actually have a discussion about it and there will be various views.

And I trust sailors will come and — and — to an understanding of hopefully separating fact from fiction, agreeing or disagreeing with Kendi, in this case and come to hopefully very useful conclusions about how we ought to treat each other in the United States.

BANKS:

Admiral, why did you put this book on the reading list and recommended that every single United States sailor read it?

GILDAY:

Because I think it’s really important to consider a variety of views [Inaudible]

BANKS:

Admiral, you said you read this book. What part of this book is redeeming and qualifies as something that every — every sailor in United States Navy should read it.

GILDAY:

I think Kendi’s self-critical about his own journey as an African-American in this country. What he’s experienced and-

BANKS:

Let me ask you again, Admiral. Do you expect that — say after sailors read this book that says that the United States Navy is racist that we will increase or decrease morale, cohesion and recruiting race into the United States Navy?

GILDAY:

I think will be a better Navy from having open honest conversations about racism.

UNKNOWN:

Gentleman’s time has expired.

BANKS:

My time has expired.

UNKNOWN:

The gentleman from Hawaii, Mr. Kahele is recognized for five minutes.

KAHELE:

Aloha and Mahola, Madam Chair and aloha to our witnesses for your testimony today. My question — I have two questions, I hope to get in one for the Marines, one for the Navy. First one is for the Marines General Berger, my question is related to your testimony on page eight regarding the F-35 and the current and future shortage of Marine and Navy pilots and maintainers.

Specifically, your concern that if we do not remedy these shortfalls that we’re going to have a problem, that we’re going to have a superior fifth generation aircraft that the American people have purchased critical to our agility and tactical supremacy of the MAGTF and the future expeditionary missions of the Marine Corps without any pilots to fly them.

So, my question is, what does the Marines done since last year’s budget request and this year’s budget request to conduct a reassessment of its aviation plan, specifically the F-35 capacity, requirements of the future force in regards to staffing, recruiting, training, retention of that aviator force based on the approximately 420 F-35s of service intends to buy it at full [Inaudible].

BERGER:

Sir, we conducted a — we actually we contracted an external study to look at what we thought our requirements were capacity wise, which is the heart of your question, is it 420 some or what is it? The second part of that which you highlighted is our ability to recruit, retain, train the people who can maintain and fly those aircraft.

On the first, the capacity part. I think clear from the capacity part, first, the F-35 is a very capable aircraft and meets what we needed to do. The number of aircraft has to match what the Navy and Marine Corps team is going to need to do in the future. My expectation is — my belief is it won’t be the entire program of record.

I don’t know how many less until we do more wargaming, more experimenting, many more learning, but it’ll be less than the program of record. On the pilot and maintainer aspect, there were technical problems with trainer aircraft and some other issues that caused a backlog of training pilots at Pensacola.

That’s largely been rectified, but there is clearly a backlog, a gap now that we must make up. What we can’t do is accelerate and get somewhere fast in the wrong way. We also have to retain the ones that we have trained already. Here, competition is fierce as you’re well aware. Some from the airline industry, but some from other places that make it a real challenge for the services to hold on to the captain and major that has a couple of deployments under their belt, a lot of time away from family and we need them to stay in. We — we have to work harder there.

We have to — on retention side, we have to approach it in a different manner.

KAHELE:

All right. Thank you, sir. Question for Admiral Gilday. In regards to BARSTUR and the critical undersea training ranges specifically the one that exist in Hawaii at the Pacific Missile Range Facility out at Barking Sands. I’ll cut right to the chase. The President’s budget provided only 33.56 million to commence fully restoring those range capabilities.

I don’t believe that funding is sufficient to restore full capability to our ranges. The Barking Sands Tactical Underwater Ranges past its design life and needs to be replaced. Its sensors are inoperable, aging infrastructure resulting in reduced tracking coverage. Would you support replacing BARSTURs sooner and maybe talk about how an accelerated timeline would actually save money by allowing more efficient ordering of materials and potential savings in level of effort costs?

GILDAY:

Sir, I agree with you and the value of the range, I owe you more details with respect to the phasing and the money that we’re putting against it. If it’s okay, I’d like to get back — back to you with those details including what acceleration might look like.

KAHELE:

Okay. You bet. Thank you and I’ll yield my time. Mahalo.

SMITH:

Thank you. I will point out to members we have a hard stop at two o’clock. I think we’re going to get there. We’re making good progress. So, Mr. Franklin, you are recognized for five minutes.

FRANKLIN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Admiral, early in the testimony today, you paint a pretty stark picture of the threat we’re facing from China, the things we need to do to get there. In your exchange with Ranking Member Rogers, it sounds like you know your assessment this current year budget doesn’t cut it and if extrapolated over a number of years we’d have a hard time meeting that threat that we’re facing, is that a fair assessment?

GILDAY:

I think this is a critical decade for us to close gaps against China or in those areas where we have overmatch to create distance against China. And so, I think that if we don’t do it in this decade, I think we’re fooling ourselves based on the momentum that it’s going to happen in the future. That’s why we need to get after it. And that’s why we need to make these risk informed decisions about modernization versus keeping legacy platforms.

FRANKLIN:

All right, thanks. General, from the Marine Corps perspective, would you agree with that? Is this current year budget what you need on other things on there that you want that we’re not getting, but this — if this is — if this is extrapolated over a number of years, is that going to impact your ability to get to the core that you feel we need to face the China threat?

BERGER:

If our budgets don’t even match inflation, then the risk is high, correct, that at some point in the future we’re overmatched and that’s — that’s not what you want us to — that’s not a place we want to be in.

FRANKLIN:

Very good. Admiral, specifically on P-8, the Neptunes, the risk informed warfighting requirement was for 138 with the 9 Congress added last year with 128, yet there’s no funding for this year. Has the assessment changed or is this an example of we don’t have enough money to do the things we think we need to do?

GILDAY:

Sir, I think the assessment has changed. We don’t think we need as many as we initially estimated. So, we’ve had some good run time in the P-8. They are heavily sought after aircraft. We’re using them — we’re using it in the Eastern Med. We use them in the high north. We’re using the Pacific with a great degree of effectiveness.

So, we know how to use the platform better than we did initially when we first procured it and so it’s led to a decrease, slight decrease, in overall numbers.

FRANKLIN:

Okay. General Berger talked about the pilot shortage and some of the things the Marines are looking at, but Admiral, from — from your perspective, what are the things we’re going to need to do. And as he had alluded to and I’ve seen in my own experience, it’s not just the pilot being produced right out of flight school.

It’s that second tour of JO with a couple of cruises under their belt, but strikingly qualified. That doesn’t happen overnight. We ran into that deficiency in the 90s with the [Inaudible] and by the late 90s you just can’t — you can’t produce them at the snap of a finger. What are we doing to ensure we don’t get there?

GILDAY:

I tell you we’re monitoring it really closely. And so, in terms of incentives to those pilots, I’ll just mention a couple. One of them is a career — career intermission break where they can go off and study if they need to or they can, they can take the time off to begin a family if they need to. We’re trying to work with them on an individual basis so that we can retain them at the same time keep their skills proficient.

They’re are also — as you would — as you would imagine, there are monetary considerations here. We do have — we do have some incentives that — that we have offered pilots. We’ve created a separate now track for a professional flight instructor. And so that avenue exists as well. And so, what we’re trying to do is in a very — in a competitive environment with respect to the commercial aviation sector, we are trying to remain competitive ourselves, competitive ourselves in terms of making naval aviation the best place to work.

FRANKLIN:

I’m glad to hear that about the professional instructor. That was an idea kicked around a long time ago and I knew a lot of people that would have loved to have stayed in the cockpit, didn’t have aspirations for [Inaudible]. That’s great to hear. And finally, Mr. Harker, this is really more just editorial for me. This is my first pass through on the budget here.

It’s not what — from a bipartisan response you’re hearing here today, it’s not enough. You’ve got professionals who we’ve entrusted to come to you with the advice of what’s needed to get the job done. But there are also military. And at the end of the day, they’re going to snap to and salute and get the job done with what you give them.

And it’s not enough. In peacetime, that’s going to lead to low morale, lack of readiness and it’s going to kill people, it’s going to kill soldiers, sailors and airmen. In a wartime footing and in the future that we’re headed towards, it’s our very national security at risk. We’ve got to do better. This is not going to be an acceptable posture going forward.

And I yield back.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Panetta is recognized for five minutes.

PANETTA:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, thank you very much for your time today as well and of course your service. I’m [Inaudible] going to focus on Mr. Harker as well in talking about the professional — naval professional development education and the funding behind it. Obviously, many of you know — well I come from the central coast of California, very proud of the Naval Postgraduate School, which has plenty of naval professional development education.

And so, it’s very important to me, it’s very important to my district and I do believe it’s very important to the United States Navy. That’s why I was pretty surprised and absolutely disappointed to see that the Navy has requested a cut of nearly $32 million in the fiscal year 2022 budget request when it comes to naval professional development education.

I just think one of the most cost effective, highest returns on investment you can get is the education of our future leaders. And so, Mr. Harker, can you describe the rationale behind this top-line cut and the programs, specifically the programs, that you feel will be impacted by this?

HARKER:

Thank you, sir. The decisions we faced on going through this budget were very challenging. We had a lot of competing demands for very limited resources as has been pointed out before and looking at making cuts to the naval education program is not something we took lightly. I’ve been out to the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey.

I — I’ve met with Admiral Rondeau, the President there, and I understand what they’re doing and I believe that they’re doing great work and it was a big challenge for us to go ahead and make those cuts. But we had to make everything balanced at the end.

PANETTA:

Well, I completely agree with you. They are doing great work and hopefully you saw that and will use that going forward to — have that same attitude going forward when it comes to the budget. How do you plan to mitigate any long-term risk of cutting these types of investments in education of our current and future leaders?

HARKER:

We have other opportunities for education. We’re trying to make sure we meet the minimums with professional military education as well as with, you know, all of the various capabilities both at NPS as well as getting people out to the Naval War College. But this was unfortunately a challenge where we had to draw back on that area.

PANETTA:

And are there any particular areas that you’re looking to eliminate, any specific educational programs you’re looking to eliminate right now?

HARKER:

No, sir. No specific programs we want to eliminate.

PANETTA:

Okay. Well, just know that obviously we out in the central coast of California, especially at the Naval Postgraduate School. And I can tell you. President Rondeau is doing one hell of a job and will continue to fight for our fair share because we know how important it is, not just to the U.S. Navy, but to our country to have the education that it has been provided and hopefully will be provided going forward.

So appreciate it and look forward to working with you. And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

SMITH:

Mr. Jackson is recognized for five minutes.

JACKSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, for holding this hearing today. I do appreciate the bipartisan leadership of this committee as we look forward to the nonpartisan topic of our national security and passing this year’s NDAA. Mr. Harker, Admiral Gilday and General Berger, thank you all for being here today as well.

Appreciate your time. The last year and a half have presented some unique set of challenges for all organizations, but the Department of the Navy is one team that had a mission that had to continue regardless of the circumstances. We faced uncertainty and unrest at home and abroad as we dealt with the pandemic.

But the Navy’s mission had to remain — had to remain undeterred. When reviewing the budget request this year, I noticed that we had decrease the number of V-22s the Department of Navy would procure relative to what last year’s future year’s defense program had laid out. Last year’s budget request showed that we were planning to procure 13 V-22s to support the Department of the Navy.

However, I’m only seeing 8 requested this year. Mr. Harker, is this a program that has seen a decrease because of the proposed overall budget decrease that is not in line with the national defense strategy? And can you tell us what has changed regarding the new request a requirement and what are the potential consequences of the reduced number of aircraft?

HARKER:

Thank you, sir. That’s a good question. I think one of the things that we haven’t really talked about is the growth in operations, maintenance cost over time. Our maintenance costs have increased by more than 2.5 percent above inflation. Our personnel costs have also increased above inflation, so that as we look at our overall budget, we had to squeeze certain things out.

The V-22 is a program that we believe in strongly and it is not something we wanted to cut, but that cut was forced upon us by the growth in the cost of ship depot maintenance as well as the other costs that are growing greater than inflation.

JACKSON:

Thank you, sir. I’ll do my part to make sure that we make up that gap because I think that’s important program. Next, I’d like to shift the remainder of my time to the nuclear triad. the Navy’s the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, which is why I’m so proud to have all of the U.S. nuclear warheads that go out to the fleet assembled at the Pantex plant in my home district of Texas 13. For decades, we have underfunded the nation — the National Nuclear Security Administration and there are too many single points of failure in the NNSA infrastructure.

I would like to hear a bit about the importance of the NNSA budget to the United States Navy. Admiral Gilday, can you highlight the importance of the NNSA budget to the Navy and can you explain the coordination between the Navy and the NNSA on the F22 budget request, particularly with respect to the W88 and the W93 programs?

What steps are being taken to ensure that these vital programs are staying on time and on budget? And what message have you received from our U.K. counterparts on the W93 and the importance of them keeping the program on time?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, thanks for the question. We are in lockstep with the NNSA and work with them very closely. Both our Office of Strategic Programs as well as nuclear reactors and what we’re trying to do with respect to the next — potentially the next generation or the update to the D-5 weapon is to make sure that we have that weapon on track and in place by about the ninth Columbia submarine.

That — right now, that’s our estimation. As you mentioned, we’re also in lockstep with the Brits. That’s a very special relationship that we share with respect to some of those systems. But I would say that we are — we’re a heavy proponent of NNSA’s budget that it remain intact, so that we can — we can feel the systems that we need to feel to conduct to — to sustain that strategic deterrent that we need.

JACKSON:

Yes, sir, thank you. Well, thank you guys. Thank you all for your responses. In my opinion, we’re losing to China in the Indo-Pacific and candidly on the global stage. I think we really have to ensure that we don’t lose focus on the threat posed by China, that we continue to invest heavily in our military so that America can remain the greatest global force for good.

I look forward to working with each of you and with my colleagues here on the committee to address these concerns so that we can provide our young men and women, the training and the resources they need to accomplish their mission. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back my time. Thank you.

SMITH:

Thank you. Mr. Horsford is recognized for five minutes.

HORSFORD:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Ranking Member as well as to our witnesses for testifying today. General Berger, I’ve been very encouraged by many of your statements [Inaudible] teams down the squad and platoon level are more lethal, effective and survivable. And while I’m confident that you share that understanding, I do remain concerned about the lack of diversity both in race and gender in the upper ranks of the Marine Corps.

And your written testimony today, you highlighted the long-term impacts of a lack of diversity in service academy nominations. [Inaudible]

ROGERS:

Mr. Horsford, you’re breaking up. Can you hear us? Mr. Horsford, can you hear us? We — we’ve completely lost you. Can — I don’t think he can hear us either. Mr. Horsford, can you hear us? We have lost all audio with Mr. Horsford. We’ll come — come back to him. Oh, there you are.

SMITH:

Yeah, sorry, my bad. Mr. Horsford, I apologize, but your audio thing is not working. We cannot hear. Doesn’t look like you can hear us either.

HORSFORD:

This is [Inaudible]

SMITH:

Yeah, Mr. Horsford, we don’t have you, so if we could suspend that in lieu, we will recognize Mr. Carl for five minutes and we’ll try to get Horsford back.

CARL:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers. Thank you, sir. I’d like to thank our witnesses for being here. Thank you for your service to this country where we’re first in all categories. We’re there for a reason and I appreciate that. Mr. Harker, you talked about our — our schools down in Mississippi.

I would add those schools are in Alabama also. Also, I know you know that. Well, we take great pride in that and I’ve spent the last 10 years helping to recruit those young folks to get in those skills. And it’s so important, we keep these shipyards moving and keep them busy. It’s easy to recruit when jobs are needed.

It’s hard to keep their attention when the jobs aren’t needed. So, I would appreciate your attention — attention towards that, but I appreciate you pointing that out because it made ten years of my life worthwhile all of a sudden when I heard you say it. So, thank you. Like many of the members on the committee here, I’m deeply concerned about the Navy shipbuilding budget for the fiscal year 2022, and I know I’m going to repeat a lot of this, Admiral.

Specifically, I would like to highlight something from the Navy’s report to Congress on the annual long range plan for construction of Navy vessels that was published in December. The report stated shipbuilding and supporting vendors base constitutes a national security and we must steadily support and grow to maintain the skillful work force.

Basically what we were talking about with the schools, this budget doesn’t request, does not come close to supporting our institute, our industry base. I’m sorry, I’m stumbling here and just ran back from another building. This is of particular concern to me on the Gulf Coast and it’s playing a role for the Navy.

Also in the December report, it emphasizes the threat posed by the ever growing Chinese Navy. So, my question to you Admiral is very simple. The December report called for 12 ships in 2022. However, this budget requires — request calls for only 8 ships of which 4 are warships. This is only serves harm to the institutional base, but also falls — fails to maintain the growth and the need for the 10 ships per year to reach the 355. What are the changes?

Why did we go from — from one number to the other here within just a few months? [Inaudible]

SMITH:

You’re drifting a little away away from the microphone there, Admiral. Sorry, we’re losing you a little bit. Go ahead. Actually, I don’t think your microphones on.

GILDAY:

Sir, did you hear my first comment?

CARL:

I did.

GILDAY:

Okay. The current direction we have is 8 ships in this — in this plan. And so, four them are combatants and four are support ships. But those support ships are ships that we can’t wait on any longer. And so the — the two salvage ships as an example which some refer to as tugboats, those are desperately needed in combat.

I was in a combat damage ship in the Gulf War that actually was towed by one of those ships out of the minefield. So, if we’re not using a salvage ship to do that job, we’re going to use another destroyer or we’re going to use the littoral combat ship. So, there is a valid requirement as you can imagine the oiler that’s on the — that’s — it’s in the shipbuilding plan.

We’re short on those in order to — to fight as a distributed force. We need that sustainability to put — to put gas in the ships out at sea. And lastly, the — that [Inaudible] ship is actually a ship with a very unique capability to do a wide area search for submarines. If I look at Russia these days, well, not so long ago, Russia only operated their submarines during a certain period of the year.

Now, they’re a pretty persistent threat against the east coast of the United States. And so those kinds of capabilities become more and more important. And as I said a few minutes ago, this is the decade that we have to move on capabilities like this and we can’t wait. So, there are tradeoffs in that — among those eight ships that we’re — that we’re requesting from the Congress to fund in this particular budget.

But I think that every single one of them serves a valid purpose.

CARL:

Okay. One more quick question for you. The Navy is making strides to meet the demands on maintenance of the fleet given the largest [Inaudible] bases that we base decisions that we’re having — I’m messing this all up and I do apologize. Has the Navy explored using more private companies versus using their own forces to repair and keep these ships maintained?

GILDAY:

Yes, sir, we absolutely are. We do all of our work on nuclear vessels.

SMITH:

I’m sorry. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I have a couple of questions. I will turn it back over. I think we have Mr. Horsford back, but we’ll get that in a second. A lot of talk about the top line and I know there’s a lot of pressure on you. I will say that this is my, I think, 25th budget. The entire time I’ve been here, there has never been a budget, there has been a time when there’s a single solitary person over at the Pentagon who didn’t want more money, okay?

I cannot recall a time whenever I came. We’re good. In fact, we can give you back 10 billion and it’s okay. There is literally no number than any President can put out there that the Pentagon wouldn’t all hustle around and say, gosh, they’re killing us, okay? So, we need to have that as a backdrop. It’s also worth noting that last year’s budget under President Trump was flat line.

It was less of an increase than this was and, you know, we didn’t hear much of hue and cry about that. So, there are a number of factors in there, but that the part that I think is important in terms of how we approach this comes from the gentleman’s comment about the NNSA and how critically underfunded the NNSA is. I’m a little bitter about that because [Inaudible] been fighting with them.

A, they still have $8 billion in un-costed balances. I want to live in a life where I have a personal budget that has something called un-costed balances. It’s pretty good life. The Pentagon has a ton of that, okay? B, there was a little thing called the [Inaudible] facility down in South Carolina that over the course of a dozen years maybe a little more, they wasted $7 billion on a project that everyone knew wasn’t going anywhere.

Now part of that, I will grant you, was Congressional pressure from certain people trying to make sure they maintain that program. We also have as was alluded to the DDG-1000 the Zumwalt that didn’t work out particularly well. We have three of them. They wound up way over budget. They don’t fit the mission for a variety of different reasons.

We have the littoral combat ship in this — in this breathless desire to get to this artificial number like having 300. We could have 355 robots, okay? It wouldn’t help us. Capability is the issue. So, there is concern and part of the reason I know that President Biden gave such a tight number is we’re tired of wasting money.

I’ve talked about the F-35 quite a bit and it’s per unit cost and all that goes into that. So, rant aside, the question is and I want to thank General Berger by the way when your comment about how you want to fund the future by — out of your own budget, basically find the savings to fund the future, okay?

And that’s not some sort of profound personal sacrifice. That’s smart, okay? Because no matter what you’re doing, there’s no doubt that there’s money in there that’s waste — that’s being wasted, that isn’t being used properly. So yes, we could just give you another $30 billion, another 40, another 50, another 100, okay?

The question is what are you doing right now that you don’t need to be doing. It’s absolutely certain that there is stuff in there and some of that I know is driven by us. The 355 ship number didn’t come from you. Came from us, not from me, but it came from — from the broader committee. So, as you’re looking at this budget and as we’re, you know, bashing away at you for everything that you’re not funding, what are you doing in your apartment right now that you look at and you go, we don’t need to do that.

We could save money on that. Open all three of you.

UNKNOWN:

He’s good.

GILDAY:

I’ll start off Aegis Ashore in places like Poland, Romania and soon to be Guam. We’ve got sailors protecting dirt. It’s not what we do and so that’s a mission. So those — that’s an expenditure for the Navy that I believe ought to be owned by another service, as an example. We’re trying to decommission those 15 ships are akin to what the General Berger’s doing, we’re trying to fund modernization from the inside [Inaudible].

SMITH:

And let me drill down on one point on that. One of those cruisers that we’re trying to decommission, it’s incredibly expensive just to keep those things afloat, right? So we — you know, we sent a cruiser out just recently as I understand it, got a little ways out and said, yeah, it’s not seaworthy, we got to send it back.

So we’re — it’s costing us money to keep trying use these things that are past their useful life.

GILDAY:

Sir, the cruisers right now in the modernization are running 175 percent to 200 percent estimated cost, hundreds of days delay. These ships are intended to have a 30-year service life, we’re out to 35. We are trying to — they’re not easy decisions to make and I accept the counterargument that we should keep these ships based on Admiral Davidson’s comments.

But at some point, we need to — we need to turn and

SMITH:

Thank you. I’ve taken more time than I should. I apologize, but for you, you get the point I want to get — get — get back to other members, but we can find savings in here and we’re not doing our job if we just come in here and say, gosh, we need more money. We all need more money. You go to HHS, you could go to Department Education.

I doubt you’d find a single person any one of those buildings who didn’t say they need more money. We got to do better than that. Mr. Johnson is recognized for five minutes.

JOHNSON:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I couldn’t find the unmute. Secretary Harker, my colleague, Steve Gleason and I remain very interested in the Navy’s plans for the Joint Reserve Base in New Orleans, specifically respect — with respect to the FA-204 to allow for and I understand the Navy is in the process of divesting the legacy Hornets currently being flown by the [Inaudible]. I understand the Navy’s in process of divesting the legacy Hornets currently being flown by the FA-204 and replacing them with the [Inaudible] aircraft, although the Navy’s been recapitalizing the 3rd fleet concerns remain that the continued use of legacy aircraft will jeopardize this mission in the long term.

So the first question is how will the Navy ensure that our reserve squadrons continue to fly and are resourced with the most capable aircraft to fulfill its mission for the long term. That’s for Mr. Harker.

HARKER:

Sir, sorry, I’m trying to understand the question. So, the F-18s, we’ve been doing a lot to increase our readiness on those and I’m not familiar with divestment of any of those that.

GILDAY:

I think he’s talking about the single the — the older Hornets is what he’s talking about. Divesting of the older Hornets, particularly due to cost to own. And so, there is a plan, sir, to — to begin to — to have our reserve squadrons transition to — to the Super Hornets.

JOHNSON:

We’re ??” obviously, our parochial concern is what the Navy’s going to do to preserve the [Inaudible] in the long term after the F-5s are no longer able to fly. Any comment on that?

GILDAY:

Sir, I’d have to get back to you with more specifics on that — on that transition plan. I’d want to do that. I don’t have those details at this time.

JOHNSON:

I’d appreciate that if we could follow up. Obviously, the folks in that area are very concerned about that. I’m also interested in the Navy’s successful implementation of key force structure changes in the coming years. And it’s my understanding Navy intends to change the fleet architecture to reflect a more distributed fleet mix that we’re talking about, a smaller proportion of larger ships and a larger proportion of smaller ships.

And that seems to make sense. It seems the Coast Guard is going to be integral to the effort and as you know the Coast Guard’s role as part of naval service is expanded over the years to support a more global presence, notably upgrading the Fifth Fleet AOR. So, do we believe the successes of the Coast Guard in the CENTCOM OAR can be carried over into the INDOPACOM AOR?

HARKER:

Yes, sir, that’s something where we’ve had a large degree of integration between the Coast Guard and the Navy, especially in the INDOPACOM AOR. There were a couple of their new Legend class national security cutters out there working with INDOPACOM over the last several years. They’ve done freedom of navigation operations and we believe that working together with them is a great value-add.

GILDAY:

Sir, could I add something on that? We just finished an exercise this week with two cutters out in the Pacific and three DDGs. They’re the newest cutters that the Coast Guard have as the Secretary mentioned a home port in Hawaii working very closely with the Coast Guard, sir.

JOHNSON:

Thank you for that. In transitioning to a force structure, a greater number of smaller sized vessels, has the Navy considered the capabilities of the Coast Guard’s Sentinel class Fast Response Cutter that could provide — could provide to the fleet and the concept of operations and associated requirements that would support acquisition of those vessels?

HARKER:

We work closely with the Coast Guard and integrating that into our joint maritime force. Both the CNO and Commandant and my predecessor and Commandant and the Coast Guard worked together to come up with the tri-maritime agreement last winter and CNO.

JOHNSON:

I got about a minute left just on that subject again. Go ahead.

GILDAY:

On that particular whole, we ended up — we ended up settling with — with a different whole form for the next frigate, but we did consider the Coast Guard — the Coast Guard cutter.

JOHNSON:

What — what smaller manned ships are being considered for potential inclusion in the fleet mix? I mean when you say a different whole? Can you get a little more detail on that?

GILDAY:

Sir, the frigate that I referred to that we’re just starting to build now. We will deliver in FY26. It’s a Constellation class frigates, sir. It’s an Italian design. So, what we’re doing this particular vessel is we’re taking a U.S ??” U.S. weapons systems and putting them on a known hull. We’ve done this before with our transition from Spruance class destroyers to Ticonderoga class cruisers.

And we’ve actually taken the weapon system on a cruisers and moved it to DDGs. And so, this is a technique that we used in the past pretty successfully and we have high hopes that the [Inaudible] is going to be a great ship.

JOHNSON:

Thank you. I’m out of time. I yield back.

SMITH:

Thank you. I am told that we have Mr. Horsford. Mr. Horsford, are you with us? Mr. Hosford, you’re recognized for five minutes.

HORSFORD:

I am. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your patience. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the ranking member and to our witnesses. General Berger, I’ve been very encouraged by many of your past statements and actions regarding the importance of diversity in the Marine Corps. I know that integrated diverse teams down the squad and platoon level are more lethal, effective, and survivable.

And while I’m confident that you share that understanding, I do remain concerned about the lack of diversity both in race and gender in the upper ranks of the Marine Corps. In your written testimony, you highlighted the long-term impacts of a lack of diversity in service academy nominations. As this is largely a Congressional issue, I’m committed to working with my colleagues and the department to address it, so we don’t continue to face the same lack of diverse talent 20 or 30 years from now.

Last September, you spoke about your concerns related to women and people of color officers opting out of consideration for command positions and the impact that has on diversity in command and senior leadership positions. So, General Berger, what have you learned since last year about the underlying causes of this issue and what steps has the Corps taken to address it?

BERGER:

One of the reasons would be intuitive that from 2004 to a decade, 12, 14 years later, [Inaudible] speed of the tempo of deployments was so high that family pressures caused people to leave, but that’s largely behind us. Some of the members of this committee know a gentleman who we’re hiring — we have hired for the past two months to look at the question that you raise.

What is it about everything from recruiting to retention to assignments that — within the military and specifically within the Marine Corps that we should look at differently? And this is Charlie Bolden. And I asked Charlie because a couple of years ago in a discussion and then last year in a deeper discussion he — he highlighted a couple of things for me in a perspective I didn’t have.

[Inaudible] for three months, he’s going to look at us from beginning from very — from the very beginning of recruiting all the way through general officer level to tell us maybe how we might do it differently. But I would agree with the CNO. Some of this is on the front end, but some of it has to do with the career paths, the management of their careers, the mentoring along the way.

The key decision points were they at a fork in the road. We have to manage that actively. It can’t be passively. But I think in another two or three weeks, Mr. Bolden from what he learned as a Marine and what he learned at NASA, I think he’s going to help the Marine Corps see this in a different light.

HORSFORD:

Thank you. Admiral Gilday, on a related note, the Department of the Navy’s Task Force One Navy released a report in January highlighting 57 recommendations to improve diversity in the force. Can you describe your progress in implementing Task Force One Navy’s recommendations? Are there any recommendations that the Navy does not intend to implement that we should be aware of?

GILDAY:

Sir, your last question, there are no recommendations that I intend — I intend to implement every single one of those 57 recommendations and we’re moving out of that. We do have — we do have a framework, what would you call the culture of excellence and one of the lines of operation in that culture of excellence is diversity, equity and inclusion.

So, the intent in the Navy is not to just leave off, put the — put the results of the task force on the shelf, but to actually hold ourselves accountable with measurable metrics against all of those recommendations. We are moving out, sir, at pace. I’m happy to have a deeper conversation with you, maybe to update you in a couple of months on where we stand.

HORSFORD:

Thank you, Admiral. And I’ll take this question offline but I did want to talk about the issue of the manpower requirements and identifying the personnel cost implications. So, I’ll submit that question and take your response offline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

UNKNOWN:

Thank you. That is all the people we have lined up. I have said my piece as a closing thing. Mr. Rogers, do you have anything for the good of the order?

ROGERS:

I do not. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SMITH:

Thank you. I want to thank all three of you. Three hours. Appreciate your stamina is the word I’m looking for and your work. It’s, you know, lot to do within — within a limited budget and I appreciate that efforts and we’ll definitely continue to work with you as we go through the rest of the process this year.

I would just close by saying we have to pass some appropriations bill. We do not want a continuing resolution. We want to get your appropriations bill as close to October 1 as possible and get you an authorizing bill within that time frame as well. And we will do our best to get there. With that, we are adjourned.

List of Panel Members and Witnesses
PANEL MEMBERS:
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WASH.), CHAIRMAN
REP. JIM LANGEVIN (D-R.I.)
REP. RICK LARSEN (D-WASH.)
REP. JIM COOPER (D-TENN.)
REP. JOE COURTNEY (D-CONN.)
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CALIF.)
REP. JACKIE SPEIER (D-CALIF.)
REP. DONALD NORCROSS (D-N.J.)
REP. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-ARIZ.)
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MASS.)
REP. SALUD CARBAJAL (D-CALIF.)
REP. ANTHONY G. BROWN (D-MD.)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CALIF.)
REP. WILLIAM KEATING (D-MASS.)
REP. FILEMON VELA (D-TEXAS)
REP. ANDY KIM (D-N.J.)
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA.)
REP. JASON CROW (D-COLO.)
REP. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MICH)
REP. MIKIE SHERRILL (D-N.J.)
REP. VERONICA ESCOBAR (D-TEXAS)
REP. JARED GOLDEN (D-MAINE)
REP. ELAINE LURIA (D-VA.)
REP. JOSEPH D. MORELLE (D-N.Y.)
REP. SARA JACOBS (D-CALIF.)
REP. KAI KAHELE (D-HAWAII)
REP. MARILYN STRICKLAND (D-WASH.)
REP. MARC VEASEY (D-TEXAS)
REP. JIMMY PANETTA (D-CALIF.)
REP. STEPHANIE MURPHY (D-FLA.)
REP. MIKE D. ROGERS (R-ALA.), RANKING MEMBER
REP. JOE WILSON (R-S.C.)
REP. MICHAEL R. TURNER (R-OHIO)
REP. DOUG LAMBORN (R-COLO.)
REP. ROB WITTMAN (R-VA.)
REP. VICKY HARTZLER (R-MO.)
REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA.)
REP. MO BROOKS (R-ALA.)
REP. SAM GRAVES (R-MO.)
REP. ELISE STEFANIK (R-N.Y.)
REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS (R-TENN.)
REP. TRENT KELLY (R-MISS.)
REP. MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WIS.)
REP. MATT GAETZ (R-FLA.)
REP. DON BACON (R-NEB.)
REP. JIM BANKS (R-IND.)
REP. LIZ CHENEY (R-WYO.)
REP. JACK BERGMAN (R-MICH)
REP. MICHAEL WALTZ (R-FLA.)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA.)
REP. MARK E. GREEN (R-TENN.)
REP. STEPHANIE BICE (R-OKLA.)
REP. SCOTT FRANKLIN (R-FLA.)
REP. LISA MCCLAIN (R-MICH)
REP. RONNY JACKSON (R-TEXAS)
REP. JERRY CARL (R-ALA.)
REP. BLAKE D. MOORE (R-UTAH)
REP. PAT FALLON (R-TEXAS)

Source: United States Navy