alright before we get started , Members
who are joining remotely must be
visible on screen for the purpose of
identity verification , establishing
and maintaining a quorum participating
in the proceedings and voting Those
members must continue to use the
software platform 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 the committee staff for
assistance . Video of members
participation will be broadcast in the
room and via the television internet
feeds member participating remotely
must seek recognition verbally and they
are asked to mute their microphones
when they're not speaking . Members who
are participating remotely are reminded
to keep the software platforms video
function on the entire time they attend
the proceeding , Members may leave and
rejoin the proceeding . If members
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 chat function to communicate
with staff regarding technical or
logistical support issues only .
Finally I have designated a committee
staff member to if necessary , mute
unrecognized members , microphone ,
cancel any inadvertent background noise
that may disrupt the proceedings . This
hearing will come to order . I would
like to begin by thanking our
distinguished panel of witnesses , we
look forward to your testimony . We
have the honorable Jill ruby
administrator of the National Nuclear
Security administration . The honorable
Deborah Rosenblum . Assistant Secretary
of Defense for nuclear chemical and
biological defense programs . The
honorable john plum , Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Space Policy ,
Vice Admiral johnny Wolfe , Director of
the U . S . Navy Strategic Systems
Programs and Lieutenant General James
Dawkins , U . S . Air Force , Deputy
Chief of Staff for Strategic deterrence
and Nuclear Integration . I would like
to ask unanimous consent that the
remainder of my statement be inserted
into the record . I request the
witnesses keep their opening remarks to
no more than five minutes and that
members respect the same time limit for
their questioning as members know we're
under some time pressure due to the
pending cascade of votes which I
understand has been delayed a little
bit . And if a miracle were to happen ,
we could actually complete the public
portion of this hearing and get to the
private session um and complete that
today . Otherwise we will have to just
do the public section today and then
try to reschedule the classified
hearing later . I now turn to my
ranking member , Mr Lamborn for any
opening remarks that he has and mr
Chairman I too will ask that my
statement be uh introduced into the
record and at that point we can go
straight into questions awesome . I
knew I liked you . Um
which witness would like to go first .
We're going to skip the statements and
just go straight to . Well I thought
that we were . Well if y'all are all
right to just go straight to questions
or do you want five minutes openings
each would you like to do if you'd like ?
We can go straight to I think we've all
been warned that you might want to go
straight to questions , but we're also
all have opening statements . So your
call , if it's okay with members
including those on video , why don't we
just go ahead and go straight to
questions . Um Thank the witnesses for
being here . You represent a tremendous
amount of accumulated knowledge and
expertise . Also a large portion of the
federal budget . And um I want to start
with you dr ruby . What can we do to
help you achieve your tasks ? Because N .
N . S . A . It's under a lot of time
pressure . You have a lot going on .
What can we do to help ? For example ,
quicken the pace of pit production ,
including getting south Carolina
started . Well , thank you
Chairman Cooper for the question . You
know , we feel that the budget we
have is nearly enough to do everything
we can imagine doing . Um and you know ,
regarding pit production , we're uh
planning to complete the the design
efforts of the 90% design of Savannah
River And the Los Alamos Production
Capabilities in 2024 . So we'll be
working on it through 2023 . Uh and we
still have an objective to get to 2030
as close to possible on the Savannah
River preproduction facility . Here's
the request though . We do have an
unfunded letter that is associated with
what we now see as real issues
arising uh in supply chain
uh For things that we need in the
Savannah River pit production facility .
So we are requesting um some additional
funds that the N . W . C . Is reviewing .
We're reviewing this week uh to allow
us to do early procurement . Uh so that
when the design is complete we can
begin construction uh and not be
interrupted .
That sounds good . I'll turn it over to
my ranking member , Mr Lamborn . If he
has questions . Thank you . I have
several administrator . I have a
another question for you . Last fall
Secretary Granholm Granholm notified
Congress that in an essay would be
unable to meet the statutory
requirement to produce no fewer than 80
plutonium pits per year by 2030 . This
notification triggered a separate legal
requirement under 50 U . S . Code 2 53
A . For the Nuclear Weapons Council to
provide Congress with a comprehensive
plan for getting the program back on
track ? However the Nuclear weapons
Council recently informed us that no
plan would be provided as a member of
the nuclear weapons council . Can you
tell us why the council has chosen not
to comply with this requirement to
provide Congress with a plan to correct
these deficiencies .
I think what we have in this question
is uh maybe a
misunderstanding . Our intent is
to as a council to make sure that we
understand what we can do With the
pits that we think are reasonable to
produce and the timeframes to produce
them . Uh and the and the statutory
requirement , as I understand it is to
say whether or not we'll produce 80
pits per year by 2030 . I don't know if
that's your question . Um But the
council I think is fully committed to
doing everything that we need to do
statutorily . Uh and if we're missing
something , um what it seems to me that
we're missing is that Since you can't
reach that goal , what are you gonna do
instead to to to make up for that a
secretary plum ? Do you do you want to
throw inside ? Yes , Congressman . So
aware of your uh the statutory request
is how would we break glass to get to
2030 and get to the deepest by 2030 .
The Nuclear Weapons Council , including
everyone here that sits in those
meetings . Uh We don't see any path to
doing that . There are places where
throwing more money at a problem just
wastes money . Um and so instead we're
looking at what's the fastest way to
get to 80 . And we are waiting for a
critical design review . I think uh
undersecretary ruby or Assistant
Secretary Rosenbloom could speak to
that . That will give us more and
better fidelity on on where to get to
next and how fast we can do it . Uh Yes .
Uh Congressman um as the Staff Director
for the Nuclear Weapons Council um I
can elaborate a little bit . Um the
there were two letters that were
combined that was sent from the N . W .
C . Chair , one that spoke to um the
pit production which you've just gone
over now in terms of not being able to
reach that by 2030 coupled with then a
discussion about the budget
certification and whether there was a
need for additional monies in order to
meet actually 2030 . Um What the
N . W . C . Is doing now is they are
working very closely between Department
of Energy as well as Department of
Defense to look at where there may be
some actions that can be taken by D . O .
E . That will bring it as close as
possible to 2030 and that work is
underway right now and will be through
the summer . Um And we're expecting to
have some initial recommendations by
early fall when it comes time to be
producing some of the guidance . Okay ,
that does help me understand better .
Although I do want to have the
comprehensive plan that is called for
under the laws that we've passed here
in this committee . Secretary
Secretary plum , I have a couple
questions on the B 83 . Uh The
rationale of this administration to
retire the B 83 gravity bomb without a
replacement capability is not clear to
me . In fact it is my understanding
that not only is there no replacement
capability but the process to identify
candidates for a replacement capability
has not even yet started . However ,
the hard and deeply buried targets set
remains a requirement for Admiral
Richard and U . S . Strategic Command .
How does administration justify
removing this capability from our
strategic arsenal which will
effectively prevent our military from
achieving its deterrence requirements .
Thank you , congressman Lamborn . So ,
uh look at this problem and there's
actually two separate problem
statements . The first question is ,
what about the B 83 . 2nd question is
hard and deeply buried targets . So let
me start with the second , hard ,
deeply buried targets are a problem .
It's a problem we're committed to
solving . Uh , and we have a study
underway I believe for that and that is
an ongoing conversation we're gonna
have to have with this committee and
within the department to figure out how
to solve it because our enemies are
digging deeper and harder separate
problem . B 83 does not solve all these
issues . Uh , those of increasingly
limited utility uh , and retiring , It
does not change the heart and deeply
buried target problem set a lot of this
conversation . I'm afraid we have to
defer to the classified session
whenever we have that . Okay , well , I
want to follow up on that part of the
issue and I want to Raise a side
issue with the B- 83 . Um , I
realize that there is a smaller target
set given advances in our defenses .
However , that target set still does
exist . And a critical part of our
deterrence posture is ensuring that our
competitors don't think that they have
an advantage based on perceived
capability gaps . So this decision
codifies a capability gap and creates
an opening for them to consider
exploiting . I don't think we should
give them an inch when it comes to our
deterrence posture . And this also
would include the administration's
decision to cancel or stop funding the
sl cm slick them in program , even
though Russia has fielded a similar
system for years . So why not develop a
replacement Plan to go after hard and
buried targets before retiring the B-
83 .
So congressman , we have a time phase
problem with the way you've just
phrased that , uh , again , the
heart and deeply buried target problems
that it's nothing we're focused on .
The B-83 doesn't give us that solution
for it may not give a complete solution ,
but it gives a partial solution more
than we have otherwise of increasingly
limited value . But right now it is a
better solution than anything else out
there on the table would in our , in
our arsenal . If the gentleman would
yield , we might be able to discuss
this more fully in closed session .
Okay , let's let's gentlemen have other
questions . That's it . Let's do that .
Mr morton . Thank you . Mr Chairman .
Thank you . I have just one question ,
but it's a philosophical question that
I think is actually important for the
american people to hear . And I would
invite any one of the five of you too
to answer it Over the next 10 years .
We're going to spend $634 billion
dollars on modernizing our nuclear
arsenal . Not building a nuclear
arsenal because we already have quite
an extensive one but simply modernizing
away to wipe out all human life on this
planet . I sit on this committee
because I understand that it's
important . But how would you explain
to your kids ? Why
we're making this kind of investment ?
Yeah . Yesterday it took me exactly 12
hours and five minutes to go . The 100
450 miles from boston to Washington .
Why ? Because our entire transportation
system breaks down due to a
thunderstorm . We're the only developed
nation in the world that doesn't have
high speed rail which would have a
train every 20 minutes . That takes
three hours to go from boston to
Washington . with $634 billion 10 years ,
You could connect every city in the
nation with 250mph trains . The point
is we're making serious tradeoffs to
invest this kind of money and our
nuclear arsenal someday . My three year
old's gonna ask why are you voting for
this , daddy ? How do you explain this
to your kids ?
Mm hmm . Can you hear me ? Is this on ?
Yes , you can . Thank you . General .
So what I would tell my Children is
that it's a dangerous world . It's
increasingly more dangerous . As we've
seen what's happened with Ukraine as we
hear about the the strategic breakout
with China . Of course North Korea and
others , those countries seem to value
nuclear weapons quite a bit . In fact ,
they've all with the exception of North
Korea . Of course China has now
developed a triad as Russia's had to
try it for years . They're not stopping
any of their work on new types of
weapons systems and what we found
through the years is the best deterrent
to prevent our a nuclear conflict from
happening is to ensure that what we
have on the United States side is safe ,
secure , modernized , incredible .
And so that's what I would , I would
tell my Children what I do tell my
Children And that if we were going to
have a triad , which is just the
administration and previous
administrations have decided that we
will and we've got to make sure
whatever we put into the field remain
safe , secure , reliable and credible .
Admiral . So I , I would
echo what General Dawkins said . And I
would also sort of point out that you
made the point , we have an extensive
triad as it is today . That is a true
statement . But if I could add on to
what General Dawkins said . But to be
credible , Safe and reliable . These
systems age out . So we're not asking
to go put exquisite new systems in
place . We're not asking to go build
two new requirements . Were just asking
to modernize what we've got today
because over the last 50 plus years it
has proven it works . But it's got to
be reliable and credible because it's
not about what we believe . It's what
it's what Russia and china believe and
the day they believe that our systems
don't work and they're not credible is
the day that they may ask , the
question is today , the day . So that's
exactly why we're asking to modernize
what we've got , not increase , not
grow numbers . It's just modernized
what we have today because we've proven
throughout time these systems perform
exactly what we want to perform . Which
is deterrence , credible deterrence
from anybody ever challenging our way
of life .
Anyone , anyone else that we can . No ,
I would just add that . Um , you know ,
and building on what has already been
said here , that the administration
took a hard look at this issue and
looked at the threat picture and where
the our adversaries are expected to be
10 , 15 years from now and felt that
that um certainly merited a decision to
fully fund the triad . And that's
what's in the President's budget .
Thank you . Mr Chairman . I yield back .
Thank you . The gentleman's time has
expired . Mr Wilson .
Thank you . Mr Chairman . And again ,
Mr Chairman , we're going to miss your
service . But we wish you well in the
future with that . Um Secretary Hubie ,
I really appreciate your service as a
former deputy general counsel myself of
D . O . E . Where I had the great
opportunity to serve with the very
legendary eric Figgy who retired last
friday . He has just been an
inspiration of service to our country
and he will be missed . Um Sir Terry
here B and your letter to the House
Armed Services Committee , you stated
that the president's budget request of
N . N . S . A . Is $500 million below
the requirements based budget submitted
by do we ? This additional funding
would allow activities to be started as
early as possible for the savannah
river plutonium processing facility and
support meeting the requirements of 80
pits per year As close to 2030 as
possible to achieve peace through
strength as a deterrence to Putin ,
Chinese Iranian and north korean
modernization . Can you break down the
$500 million figure for the NSA
unfunded priorities letter ? What is
the plan to spend and how this
additional funding will help mitigate
risk ? What are the challenges to the
current trajectory of getting to 80
pits per year ? If this funding is not
obtained ? Thank you
congressman . The uh $500 million
dollar request uh is largely to
purchase uh Equipment
that will go in the Savannah River pit
production facility and allow us to
build 80 pits per year after the
construction is complete . Uh the
what we have found in other large
construction projects , particularly
the Iranian processing facility . Uh is
that and with Covid is that there are
some pieces of nuclear qualified
equipment and glove boxes that are
taking a very long time because in part
because we're doing so much
modernization . Uh and so what we would
like to do is um is specify and
procure some equipment earlier . This
is essentially bringing up costs from
later in the program to earlier in the
program . Uh so that it will be uh we
will be able to do construction as
uninterrupted as possible .
Thank you very much . And Madam
Secretary , I'm grateful for the news
that the high winds around lost almost
national Security laboratory have
subsided , allowing firefighters to
battle back against the deadly brush
fires in the area . This underscores
the need to solidify a two state
solution for plutonium pit production
which would provide redundancy in the
event of a further unexpected events .
That could shut down this crucial part
of our nuclear deterrent strategy and
modernization efforts . What other
benefits does the two sides solution
provide that mitigates risk and
prevents delays to our crucial nuclear
modernization needs . Yeah , thank you
for that question . Uh and the we have
said all along that we believe this to
site solution does to two things . It's
the most efficient and cost effective
approach because we can take advantage
of qualified nuclear facility . That
was the shell that was already
constructed for the mixed metal oxide
facility . Uh and we and we will get
resilience . Um There are other things
uh that can , you know , any
accident , uh even if it doesn't , you
know , hurt people , We have to
investigate completely when it involves
plutonium , any security breach . Uh
There are a number of things that could
happen that could close a plutonium
facility while being investigated or
while being fixed . Uh the , but the
fires are a good example of why
resilience is so important in today's
world and um , yeah , so thank you for
that question . But we think this is
both cost effective approach uh best
utilizes talent and provides the most
resilience . Thank you for your insight .
And also I want to thank you for
highlighting the importance of cyber
security at our nuclear facilities in
your testimony . I'm grateful that the
efforts of the Istrian general Van
Mccarty of the south Carolina garden ,
change the Daniel Hyneman of the USC
akin for investing in the dream ports
facility , which will partner with
industry and defense to train the next
generation of cybersecurity experts .
What are the challenges faced by NSA
for recruiting and retaining high
performing cybersecurity professionals ?
I think the , the challenges we have
are similar to the challenges in other
areas that this is a highly paid
profession and great demand . So we
have to , I always the first thing we
have to do is get people who really
care about the mission . Uh We , we
can't forget to stress the mission .
People get to do incredible work for
the american people when they protect
our systems from cyber . Uh And
secondly we we uh we have to pay um
competitive as close to competitive um
salaries and benefits as we can at
least fair salaries uh and and benefits
uh so that we can attract these people .
So we are doing everything we can to
get people hooked on our mission as
early as possible in their um their
education uh and everything we can to
convince them to stay once they've come .
But it is a challenge the gentleman
would be by state . I'm working with
Congress and rick allen Georgia and
south Carolina time has expired . Um Mr
Morelli
thank you so much . Mr chairman . I
I just want to start by saying , my
district is home to the laboratory for
laser energetic L . L . E . At the
University of Rochester , a key part of
the n en ESAs inertial confinement
fusion program which is a critical
component of the stockpile stewardship
program that maintains a safe , secure
and effective nuclear deterrent . I'm
glad to have the opportunity to discuss
this program in the fy 23 budget .
Which leads me to my question madam
Administrator . The nn essays inertial
confinement Um fusion facilities like
the one I mentioned in my district are
the only facility is capable of
accessing and studying the high energy
density conditions responsible for 99%
of the yield of our nuclear devices ,
and as such they are a crucial
component of the science based
stockpile stewardship program that
underlies underlies our confidence in
the safety reliability and
effectiveness of our nuclear stockpile
despite the I . C . F . Programs .
Critical role in our national security
and strong support from this committee
and from the Congress . And
okay excuse me , has routinely
requested harmful cuts in the program
in the President's budget requests
including again this year . So I wonder
if you could um just described how the
proposed cuts impact our nation's high
energy density science capabilities and
and essays ability to fulfill its
stockpile stewardship mission now and
in the future .
Well thank you . As you stated . Uh
Ri CFR in our inertial
confinement fusion um program is very
important to our stockpile stewardship
program And the three facilities your
facility omega , the national ignition
facility and the Z . Machine Um all
contribute to that mission . Um our
request uh is we believe a balanced
request is the same request as in
fiscal year 22 for this for this
program and the facility . Um we do
have a lot of things on our plate . We
want to maintain the science but we
have to balance that with all the
deliverables . We have an
infrastructure modernization and and
weapon modernization . Uh So we are
fully committed to continuing to fund
um the inertial confinement fusion
program . Um The laboratory for laser
energetic and the omega facility . But
we're just doing it in a balanced
manner . Well we may
I may continue to to raise this with
you and continue to talk to committee
colleagues about that . I do want also
just if you could just further comment
on the request . Notes that the I . C .
F . Facilities are aging and will need
significant investments to sustain them .
Appoint have also raised before and
Congress has requested the N . S . A .
Provide a strategic plan for
recapitalizing upgrading and
maintaining the major I . CF .
Facilities . Can you provide a sense of
when an essay may provide that plan and
what level of resources will be needed
to meet the sustainment requirements ?
Yeah . Thank you . We do . We are we
are we are developing the 10 year um I
CF . Facility and infrastructure plan .
Uh And uh we have you know we we
are we actually with the uh the the
new um uh
we are marv Adams we are we are talking
about this every day actually . Um how
are we going to get the money to
sustain our science facilities ? Why we
need so much money to do our production
modernization program . We appreciate
being asked for a plan and we're
working on it . I'm sorry I'll have to
get back with you on a date . I I don't
have a date I can promise today . Um
And I just really quickly you
personally outlined challenges
confronting an N . S . A . Workforce
and um the need to meet mission
requirements and delivering on
objectives . We have 400 scientists ,
engineers and staff just at the L . L .
E . E . Uh And we train students in
inertial confinement fusion and high
energy density physics , we play a
critical role in attracting talent . Um
Can you talk a little bit about what
you intend to do to try to um not only
achieved um workforce needs but also
promoting the expansion of the
workforce so that it promotes racial
and economic equity within that
workforce . Absolutely . We
have we have a lot of university
programs and we're very proud of the
minority serving education programs
that we have . Uh We in fact we just
were concerned about um all elements of
our workforce from crafts and
technologists through PhD scientists
and L . E . Serves a very important
purpose for creating scientists . Uh
And we're also looking to um
And continue our Mississippi programs
are minority serving institution
partnership programs uh and and
education programs . And today we just
announced a $5 million dollar program
aimed at technology , crafts and crafts
workers . Thank you . Mr . I apologize
for going over but I yield back ,
Gentleman's time has expired , Mr
Desjarlais . I'll try to ask uh
punctual questions and hopefully get
the same answers . Miss Ruby . Last
year Congress increased the minor
construction threshold to 25 million .
How helpful was that ? Can you uh just
outline a couple of successes and how
would you benefit if if we were to do
that even more . Such as mr burden your
predecessor had asked for . Yeah . Um
thank you and thanks so much for
increasing this threshold . Um I
actually got some statistics on this .
Uh we since 20 , since since we changed
the level from 10 million to 20 million .
Um uh we have completed um uh
16 projects and have 43 new projects
underway and 10 proposed for fiscal
year 23 . Um if we raise the with the
threshold that 25 million now , um two
projects are underway and two projects
are proposed for 23 . uh I'm a big fan
of these minor construction projects
because we can streamline them .
They're much more efficient there much
faster . Uh And I think the higher
threshold is an innovative way to help
us with Office space
with with General Laboratory space um
and non nuclear construction and really
appreciate the support that's been
provided . I would love to see it go
even higher . Okay , I can probably
guess the answer to this . Just and
follow up with the inflation at 8% and
construction materials soaring 20% or
more . Would you be supportive of Peggy
in the minor construction threshold to
the inflation rate ? So you don't have
to come back every year or two to make
the same ask . I would like that . I
mean from my perspective , if we could
get it to the right level and then
incremental by inflation , that would
be perfect . Uh and I would suggest
that a level above $25 million dollars
before we start implementing for
inflation is worth a look . Okay and
General Dawkins , if you had to
describe one thing that is obstructing
your ability to to do your job
successfully , what would that be ? I I
don't know that it is obstructing our
ability to do it right now but it's
clear are consistent and stable funding
as we move forward into the nuclear
modernization bow wave it's gonna be
more more imperative that we are able
to have new starts um And with
inflation coming in as well , that's an
important piece there . Uh So basically
the less uh less crs we can have a much
better place will be particularly with
regard to Mill con on gps de mille con
or central . I'm sorry Milken is such a
big part of sentinel but again all
these programs are are coming starting
to ramp up at the same time and it's
critical we don't have any margin left
to delay programs . So I would say
consistent , stable funding with your
support . Okay thank you for your back .
Thank you gentlemen . Mr Garamendi .
A lot of questions need to be asked and
answered with regard to the sentinel .
General Dawkins , we need detailed
information . You just mentioned Milken
at the moment . It's the details needed ,
it's not available . Please provide it .
There was discussion General Dawkins ,
she said this but this goes to all of
you , you're talking about a bow wave
the last time . The bow ways was
discussed here was at least five years
ago . I have not seen any recent
updates based upon inflation and other
matters . I would like to have that .
So please if you would if not to the
committee at least to me also . MS
Herbie , what how many pits can be
produced at Los Alamos ?
Our goal is to produce 30 pits per year .
Reliably Would they be when will you
reach that production level ? 2026
2026 General Dawkins , When do you
need the 87 dash one to put on your new
sentinel ? The sentinel field will
filled with the 87-0 IOC of
2029 . Okay . Does that 87-0 need new
pits ? The 87-1 . Well we'll feel
2037 0 does not need a new pit ,
87-0 does not need not need a new pit .
The 87-1 requires the pits and we were
working with the nuclear weapons
Council and in an essay to ensure that
we don't have much time . Just just
just the answer to the question please .
So the 87-1 requires a new pit . When
do you need the 87-1 ? We are planning
to integrate it in 2030 , and how many
we integrate each year ? Beginning in
2030 for the next decade . So I don't
have that information with me . I can
certainly take that for the record and
provide that . Please do . The point
here is if you're able to produce
beginning in 26 30 per year By 2030 ,
you will have how many ? 120 in stock .
Right ? And then each year thereafter
you produce 30 You will , you repurpose
more than 30 per year in the in the
decade . 30-40 .
The answer is probably not . And
therefore why do you want to spend $500
million
87-1
pit production . MS Herbie . Your
question . Yeah . Well all the
reason that we're making new pits ,
that all the pits and the stockpile are
aging . Um , the pits in the stockpile
were last produced . Okay . Okay . So
specifically tell me which pits and
which weapons will you be needing new ?
Which weapons will you be needing new
pits and when ? Yeah . Uh , so that
that information we're still developing
as nuclear Weapons Council . But if we
sustain the stockpile for Another
30 years or more , which I , Which
kind of looks like we're doing , we
will need more pits than the 87 1 .
So the next 30 to 50 years
We're going to start . We need Savannah
River now and you need 500 million now
because you might need , you do , you
clearly do not need Savannah River to
produce the pits necessary For the 87-1 .
If there are other weapons that need
pits , please deliver that specific
information ? We will . And a
general question in the next one minute ,
what does it take for deterrence ?
What does it take for deterrence
triad ? A new sentinel
Columbia class submarines ? What does
it take ?
I have never heard a rational answer to
that question . I've heard history
Which you just gave us well for 50
years . It's worked . What does it take ?
Be happy to have a discussion later .
My time is about to expire but until we
have a clear answer to that question
And don't tell me because it worked for
the last 50 years is going to work for
the next 50 . I don't buy that a year
back . The gentleman's time has expired .
Mr Langevin , Thank you . Mr
Chairman , can you hear me okay ?
Yes . Okay . Thank you . Mr Chairman .
I want to thank our witnesses for their
testimony today . I wish I were there
in person But let me begin following on
the deterrence issue and kind of
questioning . So as we know nuclear
deterrence operations do not take place
in a vacuum . I want to know how is the
Air Force thinking about other
capabilities like cyber space uh
conventional capability center . When
it comes to integrated deterrence .
Doctor Plumber probably has questioned
the most appropriate for you .
Thank you congressman Benjamin .
So I want to be clear
uh integrated terms is very important .
It's how do we get the most out of our
capabilities and the most deterrence
function out of all ? It does not
reduce the role of nuclear weapons as
the bedrock of our deterrent function .
But when you mentioned the different
functional offices , some several of
which I have , you know , policy
responsibility for , I think they all
come into play in 21st century warfare .
As we look at uh , china on the
ascendancy as our pacing challenge the
ability to deliver effects both in
cyber and in space and using nuclear ,
our nuclear return as our kind of
bedrock uh , to to prevent a nuclear
level conflict . I think they're all
important . They all need work as you
know , from our other hearings as well .
Uh , and I believe the entire
department would agree that we are
pushing hard on all of those things .
Those are all functions that we need to
be well invested in and have the right
personnel on the right training , the
right equipment and how are we
broadcasting that to our our enemies
and adversaries so that they understand
what our posture is . Uh and let me ask
you this , how is the the Russian
Federation's invasion of Ukraine
affected your perspective on integrated
deterrents . Uh , thank you . I
would I would suggest that the answer
to those two questions is the same ,
Who are seeing a version of integrated
deterrence every day and the way uh
Russia is being bogged down in Ukraine ,
the way we've been able to raise allies
uh across NATO in support
of supplying Ukrainians with weapons
and information , the way we are using
our intelligence and our cyber and our
overhead assets for imagery uh to
declassify and release information
ahead of the Russian uh intent to
basically not allow them to weaponize
the information sphere . These are all
related . I think it's obviously early
in this approach , but so far what I
see is effectiveness and I see it's a
learning curve for the Russians ,
learning some for us . And I also
believe china is watching and getting
the message as well that you shouldn't
be messing with us . Mr B and dr palmer
returned to something else on this
perspective , cyber . Um as with
any part of our nuclear triad , we must
absolutely ensure that we have robust
cybersecurity practices in place . I
want to know , how are your
organization's ensuring that we have
cyber baked in to our nuclear
capabilities ?
Yes , sir , absolutely Cyber is
absolutely important as you know . Well ,
you know , cyberwarfare is uh is just
at its beginning and so baking in uh
robust cyber defenses , not just as a
perimeter , but in depth is absolutely
essential . And of course that extends
uh to our nuclear infrastructure , not
just the weapons themselves but our
platforms and also are , you know , N .
N . S . A . Has already spoken to that
uh it is it is part of every meeting
that I am in just add from
N . N . S . A perspective that while
we've been working on
The cyber and and and enterprise
assurance . Uh , this the 23 budget
calls that out as a separate project
activity and separate line item . So it
will be quite visible and and and
you'll see a sustained effort on our
part . Yeah , absolutely critical
going forward . Um , the last thing
I'll ask you this may have to go for
the record . Uh , Mr B uh , I'm
concerned about issues that I've heard
with respect to recruitment and
retention uh , from several nuclear
weapons labs . How are you working to
retain that ? That top talent and what
can congress do to help ? Yeah , very
briefly . First , it is a problem . Uh
second we continue to think mission is
our biggest asset , but we
are doing , we uh , we offered this
year to R . M . N . O . Contractors
amid year salary adjustment to try to
keep pace with inflation and stem
attrition . We're looking at benefits
packages and uh , we hope you will
support our efforts to stay competitive .
Very good . Thank you . Mr Chairman . I
appreciate the witness's testimony
today and I'll go back and balancing my
time . Lots of time to buy it . The
Gentleman's time has expired . Um , we
are about 25 minutes into the first
vote in a long series . So we will not
have time to move into closed session
as I had hoped unless there is an
urgent question from a member right now .
I plan on adjourning this hearing . Is
there an urgent question from many of
our colleagues ? If not , then
I want to thank the witnesses . I
regret the inconvenience . Um , I
appreciate my colleagues who showed up
for the hearing coming , and I look
forward to rescheduling the closed
session , which I've always found to be
more valuable in the public session so
hopefully we can find a time that's
convenient for everyone and hopefully
no votes will interfere in that closed
session . So I thank the witnesses .
The hearing is adjourned .