Speed to Scale: Revitalizing the Defense Industrial Base

Committee will come to order. I want to start by recognizing the tremendous dedication, professionalism and sacrifice of our service members engaged in Operation Epic Fury and those stationed around the world. I support the President's decision to carry out this operation, I believe it had to be done to protect Americans and our allies in the region. I recognize that some of my colleagues do not share that view, and we will engage, I'm sure, in a healthy debate on that issue in the days and weeks to come. In the interim, we should all work together to ensure our service members have the resources and capabilities they need to successfully carry out their missions. Toward that end, today we are meeting to examine the state of our industrial base and how we can best position it to fully support our warfighters. Peace through strength starts in our factories, our depots and our shipyards. But we lost sight of that after the Cold War. Over the last 30 years, our defense industrial base consolidated and atrophied. Skilled talent left the workforce, leaving hundreds of thousands of defense manufacturing jobs unfilled. Excessive regulation pushed small businesses, startups and private capital out of the defense business. And inconsistent demand signals discouraged prime contractors from investing in production capacity. As a result, our stockpiles of critical defense articles have fallen to dangerously low levels. And the very allies this administration is demanding step up must wait years for American weapons they need to shoulder greater responsibility. While America allowed critical manufacturing capabilities to erode, China did not. China's shipbuilding capacity dwarfs ours. They are outproducing us on ships, drones and munitions. And they have embedded themselves deep into our defense supply chains. The consequences are clear. There are growing doubts about our ability to sustain a protracted fight against China. And that's unacceptable. Last year, working closely with Mr. Duffey and the department, this committee made real progress reforming a slow, risk-averse acquisition system that contributed to the hollowing out of our defense industrial base. But acquisition reform alone is not enough. That's why this committee is making revitalizing the defense industrial base its top priority for this year's NDAA. We must invest in domestic reindustrialization and a skilled patriotic defense workforce from welders to machinists to engineers. We must provide certainty to the industrial base through expanded use of fully funded multi-year authorities. We must end our dependency on China for critical minerals and materials. We must incentivize increased production from new entrants, non-traditionals and traditionals alike. And we must implement the President's executive orders on arms exports to leverage allied purchases to support the expansion of the U.S. production capacity. Fortunately, both Congress and this administration understand the urgency of the moment. Deputy Secretary Feinberg's push to expand munitions capacity and rebuild America's arsenal of freedom is a critical step. Our committee has expanded multi-year authorities for critical munitions in the FY 26 NDAA to give industry the predictability it needs to scale production. And the President's call for $1.5 trillion defense budget is one I strongly support, makes clear we are working to back this effort with real resources. But this is a team sport. Industry must do its part by making significant investments in production capacity. Success also depends on rebuilding fragile supply chains from critical minerals to solid rocket motors. Congress made a multi-billion dollar investment through the One Big Beautiful Bill to address these choke points, and we expect close coordination on how those funds are used. In that context, I welcome the department's willingness to explore new financing tools to strengthen supply chain resilience. It's clear the status quo was not working. However, Congress needs clear answers on when equity investments are the right approach. This committee has long warned about consolidation in the solid rocket motor industrial base and bottlenecks it created for critical munitions. That's why we funded efforts to reintroduce competition into that sector. I hope to hear today specific plans for how the resources provided by Congress will be used to develop second source providers for solid rocket motors. Modern military power rests on the industrial strength of this country. It is the difference between deterring a major war and losing a war. I look forward to Mr. Duffey's perspective on how Congress and the department can work together to revitalize the defense industrial base. Thanks again to our witness for being here. And I yield to my friend, the ranking member, for any opening statement he may have.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Duffey, for being here and for your work on this problem. I think the simple answer to what we need to do is we need to innovate faster and get to scale. That's what we're trying to do. I think we've made some progress on that, both in terms of what the Pentagon is doing and what we did here in Congress. I really want to compliment and thank the Chairman for his leadership on acquisition reform that we passed last year. I think it made significant positive changes that will enable us to do both of those things. But clearly, there's a lot more work to be done. We don't have the capabilities that we would like and we're still not moving as fast as we would like. So I'm very curious to hear Mr. Duffey's thoughts on where we're at. One particularly piece of this that the administration is pursuing to some degree is the idea of us taking an equity investment stake, building up our own sovereign fund where the government gets involved in this. Very curious to see what your thoughts are on that. Obviously, more money can help, but we also don't want to discourage fair competition that encourages people to get into this space if they think the government's going to come in and just put their thumb on the scale, it could discourage some of the investment we've seen. And that's another big positive we've gotten in the last at least five or six years, we've seen individual investment in defense space that we had not seen before. A lot of small innovative startup companies in unmanned systems, in secure communications, in space, they're popping up and they're giving us some options and the ability to innovate more quickly. So that's a positive, want to keep building off of acquisition reform. I really think the workforce is crucial in terms of how we educate and train. We need to really start shifting our broad education system to a more skills-based system. The 1950s, 60s, 70s, when basically go get a four-year degree and then figure something out, that's not really the economy we have, not just in the defense area, but elsewhere. We need to create situations where we can help people get the skills development training they need early in life, late in life, whenever they need it, because that workforce is going to be crucial to meeting our industrial base needs. The other big part of this, as the Chairman alluded to, is partners and allies. I mean, things have changed, and I think we need to recognize this. In 1948, the United States of America was responsible for 90 percent of global manufacturing. That gave us an enormous advantage. Now, that happened because we had just won World War II and we'd fought it primarily on the road. The entire industrialized base of the rest of the world was blown away. That gave us a huge advantage. That's not coming back. All right, a lot of the rest of the world now has manufacturing capacity. Now, the good news is, at least for the moment, they're partners and allies in many cases. So how do we work with those partners and allies for them to help us meet our collective defense needs? We're going to really need to lean on partners and allies and make sure we have them. Also, resources do matter. This is something I've worried about in our government, state, federal level. We all have our little corner of the government. We're the Armed Services Committee, so we pay attention to what's going into defense. But we have a lot of needs in this country. And we have a $38 trillion debt. I just talked about education, workforce is important. You spend all the money on a defense budget, you don't have the money to help support an education system. We have needs in housing and healthcare. If people can't afford a place to live, they're going to struggle to go out there and build the stuff that we need built. So we have to do this within a reasonable understanding of what our available resources are, something which we seem to not want to do. And lastly, and this is more on the strategy side, this will get more into tomorrow's hearing with the Under Secretary for Policy, we can't fight everybody everywhere all at once. Yes, I have no end of problems with a whole bunch of different countries in terms of what they're doing. But the notion that somehow the U.S. is going to build a big enough military to take on every single one of our adversaries in a blunt force manner is just not going to fly. We don't have the resources to do that and the destruction and the devastation that would result is going to be harmful to all of us, certainly the United States, but others as well, which means that we're going to have to come up with a strategy that involves getting along with somebody. I mean, I'll leave it up to Mr. Colby, I suppose, to tell us who those somebodies are. But, you know, looking at a country and saying we don't like what you're doing, let's go to war, that is not a viable solution. And this committee, we can come up with, we can do the best acquisition reform the world has ever seen, we can manufacture to the maximum of our capacity, that ain't going to get us there. We have got to figure out some way to have peace somewhere in the world if we're going to be able to meet our national security needs and not be in endless conflict. And I hope we will think about that as we try to figure out what the right policies are moving forward in the national security front. I yield back. Thank you.

I thank the ranking member. I'd now like to introduce our witness. Mr. Michael Duffey is the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment. Thank you for being here and you're recognized.

Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I want to begin by recognizing the sacrifice of the American heroes who gave their lives during Operation Epic Fury. Their unwavering courage and dedication to defending our nation in the cause of freedom will not be forgotten. Their sacrifice is the foundation upon which a safer future is built. Let us honor them today not with just with our words, but by rededicating ourselves to the values they defended and strive to be worthy of their immense sacrifice with our devotion to building a joint force and industrial base that preserves American military strength. I'd also like to recognize all the service members supporting this critical operation and our national security at large. We as a nation owe them and their families immeasurable debt of gratitude. Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the state of our nation's defense industrial base and for your leadership on driving this discussion. We've made great progress as the Chairman and ranking member indicated, in large part because of the work the committee had done to support the FY 26 NDAA, the acquisition reform initiatives and the multi-year procurement authorities we have been able to act on quickly. I appreciate your focus on this critical component of our national security. The global security environment is increasingly complex and volatile. A robust, resilient and modern defense industrial base is not a luxury, it is a strategic imperative. The defense industrial base will determine whether we can deter our adversaries and if necessary, fight and win the wars of this generation and the next. Our goal is to win without fighting. An industrial base worthy of our men and women in uniform will be a critical enabler of that. While China increasingly grows its total share of global manufacturing and has developed up to 200 times our shipbuilding capacity, more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs in the defense industrial base sit open here at home. Revitalizing the defense industrial base is a generational challenge and a priority in our 2026 National Defense Strategy. At the Secretary's direction, we have put the acquisition system on a wartime footing with an urgent mandate to accept greater acquisition risk in order to reduce operational risk. Delivering an 80 percent solution on time to the battlefield is more valuable than delivering a perfect solution too late. Our plan to revitalize the DIB is captured in the first pillar of the Secretary's acquisition transformation strategy, centered on three primary initiatives for industry. First, we are sending a clear demand signal to industry. For too long, industry has navigated the uncertainty of fluctuating commitments and budgets. Thanks to this committee's support in the FY 26 NDAA, we are using multi-year procurement authority to provide stable, clear demand signal to industry to give them the confidence and stability to invest their own funds, leading to lower cost for the taxpayer and a more resilient and productive defense industrial base. Recent agreements exemplify this. Since the beginning of the year, we've announced framework agreements with Lockheed Martin to more than triple PAC-3 MSE production and quadruple THAAD production. And with RTX to expand and accelerate production of Tomahawk, AMRAAM, and the Standard Missile series. Expanding munitions production comes with a crucial need to do the same across their vast and complex supply chains. To support this, we've made a landmark $1 billion investment in L3Harris to expand domestic capacity of solid rocket motor production. Second, we are making strategic investments to modernize the DIB. Since last January, the department has invested $2.3 billion in critical minerals, an increase of 273 percent over the previous four years. For example, we leveraged the Defense Production Act to secure domestic sources for gallium, scandium, and germanium. Third, we are reducing and removing the barriers that restrict and discourage businesses, especially new entrants and small businesses, from pursuing business with the Pentagon. By streamlining the FAR and DFARS, leveraging flexible contracting mechanisms, and empowering portfolio acquisition executives and program managers to drive requirements trades, and hopefully with the help of Congress, deploy funding to the greatest point of need, we are seeking to create opportunities for those whose core competencies are creating and producing technology, not doing business with the federal government. A strong industrial base also needs to be a secure one. The department is vigilantly working to protect the DIB from adversarial capital and influence by screening investment through CFIUS to prevent undue foreign dependency. I want to close by thanking the committee for their support last year in the one big beautiful bill and the critical authorities you provided in the FY 26 NDAA. Thanks to the one big beautiful bill, the Department of War can make generational investments to expand munitions production and modernize facilities. We've designated approximately $6 billion for DPA and IBAS initiatives targeting our most acute choke points in the supply chain. And we've allocated $300 million to shore up the National Defense Stockpile with materials like cobalt and lithium. Additionally, the changes you made to the IBAS program in the NDAA has given us greater flexibility to target our investments, and we're grateful for the extension of the Defense Production Act, which allows us to continue making vital national security investments. The challenges we face are significant, but so are the opportunities. The department is on a wartime footing, moving with urgency to transform our acquisition system and revitalize our defense industrial base. We must succeed; our national security depends on it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and for your continued partnership. I look forward to taking your questions today.

Thank you, Mr. Duffey. I recognize myself first for questions. This nation prevailed in World War II and the Cold War principally because of the overwhelming might of our industrial capacity. The President's call for $1.5 trillion defense top line, and that's to get after the defense industrial base. From your perspective as the department's senior acquisition official, how critical is this increased funding in achieving that objective?

Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Funding is absolutely critical. My job I view as the defense acquisition executive is to ensure that we're getting the best value out of every dollar that the Congress appropriates, but that doesn't mean that more money is not critical to enabling us to grow the defense industrial base the way we need. It's absolutely essential. And I think that we've taken the time since the President's announcement to think through what would additional resources look like to ensure not only that we're building the joint force we need, but that we're using it to help build a defense industrial base that can support future generations as needed.

Thank you. How does the department determine when equity investment's necessary, and tell me how you deal with the possible market implications or distortion that could be caused by that?

Sure. So I think we view equity investment as an important tool amongst a range of tools that we can apply to build resilience and reduce fragility within the defense industrial base. We have all the traditional tools that Congress has allocated with grants, loans, thanks to the Office of Strategic Capital. Equity is another tool that I think we've deployed very effectively, and I think it delivers a few critical kind of additional capabilities. Number one, it creates a partnership with industry, an opportunity to not only for the government to provide the capital to lead to the kind of growth that we need, such as in the L3 deal, but it also crowds in additional private capital. Part of that deal was for L3 to put their own billions of dollars against what we saw as a very high demand for growth within the solid rocket motor industrial base. And by making that investment and attracting the additional capital from L3, we were able to create multiples of leverage of the government's investment. Secondly, I think by incentivizing or by creating a circumstance where the industry partner puts their own skin in the game, it creates better incentives for them to optimize their production capacity, which I think has been severely lacking in the defense industrial base. We haven't seen the kind of investment that we need in terms of modernizing manufacturing, developing the workforce. We believe an equity investment in some cases, in many cases, in partnership with additional private capital, creates that incentive for better attention to how those dollars are deployed to expand our industry partner's capability. And finally, I think it's a good value for the taxpayer because a grant is a sunk cost. That's been the traditional way that we have stimulated growth. With equity, there will be an exit and that funding will return to the taxpayer, to the government, and so, you know, that is inherently I think a positive for the taxpayer and the government in terms of stimulating growth while seeing a return on that investment.

We want to make sure that you not only have the resources you need, but also that red tape and regulation are not undermining the development of the DIB. Have you identified any specific regulations that are inhibiting industry's ability to surge production capacity?

Sir, I'd like to get back to you on that question. I think we're thus far we have been working through issues that I don't think require additional support given the flexibilities you've provided. I think we've gotten we've worked through I think with some very direct and frequent conversations with industry, kind of a culture shift towards a more commercial model, whether it's equity investment or I think what you saw in the RTX and Lockheed deals, thanks to being able to create a demand signal through the multi-year procurements, we were able to incentivize industry to invest their own capital to expand their production capacity, which I think is really the optimal scenario.

Well, what I'm looking for is any regulatory red tape that's a problem you identify for us so we can try to get rid of it for you.

Yes, sir.

Last NDAA, we established a new Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Armaments Cooperation. You heard the ranking member reference to the fact that we've got to get our partners in production as well. How do you plan to utilize this position toward that end?

Tremendous opportunity here, and I thank the Congress for supporting the creation of that Assistant Secretary. It coincides with a couple other initiatives within the administration. We recently the Secretary recently transferred the Defense Security Cooperation Agency and the Defense Technology Security Administration under my jurisdiction within the Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment. I think that creates a great opportunity because as we're looking to fulfill foreign military sales orders or to create a more integrated industrial base in international with international partnerships, the point of execution and the capacity of our production are key inputs to being able to define what's in the art of the possible. For us to be able to understand what is the pipeline of foreign military sales and the forecast for potential and use that in our conversations with industry to drive up productivity, I think is a very powerful tool that we look forward to utilizing.

Thank you. I recognize the ranking member.

Thank you very much. We've talked about a lot of different well, we've talked broadly about the needs in terms of we need to produce more. There's a lot of different things that we're working on, a lot of different systems. What would you identify as the top two or three priorities where we really need to dramatically increase the production of X?

Well, I think we definitely have needs to increase the production across the board, as you said. I can tell you my focus has been since I got in the job in the summer on that munitions industrial base, ensuring that we're and I think the deals have been a great step forward in that.

How many munitions are we talking about? Dozen?

So the deals that we rolled out in January would increase the production of Patriot, for example, from 650 a year to 2,000 a year, tripling the production capacity. And I think you see similar kind of multiples across the targeted munitions that we prioritized. But we're not stopping at examining those; we're looking to partner with industry across other areas. And I think, you know, F-35 parts would be another example where we need to ensure that we've got adequate both resource funding and industrial base capacity to make sure that we can supply the needed parts for the F-35.

I ask the question for the reason that we're going to have to make choices in this. And that's something we struggle to do, but we can't do everything. And I think as we move forward looking at the budget, this committee, the Pentagon, we're going to have to have a more serious conversation about what we can do and what we can't do. And towards that end, we need to look at some of the larger systems that we're talking about. I have concerns about Golden Dome, but at least most of what's going into that is stuff we're going to need one way or the other. I mean, how that works out, I don't know. But on the shipbuilding side, I just want to register my profound concerns about the $30 billion battleship that we're talking about. We have got to make choices. And it's not that I wouldn't love to have a $30 billion battleship; I'm sure that would be cool. But how does that affect our ability to buy all of these other critical munitions that we're using day in and day out? I want to see from Congress, Congress as much as it is the executive branch, us make some choices instead of just starting down a thousand different roads, and when half of them don't pan out, we've wound up wasting a whole bunch of money. Those types of choices are really going to need to be made. Last area of questions is on the procurement side. We've, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we have a lot of companies making investments in new technologies. We're doing a lot of R and D. We get a product that you want, and then it takes forever for you to buy it. And that really discourages investment. I know we made some changes last year with the acquisition reform to try to get after this problem. What would you say is the key to enabling us to make those purchasing decisions more quickly so that investors can see a return? As they say, they don't mind if the answer is no. But if the answer is yes and they still don't get the money, that's going to push them away from making the investment. Even if they win, they lose; they can't do that.

I appreciate your focus on this topic. I think every dollar spent by private industry to advance technology or to scale production that the Pentagon or the federal government does not have to spend is a dollar earned for us towards national security. And I think we need to approach this explosion of private sector investment with that in mind, that we number one, of course, the primary purpose here is to ensure that we're acquiring capability that serves the warfighter. I think that we've got tremendously innovative companies that are building those things. And so I think the second thing is we also want to make sure we don't squander this moment where we have this explosion of private investment to ensure that it's being leveraged to the benefit of the warfighter. I would say that in my exploration and discussion of where the challenges are, I think that the acquisition transformation work of empowering the portfolio acquisition executives is a step in the right direction because what we need in the system is flexibility. And I think the old system where you had rigid structures of programs that were trying to meet rigid requirements gave no flexibility within the system to say, oh, this is a great technology that we should figure out how to reconfigure our requirements or reallocate our resources so we don't have to wait for the entire two-year cycle to have the authority in the budgeting to do that.

Let me just end on that note of agreement. Programs of record, requirements, those are the things we really got to slash and go after if we're going to be able to innovate more quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson, is recognized.

Thank you very much, Chairman Mike Rogers. And indeed, Mr. Secretary, what you're doing is so important, peace through strength. And so you're on the front line. And so we appreciate your efforts. And of course, where we are today, our sympathy for Americans who have been killed by Iran. And Iran has been at war against the American people for 47 years, killing and wounding thousands of Americans. Envoy Steve Witkoff has exposed just this week that in negotiations last week that the Iranian negotiators boasted that they can produce 12 nuclear bombs. With that in mind, this is so existential for America, Israel, and our allies. And President Trump is defeating this mass murderer who chants death to America by taking the actions, particularly knowing how close they are and have been and are. With that in mind, war criminal Putin has collaborated with Iran to develop UAV drones to murder Ukrainians. And now I was really pleased to see the United States has reverse engineered these drones to go after the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which has been persecuting the people of Iran who want to be free. With that in mind, I believe that Ukraine will be victorious and America will be victorious. And it's really personal to me. I'm grateful that I've had four sons serve and face the Iranian IEDs and drones. My oldest son Alan was field artillery in Iraq, my CAB. My second son's a doctor in the Navy who served in Baghdad. My third son served in Egypt to back up our great ally Egypt, Bright Star. And my youngest son, an engineer for a year in Afghanistan. And so our family takes it very personally that indeed what President Trump is doing is protecting American families by defeating the terrorists overseas who have every intent of death to America, death to Israel. With that in mind, it's so important that we revitalize the defense industrial base through recruiting of skilled workers. With that in mind, Secretary Bridge Colby has testified that before the Senate Armed Services Committee that we need to supercharge our defense industrial base. How do you foresee and what actions have you taken to create the necessary skill force to meet defense needs? Should we be looking at foreign skilled workers to fill the gap as we expand our domestic workforce?

Well, Congressman, thank you for your family's service to the country. Had a chance to meet Alan a few years back in the Pentagon. And so that was a great pleasure. And thank you for your leadership on these issues. I think absolutely you put your finger on a key issue. The workforce is a major impediment. We have challenges in terms of maintaining competitiveness within with commercial industry and service industry when it comes to compensation. Of course, we have a more hazardous and challenging work environment for our defense industrial base because we're building things. But I think the department has taken steps with up to 50 individual, sometimes regional, sometimes national programs that are focused on how do we start, for example, back in kindergarten encouraging K through 12 students to take seriously the trades and science and engineering disciplines all the way through how can we do trades training in partnership with local universities and vocational schools to ensure that we can directly supply the needs of industry within local communities where we have workforce shortages.

And indeed, working with great allies like the Republic of Korea, the skilled workforce they have there to work together will be so positive. Additionally, you've pointed out in your written testimony that 90 percent of materials identified in shortfall have either zero or only one domestic supplier. I'm very grateful that in Aiken, South Carolina, we have a specialty glass fiber manufacturer, AGY. It's a great company employing people, creating jobs. And it's so important that we have that capability. What are you doing to address the issues that we have of one or zero suppliers?

It's a great question and a big challenge for us. First of all, I think that I'll go back to the what I think were great sort of out-of-the-gate exemplars of what we can do to stabilize the industrial base and that is those munitions deals that we rolled out in January. Because what they do is not only create stability for the prime contractors, it creates stability for the supply chain. And I think part of the reason you have such fragility in the supply chain, single source supplies, single source suppliers, is because of the fluctuation of demand, the uncertainty of will this contract go beyond the next year. By creating these long-term contracts, we've required the prime contractors to flow down that certainty of demand to all tiers of the supply chain. And we believe that will make great strides in terms of both creating ventures, new ventures so we can get competition, but also in creating stability so that existing ventures can make the investments they need to ensure that we've got supply for the foreseeable future.

Thank you very much. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Courtney, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Duffey, for your testimony here today. Again, I think your sort of inventory of different programs that the department is employing right now, like the Defense Production Act, the APEX Accelerator, Industrial Base Analysis and Sustainment, IBAS, program. Again, in my district where the Groton shipyard is, I mean, all of those agencies have really done a lot in terms of, you know, stimulating more supply chain growth and, you know, obviously, trying to get the production cadence where we all want it to be. But your testimony on page five where you, you know, again, just said that probably the most important tool is multi-year procurement because and you just sort of ended your last testimony on the fact that, you know, procurement instability, you know, has been just consistently identified within industry as the biggest sort of reason why there's hesitation for people to invest and get into the game that's there. And that's particularly true in shipbuilding because it is a long game and also because the post-Cold War experience in industry is still felt, you know, in terms of just hesitation that's out there right now. So pending before the department, speaking of multi-year procurement, is the Block 6 contract for the Virginia-class submarine program as well as multi-year for Columbia. This committee authorized those contracts in 2023. And it's very late in terms of executing the contract and it's something that people and again, I interact with them a lot, watch like a hawk in terms of so again, unlike battleships, which last one was launched in 1944, there's no question about submarines in the 21st century that's there. There was complete bipartisan consensus by and large on that point. And we've authorized it. There's been negotiated. You know, can you just enlighten us about when is this going to get done? Because frankly, that would turbocharge, you know, really the next decade of growth in that industrial base.

Yes, sir. No question about the criticality of our submarines and their strategic value to the joint force. I am aware that we are very close. And I'm also aware of the urgency to get that done. So we're working in partnership with the Navy to continue to drive that to conclusion. I will I'm sure you're already aware, but will work to keep you aware to when we think that will conclude. But I know we're actively working towards that.

Thank you. And you know, again, in terms of other interested parties in this, the president in October said full speed ahead on AUKUS. Australia has come forward and invested $2 billion in the U.S. Treasury to help with our industrial base. That Block 6 cohort of submarines is precisely the subs that really would be sort of in line in 2032, 2035, and 2038 per AUKUS that's there. So as I said, this is really something that is the next decade at least. And I know some of my friends on the other side agree 100 percent. Mr. Chairman, there's an article in the Wall Street Journal again about this submarine contract, which again I would ask be added to the record.

Without objection.

Thank you. So, you know, I was struck listening to your testimony about multi-year procurement because your predecessor William LaPlante issued a 26-page roughly document that again procurement instability was identified by the department back then as probably the biggest hindrance in terms of industrial base expansion. And again, some of the DPA stuff started in the FY24 NDAA where we actually added Australia and the UK as domestic sources to help with the industrial base that's there. So I mean there's some continuity here in a good way that clearly you get it and obviously there's a lot of support on this committee to see that happen. But again, Block 6, it's time. It's more over time in terms of getting that done. With that, I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for joining us. I want to go to the second part of your title, sustainment. We talked a lot about acquisition. Sustainment, though, is really the backbone of what we need to do to generate fighting force capability. I think you would agree that using multi-decade long efforts are what we need to do to overcome the current sustainment crisis. And that's where we are when you look at the F-35 ASBO operational availability below 50 percent. You look at Amfips ASBO 38 percent. We can spend a whole lot of money on new systems, but if you don't take care of the systems we've got, guess what, we don't have the tools necessary to fight the fight. And that's what our warfighters need. Last year in your report to Congress, I want to give you your words back to you. You said the department faces significant and systemic readiness challenges across its major weapon system portfolio. And you also said these challenges are impacting operational effectiveness and strategic deterrence. All things that in today's world are priorities. This problem is urgent. I think there are things that we have to do. There are long-term aspects of that, but also short-term aspects. I wanted to get your perspective. We did some things last year. We moved program support managers essentially to program manager status to be able to put a little more effectiveness into these programs. Give me your perspective really on two things. How are you going to prioritize O&M budgeting this year as far as the President's budget, things that come to us? And how are we going to be able to leverage modern technologies, things like artificial intelligence, digital twin technologies, additive manufacturing, especially when it comes to systems that we have to maintain, but we struggle with right to repair, we struggle with intellectual property to be able to actually do the things that we need to do because we get wrapped up over, you know, what the limitations are and how those systems were acquired. If you can give us that perspective.

Well thank you for your attention on this important matter I I agree with you the criticality of sustainment is probably undervalued 70% of the cost of average 70% of the cost of a weapon systems total cost is in the sustainment of the weapon and operational weapon system and so I do think we need to think about ensuring that we're budgeting to that and I think in the past that hasn't been the case I do think you have a good attention on that now we have regular engagement on looking at the F-35 and ensuring that we've got adequate both funding and strategy contract strategy acquisition of parts strategy defense industrial base examination where there's vulnerabilities and so I think this is again an area where it requires leadership attention I think the system is incentivized to think about procurement as acquiring new technology as you know keeping advantage and the sustainment can be neglected and we need to shift that culture

Gentleman yields back Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee Mr. DesJarlais

I thank the chairman Mr. Duffey first I want to express my support for the department's announcement that the Sentinel program will seek milestone B approval this year this program is vital for the future of our deterrent and I appreciate the work your team is doing with General White to move the program forward and I also appreciate the push you're making to increase the production of critical munitions can you talk to us about how your office is making sure that the focus on those critical munitions which are mostly tactical systems doesn't come at the expense of some of our strategic systems like the next generation interceptor Sentinel and even space launch as we saw recently with Vulcan

Well, thank you for your attention on this important matter. I agree with you the criticality of sustainment is probably undervalued. 70 percent of the cost of an average 70 percent of the cost of a weapon system's total cost is in the sustainment of the weapon and operational weapon system. And so I do think we need to think about ensuring that we're budgeting to that, and I think in the past that hasn't been the case. I do think you have good attention on that now. We have regular engagement on looking at the F-35 and ensuring that we've got adequate both funding and strategy, contract strategy, acquisition of parts strategy, defense industrial base examination where there's vulnerabilities. And so I think this is again an area where it requires leadership attention. I think the system is incentivized to think about procurement as acquiring new technology as, you know, keeping advantage and the sustainment can be neglected and we need to shift that culture.

How do you think broadening the use of modular open systems approach would help us in the process being more iterative and that is being able to update things and how do you see software as being the foundation of what happens with hardware of systems you know today in today's world we see what's happening both in Iran and in Ukraine we live in a software driven world you build the hardware around the software so give us your your thoughts on MOSA and how that is used and are there better ways for us to use iterative updates to make sure that when we're looking at sustainment we do it rather than through keep changing the hardware is through continuous software upgrades

Well it's a great and powerful I think initiative appreciate your leadership on it and the you know the acquisition transformation strategy called it out explicitly modular open systems architecture and I think we actually have a really great use case that precedes the acquisition transformation the great work General Dale White did on the F-47 to build MOSA as a primary strategy in the design of that weapon system which allows us to interchange mission systems throughout the life cycle of the program that's powerful in my mind because that creates the ability to compete below the platform level throughout the entire life cycle of the weapon and that competition I think is healthy in terms of making sure that we're not neglecting the industrial base we're not neglecting advanced capability with those mission systems within the platform and so I think you know we are really working to drive that exemplar from F-47 into other systems I was just out at Edwards Air Force Base a couple weeks ago and they were talking about the F-22 as being how are we thinking about MOSA even a legacy platform like that which I think is tremendous in terms of software the more the capability of our systems is embedded in the software the more flexible we are to sustainment or to sustain it over life I think the F-47 is another example of that a lot of the hardware in the system I think can endure while we're upgrading software and making a difference in the capability of the platform

Thank you Mr. Chairman I yield back

Thank the gentleman Chair now recognizes Mr. Norcross

Thank you Chairman and I want to go back to one of the first statements you made you mentioned 400,000 open jobs industrial base that's a scary number given what we're facing and what we've done in last years quite frankly in the last few NDAAs to take care of the acquisition reform there are a lot of things that connect many of our contractors who build our greatest platforms whether it's the F-35 what will be the 47 our ships have a common theme which happens to be the longest lead item on the sheets the human side of it the skilled people whether engineering or those who build it it's the longest lead item and you touch base on a couple innovative programs the MIR program that starts at a younger age in many ways we're fighting for that next generation of worker who unfortunately have come through a pandemic and learned they can do a lot of that from home well you can't build ships you can't build planes you can't build the next generation from home over the last few years the Department of Defense spent $6.2 billion working to attract that next generation into our armed services that's great there's many ways to serve your country and the suggestion would be to incorporate one way to serve your country is go to work for the defense industrial base we're fighting not only for that individual but more importantly you're fighting for their parents who is instilling in their next generation many of you got to go to college whether you want to or not now it's starting to change a little bit but we have to put the value that ones that go to work each and every day might put a pair of work boots on and gloves to build it so how do we attract on a national basis that we need you to help our country and you can do it more than or if you want to put in a uniform on how do you get to the nation as a whole

Well thank you for your leadership on this issue I think the very an initiative that I think there was a recognition in the leadership of the Pentagon on this problem last fall and you may have seen coverage in the last two months that the Secretary himself has gone out to visit the industrial base and companies both traditional and non-traditional to speak to the workforce and to thank them for the work they're doing to stand behind the warfighter and build the capability that he or she needs in order to make sure that we can prevail in any conflict that's been very well received across the board but I think more we also need to make the investments and make the targeted investments that not just are doing the training because we do need to do the training but I think you're hitting on how do we change the cultural attitude towards these jobs to say that this is rewarding work this is mission oriented and and we are doing a lot of thinking and and developing of programs within the department that can partner with civilian institutions and and to to help create a greater appeal to that workforce because I think we need to work on training we need to work on compensation but we also need to work on an understanding in the importance of the mission

Just as we are trying to attract that next generation to join the services we need a national program you're already spending 6.2 billion we have the ability we need a program to win the hearts and minds of that next generation because quite frankly it's not happening except in a few locations where we've targeted we need to do it on national basis with that I yield back

Sure so I think the we understand the Congress's views and agree with the fact that there's a need for second sourcing that's just a principle upon which we're building the entire defense industrial base revitalization effort is ensuring we've got competition the L3 deal was driven by the fact that we need supply now and often times unfortunately between qualification certification building a workforce building a supply chain you know we want and will continue to pursue second sources but we also want to make sure we get speed and volume and growth and the L3 deal gave us that while we continue to pursue second sources in solid rocket motor industry

Okay finally we've been trying to have a conversation with your office about the next generation operational control system or OCX so far we haven't had much luck can you help me get that on the books

That's a great question you know one of the things that we also highlighted in the acquisition transformation strategy was what we call a direct to supplier strategy so I think you're putting your finger on the fact that there's a common set of components in not just across the tactical systems but the strategic systems like solid rocket motors and then going a level down into what are the ingredients that build a solid rocket motor how can we ensure that the nation has an ample supply to support growth across all of these systems and so we're employing this direct to direct to supplier strategy so that we can engage for example the L3 deal is an example of how where we have a cross-cutting supplier that has supplying multiple systems that we're thinking not just about the prime level but about what is the adequacy of supply at the sub-tier level and where we need to as a department in partnership with industry engaging those suppliers directly

You kind of stole my second question there because I was going to say now that the department has made an investment to support the incumbent solid rocket rocket motor industry or industrial base you know what specific plans does your office have to support development and qualification of second sources for solid rocket motors for those same critical munitions so you kind of answered it but maybe you can elaborate

Yes sir I'd be glad to

Okay thank you I yield back

Gentleman from California Mr. Garamendi's recognized

Thank you Mr. Chairman and ranking member and my colleagues Secretary Duffey I appreciate your being here you got a large portfolio and a lot of work to do I'm curious

How do you think broadening the use of modular open systems approach would help us in the process being more iterative, and that is being able to update things, and how do you see software as being the foundation of what happens with hardware of systems? You know, today in today's world we see what's happening both in Iran and in Ukraine. We live in a software-driven world. You build the hardware around the software. So give us your thoughts on MOSA and how that is used and are there better ways for us to use iterative updates to make sure that when we're looking at sustainment we do it rather than through keep changing the hardwares through continuous software upgrades.

Well, it's a great and powerful I think initiative, appreciate your leadership on it and the acquisition transformation strategy called it out explicitly. Modular open systems architecture, and I think we actually have a really great use case that precedes the acquisition transformation, the great work General Dale White did on the F-47 to build MOSA as a primary strategy in the design of that weapon system, which allows us to interchange mission systems throughout the life cycle of the program. That's powerful in my mind because that creates the ability to compete below the platform level throughout the entire life cycle of the weapon. And that competition I think is healthy in terms of making sure that we're not neglecting the industrial base, we're not neglecting advanced capability with those mission systems within the platform. And so I think, you know, we are really working to drive that example from F-47 into other systems. I was just out at Edwards Air Force Base a couple weeks ago and they were talking about the F-22 as being how are we thinking about MOSA even in a legacy platform like that, which I think is tremendous. In terms of software, the more the capability of our systems is embedded in the software, the more flexible we are to sustainment over to sustain it over life. I think the F-47 is another example of that. A lot of the hardware in the system I think can endure while we're upgrading software and making a difference in the capability of the platform.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Thank the gentleman. Chair now recognizes Mr. Norcross.

Thank you, Chairman. And want to go back to one of the first statements you made. You mentioned 400,000 open jobs in the industrial base. That's a scary number given what we're facing and what we've done in last year's quite frankly in the last few NDAAs to take care of the acquisition reform. There are a lot of things that connect many of our contractors who build our greatest platforms, whether it's the F-35, what will be the 47, our ships, have a common theme, which happens to be the longest lead item on the sheets. The human side of it. The skilled people, whether engineering or those who build it. It's the longest lead item and you touch base on a couple of innovative programs, the MIR program that starts at a younger age. In many ways we're fighting for that next generation of worker who unfortunately have come through a pandemic and learned they can do a lot of that from home. Well, you can't build ships, you can't build planes, you can't build the next generation from home. Over the last few years, the Department of Defense spent $6.2 billion working to attract that next generation into our armed services. That's great. There's many ways to serve your country. And the suggestion would be to incorporate one way to serve your country is go to work for the defense industrial base. We're fighting not only for that individual, but more importantly, you're fighting for their parents who is instilling in their next generation many you got to go to college whether you want to or not. Now it's starting to change a little bit, but we have to put the value, the ones that go to work each and every day might put a pair of work boots on and gloves to build it. So how do we attract on a national basis that we need you to help our country and you can do it more than or if you want to put it in a uniform one. How do you get to the nation as a whole?

Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue. I think the very an initiative that I think there's a recognition in the leadership of the Pentagon on this problem last fall and you may have seen coverage in the last two months that the Secretary himself has gone out to visit the industrial base and companies both traditional and non-traditional to speak to the workforce and to thank them for the work they're doing to stand behind the warfighter and build the capability that he or she needs in order to make sure that we can prevail in any conflict. That's been very well received across the board. But I think we also need to make the investments and make the targeted investments that not just are doing the training because we do need to do the training. But I think you're hitting on how do we change the cultural attitude towards these jobs to say that this is rewarding work, this is mission-oriented and and we are doing a lot of thinking and and developing of programs within the department that can partner with civilian institutions and and to to help create a greater appeal to that workforce because I think we need to work on training, we need to work on compensation, but we also need to work on an understanding in the importance of the mission.

Just as we are trying to attract that next generation to join the services, we need a national program. You're already spending 6.2 billion. We have the ability, we need a program to win the hearts and minds of that next generation because quite frankly, it's not happening except in a few locations where we've targeted. We need to do it on national basis. With that I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. DesJarlais.

I thank the Chairman. Mr. Duffey, first I want to express my support for the department's announcement that the Sentinel program will seek Milestone B approval this year. This program is vital for the future of our deterrent and I appreciate the work your team is doing with General White to move the program forward and I also appreciate the push you're making to increase the production of critical munitions. Can you talk to us about how your office is making sure that the focus on those critical munitions, which are mostly tactical systems, doesn't come at the expense of some of our strategic systems like the next generation interceptor, Sentinel, and even space launch as we saw recently with Vulcan.

That's a great question. You know, one of the things that we also highlighted in the acquisition transformation strategy was what we call a direct to supplier strategy. So I think you're putting your finger on the fact that there's a common set of components in not just across the tactical systems, but the strategic systems like solid rocket motors and then going a level down into what are the ingredients that build a solid rocket motor. How can we ensure that the nation has an ample supply to support growth across all of these systems. And so we're employing this direct to direct to supplier strategy so that we can engage for example the L3 deal is an example of how where we have a cross-cutting supplier that has supplying multiple systems that we're thinking not just about the prime level, but about what is the adequacy of supply at the sub-tier level and where we need to as a department in partnership with industry engaging those suppliers directly.

You kind over stole my second question there because I was going to say now that the department has made an investment to support the incumbent solid rocket rocket motor industry or industrial base, you know, what specific plans does your office have to support development qualification of second sources for solid rocket motors for those same critical munitions so you kind answered it but maybe you can elaborate.

Sure. So I think the we understand the Congress's views and agree with the fact that there's a need for second sourcing. That's just a principle upon which we're building the entire defense industrial base revitalization effort is ensuring we've got competition. The the L3 deal was driven by the fact that we need supply now and often times unfortunately between qualification, certification, building a workforce, building a supply chain, you know, we want and will continue to pursue second sources, but we also want to make sure we get speed and volume and growth and the L3 deal gave us that while we continue to pursue second sources in solid rocket motor industry.

Okay. Finally, we've been trying to have a conversation with your office about the next generation operational control system or OCX. So far we haven't had much luck. Can you help me get that on the books?

Yes, sir, I'd be glad to.

Okay. Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member and my colleagues. Secretary Duffey, I appreciate your being here. You got a large portfolio and a lot of work to do. I'm curious, we're at war. So maybe the Department of War name is appropriate. In the preparation for this war, was there an analysis done on the rate of use of munitions of all kinds? And if so, given the current conduct of the war, which is by the President's most recent, it's going to ramp up. So how are we doing on munitions first, all of them, from defensive, air defense as well as offense? And after you've told me how we're doing, did anybody think about this before we started the war?

I have great confidence in the professional military judgment of General Kane and he stated this morning very clearly that we have adequate munitions to support future operations now and in the future. My focus has been since I got in this job to think about how to accommodate for the lack of defense industrial base this administration inherited and we have pursued that aggressively since June.

I understand and most of the questions have been asked thus far deal with the ramp up of the defense industrial base across its entirety and the sustainment of that through the next I don't know decades. But my question goes to here and now. Are you telling me that the munitions necessary to carry on the war as described by the President are sufficient and that the magazines are filled and the war was determined and set in place with full understanding of the rate of use of the munitions? So tell me that tomorrow morning I'm not going to wake up to some news report that we don't have sufficient Patriots or THAAD.

Well, sir, General Kane is running this operation.

Oh, it's his problem. Is that it?

No, it's not his problem. It's his judgment. And he expressed that very clearly this morning.

Then why did I wake up this morning to a report that we don't have sufficient Patriot missiles and THAAD missiles to protect our assets in that region?

Well, I'm not sure what source you got that from, but again, I trust the judgment and statement and clear determination of General Kane this morning. He's running the operation. I think he has the clearest sense both of the planning and the execution of that mission.

Well, that's the third time you've answered my question in the same way, so I think I better move on to another question and get a different answer. You are making, you, the department's making significant equity investments in companies to ramp up their capability to manufacture. Not a new concept. It's been around, I think, forever. How are you monitoring the use of that investment and ultimately what will the department be doing with the equity that it has acquired as a result of those investments?

Excellent question. I think first of all, each of these deals comes with clear milestones on what we expect the industry partner to make of their own investment. That was part of the deal was as we make an investment, they make a counter-investment, multiples of ours, and then we have established milestones of when those investments will be made so that we can ensure that investment is stimulating the growth that is required in the reason we entered the investment in the first place. During the course of the investment, it is we are looking this as an economic stake in the company. We are not pursuing control. We are actively trying to bifurcate the...

Excuse me, I'm just about out of time. This entire area of investment and where the money goes, how it's being used, and ultimately what the Department of Defense will do with its equity investment is of interest to me. I would appreciate a specific readout on how you're monitoring it and ultimately what the department intends to do with the equity investment. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for the time.

Gentleman's time's expired. Gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gimenez, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I heard General Kane this morning and he was very confident in the munitions that were there and he was also very confident and also stated that a lot of the defensive munitions were actually pre-staged to make sure that we protect our servicemen and women, so I'm also confident in his capability and his assessment. And so I'm good with that. And I don't care how many times you ask the question, that's just the answer. Have we ever done any analysis of the difference in cost, say for the same system, for the Chinese and us? And I would assume that it costs us more to acquire the same system than it does the Chinese because of labor costs and all that. Am I off on that or am I correct?

So I haven't done the specific analysis, but I can speak to the principles of why I think that your statement is correct. I mean, one, they employ a command and control government with civil-military fusion where they compel their entire economic enterprise to support on an as-needed basis, and so those are tools we don't want to apply. And state subsidization, I think, is another tool that they apply.

So could I, I hate to interrupt you, but I only have a certain amount of time. So do you have a roundabout figure for like for every dollar that they spend is equivalent to how many dollars that we spend?

Sir, I do know that figure. I believe I've seen that figure. I do not have that figure, but I think it's an important one to understand what is the purchasing power that they have versus we have for each.

So they spend $300 billion. What's the equivalent that of American dollars? Is that a trillion dollars America? Are they spending basically the same that we are?

I hesitate to wager a guess on it, but I think that it's probably a multiple. Yeah.

Good. I'd like to have that figure so that we know exactly because when they say they're spending $380 billion or whatever equivalent and say, oh gee, we're spending a trillion dollars, but it could be that $380 billion that they're spending is equal to our trillion dollars. The only way that I think that we're going to bring this back, balance this out, is through automation. So are we making investments in artificial intelligence and robotics so that we can manufacture at a much cheaper cost and a much more rapid pace? Are we doing that and are we leading that charge?

Well, I agree with you 100 percent. Not only to manage cost, but as Congressman Norcross mentioned, our deficiency in skill. As much as I'd like to make sure that we have the workforce by enhancing our workforce, we may also need to think about how do we decrease the demand for the workforce if we can't fill it by pursuing automation and without inhibiting our great workforce that makes sacrifice every day to build weapons for the warfighter. But yes, we're pursuing additive manufacturing, we're pursuing automation and robotics, we're pursuing the application of artificial intelligence. But I think the great news is we're seeing a lot of that invested independently of the department by private sector investors who are seeing these problems and bringing solutions to us, which is the model we want to see across the defense industrial base. So leveraging that, I think, will allow us to maintain our advantage in that strategic competition.

What are you doing in order to speed up the development and the deployment of weapon systems? I mean, some weapon systems take decades to develop and then deploy, and in today's battlefield, I don't think that's sufficient. I mean, we're going to have to adapt a heck of a lot faster as we learn on the battlefield that this system works, that system doesn't work. By the way, what's their countermeasure? How are we going to counter their countermeasure? What are you doing in order to speed up that process?

Well, I would say the acquisition transformation strategy and the leadership of the committee on driving the Speed Act into the NDAA covers a whole range of initiatives that we're pursuing, but I'll highlight a couple. Number one, in the near term, under the deputy secretary's leadership, we've created a program called the Business Operatives for National Defense. We've been able to attract talent of retired executives across commercial industry who bring tremendously valuable transferable skills, for example, automotive manufacturing, leaders of automotive manufacturing, global manufacturing operations, coming into the department and our defense industrial base partners to examine are we up to speed on the latest, most modern ways to manufacture so we can introduce automation and additive manufacturing. This is a near-term opportunity that I think we're really getting some gains on in the shipbuilding industry and the munitions industry. But there's a whole other range. I'll just touch on one more because I know we're short on time, but the ability to, I think, convert to a commercial model, both from a commercial-first standpoint where we can pursue where the commercial industry is better incentivized to have efficient means of production and bring that into the defense industrial base, and then also bringing that commercial model through the, thanks to the committee, the multi-year procurement and enabling and empowering the industry to make their own investment, put their skin in the game, and really own the efficiency of production, I think will get us great gains.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Deluzio.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Secretary Duffey, do you have the dollar value of munitions we've expended so far in this war with Iran?

I do not have that dollar value.

When do you expect you'll have that? I understand each day it's rising, but at what timeline do you expect to know that?

I don't know. I believe that the folks that are expending the munitions have the best calculus of that. I don't know when that is available.

Presumably, for folks watching at home, there is coordination with your side on the acquisition for replenishment, replacement. So is there communication across the department so that you know the needs for the branches here?

We've been working this problem set on munitions supply long before this conflict. And while it's certainly useful for folks within the department to know what that level is, my job is to maximize our production independent of our supply. And I think knowledge of our supply wouldn't make me go faster. We're going as fast as we possibly can.

Are you part of analysis or discussions about the speed at which we can replenish what is being expended right now?

Every day.

I'm not going to ask about the burn rate given our open setting here. I think we need to understand in a more classified setting what that burn rate is, but is that analysis being done, has it been done?

Well, we are driven by maximizing the production capacity of our defense industrial base independent of expenditure rate. We were focused on maximizing our production rate a week ago, six months ago. And so that is the crux of our conversation to say how could we maximize the defense industrial base's ability to produce a full range of weapons and what are the tools we need to put in place to empower them to do that.

I'll ask a very specific question, and I understand your part of this is the acquisition, but is there analysis being done about the pace of our ability to replenish what's being expended? I don't want the details in this setting. I'm asking if that analysis is being done.

I know what I focus on every day, which is how do I get the accelerator to the floor on our defense industrial base's ability to produce these and acquire them. And that's what's driving the conversation right now is how do we get the growth that we need out of the defense industrial base to ensure that we're prepared for the fight of the future.

So I want to ask about the three F-15E variants as I understand we lost $90, $100 million price tag, is that generally about right for each of those?

I don't know offhand, but that sounds approximately correct.

Okay. It's not a trap, I'm just curious. Assuming F-15EX is the variant that we would replace those, what kind of timeline, production timeline do we have to produce new aircraft there?

I think that we're producing at about a rate of 20 a year. I'd have to come back to you to get that precisely, but that is approximately the rate at which we're purchasing those right now.

So I want to build off Mr. Gimenez's question and by the way, that figure that he asked for, I'd also like to know that figure. I think it's important for us in the committee to understand it. How fast are the Chinese building their top strike fighter aircraft?

I do not know the answer to that question, I'd be happy to get it for you. It is an important factor.

And look, they're different platforms, we have different capabilities. I'm not saying they're the same, but if they're cranking out 10 for every one we're cranking out, that matters. And that's something we need to understand in this committee.

I agree.

Okay. Thank you. Last piece in the little bit of time I have, you mentioned it on pushing the defense industrial base as fast as possible on munitions and that certainly predates this war and our concerns in this committee. The industrial base has gone, it's been too slow, it's heavily consolidated. I think there's bipartisan concern here. What more authorities or tools do you need from us to get our defense industrial base doing what they need to do for our military?

Well, I appreciate the question. I think the way I'd answer it is we have, since the Secretary's speech in November and the passage of the NDAA, I've got a team of hundreds of folks within the department across the military departments and within my office who are aggressively pushing forward to implement as many of these initiatives as we can. My expectation is as we get to a place where we're encountering obstacles that we have not yet encountered, we're sort of keeping notes on that so we can come back to the committee and say this additional authority would be helpful. I don't have that today, but we are keeping...

Understood. And look, I'll make the point that I think Mr. Gimenez's ratio gets to, if we're spending five, six, seven, whatever the number times as much, that's not delivering the kind of value to the American people that we need and so that is a big part of this concern, certainly where I sit. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Secretary Duffey, thank you for being here today. The authorities that you enjoy from the executive branch are vast. And Congress has empowered you as such and we've authorized and funded a tremendous amount of reform regarding purchasing and acquisition and actual fabrication of our warfighting machines, the mechanisms of war that our warfighters require and that indeed world peace requires because we have a responsibility to project force across the world in areas of the world that are threatened by war whereby we can quell existing threat or extinguish active threat. So we have a hell of a responsibility as a nation and we believe as a Congress, as a Republican majority Congress, we believe we have empowered you. And I don't think there's any new legal authority or legislative writ that's required to pass through this body in order for you guys to get the job done. And I hope you have your foot on the gas regarding procurement, contract and streamline and actually getting the mechanisms of war manufactured. Under 10 U.S. Code 4811, the Secretary of Defense is required to develop a national security strategy for the national technology and industrial base based on prioritized assessment of risks and challenges to the defense supply chain and under the Defense Production Act of 1950, which was reauthorized in 2018, the President has the authority, a number of authorities to influence domestic industry in the interest of national defense. So there's a broad spectrum of authorities that you enjoy. Now the maritime industrial base, which I'm going to focus on here and ask you a question about, the maritime industrial base, good sir, does not fail because of lack of capability. These guys have been performing for 200 years, man. Some of their companies go back three, four generations. They fail or risk failure because of instability. Most of that instability is a result of the kind of things we're asking you and your people to fix. So in South Louisiana it's true, but across the country it's true as well. Small and mid-sized shipyards, they can hire and train and invest, but they cannot survive repeated stop and start cycles caused by continuing resolutions out of this body, delayed awards, shifting procurement profiles, etc. Because when production breaks down, when it stops, those smaller maritime industries and shipyards, they lose their skilled workers, the suppliers shut down and ultimately costs go up, so it breaks everything down. So I'm going to ask you, beyond multi-year procurement for major munitions programs, what concrete reforms is the department implementing to prevent production gaps in smaller programs?

You know, I struggle to find another tool that is as effective as the multi-year procurement because in our conversations with industry, and I'll just munitions happens to be the use case that we got after immediately as soon as I was confirmed from the top down, President, Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, all committed to growing the industrial base for munitions. And we brought industry together and we said tell us the barriers to your stability, your resilience, your speed, and we did get a lot of regulatory...

Not to interrupt, but as it relates to shipbuilding and you stated you don't see it's difficult to see another tool that's more effective than long-term contracts. I concur, that's a significant factor. Would you and your staff be receptive to my office communicating with you, good sir, regarding some other mechanisms that we believe based upon our conversations with the industry would effectively work and that you have the legal authority to implement? Would you receive that?

Very welcome that, yes.

My man's in the room, so he's going to find your man. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield.

Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Jacobs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duffey, this hearing is about revitalizing the defense industrial base, getting innovative American companies to build for the warfighter faster, right?

That's correct.

So I want to understand how blacklisting one of the most capable American AI companies advances that goal. Last July, Anthropic signed a $200 million contract with the Pentagon and became the first frontier AI company to deploy on classified military networks and by all accounts warfighters love it. Gregory Allen at CSIS said publicly that DOD users love Claude and that its usage restrictions have never been triggered on a single government mission. The contract included two restrictions. One, that Claude could not be used for mass domestic surveillance of Americans and two, that Claude could not be used in fully autonomous weapons. The Trump administration reviewed those terms and in July 2025 accepted them. Then Secretary Hegseth demanded that Anthropic drop those provisions entirely. Anthropic refused and on February 27th, the President ordered all agencies to stop using Anthropic and Secretary Hegseth designated the company a supply chain risk, a tool Congress designed to protect against foreign adversaries who might sabotage or subvert defense systems. Mr. Duffey, as the Under Secretary responsible for acquisition sustainment and the health of the defense supply chain, 10 USC 3252 is an acquisition statute, DFARS is your responsibility and industrial base policy is your portfolio. Were you consulted before this designation was made?

I was.

Okay. And what was your recommendation?

Well, I think, you know, the beauty of the innovative economy that we have is we have competition and since this designation we've seen competitive AI companies come to the table that are not willing to make demands on the department's use of the service they provide, which is critical for our ability to have the flexibility to employ the services and technologies in defense of the nation and the warfighter.

So Mr. Duffey, I hear you, except that almost every contract we have comes with these kinds of stipulations. So for instance, defense contracts routinely contain privately imposed operational restrictions. Starlink restricts which countries can use its terminals for instance. Fighter jets come with certification limits. IP clauses let contractors prevent resale of their technology. Contractual limitations on military use of technology are not unusual, they are the norm in defense procurement and if the department objected to Anthropic's terms, it had straightforward options. Cancel the contract, issue new DFARS guidance, write a clause requiring subcontractors to waive such terms within a set period. Did your office evaluate any of those less restrictive alternatives before the designation was announced?

The nature of artificial intelligence introduces specific and very great vulnerabilities and the need for continued updates from the company introduces those vulnerabilities such that if we cannot have a trusted relationship with the vendor that's continually providing those services, they introduce unnecessary risk into our acquisition process and the President and the Secretary declared that very clearly.

Mr. Duffey, the citing, making a company considered a supply chain risk was literally something Congress designated for things like Huawei and Kaspersky, not American companies that you just might have a disagreement with. Here's the part that should concern all of us. Hours after Anthropic was blacklisted, OpenAI announced it had secured a classified Pentagon deal with the same two red lines, no mass surveillance and no autonomous weapons. OpenAI CEO admitted the deal looked opportunistic and sloppy and has since renegotiated it twice and even OpenAI publicly said Anthropic should not be designated a supply chain risk. So can you explain to this committee how the Pentagon blacklisted one American company for insisting on restrictions and then accepted from a competitor the exact same restrictions that same evening?

OpenAI's opinion on the department's determination is interesting but not relevant. We've made a judgment based on our engagement with the company over time and their clear lack of willingness to provide the flexibility that we require in order to employ these very sensitive capabilities in defense of our warfighter. We will not be held hostage to the whims of a company's policy when it comes to life and death of our warfighters.

Mr. Duffey, I think every American probably agrees that we do not want the Department of Defense doing mass surveillance of Americans, nor do we want weapons that can go off by themselves without humans in control, which is why we've passed such stipulations in previous NDAAs and with respect, if two vendors offer functionally identical terms and one gets a contract while the other gets treated like Huawei, that's not a procurement decision, that's retaliation and retaliation through acquisition authorities is the exact kind of abuse Congress should be concerned about and that we should work to prevent. I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Gentlelady yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Under Secretary Duffey. I appreciate you being here today, and first I'd like to thank you and your staff's engagement with me on the Prometheus Energetics project located outside of Crane in my district. The Prometheus project is increasing the production rate of solid rocket motors, and this need has been made crystal clear by the military actions being undertaken in the Middle East. I look forward to continuing work with you and your staff on supporting this project and guaranteeing the timeline for Prometheus to start production in 2027. On the topic of munitions, the defense industrial base, how could the department better utilize its authorities already granted to the department like the IBAS fund to combat single point failure in supply chain, in defense supply chains?

I'm sorry, Congressman, could I ask you to repeat your question?

How could programs like the defense industrial base fund be used to combat single point failures of supply chain?

Yeah, thank you for the question. I mean, this is fundamental. Unfortunately, the nature of a lot of our goods and services procured are bespoke for the Defense Department, meaning we're the only customer. And that, I think, discourages the kind of investment and resilience that we see in our commercial industrial base. The generosity of the committee in providing for the Industrial Base Assessment and Sustainment fund provides the tools that we need in order to ensure that we're investing where there's fragility in the industrial base. However, that's not our preference. I think our preference, which you'll see both from the leadership of the committee in introducing acquisition transformation initiatives in the NDAA and then the Secretary's rollout, is to prefer commercial. Because with a broader customer base, I think you get the resilience of investment, you get the resilience of multiple suppliers, and that can only benefit the defense industrial base and our ability to procure the equipment that we need.

Okay. I would also recommend looking at the IBAS's new authority to procure, install equipment owned by the federal government in private industrial factories if such action supports the defense interest of the United States. And when the Pentagon is the only customer, sometimes that's a pretty good tool.

Yes, sir.

Is the color of money restriction still slowing down industrial scaling, and what more flexible funding categories would materially improve that speed?

Yes, sir, thank you for that question. We have spent, I think the department's been an advocate for greater flexibility in the allocation of funding since the PPBE Commission back in 2023. We continue to embrace that as a priority. And I think that, especially with this new acquisition construct and the portfolio acquisition executives where we're trying to empower those acquisition executives to have the team under their command to drive towards schedule and capability as the single priority, having the flexibility to trade requirements, which I think we have the authority to do and we've introduced with the capability trade councils within the system so that they can prioritize schedule, but then also the flexibility to move funding. I mean, the reality of our current environment is commercial technology emerges at a pace that's much faster than our budget cycles. And if we don't have the flexibility to reallocate funding so that we can take advantage of that technology and pivot, I think really inhibits our ability to make sure we're maintaining pace with our adversaries.

Okay, thank you. Would software acquisition be improved by allowing software to be funded by colorless money?

So I know that we do have some flexibility. I'm not sure we're fully leveraging when it comes to the software acquisition pathway, the flexibility of funding. Is that what you're referring to, sir? Yeah. I think, you know, those are, I think those are purely for software programs, which are very much appreciated and probably do require a level of flexibility beyond what hardware programs provide. But I do think that can be a model potentially for, within understandable and agreed upon restrictions, how could we create some flexibility across all platforms.

What percentage of critical minerals and energetics still originate from our adversaries or non-allied sources?

Sir, I'm not sure I've got the specific figures. I'm sure I can get back to you with that, but it is a concerning amount. We have made strides in the last year to make investments in a number of areas. Our team has done tremendous work to assess across several critical minerals and across the what we call the value stream of those critical minerals from mining to processing to magnets to ensure that we're bringing the domestic capability to do each step of that and increase our own self-reliance on those absolutely important raw materials.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you.

Chair now recognizes gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Elfreth.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Secretary. We've talked about munitions production being a priority. I appreciate that in the systemic but also the very urgent needs to meet those operational demands we have at this moment. The challenges, of course, and the opportunities lie both in the private industry but also in domestic government facilities that produce energetics and munitions that are critical to warfighting. I'm thinking of Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head down the street in Maryland and its energetic comprehensive modernization plan that includes some much needed MILCON dollars for a new contained burn facility and a new larger mixer. Those are kind of the perfect, in my view, investments that we should be making to make sure we have private and government facilities meeting the moment here. And of course, Indian Head is unique for its ability to provide kind of full spectrum RDT&E to this challenge. Can you please speak to the department's plan to provide continued robust and sustainable funding to support the concentration of energetic production capacity at facilities like Indian Head, but there are others across the country? And then I have a quick follow-up to that.

Congresswoman, thank you. I can't speak to specific Indian Head initiatives, but I would be happy to in a follow-up if that's helpful. But I can speak to I think what we see as a tremendous asset for the department in the organic industrial base. And you know, we recently had an investment that Hanwha announced at Pine Bluff in Arkansas. I think being able to leverage the government facilities that we have, the workforce that we have, the institutional knowledge they bring on handling energetics and other capabilities that are challenging to get growth in the industrial base is really an opportunity. And we see investment from private sector to enhance these facilities. Private sector brings in their expertise that I think the organic industrial base can benefit from. And so we're aggressively pursuing these partnerships because I think it's a win-win for all parties if we can find the right partnerships.

And I think the key to this is going to be a sustainable plan. So when we see these ebbs and flows of demand, that we're also having a sustainable supply side to this. And part of that is I would be remiss if I didn't mention the hundreds of thousands of federal civil servants in Maryland, many civilian DOD folks who work at Indian Head who are experts in their field in this, and we can't lose that talent from this space. Thank you. So I look forward to working with you if I can follow up with your team on those investments. I want to follow up moving to similar issue of skilled workforce, Mr. Norcross's questions around a resilient industrial base includes and really relies on thoughtful and strategic planning for producing welders, pipefitters, other skilled trades as we, I think, have a great bipartisan agreement in the need to invest in shipbuilding. When can we as this committee expect a workforce development roadmap identifying projected labor gaps in shipbuilding and other critical sectors and how your office plans on addressing that? And similarly, what you need from this committee to meet that.

Well, thank you for your leadership on this issue. I will consult my team and come back to you with our current work on that and what we see in the future as terms of requests or plans going forward.

I think it's important because we have the best relationships with our community colleges, with our technical schools. We want to be helpful in building out again this sustainable pipeline of talent to meet this moment. I'm going to quickly move to some foreign dependency and some of our reliance on our allies. I had the opportunity to visit with our NATO allies in Sweden and Finland with Congressman Bergman last month, meeting with large and small industry. I'm very interested in your thoughts around co-production. We do a lot of things well in the United States. There are some exquisite capabilities our allies do better than we do. Can you give me your thoughts around what are the opportunities to expand co-production and kind of further cement those allyships that are important not just to national security but frankly our economy?

I think co-production is an important tool. I do think we make the best weapons and the President has been very forward-leaning in terms of exporting those weapons. I recently inherited the foreign military sales mission within my office, which I think is a great initiative by the Secretary to bring our production capacity to support our needs and our partners and allies' needs together. But we will probably also, and you mentioned in some cases there's exquisite capability that our allies deliver that we don't. And so I think it'll be important to kind of create an integrated industrial base to think through where we can leverage those to support our own operational readiness and create interoperability with our partners.

I'm out of time. I'd love to follow up with you on this and hear your plan to this committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlelady yields. Gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McGuire, is recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary and your team and all of our military folks here for all you're doing to support our warfighters. We wouldn't have a country without our brave men and women. And right now as a country, we need to be united in supporting them and their effort and what they need to get the job done. I'm familiar with the recent investments the department has made in solid rocket motors. However, what are your plans to expand capacity and resilience through both funding and diversification in new entrants to the market?

Well, we're thankful that we have several performers that have emerged that are privately funded that are interested in getting into the solid rocket motor space. And so we're partnering with them to pursue at current stage, many of them are not yet qualified or certified, which with the volatility of that component of the weapon system, we need to make sure that we've got all of the quality assurance done to bring that component into the supply chain. And we are pursuing opportunities with multiple vendors to make sure we can help them get across that finish line.

Mr. Secretary, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene is foundational to the production of hard and soft armor across the joint force. We understand it is not a munition or a critical mineral, but it is certainly a strategic material as it offers protection to every service member in harm's way both domestically and internationally. With only two domestic manufacturers, how is the department addressing the vulnerability of this single point of failure in the supply chains for ballistic protection?

Sir, if I could, I'd like to consult my team and get back to you with the specifics on that. We do have a robust team of analysts who understand this at depth, and I'm sure that I can come back to you with that answer.

Yes, sir. Secretary Duffey, I was excited to see in your testimony that you highlighted the Accelerated Training in Defense Manufacturing, ATDM, in Danville, Virginia. That's in my district. You also mentioned the department's enthusiasm in the Civil Reserve Manufacturing Network, CRMN. As the department works to bring the CRMN online, has the department considered in which of the program could be complemented with regional training centers such as ATDM to ensure the availability of a skilled and ready workforce?

I'm sorry, sir, can I ask you to repeat the last part of your question there?

Sure. So as the department works to bring the CRMN online, has the department considered which program could be complemented with regional training centers such as ATDM to ensure the availability of a skilled and ready workforce?

Sir, if I could, I'd like to come back to you on that one as well.

That sounds good. Thank you. All right, and follow up, given the success of programs like ATDM, how does the department and specifically IBAS plan to transition them from annual pilot-style ads into a stable, accountable program with standard funding under the Department of the Navy?

Well, I think that relies on our ability to create the partnership with the service and the industry to understand how to pass it off. That's certainly our goal, right? The IBAS program is intended to make investments that we can transition to the services, especially around workforce development. And so where we have specific plans on that, I would also follow up with you.

That sounds great. You know, I heard you talk about the working family tax cut, the one big beautiful bill and how it helped you. And of course, we had a close to a $900 billion NDAA we just passed. We're working on 27 now. What are some things that we can do as a committee to help support your efforts?

Well, I appreciate the question and the leadership on driving the industrial base. As I mentioned, I think we're really in the heart of sorting through and implementing the great authorizations you've already provided. But while we're doing that, we're keeping tabs on where could we use additional help. And I think at some point in the near future, we'd be able to bring that back to you to talk through if we can get additional resources or flexibility.

There's a advanced, I guess you would call it additive manufacturing company in Los Angeles called Divergent. How are companies like that going to be game changers for what you're doing?

I've had the pleasure of visiting Divergent with the Secretary of War recently, and it is amazing what kind of technology they've been able to produce to create opportunities for additive manufacturing. I think one of the things that we're working very hard to accomplish in order to enable companies like Divergent is changing the culture within the department to be opening to accepting these new technologies. Is additive manufacturing trusted within the engineering workforce within the government, and how can we build that confidence that a new emerging technology like this that offers tremendous benefit in terms of schedule gain and efficiency also fulfills the mission and the quality assurance that we need in order to provide secure, capable weapons to our warfighter? And so we've got a team that's working that very hard right now.

Thank you.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from California, Mr. Whitesides.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, sir, for appearing before us and for your service to the country. We appreciate you. My background's in aerospace. I ran Virgin Galactic and was Chief of Staff at NASA, so I have a bit of experience in terms of how do we move from a small company up to sort of a mid-sized company. I got a bunch of stuff to cover, so I'll be relatively quickly. I'm proud to represent Palmdale's Plant 42, Skunk Works. First, let's hit B-21, the requisite B-21 question. I think we got a program there that's operating roughly on budget, on schedule. I think it'd be great to formalize higher production goals if we can soon. Can you give us any update on how that's going?

Well, first of all, I had a chance to visit your district a couple weeks ago, went to Edwards and Palmdale, and very impressive operations they have there. Got a great report from the Edwards team on the performance of the aircraft, which is phenomenal. We are working to work through what the future potential production rates could be. I can assure you there's a lot of attention on that.

Thank you, sir. Okay, just one small point on that. One of the challenges at Plant 42 is we're getting so many people there that we have big traffic jams outside. And it's actually a big issue, it's a safety issue. And so maybe we can get a little help from your department to just, we want to make sure that the thousands of folks who are helping us to achieve this super important strategic goal get there safely. And so maybe we could talk to your folks about that. Sort of a minor problem, but we got to make sure that the workforce is safe and secure as they get around to things. Great to work with you on that. In terms of early-stage companies, this is more a comment, I know you're working on it. Getting through the valley of death is absolutely crucial. You know you can get your early STTRs and SBIRs, but then getting through that is really important. So I hope you're working on that because you get to the other side and there might not be money for a few years and you might die in the middle. And so we're losing out potentially on innovation there in the middle. I'm just going to leave that, keep working on that. And then similarly for mid-tier companies, they don't necessarily want an equity investment. Maybe they're doing okay, they're positive cash flow, but you know, a government-backed loan or something could enable them to expand production capacity quickly to enable us to reach our goal. So I would encourage you to think about those things, you know, sort of essentially stage-specific help, early, mid. You know, what does each stage need and be in constant communication with those folks, as I'm sure you are, because that's kind of what we need to be agile and grow those different pieces of things. Do you have any quick comments on that?

I think valley of death is something we definitely need to overcome. I think how do we introduce flexibility in the acquisition system? We're starting to see uptake on interest in, for example, unmanned ships in the Navy. And how do we, I think my opinion is the barrier has been the rigidity of the structure of our programs where there's really not a champion if you don't have a requirements and a program. And so, you know, I think recently the Navy created the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Unmanned Ships. That becomes a champion within the infrastructure that can help overcome some of the barriers, and we need to create more of that.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea actually. So I'd encourage you to do that. Last point I just wanted to make is, look, I think you're a pretty pragmatic guy. I think what's been happening with the Anthropic OpenAI stuff is just a shame. Like we shouldn't have gotten to that point in my opinion. We have a supplier who is basically all over the military now and has been helpful, you know, and to get to a place where we have this fight out in the open, I think has been mismanaged. And I would, first of all, like I don't even understand labeling them a supply chain risk. But the more important point I want to make is I think it discourages innovative companies from wanting to work with the Department of Defense. And so I think we all need to work together as we navigate through these new technologies that are going to be coming forward, being flexible and appropriate as they're going to have their views and having these discussions in an adult way rather than having them pop out into the public. I think is just, it doesn't help us bring innovative stuff to the table. So I don't know if you have any comments on that, but it's just more sort of, I'm trying to be an adult on this stuff and avoid the politics. That was an example where I don't think the conversation or the end point was conducive to advancing innovation in our national security.

I agree with you that we need adult conversations. In this case, it was the vendor that brought it into the public, and I think that exacerbated the problem.

Okay, hopefully we can all do better going forward. Thanks for your time, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Georgia, Dr. McCormick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome, thanks for being with us today. We have a lot of highlighted technologies right now in play with drones and counter-drone technologies. The Secretary Rubio just said that one of the big problems we had, we were being outproduced basically 100 for every 100 drones that they were producing, we were producing about six to seven anti-drone missiles, which is obviously going to put us way behind. And we're going to continue to face that. I mean, Russia's doing the same thing, China's doing the same thing. I'm sure North Korea would love to do the same thing. These are the adversaries we have to face down. One of the bottlenecks I've noticed in my district, which we produce a lot of this kind of technology, is FAA regulation, being able to test this stuff. The military's application to the industry and actually producing in high volume these technologies. What are we doing to deconflict that regulation, that barrier that keeps us competitive, that keeps us at pace to develop new technologies?

So we do have a regular dialogue with FAA and we've stood up the drone dominance initiative, which is led by Owen West, recently announced director of the Defense Innovation Unit, in an attempt to invest the generous allocation of the Congress of $2 billion in the one big beautiful bill to allow us to build out that domestic industrial base so that we've got the suppliers, the competitiveness and the suppliers within the industry. But I do appreciate and agree with you, we need to ensure that we're representing those perspectives in the regulatory discussion, and so we're in contact with FAA to do so.

Okay, what do you think about the Joint Interagency Task Force 41's performance so far? How could we do better?

Yeah, I think I came on just as they were formulating. I think it's an important initiative. It gives us a single point of contact within the department to represent the commonality of our counter-UAS efforts being led by tremendous leader Brigadier General Ross, who is looking for where can we make procurements that are common across all services while respecting where there's unique service needs to acquire counter-UAS within each additional service. And so I think it's kind of an optimal hybrid model for our counter-UAS acquisition.

Okay, final question because I know we got about two and a half minutes left, but I'm going to focus on our shipbuilding, which I think is one of the things that are hamstringing us right now. I'm a Marine, we don't have enough amphibians, but we're way behind in all shipbuilding. I think our best contract's what, six months behind, 150 percent over budget? That's a significant problem. Just got back from Korea and the Far East, and if you look at all those shipbuilders, whether it be Japan, Korea, China, the Philippines, Cambodia, Thailand, they're kicking our butts. I mean, it's not even close. We should be leading the way, but we are so far behind. The Chairman mentioned this in his opening remarks, that this is one of the things that really concerns us. That is our bread and butter, especially in the INDOPACOM region, which is 70 percent of the world's trade, 70 percent of the world's population, 70 percent of the world's might. This is a significant problem, but we seem like we keep on sticking to the antiquated system that keeps us way behind. You go to Korea, they deliver ahead of time, on budget. We can't even, that's a joke to us. What are we doing to address that problem?

Yeah, it is a big problem. I think we're, I think number one, at a tactical level, the department is, I mentioned earlier, the business operators for national defense where we're bringing in production and industrial engineering experts who have proven records in other industries to come in, bring a fresh set of eyes to the shipyards. The companies have been very open about receiving these experts and allowing them to integrate into their operations, and we're seeing opportunities, some significant opportunities for production gains. I think, you know, we haven't made the investment, I haven't studied the history of the Korean shipbuilding industry, I know they're tremendous, I think they've made significant investment. I think we don't have the competition that I think we generally benefit from in other industries, and so that's, and I'm not sure that that's a near-term opportunity for us to fix. But I think if we bring from the department's perspective tremendous leadership and bringing experts on production into the shipyards and helping us get to a place where we can two or three X our production capacity, that's a start. Secondly, I think there's a lot of innovation coming. I met with the CEO of Saronic yesterday who's bringing these unmanned ships and they're making tremendous investments and growth of shipbuilding capacity. And so I think we need to think about how are we encouraging new entrants into the space as well.

I'm almost out of time, but just I hope you're also reflecting on how we build that talent pool domestically of skilled labor that we need to get this job done. But I'm out of time, appreciate you, and I yield.

Thank you, Congressman.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bell.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and the ranking member. To our witness, thank you for being here today. My district and the greater St. Louis region is home to the production of some of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. Generations of skilled machinists, engineers, welders, and technicians in our community have built the aircraft and weapon systems that protect our service members and deter our adversaries. St. Louis is a sleeping giant in the defense industrial base. We have the infrastructure, we have the workforce, we have the supplier network, and we have the innovation ecosystem to scale production rapidly when the nation calls. What we need is predictability, investment, and a department that sends clear, stable demand signals so industry can hire, train, and build with confidence. At a time when China is expanding its industrial capacity at a pace we cannot ignore, the United States cannot afford boom-and-bust procurement cycles that hollow out our workforce and weaken our supply chains. Speed to scale is not just a slogan; it requires stable, multi-year procurement, accelerated qualification of advanced manufacturing, and a workforce strategy that meets the moment. If we get this right, we strengthen deterrence, lower long-term costs, reduce reliance on foreign supply chains, and create good-paying jobs in communities like mine. St. Louis stands ready to do its part. The question before us is whether we will provide the policy certainty and acquisition discipline necessary to unleash that potential. Mr. Duffey, given historic instability in Air Force procurement profiles, how is the department ensuring long-term forecast stability so suppliers in places like St. Louis can confidently invest in tooling, workforce, and throughout?

Congressman, thank you for your question. I also had the privilege of visiting your district recently and the Boeing facility. Congratulations on the relocation of the Boeing headquarters to St. Louis. I think that's a tremendous initiative. And I agree with everything you said about how do we build in long-term stability into the industrial base. Munitions is the first case that we took a look at. I think we're interested in exploring and working with Congress to see if that can be extended to other platforms because of all the benefits that you outlined. Investment that comes from the stability when industry knows that there's certainty of demand over a period of time that they can spend on their workforce, on their production capacity, on any means of production that requires enhancement or efficiency, and they know they're going to get the return on investment. I think that comes from the multi-year procurement that we piloted with the help of the Congress last year.

And as a follow-up, what concrete steps are you taking to avoid the boom-and-bust cycles that hollowed out skilled aerospace labor markets?

Well, I think the announcement of the F-47 is a good step to ensure that we've got a sixth-gen fighter and we can maintain that workforce beyond our current inventory. And I think ensuring that we've got the funding there is the other thing. And so, obviously, we're working the FY 27 budget right now. And then I think the third thing is where we can pursue multi-year procurements, whether it's F-15s with Boeing, F-35s, F-47s. We know we're going to need these systems, and there's only one vendor delivering them. And so how do we keep the pressure on to ensure that we get the delivery that we need, but also provide the certainty so they can make the investments to deliver on time?

Across the department, there's been a cited shortage of skilled workers, including welders and machinists. In aerospace-heavy regions like my district, workforce shortages directly constrain output. Here in Congress, I've made it a priority to expand workforce opportunities across educational programs and partnerships with schools and universities across the greater St. Louis region. Does DOD currently have the authority to partner with regional technical schools and workforce boards to expand pipeline programs?

We do have current programs that pursue training within these key disciplines where we don't have the workforce that we need. If there are specific areas where you see a need for investment, I'm sure that my team would be happy to work with your team to identify any candidates where we could expand that capability.

Thank you. I have more questions; I'll submit them to staff. Thank you. I yield my time.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Guam, Mr. Moylan.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Under Secretary Duffey, thank you for you and your team and the hard work you're doing to protect our soldiers and our freedom. Thank you, sir. And I represent Guam, of course, and I want to bring your attention to the INDOPACOM. Guam being the most western soil where we have our ammunition and our fuel, it's a great concern for me. And in a Taiwan conflict, considering that, a 2023 CSIS analysis estimates the United States will be depleted of guided ammunitions, the PGMs, within one week of the start of hostilities. And in our current operation in Iran, we know that interceptors are being consumed more quickly than we can put them together. And I know your office does recognize this vulnerability and you're working really hard to improve our munitions industry base, but of course we have a shortfall and there's potential to leave our service members at greater risk. So question, sir, is how long can we sustain this operation with Iran before needing to transfer munitions from Indo-Pacific region?

So this is clearly a focus of ours is ensuring that we are really driving the industrial base to drive up the growth in the production capacity within the industrial base. I want to thank your leadership in Guam for being such a strategic asset for the department and all the work that's going on there. I think this will be a continual effort over time for us to continue to engage industry, identify the opportunities to increase the production rate to ensure that we've got munitions across the board for all challenges that we may face.

Thank you. And give me your concern of our limited magazine depth and how it would undermine our deterrence in the Pacific.

Listen, I mentioned earlier, I believe that General Kane stated that we have adequate munitions for any fight at any time at the President's choosing, and I agree that to be true. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't be investing our energy and our treasure and our expertise to expand the defense industrial base and munitions and across multiple portfolios. And so that's where my focus is on a day-to-day basis.

So on that line, sir, do you feel or see value in establishing munitions production in the INDOPACOM Pacific theater? Because of our logistics distance and the chain that we have to go through when we finally had to look at our forces overall. So would that be an option for you, sir?

My office is consistently considering and evaluating opportunities for not just co-production, co-sustainment, opportunities to partner with our allies in the region, both in Europe and in the Asia-Pacific region, to provide capability for means of production and sustainment. And so I think it's a constant consideration as we engage our allies in the region.

Thank you, Under Secretary, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Cisneros.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here, Mr. Duffey. Secretary Duffey, President Trump just, he didn't say adequate. He said the U.S. has the ability to fight wars forever; virtually, we have an unlimited supply of weapons and munitions. Where did he get that from? Who told him that? Was that you who told him that? Was it Secretary Hegseth? Who told him we have an unlimited supply of weapons?

I haven't been a participant in a conversation directly with the President.

Do you believe we have an unlimited supply of weapons?

I believe we have the weapons that we need, and I'm working every day to ensure that we have...

That's not do we have an unlimited supply of weapons.

I believe we have the weapons we need.

So we do not have the unlimited supply of weapons. I can tell you that. I'm pretty sure that's why we're having this hearing today. But so was the President just lying to us right now? Is he lying to the American people when he says we have an unlimited supply of weapons? Like my colleague just said, right, Patriot missile interceptors are, it's taking us, we make them in the teens per month. We're firing them off hundreds at a time. We've used numerous ones over there. We're not replacing them at the pace that we are using them.

I'm focused on ensuring that we're making up for the industrial base that we inherited from the last administration and creating multiples of production capacity so that we do have as many weapons as we need for any future conflict.

Well, this administration's a year in the job already, right? So they can't keep blaming the previous administration, previous administration. They got to get going here and get this rolling and rolling. So with that, right, we need to kind of work on our industrial base. We need to pick up the pace, and this is something that has gone on back to the previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, and I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt, the administration before that. Right? So it's an ongoing problem. So how are you going to fix this, right? You're in the job now. How are you going to get production up?

Well, I think, you know, we started last month with these deals that we negotiated with industry where, thanks to this committee and the Congress's willingness to grant us multi-year procurement authority, we have been able to pursue long-term contracts with these vendors. And what that provides them is the confidence to invest their own money. This is really, I think, unprecedented, at least with our traditional defense contractors, to be willing to put up the billions of dollars that's required in order to triple or quadruple production of these exquisite weapon systems. And we're looking to pursue other avenues and other platforms to apply that model.

Well, I don't know how willing they're going to be to put up their own weapon systems if they're not going to be able to make the money back on it if we're not going to choose them. Second question: the 2026 National Defense Strategy explicitly calls for revitalizing the defense industry base through non-traditional vendors to reintegrate and mobilize our nation's unrivaled creativity and ingenuity. This past January, though, Secretary of Defense initiated a line-by-line review of small businesses and 8(a) contracts to eliminate waste and focus strictly on lethality. There's a paradox here that the DOD wants a broader, more resilient industrial base but is simultaneously cutting the vast contracts that allow small, non-traditional companies to innovate and survive. So how does the department plan to reignite the industrial base while simultaneously creating an environment of high risk and contract liability that drives small, innovative firms away from the defense market?

The Secretary's review is focused on eliminating waste and fraud, as you had suggested. Quite honestly, I think small businesses that are performing will benefit from this because this will enhance the program as a high-confidence place where innovative companies can come to do business with the department and not be crowded out by people who are not delivering capability to the department.

Well, I've talked into many businesses who were delivering, who were performing, who had earned these contracts through what they've done. And I've also talked into numerous businesses that don't want to commit the financial, the dollars into this because they're not sure that the investment's going to come or that these weapon systems will ever be done. Right? We need to encourage innovation. We need to encourage the businesses to kind of come to us with new ideas, and we need to be able to support that. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

of companies can come to do business with the department and not be crowded out by people who are not delivering capability to the department.

Well, I've talked into many businesses who were delivering, who were performing, who had earned these contracts through what they've done. And I've also talked into numerous businesses that don't want to commit the financial, the dollars into this because they're not sure that the investment's going to come or that these weapon systems will ever be done. Right? We need to encourage innovation. We need to encourage the businesses to kind of come to us with new ideas, and we need to be able to support that. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Gentleman yields back. Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Vindman.

Thank you, Chairman. So, given the casualties we've sustained during this war from drone threats, the public reporting seems to at least indicate that the casualties that we sustained, the six KIA and the many more wounded, were from a drone strike. Is the department going to work on an effort similar to JIEDDO? Do you know what JIEDDO is?

I'm familiar with JIEDDO, yeah.

So that was an effort stood up to deal with the IED threat that we faced in our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and was kind of initially an ad hoc effort to deal with what was a not well-understood threat. Obviously, we should have known about the drone threat for years now, given that we've seen this in the Ukrainian context. So it's disappointing that no precautions or insufficient precautions were taken there. But how are we going to deal with this threat going forward?

Last summer, the Secretary stood up in partnership with the Secretary of the Army the Joint Interagency Task Force 401, which is probably not quite as robust as JIEDDO, but it's got its own independent acquisition authority led by a one-star Brigadier General. And it's intended to procure, develop the cutting-edge counter-UAS capabilities, a single point of contact within the department while also allowing bespoke, for example, Navy counter-UAS capabilities to procure within Navy service lanes. But this is a similar to JIEDDO, a cross-cutting single point of counter-UAS technology acquisition.

So it sounds like to me that the department has already anticipated this threat. Is that correct?

Certainly, it's a high-focus area, yes.

So if it has anticipated the threat, then I guess the the casualties already sustained were as a result of a lapse, and I'm sure there's going to be a full investigation conducted by the by the department, and I look forward to seeing that given that, again, public reporting indicates that there were complaints from the leadership talking about insufficient protection against drone threats. So you talked a little bit about this 401, Task Force 401. Can you talk a little bit more specifically about what exactly, like, how is it going to streamline it? Where can we help as members of Congress? This is absolutely, obviously, a major threat. We've seen it again over years. This has to be, I don't know if a one-star is enough horsepower, but to elevate this now to something that is much more significant because I'm being told by senior leaders that the threat from the ballistic missiles is actually easier to deal with because we have sufficient interceptors and air defense capabilities, but we are not prepared for drone systems, counter-UAS.

I think it absolutely is a key priority. I think what JIEDDO 401 is focused on is a full range of technologies that are emerging, both privately funded and government-funded technologies, directed energy, the APKWS is a modified Hydra 70 rocket that for low cost has been very effective at intercepting counter-UAS, excuse me, in intercepting UAS threats. So I think I'm sure my team would be happy to come give you a more fulsome briefing of of what we are working on, but I assure you that I believe the Congress made somewhere in the neighborhood of a billion dollars, I I don't know that specifically, but but the JIEDDO 401 is moving quickly to expend those funds to make sure that we both develop the technology and get them into the field as quickly as we can.

So I'm interested in the briefing, and I'll take you up on that offer, and I hope that some of these systems, even though they're they're not proven and they're not in the in the ordinary procurement system, some of them are being deployed forward to prevent the the strikes that we're seeing. Just quickly, changing tack here, also on UAS, but one of the things that we've seen effective in the Ukraine battlefield is fiber optic drones, so basically wire-guided. Are there efforts, is anybody looking at that? Because these are obviously EW-rich environments that we operate in, both in the Middle East and the Ukrainians in in Europe. Are we looking at those capabilities?

Yes, we have a drone dominance initiative that was launched last summer, is being led by Owen West, the new director of the Defense Innovation Unit. He's been able to deploy to up to $2,000,000,000 worth of funding that the one big beautiful bill made available, which is looking at building out the domestic industrial base for unmanned systems. I can't speak specifically to fiber optics. I'm sure we could look into that and get you a specific answer on that, but given the robustness of the effort, I wouldn't be surprised if he was looking at a full range of technological solutions.

I would appreciate you looking into that, and thank you for your time. I yield back.

The gentleman yields back. We have a hard stop at 12:15, so the members in the room will be allowed to ask their questions. If any other members thinking about coming to the chamber, don't bother. We will now recognize Mr. Conaway from New Jersey.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Duffey, I want to thank you for your testimony and the information you provided this committee today. This being my first hearing as a new member of the Armed Services Committee, I can announce that I'm a proud representative of New Jersey in the 3rd District. As I'm sure you're aware, New Jersey has a strong defense ecosystem that is vital to national security, innovation, research, and development, also in the areas of manufacturing and technological advancements. My state is home to roughly 7,000 defense contractors who collectively receive over $7,000,000,000 in DOD contracts. Of this, over $1,000,000,000 supports manufacturing, research, and development across more than 1,700 New Jersey companies. In just one facility in Morristown near my home, over 3,500 employees work to support critical integrated warfare systems and sensors, which includes radar and weapon systems that are utilized by the department to protect our service members. My district is also home to the Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, which employs more than 46,000 people, and as you can tell, ensuring the continued support and strengthening of the defense industrial base is of critical importance to the people of my district and across the state of New Jersey. I wanted to ask you about the SPY-1 radar and system that's developed and integrated within the Aegis combat system for the Navy for now over 40 years. SPY-1 has just been an indispensable system in enabling the Navy to protect the fleet, our service members, and our allies in recent combat engagements, including right now in the Middle East. What are you doing to sustain the SPY-1 radar through the duration of these ships' expected service lives?

Well, it's a critical capability that our sailors are dependent on, and as far as I'm aware, we will continue to rely upon it until there's an and any subsequent upgrades would would be made to that system. So I don't have specifics on the program. I'd be happy to get back to your team, but I do know it's a critical capability for us.

I greatly appreciate that. We've heard during this hearing about the importance of demand signal, and the briefings that I've attended here to date, certainly that has been something that has been emphasized by those who work within the defense establishment. They are critical to ensuring that we have enough suppliers and skilled workforce, retain a skilled workforce, and train a skilled workforce necessary to meet the various production demands that we have. And I imagine you've answered this in one way or another, but it's important that the demand signal, as I understand it, is accurate and signals our industry partners to produce what is needed for national defense, like those that are currently working in my district. What more can you do to reassure those production facilities that one, they're receiving the right signal and acting on that signal?

Well, we're very dependent on the Joint Staff to help us define what that true demand signal is. What are the weapon systems that the warfighter needs in order to prevail, to deter conflict and prevail? And so when it comes to specific systems, working with the Joint Staff and our partners in the military departments, we're actively now looking at how can we create as much certainty of demand as we can where we have an understanding that we're going to need a system, you know, into the foreseeable future.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Chair now recognizes Mr. Ryan of New York.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad I snuck in there. I appreciate it. Thank you for the thank you for the good grace. And thank you, Under Secretary, for being here and your team. I want to start by commending you from from day one, just really a ruthless focus on speeding things up, driving urgency, driving culture change in addition to all the processes that need to go along with that for the partnership with the committee, with the Chair and the Ranking Member on Speed Act and all that's come, and it's just encouraging to me given especially things happening right now that everybody's working together in this space, and it's a credit to your leadership. I'm hearing from companies that have had great initial success in OTAs and APFITs, other competitions, and I'm also hearing from warfighters that have been participating in those competitions where happy things are going well, but then when we we try to move from that success in that competition or sort of rapid prototype, we're still still feels like we're we're not fast enough on getting to that scale point, finding the right owner to scale, and moving it. And I know you're familiar with a lot of these as well, but I just heard a story of some of the ground autonomy stuff happening, which is very exciting, with a company that literally spun out of a university funded by DARPA, gone through all the competitions, their mission customer loves them, and but it's just they're running up to a point where, you know, the warfighters need it, their investors are saying what's the next step. So I know you understand that and are working on it, but just want to ask what more can we be doing, what can I do to speed that up?

Well, thank you. Yeah, I think awareness, I mean, it's hard for us to be fully aware of all the great opportunities that are out there. I do want to make sure we're embracing all the private sector investment and making sure they're connected with the right folks. I mentioned something earlier that I think is is is a barrier that we need to work through, which is the legacy structure of our acquisition system, I think makes it challenging for these new entrants to find champions inside the system, and you're only going to get across the valley of death and get into the pipeline if you've got a champion inside the system. So thinking through what kind of mechanisms could we use, I mean, we've created the Defense Innovation Unit and SCO and of course DARPA and others are helping incubate that technology, but and it's my hope that one of the outcomes of the portfolio acquisition executive with what we believe will be flexibilities will be provided to those leaders that they can potentially be champions of new and emerging technology that are contributing directly to the mission area where they have responsibility for acquiring capability.

That's great, and we would love to work with whoever on your team makes sense if we're hearing those data points to make sure if you're not tracking them for whatever reason, so we could follow up with you on that, and I appreciate again that you guys clearly get and you personally get the the culture change component of this in addition to authorities and everything else that we've been working on. I also want to, and I know this has been talked about, but I think it merits another minute and 35 seconds that I have. I want to read a quote from the Commander in Chief from 48 hours ago. "The United States munitions stockpiles have at the medium and upper medium grade never been higher or better. As was stated to me today, we have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought quote forever and very successfully using just these supplies, which are better than other countries' finest arms exclamation point." Were you involved in stating that to the President? Because I'm not trying to play gotcha, but I that just defies everything we've heard in every hearing I've been in for every year I've been in the Congress. I'm just trying to understand where's the disconnect.

So my focus is on accelerating the industrial base to ensure that we maintain maximum supply of munitions.

So you weren't involved in briefing the Commander in Chief on that issue? Do you agree with that characterization? That we have an unlimited supply?

So I defer to the Chairman reinforcing the President's views, which is that we do have what we need to...

But do we have an unlimited supply, Under Secretary? Because I think, look...

I think he said virtually unlimited.

That's what you just said. Virtually unlimited. Okay. That's right. Do we have a virtually unlimited supply?

I believe we have ample supply of munitions.

an unlimited supply, Under Secretary, because I think look...

I think you said virtually unlimited? That's what you just said.

Virtually unlimited. Okay, that's right. Do we have a virtually unlimited supply?

I believe we have an ample supply of munitions.

I I don't, and we've heard that over and over, and the reason I'm asking this, if we don't honestly grapple with the problem and fully recognize it, if we're deceiving ourselves about the scope of the problem, we're never going to solve it, right? I know we all understand that. So that's why I'm asking it in good faith, and I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Gentleman yields back. Gentlelady from New Hampshire, we finally made it to you. I'm glad you waited. You're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Definitely worth the wait. Thank you so much, Mr. Duffey, for being here today. I'm going to jump right into it. I I want to thank you for your commitment to really supporting the workforce and when you were here in July, we talked a bit about childcare and I really appreciate your commitment to helping us solve for one of the core challenges that I hear from service members, from our exceptional top tier workforce at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, really across the board, that childcare is standing in between the people who are serving us and readiness. In the National Defense Authorization Act, we we were able to secure a bipartisan provision. It's a really simple one. Just requires the department to come and to give us a briefing on your efforts, which I'm sure are underway, to develop solutions in childcare. You know, the Department of Defense is the largest employer sponsored childcare in the world. But we're eager to hear from you and I just wanted to ask if you could commit the the briefing was supposed to happen by February 1st, so we're eager to get this on the books and just want to ask for your commitment to get that scheduled as soon as possible.

You have my commitment.

Thank you. I appreciate it. I also want to thank you for your in your written testimony and your testimony today, your commitment to building the robust talent pipeline that we're going to need to bring about the next generation of skilled tradespeople in this country. And I wanted to ask you, what what are the biggest barriers that have been standing in between the department and the creation of apprenticeship programs and support for career and technical education? Since I know it's a patchwork of 50 states with differing rules, you had a great start it sounds like to the pilot program in Michigan, but can you just say a little bit more about what the barriers are that you're facing?

I think so I I believe we have a I know we have a robust pipeline of programs that are working to you know, generate interest in the K through 12 and STEM and and even vocational trades and partnering in regional areas to enhance the workforce by training where we have deficiencies in particular trades. I think we can continue to grow that program, but I do think it's more systemic. I think it's how do we get the workforce motivated by the mission of this of the job, of the vocation and how do we overcome some of the challenges we have with compensation and difficulty of work. So I'm not sure training programs are going to get us across those and so we're devoting a lot of thought internally to are there broader scale initiatives that we can undertake that champion the importance of the mission of this workforce and, you know, embedding those that thinking into the national culture. Not downplaying, I actually I very much think those training programs are significant. I just want to think about, you know, maybe there's a bigger challenge we need to undertake.

Well, I would love to work with you on that, especially as we are gearing up for the NDAA for the coming year. So thank you for your commitment to work together on that. Huge priority for me. In your written testimony, you you talked about the importance of multiyear procurement contracts and you testified specifically about the ways in which you've used this tool to triple, quadruple production of key missile defense interceptors. So I'm assuming that's to to try to shore up what was a depleted and insufficient stockpile.

I I was addressing the insufficiently invested defense industrial base. The production capacity is there we have tremendous growth needs for ensuring that we can secure not, you know, we're seeing increased expenditures in our European allies and we hope to...

Sure, but you know, we want to triple and quadruple production because we want to shore up what is a stockpile that hasn't exactly met the moment. My concern, Mr. Duffey, is we started this war five days ago with an insufficient stockpile in these key missile defense interceptors. We are expending them at a rate that's not entirely clear to me as I sit here now and it my concern is that I read your national defense strategy, how how is this how are we going to be able to actually meet this moment and be successful in a strategy of denial as you put it very well in the Western Pacific. So this is a this is a question I'll submit to you on the record because I see I'm out of time, but this is my core concern. Thank you. Do you share it?

Gentlelady yields back. Thank you, Mr. Duffey, for being here. We have asked, this committee's asked for an accounting of all equity deals that you've made to date. Can you get that to us by the end of the week, please?

I first of all, when it comes to the adequacy of the stockpile, you know, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Kane stated very clearly today that he planned and is executing a mission that has adequate stockpile. So as I mentioned, my focus is way before this operation started, ensuring that we're making the investments required to expand the industrial base that we inherited that doesn't account for the future growth needs of our security. And we are focused and I am focused every day on ensuring that we get the industrial base to produce more. Yes, sir.

Well, I thank you for that. Yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Thank you. Been a long day, you did a good job. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.

Thank you.