Committee will come to order. I ask unanimous consent that the chair may declare recess at any point without objection so ordered. Also, without objection, members shall have five legislative days to submit written remarks and additional materials for the record. I wanna thank our witnesses for appearing today and for your service to our nation. The threats we face are more formidable than at any point in the last 20 years. But the administration's policy of integrated deterrence is doing little to actually deter them. The president's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan has left us nearly blind in the worst terrorist hotspot on the globe. North Korea is lobbying ICBMs over Japan and threatening us with nuclear annihilation on a near weekly basis. And Iran continues to fund and equip terrorists targeting Americans. Last week, one American died and seven were wounded when the eye told his terrorist proxies attacked our base in Syria. We continue to sit by and watch as his regime aggressively pursues nuclear weapons. Under Secretary Kahl last week, last month, stated that the eye told has is 12 days away from having enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb. We absolutely cannot allow that to happen. Additionally, the eye told is exporting kamikaze drones and other advanced weapons to Russia. And Putin is using them to kill innocent civilians and further his brutal invasion in Ukraine. Putin is also threatening our NATO allies by deploying tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, stepping away from new start, stepping up his harassment of American forces in Eastern Europe and Syria. But most concerning is the strengthening alliance between Putin and Xi. Putin is literally fueling the Chinese Communist Party's strategic nuclear breakout with Rossitan highly enriched uranium. In what the former stratcom commander Richardson described as breathtaking, the CCP has doubled their number of nuclear warheads in just two years. The CCP is starting to outpace us on the battlefield as well. The CCP has leapfrogged us on hypersonic technology. They are building what we are still developing. And their rapid advances in space were one of the primary reasons we established the Space Force. We all know the CCP is not building these new and advanced military capabilities for self-defense. We watched their ongoing attempts to intimidate and coerce Taiwan and our allies and partners in the region. Just this week, they threatened the Navy with serious consequences after we exercised our right to sail through international waters in South China Sea. And we've heard from combatant commanders over the past month about how the CCP has used economic coercion to gain footholds on new continents. We also heard from their efforts to expand their military presence in Africa and sign a new security agreement in South America and the Middle East. Finally, we all know from the spy balloon incident that Z and CCP are no longer hesitant to make provocative actions against the American homeland. These are just a few of the growing threats confronting our nation. How we respond to them is the biggest test that we face as Americans. Many of us here, regardless of party, believe we should respond with sustained investment in the men and women of our armed services and the modernization of our conventional and strategic deterrent. These investments are going to be expensive, but neither the president nor Congress can shy away from them. We no longer have the luxury of time. As we speak, our adversaries are rapidly expanding their military capability, showing much less restraint in employing these capabilities against America and our allies, and worst of all, developing a powerful alliance, the likes of which we haven't confronted since the height of the Cold War. We need to make the right investments in the right capabilities to ensure our military can effectively deter, and if necessary, defeat our adversaries. I look forward to working with all of you on this effort. And with that, I yield to my friend, the ranking member, Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses, Chairman Milley and Secretary Austin, not just for being here today, but for their leadership and their career of service to our country. Appreciate all of your efforts. I also want to note that this is Chairman Milley's last posture hearing before he retires, and really want to thank him for his service. And most specifically, Chairman Milley has shown a willingness to engage with Congress that has been quite refreshing for me serving. It's always a difficult task. The Pentagon has their job. We have our job. But those two jobs intersect within our Constitution, within our democracy. And I have never worked with a member of the Pentagon who's been more willing to engage with Congress, certainly to appear before us, but also to meet with us, to take our phone calls whenever, because he recognizes the incredibly important role that Congress plays in the oversight role that we must play with DOD. So I thank you for that. And I thank you very much for your service. As the chairman laid out, we have an incredibly complicated and dangerous threat environment. There is no question about that. But I do believe that the National Defense Strategy lays out a vision for how to confront that. We can't make China go, we can't make any of those things that the chairman just talked about go away. We have to figure out how do we deal with them? How do we deter our adversaries and what is our central goal? Our central goal is a rules-based international order where sovereign nations resolve their differences through international organizations peacefully. That's what we're trying to do.  They want to challenge that. We have to be in a position to deter that. That certainly starts with having a robust and strong military. We've had the largest defense budgets we've ever seen the last two years. The president has just proposed, again, the largest defense budget we've ever seen. We are making that investment. I will spare you the long speech that many of you have heard from me before about how I'm more focused on how we're spending the money, making sure that we're spending it efficiently and effectively. It's always the easiest thing to fall back on and say, gosh, we've got to have more money. Everything I've ever dealt with, that's been the answer. But again, I will quote, I think it's Winston Churchill, I could be wrong, who said, gentlemen, we're out of money, now we have to think. And that's what I really want to focus on. Where are we spending the money and where are we going? What is the objective? Huge part of that objective. We are not going to be able to deter those adversaries that the chairman just laid out on our own. It's an absolute impossibility. We need partnerships and we need allies. And I want to thank Secretary Austin in particular for his outstanding work on helping to build and hold together the coalition that is supporting Ukraine. 54 nations. I think a lot of people accept that as a foregone conclusion. It was not, and it was not easy. It took the leadership of this administration, particularly the leadership of Secretary Austin, to pull it together and help Ukraine. We cannot forget that most people assumed that Ukraine would be taken over by Russia by now. Their incredible will to fight, their courage to stand up has been an inspiration to the world. But it would not have been possible without the support of that international coalition that we helped build. At the same time, we're also building those coalitions to deal with the threat from China. That again, the chairman I think did a great job of explaining that threat. But the AUKUS agreement bringing UK and Australia in. The Quad where we work with Japan, India and Australia. We have recently seen Japan step up significantly in terms of the amount of money that they're spending on their defense to be an able partner in that part of the world. We have now an expanded military relationship with the Philippines. A relationship that at the beginning of this administration was very much in question. It was very much in question whether or not the Philippines would go over to China or help us. They're helping us. Building that coalition is a crucial part of how we meet those national security needs that have been laid out before us today. Just a couple of other issues. One is recruitment and retention. A big challenge. I think everyone knows that we are not meeting our goals at the moment. But I think there's a couple important things about that. One, the pandemic had a profound impact on that. We have not been able to recruit effectively for two or three years. We are now stepping back up and doing that. And also I've had conversations with Secretary Austin about this. He has experienced with this. This is not the first time that the US military has struggled to meet recruitment goals. We have experience in terms of how to make changes and do that. I know that the secretary is working on that. I look forward to hearing from him about the details of that important issue. And the last thing is something that the chairman and I 100% agree on. Innovation is the key to meeting that threat environment. We have to be able to develop and quickly field new technologies that help us meet our defense needs. And we got a lot of work to do in that area. The Pentagon has never been built for speed. And in this era with AI, machine learning and all the new technologies that are coming on board, we need to be able to access those quickly and figure out how to use them quickly. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the steps that have been taken to change the way the Pentagon does business so we can do that more quickly. Without question, we have an incredibly complex threat environment. But I wanna say unequivocally, I know that we can meet it. I know that we have a capable Congress, a capable administration and crucially capable partners the world over. We can help maintain the peace and meet our national defense needs. I have no doubt about that. And with that, I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses and I yield back to the chairman. I think the ranking member. Our witnesses today are the Honorable Lloyd Austin, Secretary of Defense and General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Accompanying the Secretary and Chairman is the Honorable Mike McCord, Undersecretary of Defense. He serves as the DOD's Comptroller and Chief Financial Officer. So welcome to the witnesses. Secretary Austin, we'll start with you. Well, thank you, Chairman Rogers. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee. I'm glad to be here with you today to testify in support of the President's budget request. Gentlemen, we'll suspend. We need to get the protesters to take their signs down or be removed from the room. The chair notes that the disturbance of the committee's proceedings has taken place. The committee will be in order. I'd like to formally request that those in the audience causing this disruption cease their actions immediately. I want to advise the protesters or the folks in the audience, if you do this again, we are gonna recess and you are gonna be removed. Mr. Secretary, you're recognized. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, distinguished members of the committee. I'm glad to be here today to testify in support of the President's budget request for fiscal year 2024. I'm joined as always by General Milley and I remain grateful for his leadership. I'm also glad to be joined by the department's Comptroller and CFO, Mike McCord. This is a strategy-driven budget and one driven by the seriousness of our strategic competition with the People's Republic of China. At $842 billion, it is a 3.2% increase over fiscal year 23 enacted and it is 13.4% higher than fiscal year 22 enacted. This budget will help us continue to implement our national defense strategy and the President's national security strategy. Now, I have three key priorities at the Pentagon, to defend our nation, to take care of our outstanding people and to succeed through teamwork. The PRC is our pacing challenge and we're driving hard to meet it. Our budget builds on our previous investments to deter aggression and we're investing in a more resilient force posture in the Indo-Pacific and increasing the scale and scope of our exercises with our partners. And this budget includes a 40% increase over last year's request for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. It is an all-time high of $9.1 billion. And that will fund a stronger force posture, better defenses for Hawaii and Guam and deeper cooperation with our allies and partners. This budget also makes the department's largest ever investments in both R&D and procurement. We're requesting more than $61 billion to sustain air dominance. And that includes funding for fighters and the extraordinary B-21 strategic bomber that I helped unveil last December. We're also seeking more than $48 billion for seapower, including new construction of nine battle force ships. And we're boosting capacity at America's shipyards to build the ships that our strategy demands. We're investing a total of $1.2 billion in the submarine industrial base. And we're buying two Virginia-class attack submarines and one Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine. On land, we're investing in air and missile defense and in defenses to counter unmanned aerial vehicles. We're also requesting $11 billion to deliver the right mix of long-range fires, including major investments in hypersonics. We'll also continue to modernize all three legs of our nuclear triad and bolster our strategic deterrence. And we put forward the largest space budget in Pentagon history. We've requested $33.3 billion to improve our capabilities and our resilience in space. Now, let me again thank Congress for providing the department with multi-year procurement authorities and appropriations for critical munitions. In this budget, we're requesting more multi-year procurement authorities. And we're asking for more than $30 billion to further invest in the industrial base and to buy the maximum number of munitions that American industry can produce. This budget also moves us away from aging capabilities that aren't relevant to future conflicts. So we can focus on the advances that our warfighters will need. Now, our national defense strategy calls out Putin's highly aggressive Russia as an acute threat. And under President Biden's leadership, the United States has rallied the world to help Ukraine fight Russia's indefensible invasion. We've reinforced NATO's defense and deterrence on its eastern flank. Now, our allies and partners have provided crucial security assistance coordinated through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group that I lead. And we will support Ukraine's defense for as long as it takes. And meanwhile, the department remains vigilant against other persistent threats, including North Korea and Iran. And we will take all necessary measures to defend our troops and our interests overseas, as seen in our recent airstrikes against facilities linked to Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. And we're also investing in over-the-horizon counterterrorism capabilities. Now, Mr. Chairman, our joint force stands ready to meet any challenge. And you can see the force's readiness after Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine when we swiftly deployed elements of the 3rd Infantry Division to Poland to shore up NATO's eastern flank. We closely monitor readiness at the unit level and maintain response forces at our highest states of readiness, while the rest of the force, by design, is preparing for future contingencies. So this budget will help us maintain our readiness with $146 billion in funding for operations, training, and maintenance. This budget also invests in improving our readiness and resilience in the face of climate change and other 21st century threats. And Mr. Chairman, we're going to remain the strongest military in the world. And as we mark the 50th anniversary of our all-volunteer force, I am enormously proud of the brave men and women who choose to wear the cloth of our nation. We owe it to them and to their families to take the best possible care of all of our people. And over the past two years, we've made moves easier, we've cut commissary prices, we've made childcare more affordable. And this budget funds other key steps to increase the quality of life of our teammates, including the largest military and civilian pay raises in decades. And we're also pushing hard to eliminate suicide in our ranks, including immediate steps to hire more mental health professionals and to improve access to mental health care. And meanwhile, we're working toward a military that's free of sexual assault. We work with Congress to improve the response to sexual assault and related crimes under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Those reforms will be fully implemented by the end of this year. And the department is also investing a specialized workforce to combat sexual assault, harassment, suicide, and more. Now the department's third priority is succeeding through teamwork. Our unrivaled network of allies and partners magnifies our power and expands our security. And in recent months, our friends in the Indo-Pacific have taken major steps forward. The Philippines has agreed to nearly double the number of sites where we can cooperate together. Japan committed to double its defense spending and through the historic AUKUS partnership will work with our Australian and British allies to build game changing defense advantages that will deter aggression and boost our defense industrial capacity. In sum, Mr. Chairman, this is the budget that we'll meet this moment and I respectfully request your support. The single most effective way that this committee can support the department and our outstanding troops is with an on time, full year appropriation. So I look forward to working with all of you so that we can continue to defend our democracy and support the forces of freedom in this hour of challenge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Chairman Milley, you're recognized. Chairman Rogers, Ranking Member Smith, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I've been very privileged to defend this country for 43 consecutive years in uniform and this may be my last set of posture hearings. So I want to thank you, the Congress, for your continued support to our military for the last four decades, not just on this budget, but all the budgets of the past. And I ask that you support this year's request with an on time budget approval. I'm honored to represent the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians, and families of the United States Joint Force alongside Secretary Austin and Mike McCord and I want to publicly thank them both for their leadership. Our joint force is the most lethal and capable military in the world because of your support. Our purpose, the military's purpose, is very simple. It's to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and our task is to fight and win in all the domains of combat, to secure America and prevent great power war. Readiness now and readiness in the future through modernization is our number one priority and there is no other number one. The Joint Force will accomplish this at the FY24 budget request of $842 billion. Right now, the international system is under stress. For the first time, the United States is facing two major nuclear powers whose vital national security interests are in competition with the United States. Both the People's Republic of China and Russia have the means to threaten our interests and our way of life. But war with either is neither inevitable nor imminent. Great power war has not happened in the last 80 years in large part because of the rules put in place at the end of World War II and the capabilities of the United States military along with our allies and partners. We must remain the most powerful nation if the great power piece is to continue to hold. The People's Republic of China remains our number one long-term geostrategic security challenge. China intends to be the regional hegemon in the Western Pacific and in Asia within the next 10 years and to exceed the United States overall military capability by mid-century and they have publicly stated by 2049. PRC actions are moving it down the path towards potential confrontation with its neighbors or the United States. But again, war with China is neither inevitable nor imminent. Additionally, Russia is an acute threat and remains dangerous. Over a year ago, Russia undertook an illegal and unprovoked war against Ukraine threatening peace on the European continent and global stability. We are supporting Ukraine to protect its sovereignty and supporting NATO with the United States Force presence in every single nation on NATO's Eastern flank. This fight is not just in Ukraine's interest it is in the United States' interest to protect the system that has prevented great power war for the last eight decades. Iran threatens to push the Middle East into regional instability by supporting terrorists and proxy forces. Just last week, Iranian-aligned groups killed one American and injured seven in attacks on coalition bases in Syria. We acted immediately to defend our troops and we will continue to counter terrorist threats in the region or anywhere else we find them. And Iran has taken actions also to improve its capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon. From the time of an Iranian decision, Iran could produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon in less than two weeks and it would only take several more months to produce an actual nuclear weapon. The United States remains committed as a matter of policy that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon. The United States military has developed multiple options for our national leadership to consider if or when Iran decides to develop a nuclear weapon. North Korea's continued ballistic missile testing and nuclear weapons development pose threats to our homeland and our allies and partners. But we stand shoulder to shoulder with the Republic of Korea to continue to deter North Korea aggression as we have for the last 70 years. Terrorists continue to operate around the globe threatening fear, destruction, and destabilization and this budget further supports our continued CT efforts, counter-terrorism efforts. In short, the United States military stands ready to protect our nation's interests and the American people. We are currently standing watch on Freedom's Frontier with nearly 250,000 troops in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and South America. And the United States never fights alone. A key source of our strength is our large global network of alliances and partnership. And just this month, we conducted 63 operations and joint combined exercises globally with our allies and partners. And lastly, our operational readiness rates are higher now than they've been in many years. Currently, 60% of our active force is at the highest states of readiness and could deploy to combat in less than 30 days, while exceeding the minimum of the one-third standard that we've always had. 10% of our force could deploy in less than 96 hours. The United States military is ready. The joint force is also at an inflection point and we must balance current operations, readiness, and modernization. We must not allow ourselves to create the false trap that we can either modernize our forces for the future or focus only on today. We must do both. We must integrate advanced technologies including precision, long-range fires, hypersonic weapons, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, robotics, and all-domain sensors. The time is now. We have very little margin to wait. And the common thread critical to all of this is our people. We must continue investing in the training, education, and talent management to be prepared for the future operating environment. I urge Congress to support this budget's significant pay raise, healthcare housing, and childcare initiatives. And this budget sustains our readiness and adapts the joint force for future war fighting requirements. There is nothing more expensive than fighting a war. And preparing for war is also very expensive. But fighting a war is the most expensive. But preparing for war will deter that war. I encourage the Congress to support this budget. And we must act now with clear-eyed urgency to deter any future possibility of a great power war. We must remain strong in the number one military in the world. By doing so, no adversary should ever underestimate the resolve of our nation and the strength of our military. And thank you, and I look forward to your questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize myself for five minutes. Secretary Austin, General Milley, could you describe for us what it would mean for our ability to deter China if Congress fails to pass the NDAA and our Defense Appropriations Bill in a timely manner this year? Thank you, Chairman. It would have a significant impact on our ability to conduct new starts, to go after the technologies that we need to be relevant and dominant on a future battlefield. And again, that money and that time is lost and we won't be able to regain it going forward. Mr. Chairman. So thanks, Chairman. Last year, we did about 24,000 combined arms, live fires, collective training in the ground forces from squad all the way up to battalion and brigade. We did 23 CTCs, that's training rotations through our training centers. We did about 350 mass tactical airborne operations. We are flying all over the world in defense of our country's interests. We're sailing the seas and keeping the freedom of navigation going. If we don't pass an on time budget, if we go to a continuing resolution, then the readiness levels will drop. We've done the math before. We've done this many, many times in the past years. What'll end up happening is all those live fires, a lot of them will go away. We'll end up training basically to squad, platoon and maybe company level for the ground forces. Our flying hour program, which is about average, is about 150 hours per pilot for both the Air Force, Marines and Navy. That will come down considerably, probably by 10 or 20%. That'll have a very negative impact on our readiness. So the bottom line is, in terms of procurement and future, the multi-year starts, all of the things that business needs to continue to supply us with the equipment we need, all of that will be decremented by a significant degree. So the bottom line is our readiness will drop and our future modernization programs will be at risk. Great, to both of you, we're seeing growing cooperation between the militaries of China, Russia and Iran as well as a closer defense and energy supply chain integration. Are we adequately resourced and prepared to deter and, if necessary, defeat this type of alliance? And I start with you, General. The National, the NDS currently is structured, so the way it's called is a pacing threat for China and a key threat for Russia. What that really means, and this changed under the former sect of Mattis, we changed essentially from a two-war strategy, two-regional contingency strategy, which was in existence from, I guess, end of World War II all the way up through a few years ago. We switched to a one-war strategy. So we planned to resource, train, man, equip and force structure our force to be able to fight one major contingency against one great power and to hold in the other theaters. And how long has that policy been in place? At least, I know the shift occurred, I guess it was the 2017 NDS, I think it was. And I was Chief of Staff of the Army, we all participated in it. And it's, now we can surge, and we would have to do that, but that's the reality of it. Our military capability-wise can fight in a lot of places with different types of contingencies. But if you're talking about a serious conflict with a major great power war, realistically putting both China and Russia together is a very, very difficult thing. Well, and that's the thing that the community needs to take note of in the Congress is that for the first 15 years that I was here, we had a strategy that allowed us to fight two wars simultaneously and successfully defend the homeland. We have already had to drop that down to just one theater, which is scary enough. And I worry that if we do have a disruption in our funding, our authorization, it could further erode that capability. Let me ask, General, can you tell us a little bit about the intentions of Iran and Syria with recent attacks that we've had there and what's the security situation like in that theater? We've obviously had issues with Iran for many, many years. Iran's, in my view, Iran's strategic objective is to drive the United States out of both Iraq and Syria. They want to do that for their own national security interests. They want to establish what is often referred to as a Shia crescent that goes from Iran through Iraq, through Syria into Lebanese Hezbollah. Their arch enemy obviously is Israel and they want to be the dominant power in the region. That's what the assessment is from the intelligence community. That's what, and I concur with that. So that's their strategic objective. As you may recall, several years ago, under President Trump, we pulled troops off the border between Syria and Turkey because Turkey was going to invade. That was in the first month of my time as chairman. Then we pulled back, President Trump approved a security zone essentially on the northeast portion of Syria where we put a little bit less than 1,000 troops. That security belt was put there for a specific purpose at the time and that purpose was to go ahead and continue the enduring defeat of ISIS which had been, the caliphate was destroyed but ISIS itself broke down into small little penny packets so they were still there. There's also a series of refugee camps and a prison camps that are up there with the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Front. So they guard those. So we work with them to do that. If they walk away from those camps, then ISIS is going to resurrect very quickly. So the enduring defeat of ISIS is the primary and fundamental reason why they're still there. I do think and I applaud members of this committee that have initiated discussions of that. I think that's worthwhile and I think one of the things that we want us in uniform, we just want to know the American people are behind us. If we're going to put our lives on the line, we want the American people to support us. So if the American people's support is not there, then we shouldn't be there. It's that simple. So I applaud that effort as well. So but that's why we're there. Thank you very much. I recognize Rick and member. Thanks. First of all, I want to voice my very strong agreement with the chairman's initial line of questioning on the importance of passing the appropriations bills in the NDAA. I would add that each week that we don't raise the debt ceiling also places our budget in jeopardy. And at the end of the, and we can argue back and forth about whether we should add $10, $20 billion to the defense budget, but vastly more important is just being able to pass it, being able to put it in place and also to not introduce the economic insecurity that's involved with not raising the debt ceiling, let alone getting to the point where we breach that ceiling to stop paying. That would just be devastating to our national security and everything we're talking about here. Mr. Secretary, can you talk a little bit about your goals and your objectives on recruitment? We've talked about this before, to meet that challenge. Understanding, of course, that we still have the best military force in the world. I don't think anybody should ever forget that. But what are your goals as you look forward to meet those challenges going forward? Well, obviously each service has outlined what their requirements, what their goals are going forward. And as you know, last year, the service that fell short by the largest margin was the Army. But all of the services have recognized the challenges that we're currently facing, the headwinds that were created by a couple of years of COVID, the inability to get into high schools, the inability to engage centers of influence. And so that's two years worth of headwinds that we are now working to counter, to improve our efforts here. I think the services are doing the right thing in terms of investing in marketing, investing in the right kinds of recruiters, making sure that our recruiting stations are in the right places, going to where the applicants are, going to where they are in the media, and also re-establishing the connectivity that's really, really important. As you mentioned earlier, Chairman, this is not the first time that the military has been faced with challenges in recruiting. And I was assigned to recruiting command because we had challenges in the past as a young captain. I learned a lot about recruiting. We overcame the challenges that we were faced with by doing the right things. I am confident that our secretaries, our chiefs are doing the right things, and they are putting the right leaders in place to make sure that we turn things around. And again, each service will have different goals and objectives based upon what the requirements are, but we see the trends begin to move in the right directions. And it will take, this was a challenge that was brought on by a couple of years of COVID and other things, probably the lowest unemployment rate that we've seen in a very, very long time. And so it'll take a while to come out of that bathtub and get to where we need to be, but I am confident that we'll get there. Thank you. Chairman Milley, looking at the threat from China and our partners in the region, I mentioned Japan stepping up with the defense budget. We're building other partnerships with Australia, now the Philippines and elsewhere. How does that affect our ability to deter China? What role do you see those partners playing in being strong enough to deter China from aggression towards Taiwan or other neighbors in the region? Well, not only in Asia, but one of our key advantages as a nation is our network of allies and partners around the world. And in Asia, of course, we have bilateral defense treaties in Europe, you have NATO, but in Asia, we have bilateral defense treaties with Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, and Australia. And that is a network of alliances that is really strong. It's very powerful. You mentioned AUKUS and your opening comments. So that is a very powerful deterrent, I think to China when you add in the combat power that we can bring to bear the United States military in combination with that of our allies and partners in the region. And then add in both Britain and the UK, which have run exercises in the Asia Pacific with us. And then there's a whole string of other countries that are very, very close to us, but not official Senate ratified partners. In combination, they bring a tremendous wealth of capability both on the land, sea, and air. So in combination, that's a very significant amount of military power. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank the gentleman that you're now recognized. Gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman, Mike Rogers and ranking member Adam Smith for your bipartisan continued efforts to achieve peace through strength. And General Secretary, thank you for your service. We want you to succeed, as I certainly told General Millie yesterday. And that is that we must face the global war on terrorism which continues of 9-11 and understand sadly that the risk are ever increasing with terrorists coming across the Southern border. Additionally, there is bipartisan understanding that we have a worldwide competition between democracies of rule of law opposed by authoritarians with rule of gun. Today, war criminal Putin is perpetuating mass murder in Ukraine. The Chinese Communist Party is threatening Taiwan and the regime in Tehran pledges death to Israel, death to America. With that in mind, indeed there is such bipartisan support. I'm grateful to quote an unlikely newspaper, The Washington Post, lead editorial. And so Mr. Chairman, stay seated. On March 6th, which confirmed the murderous invasion of Ukraine by war criminal Putin demands Western support. And quote, President Biden will be tested and judged by his own success in me making a similar case for this country to step up by applying his military industrial might. It continues that as a gap between the West's supportive rhetoric on equipping Ukraine and the pace of actual deliveries of arms and munitions, for European allies security, it is also to maintain a basic principle of civilized international relations that one state cannot invade and subjugate another. End of quote. Again, it's clear that the President Biden, according to The Washington Post, in administration will be tested and judged by his decision to support the courageous people of Ukraine. So with that indeed, General Austin, I wanna thank you for what you have done in supporting our allies and partners, specifically the most recent Ukraine and European Defense Initiative along with foreign military sales. However, we must continue to improve expediting and accelerating these processes and rapidly being critical to allow Putin to not succeed with his conquest in Ukraine. With that question, since we have nearly 8,000 tanks and tank holds, can we feasibly increase the amount of M1 tanks that are being provided to Ukraine? And additionally, can we, with pre-positioning, immediately provide these to provide peace through strength? Well, so let me begin by thanking you and thanking all of Congress for what you've done to support the effort in Ukraine, our efforts to provide security assistance and as you know, the United States continues to lead the way. We've invested well north of $30 billion in this endeavor and it has made a difference in the Ukrainian's efforts to defend their sovereign territory and we will continue this work for as long as it takes. We talk to our counterparts every week. I talk to the Minister of Defense, Chairman talks to his counterpart at least once a week, probably a couple of times a week. We talk to him about what their needs are, what they're doing on the battlefield and then I meet with them in person every month and so we really feel that we have a real up-to-date and good feel for what the Ukrainians' needs are, what's required for them to be successful in this fight and they have really done a great job thus far in countering an adversary that's incredibly more, was incredibly more powerful and resource than they were and they fought well and they've inspired us all. They continue to do so. What you've seen most recently is that we have Marshall infantry fighting vehicles, Bradley infantry fighting vehicles, strikers, martyrs, the Germans are giving martyrs, leopard tanks, a number of capabilities to enable the Ukrainians to go on the offensive in the spring when they choose to do so. Hey, General, I don't mean to interrupt I want to thank you but I do want to point out the American people need to know that in terms of percentage of GDP, actually we're number nine in terms of providing aid and so we're not alone in our help and a final point that I need to make to General Milley and that is that I appreciate every effort to observe or monitor what the CCP sees is what they're doing because to me as they're in the Indo-Pacific, the ultimate target's gonna be the Republic of India, the world's largest democracy and so we need to be successful in protecting Taiwan. With that, I yield back. Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. Courtney for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you again to both witnesses. Secretary Austin, in your written testimony, you highlighted this month's historic gathering at Naval Base Port Loma in San Diego where President Biden, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and UK Prime Minister Sunak announced the optimal pathway to execute the AUCA Security Agreement which will provide Australia with a conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarine capability. As you well know, the US has not shared this closely guarded technology with another nation since 1958 when we did so with the British Navy. The plan is to sell at least three Virginia-class submarines to Australia in the early 2030s. Can you describe the strategic benefit to the US of sharing these precious assets at the same time that we're building up our own undersea fleet? Our undersea capability is one of our clear advantages that we have over any other nation in the world. And helping an ally like Australia develop a capability that can compliment the capability that we in the UK bring is critical. And it will help us to deter, it will help us to achieve our objective of maintaining an open and free Indo-Pacific. And I think the interoperability that comes along with this, I think is also very, very powerful. So it is a generational capability that will increase our overall capability as allies by orders of magnitude. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And it's clear from your response though that in order for the US to meet its fleet requirements and also fill Australia's looming undersea capability gap, boosting the size and productivity of our industrial base is a national security priority. Last year's omnibus invested a record $751 million into workforce development, supply chain and facility expansion. This year you're requesting 647 million more for those same goals. Can you speak to the need for Congress to approve this amount in order to make AUKUS work and to grow our domestic industrial base capacity in parallel? And can you also discuss the need to reform US export controls, to enable technology sharing again in order to make AUKUS succeed? It's, we clearly have to do more to expand our capability capacity in our industrial base. It's important to us, you know, anyway, but it's more important because of the fact that we've gone down the path of AUKUS, which we need to do. It's, again, a generational capability that I'm very, very happy that we have taken on. So we will continue to look to invest in our industrial base capability. And as you know, Australia is also investing in our industrial base. And I think that's the right thing to do and I compliment them for making that tough decision. No, you're correct. So the day after Port Loma, the Minister for Defense Industry in Australia, Pat Conroy, announced that, again, number one, they are now moving forward with six billion of new investment in their own industrial base, the new shipyard in Adelaide. And they are also investing $3 billion into the US industrial base, which is an extraordinary statement of how serious and committed that country is, again, to make this all work. There's another issue that, again, has been sort of in the internet, you know, atmosphere, I think, somewhat aided by China, who's not very pleased about the AUKUS arrangement, claiming that this somehow is gonna affect the sovereignty of Australia's Navy, that they're basically sacrificing sovereignty by going into this arrangement. Can you just clarify that, again, this is a sale, so title in the deed to the subs will be in the ownership of the Royal Australian Navy, and they, again, will operate, again, within their own sovereign authority. I couldn't explain it any better than you just did. I, that's exactly right. It does not infringe on the sovereignty of Australia at all. And again, they are a great ally, and we welcome their decision to invest in this capability. And lastly, as I mentioned, this is a submarine that will have conventional armaments, not nuclear armaments, and again, that, again, is critical in terms of making sure that it complies with the International Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Is that correct? That's absolutely correct. Thank you, I yield back. Chair now, recognized General from Ohio, Mr. Turner for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Alston, I want to congratulate you on the leadership that you've provided in the effort of just the unbelievable logistics that have had to be undertaken to support Ukraine. Thank you for doing that. This Congress, of course, has been a lead in pushing the administration for the weapon systems that have been provided, but your response has been extraordinary. My questions today are for General Milley. General Milley, when we were all gathered together to talk about the budget document for 2023, we had a discussion concerning Slickham, the sea-launched cruise missile. It is a low-yield nuclear weapon. It was a capability that we had previously that was retired in 2010, and the decision had been made to redeploy the Slickham capability. In our budget hearings in 2023, you stated that redeploying Slickham was important for U.S. credible deterrents, specifically, you said. The President deserves to have multiple options to deal with national security situations, recognizing the change that has occurred in Russia's posture. Does that remain your position today? It does. There's alternative views, but that's my position, that's correct. Thank you. Turning to the issue of spectrum, that is radio frequency spectrum. As you know, DOD is not just a user of radio frequency.  The federal government is an owner of radio frequency. You don't operate in those frequency areas as a licensee or pursuant to a lease. You are part of the use of the federal government of reserving to itself for its own use, radio frequency spectrum. There have been attempts to diminish or limit the access of the Department of Defense to radio frequency spectrum. I believe it's in the 3.1 to 3.45 gigahertz spectrum. I know you know more about this than I would. Could you please give us some information about what would that mean if we require DOD to move from the spectrum that you're currently in or if we allow others into the spectrum? How would that affect your operations? It would be significant. I don't wanna go into great detail in an unclassified session, but it would be significant in terms of our ability to sense the environment and respond to threats in the environment, things like radars, et cetera. So I think- General, I think you need to turn your microphone a little. Oh, okay. So let me just say that again. It would be significant impact, I think, on national security if we were compelled to vacate that portion of the spectrum. There's an ongoing study. My recommendation has been to the Secretary and to don't make any final decisions until that study is complete, which is estimated to be in September. When that study is complete, then we can make some fully informed recommendations and then the President can make appropriately informed decisions on what to do with that spectrum. Ultimately, a lot of people wanna share it and I understand that and I understand the principle behind it and I think the economy is really important and there's trillions of dollars at stake here, all of that's true, but there's also significant national security interests in that particular portion of the spectrum. So we've got to do it right and if we make a mistake at it, we're gonna be paying for it for years, not only in dollars, but in risk down- So it would affect our capabilities, right, General? It would affect our capabilities. It would absolutely affect our capabilities. And it would cost us trillions of dollars, not just trillions of dollars in the economy, trillions of dollars in defense spending to try to adjust, to move you from your spectrum. To be honest, I'd have to get you some numbers off to Mike McCord, but it'll be a lot, it'll be a lot of money. Excellent. Turning to, sorry, Secretary, Mike, questions for General Milley. General Milley, turning to missile defense, Russia has changed its posture with respect to nuclear weapons, now claiming that they might put nuclear weapons in Belarus. Certainly, saber-rattling indicating their suspending new start. They have undertaken development of Poseidon, Skyfall, Avangard, hypersonic nuclear weapons, Satan II, which is a merved weapon. China is perhaps tripling their nuclear weapons capabilities. Do you think it's time that we revisit missile defense as we are sitting without real capabilities to respond if there is an attack upon the United States? Well, to be clear, strategic stability depends on an assured second strike capability, which we have, and we can guarantee it without question. So the United States, from a nuclear deterrent posture, we are very secure because we have an exceptional nuclear system enterprise consisting of the triad that you're well aware of in the NC3, and we're trying to recapitalize that for the out years. But so the stability of the nuclear system is an assured second strike. That's the fundamental underpinning of deterrence between us and Russia. But there are other countries out there that are advancing, North Korea, for example, maybe, maybe not with Iran, who knows. So with smaller numbers. And I think an integrated air and missile defense system is critical. We have that in the Pacific. We have a layered defensive system that comes all the way from Japan, all the way back with radars and sensors, and we have a number of capabilities that can shoot down incoming threats. And I think that making that robust is a smart thing to do. We did a missile defense review, and there's peace parts in that. This is very expensive. It takes many years, but I think it's worthy of consideration. Jim, this time's expired. Sure. And I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Gary Mindy for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, General and Secretary. Thank you for your service in an extraordinary difficult period of time in this world. You displayed true leadership and also a great deal of intelligence and thoughtfulness. Thank you very much for that. Both of you have talked about readiness in some detail, but it really doesn't make much sense unless we talk about weapons sustainment readiness. We love to buy new, bright, shiny things, and we certainly do, but we often don't bother to maintain it. So what are the actual costs when we purchase a platform? Do we really consider the sustainment cost of that new platform when we purchase it? Sustainment requires that we have the right people at the right time in the right places to sustain the aircraft, the ships, and the other platforms that we depend upon. All too often, sustainment has been left behind. It's an acceptable risk. So my question really goes to the multiple GAO reports that have shown that the Department of Defense has not met its own mission-capable goals for various types of aircraft and ships. So first of all, to both of you, sustainment informed acquisition. Are you directing the multiple agencies within the Department to include long-term sustainment cost and methodology in all of the acquisition programs that you want to have? Mr. Secretary? Like you, sir, I think this is really important, and I think we have to consider and factor in sustainment cost in all of our investments, in all of our platforms. You're right, we haven't done that well in the past. We have to do that better going forward, as we've seen with some of the major platforms. If you don't do that up front, then it doesn't perform to the degree that you want it to perform. You don't have the capability that you need, and so we have to do this, so yes. General? It absolutely has to be considered all the time. The sustainment cost on any weapon systems has got to be considered as part of it. We have multiple major acquisitions underway, the B-21. We would appreciate detail on how you intend to sustain that platform over the next 30 years, in which it's going to be flown. In your budget, gentlemen, did you prioritize investments in the modernization of the facilities upon which all readiness is based? For example, depots, shipyards, arsenals, the bases, the rangers, the housing. Is that included in your budget, Mr. Secretary? We continue to invest in the CyOF program. We continue to invest in housing, and we have some $5.1 billion invested in increasing operational effectiveness and survivability on our basis. So it's an ongoing thing that we're focused on, and we continue to try to invest in increasing the capability here. General, do you want to opine on the investments that are necessary to maintain the depots, the shipyards, the arsenals, the bases, the housing, and so forth? Sure, Congressman, the infrastructure for our forces, for our troops, quality life, housing, and that sort of thing, that's mandatory that we do that all the time. We want to make sure that they got the best quality housing. With respect to the defense industrial base and the shipyards, I think additional investment needs to be done over the course of time. It's not gonna be done in one year. Our shipyards, for example, both commercial and naval shipyards have been minimized over the course of 20, 30, 40 years. That needs to be taken a hard look at given the amount of throughput that we can produce naval vessels, 1.5 subs per year, that sort of thing. So we need to take a look at all the shipyards, and I do think additional capability is needed there. Then if you look at our bases that are stretched, we have about 560 or so bases around the world. Some of those are in better repair than others. Some of them have suffered significantly from either hurricanes or floods or fires or various natural disasters. So we've got to take a hard look at all of that too and to make sure that our infrastructure is up to par. But that's critical to the overall defense and national security of the United States. General, thank you very much really for us. As we put together this NDAA, we all too often spend our time and our money buying new bright shiny things and neglecting the ongoing sustainment of the various facilities. And as long as we do not put this as a priority, the readiness will not be there. And the GAO reports and your own reports indicate that that is the case and we have to address it. With that, I yield back. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lambern for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Milley, thank you for your 43 years of service to our country. The Strategic Forces Subcommittee has heard testimony about how Russia, specifically Ross-Adam, is providing China with highly enriched uranium. China is going to put this into fast breeder reactors that will yield plutonium, thus accelerating the pace of their nuclear breakout. How concerned are you about Russia's role in assisting China's strategic nuclear breakout and what do you recommend be done? I'm concerned not only about that, but any coherence and cohesion between Russia and China in this particular strategic environment that we're in. We're seeing that with the two of them are getting closer together. I wouldn't call it a true, full alliance in the real meaning of that word, but we are seeing them moving closer together, and that's troublesome, and then if you add in Iran as the third. So those three countries together are gonna be problematic for many years to come, I think, especially Russia and China, because of their capability. With respect to what you just cited about nuclear capabilities and the transfer of capabilities, I'd like to go to a closed session on the specifics of that, but it is concerning, very much so. Well, and we will pursue that more later. And as a follow-on, we know from recent disclosures that China now has more nuclear missile launchers than the US, and we also know that they're manufacturing more warheads than ever for themselves. And this is new since some of the posture hearings in the past or reviews have been done. So what do you recommend be done now concerning China's nuclear breakout? China's nuclear capabilities are not matched with the United States, but when you start talking nuclear weapons, Congressman, I mean, these things are enormous payloads. So you gotta ask the question, how much is enough sort of thing? So they have a significant capability, nuclear capability today without going into specific numbers. They have a significant nuclear capability today, and they have intercontinental ballistic missiles that can range the United States. That is obviously bothersome. So we are in a situation, now as I mentioned in my opening statement, we are facing two nuclear-armed great powers. So the principles of the Cold War of deterrence still obtain, but now it's more complicated because it's two versus one. And anytime you have three variables versus one variable or two variables, it's a much more complicated situation. So strategic stability is essential that we maintain that and we do that with China with an assured second strike. That's the best way that exists today with the technologies that exist. We are probably not going to be able to do anything to stop, slow down, disrupt, interdict or destroy the Chinese nuclear development program that they have projected out over the next 10 to 20 years. Are they gonna do that in accordance with their own plan? And there's very little leverage, I think, that we could do externally to prevent that from happening. There might be some economic levels of power. There might be other things in the intelligence world, but for the most part, they're probably gonna step out. They have a national goal to be a global, to be the global co-equal with the United States and superior militarily by mid-century. They're on that path to do that. And that's really disturbing. That's really bothersome. And we're gonna have to not only keep pace, but we have to outpace that and that'll assure the peace. Well, a lot of us are concerned that the New START Treaty was negotiated with the Russians in mind and China was a minor, relatively minor player at the time. That's right. That's correct. I mean, there are arms control agreements and regimes, et cetera. But at the end of the day, all of those are good and I support all of those. But at the end of the day, military power matters and our military power has to always exceed that of China in all of the domains. And if we do that, then we have a better chance at deterring any kind of conflict with China. Thank you. Thank you. And we need to continue that debate on what comes after New START. For both of you, my subcommittee and the whole committee wants to make sure that hypersonics development proceeds as rapidly as possible. If we can identify ways to accelerate their development, whether through pinpointed funding increases beyond the president's budget, expanded testing capabilities or just overcoming bottlenecks in general, would you both be supportive of that? I am, sir. And we're doing all of that. We're investing some $11 billion in long-range fires in this budget and hypersonics is a part of that. We invested in hypersonics last year. Two years ago or 18 months ago, we pulled CEOs together to talk about things that we could do to speed up our efforts here in hypersonics. And they identified some of the things that you're talking about, greater range access, better ranges. And so we're working all of that. So I think if I look at what we're doing recently, we had 12 successful tests, hypersonic tests here in the last year. Not every one of them's gonna work, but we had 12 successful tests and we'll continue that work going forward. Gentlemen, Tom's expired. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Chairman Owen. Thank the witnesses for being here today and certainly to you, General Milley, for your service and echo the comments of the chairman and right-wing member. We had close three years of COVID pandemic that had a direct disruption on the America output, but also the defense industrial base. So we recognize this has caused considerable amount of backlog and disruption. The defense industrial base, and we've heard it not only here on the dais today, but we've heard it across many of our committees on not having the workforce. Industrial base is resilient, but certainly hasn't been able to answer the call the way many of us had expected. The president has directed the department to increase the use of the American industrial base understanding that certainly we have allies and partners. And let me just make the statement, partners that are with us all the time, not just our part-time partners. What actions has the department taken to date and what actions do you plan, Secretary Austin, that would increase the use of this industrial base capacity and capabilities to meet our defense? Well, we have done a lot and we will continue to do more. First of all, let me thank you for providing us multi-year contracting authorities. That sends a strong signal to the industrial base. We've asked you for more of those authorities in this budget and we would be grateful if you would favorably consider them. We've also sent a strong signal by the amount that we're asking for for procurement, $170 billion. And that, again, that's a good signal to industry. We've reached out to the industry leadership, met with them, talked to them about things that we could do to work together to expand capacity in specific areas. We've asked the president for additional authorities with the Defense Production Act to expand certain lines of, especially in munitions. And so we continue this work, but we're doing a lot and we're gonna do more. To follow up on the Defense Production Act, would you give us more specifics where it has been applied? And you had just mentioned, you're looking for the White House to expand it, not only where, but where we want to apply it. We can certainly follow up with additional details in writing, but a good example is what we've been trying to do with acquiring and purchasing one-five-five munitions. We've asked for extra authorities to lean into that, and the president certainly gave us the help with that, and he continues to help in other areas as well. We certainly appreciate that. And almost three years ago, we started to invest very heavily in the armaments and explosives, or we would be even in worse condition. Any authorities that is not available to you now that you would need to help expedite this? Quite frankly, no. I think that, again, we've asked you for additional authorities to do multi-year contracting. That would help us if you would give us additional authorities in this budget. But Congress has been very, very responsive and helpful, and the president has as well. So we're not only working with our industrial base, but we're working with allies and partners to work with them, to talk to them about how they can expand as well and increase their productivity. Thank you, Bob. The Industrial Base of America, as we know from previous wars, answers the call. We just need to make sure that America is asked to do it and bring home some of that incredibly important work that has been offshored from years past. With that, I yield back. I thank the gentleman. Chair, I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Whitman, for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to submit the three charts I'm about to present for the record. Without objection, so ordered. Thank you. Secretary Austin, General Milley, thank you so much for joining us today. General Milley, thank you so much for your 43 years of service to our nation. Incredibly, incredibly contributing to the overall effort. Gentlemen, today we face the threat of our lifetime. The CCP is indeed that. And to go back to 2004, when Secretary Rumpfell said, you go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time. We see the expansionist efforts by the Chinese Communist Party. I'd like to point to this first chart. This is where we were in 1999. As you can see, we were in pretty good shape in relation to the area of influence from the Chinese Communist Party and their military assets. Let's fast forward to today. We see modernized PLA forces, we see the area of influence, significant, significant strategic overmatch by the Chinese. And incredible, it's hard to believe that this is what they've done through those years to not only catch up, but to surpass us. Folks, the next chart is what keeps me up at night. This is where the CCP will be in 2025, just down the road. They've said that if reunification doesn't happen by 2027, they will take military action. We know what is in store. We know where this disparity exists. We see this. This should be a sobering effect for all of us. Secretary Austin, the Biden administration proposes a defense budget that allows the Air Force to defest 801 fighter aircraft from FY23 to 28 while buying 345 new fighter aircraft over the same period of time. It disregards Congress's direction to the Navy to maintain a minimum of 31 ships in our amphibious force. It also builds nine ships, that's great, but it retires 11 ships. And I just have a hard time seeing where we're going. I'm not a mathematician, but I wanna know how do we do addition by subtraction? How does this budget create the capacity and capability to close this gap? How does this send a message to the Chinese that this is a deterrent effect for what we know is coming? Please tell us what we're going to do with this threat that's at our doorstep. Please tell the American people what we are gonna do to mitigate this threat. Well, thank you, sir. First of all, on a budget, the way that we constructed this budget and the way that we constructed our last budget is that we linked our budget directly to our strategy. And we not only view the threat as we see it today, but we look over the years and where the threat will be in several years from now. We're interested in investing in the right capabilities that will support the warfighting concepts that we know that we will need to employ in order to be successful. And so it is about the quality, the capability of the platforms, and not necessarily the number. We talked about fighting as a member of a coalition. We don't go to battle on our own, typically. And so we expect that as we engage in a contest with any adversary in the future, allies and partners will be there and we continue to invest in our interoperability with our allies and partners as well. So it is all about the right mix of capabilities. And if you look at the aircraft that you mentioned, we want that fifth generation aircraft and capability and that's what we're investing in. And we also don't want to have to continue to invest to maintain aircraft and ships that are costly and provide headwinds. Secretary Austin, with all due respect, quantity has a quality all its own. And there's only so many things that we can engage in the battle space. It's great to have exquisite platforms, but we do eventually get overwhelmed in this particular scenario. So to talk about these smaller number of platforms that have this capability is great, but capacity matters also. And the Chinese are looking at everything that we do and everything that we do, even with these exquisite platforms, they're developing pretty capable countermeasures. My concern is no matter what we're doing within that realm, if we don't do both capability and capacity, we're gonna find ourselves in incredibly challenging places. And I already talked to our war fighters, they're saying, listen, we're trying today to learn how to fight in situations where we're gonna be significantly tactically and strategically overmatched. That's a pretty sobering place. Gentlemen's time has expired. Chair not recognized, Mr. Gilego. Guy, you go. Ruben, Ruben is recognized. Appreciate the effort, Chairman, I really do. Secretary Austin, thank you for being here. This administration is built in a press of coalition of allies and partners to support Ukraine, including the Ukraine Defense Contact Group that you lead. Looking ahead to the next few months, can you share your expectations for this summer's NATO summit? Also, what steps have you taken and are you taking to further European security? Specifically, I'm looking at the Baltic States since we do have a Baltic Security Initiative as part of our NDA here. Thanks, sir. As we go into the summit, I think what you'll see in that summit is a strong display of unity. No one imagined that this alliance would be as unified as it is today. A year ago or several years ago, you recall that we were discussing the relevance of NATO several years ago. And now, not only are countries united, we see resolve that we haven't seen in a very, very long time, and we see countries investing more in their defense. And so I think what you'll see going into that summit is a call to action for countries to invest even more. Number one, meet the Wales Pledge of 2% of their GDP, but to exceed that and invest in relevant capabilities that can strengthen NATO's efforts. So I think those two things you'll see as prominent in the summit. Thank you, Secretary Germany. Thank you for your testimony and of course, for your decades of service. In your testimony, you refer to private military companies that Russia relies on to undermine other nations' sovereignty. To the extent possible in this open setting, can you share your perspective on the relationship between the Wagner Group and the Russian forces at the operational level? And are you seeing the Wagner Group's presence in Africa change as a result of the war in Ukraine? As you know, the Wagner Group is a mercenary private military company. They're conducting combat operations right now in Bakhmut primarily. There's probably about 6,000 or so actual mercenaries and maybe another 20 or 30,000 recruits or they get many of whom come from prisons. And they are suffering an enormous amount of casualties in the Bakhmut area. The Ukrainians are inflicting a lot of death and destruction on these guys. In addition to Bakhmut and Ukraine, Wagner Group is in many, many other places, most notably in West Africa, where they essentially have taken over a country. And they pushed out the French out of, I think it was Mali, in some other places. So the Wagner Group is a very aggressive group. It's led by a very ruthless guy, Pergosian. He reports to be a businessman, but he's got an incredible criminal background behind him. So this is a dangerous group. They're quite large, they're quite powerful, and they have at least reached throughout parts of Europe and into Africa and maybe some parts of the Middle East. We ran into them in the Middle East a couple of years ago in Syria with the Battle of the Italian-sized force that was attacking one of our positions and we destroyed that force. So they are there, they're aggressive. Most of them are former Russian soldiers of one kind or another. A lot of internationals work with them as well. So very dangerous group, long reach, very wealthy, very rich, and they are probably very disruptive, internal to Russian society. Thank you, General. Secretary Austin, in your testimony, highlighted the challenge that both China and Russia pose, what step is the administration taking or steps to counter both Chinese and Russian influence in Africa and South America? Thanks, sir. The most effective way to counter their efforts in those areas is presence. What our combatant commanders are doing to not only be present in those spaces, but also help our partners, our allies, build partner capacity as well. And so for the investment of a small number of professionals working with partners, we can achieve tremendous results, but presence speaks volumes. And so we're gonna continue to do what's necessary to make sure that our partners in the region, in those various regions, know that we're the best investment, we're the best partner to have, and we're gonna be with them for the long term. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're back. Thank you, Mr. Gallego. Chairman, I'll recognize Mr. Scott from Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here. I know we've talked a lot about Russia, Iran, China, the alliance between the three. I guess the most brazen thing that I've ever seen with, or in recent times with the attack on the United States has been what China did with flying a spy balloon over since the military installations inside the United States. And yet, less than 15 days after that occurred, Ford Motor Company announced a multi-billion dollar alliance with Communist China on battery technology. Secretary Austin, I'm concerned about how we purge China from the DOD supply chain. I'm concerned about corporate America partnering with Communist China and then slapping a US-made sticker on it and us buying it through our DOD with US tax dollars specifically with regard to the Chinese battery technology. And I just wanna make sure that the DOD is aware of Ford Motor Company partnering with Communist China on the battery technology and make sure that the DOD is committed to not purchasing Communist China's battery technology. Can you speak to that issue and what you at the DOD are doing to purge China from the DOD supply chain? Make sure we're not simply buying Chinese technology with the US sticker on it. Well, thanks, sir. As you know, this is a far bigger issue than just the Department of Defense. You know, we support a rules-based global market and that's been what we've supported for a long time. As you do that, certainly you will have supply chains that run through places like China, but what you've seen our leadership do recently is move to as best we can begin to onshore some of those capabilities that are represented in those supply chains and limit our liabilities there and limit our exposure. Sir, if I could, would you agree that if you send money to one person and that person sends money then to Communist China, and Communist China then uses that money against the United States that, I mean, that's a circle where our dollars are being used against us. I think the best thing that we can do and are doing is to continue to invest in our industrial base, continue to invest in our supply chain. I agree with that 100%. I don't mean to interrupt you, I'm getting short on time and I wanna move to another question, but I would just tell you that I think it's counterproductive for the Department of Defense to purchase technology developed by the PLC and Chinese corporations. I think there's better technology available and corporate America does not need to be allowed to sell stick an American sticker on Communist China's technology and sell it to us, especially at the DoD. Moving to another question, General Milley, there are a lot of activity in our own backyard just south of our border. Been there a couple of times. The drug cartels activity and capabilities have increased drastically over the last few years. We're seeing larger influxes from a lot of countries, including China. We've seen a 1,000% plus increase in the amount of people coming from China. They can get a 14-day travel visa into Mexico and then simply come to the US border and claim asylum and 72 hours later, they're in our country. Is Southcom, and I realize Southcom operates south of Mexico, Southcom and Northcom, are they getting adequate resources to target the illegal immigration, whether it be from China or the transnational criminal organizations coming from south of there and the drug cartels? Given our global commitments, I think they've got adequate resources. However, I would say that there's no cocom out there at all who would tell you that they get all the resources that they need, so they always need more. But I've talked very frequently with Laura Richardson and Glen Van Herk. There's no question that there's a vulnerability on our southern border. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. You've got thousands of people coming across every single day. There's a lot of drugs coming across every single day. You've got a major league fentanyl crisis, so there is clearly a vulnerability there. And of course, the precursor chemicals for the fentanyl, et cetera, come from China and so on. So yes. Arms race here are trying to catch up with Russia and China for the worst reasons because we're both rushing to get more of these hypersonics. They're fundamentally destabilizing. That makes the world less safe for all of us. And so I think it'd be helpful to hear not just a strategy to win this arms race, but a strategy to stop it. I'm sorry I've run out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chair and I recognize Ms. Tafonic of New York for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask both Secretary Austin and General Milley about the unique role the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum play in great power competition. I recently had the opportunity to visit with Major General Anderson, who's doing a great job after the tremendous leadership by General Beagle up at Fort Drum. And we discussed General Anderson's Alpine Initiative to return the 10th Mountain Division to its roots of cold weather operations and mountaineering. Given that both you, Mr. Secretary, and you, General Milley, we're commanding generals at Fort Drum, you're very familiar with the post, with the unique strengths of 10th Mountain. What role do you see the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum specifically playing in out-competing our adversaries in the Arctic? I think 10th Mountain Division can play a significant role and does play a significant role in that endeavor. I would also say that there are multi-purpose division. It can, as they've demonstrated, they can go a number of places and be very, very effective because their strength is the quality of their people and their leadership. And that's been demonstrated over and over again. General Milley. Yeah, thanks, Congresswoman. A couple of things. First, they're trained in Arctic operations, so that's a key thing. As you know, the Arctic's opening up. Secondly is their light infantry, so they can rapidly deploy. It's, in fact, it's the most deployed division in the Army. So the rapid deployment is key and that acts as a strategic deterrent. They're one of the first units we deployed to Europe. In fact, we've got a unit just coming back from the 10th and there's another unit going over from the 10th, over to the Ukraine area. The third thing is they're optimized for urban combat as light infantry. They're very effective and as the world becomes ever more urbanized, the probability is higher rather than lower that decisive fights, battles will occur in highly dense urban areas. So 10th Mountain has a lot of unique capabilities and they bring to the fight rapid deployment, urban combat, mountain warfare, winter warfare. And it's a great outfit, it's a great port, it's a great place to work and live and serve our country. Yeah, thank you, General Milley. And Secretary Austin, you took my line, General Milley. I always like to point out that it is the most deployed division in the U.S. Army since 9-11 and we're grateful for so many military families that I've gotten to know over many years. I want to shift gears here, still related to Fort Drum, but specifically missile defense. Iran has never been closer to a nuclear weapons capability and has demonstrated a space launch capability which has a direct technical application to an ICBM. For over a decade, it's been U.S. policy to be ready for a third homeland missile defense site should the Iran threat mature. The previous North Com commander testified as long ago as 2015, an additional missile defense site would give us increased inventory and increased battle space with regards to a threat coming from the direction of the Middle East. And while you have both Iran increasing their development of nuclear weapons capabilities as well as North Korea continue to develop their ballistic missile capabilities, I want to get your response to Fort Drum has been designated as a potential third site. Why that would be important to include a third homeland site to provide with more confidence to intercept any potential missile. Secretary Austin. I'll certainly defer to the work that we're doing, being completed and looking at the results of that work. But certainly Fort Drum has tremendous capability and a great community. So I think if that site is chosen, I think it would be a good choice. That site has been chosen by the Department of Defense. That was announced a few years ago. We worked on that in the NDA. It's also current in previous NDA. Fort Drum has been designated as the potential third site. General Milley. Potential third site. Potential third site. So what is the process of ensuring that we're focused to meet the needs, not of the past, but of the future, 2030s and 2040s, because it takes a long time for that infrastructure investment for that to be potentially completed. So what is the timeline, General Milley or Secretary Austin? I don't think a timeline has actually been established, but I can tell you that what we're talking about and what you're talking about, I think, is a project that's been out there for quite some time on the books. You're looking at probably 20 to 40 silo, something like that, and then the missiles to go with it. It would probably take a decade to actually put that in. It would take billions, I don't know exact cost figures, but it would take billions. The question is, is it strategically worthwhile? I personally think yes, because we have a missile threat from North Korea, but we have an arrayed system of sensors in the Western Pacific all the way to California, and we've got missile capabilities that can engage North Korea. When you're dealing with China and Russia, you're dealing with an assured second strike because of the volume, but in Iran, if they were to develop the ICBM level of missiles, which they haven't yet, but if they do, and they're developing the peace parts with space launch vehicles, and if they were to then develop a nuclear weapon to put on top of that, that's where it becomes important. Now, are they on the road to do that? I think that's a choice that people in a judgment that the intelligence community others would have to make. I personally think developing those systems on the East Coast would be helpful, and it would further enhance the protection of the United States. Thank you very much. Generally, these times expired. Chair and I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Carvajal, if I have any. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Secretary Austin and General Milley for being here before us today. General Milley, I just wanna thank you for your distinguished service. 42 years to our nation. I know our nation is better for it, and I hope you enjoy a well-deserved retirement, and I know you'll continue to serve in some way to help our country. My district houses multiple military installations, including Camp San Luis Obispo and Vandenberg Space Force Base. Vandenberg is unique because of the coastline it sits on faces south, making this major range and test facility base a safe and ideal setting to test land-based strategic deterrent assets and to safely place satellite payloads into polar or earth orbit. Despite Vandenberg being the only federal West Coast range in the United States, investments in launch infrastructure are far behind a crowded East Coast range ecosystem. We are expecting an incoming legislative proposal from the department that advances the range of the future by allowing commercial investment for on-base launch infrastructure, a proposal I am very supportive of. Secretary Austin, can you speak to the importance of maintaining bi-coastal ranges for our nation's national security and DOD readiness? It's critical, absolutely critical. And you heard us talk about, it's critical for a number of technologies that we need to invest in, not only the testing of things like hypersonics, but also the launching of space-based platforms as well. And the reason I raise it, Secretary, is if it's critical, then I'm sure I think we're lagging behind the critical investments in infrastructure for it to continue to be fulfilled as strategic mission. And so I raise it in that fashion, and as you aptly characterize it, it's critical, but I think it needs to be matched by the investments we make in that range. I agree, and I think you may have heard me say earlier that one of the things that we did early on is we reached out to industry and talked to them about what they needed to be able to speed up the development of certain capabilities. Ranges and testing facilities was one of the things that they raised. And so my R&E undersecretary and others went after this, and we began to invest in that in last year's budget and also in this year's budget as well. Thank you. Secretary Milley, in your submitted testimony, you mentioned some of the capabilities are adversaries in the space domain, and that if left unsecured, our capabilities in space will become strategic vulnerabilities. You call on Congress to support a significant increase in the budget for space capabilities. Can you expand on what you think this increase in investment should look like? In your opinion, what space capabilities should Congress be focusing on to ensure our space assets are secure? Well, I think this budget's got over 30 billion, I think, in space assets, which is critical. And then the development of space force was really critical in the last administration that's being carried forward here. In terms of the domains of war, you've got the traditional ones of land, sea, and air and subsea, but you now have cyber and space. And that country that has significant, robust, resilient capabilities in space is likely to have a decisive advantage at the beginning of the next war. If there is a war, hopefully there won't be. So what do we need? We need resilient, robust, and lots of space capabilities, both offense and defense. We tend to invest in very, very high-tech, unique one-off sort of satellites. What we really need is lots of little satellites. We need the ability to sense and see. We need the ability also, if necessary, to communicate. A lot of our communications, our GPS systems, rely on space. So building that and making it more resilient, more robust and redundant, survivable, if you will. And I think a lot of smaller systems in space, rather than really big ones that if the Russians and Chinese took them out, we would be blinded. I think that's the key for right now. There are offensive capabilities, but we're not prepared to go there yet in a public forum. Thank you. Can you elaborate on the cyber capability, the cyber framework that we have in place in DOD across the services or the departments? Well, as you know, we have a unified command at Cybercom led by General Nakasone, who's dual-headed as the NSA. And that command, each of the services have components to Cybercom. And we've got cyber protection teams for defense, and we've got cyber teams for offense. And without going into a lot of detail, I would tell you that we have an incredible cyber capability that can do incredible damage to an adversary on the offense. And the cyber command in combination with NSA does a lot of work to protect our infrastructure, information technologies, et cetera, particularly in DOD. The gentleman's time has expired. Thank you. And I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Dr. Desjarlet, for five minutes. Thank you, Chairman Rogers, and I would like to thank our witnesses today. Mostly I would like to thank the men and women who are serving in our military that you all have the honor to lead. I want to discuss some readiness issues with you today. There was a poll that was done earlier this month by Wall Street Journal and NORC, which is a nonprofit research group out of University of Chicago. It's entitled America Pulls Back from Values that Wants to Find It. And without objection, I'd like to submit the poll for the record, Mr. Chairman. So two of the main points that I gleaned from this were that comparing to 25 years ago, the number of Americans who rated patriotism as very important was 70%. Now 25 years later, that's 38%. There were several topics. Religious faith was 62%. Now it's 39%. I think you already discussed earlier that we have recruiting problems. Excuse me, I just want to make sure that people know that the gentleman founded a UC and without objection, it's accepted. Thank you, sir. The AP says the Army missed its recruiting goal by 15,000 soldiers, I think was 25%. The NBC News says every branch of the military is struggling to make its 2022 recruiting goals. In Tennessee, we had a delegation meeting. We're having problems filling our academy slots, which has never happened before. We used to have way too many good applications to deal with and we had to disappoint people. But all of that is very concerning. So I guess I think you both acknowledge that there is a problem and COVID seems to be the most likely scapegoat that's going to get brought up today. And certainly it caused some issues. The administration made a call during COVID that probably exacerbated the problem and it became more about following orders and keeping people healthy. But at some point, maybe it would be expedient to admit that maybe we were wrong and that we should reinstate people and rebuild the force that we lost from there. But our country seems to send conflicting messages about what our objectives are, whether that be in Ukraine, what we're gonna do with Taiwan, North Korea, Iran. And I understand the concept of strategic ambiguity, but sometimes for the American people, they need a clear message to where we're going. But back to the issue at hand, why are we having problems with recruiting? And we know there's been a lot in the news about wokeism and DEI, which diversity, equity and inclusion, we can maybe focus on equity because it should be a quality. Everyone should have a fair chance to achieve the same goal. But equity tips the scales for certain undefined reasons that makes it easier for one person to achieve success and over another. And I think that affects morale and I think it's affecting recruitment and I do wanna get your opinion. I did wanna reference a study commissioned by Congressman Gallagher where he asked Navy personnel what they thought the problem was. And here's a quote from one officer. Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we survive a fight with China, a Navy lieutenant on active duty told the authors, they think my only value as a black woman, they think that is my only value, but if you cut our ship open with a missile, we'll all bleed the same color. The report also found that almost 94% of sailors being interviewed believe the Navy suffers from a crisis of leadership and culture. Sailors told the authors that the fleet suffered critical loss of focus from primary purpose. And this is pretty critical considering the threats we face. So General Milley, I guess I'll start with you. You've served us for 43 years. You mentioned this may be your last hearing. So when you're retired and you're sitting there with your fellow patriots who served and watch great changes occur in our military over 40 years, can you look them in the eye? Can you look us in the eye today and say that the DEI and Wokeness strengthened our military or weakened it? Well, I would tell you that the purpose of those programs is, you know, e-pluridivist unum to build teamwork and so on and so forth. And in some cases, it may not be working out that way, but that is the purpose of those programs. But I would tell you that the, and I get around the military quite a bit and granted, you know, as a chairman, there's gonna be lots of filters and et cetera, and people are gonna paint rocks pink when you, but I've been around long enough to figure it out. And I've been on the ships and planes and forts and bases, et cetera. The military I see is a military that is motivated and the folks that are in the military, we have the highest re-enlistment rate in 50 years of the war. Okay, I'm gonna stop on that because that doesn't match the facts. You know, we see China continue to achieve their military objectives at an alarming pace. Well, we seem to be chasing our tails with systems that are obsolete before we field them and our adversaries are finding ways to defeat them before we get these systems built. It happens in space, hypersonic shipbuilding, and even relationship building. So I think our number one purpose here in Congress is to provide for the common defense. I don't care how much it costs, but we need to do it efficiently. I agree. By gentlemen's times expired. I do wanna take a moment here to inform the witnesses and the members that about 12.15, we're gonna take a 10 minute courtesy break. But with that, we'll move to Mr. Keating of Massachusetts for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank the ranking member and Secretary Austin, Mr. McCord, thank you for your service. General Milley, all the best in the next chapter. Those of us in Massachusetts like to take a little pride in where you came from originally and as well as your predecessor. And thank you for that service. Now, Putin has clearly made some of the most outrageous miscalculations of any leader in modern times. He miscalculated the will and commitment of the Ukraine people. He made a major miscalculation and not understanding the leadership of the U.S. and the commitment of the U.S. to lead. And he made another miscalculation in not understanding how our allies, our transatlantic allies in particular, but even our global allies, even beyond NATO, how they're banded together so coherently and strongly under this leadership. And I've been able to witness this, not only as a member of this committee, both informed by classified and public information, but also with my service on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where I've chaired and ranked on the European Subcommittee for that time and engaged in very private and important conversations with leaders there. Yet there are voices in the American public right now that will say that our coalition partners are not holding up their end of the bargain. I'm informed by information that I've had that just to the contrary. In fact, it's quite extraordinary. And in some areas, in some countries, historic in nature. But can you take this opportunity to inform from your perspectives the American public that they're wrong because we have people voicing those concerns and using that as a justification to say the U.S. shouldn't be committed to Ukraine because these other countries aren't holding up their end of the bargain when I've been informed that they clearly are. But can you take this moment here in front of this committee to just inform the American public that level of commitment that exists there, and how strong it is, how important it is, and how they are carrying great weight? Well, thank you, sir. And I think you're exactly right. As you know, I meet with 50-plus nations, the ministers of defense of those nations every month. And in those meetings, what I see displayed is a strong sense of commitment and unity to support Ukraine for as long as it takes. As a matter of fact, that's the language that I hear them employ. Some of those countries, especially the smaller ones, have given a lot in terms of the percentage of their GDP and are looking for ways to do more. And when they've run out of stuff, they invest money in things like helping other countries expand their product lines as we look to acquire additional munitions and weapons. So the commitment that I see is strong. What I've seen them provide is impressive, but there's always more than we can do. And you hear me consistently beating the drum for more air defense and other things in support of Ukraine. But what I've seen thus far, I've seen tremendous support for Ukraine in helping it defend its sovereignty. Karen Milley? Yeah, exactly the same thing. The 54 countries, and obviously there's only 30 in NATO, so those come from all around the globe. Britain, France, Germany, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, these countries are Romanian. These countries are poor in their heart and soul. And they realize that this threat is proximate to them. So you look at Poland, how many refugees they've taken, how many tanks they've done, or they've provided how many BMPs they've provided, all the training that they've done, and they're a major throughput for all the logistics, and it's not without risk. So these countries are putting in as one team and they understand the threat that's facing them. We're gonna talk about inefficiencies and waste and not maximizing our efforts here, but I wanna just raise one issue with a little time that's remaining. Secretary Austin mentioned aging assets being phased out and General Milley mentioned on-time budgets and the importance of that. I don't know if you have the time for this, you probably don't, but congressional resolutions after congressional resolution, CR after CR, how is that handicapping your efficiency when Congress should look at itself too when we engage in that kind of budgetary effort? Again, as you heard us say earlier, you can't affect new starts if you have it under a CR. You lose valuable time in terms of producing the kinds of things that we need to produce in order to be relevant in the next competition. So it's, again, you can't get the time back, it's really, really important. Gentlemen's time's expired. Chair now recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, General Kelly for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My first one is a comment, I don't really, but right now it is taking over eight months on average to pay a traditional soldier when they retire from service. That is unacceptable. And when I asked the question, I sent a letter to the service chiefs and secretaries and they have not responded yet, but I will tell you the response I got through other channels was that eight months is an acceptable standard for them to get pay and ID card and tri-care retired. And that is unacceptable. That a soldier serves 40 years and one of my friends served 40 years and it took them 13 months to get him his first chest. That's unacceptable. Please help me with that. Number two is Chairman Milley and Secretary Austin. I know you are both huge proponents of this programs, but I'm at an SPP. We have got to go head to head and work with the State Department to make sure that we are the next generation of leaders in other countries that we're using. I'm at, which is our military education program. We train junior officers in countries who wind up being sec-davs of those countries and also the state partnership programs to use those resources wisely, which you guys are doing a good job. We just need to continue to invest in those programs. The third point I want to make is we have a lot of opportunity in South America and Africa in the near-peer competition because we are getting our tails whipped. Some State Department stuff, some IMET stuff, all those things plugged in, but there's huge opportunity with huge return on investment in both South America and in Africa. So I just ask that you look at how we can invest in those continents to make sure that we are protecting our own shores here in the near-peer competition. Now my final question, I want to double-tap on what Congressman Whitman said. We cannot divest to increase our power. And I don't feel the sense of urgency with all of DOD in this nation, quite frankly, across the board. Our threat is not 2035. If we are preparing for a war in 2035, we are preparing for the wrong number. We need to be prepared in 2027 or 2028, and we don't get there by subtraction of assets. We have to be able to fight tonight. So I want to know, General Milley, what are the shortfalls in munitions? And I know you can't specifically, but we need to be thinking what munitions, 155 rounds, we are not where we need to be. Other munitions for other systems are systems. What are we doing to make sure that we have the munitions to sustain based on the current consumption rates that we've seen out in Ukraine to make sure we have the systems and the munitions to fight that war and win in 2027 or 2028? Well, a couple of points. Big lesson learned comes out of Ukraine, which is the incredible consumption rates of conventional munitions and what really is a limited regional war. If there was a war in the Khran Peninsula or a great power war between the United States of Russia or United States and China, the consumption rates would be off the charts. So one of the projects that the Secretary directed me to do with the joint staff and other in the services, et cetera, was to conduct a complete review of all of our O-plans, con plans, war plans, and look at all the munitions estimates because it's those estimates that then form the basis of the munitions and the budgets. And this budget, we've got about $30 billion into munitions and these are higher end munitions that we want to make sure that we have. If you look back, I'll use a historical example real quick. If you look back at Libya, we expended an enormous amount of precision guided munitions, way more than people might fully realize. And that's a really small contingency, right? So I'm concerned, I know the Secretary is and you're correct to point this out. We've got a ways to go to make sure our stockpiles are prepared for their real contingencies. And one of the big lessons I think China learns from this thing is. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hate to cut you off but I'm glad that y'all are looking and I wanted to highlight that we are looking at those things. The final thing I want to talk about is shipbuilding. And as C-Power Chair, it is very important that we quit divesting in our Navy to invest. It's also very important that we quit chasing shiny objects in the Navy with Cape and chasing shiny objects. And I use the light ship medium, which the Marines asked for. They had certain capabilities in mind. That's exactly what they wanted. They didn't ask and there are the user and so we have done this thing. So now two years later, we are going back to square one to develop a system that is more survivable and protected and manned with a bigger crew with bigger weapon systems. That's not what they needed. It's not what they wanted. We don't need to be the Pentagon wars in the Pentagon. We need to make sure that when a service asks for a ship or something that we give them what they ask for and not keep adding shiny new stuff and we need to maintain the 31 ship amphibes. And we will not go below that. And we also need to get that number up because that's not the number we need. With that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman here. Now I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Kim. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all of you for joining us here today. Mr. Secretary, I wanted to start with you. Both of you have raised these points about hypersonic technologies. You yourself talked about our increased spending when it comes to long range fires, the 12 successful tests. You've heard from some of my colleagues raising these issues as well. I wanted to pick up on that. Part of the issue here in terms of trying to deter competitors from using this type of technology is building up our own capabilities. But some of it is also about our counter capabilities and defensive capabilities here. So I guess I just wanted to ask you, given the speed with which these delivery systems can travel and the difficulty of intercepting them, can these weapons actually be effectively countered and are we putting in enough support and resources to be able to develop this type of counter-hypersonic capability? Yeah, so one of the first things that we did in coming in. Would you mind bringing the microphone a little closer? Yeah, can you hear me now? Yeah. Okay, thank you. One of the first things that we did as we came in was to task our undersecretary for R&E research to look at ways to develop capabilities to counter-hypersonic weapons. And that work has been ongoing. We brought industry together. We collapsed a number of special access programs and we really took a look at what it takes to intercept in the glide phase for these types of weapons. That work continues. It remains a priority for me. Thank you. And I did have the chance to talk to the undersecretary. I think she's doing wonderful work here and I just urge you to make sure we're putting that type of investment into that that is necessary because I can tell you there are a few things that keep me up at night more than just seeing what this type of technology is capable of. General Milley, I wanted to switch to you. In some similar type of vein but very different profile here, we're seeing a proliferation of unmanned aerial systems. The capabilities to be able to deliver munitions. We've seen it in terms of recent attacks against our interests, our personnel. Some of these systems are very small, low profile, low cost, very different than the hypersonic systems. To me, sometimes has an unnerving similarity to some of the rise of what we saw with IEDs during the 2000s in terms of just how prolific this could be, which obviously took a tragic toll on us. I wanted to ask you how you would grade and assess our current capabilities to identify and intercept these types of UAS aerial systems? Well, as you know, there's a lot of different types of UAS systems, small, little off-the-shelf stuff. You can get on a radio shack, all the way up to very sophisticated MQ-9s that we have, for example. So, but one of the typical characteristics are they're relatively low and slow and they can be intercepted. They can be intercepted through a hard shootdown with a kinetic action or they can be intercepted through non-kinetics, like you break the electronic link between that and the control station. So a couple of different ways to do that. We have a wide variety of kind of UAS systems that are in the field today, many of them in Syria and Iraq and elsewhere. So it's an area for sure of concern. What it is, though, it's a subset of a much broader phenomenon that's happening, which I would call a change in the fundamental character of war. And you're seeing the rapid introduction of robotics across the spectrum. The UAVs are just part of that. And very shortly, you're gonna see the world's advanced military, United States, China, Russia, et cetera. You're gonna see shifts to robotic systems in a big way, in land, sea, and air. So at some point in the future, you'll see maybe a third or more of the United States Navy or the Chinese Navy or the Russian Navy. Those will be unmanned maritime vessels, unmanned sub-vessels, and so on and so forth. So what you're seeing in UAVs is a much broader shift to robotics in the conduct of war. This is an area that I was very concerned about two years ago, because I saw this continue to develop. I asked our folks to take a hard look at making sure that we have the best capability to defend our troops in the inventory. And we do. It's not good enough, and we'll continue that work. But I also wanted the team to get upstream and go after the lines, the chains that enable this kind of activity. And we tasked our special operations forces to really bear down on this and pull it together in our agency process, for lack of a better term to do after this. And just here, as I close here, as the technology that you all are developing, I worry about the proliferation of this even into the civilian space, not just in terms of military targets. So your technology, your advancement there could help keep us safe everywhere here at the homeland as well. So thank you. Chair, I recognize Jen from Wisconsin. Mr. Gattiger, five minutes. Secretary Austin, one of your predecessors, Secretary Gates, described his greatest success as a, quote, war on the Pentagon that involved really cutting through the bureaucracy and spending 45 billions to develop and field the EMRAP program, which is responsible for saving thousands of lives in Iraq. As you look at the problem we face across the Taiwan Strait, what do you see as your version of that? What is your version of the EMRAP success? The thing that you are personally bird-dogging to ensure the bureaucracy is not slowing down our efforts to enhance deterrence across the Taiwan Strait. Yeah, so in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, as you know, we are absolutely focused on making sure that Taiwan has what it needs to defend itself the right kinds of capabilities. So pulling together what it takes to get those capabilities to Taiwan at relevant speed is the challenge. And you see us, and I think we may have talked to you about this the other day, pulling together a number of entities to work on this problem set, more work to be done for sure, but we're moving out. But what is the, in simple terms, that even I could understand, what would be sort of the thrust of that effort?  And we saw some of that, we're seeing some of that in Ukraine. Things like coastal accrues, cruise missile coastal defense capabilities, defense against armor and those kinds of things, and the training that goes along with that. So, but that's what we're focused on and we are making progress, but we'll move it up faster. And I think there's a lot of bipartisan support for this idea of turning Taiwan into a porcupine. Can the members of this committee have confidence that the Secretary of Defense is personally engaged in that effort and pushing the Pentagon bureaucracy to deliver a deterrence by denial capability west of the international dateline in the next two years? Absolutely, there's not a week that goes by that I am not talking to commanders and staff on the problem set, the challenges faced with, that we face with China and me personally. And so that is a part of our battle rhythm for lack of a better term. And again, I think that that's what it's gonna take to do the kinds of things that you just described. And do you think with the appropriate metrics for us to look back on or just look at periodically to figure out how well we're doing and how well the building's doing, what you mentioned, coastal defense, cruise missiles, what are the things we should look at that we can actually count and measure over the next two years? Well, I think in terms of their overall readiness, how the reserve forces are trained and their readiness levels, the kinds of training that the average, kinds of capabilities that the average troop has and things that units are able to do, I think there are readiness issues readiness indicators that we can point to directly to show that we are making progress. But those kinds of things that you just described, I think are critical. In the minute and six seconds I have left, I wanna draw your attention to an article by John Pomfret and Matt Pottinger called, Xi Jinping says he's preparing China for war and talks about four speeches that Xi, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, the Supreme Leader of China has given this month, which have as one of their major themes, preparing the party in the country for war, including reducing food imports down to zero, they currently rely on the world for 40% of food imports, military mobilization, offices across the country, combat casualty hospitals in the province closest to Taiwan. Do you, what do you make of this? Do you take Xi Jinping seriously when he says he's preparing his country for war? We take, certainly we take Mr. Xi seriously, but I will say that I don't think that an attack on Taiwan is imminent nor inevitable. Having said that, we need to make sure that we maintain a combat credible force that can deter any adversary from making a bad decision on any given day. Ms. Thomas expired. Chair Nile, once again visits the great state of New Jersey. Ms. Sherrill's recognized for five minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to express my thanks as well to General Milley for his over 40 years of service. And as we know, when someone serves, their whole family serves. So I'd also like to express my sincere appreciation to your wife, Holly-Ann, and your two children for their service.  So thank you very much. I would also like to enter into the record a letter led by Senator Shaheen with 37 of her colleagues, a letter to you, Secretary Austin, expressing their strong support for the department's personnel policy related to reproductive healthcare. So I'd like to associate myself with their sentiments and enter it into the record. Without objection, so order. Thank you. You know, as we know, about one in five service members are women. Now, about 40% of them don't have access to full reproductive health services. So I'd certainly like to thank you, Secretary Austin, for your commitment to support for these women, for our service women and their families. I will tell you that we have seen in my own state, women making decisions about job opportunities and where they may go for educational opportunities based on reproductive rights. So I do think this is an issue that impacts recruiting as well. And I'll say that in my own service, I served in Texas, a state where now women don't have access to basic reproductive services, basic services for even going through miscarriages right now, which has been devastating for so many families. So thank you for that. I would like to applaud your support for that. Unfortunately, as we have seen, a member of our Senate is now threatening to withhold nominations for flag ranks. And we know that I think over about 83 and four stars are being withheld, not to mention numerous commands where we see upcoming retirements or movements. Can you talk a little bit about the practical impact on readiness this will have for our forces? Well, we spent the better part of the morning talking about the challenges that we face in this complex environment that we see currently without the leadership at the senior levels to help us maintain our readiness. I think this will place our readiness, our overall readiness at risk. And it will also impact families in a major way. Permanent change of station moves won't happen. Kids will be, I won't enter school on time and it goes on and on. And the problem will compound very quickly. And so I think it's important for those troops, those officers that have worked hard and earn those promotions to be able to move up to the next level. And command or do whatever they're gonna do, but we need their services at the appropriate level. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And then Secretary Astin and General Milley, as you may know, I now sit on the new committee on strategic competition with the CCP. And I would echo Mr. Gallagher's remarks on the need for deterrence and I appreciate your understanding and support for that as well. But we also have to confront now the CCP's stranglehold on the global rare earth mineral supply, their human rights abuses, the genocide against the Uighurs and the impact that might have on our supply chains, the unpredictable COVID policies on the global supply chain. So can you both provide an update on how the department's working to ensure our supply chains in the Defense Department are not only resilient but sourced, extracted, processed and manufactured in a way that is both robust enough for our defense needs but consistent with our democratic values? Well, I wanna thank Congress up front for your support of the CHIPS and Science Act that really I think will allow us to generate pretty significant capability eventually here at home in the United States. In this budget, we're asking you for $253 million to invest in critical minerals. You see $177 million that we're asking for for casting and foraging, $125 million to invest in battery technology and energy sources. So we are doing a lot to make sure that we have the requisite materials to continue to produce the weapons and munitions that we need to maintain our edge. General East Times expired. Chair and I recognize Jenner from Florida, Mr. Gates for five minutes. Mr. Secretary, you told Senator Schmidt yesterday that if the 8,000 plus service members who've been separated from the military due to the vaccine mandate wanna reapply that they're welcome to do so but that you would do nothing to solicit their reapplication or to incentivize it. Why is that? I think it's incumbent upon the individual to make that decision and reapply it. The mechanisms are there. I mean, you're overseeing a recruiting nightmare in our military right now. These are 8,000 patriots. And by the way, your department broke the law in administering the vaccine mandate. And that's not me saying so. That's the Inspector General for the Department of Defense who wrote on June 2nd of 2022. We found a trend of generalized assessments rather than the individualized assessment that is required by federal law. The department did not break the law. So the way you mean the IG is wrong? You think the IG is wrong? He says he broke the law. The lives of a number of people. It ruined the lives of a number of people too.  Let me ask you this question. If we direct you by force of law to reengage and incentivize the reenlistment of these folks with full back pay and rank, do you have the capability to follow that instruction? You put provisions in the law to enable those people to those former service members to reapply in accordance with the service men. Good, well we will do that just like we had to put the repeal of the VAX mandate in the law. And I get the sense that the only reason you're not reaching out to these folks is pride. Because otherwise they would be totally able to serve and it seems that your personal pride is getting in the way. So going from the deeply serious things that we're not doing, reengaging these 8,000 folks to the deeply unserious things that we are doing, go ahead and put up the first slide.  You know drag queen story hours is not something that the department funds. Wait a second, that's actually not what the record seems to suggest. You were going to fund one at Ramstein Air Force Base. That one got canceled, but that's DOD insignia. That's a drag queen story hour for children. Then also at Malstrom Air Force Base outside of Great Falls, Montana, you had a drag queen story hour for kids. At the Joint Base Langley Eustis, you put on a drag queen story hour on a Saturday for the first ever kid friendly diversity, equity, inclusion summer festival. And at Nellis Air Force Base, you had the drag you Nellis on June 17th. Who funded these things, Mr. Secretary? Listen, drag shows are not something that the department of defense supports or funds. Wait, why are they happening on military basis? I just showed you the evidence. Why are they happening? I will say again, this is not something that we support or fund. So you think hosting a drag queen story hour on a military base isn't supporting the drag queen story hour? I stand by what I just said. But you may stand by it, but it's belied by the evidence over and over again. I mean, are you aware of the peace? Biden's military Air Force Base in Montana holds drag show, drag queen story hour for kids in the Western Journal. Are you aware of that? Again, I will say what I've said before. You're saying what you're saying, but I guess it just doesn't support the facts. General Milley, this will be my last time to question you. You mentioned two years ago that you wanted to better understand white rage. And so my question is this, did you read this book? No, not at all. Well, it is, what is white privilege is the book? And it's actually written by a DOD official, a senior official in diversity, equity and inclusion. And there are now hundreds of these books in dozens of schools. And I wonder if you guys connect this to your problems with recruiting. I've never read it, never seen it. I frankly, I don't even think about that stuff. I think about what it is.  About the variance of the forest.  Okay, well, in the next slide, this is a tweet by one of your employees in charge of diversity, equity and inclusion, and it's patently racist. They say that she had to give Karen the business, that she talks about caudacity, presumably of Caucasian people. So I guess, why does the... Look at that. Well, why is that... You're not gonna argue me for me. That's terrible, it's wrong. She shouldn't be doing that, period. Should she be fired? I don't, that's a DOD employee, not U.S. military uniform. Should they be fired, Secretary Austin? Again, as you heard in your subcommittee here, this incident was investigated and... And they're still employed. Mr. Chairman, I have a series of consent requests since my time has expired. But I object. First is joint-based Langley Eustis holds drag show at Kid Friendly Festival. And the next is U.S. military defends drag show at largest training center as, quote, essential to morale. And the next is Nellis Air Force Base hosts first-ever drag queen show, essential to morale and readiness. That's a Breitbart piece. And finally, Ramstein cancels library's drag queen story time for Pride Month, following criticism. Objection, so ordered. Gemma's time has expired. Can I just... Can I get copies of those? Because I'd like to take a look at those myself, actually, take a look and find out what actually is going on there. Because that's the first I'm hearing about that kind of stuff. I don't read those news stories. I don't know what you're talking about. I'd like to take a look at those because I don't agree with those. Well, they're now in the official record. Shouldn't be happening. Thank you. Thank you for that admission. Great. I would like to point out, Chairman, that our students in Dodea schools scored the highest on... The eighth graders and fourth graders scored the highest in math and reading in the country. So I want to thank all of our Dodea professionals who made that possible. And I encourage them to keep it up. I hope you're not thinking of that one. Yeah. Gentlemen's time has expired. 30. To our witnesses, thank you most especially for your service to our country. Please know how very grateful we all are. I want to pick up where my colleague, Mr. Kelly, left off on munitions. I have a few questions for Secretary Austin and General Milley. And then if there's time, I'd like to ask a question about my home military installation of Fort Bliss. I'm relieved to see a targeted investment of $30.6 billion in our munitions enterprise, but I remain deeply concerned about our ability to rapidly backfill current shortages and then shore up capacity to meet our own readiness requirements. So Secretary Austin, General Milley, can you please speak to the following? First, the industry incentives provided by multi-year procurement authorities. Second, what supporting industrial base requirements are necessary to shore up the workforce? And third, what innovative technologies, such as additive manufacturing, are you looking at to integrate, to maximize cost savings and speed of munitions production? Well, thank you very much and thanks for your support throughout. Let me just say, you know, up top that as we provide security assistance to Ukraine, the chairman and I go through a weekly routine of looking at the request, making sure that we have the right things to provide to Ukraine that are gonna be relevant to this fight. And I think we've seen that the Ukrainians have been provided the right things and they're putting the things that we're providing to good use. We also are very mindful of our requirements and there are certain requirements, certain capabilities that we know that we have to maintain and support our war fighting plans. And so that is an ongoing process and I can assure you that that is foremost in our minds. In terms of providing incentives to industry or the industrial base, what you've done to support our multi-year contracting requests, authority requests last year was very, very helpful. What we're gonna ask you again for in this budget is the same thing. We would want more of that so that we can signal to industry that the demand's gonna be there. But the other strong signal, as you've heard me say before, is the amount that we've allocated to procurement. $170 billion is probably the biggest procurement budget that we've seen. You add that to $145 billion that we're asking for our DT&E and I think it is a strong signal that we are gonna need a lot from industry going forward. Now we continue to reach out to the captains of industry to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help them help us. So that's... I appreciate that. General Milley, maybe you can respond to the question about innovative technologies such as additive manufacturing and how much you are leaning in on that front. So thanks. I've mentioned several times before about what I think is a change in the character of warfare and there's a whole set of technologies. Additive manufacturing is one of them. We mentioned artificial intelligence. We've mentioned robotics, precision munitions, the ability of sense at distances that have never been before done in human history. All of these things in combination are gonna fundamentally change, in my view, the very character of war probably inside of a decade for sure inside of 15 years. And every nation, Russia, China, the United States, Britain, every country around the world has access to some of these technologies. And the country that optimizes those technologies for the conduct of war are likely to have decisive advantage and that country needs to be us. So I would strongly recommend that we execute all those innovative technologies. I appreciate that. In my closing, you're not gonna have time to answer this but I do want to, as I did last year, just bring to your attention the issues, the needs for barracks at Fort Bliss. The base budget request identified Mil-Con requests for barracks across several Army installations as quality of life projects, part of the Army's 10 year, $10 billion investment plan, but they did not include Fort Bliss and so I just want to continue to put that on your radar, that installation and the need for those barracks, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I thank the gentle lady, the chair, and I recognize the gentleman from Nebraska, General Bacon, for five minutes. Thank you, Secretary Austin, Gerald Milley, Mr. McCord, we appreciate you being here. I want to thank you for being accessible to myself and our office with your staff, so I'm grateful. I want to congratulate Gerald Milley on retirement. I've been retired now eight years, looking for another job. I hope you find a good calling when you get out. I have two statements and then a couple of questions. The first one is more of a thank you statement. My second one's a little more critical. I want to thank you for your candor when it came to Afghanistan. When you were here in the previous Congress, you made clear that you had advised against the decision of this