Thank you, Senator Browns. Now, let me recognize Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to discuss just for a moment one of those hard choices. The top Navy unfunded priority is a destroyer that was eliminated from the budget that it was already committed to under the multi-year procurement. That has several problems. One, national security. These Flight 3 DDG destroyers are the workhorse of the Navy. Eyes and ears around the world, very important part of our assets, but it also sent a shudder through the industrial base. It's unprecedented in my experience that a multi-year has been breached, which would actually cost the government money in penalties. I hope, Mr. Secretary, that you and Admiral Gilday can work with us to restore that ship because I think it has importance beyond just one ship, but the symbolism of breaking a multi-year and also pulling back on our commitment to increasing the capacity of the Navy is, I think, a very important priority. So, that's not really a question. It's an entreaty to you to work with us to try to find the funds to restore that ship and restore the Navy's number one unfunded priority. Will you commit to working with us on that? Absolutely, Senator. We will do everything we can to make sure that we maintain a good working relationship with Congress. And I appreciate your tremendous support throughout, and especially now. We want to make sure that we maintain a ready, capable, and sustainable force. We also want to make sure that the industrial base has the ability to produce what we've asked them to produce. And current plans are to buy that DDG in 23. Thank you. The importance of the industrial bases, I live within eight miles of the industrial base in Maine, and the industrial base is not something you can just turn off and on. It's got to be something that's sustained and maintained over time. Let me turn to a different topic. I believe one of the most serious risks this country faces today is accidental conflict with China. Some kind of conflict in the South China Sea, the Strait of Taiwan, and the danger of escalation from that accidental conflict of some kind. It's concerning to me that we don't seem to have an effective hotline, direct line, whatever you want to call it, with China officials at your level and also at the presidential level. I understand that Chinese are reluctant about this, but I believe this is a national, should be a national security priority. And I looked up yesterday and I find that Amazon has 11 copies of the guns of August in Chinese. And I think what I might do is buy those and send them to the Politburo in Beijing. Because this is a very clear and distinct danger. Do you agree with me that a better deconfliction link between mill to mill and also government to government with China would be an important mitigation of this risk? I absolutely agree with you. As we look at some of the aggressive behavior that we've witnessed from China in the Indo-Pacific, I'm concerned about something that could happen, that could spark a crisis. And I think we need the ability to be able to talk with both our allies and partners, but also our adversaries or potential adversaries. And so I think there needs to be a direct line of communication between the military and also between government officials as well. So I share your concern and I absolutely agree with you that this is critical. Thank you. One other area that's come to my attention, in fact, we had a hearing yesterday on missile defense and General Van Herk said he had to pry the data out of another agency. We have Goldwater Nichols, which has enabled joint operations. We don't necessarily have the joint capability acquisition, particularly in the area of software. And I hope that we might work with you and General Millie and others on how to rationalize, if you will, the joint acquisition of things like software so that we don't have silos within the military that are analogous to the silos that we had pre-Goldwater Nichols. Is that something that you will be willing to work with us on? Absolutely. I think it's critical. And you have my commitment to do so. General Millie, I'm sorry I didn't get my questions to you, but perhaps we'll have a second round. Thank you very much. I'm okay with that, Senator. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator King. Senator Orange, please. Thank you, Chairman. And gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today and for your continuing service to our great United States of America. Superior weapons personnel and technology ensure that we won the 20th century, but of course now our adversaries have adapted their technologies. They've improved their operating concepts and they've expanded their challenges into the new domains of cyber and space. And in fact, President Biden has stated the world is at an inflection point with shifting global dynamics and emerging crises that demand attention. We of course know that we face emboldened adversaries such as Vladimir Putin in Russia and President Xi Jinping in China.  And then of course we have other actors like Iran and North Korea presenting their own significant threats. And as we are withdrawing from Afghanistan, we don't see the removal of a terrorist threat. Instead we see, as the President has stated, the threat has become more dispersed, metastasizing around the globe. So of course we want to make sure that we are funding and resourcing our troops appropriately. But going along with taking care of our own troops is working with others, allied nations. And Secretary Austin, in a March editorial in the Washington Post, you wrote about the importance of joint partnerships with other nations and called them force multipliers. I do agree with you, Secretary. You wrote, it would be a huge strategic error to neglect these relationships and it's a wise use of our time and resources to adapt and renew them to ensure they're as strong and effective as they can be. Yet the President's defense budget guts our partner nation joint exercise budget compared to the pre-COVID levels by over 50%. So how do you square your advocacy for improving our interoperability with our NATO allies and theater partners around the world with those proposed cuts? Well certainly with respect to NATO we're encouraging the members of NATO to do more to invest in air defense and also to do more to contribute to NATO overall. What we've been focused on is making sure that, you know, you've heard me say that China is our pacing challenge. And so we really waited our main effort there to the Indo-Pacific region. And you note that my first trip overseas was out to the region along with Secretary Blinken and we visited South Korea, we visited Japan and also made a visit to India as well. Again, we truly value the importance of strong relationships with our allies and partners. I think there's great capacity that can be leveraged there and so in some areas those partnerships while still strong are not as strong as they could possibly be. So we'll remain focused on that. I do hope so. Secretary, I think this is a really important area to focus on making sure that we are able to leverage them and continue to use our allies as those force multipliers. And Mr. Secretary, I also wanted just to make a brief statement too. I do appreciate that you've stated your commitment to making changes to how the military handles and prevents sexual assault. And I'm concerned about the continued delay that we continue to face though. Certainly if any of our adversaries were attacking members of our military, as we have seen within our own ranks, members attacking other members within our own ranks. If it had been an adversary, we would have responded immediately. We must respond immediately as well. So I'm encouraging both you and the chairman to continue to push on this issue to make sure we bring resolution and justice for our members of the military, those very important survivors. Just a brief statement. I'm sorry, General Milley, I didn't get to my questions for you either. And Secretary McCord, I'll follow up with you later on the audit. But I do want to echo concerns that were raised by Senator Fisher about the Navy's intent, whether it was an inter-office memo, whatever it was, I do also want to stress my concern that the Navy intends to cancel development of the sea launch nuclear cruise missile. I think this is very, very concerning, especially coming from an acting secretary that has yet to be confirmed. And I hope that that is truly not reflective of the overall attitude of the Department of Defense. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is not, Senator. And we will, as we said, we will be true to our posture review and make sure that that drives the process. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Ernst. Now let me recognize Viah Webex, Senator Warren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here today. Secretary Austin, during your confirmation process, you disclosed that you were on the board of Raytheon Technologies, one of the nation's largest defense contractors. And that caused me to ask you for some commitments about ethics issues that you would face. Existing ethics laws already require some commitments, but they don't go nearly far enough. And this matters a lot because the Pentagon spends $360 billion every year on goods and services provided by contractors. And those contractors have a revolving door with the DOD. So that's why I've introduced legislation to strengthen ethics rules for all public officials. But it's also why I asked you during your hearing to extend your recusal from matters involving Raytheon for the duration of your government service. I asked you to pledge not to receive or not to seek a waiver of that recusal and to refrain from seeking compensation from a giant defense contractor within four years of leaving government service. And you agreed to make those commitments and I want you to know, I appreciate that. I think the American people appreciate that too. Secretary Austin, as I recall, you explained that you voluntarily made these commitments because you think it's important that the American people have concrete assurances so that they never doubt that you are working for them and not for giant defense contractors, right? Yes, that's true. Good. And I just want to say I also asked several Trump nominees to make the same commitments and they refused. You, by contrast, demonstrated considerable leadership in making those commitments. Now, since your confirmation, the Senate has confirmed five additional nominees to go to work at the Pentagon. Not a single one of them was on the board of the major defense contractor. None of them reported that the bulk of their income came from our most powerful contractors and I appreciated that and I supported all of their nominations. But this committee is now being asked to consider nominees who don't meet that test. And in these cases, when nominees report the vast majority of their income from major defense contractors, either through direct employment or consulting, or when they're on those company's boards, I plan to ask nominees to make the same voluntary ethics commitments that you did during your confirmation. So let me ask you, Secretary Austin, do you agree that the people working for you who have similar or even more extensive ties to industry should be living up to the same ethics commitments that you made? Do you think it's important that the American people have confidence, as you put it, that these Pentagon officials are working for the American people and not for their former employers in the defense industry? Well, Senator, you've heard me say on a number of occasions that sound ethical behavior is important to us, important to me, and important to the department. I have every reason to believe that those who have been nominated to serve will conduct themselves properly and exercise sound ethical behavior. And I truly support your, I'm truly appreciative of your support in getting our nominees confirmed as quickly as possible. We absolutely need them on the team. Let me say, though, I recognize the importance of filling these important defense department positions, but I'm asking for commitments that they are going to avoid conflicts of interest, and I've laid out what they are, and you've agreed to them. So the question I'm asking is whether you think that the people who are going to be working for you who have these ties should make the same kind of commitments that you made? Senator, again, I believe that they will conduct themselves appropriately. I have no concerns about their ethical behavior. I think that they are committed to doing the right things. Well, I appreciate that you don't want to step into this, but this is what leadership is about. I'm still in conversation with the current nominees where I think these commitments are warranted, and I hope that we can come to an understanding as their nominations progress. And if we can, I will support their nominations. But in these cases and going forward, if nominees with significant ties to the defense industry refuse to make the commitments you made, then I will vote no in this committee on their nominations, and I will ask for a roll call vote on the floor where I will vote no again. So let me be clear. I'm asking for these commitments, not because I'm challenging anyone's integrity, but because I think it is critical that the American people have total confidence that our public officials are truly working for them and not for the defense industry that has paid them so well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Warren. Let me recognize Senator Tillis, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you gentlemen for being here.  It's an area I'm frustrated with. I've spent a lot of time with Senator Gillibrand. But I am Secretary Austin. I am concerned that even when we have the discussion here, people think we're just talking about military sexual assault, but we're talking about any alleged crime that would have a sentence of over one year. So that's a sweeping change to the UCMJ. I'm also concerned with some of the technical aspects that haven't been spelled out in the bill. It's more of a framework. We haven't seen the details. But one of the things that I'm most troubled by is the six-month implementation timeframe, and your judgment to the extent that you know the details of Senator Gillibrand's proposal, is that even possible to be implemented? I don't know all of the specific details of her proposed timeline. What I would tell you is, and I would echo what I said to the chairman a couple of minutes ago, is that I would, any change that we make, Senator, I would hope that we would be provided the ample time to make sure that we properly and appropriately implement these changes. Because a change to the UCMJ is a very significant issue in the military, and we want to make sure we get this right, and we will get it right if a change is required. General Milley, do you think maybe taking crimes that could be barracks, larceny, out of the chain of command is a good idea, and would put us in a position where good order and discipline on the part of the command would be undermined? As I mentioned to Senator Gillibrand before and some others earlier, I think the commander is essential to maintaining good order and discipline in the military. We're a military that's built to fight the UCMJs that support combat power. At the same time, cohesion is critical, and I am very, very open to significant change in the area of sexual assault and sexual harassment. When we get beyond that, at this point, my position is I need to study it more. I'm open-minded, but I think we would be really, it needs a lot of due diligence before we bundle all the one-year felonies and take them away from the commander. So I think I'd ask the right to study it further. General Austin, I think you've heard from some of us about the need for a timely report back on the commission findings and the DOD recommendations with the markup coming up next month. I think it's very important that we get that feedback if it's to have any impact on what may likely be in the NDA mark. As you're right, Senator, I understand your sense of urgency. I share that sense of urgency. As you know, the Independent Review Commission is still evaluating the other three lines of effort that include prevention, victim care, and also climate. I'll get those back shortly. And when I do, I'll make my recommendations to the President, and those recommendations will be based upon what I get from the IRC, plus my consultations with the leadership of the services. Thank you. Jumping to budget matters, the immediate response for some, I know you know you've spent some quality time, you and General Milley down at Fort Bragg. It was deployed back in 2019 after the Iranian-backed Hezbollah attacked our embassy in Iraq. The reports that I've got on the ground there is the folks from the 82nd Airborne that would be a part of the response spent pretty much the day going over what you all know is a big complex, getting ready to do it at the expense of briefings and preparation. The strategic deployment complex is not yet even on the unfunded priorities list. Why is that? I'll look into that, Senator. I don't know why the Army hasn't put that on their unfunded requirements list, but I'm sure that the Army's choice is based upon the input they've gotten from the 18th Airborne Corps commander and others, but I'll engage the Army. We'll submit a question for the record because I'm concerned that an increasingly, in an instance where we may have to once again send out an immediate response deployment request that they're not the best prepared that they could be for it. I'd like to get that reported back and I'll submit other questions for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Tillis. Senator Hirono, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have had a number of opportunities, Secretary Austin, to raise my concerns about the fact that HDRH Hawaii, the missile defense radar for Hawaii has been zeroed out over the last two fiscal year requests. And so in response to some of my concerns raised about the fact that there is no funding requested for this radar, which was told to us that was going to be very important as part of our system to protect Hawaii. And I'm told that under the current situation, currently protected against today's threats, that is a response I've gotten, Secretary Austin, but what we're looking at is we need to protect against future threats, so I'm going to want to have further discussions with you and your team as to what the projected dangers are going to 2025. I recognize that Hawaii is protected under today's threat, but not necessarily 2025. And that was the time frame in which this radar was determined to be necessary for our national security. I want to get into a further discussion with you on the explanation as to why it was zeroed out. Let me move on to support for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. The PDI was enacted last year to ensure that DOD prioritizes invests and often overlooked, but critical components of joint readiness. In fact, with regard to the PDI, the previous commander of NWACOM, Admiral Davidson, identified five areas of focus in the PDI. One, the joint force lethality. Two, force design and posture. Three, strengthen allies and partners. Four, exercises experimentation and implementation. And five, logistics and security enablers. So looking at your budget request, though, I do not see requested items in the five areas that Admiral Davidson had identified as being supportive of the PDI. And in fact, your request identifies platforms like a Navy destroyer, fleet oiler, and items related to the F-35 aircraft as PDI investments. So I'd like to know why is the vast majority of funding identified to support PDI unrelated to the lines of effort outlined in the INDOPACOM section 1251 report? Senator, let me say off the top that our intent was to align our PDI investment with congressional intent. And so my staff is currently working with the committee to clarify and adjust any perceived misalignments and in fact make sure that we answer any and all questions. And so we'll continue to work that. As you know, we've dedicated some $5.1 billion to PDI. And again, our intent was to align our investments with congressional intent. I would go further to say that a great deal of the department's budget is invested in capabilities and activities that concentrate on deterring China. And I would further say that I'm committed to working with the committee to making sure that we get it right and answer the needs of the commander out in PECOM. Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that commitment toward aligning the congressional intent with what the combatant commanders are requesting. And I think that alignment needs to be much better. And for example, the DOD is only partially funding INDOPACOM's top three priorities that are important to deterring China since you mentioned that just now. Moving on to the importance of military construction and funding, of course, is very critical to what we need to be doing. And I've had conversations with your team regarding the need for a shipyard modernization and infrastructure support for that, including a new dry dock for Hawaii. Now I know that there is a request for dry docks in Portsmouth, and there is money also for a saltwater purification system in Norfolk. This is in front of a requested funding to move the dry dock for Hawaii along. And so I would request that you take a look at that. And it is very clear that the dry dock in Hawaii is very necessary for the Hawaii Pearl Harbor Shipyard to be able to take care of the Virginia class submarines that are there. We have no capacity to do that right now. And so that dry dock needs to be moved along. So I request that you look at the funding request and to see whether you can move the appropriation request for the dry dock in Hawaii along. My time is up, but I hope that you will continue to discuss with that, discuss that particular concern with us. I understand, Senator, and we're committed to making sure that we maintain the ability to maintain and sustain our force. And so we'll take a look at that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Aron. Let me now recognize Senator Cramer and also alert all of my colleagues that will be two votes beginning at 1130. And also I believe the panel saw a break around that time. So talking with the ranking member will figure out a strategy to accomplish all those objectives. Senator Cramer, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to all of you for your service and for being here. Good to see you. I'm going to start, Secretary Austin, by following up from an answer that you gave to Senator Shaheen earlier about further support for the Afghan forces. And you specifically mentioned ISR support from the GCC. And I'm wondering if you could tell me specifically what kind of ISR support that is? What system? Well, certainly we're flying our MQ-9s from there. And essentially the vast majority of ISR is being provided from other places outside of Afghanistan. We've had to, you know, as we've retrograde it, we've had to make sure we protect our key platforms and systems there. Our Global Hawk Block 30s part of that? That's correct. You know, you realize the Block 30s are slated for retirement in this budget. And you and I've had this discussion before. I'm concerned about the lack of a bridge between where we are today and where we're going to get to eventually with new systems. And you have tough choices. And we've heard all about the, you know, the difficult priorities you have to set. But I remain concerned about the retirement of Block 30s prematurely to benefit our combatant commanders everywhere. But I think Afghanistan presents a rather unique example of the threat. With that, General Milley, could I ask you, are the combatant commanders getting all of the ISR support that they need in every theater? I would tell you that as Chiefs to have the Army for four years and Chairman for almost two, no combatant commander has ever gotten all the ISR they want. It is one of those commodities that is in high demand all the time and no one is completely ever satisfied. Every commander wants perfect knowledge and that's what ISR does is feed you with knowledge. We are never going to get enough ISR to fill all the demand. Having said that, it's all a function of risk. It's all a function of where you take risk, what your priority is. Are you going to support the main effort and what do you do for the supporting effort and so on and so forth. And in this budget, I think that we are adequately funding ISR as we go forward for the main effort relative to China. And with respect to the Block 30s and the MQ-9s, again it has to do with relevance and pivoting to the future. This budget biases future operating environment, change in the character of war and against the pacing threat of China. That is not to say we're going to stop everything with respect to A10s or MQ-9s or some of these systems. We've got to make that turn. So since you were on the topic, if you could list the top three threats to America's national security in order, what would they be? From a military standpoint, strictly military standpoint, I think China is the number one military threat as we go forward. But I also acknowledge that Russia is a considerable great power competitor. And those two, in the NDS and in the current strategic environment from a military perspective, there are many, many threats. But from a military perspective, I put those two up there. I understand one of the things I want to get at is because I think it was just yesterday President Biden announced, when he announced America's back in Europe to military men and women Air Force in the UK that the number, according to the military leaders at the number one threat facing America's national security is climate change. Six weeks ago today, the European Union Parliament, speaking of NATO and allies, which are a prominent part of your testimony in this budget, EU Parliament passed a resolution 569 to 67, urging the EU institutions and member states to do everything they can to stop the completion of the Nord Stream to pipeline. Three weeks ago today, President Biden lifted the sanctions on completing the Nord Stream to pipeline. And I'm just kind of wondering, and that flies in the face of both of America's back. It flies in the face of building NATO alliances, rebuilding as the budget documents states. I'm not sure which ones we lost, but I know that there are at least eight European Union allies, including Ukraine, who strongly oppose Nord Stream 2 for national security reasons. And certainly from climate change standpoint, if climate change is the number one threat facing America's national security, allowing Nord Stream 2 to be built is not good for the climate. So I have some great concerns and I think we ought to get them straightened out. And I don't know for the life of me how completing Nord Stream 2 helps our alliance with the European Union, other than maybe with the current Chancellor of Germany. Senator, if I could just make a comment on your piece about threats. Climate change is a threat. Climate change has significant impact on military operations and we have to take it into consideration. Climate change is going to impact natural resources, for example. It's going to impact increased instability in various parts of the world. It's going to impact migrations and so on. And in addition to that, we have infrastructure challenges here at home, witness some of our hurricanes and stuff. So climate change does impact, but the President is looking at it at a much broader angle than I am. I'm looking at it from a strictly military standpoint. And from a strictly military standpoint, I'm putting China Russia up there. That is not, however, in conflict with the acknowledgement that climate change or infrastructure or education systems, national security has a broad angle to it. I'm looking at it from a strictly military standpoint. I just think it's peculiar that the President would go to another continent and tell our service members there that the number one threat is climate change, albeit a threat with that. Thank you. Thank you very much, Senator Kramer. In collaboration with the ranking member and at the request of the panel to take a short break at this time, I would move to recess for 10 minutes. It also would allow people to go to the vote, which has just been called. And so with that, I would ask for 10-minute recess. Let me call the hearing back to order after the short recess and recognize Senator Blumenthal for his questions. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Chairman Milley, for your extraordinary service, and thank you for being here today. I have been very concerned about the ship that apparently has been sent from Iran to Venezuela. Apparently two Iranian vessels are believed to be carrying arms intended to transfer to Venezuela. As you know, these ships are thought to be carrying weapons that would fulfill a deal that Iran and Venezuela made a year ago. We don't know the types of weapons, at least as far as I know there are reports that Venezuela was considering purchasing missiles from Iran, including long-range ones. Commercial satellite imagery of one of the ships chose fast attack boats loaded on the deck, but it's still unclear whether those boats were aboard when the ships began their journey. I was pleased to see that a senior administration official stated that delivery of these weapons would be a, quote, provocative act and understood as a threat to our partners in the Western Hemisphere, end quote, and that the United States would reserve the right to take appropriate measures, quote, in coordination with our partners to deter the transit or delivery of such weapons. Secretary Austin, allowing this ship to dock seems significant to me on many different levels. It would be the first time that Iranian vessels have made such a transit and the precedent of allowing Iran to provide weapons to the region causes me grave concern. Do you share that concern and how would such a delivery affect the region in your view? Well, Senator, thanks for the question. I am absolutely concerned about the proliferation of weapons, any type of weapons in our neighborhood. And so I share your concern. Can you tell me whether the administration knows exactly what is on those Iranian vessels? I would like to take that conversation, either that question for the record or we could take that conversation in another forum. I'd be glad to do it in another forum, in another setting. Have you had any communication with your colleagues in other nations in this hemisphere? I've not had any discussions with any other nations in our hemisphere on this issue. Let me ask you, on the topic of white supremacy and violent extremism, which you and I have discussed, both in your confirmation hearings and privately, I understand that there will be a task force report. Can you tell us when that report will be released? I'm sorry, Senator, I didn't quite hear the question. Can you provide an update as to the status of the extremism task force that you announced recently and when this committee can expect to be briefed on the results? As you recall, Senator, early on in my tenure I asked the force to conduct a brief stand down to discuss the issue of extremism in our ranks. And let me preface what I'm going to say by saying that I'm convinced, totally convinced and convinced that 99% of our troops are focused on the right things and doing the right things and embrace the right values each and every day. But as I may have mentioned to you earlier, I believe that small numbers can have an outside effect, an outside effect regarding this issue. So we did gain some insights from the stand down and it was a great opportunity for leaders to have discussions with other leaders and leaders to have discussions with subordinates and talk about those behaviors, and we are focused on behaviors, those behaviors that are not supportive of the values that we embrace. In addition to that, we stood up a counter extremism working group that routinely monitors our efforts across the department in terms of what we're doing to make sure that we counter extremism or extremist behaviors. They are refining our policies and also gaining a better understanding of the complete challenge. And certainly I can have the leadership of that working group come to brief you upon request or anytime you want. I would very much appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and I applaud the efforts that you are making against that probably less than 1%, as you said, 99%, but I think it's an even more overwhelming majority who adhere to the basic values and are dedicated patriots and the focus on that less than 1% is well-warranted because they may have an outside effect and so I would welcome an opportunity to learn more from the task force whenever it is appropriate to do so and I'll be in touch with your office if that's okay. And I would absolutely agree with you, Senator. It is less than 1% and we'll gain better insights and also equip our force with better policies and definitions. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bloomfield, Senator Blackburn, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate that you all are here today. Secretary Austin, I want to come to you on the issue of nuclear deterrents and when you went through your confirmation hearing, we had a discussion about this and in your advanced policy questions, you had made a statement and I'm quoting you the tipping point where we must simultaneously overhaul these forces is now here. And that was your comment in reference to nuclear deterrents and while we're looking at this budget that's before us, we see that modernization is fully funded but then when you look at deferred maintenance, you see that it cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from the enacted level of the NNSA's deferred maintenance budget. So we know that more than half of the NNSA facilities are over 40 years old, 30% date back to the 40s. So to me, this sounds like we're at a tipping point when we discuss these facilities. So was that deferred maintenance cut coordinated with DOD and realistically what effect will it have on the ability of the NNSA to meet the DOD requirements? To my knowledge, it was not coordinated with DOD. And what I would say to you, though, Senator, is it's very important to me and to our department to make sure that we work with the Department of Energy to ensure that we achieve our common goal of maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent. And you have my commitment to make sure that I remain engaged with DOE to make sure that the right things are happening in this regard. Okay, then let me ask it like this. What are the consequences that happen if we do not modernize and bring this infrastructure, maintain this infrastructure? Well, you've heard me say before, Senator, that I'm absolutely committed to the modernization of the triad. And you know that we've dedicated $28 billion in this 22 budget to that effort. Maintenance is also important. And again, with respect to NNSA, we will remain engaged with DOE to make sure that the right things are happening and gain a better understanding of what DOE's objectives are.  And I would expect that the enterprise is invaluable workforce as they are as we look at 21st century warfare, that it is difficult for them to continue to work and dilapidated in sometimes unsafe conditions. And I would assume that that is a concern to you also. It absolutely is a concern both for what the issues that DOD controls and also, you know, I'm sure it's a concern for all the things that DOE is responsible for as well. Let's go and Senator Fisher brought up to you the action of the acting secretary of the Navy cancelling the nuclear sea launch cruise missile. So why was this decision made before completion of the nuclear posture review? Again, Senator, I've not seen the memo, but I like the chairman. I will see it very shortly after this hearing. And, you know, as I understand the purpose of that memo was to issue some guidance for planning and evaluation to the Navy. But again, I am committed to conducting a nuclear posture review that we talked about earlier and that will be conducted and that will drive our activities going forward. Well, I think that memo sent a message we did not want to send to Russia and China when it comes to great power competition. I did appreciate the department being on pace to fully fund the PDI. And I, the concern is the number one PDI ask was the Guam defense system to be fully funded at the $350 million. But when you look through this, the funding totals for the defense of Guam procurement and the Guam defense development line items in the budget was $118.3 million. And that's less than half of the money that is required for this, which is the number one unfunded priority, if you will. So I'd like to hear you speak to that. You know, we know that these fusion centers are vitally important. I've done a good bit of work on these multilateral fusion centers and they serve a critical function of really enhancing our intelligence, our information, our logistical coordination. And future fusion centers are the commanders in number 11 unfunded priority. These fusion centers also support investments in mission partner environments, the number two unfunded priority. So it seems like we've got a pattern that is going here. And I'd love for you to address that. I know I'm over and there are others waiting for questions. And I would be happy to take that response in writing. We will most certainly get it to you, Senator. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Let me recognize Senator Peters, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and each of our witnesses here today. Thank you for your service and thank you for being here today. But I want to start first by saying how disappointed. And I also say actually quite angry at a recent decision made by the Air Force to not award Selfridge Air National Guard Base the F-35 International Training Mission. And my feelings are based on the data and the criteria that was presented both by each of the installations that competed as well as what the Air Force put forward. It's clear from my review of that and others that Selfridge was clearly the superior choice in the matter. And this is clearly a problem that we have seen before with the Air Force. As all of you know, the GAO is now investigating strategic basing decisions being made by the Air Force over the last few years. And without question, this committee, this body needs to retain confidence that the choices made by the U.S. Air Force are based on data and based on criteria and not at a whim or whatever may be behind it. So my question for you, Secretary Austin, is do I have your commitment that you will review the Air Force's F-35 International Training Mission decision and we'll have an opportunity to talk about that? You do have my commitment that I will review it as I do all of those types of decisions over time. And I would also offer to have the Air Force come in and brief you on their decision. The Air Force typically uses a very detailed process to make those kinds of decisions. And I would offer that politics has no place in this decision-making process, this type of decision-making process. And so, you know, if you desire for the Air Force to come and do a lay-down for you, I'm sure that they'll be willing to do that. Well, I appreciate that. I've had some of those discussions already. But to make sure that the process is indeed an objective process, it's critically important there's full transparency so that we can see not only how Selfridge ranked based on those, that data and the criteria, but also how the one that was selected also ranked. So there could be a true objective comparison of that criteria. We tend to just get one side and not hear the other side. I want to make sure that all of our questions are asked. That's something I assume you would certainly support. Thanks, Senator. My guidance and requirement is that we always try to be as transparent as possible. I appreciate that. Now, while I understand the FY22 budget continues to fund PFAS remediation, the reality is that the funding requested is not anywhere close to being sufficient to address the contamination that we continue to find in Michigan and unfortunately hundreds of other sites all across the country. And the price tag to address PFAS contamination comes on top of what is already a staggering backlog of environmental remediation needs facing the department. This is why I've joined my fellow Armed Services Committee members in introducing legislation to expedite cleanup of some of the most contaminated sites and why I'll continue to work to implement clear and enforceable standards to guide those. So, Secretary Austin, how does the department's budget address the management challenge presented by these literally forever chemicals? And I know this isn't a problem that we're going to be able to solve in a year or quite frankly even in the next decade. But the longer we wait to address these toxic contaminations, the higher the eventual cost is to our service members, to our communities and quite frankly to the U.S. taxpayers. Yeah, as you know, there's provisions in this budget to address remediation for contaminated sites. And this will extend obviously well beyond this budget to have my commitment to continue to work this going forward. I just recently met with the EPA administrator a couple of weeks ago to focus on this and a couple of other issues. And it was a very good meeting. We committed to working together and making sure that we met the standards of remediation and we had good procedures for remediation. This is a significant challenge to our country as you pointed out. DoD is an element of a larger challenge. Obviously we're not the only source of this contaminant. But I would tell you that DoD is committed to doing its part to remediating whatever damage has been done in every part of this country where we have contributed to this. Well, thank you, Secretary Austin. I appreciate your attention to both of the matters that I raised and look forward to working with you. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator Sullivan, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, thank you for your service. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. General Milley, you know how much respect I have for both of you. You have a hard job, especially coming here to defend a budget you probably don't like or didn't support internally, but you got to do it now. And that's a tough job.  Take a look at this chart. I handed this chart out to you as well, this chart here. The Biden administration, in its $6 trillion budget blowout, clearly prioritizes defense and homeland security dead last. Dead last. If you look at, in terms of inflation adjusted, it's actually a cut. Now, I think a lot of us here, Democrats and Republicans think national security should be prioritized first, not last. I think you gentlemen probably believe that. But importantly, how can we tell the troops that you're leading that we are prioritizing their mission, which is defending America when it's clear that the Biden administration's prioritization of their mission is last, the declining defense budget when almost every other agency in the federal government is getting a massive double digit increase. Mr. Secretary, you want to try to take that one on first? Thanks, Senator. What I will tell our troops and what I have told them and will continue to tell them is that I truly believe that the president's budget gives us a flexibility to go after the right mix of capabilities to defend the nation and to deter aggression. No, I mean, I understand that. I've been watching the hearing. I get it. I'm just talking about the... And again, it's a tough question for you because you're not in charge of these other agencies like OMB and the White Houses, but they're clearly not prioritizing the military and national defense relative to any other agency at all. I mean, look at this chart. They are putting the national security mission, dead last in terms of the prioritization of budgets. How do we tell our troops that, hey, we're putting you first? Our troops are always first. They're first now and they will always be first going forward. And again, I do believe that we have what we need to go after the right capabilities. Okay, let me talk. There's been a lot of focus. Senator Kramer talked about this issue of climate change. Clearly, our country needs to address this issue. It's a big issue in Alaska. I'm always puzzled, though, how our military is tasked, organized to do this.  We overlapped briefly in Afghanistan. I don't think in any of my military service, I heard climate change as a phrase mentioned once. I heard the Taliban, Iraq, Iran, IEDs. Nevertheless, Ms. Secretary, in your opening statement, you mentioned climate change 15 times in the lethality twice, which I think is a bit of a mismatch. I was just in South Korea and Taiwan. You guys also mentioned China as our pacing threat. Let me ask a simple question that relates to these two priorities. What is a more immediate threat to our national security interests that DOD has the capability of responding to, particularly in the Asia Pacific, a Chinese communist invasion of Taiwan or the challenge of climate change? I think it's a pretty simple question. I think it's actually a really simple answer. Ms. Secretary, do you have a comment? First, I don't recall mentioning climate change 15 times. I'll go back and do my word count. I think it was in your written statement. And let me also be clear, Senator, that lethality is important. This is the most lethal force that's ever occupied the planet, and it will remain so going forward. And that's what we remain focused on in the Department of Defense, defending this nation, and we'll go after the capabilities required to do that. So, Taiwan invasion by the Chinese Communist Party or climate change, I think it's very simple. What's the most immediate threat DOD can respond to? The most significant military threat that we're focused on, and you've heard me say this probably a hundred times, Senator, is China. It's our pacing challenge, and that's what we've asked you a number of times to help us resource our efforts on that challenge. And I appreciate what you've done thus far, and I know that you'll continue to help us going forward. Let me ask one final question. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, it's related to that. I have another chart here. It shows that our budget increases or decreases relative to the Chinese. The Chinese have dramatically and consistently increased their defense budget annually by at least 6 percent, sometimes as much as 13 percent. We've increased ours during the Trump administration when the Republicans controlled the Senate. You see, during the Biden administration, Obama Biden, it was dramatically cut. Now we're looking at cuts again. What message does this chart send to China and our allies in the region, and can we sustain our declining comparative advantage over China militarily if these trends continue? And that's both for the Secretary and General Milley. Well, a message that I'm concerned about is a message that we send to the world, and that is that we're going to continue to go after the capabilities and develop the operational concepts to be able to defer anyone who would venture to take on the United States of America. So we will have the capabilities necessary to defend this nation. General. So, Senator, a couple of things. I want to go back, make two points on the budget piece, expanding it to the soldiers, sailors, airmarines, guardians up there. We'll get $715 billion if this is passed. That's a lot of money. That's 50 percent of the entire President's budget. That's one out of every $2 in the discretionary spending of the federal government. That is not a small amount of change. The increases that you show in your chart, those are factually correct, but relative to the whole and in context, we're getting a lot of money. So that's the first thing. Second thing is relative to climate change. Paragraph 1 of every operations order I've ever seen for 41 consecutive years says enemy situation to include weather and terrain. We always consider weather and climate change is weather at the strategic level. It has military impact. We're not going to change climate change in the Department of Defense. We're not going to change climate change. But we must consider it in our strategic calculations all the time because it's going to increase instability overseas. It has impact in our infrastructure here. So climate change is real. The military threat is China, as the Secretary just said, is the pacing threat. We are calculating all of our calculations relative to that as a pacing threat and others are second in nature. And the third piece relative to the China versus U.S. spending. This is a disturbing trend. There's no question about it with respect to China. They have made a major economic investment in developing their military. It's been going on for 20 or 30 years. The gaps that used to exist, say 20, 30 years ago were like this. Today they're like that. And the Chinese have a deliberate plan to be a global challenger to the United States of America militarily by mid-century. We have got to continue strong investments in our military. And I think this budget for this year is an adequate investment right now. We have to set the conditions out of pivot to the future character of war with the pacing threat of China. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Let me now recognize via Webex, Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you so much for being here today. Thank you for your service to our country. Well, responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters and civil unrest, or seamlessly integrating with a joint force and overseas operations, the National Guard and Reserve Component continues to answer the call. Over the past 20 years, the high demand for reserve component forces has necessitated a shift from a strategic reserve to an operational force. In fact, last June, over 120,000 National Guard troops were mobilized more than at any time since World War II. In short, our nation relies on our reserve component forces, the reserves and the National Guard, to defend the United States and fulfill the DoD's national security responsibilities. However, even though the National Guard and Reserve are serving in critical capacities and in dangerous duty assignments, they are not receiving the same pay and benefits as their active duty counterparts. The complexity of the current slate of duty status adds unnecessary confusion to activating reserve component forces. The disparity in pay and benefits between different duty statuses can also incentivize manipulating orders to minimize the service member's access to benefits. I believe duty status reform is necessary to ensure the National Guard and Reserve forces receive equal pay and access to the healthcare and educational benefits they deserve for the work that they do. In short, service members doing the same job in the same place should not earn different pay and benefits based on their duty statuses. General Milley, could you please update me on the DoD's plans to address reserve component duty status reform? And when do you anticipate releasing your findings? Thanks, Senator. You know, as part of the Joint Force, Active Duty, Reserve and National Guard, it's a total force. And we have a commitment to ensure that we have appropriate and fair pay and benefits given to our National Guard soldiers and our troops and our reservists. That reform effort is underway. We're reviewing that. I can't give you the exact date of when we'll have that to you, but we are working it and we're working it very hard and we're working with both the National Guard Bureau and each of the services. But we do recognize the need to ensure that it's evenly applied in terms of pay and benefits to the soldiers in the reserve component or the troops in the reserve component. Well, we also commit to making sure that whatever the reform proposal is, that it is appropriately shaped to eliminate orders, manipulation and current pay and benefit disparities. Sure, absolutely. Our commitment is to ensure that everyone who wears the cloth of our nation, whether they're active garteries or no matter where they are, are treated equally in all respects to include pay and benefits. And I'll, I commit to that to you and I'll get to the answer on the exact date of when the reform proposals are due in. Thank you. Thank you. Secretary Austin, reserve component seven service members are required to maintain the same proficiency in certain critical skill sets as the active component counterparts. Even though they don't necessarily put on the uniform every day, this is especially true for as pilots, for example, yet they only receive the incentive pay at a fraction of the amount of active service members. I believe every service member, whether active or reserve's duty, deserves to be fairly compensated for maintaining mission essential skills. And the RAND Corporation has shown that incentive pay can help improve retention and is far more cost effective than training new service members to replace those who separate. As we continue to strengthen our national guard and reserve forces, we must retain our talented service members. That's why I introduced the bipartisan National Guard and Reserve Incentive Pay Parity Act to help ensure that reserve component service members in high skill roles are compensated at the same rates at their active duty counterparts. Secretary Austin, will you commit to exploring options such as the Incentive Pay Parity Act to help improve retention, especially of those service members with critical skills? I will, Senator, and for all the reasons that General Milley mentioned, our guard and reserve have done amazing work. The skill sets that you're talking about in many cases are war fighting or combat related skills. And so it's absolutely important that they are proficient and they should receive the same proficiency pay. Thank you. I will submit for the record, but it has to do with modernization efforts to continue across the joint force. And wanting to know whether DOD and the military services are factoring in program performance into decisions about how to prioritize budget requests to adequately resource accessible programs such as future vertical lift. But I will submit that for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Let me recognize Senator Scott. Thank you, Chairman. First off, I think I want to thank each of you for your wellness to serve. You have very significant roles for our country. Probably the most important thing we can be doing is making sure we defend our freedoms. Would any of you disagree that we're dealing with... You're thinking about Communist China.  I do believe that their goal is to control the Indo-Pacific. And I also believe that they desire to be the dominant or preeminent country in the world. And so I think they're working towards that end. So would y'all disagree that their goal is to eventually take back Taiwan, a great American ally? Anybody who wouldn't disagree with that, right? I would not disagree with the point that they have a goal of eventually uniting Taiwan with China. And that would be whether they do it voluntarily or involuntarily through the military. Y'all believe that we're going to continue to see more surveillance by the Communist Party of China of American citizens and our allies around the world? We're seeing more surveillance all the time. You agree with that, right? I mean, it stands to reason that whatever level of surveillance that's ongoing now will continue and quite possibly increase going forward. So if you look at this, you saw what Senator Sullivan brought up. You saw the fact that, you know, year after year, they're investing more in their military. Their goal is to have an economy bigger than ours. And you seem to agree that if they have an economy bigger than ours, they're going to increase their defense spending. And as General Milley says, it's getting closer and closer. So, and if China's able to pull this off, then our opportunities all over the world, opportunities of American citizens and our way of life, is going to change, right? If they can do, fulfill their goals, then our opportunities will be diminished. Would you all agree with that? Yeah, you know, I would describe our relationship with China and currently is one of competition. I think, again, you've mentioned that they desire to be the preeminent country on the planet and that is, in fact, the case. Their mid to long-term goal is to do that. They look to compete with us not only militarily, but across the spectrum of activity and what you see us doing, the military and other sectors in our government, is making sure that we remain competitive economically, making sure that we're developing the best, we continue to develop the best scientists in the world and we do the most comprehensive research. So it is a competition across a broad spectrum of activity. So if you follow through the reasoning, if China wants to be, you know, either into Pacific or world dominant, if they build economy bigger than ours, if they continue to outinvest us in the military, which they are, or at least grow in fashion than we are, then what are y'all doing to, one, inform American citizens of the risk because, you know, we all do a budget based on what the American citizens' beliefs of priority is. That's how we elect our elected leaders. So what are y'all doing to, one, inform the public of the risk of communist China and ensuring that we have the budget we need to make sure that in five or 10 or 15 years we're not sitting here, we're saying, we wish we would have done more. We all saw this threat, but we didn't do enough about it. Yeah, just about every time you hear me speak, Senator, I know you probably grow tired of me talking about the competition with China, but that is my focus. My number one focus is to defend this nation and protect our interests. Our pacing challenge is and will continue to be China. And again, we're going after the capabilities that can match the operational concepts that we're putting into play and allow us to be not only competitive, but actually dominant in this competition. So that's what the Department of Defense is doing, and I think you see activity across the entire government that's focused on making sure that we not only can compete with China, but maintain our edge with respect to China. You think it's important that in your role that you inform the American public of the risk of communist China so everybody will be more focused on making sure we have the military budget we need? We do so routinely, and we will continue to do that, Senator Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Scott. Let me recognize Senator Rosen, please. There it is. Thank you, Chairman Reid, Ranking Member Inha for holding this hearing. I'd like to thank the witnesses for your service to our great nation. Thank you for being here today. Right before the break, Senator Cramer was talking to you about our ISR requirements and his concerns, and I am concerned as well about the MQ-9. So Secretary Austin, the MQ-9 Reaper, I don't have to tell you it's critical to supporting our current intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance requirements. A key part of the MQ-9 architecture is the mission at Nevada's Creech Air Force Base. Last year, CENTCOM Commander General McKinsey included additional MQ-9 funding at the top of his unfunded priorities, and in April he told this committee of the MQ-9's importance and his need for more of them, not fewer. The Air Force today still lacks the ISR capacity to meet combatant commander's requirements contained in the 2018 National Defense Strategy. Despite this, the department has previously proposed cutting this platform their most cost-effective without a program of record to replace it, which would further risk widening the ISR capability gap that General Milley talked about. So Secretary Austin, what is the department's plan for the MQ-9, and given its importance, cost-effectiveness, and the requirement for combatant commanders for more ISR assets, why is the Air Force cut funding for this program without a program of record to replace it? Thank you, Senator. I think you heard General Milley talk earlier about the way combatant commanders view ISR, having been a combatant commander in a former life. I can tell you I agree with him. There is never enough ISR. I will always want more. The Air Force has committed to taking off a number of lines of ISR, but they're not reducing the tails, the aircraft that go with those lines. What they're doing is making sure that they upgrade and modernize their aircraft where possible and so that they can network the aircraft better. So the number of tails is not being reduced. The number of lines is being reduced slightly. And so there's going, can you get to us some information about that so we know what the program of record will be going forward and how it can impact us? Absolutely. Thank you, I appreciate that. I'd like to move on to talking a little bit about Iranian aggression, how we combat that. Because Iranian-backed militias, of course, are increasingly targeting U.S. installations, our service members in Iraq, the Iraq and drone attacks. Iran continues to be the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, a threat to the U.S., a threat across the world via its ballistic missile program, its support for terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, KHAH, and many others. And so according to a recently released annual threat assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Committee, and I quote, Iran supported Iraqi Shia militias will continue to pose the primary threat to U.S. personnel in Iraq. So to Secretary Austin and General Milley, with the constant threat to the U.S. and coalition forces in the Middle East, posed by Iran and Iran-backed militia groups, what are we doing to counter them? And how are we proactively protecting our forces and personnel? Do we have what we need to do that and prevent them? Prevent these militias and terrorists from targeting our U.S. troops in the region? Yeah, we certainly continue to demand that Iran cease its militias behavior in the region in terms of its support of the Iranian-backed Shia militia groups. And we demand that they cease providing them modernized equipment so that they can conduct these kinds of attacks. We're doing everything within our power, within our capability to make sure that our troops that are forward deployed have adequate protection. We're engaging the Iraqi leadership to make sure that the Iraqi leadership does what's necessary to protect, help protect our citizens who are there to help the Iraqi government. So I would say in addition to everything the Secretary said is think offense, defense. In terms of defense, the force protection of the force, the disposition of exactly where they're at, how many they're at, what's the hardening of those sites. We're doing all of those measures. In addition to that, we have missile, not missile defense, but air defense capabilities, CRAMs, counter rocket and mortar, and counter UAS systems that were put in place. Those have been proven quite effective actually against some of the Shia militia group capabilities. We're going to continue to reinforce all of that. I won't discuss it here, but I can discuss it in some detail in a classified session as to what we can do, what we have already done. All of that in combination we think is mitigating the risk. It certainly doesn't reduce it to zero. It's a dangerous environment. We all recognize that. But we've got to continue to work by with and through the Iraqi government because they're the first line of defense for the protection of our forces in their country. Thank you. I just want to be sure that we have assets on the ground to defend American installations in Iraq and Syria and other places in the Middle East. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rose. Senator Holy, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the witnesses for being here. Thank you for your service, as always. Mr. Secretary, if I could start with you. I asked you earlier this year if you agreed with the National Defense Strategy Assessment that the U.S. military needs to be postured and here's the quote, to deter and prevent a fate of complete by an agile opportunistic adversary. You responded to me in writing which I appreciated and I appreciated the response you gave, which was you said and quoting you now. Yes, I agree with the commission's finding a combat credible forward deterrent posture is instrumental to our ability to deter and if necessary deny a fate of complete scenario. I assume you still agree with that. I do. Very good. Would you also agree then I assume that this will apply to our ability to maintain and defeat maintain the ability to defeat a Chinese military to complete against Taiwan. Is that accurate? That is accurate, Senator. I think nobody wants to see a unilateral change of of the status quo with respect to Taiwan. You've heard us say that we are committed to helping Taiwan defend itself in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act. We are committed to making sure that Taiwan communicates in the six assurances. Our position hasn't changed in that regard and we'll continue to help them develop the capability to General Milley, if I could just get you on this as well, would you agree that the U.S. should maintain its ability to defeat a Chinese fate of complete against Taiwan if necessary? I absolutely would, but if you're talking about a military invasion of Taiwan crossing the streets, the Taiwan Straits with a sizeable military force to seize an island the size of Taiwan against the military that they have with the population that they have, that's an extraordinarily complex and difficult operation, even if against an unopposed force. That's a very hard thing to do. But I can assure you that we have the capabilities if there were political decisions made in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act and so on. Military capabilities to defeat such an attempted invasion is what you're saying, General Milley. Got it. Good. Would you agree, Mr. Secretary if I could just come back to you, would you agree that we need to be when we think about deterring China that we need to be as focused on deterring China in the next three to five, seven years as we are 10 to 15 years from now. I'm asking this, the context for this is we've heard now from the outgoing Paycom commander from the incoming Paycom commander we just heard earlier this week from the former Deputy National Security Advisor that China is increasingly aggressive and that the window to deter that aggression may be shorter than we had thought. So thus my question, would you agree that we need to be focused on deterring them in the short to medium term three, five, seven years including the longer term? We do. And I would say that those two issues are not mutually exclusive, Senator. As you know, they complement each other. While we're developing a future capability, we certainly have to bridge to that capability and that is absolutely our focus. Great, great. Senator, I would say that's what the key here is deterrence. We are in a condition of strategic great power competition. It needs to stay at competition and deterrence is key to prevent it from going from competition to incident or competition to war. Yeah, very good. I'm glad you mentioned that and if I could just follow up on that general. The adversary, a competitor in this case, China, knowing that we have the ability to deter them, we have the ability to do what you said a minute ago, which is if they should choose military aggression, we have the ability should we choose to deny that aggression, that is important for deterrence. Is it not them knowing we have the ability? In simple terms, I mean, deterrence is actually a very complex thing, but in simple terms, you have to have the capability. Your opponent has to know you have the capability. You've got to communicate that capability to your opponent and you just know it. You have to communicate your will to use it if necessary and both actors have to be rational. If all of those components are there in simple terms, you'll be able to achieve a state of deterrence. Thus far, it's achieved. Very good. Thank you for that. Mr. Secretary, let me just ask you in this context then about the department's request for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative. In your request to include, if I understand it correctly, $23 million for force design and posture improvements out of the $2.2 billion that's required, I'm trying to understand how providing our forces in the Pacific with just 1% of the funding they need for posture improvements to support those combat credible forward deterrent posture that we're talking about. How that is, how can we do that and say that we're going to maintain the ability to deter or deny the fate of complete? Yeah. So, Senator, I would flag for you just a couple of issues. The first issue is that, as I've said earlier, that our intent is to make sure that with respect to the PDI investment that we meet the congressional intent, and we believe that we have invested in a number of things that meets that intent, and we've offered, and we will come to meet with your staff and explain where the investments are to make sure that the language isn't confusing. The second thing is we've invested $5.1 billion in the PDI. The third thing I would flag for you is that, you know, much of what we're investing in in terms of capability and is really focused on our efforts to counter the challenge presented by China. And I would also say that when we speak of deterrence we're not talking about just air, land and sea. We're talking about using every capability across all domains to include cyber and space. We're talking about integrating the capabilities of our allies which I believe is very, very important. And we're talking about using every lever that the United States government has available to it to, in fact, affect that deterrence. Thank you very much. I've got some more questions for you on this. Mr. Secretary, I'll follow up with you in writing, but I appreciate the opportunity to engage with you on it. Thank you, General. Thank you, Senator Holly. Senator Tuberville, please. Thank you. I'll put your microphone on, please. Hello. Hello. Did that work? Good. Thank you. I thought mine was worn out after this long day. Mr. Secretary, I want to take a little different angle here. I've been a team builder all my life and I'm on the Veterans Committee, the Affairs Committee, and I've been talking my first six months here with recruiters out in the field for the military. I'm a huge military person. Military brat grew up in a military family. We talk about missiles and bombs and ships, and you got to have all those. But if we don't have the people, the best people we can possibly get, we're going to be in trouble. It's like winning a football game. Best players win games. There's no doubt, same thing with the military. And we've always had a strong military. I hear a lot of comments about, you know, why should I get in the military? They didn't look out for the people in Iraq and Afghanistan on the burn pits. Gentlemen, we got a huge problem.  We got to make better decisions than that. You know, all that money we're going to get ready to spend, you know, to you guys, to defense. But to me, it's going to be hard to recruit good people, the best people. And I hear all this extremism stuff.  You know, you don't have to like each other to be on the team. A lot of my players could not stand other guys on the team. You know, they just had personality conflicts. But at the end of the day, you got to earn respect. You got to earn the trust and dedication and all that from your teammates. I mean, you got to learn that. And so, I just hate for us to get off on this this tangent of the people that we have in the military. Now, in football, for instance, it's your coaches that has, when you bring players in, you got to build a team. You got to bring them together. Same thing in the military. You got lieutenants, captains, drill sergeants, corporals, all those. Everybody's responsibility is to bring that team together. And I just, the things that I'm hearing and seeing in the military bases I've been going to the last six months and talking to recruiters, we're going to have a tough time. And then we got to face the people in big tech of taking the best and brightest because cyber is one of the things that we really got to get into in the military and continue to grow in the bill and all of our technology. You know, that being said, I just want to make sure that we understand, you know, that we talk about all this equipment and the budget and all that. And I understand we've got to have that, but if we don't have the people in making a difference, we had this selective service here a few months ago. They sit right here and they told us that if we had a draft today, we'd have 35 million people that we could draft from. 35 million. Only 450,000 of those 35 million are eligible to be in the military. For one formula, that's not enough. That is not enough. We can't build a killing machine which is what our military is. You can say anything else. We've got to be able to kill the enemy when they come at us. And so that's just something I've watched and listened to. I've been on the road talking and I want us to have the best military in the world, and we probably do. I want us to fund the best military, but we've got to fund our young men and women. They're going to get in the military and they've got to want to come in. They've got to want to be there. They've got to want to be there for the simple fact that they want to fight for the best country on the face of the earth. Just one question I got for you, Secretary Austin, yesterday I wrote you a letter. Me and Senator Wicker and Kramer, and our concern was disturbing about training materials coming from our military. Let me be clear. Like you, we want to see good order and discipline in the ranks for our military to remain the non-partisan institution that Americans trust more than any other. But what emerged from some of the services revealed is disappointing partisan slant and a poorly defined First Amendment rights for military members. This year we've seen multiple senior military leaders in uniform from official DOD channels criticize individual members of the press. That ain't got nothing to do with the military. To me you just got to go about your business. We've seen the National Guard march on elected officials here just down from this building. We asked, Senator, we asked you to provide a report on what steps your office will take to reprimand officers who inappropriately engage in partisan behavior to ensure that the stand-down training materials comply with the guidance issued by your office. We asked for that report in May the 7th and we still hadn't gotten it. I know you've been busy but we just like to know the steps we're going to take to clamp down on people that don't deserve to be in our military. I didn't want to get up here and rant but I've been a recruiter all my life and we've got to be able to recruit people to spend this money that we're going to appropriate you in the right way because we're in dire straits and Senator Secretary Oskar, can I get that commitment? You certainly have that commitment and I'd also like to offer a thought on what you just said, Senator and thanks for your continued support of our great military and again you've heard me say this a couple of times today and I don't want our force or anybody else in this country to be confused it is the most lethal organization on the face of the planet and it will remain so and it will remain the most cohesive organization on the face of the planet. When I came in as the Secretary of Defense I issued guidance to the force and that guidance included three things my focus is on defending this nation and protecting our interests the second thing is taking care of our people and the third thing is teamwork and like you I've put a couple of teams together too and I've employed those teams in the combat and watch these youngsters do amazing things in support of their country and in support of each other it's unbelievable and so I have a pretty good feel in terms of what it takes to create that kind of cohesion and cohesion is what is most important to me just like it is to you Senator I know you absolutely understand that and you've demonstrated that you understand that with some tremendous success over the years regarding the burn pits you know the welfare of our veterans is foremost in my mind I mean it's something that me and the chairman both really care about and I would tell you that the Secretary of the VA Secretary McDonough shares that concern and he and I work together closely on a number of issues and we have vowed to make sure that we don't lose our veterans as a transition from active duty to retirement or get out of the military and go do something else I've inhaled those fumes from burn pits the chairman has inhaled those fumes from burn pits we know it's important to take care of our troops and you have our commitment to remain focused on that but I would also say that this is not just the Army's problem it's not just the military's problem this is the issue for the United States of America these are our troops and we're going to do everything we can to take care of them and I know that all the great resources and authorizers that are in this room share that same commitment and we felt that commitment going forward and I know that it's the reason that you ask that question but the question you have is are we committed to it and Senator I am absolutely committed to making sure that we do what we can to ensure that this issue is addressed and I know that Ray McDonough is working this issue very hard as well thank you thank you for your service thank you very much thank you very much Senator Toverville this is the second round I will recognize Senator King who will ask one question and he will also preside and conclude the hearing and then he will recognize Senator Sullivan for one question I'd ask both the questions and the responses be as concise and eloquent as it has been all morning thank you very much thank you Mr. Chairman first just a very brief observation there's been a lot of talk about budgets and comparisons of budgets and budgets with China I yield to no one in terms of my determination to successfully compete with China on all fronts I would point out though even though they have had significant increases lately their budget this year is less than one third of ours I think that's important just to have that context because we've been talking about growth but they were showing significant growth from a much lower base General Milley I am gravely concerned about the men and women in Afghanistan who supported and aided our troops and that we're not moving fast enough to be sure that they are brought to safety I think this is an essential moral commitment of this country and also a practical one if we leave these people to the tender mercies of the Taliban I don't know who is ever going to cooperate and help us again in another setting so I hope that both the Pentagon the White House and all the agencies of the US government are committed to this as an urgent priority an urgent priority and that if we can't repatriate all these people to this country that we at least make arrangements to get them safely out of Afghanistan can you give me your thoughts on that please Senator first I think the President Secretary of State myself others have all commented on the importance of making sure that we keep faith with those that have supported us over the last two decades in Afghanistan clearly as our intent and we will do that in terms of specific actions the Department of State has the lead on the special immigrant visa program and some other programs with respect to those Afghans that have supported us that planning is working through the system right now but I can commit to you that it's my belief that the United States government will do what is necessary in order to ensure the safety and protection of those that have been working with us for two decades thank you the term working through the system is what gives me some concern sure this is an absolutely urgent priority over the next six to eight weeks I would say as our troops draw down so I appreciate your commitment on that Mr. Secretary I assume you make absolutely the same commitment you're correct Senator we this is very important to us and we're pushing as hard as we can on our end to move as fast as we can I know Secretary Blinken has asked for an increase in authorizations in terms of numbers to move into the SIV process and I would ask your support in providing that authorization and again anything that you can do to expand our current capabilities in terms of authorizations would be very very much appreciated I'm sure the members of this committee will work to that end and look forward to working with you Senator Sullivan thank you Mr. Chairman and I share your views and I know most of the members of the committee do on keeping faith with those who support us in Afghanistan and gentlemen I appreciate you running the Gotland today it's an important element of our constitutional oversight responsibilities I have one final question a growing and critical area of great power competition with Russia certainly but also with China is our strategic interest in the Arctic and Mr. Secretary as you know in general each of the military services in some ways prompted by this committee have now published an Arctic strategy I think all of us view this as a positive development and both of you during your confirmation hearings had committed to focus on this area of our national security to fully resource each of the service Arctic strategies Deputy Secretary Hicks through her confirmation process did the same in a strategic forces subcommittee hearing yesterday I had the chance to ask General Van Herk who's the Northcom commander in his role as the designated advocate for Arctic capabilities how he saw each of the services implementing their respective strategies in the president's new budget submission and he told me that DoD resourcing for the various service Arctic strategies was quote inching along but that DoD quote didn't move the ball very far down the field with the FY22 budget so I want to ask both of you do you share this view can we work to fully resource the service strategies that have been put out the DoD strategies that have been put out in this important area of great power competition thank you senator when we talked before you know I indicated to you that the Arctic Arctic strategy was important to me and that hasn't changed it remains so you know we're working on developing our national defense strategy overall and also working through to refine our force posture globally as we develop that national defense strategy certainly the Arctic will be an area that we will take into consideration and make sure that we have the right emphasis the right focus that strategy will drive our resourcing thank you general milley absolutely we're committed to the Arctic strategy and you know this whole issue with the Arctic is a classic example of the strategic military impact of climate change as the snow caps melt the ice packs melt it's exposing for the resources the Russians and Chinese are realizing that so they are clearly trying to exploit some of that and we are going to see increase not decrease great power competition and we do need to resource fully resource the Arctic strategy thank you thank you Mr. Chairman thank you I'd like to associate myself with senator solvents questions on the Arctic it's an incredibly important strategic area I appreciate your commitments with no further questions and I understand the decision has been made not to go to an additional closed session so I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today for your forthrightness for the information that you've shared and most of all for your service to our country with that this hearing is adjourned