Competitor. Another one is the vulnerability of the network, the command and control. We have to do a lot more to make those more resilient. A detailed briefing on that. If youd like. I look forward to that. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Congratulations and thank you for your service and to your wife and family. I appreciate your acknowledgment of general dunfords service. I agree on the exceptional job hes done. I certainly believe youre the officer to fill those shoes. I want to comment quickly. My colleagues have talked about these vacancies. None of them have mentioned the unprecedented obstruction that they have undertaken under senator schumers leadership to block and put 30 hours of debate on every almost every nominee. Lets get the vacancies filled, but lets quit the obstruction. Thats a good way to work through this. Its an issue that doesnt get enough attention. The issue that the chairman raised, which i think is the an important one with regard to readiness, he mentioned 5 of the brigade combat teams 3 out of 58. You have done an outstanding job of digging out of that hole by the Obama Administration and sequestration when we cut defense spending by a 25 . General, i know you read this book. This kind of war. Can can you talk to me about just what you see with regard to what was in this book highlighting how thousands of american soldiers were killed and wounded in the summer of 1950 because a lack of readiness and training. If confirm ed will you commit t this committee to make sure we never get near that level of a welcome of readiness that killed so many of our soldiers that summer. Thank you. That book is a wonderful book to read and many others on the korean war. General dunfords father fought in the korean war. And that first summer was a horrible experience as we came out of world war ii in 1945 and we went from the greatest military in the world of Something Like 8 to 10 million soldiers and 50,000 aircraft. And then ripped ourselves apart in a very short period of time in five years so when the summer of 1950 comes around, we deployed forces and the first forces and its tragic. Its horrific from july all the cway to december. Lack of training, lack of funding. Lack of readiness, equipment, ammunition, all of that stuff led to the deaths of tens of thousands of american soldiers. It should never happen again. Its been drilled into all of us since we were lieutenants never to let that happen. I commend you for your focus on that and ask you to make sure your military counterparts. But i do want to get your commitment that with regard to training, theres sometimes pressure for you to reduce the levels of training that you will commit this committee to keep the highest standards of training for our military. Can i get your commitment on that . Theres two areas where the pentagon is not focused enough of its attention to key strategic areas of the force posture in the asia pacific and the Strategic Power competition taking place in the arctic. If confirmed, will you work with this committee, we have a provision in the ndaa to look at our force posture in the asia pacific to make it fit with the Great Power Competition, the National Defense strategy and the rise of china. I will, if confirmed, i will take a look at it. Its a critical region. Same thing with the arctic. We need to take a hard look at the arctic. Let me talk about that for a minute. You know theres almost daily headlines. I would like to submit this for the record. Theres been several is articles about expanding russian and chinese influence in the arctic. Secretary pom peo gave an excellent speech recently about the Great Power Competition even as you and i briefly talked about and todays defense one, r the admiral puts an article in that paper on the arctic about the russian build up, airfields and yet a provision in this years ndaa to simply have a port in the arctic in america that could handle a destroyer, pretty simple, was opposed by the pentagon. Can i get your commitment to work with us to make sure were not lacking from a military per spect iin the arctic . You have my commitment. One final question. By next year alaska is going to have over 100 fifth generation fighters. This is in part because of what Billy Mitchell said many years ago when he was an army general that alaskas most strategic place in the world. Despite this build up of fighters, we have tanker fleets there that are over 50 years old. The air force is looking at their deployment of ck 46. If it confirmed, will you work with this committee to look at what i think is a very obvious place to put new in the place thats the most strategic place in the the world with 100 fifth generation fighters. Can i get your commitment . If confirmed, i will work with that and make my recommendations. Thank you. Absolutely. Senator king . Upholding the legacy of the chairman, Billy Mitchell was courtmartialed. But i think it was rescinded later. Also in connection with the question of nominations, i recently become aware there are some 16 vacancies in the department of defense at senior levels that havent been nominated. Theres no obstruction of somebody that hasnt been nominated. The failure here in terms of the leadership in the department of defense is not with the congr s congress. We have to have nominated candidates and we have a series of vacancies. I can understand your frustration object other areas, but this isnt one of them where the congress is causing any slowdown in terms of the filling of these vacancy ises. Given the risks you have arctic lalted, i consider your job the second most important in the United States government. Because we are living in a dangerous world. And your position as principle adviser to the president in a time of heightened International Tension and risk is incredibly significant and important. You know what my question is going to be. Guess what my next question will be. Probably the same one you asked when i was nominated to be the chief. Are you going to be intimidated . Thats the question. Whats the answer . Absolutely not. By no one, ever. Ill give my best mull tear advice and will be candid and honest and thorough. I believe that, but its very important to emphasize the oval office is is an intimidating place. The president of the United States is the most powerful leader in the free world. And to be willing to say, mr. President , youre wrong about this or this is the consequences. If its something he or she doesnt want to hear. Theres no more important responsibility in your career that you will have had to make that statement. I have confidence that you will do that. You said to me four years ago no one intimidates you. And i believe that. I want to refresh your recollection on that point. Senator, it applies to general dunford and most of us who have seen a a lot of combat. We have buried these soldiers. And we understand absolutely full well the hazards of our chosen profession. We know what this is about. Were not going to be intimidated into making stupid decisions. We will give our best military advice regardless of consequences to ourselves. Thats reassuring and i have confidence thats the case. I have been hearing for years on this committee there was a debate about a calendarbased withdrawal. What conditions do you see that would justify withdrawal from afghanistan . When do we call it enough is enough . I think the war in afghanistan and the interests are met and will be met through a negotiated settlement. I think it is slow. Its painful. Its hard. I spent a lot of my life in afghanistan. But i also think its necessary. We went to make sure it never becomes a platform for a terrorist strike in the the United States of america like 9 11. I think the conditions will be a negotiated set is thement with the taliban. Do you believe the continued presence of American Forces is a predicate to those successful negotiations . Absolutely. I think it underwrites those. So if we pulled out prematurely, it would undermine the possibility of a successful negotiation . I think pulling out prematurely would be a strategic mistake. Similar opinion in iraq and syria . Different conditions, different swaying. The organization of isis, the ideology of isis is there. Theres a modest amount of capability that needs to remain there. Thank you for your testimony and your service. I dont think theres anyone that i have met in my work here that i have more confidence in in the position youre about to embark upon. Congratulations and thank you. Thank you, senator. General, thank you for being willing to do this and thank you for your career. Id like to go back to something the chairman mentioned right up front. You and i have talked about this privately. General mattis said the greatest threat is the federal debt. You talk about that a consistent funding of the military and the dependence upon that could make a dramatic improvement not only in readiness but in moving to a new National Defense strategy. Yet theres some who talk about a oneyear cr right now for next year. I like to add a little more color to. This. It would delay a pay rise for our women and men. I think even the house proposal is considering. It would delay the implementation of the new Defense Strategy, which would mean it would be operating under a Defense Strategy that was developed three years ago by the prior administration. It would slow down and reverse a lot of the benefits that you guys have gained over the last two years in readiness. It would absolutely slow down one full year a lot of the new programs that you have approve ed for recapping. It would require you to spend on. Add a little more color to how draconian this is is to the longterm effect of our defense and realize that last year was the first year in a decade we have not asked the military to start the military under a resolution. Theres one contributor to how you have improved readiness over the last year or so. Id like for you to add more color to the committee. Just broefly, the one year cr has never been done. And so were in uncharted territory if we went there. Crs in general are a very ineffective and inefficient use of the taxpayers dollars. Were aware of that. But what ends up happening is my experience has been the price points go up because you cant guarantee a cash flow to the industrial partner youre working with. So i think cr in general, the one year or one month is a poor way to do business. Having said that, i think the cr would have a negative impact in terms of training, manning and equipping, procurement, modernization, spare parts, i think those are the real tangible pieces. Theres an intangible as well. Thats the mage it sends to allies and most importantly my view the soldiers of the joint force. It sends a terrible message to them. Over the longterm, do you agree china and their regional rebuilding of their military is probably the largest of the five main threats we have facing the country going over the longterm. I think absolutely. China is the main challenge to the u. S. National security over the next few years. Its some historian in 21 is going to look back and write a book and the central theme of the story will be the relationship between the United States and china. Yes, sir. Do you think we can win the next arms race . I hope we dont have an arms race. With regard to their belt Road Initiative and their made in china 2025, my experience with that part of the world having lived over there is they generally historically dont telled a investigator sorries what they are going to do if they dont have the will to stop them. When they published in 2025 do you excerpt it that way . I do. They are using trade as leverage to achieve their National Security interests. Specifically with investments around africa and indian ocean, but also in south america. We now see where they have foreclose and militarizing those ports. Whats your plan as chairman to address that Global Expansion with regard to the pla and their commercial interest as well. I think china has expanded throughout all the regions of the globe. They are in competition for resources. In order to fund and fuel their economy. I think that what we need to do is continue to uphold the norms of the International Order thats been in place. And where those are counted against it. Thank you for beiwilling to this. Senator blumenthal. Thank you, mr. Chairman. General milley, thank you for your service to our nation and your familys as well. Its been extraordinary over many, many years. And thank you for your conversation with me in my office recently. I am going to proudly and strongly support your nomination, not only because of what you said, but what you have done throughout your extraordinary career. You identified the Nuclear Triad and space as two areas that require modernization. I know that as aint infantry lieder, you have a deep concern about families and servicemen and women who serve in our nation. They are a major resource, in my view, despite all the new forms of hardware and new bright, shiny objects that may be in space or on the battlefield. At the end of the day, its people that matter most in our military. So i want to ask you about military housing. Not glamorous, not sexy, but essential to the assurance that we recruit and rewe taint the best. Because if we dont provide adequate housing and compensation and guarantee of retirement and educational benefits, we are going to be a lesser nation for it. The nda includes some critical reforms. To the military Housing Privatization and ebb sure longterm quality assurance. These provisions that were supported by many of us require a bill of rights to be developed id like your commitment that you will pursue these goals as you have done already in your present capacity. You have anymy commitment and i appreciate the support of the committee over the last year in this housing issue that came up. Were all in. These are our families. And we do have a commitment to have the highest quality of life possible. Thank you. You mentioned that the rules or the nature of warfare is changing. Certainly, that includes an increased emphasis on cyber. You didnt mention it among the modernization priorities unless i misheard you, but wouldnt you agree that in cyber, the best defense is a good offense . Cyber is one of the modernization priorities. If i failed to mention it, thats my mistake. A good offense is critical. Thats the best defense. But we also need to improve our network and the resilience of the entire command and control communications systems. Not only of the military, but of the United States. I think those are key to cyber. But all the the end of the day, we have to have those capabilities too. And in theory, if we have incredible offensive capability, that should deter them from conducting attacks on us in cyber. The New York Times recently reported that we have enhanced and stepped up our deterrent activities and efforts making sure that we can hold russia accountable. Theres been reports that Russian Hackers installed malware in critical electrical grid infrastructure and other potential sources of essential service. Can you confirm that were stepping up and enhancing our offensive and deterrent capabilities in the area of cyber without going into any of the details. Obviously, employment is very high level decision that would be very classified. But yes, we are increasing and improving across the entire joint force. All of the service. We all have cyber organizations awl within u. S. Com. We are increasing our capabilities, our skills, our knowledge, or attributes within that system all working under the general. The short answer is yes we are increasing our capabilities. A number of us on this committee including chairman mccain when he was with us, i believe that we need more defined criteria for what constitutes an act of war. In cyber an act of war. Clearly russia is attacking as are other nations like china. The question is at what point do these activities, these attacks on the homeland and our Services Like utilities constitute an actual act of war, and i believe that the present kinds of rules fail to provide an adequate definition. Im not going to ask you to respond in detail, but simply to request that you continue to examine this area and work with us. I will do that. Its a great question. It requires a considerable amount of detailed thought and a lot of experts as to what constitutes an act of war with respect to cyber activities. Ill get back to you on my thoughts. Thank you. We have three votes coming up and our intention to work through the votes to give everyone an opportunity to be heard. Congratulations on your nomination and on your outstanding record of service. Congratulations to your family. I look forward to supporting your nomination. I enjoyed our conversation a week or so ago. We talked a lot about the National Defense strategy. Im going to ask a few questions and put my cards on the table and say why . We talked about this. My own view is that the Political Leadership of the country has for decades longer not led us well when it comes to our Foreign Policy that weve drifted and not had a Clear Strategy or clear priorities. That havent served the military or country well. The National Security strategy is a major step forward in defining priorities and helping us focus on what the major security threats are and prioritizing at dod and get you the support you need. I want to ask you about some of those things. The Department Just recently released the strategy report which builds on the nds and says the departments priority theater. You and i have talked about this. You agree with that, and with this documents assessment that china and secondarily russia should drive our force management and development decisions. That is correct . Absolutely. Its clear in the nds, and i subscribe to that. Its a very, very worthwhile document. Its there are flaws in it, of course. But as a baseline document, its excellent, and its authoritative for us in terms of our air force modernization and our air force development programs. Yes, i do. Let me ask you a little bit more about that. According to the strategy report the nds requires dod to posture ready combat forces forward in order to convince they cannot easily advance their aims through military force. For the indo pacific specifically, what would you say makes our combat forces credible . The people, the talent, the knowledge and skills of attributes of all the people from the youngest soldier, sailor, marine all the way up to the flag officers. I think that we have incredible people. Theres about 370,000 or so troops of all kinds in the indo pacific region. Weve got an order of around 2,000 aircraft and 200 ships. Weve got a significant amount of u. S. Military capability and most of that is west of the dateline. We have very, very good capability that can both deter and respond if deterrence fails. Let me ask you about in the event of a conflict in this theater. What duke the forces should be able to achieve on their own while they await reinforcements . Well, the first thing you want to do and the nds spells that out. First, deter. But if deterrence were to fail, we want to blunt whatever offensive actions the enemy at that point would be conducting. Let me ask you about c conventionally launched missiles. Do you think thats helpful. Taiwan scenario, for instance . I do. In a similar vely edi has be. Former secretary mattis and some members of this committee have both called for an indo pacific equivalent to edi. We havent seen a lot of progress. Let me get your views. Do you think that having a multiyear Resource Initiative like edi would be useful. I think it would be useful, but its like anything else. When we talk about money and resources, its a balance. To do the detailed analytical work, id have to get back to you on the specifics but yes, it would be useful. Finally, let me pick up a line of questioning mentioned about the balance we have to strike in the different aor. Your written answer to what requires continue use u. S. Military presence there. You referenced the National Security strategy. Said it directs the department to retain the necessary military presence in the region to preserve a favorable regional balance of power. Can you elaborate on that and to the degree youre able to in this setting, tell us what you think it takes to do that sustainably while adhering to nds. Theres a variety of capability there is now and those go up and down depending on the situation at the moment in time. But in general, across the board, we are approaching our allies and partners in the region with train, advise, assist, and provide various military cells for equipment in order to stabilize the situation within any of their countries. Thats the fundamental strategic approach. And in other cases naval cases, for example, trying to put a coalition together right now as we heard earlier, in general dunford is on the lead for that to try to escort commercial vessels. Its different types of capabilities but train, advise, assist, enable our local partners within the region to try to defend themselves and tablize the situation. Thank you. Thank you. Senator duckworth. Senator reid. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome, general. Its good to see you again. When we sat down together we had a good conversation about the importance of logistics to project and sustain our military power. Id like to touch on that here. How would you advise the president and the white house on what we need to do today to prepare for the fights of tomorrow whether through funding, policy, or other prioritizing especially when it comes to logistics. I think lo gistings as we discussed in your office, and professionals military look at logistics as a long pull in the tent and the ability to for us to project forces overseas. The long sea and airlines of communication and keeping those open. To sustain air, yound, and naval sources in an active theater depends on logistics. The ability to move, shoot. Its a critical area of war fighting. I want to believe we pay close attention to it which we do and in terms of funding, things like air lift and sea lift capabilities are overlooked because theyre not the war fighting, the leading edge of the war fighting. We need to continue to invest in those. Thank you. We also discussed our concerns with Great Power Competition and some of my colleagues talked about it here. One of the things that we talked about was just the need to have an american presence in especially the asia pacific region. Not necessarily confronting china directly but just being there and being enoperating there on a local level so our allies and partners in the region are can refer to us and were just constantly there so were not leaving a vacuum for the chinese to occupy solely. What more can we do to make sure our forces and partners are treating the concerns of chinas presence realistic, and to make sure theyre mature and ready for the continued friction with china. And with respect to our own presence overseas how might you anticipate using our military exercises, for example, so we get the most use out of them . Im talking about our Strategic Partners throughout southeast asia. When i was in singapore for the defense summit earlier a couple months ago, one of the things that was very clear was that the nations in the region were very uncomfortable with china being there, but they needed an alternative. They needed a greater presence of the u. S. To be there. Not necessarily confronting china directly but just being in the region. Can you address this . My experience in asia pacific and i was stationed in korea and spent time in hawaii. In various exercises and i got to know pretty much all of my counterparts that are leading the force around there. And we have a very Robust Network in asia of allies and partners. The official allies with full blown defense treaties as well as partner nations. Thats critical. And its palpable when you go around the region as you have to see the anxiety and the fear that these countries have of an aggressive china. And they want the United States there. They want us there as a security partner. They want us there as a security guarantor. They want forward presence. They believe were a force of stability, and theres great concern. So our task, our key task i think is assurance, and some of the military dimensions of that would be to do exercises and ensure we have all the do mains throughout the area. We do that. Theres a large sweep and capability of exercises throughout the region that we continue to sustain. Is there anything you would change or enhance with the exercises in that dimension . Well, as the chiefs staff of the army, we did a prototype of Multidomain Task force. I think grouping the exercises into multidomain exercises would be worthwhile. One of the things wed like to do and i think its 24 months is do emergency deployment readiness exercises to asia pacific and to europe. Those are army specific. But we could expand it to the joint force, the dfe concept within the National Defense strategy so we can project power on an emergency basis in an exercise and demonstrate that capability. I think that would have a very strong effect on any adversarial nation. Thank you. Id like to talk about the parol in place agreement to not deport the members of the family members of our military men and women who are currently on deployment. Can you how would you advise the president on the potential impacts of taking this where the dhs is saying theyre going to resume deportation of family members of deployed Service Members . What would you say to the men and women in uniform facing this issue at home, especially when theyre downrange . Im not familiar with the specifically what youre talking about. Ive read a headline on it the other day. I would need to dig into exactly what dhs is saying and what they plan on doing. Our soldiers are defending our country, and their families deserve the protection of this country. If you could follow up in writing i would appreciate it. I will. Senator kramer. Thank you. Senator reid. Thank you for your service and for joining us and congratulations on what i think will be a successful new job soon. Theres been reference of two important things such as china and russia developing new weapons systems. Theres been some discussion about the nuclear tried a and the importance. I want to drill down on one of the three legs of the triad with you if i could. The groundbased Strategic Deterrence has been the most controversial, i guess of the three. Although i dont think theres a lot of controversy. Theres been some about its future. Of course, three missiles the new system would replace are thought to be probably timing out sometime in the 2030 range. Some of the controversy that i refer to has to do with some thinking that maybe we should hold back a little bit on the gbsd, reconsider, reevaluate the decision by the air force has been to move forward. A good decision, i believe. Im wondering if you could elaborate a little bit on the importance of sticking to that time frame of getting out the rfp, moving forward with the 600 or so new missiles under in the gbsd and why sticking with that timeframe is important. Well, the timeframe, i think it has to do with the aging fleet, if you will. Not only of the missiles but the bombers and the subs as well. So all pieces of the Nuclear Triad do need to be modernized and overhauled and updated. Theyre reaching the end of their service life. And one thing that is really critical and important to the United States and the defense of the United States is to ensure that we have a reliable, safnucr Strategic Response option for leaders to consider. I think the groundbased strategic, the missiles, i think are critical to that. And we need to do it and do it in the time the air force has recommended. Appreciate that. I also theres been reference to space. I think in your opening comments you talked about the importance of a space domain in response to that, the administration as you know has proposed a space force the National Defense authorization act passed by both this committee and the senate including the posture of a standing up a space force. A couple of the areas i worked hard on regarding the leadership, id like to get your comments. Im speaking to after one year of the space force being established, we have that the commander would no longer have a dual status commander. In other words, there would be a specific force just for the space force. That was pretty widely accepted. A little more controversial, again. This is what i want your comments on, would be we have language that after a year, again, that the commander would answer directly to the secretary of the air force rather than to the chief of staff and then also after a year that the that youd have a permanent member of the joint chiefs of staff rather than a situational member of the joint chiefs of staff. Trying to model as much as possible after the marine navy relationship. And we did it in a way to have some incremental movement, some transition to avoid a major bureaucracy. I would be interested in your thoughts and comments on that. Obviously the job youre seeking will have a lot to say about that and just be interested in your opinions. Well, i would offer you this. First of all, i think the steps are appropriate and right. And i think the dual hatting of general raymond for the next year is appropriate. And then as we go down and learn our lessons, et cetera, and develop that and prototype it and then we can split it off into a space force and space command. I think thats about right and its about the right approach and i think having him as a member of the joint chiefs i think is also appropriate. In answering to the secretary of the air force is appropriate. The broader well work through the details but the broader issue is the recognition and i think this is critically important and i applaud the air force for doing it and the administration and i think its really important we sustain it. The recognition of space as a domain of military operations. There was a time when we wished it wouldnt be so. But it is. And were leaving the last part of this confirmation hearing to go to new york where joe biden is delivering a Foreign Policy speech. Mr. President ,