Hes going on to do three more of these. Like to call this hearing to order. The committee meets today to receive testimony in the presence of the Defense Budget Request for fiscal year 2022. Witnesses this morning are secretary Lloyd Austin, secretary of Defense Mr. Michael mccord under Secretary Offense Defense Comtroller And Secretary Mark Milley Chairman of the chiefs of staff. Thank you for your Service And Willingness to appear before us today. Two weeks ago President Biden released his Defense Budget Request for the fiscal year 2022 with a top line of 715 billion. The request focuses on several key areas, defeating covid19, prioritizing china as the Pacing Challenge, addressing advanced and persistent threats, innovating and modernizing dod and tackling the climate crisis. The president s Defense Budget Request is a Starting Point for congress and must always be viewed in the broader context of the National Security and fiscal challenges we face. It is important that we ensure we have the right strategies and resources to keep the american people safe now and in the future. But the keen eye towards evolving threats around the globe. Im pleased to see this Budget Request places a priority on taking care of the men and women who serve in uniform and the civilians who serve alongside them in the department. By including an across the Board Pay Raise for military and civilian personnel of 2. 7 . While this Pay Raise is required by law for military personnel, too often dod civilians have been overlooked. This increase in civilian pay sends an important mesage to the Work Force and years of pay freezes and benefit cuts. Notably the Budget Request includes 112 billion in research, development, tests and evaluation funds. The largest ever requested in this area. This includes modernization areas such as microelectronics, artificial intelligence, hypersonic missiles and 5g. Building our strength in these areas will be critical to the modernization of our National Security. But as the recent solo wins Microsoft Exchange and colonial Pipeline Server breaches painfully illustrate our cyberdefenses are simply inadequate to deal with sophisticated adversaries that are clearly advantaged in this hyperdomain. I hope our witnesses will expand on what activities dod is taking to accelerate and expand our cybersecurity and what resources are needed to accomplish them. With regard to the president s Transition Strategy in afghanistan, the Budget Request includes 3. 3 billion for the afghan security forces fund. This will ensure our continued support for the sustainment, infrastructure, Equipment And Training requirements for afghan security personnel. I ask that our witnesses update the committee on this transmission. Last year this committee led the way in establishing the pacific Defense Initiative or pdi to serve as a means for improving the capabilities, Design And Posture in our joint forces in the indopacific region. Strengthen the Presence And Resiliency of our armed forces, improve logistics and maintenance capabilities, support exercises, training, experimentation and innovation for the joint force and build the Defense And Security capabilities in cooperation of allyis and partners. I am concerned the Budget Request takes a centrist approach to pdi and look forward to working collaboratively to more aligned resources in the Dod Budget with our intent for pdi. Similarly the Budget Request poses an 800 million reduction to the european deterrence, the edi. The initiative which was also established by this committee, has seen budget decreases for the past three years. The department has suggested that this is part of transitioning to a steady state in the European Command aor. I would ask that our witness further explain the reasoning behind the produced Edi Budget and specifically whether you believe this level of investment in infrastructure and capabilities is sufficient to deter russian aggression. With regard to our nuclear strategy, i understand the Budget Request before us supports important steps towards nuclear modernization. Our allies and partners depend on the u. S. Nuclear Umbrella And Modernization of our strategic forces is needed to reassure them of our dependability. One thing i think everyone would agree on and often gets lost in discussion is the fact that Arms Control and the modernization of our nuclear forces are inherently linked together. Even as we modernize, we should seek ways to remote strategic stability like the extension of the new Start Agreement and follow on talks to cover new strategic weapons and further reduce nuclear stockpiles. Lastly, i would note that fiscal year 2022 is the first year in ten years that we will not be constrained by the budget control act. Eliminating arbitrary spending caps means that every Departments Budget can and should be on its merits. Taxpayers shouldnt have to pay for programs or systems that are wasteful or ineffective and congress must not shrink its responsibilities to get rid of outdated systems in favor of more advanced, effective new technologies and capabilities. Belt tightening in any department, particularly defense, is always a challenge but it is also an opportunity to evaluate what is necessary and what drives innovation. The department has taken the first difficult steps in proposing 2. 8 billion worth of devestments and retirements and platforms and ill work my colleagues to evaluate these propoals and make hard, but necessary charges. Finally as we progress, the committee will tackle important policy issues and none bigger and change is coming to the department and military services. More than anything, cultural change when the force is critical to reducing the number of sexual assaults and related offenses. The president directed a review earlier this year and i know the department has been hard at work. I look forward to receiving the administrations recommendations to incorporate into the committees important work on this issue. Again, i thank the witnesses for their Participation Today and i look forward to the testimonies. Now, let me recognize the ranking member senator inhofe. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all three of our witnesses for them dedicating their lives to securing our nation. Secretary austin told us along with every witness who has come before this committee, china is our Pacing Threat. It is a global, longterm competition. And its across every arena of the national power that the military balance of power concerns me most. In 2018, the national Defense Strategy gave us a blueprint for pushing back on china and bipartisan commission said that 3 to 5 real growth is needed to implement that strategy. It doesnt look like were going to get that. Since then the threats have gotten worse, administration gave us a budget that cut spending when we need real growth. They want the military to do more on climate Change And Pandemic response and more emission but with fewer resources. Weve been asking our military to do too much for too little for too long. President bidens budget cuts would make it even harder. It barely treads water while we face all these threats. This budget cuts shifts aircraft munitions and we have nearly 25 billion of unfunded priorities. These arent wish lists, these are risk lists. The budget cuts, Aircraft Procurement by 20 and backslides on Army Readiness and starves navy Ship Building. This budget forces our military leaders to choose between being ready for todays fight or the fight of the future. The chinese military leaders theyre not making that choice. On tuesday, i read in the press about the memo by acting secretary of the navy on the next years budget. He says the navy must choose between modernizing ships, subs and aircraft. Does anyone think the chinese have to make that decision . The chinese Defense Budget has grown by 450 since 2001. They added, they added 200 billion in the last decade while we cut 400 billion. So, were behind in some of the areas and were falling behind in some of the other areas and as a result, im more deterrence it will fail. Maybe today or five years or ten years and when it does, the cost will be much higher than any investment we could be making today to prevent that. Were not making hard choices. Were making bad choices and short sided choices. The administration tells us that the Pentagon Budget is cut because of fiscal realities, but theyre spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on everything else under the sun. We all agree that even the administration agrees that a strong military improves all other tools of national power, i just cant understand this short cited underfunding of our troops. We make sacred compact with our Service Members. We tell them well take care of them and their families and we do that very well. We also tell them that well give them the tools that are necessary to defend the nation and come home safely. But were not holding up our end of the bargain with this proposed budget. Were failing to give them the resources they need to implement that strategy and, mr. Chairman, we need to do better. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, secretary inhofe. Secretary austin, please. Chairman reed, ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity for the Budget Request of 2022. I am pleased to appear alongside you along with General Milley whose advice has been crucial and as we continue to defend this nation which is our chief responsibility and my top priority. Im also glad to be joined by our comcomptroller. Our Budget Request will help us Match Strategy to Policy And Policy and informed by the president s interim national Security Guidance and my own mesage to the force, it funds the right mix of capabilities that we need most to defend this nation now and in the future. It invests in hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, microelectronics, 5g technology, spacebased systems, Ship Building and nuclear modernization to name a few. In fact, this budget asks you to approve nearly 28 billion to modernize our nuclear triad and 112 billion for research, development, tests and evaluation. The largest Rnd Request ever put forth by this department. Our request also gives us the flexibility to devest ourselves of systems and platforms that no longer adequately meet our needs including older ships, aircraft and irs platforms that demand more maintenance, Upkeep And Risk than we can afford. We commissioned a global Posture Review and a new national Defense Strategy which will further inform and guide our resource decisions. The department must be ready to meet and keep pace with our competitors and, if necessary, to fight and win the next war and not the last one. Thats why this budget stays true to our focus on matching the pace, the Pacing Challenge that we clearly see from a Peoples Republic of china to include more than 5 billion for the pacific Defense Initiative. And i would just add that our China Task Force has also completed its Work And Yesterday i issued an internal directive kicking off several departmentwide efforts that will among other things help bolster our deterrence against the prc and revitalize our network of partners and accelerate the development of cutting edge capabilities and new operational concepts. However, we recognize that china is not our only challenge. Our budget also includes 617 million to counter the damaging effects of climate change and additional funds to prepare for future challenges like another pandemic. It also helps us counter the belligerence that we face from russia, especially in the cyberrealm. And youll see more than 10 billion here devoted to cybersecurity, cyberspace operations and cyberresearch and development. With this emphasis on space, Missile Defense and more sophisticated sensors, our budget will also help counter the increasing ballistic missile capabilities of nations like North Korea and iran. It funds a true Presence And Counterterrorism capabilities in the middle East And South asia to meet the threats posed not only by iran, but also by terrorist net, withes like isis and Al Qaeda and in africa like those posed by elshabab. Im confident that this budget will help us maintain the deterrent Energy Capability and global posture necessary to back up the hard work of our diplomats and demonstrate our resolve in leadership all over the world. Alongside our allies and our partners. I know that afghanistan remains a that top of all of our minds and today i can report that the retrograde remains on pace. We have accomplished a mission for which our troops were sent to afghanistan 20 years ago. Im very proud of the men and women who made it possible and of those who gave their lives for this mission. Im also deeply grateful to the families of our Service Members who have endured as much as they sent their sons and daughters and husbands and wives into battle. And so we will now transition to a new bilateral relationship with our afghan partners, one that continues to help them meet their responsibilities to their citizens. But one that will not require our u. S. Footprint larger than whats necessary to protect our diplomats. And thats one reason why were asking to move overseas contingency operations funding inside the budget. This will give us and you greater transparency, Accountability And Predictability in the budgeting process. This is the right thing to do and, frankly, its overdue. Now taking care of our people is also the right thing to do. Our Budget Requests increases funding to support Inhome Care and support, which has become increasingly important during the pandemic. Well also be seeking funds to improve military base pay, retention bonuses and other incentives that will help us attract and retain the best talent. And well be working hard to combat challenges that make service in the ranks more difficult for the men and women of the department. From getting a better handle on the extent to which we experienced extremist behavior to combatting sexual assault and harassment. As you know, my first directive as secretary of defense issued on my first full day in the office was to service leadership about sexual assault. I made it clear then and i still believe that we must not be afraid to try new approaches and to change our minds so that we can truly and fully address sexual assault in our force. And clearly what weve been doing hasnt been working and one assault is too many. The numbers of sexual assaults are still too high and the confidence in our system is still too low. The independent Review Commission that we established has provided me with an initial set of recommendations starting around the issue of accountability. In this line of effort is focused on how the crimes are investigated and prosecuted. Ive shared these recommendations with General Milley and the civilian and military leaders of the service branchs and im reviewing the feedback they provided me. There will be additional recommendations coming to us on prevention, culture and victim support and i look forward to receiving them as well. And making my full recommendation to the president later this month. As ive said before, what were doing is not working and we need to fix it. And i want to be sure that whatever changes we make to the ucmj or whatever changes to the ucmj that i recommend to the president and ultimately to this committee that they are scoped to the problem that we are trying to solve, and have a clear way forward on implementation and ultimately restore the confidence of the force in the system. You have my commitment to that and my commitment to working expeditiously as you consider legislative proposals. Whatever changes we make we need to focus on implementation and resources. I know i will need your help. We feel the greatest military in human history, made up of the finest men and women who have donned the cloth of their nation. We enjoy a civilian workforce deeply committed to every mission that they take on. And for all the things we know we need to do better, no adversary can match the quality of our people. Im proud of them and humbled to be of service to them and privileged to be able to serve again with them and their families. I know the values they espouse and the oath they took. I know what theyre capable of. And i believe i have a very good sense of what they need to do their jobs. And i can assure you that the president s Budget Request for fiscal year 22 fulfills that obligation. I look forward to answering your questions. And thank you for the steadfast support that you continue to provide to the department of defense and for all the efforts that you make every day to ensure that we remain ready to defend this nation. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, mr. Secretary. Before i recognize General Milley since a quorum is present i would ask the committee to consider seven nominations, the nominations of frank kendall iii, heidi shoe, ms. Suzanne v. Bloom, ms. Jill m. Ruby, mr. Frank a. Rose, ms. Deborah g. Rosenbloom, and mr. Christopher p. Mayor. Is there a motion to favorably report these seven nominations to the senate . Is there a second . All in favor . Aye. The motion carries. Thank you very much. General milley, your comments, please. Chairman reed, ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, it remains my Honor And Privilege to represent the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians of the United States joint force. Our troops are the best led, best equipped, and best trained force anywhere. I want to thank Secretary Austin for his steady leadership and wise guidance. Your joint force is standing watch, protecting american interest in all domains around the globe. Alongside our allies and partners, troops are training or conducting combat operations or other operations in 165 countries to keep america safe. Were conducting major exercises as we speak in europe. We are monitoring the dmz in korea. Were conducting freedom of navigation operations in the water ways of the global commons. We are sustaining operations in space, in cyber space. We are supporting our allies and partners in africa, asia. And as we speak our joint force is conducting a safe, responsible and deliberate Retro Grade from afghanistan in good order while ensuring continued support to the afghan security forces. The purpose of the united States Military is simple. Its to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of america against all enemies foreign and domestic. With that comes two tasks, ask one is to fights and win americas wars if necessary. And key task two is to prepare to fight and win americas wars. The united States Military is a critical component of national power which in concert with our diplomatic efforts, economic engine and overriding hope of the message, that will deter adversaries and preserve the peace. We are prepared to fight, fight and win if those who seek to attack the United States and our allies or partners are undeterred. But force must always be the last resort when other means of achieving our ends have been exhausted. We are in an era of increased strategic competition. The current strategic landscape is witnessing rapid change and the potential for increased threat to the Peace And Stability of various regions and, indeed, for the world. States and nonstate actors are rapidly transforming technologically, and we are bearing witness to a fundamental change in the character of war. In particular, china is increasing its military capability at a very serious and sustained rate. And we must ensure that we retain our competitive and technological edge against this Pacing Threat as Secretary Austin has directed. Readiness, modernization, and Combat Power are key to deter war and maintain the peace. And equally important are the combat multipliers of Team Work, cohesion and wellled units. We must resolve the issue of sexual assault and confront the issue of extremism. Both are corrosive to the very essence of what it means to be in the military. And they destroy cohesion, they destroy Team Work and they reduce Combat Power. Additionally, we must continue to invest in Leader Development and Talent Management required for the future Operating Environment. And finally, we must continue to nurture and sustain, a key strategic source of our strength which is our network of many close allies and partners around the world. The joint force appreciates the work that our elected representatives do to ensure that we have the resources needed to train, equip and command the sources to be ready. Repeated continuing resolutions that eroded readiness are hopefully behind us for good. The joint force will deliver modernization with this budget of our armed forces and security to the people of the United States. At the fy22 Budget Request of 715 billion. While it is a modest increase from the enacted Fy21 Budget it is a significant commitment of treasure of the american people. And entrusted to us and we will work diligently to ensure it is spent prudently in the best in the interest of the nation. The Fy22 Budget is a result of hard choices in a year which the nation has suffered economic hardship due to covid19 pandemic. In alignment with the interNational Security strategic guidance, this budget delivers a ready, agile and capable joint force that will compete to win across all domain and which is postured for continued dominance in the future. This budget prioritizes nuclear modernization, artificial intelligence, Ship Building, micro electronics, Space Fiber and 5g, these investments will pave the way for joint force of the future. The pb22 Budget Request increases the readiness of the force by developing the joint force of the future. Ensuring our people are our number one priority and positioning us to achieve through Team Work. Many enemies, historically, have grossly under estimated the United States and our people. Theyve under estimated our national resolve, our capability, our skill and our Combat Power, and each in the past has made a fatal choice which ended with their enrollment in history. The same will be true of any enemy that makes that Mistake Today and tomorrow. We are ready now and remain so in the future and also facing tough strategic choices and being challenged with adversaries acting in opposition to our interest. Consistent, predictable budgets informed by the will of the people are critical to our Nations Defense and the passage of this budget in a timely way is important. The Fy22 President ial budget strikes an appropriate balance between preserving present Readiness And Future modernization. Its a downpayment with investments for the future with a bias toward the future Operating Environment. It is now that we must set ourselves on a path to modernize the joint force and this budget contributes to doing that. Our job is your joint force. Our contract with the american people is we the united States Military will be able to fight and win when called upon. Well support and defend the constitution always and forever and i look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, General Milley. I understand Michael Mccord does not have a statement, is that correct . Umhum. Thank, mr. Mccord. We are in the process of withdrawing our combat forces save for Embassy Protection personnel. It is going rapidly. The projections i read is perhaps july we could have all forces out. I think also, too, the taliban are aware if they would encroach upon our forces that would not only delay the departure but reengage us in active operations. So i think the questions now are, after the departure of our forces, do you believe you have the appropriate authorities and funding to continue to support the afghan National Security forces and to conduct counterterrorism operations after . What we said is that we intend to maintain a good and productive relationship with the afghans post our withdrawal or retrograde. And that entails making sure that, with your support, we can continue to provide funding for their Military And Support for their government as well. I think that support is critical in ensuring that the government remains retains the ability to function and that the military remains intact. And so, again, well need your support to be able to do that. In terms of authorities, i do think that we have the authorities that we need to be able to focus on a discreet set of threats. And that threat is those threats that could conduct operations against the United States of america that would emanate from that space in afghanistan. So our Ct Threat is focused on Al Qaeda and we are confident that we will have the authorities to continue operations. I also are you also confident that given the significant draw down of personnel that youll be able to effectively distribute the resources to the afghan national army and other security institutions . As you know, senator, we are our plan is to keep our embassy there, and hopefully as we work we continue to work with the afghan government, well establish those capabilities and procedures necessary to be able to effectively distribute funds and track the movement of those funds and capabilities. At any point in your review as the situation develops and you feel you need additional authorities, please do not hesitate to contact the committee. I think both myself and the ranking member would be very eager to provide those authorities. You mentioned in your Opening Statements the scourge of sexual assault in the military. And the ongoing efforts to reform the ucmj. The last time we did a major military reform, in 2017, the Defense Bill required a twoyear implementation time frame and every bit of which was used. Critical to the process was the fact that the president must republish the court marshall and making sure that prosecutions are not rushed by implementation. When you forward the recommendations will you include your assessment of the time, resources and qualified personnel necessary to implement those changes . We will, chairman. To your point, any proposed change to the ucmj is a very serious issue. Well need the adequate time to implement the change in a very responsible way. Well also need resources to make sure that we can effectively implement it, and well need flexibility to ensure that if Theres Something that needs to be adjusted, we can adjust. Thank you, very much. Mr. Secretary. Thank you General Milley and mr. Mccord. Because of the interest we have here, i have two brief questions. One, General Milley, in 2018, you testified that its hard to compare the u. S. And chinese Defense Budgets because Chinas Budget is very different. And for a better comparison we need to make some adjustments, and we have done that. Little things like the cost of labor and all of that. Making those adjustments is not easy. Thats why we required, in last Years Defense Authorization bill, that the pentagon do a study to try to make this comparison. China and russia combined probably spend more than we do. I made that point in an Oped Piece last may. So im going to ask you, General Milley, the chinese and russian economies and Defense Spending are unique and given this, do you think that their relative combined effort is similar to ours and do you think that they understate the spending that theyre doing . Senator, the both of our analysis dods analysis and the intelligence Communitys Analysis for budgets for both Russia And China are classified. At an unclassified level i would tell you combined the russian and chinese budgets exceed our budgets if all the cards are put on the table. Both governments do not put their cards on the table when it comes to the budget, its a difficult thing to discern that which is being spent on defense versus other priorities. With respect to china, they have put significant levels of effort of their economy, and, of course, their economy is second only to ours. Significant levels of resources into building the chinese military. And the chinese military as weve noted many times before, is on a significant increasing rise in capability over the last 20 or 30 years and they continue to invest heavily in that. Thats right. And Secretary Austin, during your Confirmation Hearing in january you said, quote, i see china in particular as a Pacing Challenge for our department and that you need our help to deter china. Im worried that if we underfund the military, our military, we will undermined our alliances and weaken deterrence. In your opinion well, let me state this. We have felt for some time and have said that when we we have countries that and happened that we senator rounds and i went six different countries last week, one of those was romania and they reminded us that we talked to them about 2 they should get to 2 for Defense Spending, they did that and they told us they did that. And yet, theyre looking at us, actually reducing our funding. And id just like to have you comment on what kind of effect that might have to other countries, too. Thank you, senator. I would say that when you look at our overall contributions to nato, we contribute a substantial amount to the Nato Effort and well continue to do so going forward. I think the budget gives us the right mix of capabilities in flexibility to be very effective in our efforts to deter china going forward and Russia Or Anyone else who would want to take us on. So im confident that this budget will allow us to match our resources to our strategy and our strategy to our policy. My concern has been that our insistence in the previous administration, which i agreed with, that we reach the 2 and these other countries and they see it appears that our expectations are much less in this administration. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, very much, senator inhofe. Before i recognize Senator Shaheen. We have a room reserved for a closed session after this open session. So if there are any questions that the panel feels would be best addressed in a closed session, we will retire there. If there are no such questions, then well conclude with the open session. Senator shaheen, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And thank you to all three of you for your service to the country and for being here this morning. Secretary austin, theres an interesting article out in the the New York times today that suggests that our plan in afghanistan is to not just provide for some sort of over the horizon troops to address counterterrorism but we might also be looking at ways to provide Air Support to the afghan forces if theyre in danger or if were in danger of losing kabul or another major city in the country. And it also quotes afghan officials as say theyve been told by their american counterparts that the u. S. Would stop any takeover of a major city. Who knows what the source of that is. But can you tell me if we are, in fact first of all, where we are in our plans to develop an over the Horizon Ct Force and if we are, in fact, contemplating any other actions in support of the afghan troops should the taliban be in danger of taking over kabul . Thank you, senator. As you know, we continue to provide support to the afghan security forces as we retrograde. Once we have completed our retrograde, that will be very difficult to do, because our capabilities will have diminished in country. I really wont i wont speculate about any potential outcomes or any potential future actions. I will just say that the president has been clear that our mission in afghan has been accomplished and we are focused on retrograding our people and equipment out. And again, going forward, in terms of our ct efforts, those ct efforts will be focused on those elements that can possibly conduct attacks against our homeland. And in terms of our efforts to establish over the horizon capability, i would just point to the fact that, you know, as we have retrograded a lot of our capability out of country, we are doing a lot of things over the horizon now. Isr is being flown from gcc, a lot of our Combat Aircraft missions are being conducted from platforms, you know, in the gulf. And so, we have the capability now to do that. What we are looking for is is the ability to shorten the legs going forward by stationing some capability in neighboring countries. That is still a work in progress. So do you have a timetable for when that plan might be completed . I dont have a timetable. I will tell you that we will move as quickly as we can. In conjunction with State Department efforts. In talking with some of the women leaders of afghanistan in the last weeks, one of the things that they have asked and said they thought was very important would be for high level american officials, the president , certainly you as secretary of defense, to speak out against the talibans attacks against women and girls in the country and to make it clear that thats a violation of international norms of behavior and human rights. I would urge you to do that along with other members of the administration. I think thats the least we can do at this point, is to make a point of the violation of norms and human rights that the taliban are conducting in afghanistan, especially when it comes to women and girls. I want to go on to another issue in my time thats left, because one of the things that you talked about in your Opening Statement was the importance of taking care of our people. And as we know, one of the challenges that were facing, not just among dod employees but intel agencies at state, has been attacks of what has been come to be known as the havana syndrome, the national academy of Science Report released in december calls these directed energy attacks. Its my understanding that dod is the department taking the lead on treating individuals suffering from these attacks. Can you tell us if thats the case and if you have the resources that you need to continue to do that, and then what steps youre taking to protect dod personnel from future attacks . The Health And Welfare of our people is of utmost importance to me. And we are working with we are working as one element of a larger whole of Government Effort to really determine the cause of these try to determine the cause of these injuries and also were working as hard and as fast as we can to expand our medical capabilities and weve done that and expanded our capabilities to treat Tbi And Ahi injuries, and so, well have the ability to treat more people going forward. But again, well remine sighted on this and were working as a part of a whole of Government Effort. You factored that into your Budget Request . We did not ask for additional funds for this specific, but we have sufficient funds to do whats necessary. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Shaheen. Let me recognize Senator Wicker. Thank you, mr. Chairman. We had a Subcommittee Hearing just this week, and the Navys Vice Admiral witness before that subcommittee said this, and i quote, weve done many studies over the last five years that say we need a larger navy. The navy we can afford now is roughly 300 to 305 ships. So if were going to pace the adversary, we need to have a bigger navy. Mr. Secretary, did the Vice Admiral Misspeak in saying that . What i would say, senator, and, you know, i think certainly we have the most capable and dominant navy in the world, and it will continue to be so going guard. When you talk about naval power, certainly size matters. But what also matters is having the right mix of capabilities in the force. And so, our goal is to make sure that we remain that we maintain a ready, capable and sustainable force in the future. Okay. Did the navy Vice Admiral Misspeak in saying that we need a larger navy . He said that two days ago in testimony before the subcommittee. Can you just answer that . What i will say, senator is that for some time weve had a goal of 355ship navy. I think that goal is a goal a good goal to shoot at. So i think thats probably what hes referencing. And this budget doesnt get us anywhere near back on the path to do that. I also have concerns about the navys plans for amphibious warships. Last Year Congress authorized, in the ndaa, multi Ship Procurement Bundle for three lpds and one lha. This would result in a 700 million cost savings. And that hearing on tuesday, acting secretary of the navy for Research Development and acquisition testified that although the navy had reached a Hand Shake Agreement to execute the block buy, the department of defense was unlikely to approve it. Why does it make sense that knowing that were going to have to buy these amphibious ships, why does it make sense that the department of defense might oppose saving the taxpayers over 700 million by procuring the ships in a block buy . As we said at the top, senator, and you well know, were always faced with making tough choices. And so, as we looked at what what we could do in this budget and what was best to do in this budget, were making those choices. All right. Let me just say this, this is an inadequate Defense Budget. And i i sit here and while i very much admire our constitution and the fact that we have one commander in chief, and so the military members no matter how many stars they have on their shoulders, under our constitution, they salute that commander in chief and he appoint gs a secretary of defense, cabinet officials and based on the best advice that you and others give him the commander in chief makes the decision. And the omb that he appoints, apparently has decided that we can do just fine in a world where china is expanding in the pacific, where hamas is still raining rockets down on jerusalem, where russia is not quitting at all, and where weve just heard that their combined budgets are of of Russia And China are greater than ours, weve decided, based on what somebody in what some budget crunchers in omb, and bean counters in omb have decided that we ought to be able to do and that we can have massive increases in domestic spending but a cut in purchasing power for the national Defense Budget. Let me just say to my colleagues, the constitution of the United States also gives us the power of the purse. And while we appreciate the suggestion by Omb Budget crunchers, it is our obligation to defend this nation and this proposed budget does not do so in the two respects that i have mentioned. In the respect that the ranking member mentioned earlier on, and it is incumbent on us to reverse this and to get our troops and our nation the national Security Budget that they need. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Wicker. Let me recognize Senator Gillibrand, please. Thank yo mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for our service and integrity. Ive been fighting against sexual assault in the military for the last eight years. I along with now 66 cosponsors on legislation from the u. S. Senate are proposing that we draw a bright line at all serious crimes take them out of the chain of command and that one change we believe will create more transparency, accountability, a higher professionalism and create less bias in the system. General Milley Id like to ask you about this thoughts on this proposal. Its my understanding that you are now open to removing sexual assault and related crimes from the chain of command. Can you please confirm that to the Committee Today . Thanks, senator, and thanks for your leadership on this issue. I said publicly before and ill say it here, i think this issue has been out there for quite a long time and we in uniform, generals and the members of the chain of command, have not moved the needle in many resolving sexual assault. And in addition to that, i have some evidence, some studies, some anecdotal evidence that junior members of the chain of command, or junior members have lost thought in our command. So im open minded to significant and fundamental change in the area of sexual assault and sexual harassment. You mentioned the bright line of all the other all felonies, for example. I think that requires some detailed study before we completely overhaul the entire ucmj but the focused area of sexual assault and sexual harassment, completely open minded to significant change and thats true for most of the senior leaders in uniform. Thank you, general. As you and i have discussed, in recent years weve seen chilling statistics about bias in the military Justice System against people of color. Black Service Members were 1. 9 times and as much as 2. 16 times more likely to have disciplinary action taken against them in the average year against all branchs in 2015. These disparities did not improve and in some cases got worse in the recent years. The 2020 Air Force Inspector Generals Review found that black Service Members lacked confidence in processes. Three in five Service Members said they would not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their white peers and they believe the military Justice System is biassed against them. The problem is more chilling when you look at military capital cases. One 2012 Death Penalty found 40 of defendants were people of color but 57 of those that received the Death Penalty were people of color. The reason why we wrote our bills eight years ago to draw bright lines against all serious felonies, crimes, was not just to professionalize the system and remove bias for survivors of sexual assault but also to remove biases across the board and to professionalize the entire military Justice System. That is what all military experts in criminal justice recommended and what our allies did over the last 40 years, uk, germany, israel, canada, netherlands, australia. So we mirrored that in our legislation and carve out uniquely military crimes. So id like to know, General Milley will you remain to have an open mind as you review these statistics and data before making your recommendation to the committee . Totally. As i said upfront in my Opening Statement, the united States Military has a singular purpose to support and defend the constitution. We have two tasks to fight nations wars and prepare to fight and win our nations wars. And Unit Cohesion is probably the most important contributor to Combat Power and sexual assault and sexual harassment, any kind of deviance from any sort of good Order And Discipline rips apart at that. Central to the concept is also the commanders personal Responsibility And Accountability for the good order of the unit and discipline. So i am open minded to suggestions to improve the system because what we want to do is fix the problem and improve the Combat Power of the u. S. Military. Secretary Austin Weve also had the benefit of having a conversation about these details. And id like to ask you the same question. Will you remain an open mind as you look at new data about racial disparities as well as the data you will receive from the panel that you requested advice on, specifically sexual assault related crimes . I ask that you remain an open mind as you look at the full version of the details and facts that the dod has compiled over many years and the work of this committee over the last eight years. Before i answer that, Senator Gillibrand, let me thank you for your incredible work that you have done over the years to on this issue. On the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment. Whatever changes occur going forward will be largely due to your incredible dedication to this issue. So on behalf of the department of defense, thank you for what youve done. As you know, senator, first of all, yes, i always have an open mind to solving any tough problem. But as you know, the commission that the president tasked me to stand up and that has stood up and provided me some initial recommendations and still owes me more recommendations, is has been focused on the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment. So those are the problems that we are trying to resolve and improve. And so, but yes, i always maintain an open mind with any tough problem. But were focused on the issue of sexual assault and sexual harassment, and again thank you for all the work that youve done on this issue. Thank you, secretary. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Now let me recognize senator fisher, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome gentlemen. I too want to thank you for your patriotism, your years of service and your years and years of caring for those who serve with you in protecting this nation. Secretary austin, i appreciate the way the budget is prioritized nuclear modernization and kept important programs like gbsd, lrso and the Columbia Class Submarine on track. Im also happy to see it invests in nc3 and finally begin moving forward on replacing the e4b with survivable Air Force center. You talked about the need for our nuclear Postture And Modernization programs. Has the department begun a formal review and when do you expect it to be complete . We have not begun that review yet, senator. But it will begin very shortly and it will take us several months to conduct the review. I think that Review Process is so very important. The systems are the most important military capabilities that we possess. And decisions about our nuclear policies and programs must be considered in a thorough, dlibive process that allows stakeholders from across the department of defense, as well as other federal agencies like the department of energy and our allies to provide their input so that decisions can be made with a full understanding of consequences. We cant be careless about this. Which is why i was very concerned to see a News Story that put forth a copy of a memo from the acting secretary of the navy, thomas harker. In which he directed the navy to defund the sea launched Cruise Missile program. This memo was signed june 4th, thats just one week after the department of defense submitted a Budget Request that asked for 5 million to continue to study that concept. And nnsa requested 10 million to conduct its own assessment. Based on what you said, it seemed like the decision was made outside of any kind of Posture Review process. Is that correct . Senator, i have not seen the memo. But i would say that, you know, all of us, all the services and the department, again, making tough choices in terms of what to prioritize and where to accept risk. That memo has to be predecision because of where we are in the process. So i dont feel comfortable commenting on his memo. I would just say that again i am committed to a Posture Review to make sure that we adequately analyze what our capabilities are, whats needed in the future and that we maintain the right balance in our nuclear forces going forward. So you were not consulted on that at all . Thats an internal department memo, i believe. Based upon whats been said. General milley, were the joint chiefs consulted at all, to your knowledge . Im not familiar with the memo, nor was i consulted. But as soon as were done here ill find that memo and get consulted. Thank you, sir. I find it very concerning that an acting service secretary, who hasnt been confirmed by the senate, is making a decision like this. Outside of any Review Process without Analysis Or Input from osd policy, from nuclear matters, the joint Chiefs Or Strat com and without any discussions from our allies. The alternatives for the missile is still ongoing, so it would seem very, very premature to reach any conclusions about it being feasible or infeasible. I dont think this is the right way to make decisions about nuclear policy. Do you agree with that, Secretary Austin . I do, senator. Should a decision like this be made through that Review Process . I have every confidence that it will be, senator. Thank you. I hope you will followup with the acting secretary to make sure that its its a Posture Review that makes a decision on this. Does the department still support the president s fy22 Budget Request for this program . It does. Thank you. Happy to hear that. Thank you, again. Thank you, senator fisher. Let me recognize senator kelly, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you to Secretary Mccord and Secretary Austin and General Milley for being here today. General milley this question is for you. Its specific to the a10. I think you would agree that properly balancing the need to sustain americas military with the need to modernize is paramount to ensuring our adversaries are unable to outpace the United States. Having the right equipment to our troops on the battlefield is critical. Which is why im very concerned by the proposed divestment of 42 A10 Aircraft in the fiscal year 2022 budget. As you know, the a10 is a combat proven asset that is unmatched in its ability to provide close Air Support to troops on the ground. The Air Force has not been able to establish a convincing replacement to carry out this mission. And it certainly has not demonstrated a replacement that can match the a10s costeffectiveness. Budget analysts have estimated a modest cost savings if the a10s are divested. But those savings are quite small when you consider the scope of the departments 715 billion budget. And its critical that we consider the real cost of what we would be trading away if we were to take this action before an effective close Air Support replacement is in place. American troops rely on close Air Support in the most dire of circumstances. The a10 has saved the lives of many men and women because of its unique capabilities. Everyone i speak to. Everyone who has had experience with the a10, in combat, wants that to be the plane that shows up when theyre in trouble. So when i think about the trade offs wed be making by divesting, i just dont see that the risk has been properly accounted for. And i expect that youve had some of these same conversations and experiences as you talk to our troops. So, general, do you feel that we have adequately assessed the risk that these retirements could pose for our troops on the ground . Thanks, senator. As a Ground Soldier whos been in a lot of fire fights and know exactly what youre talking about with the A10 Or Attack helicopters or any other munition delivered by air. Its a very, very important capability. Im a big fan of the a10 personally. However, were talking about 42 aircraft. Well still have 239. We have enough for five squadrons. What we have to do, we collectively, we have to recognize and begin to shift toward a future Operating Environment and changing character of war. And we must shift the capabilities that are going to be relevant, survivable and effective against a tier 1 adversary sometime in the future. This is a modest decrease in the number of a10s, i think it is acceptable risk and i support the Air Forces recommendation. General we often think about these things as what does day one of the world look like, im concerned about future Conflict Day 30, 60, 180. I used to be a test pilot, flown close missions myself in an airplane that does not do the job well. I dont see another airplane in the inventory that can do the mission like the a10 can. When you combine the fact that it is far superior in that role, and protects troops on the ground when they need it the most, and at the same time is is cheap compared to the Flight Hour costs of an F35 Or F16 even. And we dont have an airplane that can do this mission like the a10 can. I am seriously concerned that if we go down this road and we remove 42 airplanes from the inventory, that if we wind up in a conflict and we wind up day 30, 60, 90, were going to be regretful that we dont have that platform. So thank you, general, and i yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you, senator kelly. Now let me recognize Senator Cotton, please. Mr. Secretary, i received, along with congressman crenshaw, several hundred Whistle Blower complaints about Pentagon Extremist and diversity training. I want to share a small selection of what your troops are saying. I have a longer list immediate like to submit for the record. Would objection. This is a few examples. One marine told us a military History Training Session was replaced with training on police brutality, extremism and racism. Another unit was required to read white fragility which claims and this is a quote, white people raised in western society are conditioned in a white supremacist world view. A member told us they are being instructed, quote, the u. S. Special Operations Community is racist. One officer relayed to us the words of his officer who told him the entire u. S. Army is racists. A mid shipman said classmen are calling america a racist place and this sentiment is not contested by administrators. An airmen said they were placed in a Privilege Walk where members were forced to separate by race and gender. One africanamerican officer disparagingly said, and i quote, the navy thinks my only value is as a black woman and not the fact that she is a highly trained military specialist. Soldiers have come forward to tell us they are forced to watch videos about racism and documentaries that rewrite Americas History as a fundamentally racist and evil nation. One officer told me two guardians left his ranks in a short period of time one was a young africanamerican who said after the training she never would have joined the military if she knew it was so racist. Another one said he didnt sign up to be indoctrinated and filed separation papers. Were hearing growing mistrust between the races and sexes where none existed six months ago and separations based on these trainings alone. These are not my words, these are the words of your troops. I want to ask a few simple but vital questions. Mr. Secretary, do you believe that our military is a fundamentally racist organization . Yes or no, please . I wont give you a yes or no answer on that, senator, because it deserves more than a yes or no. The military, like any organization, will have its challenges but i do not believe it is a fundamentally racist organization. Thank you. Im sorry to cut you off, but our time is limited. I think it is a pretty simple question, im glad you agree it is not fundamentally racist. Do you believe any member of the military should be treated differently based on their Skin Color or sex . Again yes or no will do. Diversity, Equity And Inclusion is important to this military, now and it will be important in the future. And so, we are going to make sure that we you know, our military looks like america and that our leadership looks like whats in the ranks of the military. I appreciate your support on that. I agree with that. The military has always been one of the most diverse institutions in our society, where you can get ahead irrespective of the color of your skin or who your parents are or where you came from. This is not about diversity in general, this is a specific antiamerican indoctrination seeping into our military based on the complaints we have received. Thank you, my time has expired. Thank you. Let me recognize senator cane, please. I want to give you a chance to explain the context, Senator Cotton asked you a question about your own career and you indicated that your career is an indication that the military can be welcoming to all kinds of people, but you were then going to explain the context of what your own personal experience has shown you during your time in the military, about why we need to take seriously these issues of diversity and inclusion. The senator had other questions, but id like to hear how you were going to answer that question, giving the full context. I think the leadership has a responsibility to create a climate where everyone first of all, it should be, we should be welcoming to everyone who is who can qualify and who is fit to serve and who can maintain the standards. And secondly, you know, we ought to look like the america that we support and defend. And our senior leadership should look like whats in the ranks. And where weve done a great job in recruiting very highly qualified capable people, i think we need to do a bit better in terms of making sure that were absolutely inclusive and making sure that we create pathways or pathways are available for everybody thats in the ranks to achieve the you know, to realize their full potential. So thats what diversity, Equity And Inclusion is all about. Its about cohesion, about making sure that we remain the most effective and lethal Fighting Force in the world. And we have been in the past and we will be in the future. When we moved toward diversity, the military its always made us stronger. When President Truman integrated the military, it was not uniformly popular. I believe the secretary of the army ended up resigning after refusing to desegregate units a year after the order but moves like that where the military has often led society in building cohesion, the military does it well. Theyre not always immediately popular but they pay dividends not just for the military but american society. It has to be done sensitively, carefully by people who understand it, but i applaud you and other leaders trying to do that. Let me ask you questions about the top line of the budget. Ive gotten handouts from folk that is havent asked questions, so i see more questions on this are coming. General milley if i recall you became head of the joint chiefs of staffs in late 2018. 2019. October. And so, were you involved in the discussions around the submission of President Trumps Fy21 Budget which came to this committee in february of 2022 . Sure. Absolutely. So i guess i want to just compare the biden proposal, president Bidens Proposal for defense to President Trumps proposal. And my argument is, to some of my colleagues who are trying to attack the biden budget, its exactly what President Trump proposed. President trump gave us a future Year Defense Plan in february of 2020, february of 2020, and it called for a top line of 721 billion for this year. Now, President Biden has submitted a top line of 715 billion. So it would suggest that maybe the Trump Budget Projection for this year was 6 billion higher than the biden budget but thats actually not the case. Because under the Trump Administration, there was a practice of taking money out of the Pentagon Budget for nonmilitary emergencies. Over a 13month period between im sorry, an 11month period, between march of 2019 and february of 2020, the Trump Administration took 10 billion out of the top line. So that straddled two fiscal years so divide that in half. About 5 to 6 billion a year was taken out of the Pentagons Budget by President Trump. So the difference between the 715 and 721 is essentially erased, so long as President Biden doesnt take money for nonmilitary purposes. I have asked the omb director, i have asked everybody i know in the biden white house is it the intention of this white house to take pentagon dollars for nonmilitary purposes. And the answer to that is no. President biden said, if congress appropriates, im going to respect the appropriations and not Spirit Money out of the pentagon over a year ago. And when those numbers were submitted to us, i didnt hear anyone on this committee complain about President Trump didnt have a high enough top line. We ultimately control what the number will be. But in terms of the difference between the two administrations and their budget submissions to this body, i would argue that theyre identical. President biden has submitted a top line that is essentially identical to what President Trump would have submitted based upon the documents they gave us a year ago. With that, mr. Chair, i yield back. Thank you very much, Senator Kane, and let me recognize senator brown. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for your service to our country. Id like to follow up a little bit and continue the discussion that Senator Kane has begun, and that is with regard to the top line on the budget. I do believe that this Defense Budget Request on the whole is moving in a very similar direction that we had before with regard to trying to follow through with the national Defense Strategy, the nds. I think, and i would like confirmation, and ill begin with General Milley, that this particular budget is focused on achieving the goals found in the nds from 2017. General milley, could you share a little bit in what terms those major goals are in the nds that this particular budget is trying to achieve . Sure, senator. The nds was written under secretary madison. I was at that point chief staff of the army and all the joint chiefs participated in that. Thats a rigorous document and we all still use it as a guiding light. Were under review by Secretary Austin and well see how that comes out. There would be modifications. The document is four or five years old now. But its still good and the fundamentals of it represent readiness, allied partners, irregular warfare. It calls out china, russia, iran. The main structure of it is still valid and perhaps china is a little more advanced than they were, say, five years ago. Its still a fundamentally solid document. But i will tell you, as i said in my Opening Statement, the 715 billion budget requires hard choices in terms of prioritization, but i think it adequately meets the needs in terms of the current nds and the one were working on to occupy with Secretary Austins signature. I think we can operate as the department of defense on a 715 billion budget. I understand that your involvement has been in the forming of this budget, but i think nautical control would be recognized in this, would it not . Yes. And the continued Development And Modernization of the nuclear triad would also be involved, would it not . Absolutely. In fact, the capitalization of the nuclear triad is the number one priority in terms of the actual programs, programmatic spending. Its critical that we have the air, Sea And Land components of the triad in order to maintain the security of the United States going forward. See, general, i think that the basic goals of the nds are represented within this. I think i do not disagree with that. My concern that i will express is its based on being able to handle those goals but also being able to maintain and not expect the members of the armed services to continue to do the daytoday operations if we have increases in inflation, whether it be for fuel or supplies or Health Care. There were some hard choices made, and i guess my question to you, sir, and i dont intend this to be a gotcha question, but the hard things that needed to be achieved in order to reach the goal of the nds, what are the reductions or limitations that have to be recognized when we do have a similar in terms of the total number of dollars when we do expect that inflation will run between 3 and 5 , and the nds expected to have, in order to meet its goals, an ongoing increase between 3 to 5 overinflation, which clearly is not reflected in the budget and i know is not news to you, sir. You can do the numbers all different ways, and we have Mike Mccord here and he knows it better than anyone else. But this budget is about 11 billion more than the fy21 enacted budget. If you factor in inflation, i normalize the dollars, its more or less flat. I think its. 5 less or something like that. It depends on the way you look at the numbers. Senator kelly mentioned 42 a10s. We had to make a choice between buying two subs, one destroyer and a friggot versus two destroyers and things like that. There are hard choices in all of the domains and this is my sixth budget. In every single budget ive seen, were always making hard choices. We always have ways to spend more money effectively in defense of the country. But in my professional opinion, a 715 billion budget, as long as we are disciplined in its application, and if we adhere to the properties established, will serve the United States. Thank you, gentlemen, my time has expiredexpired. Thank you for service to our country. Let me recognize Senator Kane. Mr. Secretary, i want to discuss just a moment one of those hard choices. The top navy undefined priority was a destroyer that was eliminated from the budget that was already committed to during the multiyear procurement. These top three adg destroyers are a workhorse of the navy, eyes and ears of the world that are important assets, but it also sent a shudder through the industrial base. Its precedented that a multiyear has been breached and would also cost the Government Money in penalties. I hope, mr. Secretary, that you and Admiral Gilday can work with us to help with that ship. The symbolism of a breaking year and pulling back on our commitment to the capacity of the navy is, i think, a very important priority. Thats not really a question, its an entreaty with you to work with you to try to find the funds to restore that ship and restore the Navys Number one unfunded priority. Will you commit to working with us on that . Absolutely, senator, we will do everything we can to make sure we have a good Working Relationship with congress, and i appreciate your tremendous support throughout, especially now. We want to make sure we maintain a ready, capable and sustainable force. We also want to make sure that the industrial base has the ability to produce what weve 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. Its got to be something thats 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. Its concerning to me that we dont seem to have an effective hotline, direct line, whatever you want to call it with china. Officials at your level and also the president ial level. I understand the chinese are reluctant about this, but i believe this 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 bureau in beijing. This is a very clear and distinct danger. Do you agree with me that a better Deconfliction Link between meal to Meal And 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 Weve witnessed from china in the indopacific, im 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. I think there needs to be a direct line of communication between the military and also between government officials as well. I share your concern and i absolutely agree with you that this is critical. Thank you. One other area thats 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 major joint operations. We dont necessarily have a a joint capability acquisition, particularly in the area of software. I hoped that we might work with you and General Milley and others on how to rationalize, if you will, the joint acquisition of things like software so we dont have silos within the military that are analogous to the silos that we had preGoldwater Nichols. Is that something you would be able to work with us on . Absolutely. I think its critical and you have my commitment to do so. General milley, im sorry i didnt get my questions to you, but perhaps well have a second round. Im okay with that, senator. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator King. Senator ernst, please. Thank you, gentlemen, and 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 ensured that we won the 21st century, but now our adversaries have adapted their technologies, theyve improved their operating concepts and theyve expanded their challenges to new domains of cyber and space. 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 Xi jinping in china. Both are actively seeking to disrupt a stable and prosperous global order, 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 dont 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 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 its a wise use of our time and resources to adapt and renew them, to ensure theyre as strong and effective as they can be. Yet the president s Defense Budget guts our joined Exercise Budget compared to the precovid levels by over 50 . So how do you square your advocacy for improving our interoperability with our allies with those proposed cuts . Were working with members of nato to help their defense and also to contribute to nato overall. What weve been focused on is making sure that youve heard me say that china is our Pacing Challenge. So we really weighted our main effort there to the indopacific region. Youll note that my first trip overseas was out to the region along with Secretary Blinken and we visited south korea, we visit japan. 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 is 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 well 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 force multipliers. Mr. Secretary, i also just wanted to make a brief statement, too. I do appreciate that youve stated your commitment to making changes to how the military handles and prevents sexual assault, and im concerned about the continued delay that we continued 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 im 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, and im sorry, General Milley, i didnt get to my questions for you, either, and Secretary Mccord, ill follow up with you later on the audit, but i do want to echo concerns that were raised by Senator Fischer about the navys intent, whether it was an interoffice memo, whatever it was. I do also want to stress my concern that the navy intends to cancel the 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 weve said, we will be true to our Posture Review and make sure that that drives the process. Thank you. Thank you, senator. I now recognize via 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 nations 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 dont 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 d. O. D. So thats why ive introduced legislation to strengthen ethics rules for all public officials. Its 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 its important that the american people have concrete assurances so they never doubt that you are working for them and not for giant Defense Contractors, right . Yes, thats 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, demonstrate a 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 board as a 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 dont meet that test. And in these cases when nominees report the vast majority of their income for major Defense Contractors, either through direct employment or consulting, or when theyre on those companies 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. I think its 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. Senator, youve 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 im truly appreciative of your support in getting our nominees confirmed as quickly as possible. We absolutely need them on the team. Well, let me say, though, i recognize the importance of filling these important Defense Department positions, but im asking for commitments that they are going to avoid conflicts of interest, and ive laid out what they are and youve agreed to them. So the question im asking is whether you think that the people who are going to be working for you who have these ties should make the same kinds 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 look, i appreciate that you dont want to step into this, but this is what leadership is about. Im 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. If we can, i will support their nominations. But in these cases 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. Im asking for these commitments not because im challenging anyones 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. The chair recognizes senator tillis, please. I want to go back to the umj and whats described as the military sexual assault. Its an area im familiar with. Ive spent a majority of time with general gillibrand. Im concerned that when we talk about sexual assault people only think its sexual assault, but were talking about any sexual crime within the year. Im also concerned about technical aspects that havent been spelled out in the bill, its more about a framework. We havent seen the details, but one of the things im most troubled by is the sixmonth implementation time frame. In your judgment, to the extent you know the details of Senator Gillibrands proposal, is that even possible to be implemented . I dont know all the details of her proposed timeline, what i will tell you, and i would he can echo what i said to the chairman a couple minutes ago, any changes we make, i would hope we would be provided the ample time to make sure we properly and appropriately implement these changes, because a change to the ucmj is a very significant issue in the military. 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 . It 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. Were a military built to fight the ucmjs Combat Power. At the same time cohesion is critical, and i am very, very open to significant change in the area of sexual assault sexual harrassment. When we get beyond that, i need to study it more, im openminded, but it needs a lot of due diligence before we bundle all the oneyear felonies and take it away from the commander. I think we have the right to study it further. General, i think youve 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 its important to get that feedback if its important to what may likely be in the end mark. The independent Review Commission is still reviewing lines of effort that include prevention, victim care and also climate. Ill get those back shortly, and when i do, ill 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 hezbollah attacked our embassy in iraq, and the reports ive 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 of what you know is complex briefings and preparation. Thetegic Deployment Complex is not yet on the priorities list. Why is that . Ill look into that, senator. I dont know why the Army Hasnt but that on their unfunded requirements list, but im sure that the Armys Choice is based on the Input Theyve gotten from the 82nd airborne commander. Well submit a request for the record, because im concerned that in an instance where we may have to, once again, send out an immediate response deployment request, theyre not prepared for it. Ill submit my questions for the record. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you, senator tillis. Senator rummell, please. Thank you, mr. Chair. Ive had a number of opportunities to raise questions about the fact that the Missile Defense radar for hawaii has been zeroed out over the last two fiscal year requests. In response to some of my requests about this radar which was told to me its very important as part of our system to protect hawaii, and im told that under the current situation, currently protected against todays threats, that is the response ive gotten, Secretary Austin. But we need to protect against future threats, i. E. , 2025 threats. So im 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 todays threat, but not necessarily 2025. And that was the time frame in which this radio was determined necessary for our National Security. I dont want to get into further discussion with you on the explanation as to why it was zeroed out. Let me move on to support for the specific deterrent initiative. It was initiated last year to ensure that they deploy an often overlooked readiness. They identified five areas of focus in the pdi. One, a joint force fatality, two, joint fosters, three, and four, security enablers. Looking at your Budget Request, i do not see requested items in the five Areas Admiral Davidson had identified as being supportive of pdi. In fact, your request identifies platforms like a navy destroyer, oiler and items related to the F35 Aircraft as Pdi Investments. So id like to know, why is the vast majority of funding identified to support pdi unrelated to the lines of effort outlined in the paycom 1251 report . Senator, let me say off the top that our intent was to align our Pdi Investment with congressional intent. 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. So well continue to work that. As you know, weve dedicated some 5. 1 billion to pdi, and again, our intent was to align our investments with congressional intent. I will go farther to say that a great deal of the Departments Budget is invested in capabilities and responsibilities that deter raid on china. Im committed to working with the committee to make sure we get it right and answer the needs of the commander out in pako. Mr. Secretary, i agree with aligning the intent with what the commanders are requesting, and i think that alignment needs to be much better. For example, the dod is only partially funding the top three that are important in deterring china, since you mentioned it just now. Moving on to military construction, and funding is very critical to what we need to be doing. Ive had conversations with your team regarding the need for a a Shipyard Modernization and infrastructure support, including a new dry dock for hawaii. I know that there is request for dry docks in port smith, and there is a request for water in norfolk. This is a request for moving a dry dock along. I would suggest 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 original class submarines that are there. We have no capacity to do that right now, so that dry dock needs to be moved along. So i request that you look at the funding requests and to see whether you can move the appropriation requests for the dry dock in hawaii along. My time is up, but i hope that you will continue to discuss that particular concern with us. I understand, senator. Were committed to making sure that we maintain the ability to maintain and sustain our force. Well take a look at that. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, senator hirono. Let me also recognize Senator Cramer and remind my colleagues there will be two votes beginning at 11 30, and i also believer the panel sought a break around that time. In talking with the ranking member, well figure out a strategy to accomplish all those objectives. Senator cramer, please. Thank you all for your service. Good to see you. I want 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. Im wondering if you could tell me specifically what kind of Isr Support that is. What system . Certainly were flying our m29s, and essentially the vast majority of isr is being provided from other places outside of afghanistan. Weve had to as weve retrograded, we had to make sure we protected our key platforms and systems. Are global glock 30s Part of that . Thats correct, yes. You realize the block 30s are slated for budget . Im concerned about a lack of a bridge between where we are today and where were going to get to eventually with new systems, and you have tough choices, and weve heard about the different priorities you have to set. But every man is worried about the retirement of black 30s too early, 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 the Isr Support they need in every theater . I would tell you as chief sergeant, they have not gotten what they have wanted. Its one of those commodities in high demand all the time, and nobody is completely satisfied. Isr feeds you with knowledge, but well never get enough isr to feed the demand. Having said that, its all a function of risk. Do you take risks, what your priority is, are you supporting the main effort and what are you doing, so on and so forth . In this budget i think 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 mq9s, again, it has to do with pivoting to the future. The change in environment, change in character and the changing pace of the threat with china. Thats not saying well stop everything with regard to mq10s and other decisions. Weve got to make that turn. If you could list the top three threats, what would they be . From a 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 protector. 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, i believe it was just yesterday President Biden, when he announced americas back in europe to military men and women Air Force in the u. K. , according to military leaders, the number one threat to National Security is climate change. Six weeks ago today, the European Union parliament, speaking of nato allies who is part of your testimony in this budget, the parliament passed a resolution, 569 to 607, urging the member states to do everything to stop the completion of the nordstrom pipeline. Three weeks ago today, President Biden lifted the sanctions on completing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Im just kind of wondering, that falls to americas back, rebuilding as the Budget Document states. Im not sure which ones we lost, but im sure there are at least eight European Allies who strong the oppose Nord Stream 2, and certainly climate change if climate change is the number one threat facing National Security. Allowing Nord Stream 2 is a threat to the climate. Im not sure how Nord Stream 2 helps our alliance, other than maybe with the current chancellor of germany. Sir, if i could just add to 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 national resources, for example. Its going to impact increased stability in various parts of the world. It will impact migrations and so on. And we have impacts at home. Climate change is a threat. The president is looking at it from a much broader perspective than i am. I am looking at it strictly as a military standpoint. That is not with the conflict that climate Change Or Infrastructure or educational systems. National security has a broad angle to it. Im looking at it strictly from a military standpoint. Climate change is definitely a threat. With that my time has accident expired. In collaboration with the ranking member and the request to have a break at this time, we will recess in 10 minutes. It will also allow people to make a vote with what was just called, and with that i would request a 10minute recess. This senate armed Services Committee on Budget Requests taking a break here. Secretary Lloyd Austin and general Mike Milley testified to. Live coverage resuming shortly here on cspan3. He joins us now for a conversation about cyberware and National Security. He works as Vice President at ibernet National Security. Why does it feel like were hearing about these Ransomware Attacks every day now . Are they more prevalent than in the past or are they just going after higher targets . Its a little of both. Ransomware is getting easier to use. The idea is its out there for you, all you have to do is plug in your targets, pay a fee and off it goes. It will do the work for you, collect the ransom. You make a little bit of money and pay money off to the person who has that service. Secondly, theyre going after targets. Bank robbers go after banks because thats where the money is. In this case ransoms go after big targets because there will be a lot of pressure on just pay the Ransom And Move forward. You saw that with the colonial pipeline. Generally, who are behind these attacks, and when it comes to the service providers that youre talking about, why cant we track down those people . Its a great question. These folks are using a lot of anonymity techniques, theyre using bitcoin wallets. Though you did see an interesting effort by the fbi to seize back a vast majority of the colonial pipeline paid ransom. Over the last couple of days, they were able to trace the Bitcoin Transaction to a specific wallet. What the fbis take here was they were actually to get the key to access that wallet. So how did they get the private key . Part of the thing here is were going after these targets and weaver got to get more aggressive. Its a lot of criminal sort of hacker gangs, but a lot of times these criminal hacker gangs in places like china are operating with the knowledge of, with the ascent of, or with the government. Oftentimes they work with the government or on the side, often with their bosses. Can you tell us how long ransomware has been around . Ransomware has been around for a long time. Weve seen the use of viruses going back to the 80s. Lots of times those viruses were designed to extract cost from the Target And Change behavior. Were now in the modern era where weve seen this ability to encrypt systems where its impossible to unlock and theyre like, well give you the keys if you do it. Ransomware was something that masqueraded as ransomware, but it was not that. They went in, deployed what looked like ransomware, using a Wiper Virus to delete and restore systems in ukraine. They were successful in ukraine, but even more unsuccessful, intentionally unsuccessful, because that Malware Spread and there were about 16 or 17 companies not associated with ukraine that cost them about 2 million to 3 million each. We talk about Budget And Spending in that area on this program. Its something we cover every year when budgeting comes up. Why cant we unleash those capabilities against these criminal organizations, or are we doing that . Its interesting you ask that question. Just this past week, over the weekend, you heard Fbi Director Chris Wray say, were going to treat ransomware the way we dealt with terrorists after 9 11. We got a Wakeup Call and well be aggressive using a government approach. Youre like, okay, look at these cyber weapons. Do we want to utilize them against these actors . Will it have an effect . And if it does, will they be capable . Will our sponsors punch back and what does that involve . I think there is a lot of questions about how to go after these folks. What is clear is there is a variety of things you need to do. Governments have to work together, companies have to work together, because we cant expect people to work with the nation states. These criminal hackers games are increasingly having national capabilities. The idea that one company gets it is ineffective. Our top Cybersecurity Ransomware attacks. If you want to join the conversation, you can do so. Republicans 22427487471. We talked about your work at george mason university. Talk about your background in public service and your expertise in this area. Thanks for that question, john. I started out Government Work on Capitol Hill as a young staffer. I actually started off with computer systems in Capitol Hill, glad waited to the policy realm. Went off to Law School and when i came back i had a chance to work with the Bush Administration at the office of legal policy, then the National Security division. I worked on a range of cyber intelligence matters as well as president bushs cybersecurity initiative. Then i went back a couple years and was a trial lawyer. Then i had a chance to work with chairman Mike Rogers of the House Intelligence Committee where we drafted the Sharing Bill that was passed through the house and enacted in the law in a slightly modified form in 2015, then went on to work with the foreign Relations Committee and then had an opportunity working with Joan Keith Alexander and the Founding Commander of u. S. Cyber command. Put on your House Staffer Hat for a second. How concerned should Capitol Hill be about this Ransomware Attack that hit members of the house, attacking that tool that members used to help communicate with voters constituents . An attack on that system makes it harder for them to do their jobs. In the larger scheme of things, this is just one example of what could happen with ransomware, so its bringing home to members of congress and their staffs whats happening day in, day out to public school districts, to police districts, to fire departments, and we saw on the pipeline and the Jbs Meat packing company. This is a larger trend were seeing in cybersecurity with criminal hacker games getting more aggressive, nation states becoming more aggressive. Our Government Isnt doing what it needs to do both with work on the Industry Side but also on deterring these activities. When President Biden goes to meet with president putin, he has to make it clear with president putin, look, were not going to take this stuff from you or your government. Youll continue to pay a cost to this if this continues. Clearly a democrat. Good morning. Good morning. Mr. Baffert, do you think there is any push, be it the government, military or schools, where theyre actually really pushing cybersecurity for students to learn and for us to actually get a hold on these cyberthreats facing our nation . Its a great question, pamela, that you have there. The national Science Foundation has a number of initiatives to improve cyber certification around the country. Its funded by federal grant dollars and thats an important part of this. Also the National Security funds things at the National Security level. The department of Homeland Security is doing work in this space as well as the government service. I think pamela is exactly right, john, which there is not enough education, not in k through 12, and also not for our peers on what to do at the basic level, getting to that sort of cyber Hygiene Right. Its not just enough to get your cyber Hygiene Right that will help a lot, by the way but you also have to be propped for these large scale hackers to attack you. You might be collateral damage. I dont want to miss an opportunity to talk about that at George Washington high school. We looked and realized there wasnt a Think Tank that looked at the hard questions of National Security. We brought together a group of experts and said what can we give members of our staff, things they can do, actual recommendations . So weve been doing it about four years and we have a great team out there working, including jessica jones, grant haver, meg cronin,melinda robinson, just a great crew out there. Good morning. Caller good morning, can you hear me . Yes, sir. Caller my comment is from a geopolitical perspective. I want the audience and definitely your guest here to talk to the idea that hacking is primarily a first order effect. So the idea that, all right, someone hacks our infrastructure, then we go in and we went into creating cyber networks or a cyber defense, but in reality, there could be the geopolitical purpose of saying, hey, look, we dont want america to work closely with, lets say, country x, country y, country z. So even though were throwing a lot of words, were throwing a lot of energy towards whats happening right now oh, russia did this, this happened from russia, we could trace the Ip Address back to russia. I would like your guest to talk to the idea that, no, its quite possible the Ip Address seems to be coming from russia, but you could be talking about third countries, and i just dont mean big countries like china or wherever, you could be talking about small nation states that are trying to influence the governor. Jackson raises a great point which is to say were seeing cyberspace and cyberattacks and cyber hacks being used as an element of russia, china, North Korea. A lot of our small nation states are getting this business, examine hes right to say that something you might see are small flag activities, activities made to look like it was the russians, the italians, when, in fact, it was somebody else. Whats interesting about that type of effort is the u. S. Government is actually good ry bugs. Its hard, dont get me wrong, but theyve gotten more good at it. They come up here and say, weve done the work. Its the russians. I would say when they kochl out publicly, go to the bank. Jacksons point about looking at the geopolitical implications in cyberspace is exactly right on. Lorraine, covington, louisiana, republican. Good morning. Caller yes, i am going to show some of my lack of knowledge here to some degree. I am just wondering whether or not there could be any connection between Cybersecurity And Ransom attacks with the accusations that have taken place regarding our voting machines . Is there any connection or are they totally different if, in fact, attacks were done on our voting machines and affected them. Lauren, its an interesting question. The hard thing to figure out is did something happen during the elections, and if so, what happened, right . We know that the russians, the chinese and the iranians respectively involved both in 2016 targeting our elections, getting into votes alike and trying to amplify existing narratives on both sides of the issues, creating dissension among our body politic i recognize Senator Blumenthal for his questions. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Thank you, mr. Secretary, General Milley for your extraordinary service and thank you for being here today. I have been very concerned about the ship that has apparently been sent from iran to venezuela. There are two iranian vessels to transfer to venezuela. As you know, these ships are thought to be carrying weapons that would fulfill the ones iran and venezuela made a year ago. We dont know the types of weapons. At least, as far as i know, there were reports that venezuela was considering purchasing missiles from iran, including longrange ones, commercial satellite imagery of one of the ships shows fast attack boats loaded on the deck. But its still unclear whether those boats were aboard when the ships began their when the ships began their journey. I was pleased to see the Administration Official stated the delivery of these weapons would be, quote, a provocative threat and seen as a threat and the United States would reserve the right to take appropriate measures, quote, in coordination with our partners to detour the Transit Or Delivery of such weapon. Secretary austin, allowing this ship to dock seems significant to me on many different levels. It would be the first time iranian vessels made such a transit and if the president is allowing iran to provide weapons to the region causes me great concern. Do you share that concern and how would such 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. 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 on the record or take that conversation in another forum . I would be glad to do it in another setting. You have had any communication with your colleagues in other nations in this hemisphere . I have 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 extremists, and you and i both have had conversations, and i understand there will be a Task Force report. Can you tell us when that report will be released . Sorry, senator, i didnt quite here 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 result . As you call, senator, early on in my tenure, i asked the force to conduct a brief standdown to discuss the issue of extremism in our ranks, and let me preface what im going to say that i am convinced 99 of our troops are focused on doing the right things and embrace the right values each and every day, and as i mentioned to you earlier i believe small numbers can have an outside affect, and up size the affect of regarding this issue. We did gain insights from the standdown and it was a great opportunity for leaders to have discussions with other leaders and leaders to have discussions with subordinates and focus on those behaviors, and those behaviors we do not embrace. They will they are refining our policies and also gaining a better understanding of, you know, of the complete challenge. Certainly, you know, i can have the leadership of that working group come to brief you upon request or anytime you want, sir. 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 its an even more over overwhelming 99 that would adhere. I would agree, senator, its less than 1 . Well gain better insights and also equip our force with better policies and definitions. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. Senator blackburn, please. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate that you are all here today. Secretary austin, i want to come to you on the issue of nuclear deterrence. 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 im quoting you, the Tipping Point where we must simultaneously overhaul these forces is now here, and that was your comment in reference to nuclear deterrence. While were looking at this budget thats before us, we see that modernization is fully funded. But then when you look at deferred maintenance, you see it cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from the enacted level from the deferred budget. We know that have of the nnsa facilities are over 40 years old, 30 date back to the 40s, so to me it sounds like we are at a Tipping Point when we discuss the facilities. Was the deferred Maintenance Cord cut with the dod. It was not coordinated to the dod, and its very important to me and our department to make sure we work with the department of energy to make sure we achieve our common goal of maintaining a robust nuclear deterrent, and you have my commitment to make sure i remain engaged in the doe to make sure things are happening in that regard. Let me ask it like this, what are the consequences that happen if we do not modernize and maintain this infrastructure . You have heard me say before, senator, im absolutely committed to the modernization of the triad, and we committed 22 million in this budget to that effort, and maintenance is also important and with respect to nnsa, we will remain engaged with d. O. E. To make sure the right things are happening and gain a better understanding of what d. O. E. s intentions are. I would expect the enterprise is an invaluable workforce as we look at 21st Century Warfare that its difficult for them to work in dilapidated and 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, im sure its a concern for all the things that d. O. E. Is responsible for as well. Lets go. Senator fischer brought up to you the action of the acting senator again, senator, i have not seen that but i will see it shortly after this hearing. You know, as i understand the purpose of that m. O. Was to issue some guidance for planning an 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 at this the Funding Totals for the defense of Guam Precurement and the development line, items in the budget was 118. 3 million, and thats less than half of the money that is required for this unfunded priority, if you will. I would like to hear you speak to that. We know these fusion centers, i have done work on these centers and they serve a critical function of really enhancing our intelligence, our information, our logistical coordination, and fusion centers also support Mission Partner environments, the number two unfunded priority, and so it seems like we have a pattern that is going here and i would love for you to address that. I know i am over and there are others waiting for questions and i would 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. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you for your service and thank you for being here today. I want to start first by saying how disappointed, and also to say im quite angry at a recent decision by the Air Force to not aware a Guard Base the f35 national Training Mission, and my feelings are based on the data and the criteria that was presented both by each of the installations, and south ridge 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 investigating a 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 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 you will review the Air Forces f35 Training Mission and well 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. 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 decisionmaking process, this type of decisionmaking process. If you desire for the Air Force to come and do a laydown for you, i am sure they will be willing to do that. I appreciate that. I have had some of those discussions already, and to make sure the process is indeed an objective process its critically important theres full transparency, so we can see not only how Self Ridge ranked on the data, and also how the one selected was ranked so there could be a true objective comparison of the criteria, and i want to make sure all of our questions are asked as Thats Something i assume you would certainly support. Thanks, senator. My Guidance And Requirement is we always try to be as transparent as possible. I appreciate that. I understand the Fy22 Budget compares to fund remediations and the reality is 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 across the country, and the Price Tag to address that contamination is on top of what is already a lot of remediation needs for that requirement, and theres legislation to help with the cleanup of the sites, and so Secretary Austin, how does the Departments Budget address the Management Challenge presented by these literally forever chemicals. I know its not a problem we will be able to solve in a year and quite frankly in the next decade, but the longer we wait to address the toxic violations, the higher the cost to the communities and citizens and taxpayers. Theres provisions in this budget to address remediation for contaminated sites. I would and this is this whole extends well beyond this budget and you have my commitment to continue to work this going forward. I recently met with the Epa Administrator a couple 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, you know, 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 were not the only source of this contaminant, but i would tell you that dod is committed to doing its part to remitt ating damage that has been done. I appreciate your attention to both of the matters i raised and look forward to working with you. Thank you. Senator sullivan. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and thank you gentlemen for your service. General milley, you know the respect i have for you, and you have a hard job, and you have a budget you have to come in and support and thats a tough job. Budgets are a reflection of an administrations priorities. I happeneded this chart to you as well, this chart here. The biden administration in its 6 trillion Budget Blowout clearly prioritize defense and Homeland Security dead last. Dead last. If you look at in terms of inflation adjusted, its actually a cut. 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 are leading that we are prioritizing their mission, which is defending america when its clear the biden Administrations Prioritization of their mission is last, a declining Defense Budget when almost every other agency in the government is getting a massive increase. Mr. Secretary, you want 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 i truly believe that the president s budget gives us the flexibility to go after the right mix of capabilities to defend the nation, and to detour aggression. I understand that. I have been watching the hearing and i get it. Again, its a tough question for you because you are not in charge of these other agencies like omb like the white house is, but they are not prioritizing the military national defense relative to any other agency at all. I mean, look at the chart. They are putting the National Security mission dead last in the prioritization of budgets. How do we tell our troops, hey, were putting you first . Our troops are always first and will always be first going forward. Again, i do believe that we have what we need to go after the right capabilities. Okay. Let me talk there has been a lot of focus as Senator Kramer talked about the issue of climate change, and theres a big issue in alaska and i am always puzzled, though, how our military is organized to do this, and General Milley, we overlapped briefly in afghanistan, and i dont believe climate change mentioned once, i heard iran, taliban, iraq, ieds, and you mentioned climate change 15 times, and thats a bit of a mismatch. You mentioned china was our Pacing Threat. Let me ask a simple question that relates to the two priorities, what is an immediate threat that dod has the capability of responding to, a chinese invasion of taiwan or climate change . I dont recall mentioning climate change 15 times. I think it was in your written statement. Okay. Let me also be clear, senator, that Hraet Al Tea is important. This is the most lethal force that has ever occupied the planet and it will remain so going forward, and thats what we remain focused on in the department of defense, defending this nation, and we will go after the capabilities timeline invasion by the chinese communist party or climate change . What is the most significant threat you would respond to . The most significant military threat we can focus on and you probably heard me say this 100 times, its china, and thats what we have asked you a number of times to help us resource our efforts on that challenge, and i appreciate what you have done thus far. I know you will continue to help us going forward. Let me ask you one final question, sorry, mr. Chairman, and its related to that. I have another chart here that shows that our budget increases or decreases are relative to the chinese and the chinese dramatically increase their Defense Budget by 6 annually, and we have increased ours during the Trump Administration when the republicans controlled the senate. You see during the biden administration, Obama Biden was cut and now we are 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 . Thats both for the secretary and General Milley. The message that i am concerned about is the message that we send to the world, and that is that we are going to continue to go after the capabilities and develop the operational concepts to be able to defer detour, excuse me, anybody that would venture to take on the United States of america. We will have the capabilities necessary to defend this nation. General . Senator, a couple things. I want to go back and make two points on the Budget Piece explaining it to the soldiers, sailors and marines out there. We are getting 17 billion if this is passed. Thats a lot of money. Thats 15 of the entire president s budget, and thats not a small amount of change. The increases that you show on your chart, those are factually chart, but in whole to the context we are getting a lot of money. Thats the first thing. Second, relative to climate change, Enemy Situation to include weapon of train. We always consider weather, and we are not going to change climate change, but we must consider it in our strategic callations all the time because it will increase instability overseas and has impact on the infrastructure here. So china, we are calculating all of the calculations relative to a Pacing Threat and others are second in nature. The third piece, relative to china versus u. S. Spending. This is a disturbing trend, no question about it with respect to china. They have made a major economic development in their military and it has been going on for 20 or 30 years, and the Gaps Today are like this, and they have a plan to be a global challenger to america by mid century, and i think the budget for this year is an adequate investment right now. Thank you. Thank you, senator. We recognize senator duckworth. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you for your service to our country. The national Guard And Reserve component continues to answer the call. Over the past 20 years the high demand of the forces has necessitated a shift from a strategic reserve through an operational force. Last june over 124,000 guard troops were mobilized more than at anytime since World War ii. In short our nation relies on the reserves and the national guard to defending the United States and fulfill the tkods National Security responsibilities and even though the national guard reserves are serving in critical capacities and dangerous assignments they are not receiving the same pay and benefits as their counterparts. The disparity in pay and benefits between different duty statuses can also incentivize of manipulating orders to minimize service Members Access to benefits. I believe its necessary to ensure they receive equal pay to the Health Care and educational benefits as active members do. General milley, could you update me on the dods plans to the status of the 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, its a total force and we have a commitment to ensure that we have appropriate and fair pay and benefits given to our national guard and troops, and that Reform Effort is under way. We are reviewing that. I cant give you the exact date of when we will have that to you but we are working it and working it very hard and working with the national Guard Bureau and each of the services. We need to make sure its evenly applied to the pay and benefits to the soldiers and the Reserve Component or the troops in the Reserve Component. And can you make sure that the proposal is appropriate shaped to benefit pay and sure, our commitment is to ensure that everybody wears the cloth of our nation, whether they are active guard or reserve, no matter where they are are treated equally in all respect to receive benefits equally. Service members are required to maintain the same proficiency as an active component of counterparts, even though they dont necessarily put on the uniform every day, this is especially true for pilots, for example, and they only receive Incentive Pay at a fraction of the amount of active Service Members. I believe every Service Member active or reserve duty deserves to be fairly compensated for maintaining mission essential skills, and the corporation has proved its far more costeffective than training new Service Members than those that separate. As we continue to strengthen our guard and national forces, we must retain our talented soldiers and we need to make sure they are compensated. Will you commit to exploring options to help improve retention, especially of the Service Members with critical skills . I will, senator. For all the reasons that General Milley mentioned, you know, our Guard And Reserve have done amazing work. The skill sets that you are talking about are War Fighting or Combat Related Skills and its absolutely important that they are profishant and should receive the same proficiency pay. Thank you. I have one final question, and i will submit for the record and it has to do with modernization efforts across the force, and are you factoring in budget in other things and i will add that to the report. Senator scott . Thank you, chairman. You have very significant roles for our country, probably the most important thing we can be doing is making shaourg we defend our freedoms. Would any of you disagree that we are you are thinking about Communist China, and you are thinking about a party that wants to control the Endo Pacific . I do believe that there are their goal is to control the Endo Pacific, and i also believe that they desire to be the dominant or preeminent country in the world, and so i think they are working towards the end. Would you all disagree that their goal is to eventually take back taiwan, a great american ally . I dont think anybody would disagree with that, right . I would not disagree with the point that they have a goal of eventually uniting taiwan with china. Yeah. That would be whether they do it voluntarily or involuntary through the military. Do you all believe that we are going to continue to see more surveillance by the communist party of china of american citizens and our allies around the world, and we are seeing more surveillance all the time, you would agree with that . Theres i mean, it stands to reason that whatever level of surveillance that is ongoing now will continue. Quite possibly increase going forward. If you look at this, you saw what Senator Sullivan brought up, year after year they are investing more in their military and their goal is to have an economy bigger than ours and that would increase their Defense Spending, and General Milley says its getting closer and closer, so if china is able to pull all 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 fulfill their goals, then our opportunities will be diminished. Would you all agree with that . I wouldnt describe our relationship with china currently is one of competition. Again, you mention they desire to be the preeminent country on the planet, and that is, in fact, the case. Their mid to longterm goal is to do that. They look to compete with us, not only militarily, but across a spectrum of activity, and what you see us doing, the military and other sectors in our government is making sure that we remain competitive with, you know, economically, making sure that we are developing the best we continue to develop the best scientists in the world, and we do the most comprehensive research, so its a competition across a broad spectrum of activity. If you followthrough the reasoning, if china wants to be Endo Pacific or world dominant, if they build an economy bigger than ours, and they continue to out invest us in the military, which they are, then what are you all doing to, one, inform americans citizens of the risks, and we do a budget on what the american citizens put the priority on, and what are you doing to inform the public of the risk Communist China, and then doing to the budget so we dont sit here years down the road and think we didnt do enough about it . Just about every time you hear me speak, senator, and i know you are probably tired of hearing me talk about the competition with china. Thats my focus. My number one focus is to protect this country and our Pacing Challenge will continue to be china. Again, we are going after the capabilities that can match the operational concepts that we are putting into play and allow us to be not only competitive, but actually dominant in this competition. So thats what the department of defense is doing. I think you see activity across the entire government that is focused on making sure that we not only can compete with china, but maintain our edge with respect to china. Do you think its important that in your role that you inform the american public of the risks of Communist China so everybody will focus on making sure we have the military budget we need . We do so routinely and will to do to do that, senator scott. Thank you. Let me recognize senator rosen, please. There it is. Thank you, chairman reed. Right before the break Senator Kramer was talking to you about our isr requirements and his concerns and i am concerned as well about the mq 9. So Secretary Austin, i dont have to tell you, its critical to supporting our intelligence and recognizance, and its the mission at nevadas creech Air Force base. General mackenzie included additional funding and he told this commune of the importance and his need for more of them and not fewer. The Air Force today still lacks the isr capacity. They are most costeffective without a program of record to replace it, and that would further risk the gap General Milley talked about. What is the departments plan for the mq9, and given its importance costeffectiveness, and 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 Combat commanders view isr, and having been a prior commander i can tell you i afree with him, theres never enough isr and ill always want more. The Air Force has committed to taking off a number of lines of isr, but they are not reducing the tails, the aircraft that go with those lines. What they are doing is making sure they upgrade and modernize the aircraft where possible, so they can network the aircraft better, so the number of tails is not being reduced, the number of lines is being reduced slightly. So can you get to us information about that so we know what the program of record will be going forward and how it can impact us . Absolutely. Absolutely. I appreciate that. I would like to move on to talking a little bit about iranian aggression and how we combat that because iranianbacked commissions are targeting Service Members in iraq and drone attacks. Irans continues to be a threat via its missile program, and its proxies. Iran supported iraqi Shia Militias will continue to pose the primary threat to u. S. Personnel in iraq. To Secretary Austin and General Milley, with the constant threat to the u. S. And coalition forces in the mideast posed by iran and iranbacked 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 . We certainly continue to demand that iran ceases Militias Behavior in the region in support of the iranbacked Militia Shia groups. We demand they cease providing them modernized equipment so they can conduct these types of attacks. Were doing everything within our power, within our capability to make sure that our troops that are forward deployed have adequate protection. We are engaging the iraqi leadership to make sure that the iraqi leadership does what is necessary to protect help protect our citizens who are there to help the iraqi government. I would say in addition to everything the secretary said, offense, defense, in terms of defense, the disposition of exactly where they are at and how many are there and the hardening of the sites, we are doing all those measures. In addition to that we have missile not Missile Defense but Air Defense capabilities, and Rocket And Mortar and counter uas systems put in place. And those have been proven quite effective against some of the Shia Militia capabilities. I wont discuss it here but theres a classified session of what we can do and what we have already done, and all that in competition we think is mitigating the risks, and it doesnt reduce it to zero, its a dangerous environment and we recognize that, and we have to work with the government because they are our first line of defense in that country. I want to make sure we have installations to protect our troops in the middle east . We do. Certainly we do. Thank you. Thank you for your service as always. Mr. Secretary, if i could start with you. I asked you if you agreed with the national Defense Assessment and the u. S. Military needs to be postured to defer and prevent an an Skwraoeul Opportunist agile, and you said, yes, i agree with the commissions finding. A combat credible forward Deterrent Posture is instrument. I assume you still agree with that . I do. Very good. Do you also agree, and i assume this would apply to our ability to maintain and defeated maintain the ability to defeat a chinese come plea against taiwan. Is that accurate . Thats accurate, senator. Nobody wants to see the unilateral change of the Status Quo with respect to taiwan. You have heard us say we are committed to helping taiwan defend itself in accordance with the taiwan relations act. The three communiques and the six assurances. Our position has not changed in that regard, and we will continue to help them develop the capability. General milley, if i could just get you on this as well. Would you agree the u. S. Should maintain its chance to de i am not sure what a chinese Fay Tau kphrae of taiwan is . If you are talking about seizing the island the size of taiwan with the Military And Population they have, thats an extraordinary complex and difficult mission, and i can assure you we have the capabilities if there were political decisions made in accordance with the taiwan agreements, but we do have the capabilities . We need to be focused on china in the next three, five, seven years as ten to 15 years, and the context is we have heard from the outgoing pay calm commander, and we heard that china is increasingly aggressive and the window to detour that may be shorter than we thought, and so we need to be focused on detouring them on the short to medium term, three, five and seven years, including the longer term . We do. I would say that those two issues are not mutually exclusive, senator. As you know, they compliment each other. While we are developing a future capability we certainly have to bridge to that capability and thats absolutely our focus. Great. Senator . Yeah. The key is deterrence. We are in a condition of trau taepblgic great Power Competition, and we need to stay at competition, and the key is to keep it from going to war. If i could followup on that, general. China knowing that we have the ability to detour them and the ability to do what you said a minute ago, which is if they should choose the military ability in simple terms, deterrence is a complex thing, but you have to have the capability and your opponent has to know you have the capability and you have to communicate that capability to your opponent and communicate your will to use it if necessary and both actors have to be rational, and if all those are achieved you will be able to detour that. 23 million were force to design posture improvements. Im trying to understand how providing our forces in the pacific with just 1 of the funding they need to combat the forward Deterrent Posture we are talking about, how can we do that and say that we are going to maintain the ability to detour and deny a fata come plea . Senator, i would flag for you a couple issues. The first issue, and i said it earlier, that our intent is to make sure that with respect to the Pdi Investment that we meet the congressional intent, and we believe we have invested in a number of things that meets that intent and we will come to meet with your staff and explain where the investments are to make sure that the Language Isnt confusing. The second thing is we have invested 5. 1 billion in the pdi. The third thing i would flag for you is that, you know, much of what were investing in in terms of capability and is really focused on our efforts to counter the challenge present by china. I would also say that when you speak when we speak of deterrence, we are not talking about just air, land and sea. Were talking about using every capability across all domains including cyber in space, and integrating the capabilities of our allies, which is, i believe, is very, very important, and were talking about using every lever the united States Government has available to it to effect that deterrence. Thank you very much. I have more questions for you on this, mr. Secretary, and i will followup with you in writing but i appreciate the opportunity to engage with you on it. Thank you, senator holly. Senator tuckerville. Put your microphone, please. I thought mine was worn out after this long day, mr. Secretary. I have been a Team Builder all my life, and i am on the veteran of affairs committee, and i have been talking about i am a huge military person, military brat and grew up in a military family. We talk about missiles and bombs and ships. You have to have all of those, but if we dont have the people, the best people with can get, like football, the best people win games, and the same in military, and we always had a strong military. I am hearing comments about why should i get in the military . They didnt look out for the people in Iraq And Afghanistan in the burn pits . We have a problem here. We have to spend hundreds and hundreds for the veterans that went over there and breathed all the money we have spent could gone to you guys, defense, and to me its going to be hard to recruit the best people. I hear all this extremism stuff, and i have dealt with people all my life. You dont have to like each other to be on the team. I mean, a lot of my players couldnt stand other players on the team, and they just had personality conflicts. But at the end of the day you have to earn respect. You have to earn the trust, dedication and all that from your teammates. I mean you have to earn that. I just hate for us to get off on this tangent of the people that we have in the military. Now, in football, for instance, your coaches, when you bring players in you have to build a team, and same thing in the military, you have lieutenants, sergeants, corporals, and Everybodys Responsibility is to bring that team together. The things i am hearing and seeing in the military bases i have been going to in the last six months and talking to recruiters, we will have a tough time. We have to face the people in big tech of taking the best and brightest, because cyber is one of the things that we really have to get into in the military and continue to grow and build on all of our technology. That being said, i want to make sure that we all understand that we talk about all this equipment and the budget and i understand we have to have that, but if we dont have the people in there making a difference, and we had the selective service a few month ago, and they told us if we had a draft today, we have 35 million we could draft from, and over 450,000 of those 35 million are eligible to be in the military, and thats not enough. Is that not enough. We cant build a killing machine, which is what our military is you can say anything else, but we have to be able to kill the enemy when they come at us, and so thats just something that i have watched and listened and i have been on the road and 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 have to fund our young women and men that have to want to come in and want to be there to fight for the best country on the face of the earth. Secretary austin, i wrote you a letter, me and Senator Wicker and kramer, and it was disturbing. Let me be clear, like you, we want to see good Order And Discipline in the ranks for our military to remain the nonpartisan institution that americans trust more than any other. But what emerged from some of the services revealed is disappointing partisan slander, and this year we have seen multiple senior military leaders in uniform from official dod channels criticize individual members of the press. That aint got nothing to do with the military. To me you just got to go about your business. We have seen the national Guard March on elected officials here just down from this building. We ask you to provide a report on what steps your report will take to reprimand officers who engage in partisan behavior to make sure the Standdown Guidance complies with your office, and we ask for that report no later than the 7th and still have not gotten it. I know you have been busy, but we would like to know the steps you will take to clamp down on people that do not deserve to be in the military. I have been a recruiter all my life, and we have to be able to recruit people to spend this money that we are going to appropriate you in the right way, because we are in dire straits, and Secretary Austin, can i get that commitment . You certainly have that commitment. I would also like to offer a thought on what you just said, senator. Thanks for your continued support of our great military. Again, you have heard me say this a couple times today, and i dont want our Force Or Anybody else in the country to be confused. Its the most lethal organization on the face of the planet and it will remain so and will remain the most cohesive organization on the face of the planet. When i came in as 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. The third thing is teamwork. Like you, i put a couple teams together too, and i have employed those teams in combat, and i have watched them do amazing things in support of their country and each other. 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 have 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. Thats something that me and the chairman both really care about. I would tell you that the secretary of the Va Shares that concern, and he and i work together closely on a number of issues, and we avowed to make sure that we dont lose our veterans as a transition from active duty to retirement or get out of the military and go and do something else. I have inhaled those fumes from burn pits and the chairman has inhaled those fumes, and its not just the armys problem, the militarys problem, and this is an issue for the United States, and these are our troops and we while do everything we can to take care of them. All the great resources and authorizers in the room, we share that commitment and thats the reason you asked the question, and the question you have, are you committed to it, and senator i am absolutely committed to making sure we can do what we can to make sure in issue is addressed and i know Secretary Mcdonough is working this issue as well. Thank you for your service. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, senator toeferville. I will recognize Senator King who will ask one question and also will preside and conclude the hearing, and i would ask both questions and responses be as concise and eloquent as they have been all morning. Thank you, gentlemen. First, a very brief observation. There has been a lot of talk about budgets and comparisons of budgets and budgets with china. I yield to nobody 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 likely, their budget this year is still less than onethird of ours. I think thats important to have that context. We have 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 were 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 mercies of the taliban, i dont know who will ever cooperate and help us again in another that b pentagon, the white house, and all the agencies of the u. S. Government are committed to this as an urgent priority, an urgent priority, and that if we cant repatriate all the 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 , secdef, 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, and that clearly is our intent and we will do that. In terms of specific actions, 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 its 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. I understand. 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. Youre correct, senator. This is very important to us, and were pushing as hard as we can on our end to move as fast as we can. Secretary blinken has asked for an increase in authorizations in terms of numbers to move into the sib 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. Im sure the members of this committee will work to that end and look forward to working with you. Senator sullivan. Thank you, mr. Chairman. 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 gauntlet today. Its a modern 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 interests in the arctic. And mr. Secretary, as you know, and general, each of the military services, in some ways prompted by this committee, have now published an arctic strategy. I think all of this 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 herr, in his role as designated advocate for arctic capabilities, how he saw each of the services implementing their respective strategies in the president s new budget submission. He told me the resourcing for arctic strategies was, quote, inching along but that dod, quote, didnt move the ball very far down the field with the fy 22 budget. I want to ask both of you, do you share this view and how 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 strategy was important to me. And that hasnt changed, it remains so. As you know, were working on developing our national Defense Strategy overall and also working 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. And that strategy will drive our resourcing. Thank you. General milley, do you have a view . Absolutely, were committed to the arctic strangle. This whole issue with the arctic is a classic example of the strategic military impact the climate change. As the snow caps melt and the ice packs melt, its exposing further resources. The russians and chinese are realizing that. So they are clearly trying to exploit some of that. And we are going to see increased, not dressed, grout Power Competition in the arctic over time. And we do need to fully resource the arctic strategy. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you. I would like to associate myself with Senator Sullivans questions on the arctic, its 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 youve shared, and most of all for your service to our country. With that, this hearing is adjourned. [ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ] [ indistinct conversation ] cspan is your unfiltered view of government. Were funded by these television companies and more, including charter communications. Broadband is a force for empowerment. Thats why charter has invested billions building information, upgrading technology, empowering opportunity, in communities big and small. Charter is connecting us. Charter communications supports cspan as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front Row Seat to democracy. The house Homeland Security subcommittee on Border Security holds a Hearing Today on the federal response to unaccompanied children at the border. Live coverage begins at 2 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan3, online at cspan. Org, or listen live on the free cspan radio app. Weeknights, were featuring american History Tv programs as a preview of whats available every weekend on cspan3. Chris mackowski is the author of grants last battle. He talks about his book which recounts Grants Life postpresidency including his financial ruin at the hands of inscrupulous business partners, his throat cancer, and his decision to write his memoirs to support his family. This talk kicks off a night of programs from the groups spring program. Watch american History Tv tonight beginning at 8 00 p. M. Eastern and every weekend on cspan3. And a very good Thursday Morning to you. You can go ahead and start calling in now with your view of the u. S. Supreme court. A poll on this topic from last fall, before the death of Justice Ruth Bader ginsburg, finding 56 of americans viewed the Supreme Court as middle of the road back in the fall rather than too liberal or conservative. Republicans were more likely than democrats to say the court is middle of the