The Senate Armed Services Committee considers Lloyd J. Austin’s nomination for Defense Secretary, January 19, 2021. Part 2 of 2.

Subscribe to Dr. Justin Imel, Sr. by Email

Transcript

No, I thank you for that answer. They mean a lot Thio us in defense of our country and certainly short, short notice mobilizations, Especially as we see right here in Washington D. C um, today. So, uh, last issue, because I know that we’re running short on time. Um, you and I did speak briefly about defense spending and the audit of our Pentagon and d o d. So we know that our defense budget has grown significantly. Thio address many threats Russia and China as well as, uh, persistent threat coming from Iran, as well as a number off much smaller terrorist groups around the world. Um, so the potential for defense spending that is wasteful has also grown and expanded, and it’s used on lower priority or even obsolete programs. Eso if confirmed, how will you lead the budget reviews to reform the Pentagon? And do you see it as a possibility to make sure that the Department of Defense does obtain a clean audit that will continue to be our goal? As you and I talked, we have made some progress. As I understand it, I’ve been away from the from the from the process for a while, but but there’s more to be done. And I You have my commitment that, uh, you know, we will lean into this and continue to push to make sure that we can get that clean audit in the not too distant future. Thank you very much, General. My time is expired again. Thank you for stepping forward and and looking to serve our nation again in this capacity. Thank you, Mr Chair. Thank you, Senator Ernst. Now via WebEx, Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr Chairman. General Austin. It was good to have the chance to talk with you a little while ago. I ask all nominees before any of the committees that I sit on the following two questions as part of my responsibility to make sure that nominees are fit for the appointment to which they are nominated. So I’ll ask you the following two questions since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted request for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? No. Have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? No, e, I want Thio acknowledged my agreement with A. That’s why my colleague Senator Blumenthal, and your commitment that, uh, that you will be you will counter the any any white supremacists or extremists within the ranks of the military. I think that’s really important. Also the questions you asked relating to how important it is to make sure that we are safe from cyber attacks because thes cyber systems are what the military communications very much depend on by the questions that were asked by several my colleagues, including Senators Blumenthal and Gillibrand. A number of us are very concerned about the continuing scourge of sexual assault and harassment and retaliation in our military, and it is very clear that the reforms that the Department of Defense has instituted are not nearly good enough on bond. Much more action is needed. And I want Thio expressed to you. Last week, a very tragic thing happened. Selena Roth, 25 year old Army veteran and military wife, was found dead and military housing and Scofield barracks in Hawaii. A soldier is in custody and a homicide investigation is ongoing. On my heart goes out to Selena’s family violent acts against women within our military communities, continue to occur at an alarming rate, and I am committed to ensuring to making sure that that these perpetrators are held accountable. And you know Thio in your statement that you will fight sexual assault and harassment in the military, including, I hope that you will look at the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which I support, which Senator Gillibrand has been a leader on and changing the U. S. U c m J Thio to remove the decision relating to prosecute prosecution of these kinds of attacks outside of the chain of command. I hope you will review that very carefully because all of your predecessors have not supported that kind of a change. I also want to mention that I have introduced the I Am Vanessa Gilliam Act. This act provides for the creation of a standalone punitive article for sexual harassment for sexual harassment. If confirmed, would you support the creation of a standalone punitive article of sexual harassment to be included in the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Uh, Senator, anytime we change the Uniform Code of military Justice, uh, you know, I would want to approach that with great deliberation, but I would I would commit to you that I would certainly want to take this on and look at it with the with right experts, uh, to make sure that we achieve the right effects with doing something like that. But I would I would certainly want toe make sure I get the right experts on hand Thio to to really drill into this. Well, sexual harassment can be subsumed under other charges, but it is not a standalone charge. I think it is very important considering that sexual harassment occurs at an alarming rate in the military. So, um, this is not I would hope that this is not something that requires a great deal of, uh, thinking because, as I said, you can already charge someone under other articles for sexual harassment. So when a service member is sexually assaulted, they are given the option of either making a restricted or unrestricted report. And the I am Venice Agum Act would allow victims of sexual harassment to also make restricted reports allowing them to remain anonymous within their chain of command while still receiving the support services that they should have. Would you support the create the creation of a mechanism for victims of sexual harassment to be able to make a restrictive report. I don’t think I heard. I heard the the end of the question there, Senator, would you mind repeating the the last piece of that? Yes. Would you? Would you allow victims of sexual harassment to have the same options the victims of sexual assault have and making a restricted report? Yes, thank you. I want to turn to the the importance of training areas for the in the Pacific area of responsibility and moral. Davison, who is the commander of Indo pay calm, talked recently about the importance of joint integrated training in this, uh, we are Admiral Davidson specifically mentioned the vital importance of both the Pacific Military Range Facility API MRF on Kawai and the Army training areas, including Baha Kalua Training Range on the Big Island with Navy, Air Force and Army Lisa’s all up for renewal in 2029 which is really right around the corner. It is incumbent on D o d to engage with state authorities on the local state, whole stakeholders, like the Native Hawaiian community, early often and openly. Having a clear and transparent process is a very critical to the renewal of these visas, which which, needless to say, is critical for the military’s presence in Hawaii. What are your thoughts on the value of realistic joint training with our coalition partners in the region and elsewhere? Certainly the value of conducting joint training with our coalition partners. I mean, it’s it’s invaluable its’s. We always work better as a team. I think in order to be effective as a team, you have to train, uh, to do that day in and day out. And so training is I’m sorry. I’m running out of time. I just wanna make sure that I have your commitment that you will have an open dialogue with the community with regard to these really important training facilities in the state of Hawaii. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So I do have some other questions, but I believe I’m out of time. I’ll submit them for the record. Thank you. Senator Rono, Senator rounds. Thank you, Mr Chairman General. First of all, I just wanna thank you and your wife and your family for serving our nation in uniform because you did it with honor and you did it for 41 years, and I just want to say thank you for that, sir. Um, General, you and I have had the opportunity to speak now on several different occasions, and I’ve appreciated, uh, your your answers to my questions with regard to the waiver, I truly do believe that the waiver was there for a reason. But I also think that the President elect does have, uh I think the tie goes to the president. And in this particular case, I believe that he has nominated you because he believes that you are the right person at the right time. I have no misgivings whatsoever about your capabilities and your competencies. And I think in this particular case, it is my intent to support the waiver eso that you can, uh, have your your presentation of you before the Senate for for confirmation. I think part of the reason that I feel this way is because of the conversations that you and I had, and I wanna go through them a little bit because first of all, with regard to the difference between being the secretary of Defense and being a member of the Joint Chiefs, uh, there’s a true difference between the twos, the role of the two. Can you share a little bit your understanding of the differences in the role and yet, at the same time, the real need for both to be expressed and your plans with regard to bringing in a zoo you indicated in your opening remarks additional qualified civilians into those those those those top areas. Yes. So I think the the chairman of the joint cheeses, um, required thio give his best military advice, Uh, to the president and to the secretary. Uh, routinely, uh, it’s military advice. The secretary has a much broader scope. He, uh he has a lot, a lot mawr to take into consideration. He is focused on strategy and policy, and, uh, and he understands he’s working within the guidelines provided by his boss, the president of the United States. Eso there is an enormous difference on I think, um, you know, one of the key enablers here, as I’ve said before, is to make sure that you know, we have the right, uh, experts, the right professionals onboard, working with me day in and day out to craft that strategy and develop that policy. But the secretary has a much broader scoping, and he is not focused on giving, uh, the same type of advice that the chairman would would provide. I’ve seen this done right a number of times. All the secretaries, of course, get it right. But the two that come to mind more than anyone else for me, When I was a three star serving as a director of the joint staff secretary, Bob Gates was was the secretary of defense, an absolute master at making sure that he outlined roles and responsibilities and swim lanes, designated swim lanes for the Joint staff and, uh, the OSD staff later. You know, I served on a in the Pentagon, is a four star, is vice chief of staff of the Army. And I had a chance to work with Secretary Panetta, who once again was a master at making sure that those roles remained separate. And that and that he provided the right kind of advice to the president, United States, and, uh, while he worked arm in arm with with the the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. They did not provide the same kind of perspective. And so I fully believe that I understand the difference on I look forward Thio working with the chairman. But, you know, I have no desire to be the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And so, uh, if confirmed, will make sure that those roles and responsibilities air clearly outlined Thank you. We also had a chance to talk a little bit about cyber and about the work that we’ve done in the last couple of years with regard to cyber in the defense for cyber operations. It used to be you had air, land and sea to worry about. Now we clearly have space, and we have cyberspace. A lot of our adversaries have decided to take the shortcut, and they’re trying to impact all of the other domains using cyber. In the last couple of years, particularly with regard to the 2018 d o. D cyber strategy, we’ve decided to move forward, and we have a defend forward policy. You’ve indicated your supporter. At least you’ve seen it, you’ve observed and so forth Can you give me very briefly your thoughts about our cyber and the need to continue toe to make strides and to allow for offensive cyber operations to continue? I think that’s important. I think having an offensive capability that we’re able to use, I think is is really important. And so I applaud the efforts that have been made in the past. Once again, I’ve been away from it for a bit. But I really look forward to kind of getting back, getting under the hood and understanding how the of the how the processes work now to ensure coordination, you know, across the board, across the agencies and and this this, uh, this endeavor speed matters. And so anything that we can do to facilitate the work of the operators, I think is goodness. But we’ve got to make sure we’re doing it in the right way. We’ll continue to remind you about the need for speed on that. If it all necessary, I don’t think it will be. Uh, finally, General secretary, Mattis implemented a close Combat Lethality task Force in 2018. This is an organization dedicated to providing resource is to the forces who have accounted historically for nearly 90% of the casualties, yet constitute only 4% of the force and receive only 1% of the institutional investments. I’m concerned with how this task force has appeared to have lost its direct report. This relationship with secretary it appears to have gotten caught in the bureaucracy over the last year, and I would like to see it back on track. I’ve worked on language to strengthen the task force with Senator Duck Worth and other members, and this is more than a bipartisan effort. This is a non partisan issue. Can you discuss the importance? Um, a very briefly of a task force that represents our infantry, Marines, special operators and other specialties who closely and directly impact the enemy and enemy operations and how that would be channeled through your office. I fully understand and appreciate the importance of making sure that that we resource and support our men and women that are at the tip of the spear. You know, the squads and platoons air out. They’re actually fighting the enemy. Everybody else’s supporting the fight on. We have to make sure that they have what they need in order to be successful. This is an evolving effort. It will never remain static. And so, uh, while I don’t know the reasons for things having, uh, why they have been repositioned and reporting change have been redesign. I would certainly take a look at that as I go in, if I’m confirmed. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Around, Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. Um, Mr Austin, first off, just congratulations on your nomination and thank you so much for your willingness to continue to serve this great country. One of the things I want to ask you about is if confirmed a secretary you’re gonna play a really critical role in directing defense modernization priorities that have an impact on our forces for many, many years to come That that modernization with critical investments in technologies like directed energy or hyper sonics or artificial intelligence is what will ensure that our men and women in uniform will hopefully never experience a fair fight. But modernization requires really difficult choices with regard to competing priorities. So I want to ask you how how will you balance investments in personnel and legacy systems with the critical need to develop capabilities that are going to give us a qualitative edge over near pure adversaries like Russia and China? Well, a Z, you know, uh, personnel costs are I mean, they’re expensive and we have to be mindful about about that as we go in as we go forward. Um, and we have to be willing to make sure that we’re making the right calls. Although they may be tough calls from time to time and in terms of legacy systems, I think you know I’ll have Thio get in and work with the services, uh, to ascertain what’s you know, what they believe is relevant on drily have, ah, tough discussion with them on whether or not it makes sense to continue to invest in certain types of things. But I agree with you. I think we absolutely have to invest in the capabilities that will make us relevant, not in the last fight, but in the future fight. We have to be able to understand. We have to be better faster. We have to be able to decide faster way have to be able to act faster. And then I mean we’ll have to employ the the use of space based platforms. All the things that you talked about, the use of AI on that the development of those kinds of capabilities, uh, will not come cheap, but this is not a choice. In my view. These are things that we must invest in going forward if we’re going to maintain a competitive edge. Right? Thank you for your thoughts on that. Um, Mr Olson. Last week, in the final days of the current administration, the Air Force announced that it had selected Huntsville, Alabama, to host the new space command headquarters. And I believe this process, frankly, was severely flawed and and was not in line with what I have seen historically with regard to, um, or deliberative approach that the Air Force is typically taken with regard to basing decisions of this mag magnitude. I know you’re not familiar with this decision, uh, in its details, but I would simply ask that if confirmed, that you would take a close look at that process to make sure that it that it met the, uh, the historical standards for decisions of that type. Uh, I’ll do that, and I’ll make sure that we look at all of our processes going forward so that future decisions are made within the confines of the policies that have been laid out. Thank you. I appreciate that very much. Aziz, You know D O. D. Has set an initial requirement to produce 30 plutonium pits per year at Los Alamos labs by 2026. I’d love your views on how important that milestone is, uh, to maintaining our nuclear deterrent. Could you repeat your questions to the Department of Defense? Has set an initial requirement, uh, to produce 30 plutonium pits per year at Los Alamos National Labs by 2026. And I would love your thoughts on the importance of achieving that milestone on that timeline. Yeah, as we’ve said earlier in the in our discussions here this afternoon, Senator, you know, uh, maintaining ah, credible, reliable, safe and sustainable nuclear, uh, capability is of utmost importance of the highest importance. And so this is a component of that. And certainly, uh, if we’ve laid out those goals and objectives for ourselves, I’m very much interested in making sure that they are the appropriate goals, but and I have no reason to doubt that they are. But making sure that we are, we remain on time and on target with achieving those goals. I look forward to working with you on that front. Um, one of the last things I want to get to here in my final couple minutes is, uh, pee fast cleanup and remediation. Uh, many communities across the country continue to suffer from enormous impacts on their water supplies from PFS chemicals, uh, in particular and in drinking water in groundwater that’s used for both drinking and, in some cases, agricultural use. One of the most hard hit of these communities is around Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. Ah, community that’s been incredibly supportive of that facility for decades. Uh, the Air Force and the Department of Defense more broadly have frankly slow walked the cleanup in the remediation efforts for a number of years now, despite really clear evidence that that defense activities are the source of that contamination. And if confirmed, I would ask that you make full P fast for mediation of priority within the department and ensure that the Department of Defense takes concrete steps to finally do right by these communities that have done right by the department for for literally decades, the safety and the health of our military members our family members are D o D civilians, and our communities is very, very important to us in D o d. I think you know that Secretary Esper stood up ap fast task force a while back and that their work is ongoing. If I’m confirmed, I’ll go in and ask that they pick up the pace on the work on, uh, we wanna push to make sure that that we have, uh, good solutions for mitigation of of our contribution to this. This contamination on DPI fast has been used throughout the economy. So I think we’re gonna have to work across the, you know, across the board with our partners to ensure that, you know, we’re working together. We’re doing the right things to mitigate the effects here. So I look forward to working with my colleague, my colleague there in the in the e p A. To make sure that, uh, you know, the military is doing its part and we stay focused on the right things here. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Senator Tillis and Senator Rounds presiding. Thank you. Mr Chairman. General Austin, can you hear me? Okay. I can Congratulations to you and to your wife and your family and thank you for your decades of service I e like to start by. Well, also, I want to thank you for spending some quality time down at Fort Bragg at the tip of the spear with the 82nd Airborne. Um, I want to associate myself with comments made by senators Gillibrand, Ernst and Blumenthal on military sexual assault. I don’t expect you to respond. Thio hurt your your responses earlier, but to to may we’ll never know what great leaders chose never to go into the military if we continue to have a reputation for a culture that’s not making progress military sexual assault. I’ve heard you make commitments to my colleagues, and I look forward to exploring this issue as a ranking member on the personnel subcommittee. But we’ve got a lot of work to dio. I’ve been here for six years and we’re not making here enough progress. Um, I’d like to start by asking you to give me an idea of the general general overview of the threat that you believe that Iran represents thio national security and security in the Middle East. I’d also be curious in your answer what you think about the recent agreements with Middle East countries in Israel. Whether or not that’s a positive step in the right direction, Iran continues to be a destabilizing element in the region. Um, you look at its behavior. It it clearly every ah lot of activity. That’s that’s destabilizing. It doesn’t work well with its, uh, with his neighbors. Uh uh, um again does present ah threat Thio Ah, to our partners in the region and those forces that we have stationed in the region If Iran were ever toe get a nuclear capability, most every problem that we deal with in the region would be, uh, tougher to deal with because of that. Eso uh, to answer your question, I think Iran’s activity it continues to be or its its behavior is continues to be destabilizing on gone. The recent agreements Do you have any opinion is whether or not there are positive step to try and check Iran’s ambitions in the Middle East. I do. I think that any time that we you know that countries agreed Thio to normalize relations, I think that’s a good thing. And I think certainly, uh, this has put a bit more pressure on Iran, and I hope that will have good effects. Thank you, General Austin. General Austin, you wrote in your advanced policy responses. This is a quote from them. The continued erosion of U. S. Military advantage Visa V. China and Russia in key strategic areas remains the most significant risk the department must address. If left unchecked, has continued erosion could fundamentally change our ability to achieve U. S national security objectives and limit the D. O. D s ability to underpin other US instruments of power. Um, can you talk a little bit about the key strategic areas? You know, we’ve long since thought that they had a quantitative advantage, but that we maintained a qualitative advantage. It seems like the margins are shrinking. So can you give me a brief expansion on the responses to the advanced policy questions? Thanks, Senator. They’ve continued to invest in modernization. Um, they’ve they’ve gone to school on us in terms of you know, how we deploy and how we employ our forces on DSO. If we, uh, would choose to do the same types of things that we’ve done in the past, I think that we will clearly be challenged eso we’ll have toe have capabilities that allow us to hold, uh, to present a credible threat. Credible deterrent. Excuse me, uh, to china. In the future, we’ll have to make make some strides in, uh, in, you know, the use of, uh, quantum computing, the use of ai the use of connect the the advent of connected battlefields, the space based platforms, uh, those kinds of things I think can give us the types of capabilities that will need to be able to hold. Ah, large element. A large pieces of, uh, Chinese Chinese inventory military inventory at risk on. So I believe that we still have, uh, you know, the qualitative edge, the competitive edge over China. I think that gap has closed significantly in our goal will be to ensure that that we expand that, uh, that gap going forward. Thank you. Because I have limited time. I’m going to submit a question to the record on I think the economic warfare that we’re dealing with on China, the race to five G and some of the inter agency um, activities that I don’t think the d o. D is prominently up there. We’ve got USD USTR commerce Department, but I feel like that we’re losing some ground. I have a unique perspective on that. Looking at all the intellectual property theft is the chair of the intellectual property subcommittee of Judiciary. But I’ve got a lot of context. I want to add to that. So I want to ask the question there. So in my remaining time, I would if I were in person, I would have my 600 page request for proposal for the next generation handgun with me. It’s my favorite prop when I go when we have a confirmation like this, and I would It just confounds me to think it took 10 years to procure the next generation handgun, and it’s going to take 10 years to deploy it. To me, it suggests the fundamental problem with the way we go about acquisitions and procurement and the Department of Defense. Eso I would just seek your commitment if confirmed, if you’re gonna have the kind of resource is around you that are going to drill down across the business of the d. O D and figure out if we’re now at a point where we can go from an investigational new drugs Thio and approved vaccine in 11 months, it would seem to me that we could get to a point where we can specify certain procurement in the d. O. D. In terms of months or years, not decades. You have your commitment to make sure that you make this a priority, that you have someone there that has the experience and insight to figure out how we get more productivity. And I think more sanity and our procurement processes. You have my commitment center. Well, thank you, General Austin and thank you, Mr Chair, on behalf of the Chairman, Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr Chairman and General Austin. Congratulations on the nomination. Um, 10 years after the Civil War finished at the end of his second term as president, U. S. Grant gave a speech in Des Moines, Iowa. Sept. 18 75. Here’s what he said. He’s talking about the prospect of ever having another civil war. If we’re toe have another contest in the near future of our national existence, I predict that the dividing line will not be Masons and Dixon’s, but between patriotism and intelligence on the one side and superstition, ambition and ignorance on the other. Those words air very chilling words, is we contemplate what we saw in this capital on the sixth of January. We saw ambition. We saw superstition. If you could say superstition might be Q and on fantasy or election was stolen or widespread spread voter fraud, ignorance. I don’t know that I’d use that word. The speech that U. S. Grant gave was to ah group of Civil War veterans, and it was to promote the idea of more broad public education. The idea that education would drive out susceptibility is a superstition. It might be comforting for us to think that what we saw on January 6th or generally was ignorance. But if you look at the spectrum of people who were involved, you find a number of very highly educated people. Um, sadly, and I know this has been raised already. You find a lot of people who have connection to our military, um, who should be as part of the enormous training investment we make in them, be able to spot the difference between truth and fantasy between reality and conspiracy theory. Military times did a analysis in 2019, a survey of active duty military, and they found that 36% of active duty service members have seen evidence of white supremacists and racist ideologies and military. That doesn’t mean 36% of military share. Those but more than one third of our military have seen their colleagues exhibiting either white supremacist or racist ideologies. General lesson. If you’re confirmed, you will make history as the first African American Secretary of Defense. But you’ve also lived a life in this country and seeing these challenges. I know some colleagues have asked you about investigations, But what I what I would like to ask you about is training. We invest so much to train a member of our military officer enlisted. What might you suggest to us as we think about the training going forward, that would lead us to have a military that was immune from superstition and not so gullible as to fall for these false ideologies? I thank Senator, I think that we have to train our leaders, uh, to make sure that they’re in touch with the people that they’re leading, that they understand who they are. You know what? They’re what they’re doing. What? They’re what they’re reading, Um, that they’re looking at their environment that they’re living in and looking for signs of things that could could indicate that something is is going in the wrong direction. I think our I think leadership needs. If leadership is not in touch with the people there leading these kinds of things can happen. And I don’t think that this is the thing that you can put a band aid on and fix and leave alone. I think that training needs to go on, you know, routinely, because things change the types of things that you’re looking for change. I think our leaders need to be able to talk to their their subordinates and instill in them the right types of values, the values that our military embraces, the values that our country embraces on. You know, failure to be able to adhere to those values means that you shouldn’t be apart of our formation on. Our leaders need to be able to sort sort those things out. But having had personal experience with this being in a unit that had a problem with this long ago when I was a lieutenant colonel, I can tell you that, you know, most of us were embarrassed that we didn’t know what to look for. And we didn’t. We didn’t really understand that by being engaged mawr with your people on these types of issues can pay big dividends. I know that that that unit has probably learned that forever. But But I don’t think that you can ever take your hand off the steering wheel here. Well, because in a way, um, the enemy within disunity is probably the most destructive force in terms of our ability to defend ourselves. If we’re divided against one another, how can we defend the nation? I view This is an enormously important task that you will carry Should you be confirmed. I want to echo what comments that have been made by colleagues about military sexual assault again, a divider within the body that makes us less ableto externally face and and defeat the threats we face. I read the much of the citizen review panel that was put together. Look at the tragic murder of Vanessa Guillain at Fort Hood, and that is a very, very powerful document, and I would encourage all members of the committee to do it. I spoke to one of the members of that panel, and he relayed that he was doing one of the interviews. They did dozens and dozens of interviews and was talking to, you know, a mid level officer on the base who was trying to say that they felt like they were doing all they could to deal with military sexual assault in, the interviewer said, Would you let your daughter serve in? The military? Said, No way. He just roar Shock, answered the question and said, No way and whatever the attempt to put a spin, a good spin on how we’re doing. If you would worry about your own daughter serving in the military, we got a long ways to go. Um, quality life issues are enormously important. You’ve been asked about a lot of the strategic challenges we’ve faced this tough one on military housing, and I just want to remind my colleagues we started way faced that military housing issue about two years after we didn’t significant reforms to reduce the size of headquarters staff and what we found as we were kind of asleep at the switch in monitoring military housing on awful lot of the staffs that oversaw military housing had been dramatically shrunk because of what we did on the headquarter staff thing. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t fat that could be squeezed out of any organization. It just means that we have to really be careful thinking if we shrink the civilian side or the headquarters side, we’re gonna be saving some money, which we did. But we ended up compounding a problem. And I hope you will be attuned to the need to balance um challenges like that so that we can provide the quality of life that our men and women and their families deserve and that will keep them reenlisting if we want them to. If you could just say a word about that, I’m done. Yeah, I will. I’ll be certainly very attuned to that, Senator. I think in some cases we’ve broken trust with our our family members because of the housing issue and other issues. I think this is critically important. I look forward to being able to work with the with the services to really not only get after this the immediate problems, but, you know, put the fix is in are contracting effort so that, you know, we’re much better at this down the road Thank you, General. Thank you, Mr Chair, on behalf of the Chairman, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Um, General, uh, General Billy Mitchell, the father of the US Air Force in a hearing like this in front of the armed services many years ago And then, actually, I think was in 19 thirties called Alaska the most strategic place in the world. I like to say Alaska constitutes three pillars of America’s military might were the cornerstone of missile defense. Almost all the missiles and radar systems protecting the entire country or in Alaska. We are the hub Air combat power for the Arctic and Asia Pacific will have over 105th Gen Fighters. There were building up our tanker capability, an issue that I think is gonna be important. And we’re a platform for expeditionary forces like the 4 to 5. The first Striker Brigade. If confirmed, can I get your commitment soon and your tenure to come to Alaska with me and see this critically important national defense, State and troops for America in my state? Senator, I absolutely agree with you that Alaska is ah is ah, national treasure. And it has. It holds some of our most important, uh, military assets and resource is a Z. You know, we’re challenged with travel now, and, uh, and as, uh, the opportunities present themselves. Uh, you know, post trips Thio to the Indo Pacific where we need I need to get to right away. If I’m confirmed, I certainly would accept your invitation at some point in the future. Well, general, a lot of us think that Alaska is kind of in the end of pacific, So on your way out, we can get there early, so I look forward to doing that. Um, related to that is the issue of national security in the Arctic. And that’s a certainly a new theater of great power competition. Russia, China being very aggressive in the Arctic with massive buildups of military forces infrastructure. To be honest, for the last several years, I think the Pentagon was asleep at the switch with regard to our national security challenges in the Arctic. This committee, in a bipartisan way, has been very focused on ensuring that the Pentagon recognizes these challenges with infrastructure ice breakers that we need capabilities. The Department of Defense released its Arctic strategy in June 2019 required by this committee. The Air Force followed suit with its own strategy in July of 2020. The Department of the Navy just this week published its Arctic strategic blueprint. And the Army will soon be doing this as well. Can I get your commitment toe work with this committee where this has been a high priority to ensure that thes service Arctic strategies are appropriately resourced and that we can protect our strategic interests In the article, you have my commitment center. Thank you. Um, in general, the other issue I just wanted to touch on here in this hearing that we had last week on civilian control, the military and op EDS. You’re seeing it with some of my colleagues. There’s been this growing conventional wisdom that somehow because Secretary Mattis had been a previous centcom commander, that his tenure is a warning. Really? For what? Some are considering a failed tenure as secretary of Defense. I actually disagree with this quite vehemently. Secretary Mattis replace Secretary of Defense Secretary Carter with no military experience and matter of fact, he was what many people are calling for a political secretary. Um, I supported both, but let me just give you a little juxtaposition. Secretary Carter oversaw 25% cut in military funding. Readiness plummeted. Secretary Mattis rebuilt this up and rebuilt readiness with this Congress. Secretary Carter would not support arming the Ukrainians which javelin missile systems, despite the entire committee here pressing him to do so. Um, Secretary Mattis did that almost immediately in his tenure, Secretary Carter watched Isis grow to be a very lethal threat. Secretary Mattis brought d o d strategy to crush Isis. Secretary Carter, for a whole host of reasons, was very reluctant to press for anything. South China Sea Secretary Mattis made those regular elements of our strategy in the Asia Pacific. And finally, Secretary Mattis put together the National Defense Strategy, one of the most important and bipartisan documents that many have seen on national security. In a generation, he often got back to senators quickly in terms of oversight. With all due respect, Secretary Carter, sometime it took weeks just to schedule the phone caller meeting. So, General Austin, do you think Secretary Mattis had a failed tenure as secretary defense because he had previously served a centcom commander? I’d like your assessment of that is being used right now is somehow, uh, a warning for your confirmation. And I think it’s a conventional wisdom that I personally reject. Do not think he you should be considered as a failed secretary of defense because of his his work in Centcom earlier. I think, you know, Secretary Mattis is very thoughtful. Uh, secretary And you did a lot of goodness for the department. And, you know, certainly I would not want to evaluate his role. His his tenuous secretary. I have great respect for him. A zoo, you know, I’ve served alongside him, have worked with him on a number of tough issues on I watched from afar as he was secretary. So I have no reason to believe that his his role or his tenuous CentCom made his his tenure at or diminished his role a secretary. And that wouldn’t be a lesson. A reflection on what you will be able to accomplish in the department is well, people are using that a z ah, warning, so to speak on. I think it’s I do not think that that Z that’s a fair, uh, assessment. And I would say also, Senator, that were completely different people you know, You know, it’s both on, uh, a gang. I will absolutely do the things that, uh, that we’ve talked about in this hearing, you know, get the right civilians in the right positions, too. Toe, help me exercise civilian control of the military on. I’ll make sure that we have the very best experts focused on our toughest issues. Like, uh, you know, the china issue, Uh, the, uh, the issue of our acquisition reform, uh, in in those kinds of things. Mr. Chairman, if I may just want one final, uh, question, General, I just want to have the opportunity to answer to other criticisms. One that you have not had experience in the Asia Pacific and to that with, uh, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs being an army general that somehow your tenure with General Milley would be favoring the army. Can you quickly address those two criticisms that have come about your nomination? I’ll take the last one first, Senator. You know, if you look at my history, I spent a lot of time and joint assignments both in Iraq and Afghanistan. A z ah, Director of the joint staff, as as a commander of Central Command. You know, I have I, Noah’s many sailors and and, uh, airman as I do soldiers. I mean, I I, uh, if you look at the folks that I’ve worked with over the past, um, so, you know, in terms of being able thio, uh, toe focus adequately on the issue of China. The reason that I was focused on the Middle East for some quite some time was because that was the most important thing for our country. And so we put our our best equipment towards that effort, our best people, and it was absolutely necessary at the time. But if confirmed, you can expect that I’ll, uh, I’ll put a laser like focus on developing developing the right capabilities, plans, operational concepts. Uh, that will ensure that we maintain a competitive edge. Azzawi, look at ourselves. With respect to China, I think we will present a credible deterrent to China and any other adversary that looks to take us on. Uh huh. Thank you, Senator Sullivan to your time has expired via WebEx. Senator King is recognized. Thank you, Mr Chairman. And, uh, Mr Austin, thank you very much for your testimony. As you can see. Perhaps I’m on the road. You’ve taken me today from just south of the George Washington Bridge to the George Washington Parkway, so I’m almost there. First, I want to associate myself with, uh, two particular comments by my colleagues one on the issue of the Arctic raised by Senator Sullivan. Incredibly strategic area in area of enormous importance and developing importance. And one of the things about the Arctic is we’ve been able to work cooperatively with Russia on most Arctic matters, and yet they’re moving very rapidly toward militarization. So I commend that area to you for attention. The Navy just really released a new Arctic strategy. So ah, very important issue. The other issue is procurement that Senator Tillis mentioned, uh, the whole idea of 10 years for a handgun and a 600 page spec way just can’t do that way. Need to be more agile, particularly in this day and age where technology is so important in terms of our ability to defend the country. So those two things I do commend to your attention when, when and if you are confirmed now a two beginning of the hearing. There’s a lot of talk about civilian control of the military. One of the problems, uh, is Mr Austin that tomorrow, when David Norquist assumes the the title of acting secretary, he will be the 10th secretary or acting secretary in 10 years. And the last secretary to serve more than two years was Bob Gates on. He left in 2000 and 11. So when you have a joint staff that has continuity and a civilian side that manifestly lacks continuity, I think that’s one of the one of the areas where we can try to move to shore up civilian control of the military. So I guess my question is, are your bags unpacked? And are you prepared to move your loyalties from the Falcons and the Braves to the Nationals and the Washington football team? We want you to stay a while, Mr. Austin, if you’re if you’re confirmed, you can absolutely count on me staying a while. If I’m confirmed, Senator. And by the way, my wife is a native of this area of D. C. So, uh, it didn’t I mean, my bags, my bags are already unpacked, but to your point that you’re making, I’m absolutely committed to making sure that we were doing doing the right things for the long haul. I appreciate that. To change the subject to somewhat in 2018, you gave a new interview Where you discuss the importance of coalitions is being one of the key elements of modern conflict. And church at once said, the only thing worse than fighting with allies is fighting without allies. Can you expand a bit on your views about coalitions and how and what we need to do to shore up our relationships with our allies? I truly believe. And I believe this, uh, in my heart that we we perform better when we’re operating as a part of a team. And, uh, and throughout in all of the operations that I participated in that are major operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and you know, the counter isil can kind of isis campaign on so many other things. You know, our allies brought valuable capability and capacity, uh, to the fight on. I truly believe that, you know, if you can’t just show up and fight and be effective, I think that you know, these relationships have to be developed. You have to train work and live together in a lot of cases in orderto have an effective, incredible fighting force. S O. I think that, you know, uh, fighting as part of a team as a part of a coalition is absolutely, ah, part of who we are, something that we treasure. And if confirmed, I’ll look forward to reestablishing some of the critical, uh, partnerships and alliances that we’ve had and working with our allies to make sure that that, you know, we keep them on board as we move forward fast. Well, I think that’s absolutely right. The way I like to put it briefly is that you have to have the relationship before the ask. I absolutely agree with that, Senator. Now we’re turning our attention and have been for the last several years to the Asia Pacific and particularly to China, and I’ve asked a question of a number of people that have appeared before this committee. I’d like your thoughts on What does China want? What do you believe China’s strategic goals are? Are they looking to be the dominant world power or regional Hegeman economic power? What is there? What what are their goals? Because it seems to me in order to determine how we best counter or, uh cooperate. We need to understand where they’re headed. Yeah, I think it’s all of that. They’re they’re already a regional hegemonic, and I think their goal is to be a dominant world power. And, uh, they’re working across the spectrum to compete with us in a number of various on it will take a whole of government approach Thio to push back on their efforts. Uh, in a credible way not to say that we won’t see things down the road that we’re in our best interest, that we can cooperate with China on. But you know, we do things that are in our best interest, but certainly some of the things that we’ve seen from them in recent past in terms, of course, if behavior in the region and around the globe tend tend to make us believe that they really wanna be a dominant world power. Finally, I don’t really have time for a long answer, but I just want to commend to you in the issue of cyber two years ago, this committee led the creation in the National Defense Act of something called the Cyber Solarium Commission, which I was honored to serve upon along with a bipartisan group from the Congress and the private sector and the executive. Uh, I would commend you are Report, which was released last March, talks a lot about the issues we’ve talked about to debate, as you know, and as Senator rounds mentioned, the area of cyber is not a potential area of conflict. It is a current area of conflict, and I will be sure that we get a copy of the report to you. And you could take a look at it because part of it is structure. But also part of it is policy deterrence, uh, resilience. And, uh, I think that this is something that obviously we need thio attend to. You have General Naka Sony who is crucial in this effort on Do I look forward to working with you on those issues as well. Thank you very much. Uh, Mr Austin, and, uh, congratulations on your testimony today. Thank you, sir. On behalf of the Chairman, Senator Kramer. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Thank you, general, for your decades of service and your willingness to continue in this new way and congratulations to both you and your wife and your entire family. Um, first of all, I want tell you how pleased I was with a very specific answer affirming the chairman’s question related to your support for a nuclear triad that includes the platforms of land, air and sea as specified in the chairman’s favorite book, the National Defense Strategy. That was very helpful to me, and I appreciate that. Appreciated the conversation we had about it and several other things last week as well. With that specific answer to that specific question in mind, I want to drill down a little bit on just one of those three legs. As you know, as we talked about, um, might not has two of the three legs. It’s the only place in the country that has two of the three legs of the Triad. Um, you were asked, of course you did in. In the qualified questions of previous questions, you asked about the assessment of past secretaries of defense and you said this. You said I agree that nuclear deterrence is the department’s highest priority mission, and that updating and overhauling our nation’s nuclear forces is a critical national security priority. today you specified the words triad in your advanced policy question response. So you did. Referencing the aging nuclear deterrent. You chose the words overhauling, updating, But you never used the word replaced. And I don’t know if that was simply an error omission or if a strategic. But you did say US nuclear weapons have been extended far beyond their original service lives. And as Senator Fisher earlier, she quoted, um, Admiral, Admiral Richard of Stratcom. I’m going to quote him now in a different quote where he said, You cannot life extend. Minuteman three is getting past the point where it’s not cost effective to life extended Minuteman three unquote. But you’re going to get a lot of pressure from organizations, good folks. Um, some members of Congress, maybe some on on Armed Services Committee, either here on the other side of the Capitol to delay the ground based strategic deterrent, the replacement of Minuteman three and maybe even shrink it. Um, do you think that we can extend the life of Minuteman Three even if that the, uh, that means unilaterally decreasing our nuclear deterrent? Well, you know, I I think I may have indicated to you before that in orderto really answer this question. Uh uh. I really need to sit down with not only the stratcom commander, but also sit down and take a look at where we are in that modernization effort. And what choices? Air being proposed and the rationale for for them. Ah, no, I have not had the ability to do that to this point, Senator Kramer. But when I do, I would love to have that discussion with you. When I look forward to that on your way to, uh, end up a calm before you get to Alaska, you could just stop in mind. It will have the talk right there if it works. But anyway, um, Senator Sullivan thinks the Arctic starts and ends in Alaska, and I just like to remind him every now and then there’s there’s other land between here and there. Anyway, um, I wanted to ask you about the joint comprehensive plan of action that the Iran nuclear deal and there’s been some questions about Iran. But under the 2015 agreement, the restrictions on Iran’s uranium enrichment sunset beginning in 2025 that’s obviously only four years from now. So I want to know, in your view, are the risks of entering an agreement under the same conditions that would allow Iran Thio significantly increased its uranium enrichment Onley four years from now, I mean, what what would some of the risks of that be? Do you think I would hope? And I think the president elect has been clear that you know that the preconditions for us considering Thio re enter into that and into that agreement would be that Iran meet the conditions outlined in the agreement. So back to back to where they should have been. Um, I would hope that as we enter into that agreement, we could have this discussion about about, you know, when things sunset and also take a look at some broader things that may or may not be a part of this treaty, but certainly things that I think need to be addressed in one of those things. That’s ballistic missile ballistic missiles. Very good. Thank you. You anticipated. Or at least you answered my my next question. I appreciate that Another area that you and I discussed quite a bit was I s are of course you know more than a little bit about that, given your background, particularly, um, at Centcom. Of course, there’s been a lot of cutting of legacy programs recently to help pay for more advanced programs and technology in the future. And a lot of times there were either or, um, challenges. But sometimes we have to do all the above as well. Um, a lot of these cuts are have been, of course, the CSR programs like the arc you for Global Hawk on the MQ Nine Reaper. Again, you’ve depended on a lot at Centcom. Do you think we can strategically afford to cut back? I sorry to places like the Middle East, um, Africa, South America, even and to some degree, even the Pacific while we save up money for for future missions. Well, I think our you know, we look at our global force posture is one of the things I really want to have the opportunity to do and look at our requirements versus where our forces air postured. Um, our focus is gonna be as we’ve talked earlier and making sure that we have what we need in the Indo Pacific. But in terms of the Sentinel forces that are required by the CENTCOM commander. I really would like to see what What he thinks his requirements are. What? What? The threat threats are that, uh, that he needs to stay abreast of and that sort of business. But most likely, there will be some, uh, some requirement for those types of capabilities going forward. Three Air Force certainly has a strong voice in this in terms off what they can afford to keep on, uh, in light of the investments that they’re making in modernization. So again, pretty complex, uh, equation that will have to tackle, but but certainly I look forward to taking it on. Thank you, General. Thank you, Chairman. Amount of time. But I would have asked you about the $40 billion passed through budget at the Air Force. But we can talk about that another time. Thank you. On behalf. The chairman, Senator Warren. Thank you very much. Thank you, General Austin, I very much appreciated the opportunity to speak with you a few weeks ago. And as I told you when we talked, then I believe we have to do a lot more in the cozy relationship between the Pentagon and the defense industry, and over the years, I proposed a number of legal changes in this area. Now, since 2016, you’ve served on the board of Raytheon Technologies and its predecessor, United Technologies, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the nation. On I am very pleased to hear that you’ve pledged that you will extend your recusal from matters involving Raytheon for four years and that you’re not going to see a waiver from those recusals. Do I have that right? Uh, Senator, I can make the commitment to you that I will extend my recusal for Raytheon, and I certainly appreciated the opportunity toe discuss these issues with you. As you are aware, what you’ve asked goes beyond what’s required by law and I’m making I’m making this commitment because I recognized the unique circumstances here that you’ve you’ve highlighted. Raytheon is I’m sorry. Go ahead. Raytheon is one of the world’s largest defense contractors, and I’m sensitive to the appearance, uh, concerns that you raised in this particular situation and with respect to the issue of seeking a waiver, I do not expect to do that or to need one. But if such an unanticipated circumstances were to arise. I would consider of available alternatives to a waiver before seeking one, and would consult very carefully with the agency ethics officials. And if if I’m privileged enough to be confirmed, I can pledge to you that I’ll be mindful not only of the legal requirements that govern my conduct, but also of the appearances to ensure that the public has no reason to question my impartiality at the career ethics officials on these issues and will require everyone that that serves with me to ensure that public service is and will remain a public trust. Well, I very much appreciate that. And if I can let me just ask one more aspect of this you know, I’ve also called for new laws to prevent contractors from hiring senior government officials who leave federal service for a period of years again to help eliminate the appearance of trading on government service. To help improve. The idea is to try to help improve public trust in our leaders. So let me ask you about that. After you leave, are you willing to make any commitments on that? Uh, I do not intend to seek employment as a lobbyist or sit on the board of a defense contractor like Raytheon after my service. Quite frankly, I’ll be too old to sit on the board of, uh, defense contractor after my service. But I am. I have no intent to be a lobbyist, A swell. All right, Well, I just want, you know, I really do appreciate that General, going above and beyond what federal law requires, as you are doing here, sends a powerful message that you are working on behalf of the American people and no one else. Now I want to try to focus if I can on defense spending. But before I do, I just want to say a very quick word about military housing. Two years ago, this committee heard horror stories from military families about old termites lead paint, other terrible conditions at military houses managed by private for profit companies. The military has a responsibility to oversee these contracts, and this committee passed some sweeping reforms, increasing oversight powers. But I am still hearing from families who say that their situation is not substantially improving. So, General Austin, can I ask for your public commitment on two things. First, to respond to my request for information about what’s going on and second, to pledge that you’re gonna make fixing this problem a priority. Mhm Uh, I absolutely. Or respond to your request for information if confirmed, Um, and this has been a priority of mine and will always be a priority of mine. So I look forward to working with the services on on this issue. I think, as I said earlier, in some cases, we’ve broken trust with some of our family members. Yeah, so thank you very much. I’m gonna hold you that commitment. I really appreciate it, General. A few weeks ago, Congress passed the annual defense authorization appropriations bill that allocated over $740 billion to the Department of Defense. Now, that’s more than President Reagan spent during the height of the Cold War. It’s more than the federal government spends on the rest of the discretionary budget combined. In fact, it’s more than the next 10 nations combined Spend on defense, and most of those countries are allies. The money that Congress appropriated a few weeks ago also comes on top of what we spent on two decades of endless wars in the Middle East that cost roughly $6.4 trillion and killed more than 7000 American service members and did very little to make America safer. Now, General Austin, you’ve been nominated to lead the Defense Department. So I’m not expecting you to start out your job by turning down the money that Congress just gave you. But I want to ask you a different question. Do you agree that protecting our nation is not just about how much funny our nation spends on defense, but also about how we spend it and what specific challenges we focus on? I do. My, my, you know, a secretary of defense. Job one for me is the defense of this country. And we’re going to do what it takes to make sure that we’re successful at that As we talked earlier. Our strategy, a resource is automatic. Our strategy and our strategy, automatic policy and eso again, I think we have a required I have a requirement to be good stewards of a good steward of our resource is, But you can count on me always asking for what, what, what we need to accomplish. The strategy that’s been laid out for us. Well, I appreciate the approach that looks at how we’re spending that money and exactly what challenges we’re focusing our money on. I see that amount of time. So I’m not gonna get to ask you about the importance of investing in our diplomatic corps and making sure that we have adequate funding for the State Department in order to help you in the defense of our nation. I promise that I’ll send you some questions for the record about that. Uh, easy answer for me, Senator. I think it’s absolutely important that the State Department be resourced adequately. Good. That’s what I like to hear. Thank you, General. Mm hmm. Thank you, Senator. Mourn now via WebEx. Senator Scott. All right. Thanks, Chairman. Can you hear me? All right. Clear. Okay. Thank you. Chairman Paul holding this meeting. First off, I want thank General Austin for our all this hard work. We had the opportunity to work together when he was a sitcom, and, uh, you know, I just wanna thank the General for his distinguished service is a soldier and commander. And just what a great job he did in the military. So I’m very, very appreciative we had. We had the opportunity to talk the other day. And so if you could talk a little bit about how you know, if you look at the people, the military just had not spend a whole bunch of time dealing with the risk of communist China and how you will get up to speed because we don’t We actually don’t have. Um, it’s the same experience in dealing with Communist China as we do with people in the middle dealing with the Middle East. So, journalists, can you talk a little bit about how you get up to speed and how important you think it is to get up to speed on the risk of communist China. Well, I I think it’s absolutely important. As I outlined in my in my opening statement, Senator Scott, I think China is is, ah, our most challenging, uh, our most significant challenge going forward on. So you can expect that I’ll, uh, continue to focus. The resource is of the department on this issue to make sure that, uh, that we’re prepared to meet any challenge and that we continue to present a credible deterrent thio China or any other um, aggressor. Who would want to take us on and convinced him that that would be a really bad idea? Three issue of China, though, is is very complex on. I fully recognize that, you know, while I have the military component of this this problem set, it’s a whole of government approach, because China, it looks to compete with us along a spectrum of activities, you know, economic and on, uh, in I t and Cyber and Space and and other domains. Eso um you know, we’ll have the right Experts will have the right, uh, capabilities and plans and operational concepts that are required to make sure that were effective in our efforts to deter China and any other aggressor. Thank you, General Austin. So, you know, you and your military career you did a great job of building teams from the people I’ve heard, including Senator Sullivan. You you built a great team did to get the results you wanted, and you’re gonna have to in this job. In this role, you have to do the exact same thing. So how are you going to be able to vet the people that will be working with you? to make sure that they share your view on the importance of holding communist China accountable and and actually make sure we have way are a great deterrent to their ambition to dominate A at a minimum theme in the Pacific region. Well, certainly I’ll issue the, you know, make sure that I issue the the appropriate guidance to focus the department’s efforts on this issue. We’ll make sure that the right processes and procedures are in place to review our efforts and to coordinate our efforts to make sure that we’re operating as a joint force and you mentioned teams. And part of the team effort here is obviously and certainly with our allies. Uh, I think it’s really important to make sure that that, you know, we continue to reach out to our allies. We build the capacity necessary. Thio to be effective against China, and those allies conclude certainly include the people in the region, but they also include allies around the rest of the globe. Eso ill will issue the right, uh, guidance, and we’ll have the right policies in place and the right mechanisms to make sure that we’re operating as a as a as a joint force and that we’re focused appropriately and acquiring the right technologies to make sure that were relevant going forward. Dio, do you believe that with the administration you’ll have the opportunity to have influence on the people that will be part of your team internally, uh, to make sure that they share your view on the importance of holding Communist China accountable. I absolutely believe that Senator Scott. Okay. And you know what? One thing that Senator Sullivan brought up to me when I spoke to him yesterday about you was the fact that, you know, with your with your military background, you’ll be one of the few individuals and invited administration that will have the military background. Do you believe you’ll? You’ll have the ability to influence there, uh, influence, uh, and convince them the importance of having a strong military to be able to be a great deterrent. Onda, great promoter of world peace. I do. Senator Scott, I also believe that you know I have a great relationship with President, President Elect and I certainly would would like to be able to express my my views to him, uh, as frequently as necessary. One of the issues we deal with is ambiguity with regard to Taiwan. E think a lot of us believe that Taiwan is worth making sure that we can continue help help them continue as a democracy and as and as a nen titty independent of communist China. How You know, I personally believe we’ve got a could be an ambiguous, and we gotta let people let communist China know the importance of Taiwan does. And how would you do that? To make sure that we’re not sitting here down the road, have to make a decision that Communist China has decided to invade Taiwan? Yeah, well, certainly our efforts will be, uh, to ensure that we do everything. Thio, make sure that China doesn’t take that decision. Um, but our our support to, um, Taiwan has been rock solid over the years and has been bipartisan support, and I would certainly want to thank this committee for for their support and their willingness to work together on this issue. Um, you know, we’ve, um we’ve been strong in our commitments. And, uh, certainly if I’m confirmed as secretary of Defense, I’ll make sure that we’re living up to our commitments to support Taiwan’s ability to defend itself. Thank you, General Austin. Thank you, Chairman. Oh, thank you, Senator Scott. Senator mentioned. Thank you, Mr Chairman. And thank you, General. Appreciate very much your service and your family’s dedication. Commitment to our country, Sir. The seven years, the seven year cooling off period. You have five years. You’ve been in private and in the private sector. What do you think could be accomplished in two more years? What are we missing there? I mean, I think that you you segued pretty well into the private sector and understand the balance there. I, uh you know, it’s certainly I’ll be two years older, but but certainly I don’t think I’ll be I’ll have any more commitment, uh, to serving as a civilian that I have now just from history. People know that used to be 10 years, and we changed it to seven years. We should be looking at the quality of the person that time we need him. Uh, Senator Manchin, I absolutely agree. It is about what’s in the mind and the heart of the person that’s being asked to serve on. Duh. And I certainly agree with you on that the strength of our military and the admiration the whole world has four has been because of the separation of and led by the private sector and have the knowledge you have and being able to come from the private sector. Now things will be a great asset. There’s other people in that cooling off period down the chain. Do you? Do you see any need to have any waivers for those? Because I think it’s a much smaller waiver most of its 180 days People don’t understand that either says it’s a very short period of time, but yet the person we need to lead it, I we have not yet completely fleshed out. You know who would be serving in key positions. But if there’s talent there that that’s a China expert or something else that we really need, I think you know it’s important. Thio. You know, it’s kind of a way to make sure that, you know, we we’re focused on the right thing. Well, I know you’ll get the right people and a couple of things people have been asking me ever since I just came in today about tomorrow’s security right now. There’s been 12 guardsmen that have been relieved from the detail, and you talked about experience you had when you and your earlier life in the military. What What do you say? I mean it za concern that I have now more so than ever before and more people we never realized it. But now we’re seeing that all the conspiracy theories and all the different people are on the dark Web or wherever they are, are being recruited that have military experience. What can we do and how should we approach this? Well, I think we can do, uh, a better job of of screening are you know, the folks that we bring in the people that we bring in? I also think we need to do a better job of once we have people on board that we that we’re paying attention to them, that we understand that we’re creating the right kind of environment for them to live toe live in, and that they are embracing the values that that, you know, we think are important in the military and the values that are important for this country on, uh and I think this is a thing that way have toe work at day in and day out on De. So, um, knowing the presence of what we have and what we’re dealing with, what happened last week? How do you feel about the security we have for tomorrow? I don’t know the specifics of the moving parts, a secret services, I think, in charge of the overall effort. I think I have every reason to believe that they will do a very credible job and provide for for our security. Uh, I have confidence in in our guard again the fact that we are screening people and making sure that we don’t have the, you know, the wrong kinds of people in the formation. I think it is a credit to their efforts, you know, the all the reports. We don’t have all the evidence yet and all that, but we will have that probably during this trial, we have coming up that the ball was dropped at the Department of Defense that we didn’t get the support we needed or the help we needed to the protection We need to quick enough. You know, I think that Z still under review, and, uh, I’m not accusing until we see the facts. But that’s been the reports coming out. So I know you have a lot of work ahead of you trying to build up that confidence level on the morale. If I could ask you the greatest threat that we face as a country, if you were going to name one of the greatest threats or the greatest challenge you think you’re gonna have coming in to this position, what would it be? Well, I think there are a number of challenges as we as we discussed before, and quite frankly, the greatest challenge to our country. Right now, Senator Manchin is the pandemic. It’s killed, you know, over 400,000 of our American citizens, and, uh and that’s that’s just incredible. Incredible loss of life. I think we you know, we have to do everything that we can tow, break the cycle of transmission and Thio and begin to turn this thing around. I know that the President elect is is very, very much focused on this. I think d o d can add add value to this effort on speed and scale. And I would certainly hope, you know, again, if I’m confirmed. One of the first things I will do is take a look at how we’re contributing and that there’s more that we can do. And I believe that there probably will be that will lean into this and help this effort along. Um, you know, in terms of, um, other challenges. We talked about China. We talked about Russia. We’ve talked about pandemics number 10 you think from the sample China is is the most concerning, uh, competitors that they were facing. Let me ask you this about finances. John McCain, the late John McCain, my dear friend. And we all know John pretty well if you work with John, You knew John pretty well. He made sure that, But John I had a bill that we always worked on. Auditing the Pentagon, auditing the Department of Defense. It’s the only it was the only agency, and all the government was never audited. But they’ve been doing a good job, but there’s still a little bit of relax there. I just would like for your commitment on that, to do everything you can to make sure that the finances that people know how we’re investing their money and what type of return we’re getting on that. You have my commitment, senator. And let me just say this, sir, I truly believe with all my heart, you’re the right person, the right time to do this job because it’s a tremendous undertaking. And I think to restore the confidence back to the American people that our Defense Department basically is there to defend us and is basically run by the civilians who basically are not going to make military, let military be used against us at any time. And what we saw last Wednesday was an anomaly. They’ll never happen again. Thank you, sir. I look forward to voting for you. I look forward to working with you, Senator, if I’m confirmed. Thank you, Mike. You know. Thank you, Senator. Mansion Now via WebEx, Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I appreciate this in the opportunity to, uh, talk with General Austin. And I will say, General, I enjoyed our conversation yesterday so much. Thank you very much for your time and thank you to your family for sticking with you as you go through this process, I will say on we discuss this. I’m one of those who is not in front in favor of waivers. I believe that rules are in processes or put in place over time because of specific reasons. With that said, however, you and I do have mutual friends and they have all spoken to your strength of character the way that you fulfill your role. Uh, the work that you did with the military and the leadership that you bring to different situations. And I thank you for for that. I do wanna go back to the topic. We discussed the issue of China and we talked about a quote that is attributed to you about strategic patience and you had applied that to China and I you thought it was an attribution or mentioned. It was an attribution in the article, but I went back and looked at this and it was a quote from an interview and thus later picked up by Asia Today or Asia, Asia Times and other foreign policy articles. And as you have heard from other members on the committee, China and I think you also believe China and great power competition is our greatest threat. Whether we are looking at what is happening on the economic side. And I appreciate you mentioned that earlier because we discussed we don’t know exactly where moth come ins or where their economic sectarians in their military sector begins. So what I’d like for you to do is spend a minute and talk about why you cannot use strategic patience with China and why it is an imperative that we address the economic and the military side of that China problem coin, if you will, and how your budget priorities are going to reflect the desire to deal with China to work with Taiwan, uh, to to work with Hong Kong. So if you would take a minute and just address that for us, I think over the last two decades, Senator, as we’ve been focused on on necessarily focused on issues in the Middle East. We’ve seen China modernize its military. We’ve seen it, Z, we’ve seen it employ aggressive, uh, in some cases, course courses, behavior against our allies in the region. We’ve seen it, uh, do a number of things that tend to make us believe that China really wants to be the preeminent power in the world in the in the not too distant future I think, you know, again China looks to compete with us against against looks to compete with us in a number of areas across the spectrum that includes, as you pointed out, you know, uh, economics, cyber, uh, competition in the domain of space eso China because of its desires because because of its world view is clearly a competitive er that that we have toe make sure that that way begin to check their aggression. It will require ah whole of government effort to do that. The Department of Defense is peace in. This is to make sure that we’re presenting a credible deterrent to China so that it will think twice before it decides to take on the United States of America, China or any other aggressor. And that requires investment in a number of areas. We talked about this a bit before, you know, in in modernization things like AI and space based platforms and directed energy and and just a number of things. If we are called upon to conduct operations against a near peer such as China or Russia, it’s a different type of engagement, and we need different capabilities. We need the operational concepts that can employ those capabilities on again, as I said earlier, will be required toe. Understand what’s going on on the battlefield? Much better, much faster to be able to decide very, ah, lot quicker and then to be able to act a lot quicker. Well, I appreciate that. And I think it’s important for the record to reflect that you do not view dealing with China as a strategic patience. It’s a different approach that we had with Isis. Let me move on. We also talked a little bit about workforce and utilization of the guard as we look at some of the skill sets that are necessary moving into five G deployment utilization of artificial intelligence building out S are and some of those areas. So for the record, make a comment about guard recruitment, retention and how you would, uh, interface the guard with the active duty men and women. Well, we certainly have Ah, great talent in our Guardsmen Bond that we’ve seen that on display throughout these years of conflict that we’ve been in, our guard has performed, uh, very, very well, uh, many of our guardsmen have have skills that you don’t typically find in a normal unit or normal organization. And so I think, uh, in a lot of cases, we could do a better job of leveraging those skills. Uh, those unique skill sets Thio help our efforts and and things like I t and and other things. Well, thank you for that. We appreciate your service. We appreciate your time today. And, Mr Chairman, thank you for for the hearing. Your back. Thank you, Senator Blackburn Now via WebEx. Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman and General Austin, I want to say thank you. Thank you for your service over many, many years toe this country and thank you for your willingness to take on this job. Clearly, we are in an incredibly difficult time in our history, and we’ve facing significant challenges. And your willingness to serve your country once again is commitment. Commendable. So thank you. I I want Thio pick up briefly on some comments made by my colleague Senator Heinrich, and I think you although you answer this question, I think it’s important for you to know that there are many of us on this committee that are very concerned about P Foss contamination in military sites across the country. Clearly, this is a bigger problem than just military sites. We’ve got P fast sites throughout the country. Michigan has been particularly hard hit with sites containing this very toxic chemical fact. I think of the 700 sites identified around the country, roughly 200 of them are in Michigan that we think the reason that number is so high is just because we’ve been looking for more than other states. It’s likely to continue. But we do have military sites that have been impacted, and, uh, and one in particular in Michigan, which is, uh, the former wordsmith Air Force Base in Moscow. Tha they have the folks in the US Kota and that area have been dealing with this contamination for many years. They are, and rightly so, incredibly frustrated by the slowness from the Air Force and others to deal with it. We’ve started to see some pick up in activity and clean up, but they have waited too long, and I know you made a commitment to Senator Heinrich to expedite this, but I want you to know that this is a major issue for me, for folks in Michigan folks around wordsmith Air Force bases. Well, as other military sites across the country, I’m sure many of my other colleagues would join in. And so I I hope that you are indeed committed to making sure we do right by these communities that have hosted these bases for years and are now suffering the consequences. So I if you want to add anything to what your response was the Senator Heinrich. But please know this is a serious issue force across the country. No, I I am committed, Senator, I think, as I said earlier, that the health and welfare of our military members, our families, our D o d civilians, and our communities it is very, very important. And again, Secretary s for stood up P fast task force. I’ll, uh, I’ll check in with them and make sure that I expedite their work if it all possible. Uh, and, uh and certainly I look forward to working with my EPA counterpart on this issue. I think it’s, uh it’s a very, very important to mitigate the effects of these contaminants. A soon as we can, you can look for us to stay committed to that. I appreciate that, General. Thank you so much. Uh, you mentioned it in a number of questions about the changing nature of warfare. And we are. We’re on the cusp of major changes as a result of technology. You alluded to some of the last answer, whether it’s a Iot automation directed weapons, we just know that we’re in a technological revolution that will change the way we live dramatically. And when that happens, that also changes the face of warfare in dramatic ways on. But it’s not just the complexity of our tools, but as you mentioned, it’s the strategic and operational environment as well. And so it’s going to require some really some creative thinking outside of normal policies in how we prepare for this, uh, this change. And I think a lot of that requires changing some of the culture, particularly when you just have a large bureaucratic organization like the Department of Defense, no different than any other large bureaucratic organization. It’s sometimes difficult toe get out of the established mind sense and understand that things were changing rapidly and so, you know, guidance from the top eyes. Incredibly important. That means in my mind I’d love to have your thoughts. That means placing a premium on digital skills by expanding eligibility for billets in the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center, for example, Defense Innovation Unit and their service level equivalents both inside as well as outside the department. So, General, if you give me a sense of how do you assess the ability, for example, of defense innovation offices to develop systems that are gonna be able to enhance both our performance and our effectiveness? And if if you could, as you’re thinking of us and answering this question, uh, mentioned in particular how this will be helpful as we start operating, perhaps more be below the threshold of armed conflict, which may likely be, uh, an emerging pattern that we have to deal with more often than we’d like. Yeah, So I think it’s really important that we have the ability to develop the kinds of capabilities that you just described senator us specifically about about the people that that we have that air dedicated to and working on these on these issues and whether or not it’s ah, you know, we’re managing managing, managing them the right way. Um, something I’ll have to look at I’ll have to go in and talk to the leadership about you know what their needs are. And, uh, and you know how we can improve our efforts right now on. I look forward to that conversation, but I wouldn’t want to speculate on on that issue. Uh, right now, but But I really believe that. What you what you just said it is absolutely important. You know, we’ve got to be able to develop the ability to, uh, to move things with the appropriate speed and focus that will enable us to be relevant going forward. And I think part of that speed and there have been several questions related to the procurement process. There’s a lot of this innovation in the past would take place within the Department of Defense. Now we’re seeing a lot of this innovation and commercial markets onda commercial sector. But as you integrate that in having era centers or innovation centers that work with those commercial centers, I think you’re incredibly important. Now. I’m happy to say in Michigan we have our ground vehicle systems center that takes advantage of the auto industry and some of the developments we’re seeing in automation. I would you commit to continuing to invest in those kinds of programs that work with in partnership with advanced innovation in the commercial sector? I think automation is really important to us. You’ve You’ve heard a number of leaders talk about that, and I think, you know, we’re gonna That will be an area of focus for us going forward. Well, I appreciate, General. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. Senator Peters. Via WebEx, Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, General, for being here. And congratulations on your nomination. It’s always nice to see a graduate Webster University in ST Louis before the committee. So congratulations on that as well. Let me come back to something you said at the very beginning of your testimony during your your statement. A two beginning. You said that China is a pacing threat, a pacing threat. I just wanna be clear. Are there other pacing threats? And what would they be now? China is the most significant competitors that we’re focused on. It is the pacing threat on that. Thank you for that. That’s helpful. Clarification on that same point. You’re gonna have the opportunity here to oversee the next national defense strategy, you have said and other committee members have quoted this today you talked about theme the competition strategic competition with China and Russia. You also said today that several times, including to me just now that you think that China is the pacing threat, that China is the top priority. So can you commit to us that as you oversee the next in DS that China will be unequivocally identified as at the top challenge threat competitors? Er of the United States? Clearly the strategy will be arrayed against the threat, and China is, uh is presents the the most significant threat going forward because China is ascending. Russia is also a threat, but it z in decline. Uh, it can still do a great deal of damage. Aziz, we’ve seen here in recent days in an area and it z a country that we have to remain maintain some degree of focus on. But China is the pacing threat. Very good, and you would expect us to press my point here, but you would you would expect to see that identified China that is identified as as the basic threat in the national in the next national defense strategy. In other words, you don’t see any reason why that would not be the case. Is that correct? You know that that follows. That makes sense, Center Holly, I think. But again, uh, e certainly don’t wanna try to write the strategy here. We want to make sure we go through the process of aerating the threats and identifying with the you know what capabilities we’re gonna place against them. But it certainly follows. It is the pacing, uh, issue the pacing threat. Uh, currently, and I fully expect that it will remain so going forward. Good. Well, I’m pressing on it only because I think there has been some confusion with the last national defense strategy, the way it has been interpreted in some quarters to put China and Russia on a plane. What you just said just a second ago, I think, is very encouraging that China is the pacing threat. Russia, of course, is a threat. There’s no doubt about that. But two years, to your words, it is in decline. And of course we have. We have limited resources and capacities, and we’re going to have toe make sure that those limited resources and capacities air deployed correspondent corresponding to the relevant threat. So I’m encouraged by what you said. I’m gonna hold you to that. Let me shift to Taiwan, which is obviously closely related. They follow up on something Senator Scott asked you about under the Taiwan Relations Act, United States is committed to maintaining the capacity to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security of the people of Taiwan. Given our obligations under that statute, General, do you agree that d o D should maintain the ability to deter a Chinese fate a complete when it comes to Taiwan. Senator, you came in broken on that last piece here. If I could ask you to repeat the the end of that police. Yeah, When it comes to Taiwan. General, do you agree that the Department of Defense should clearly prioritized defeating a fate accompli scenario in Taiwan on the part of China attempt to invade their pressure that would put us in a fate of complete scenario. Should that be our top priority? Well, certainly, you know, I don’t want to go down the road of getting into hypotheticals about, you know, what we would do if, uh, certain things happen, I would just say that my job as the Secretary of Defense uh, if if confirmed, is to present credible options to the president to ensure that we can protect our interest on defend ourselves. And, you know, one of our interest is to make sure that Taiwan on A in a commitment, is to make sure that Taiwan has the ability, uh, toe to defend itself on DSO. We’ll stay committed to that going forward. Yeah, and I certainly appreciate the fact that you can anticipate all threats going forward. However, we do have to plan and to go back. Thio points you made about husbanding are scarce. Resource is making sure that we’re using them. Well, we’ve got to identify the scenarios that were prioritizing to plan for. And so I just want to say ask one more time with regard to the fate of complete scenario in Taiwan. Uh, which is identified, of course, in the in the current, the 2018 National defense strategy. Is that a scenario? You think we gotta prioritize in our planning purposes in order to deter China again? You know, we’re committed. We’ve been committed to the support of Taiwan throughout and again, it’s been bipartisan support. We will remain committed to supporting Taiwan. And, uh, eso uh, we’ll have the right options available to protect our interest and and to defend ourselves. The finished Let me a shift to Afghanistan here, briefly, General, in the time I’ve got remaining. If the Taliban violates, it’s part of the peace agreement. There’s gonna be significant pressure on the president elect to send thousands of troops back into Afghanistan and perpetuate the cycle that we have seen there. How do you think we should respond if the Taliban violates our peace agreement so that we can achieve our counterterrorism objectives without increasing the number of troops that we have there in the region? Senator, you know that we’re currently operating as a part of a coalition effort there in Afghanistan, and what I’ve heard General Milley and General Miller say publicly is that they believe they have adequate resource is to accomplish the objectives that are that there assigned currently. Uh, and so if I’m confirmed as I go in, I’d like to be able to assess the situation myself and, uh, and then make my recommendations to the president in terms of you know what’s required, Onda, what’s not required? I see my time’s expired. Thank you again, General. Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you, Senator Holly. And finally, we now have via WebEx sent her duck Worth. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I spoke in this committee last week about my concerns with making exceptions to allow any person to serve a secretary of Defense less than seven years after leaving regular military service. Mr. Austin, you and I spoke about this issue on our recent call as well. I want to reiterate that my concerns are the same now as they were when we considered Secretary Mattis this nomination four years ago. My vote against a waiver that would allow you to serve a secretary of defense has everything to do with restoring the bedrock principle of civilian control off the military and nothing to do with you, your qualifications or your character. Last week, I pledged to my colleagues that if they choose to pass an exception to statute, I will consider your nomination fairly and on its merits. Mr. Austin, I make that same promise to you today based on our call last week. In fact, I feel we are aligned in our thoughts on a number of the most urgent national security issues facing our country. I’m pleased to get the chance now to follow up on a few of those challenges that I believe that the odious facing that concerns me the most. First, I’ve raised alarms before about President Trump’s total disregard for good order and discipline. Over the last four years, he has Val arised, ruthless killing and pardoned war criminals. Life convicted former CEO Eddie Gallagher. He directly undermined leaders like former Naval special Warfare commander Admiral Green, who attempted to hold service members accountable when they violated their oaths and failed to uphold good order and discipline. And in some communities like the CEO community, were already struggling. With service members drifting from their core values likely due to the stress of 19 years of war and deployments, President Trump’s rhetoric has damaged attempts to restore discipline in our Department of Defense. Now, in the fallout of violent insurrection of the capital in January 6th, we’re starting to learn the depth of the problem in our military services veterans, active duty troops, members of the National Guard have already been found to have participated in an actual attack on elected leaders and our constitutional process in direct violation of their oaths of office. We’ve seen significant reporting on the ways that extremist groups specifically target military members and veterans, and it’s likely that we’ll discover mawr in the coming weeks. Mr. Austin, it’s clear that we are at a crisis point. We need strong leadership to root out extremists in the military and reaffirmed the core values that have defined military service. If confirmed, what steps would you take to assert your leadership, set the example for the service chiefs and reinstate good order and discipline? Well, the activity that we’ve seen recently in terms of, you know, potential racist or extremist behavior within our ranks is, in my view, absolutely unacceptable. And I think you’ve You’ve heard the Chiefs Service chiefs and the Chairman, uh, recently speak to that as well. Uh, I’ll work with the leaders of the various departments to make sure that is absolutely clear. Uh, toe everyone, uh, in the department, uh, military of civilian, that this is behavior that does not, uh, um does not fit our values does not comport with our values. And so, um, I will want the the leaders off all of the services and all the departments to make sure that they’re doing the right things to set the right example on to create the right climate that discourages and eliminates that that type of behavior. And this is not something that we could be passive on. This is something I think we have to be active on, and we have to lean into it and make sure that we’re doing the right things to create the right climates. And there needs to be consequences for bad actors as well. Uh, certainly if someone is he is accused and an investigation determines that that person is, uh, is guilty of that type of behavior. Then we’ll take the appropriate actions. Thank you stronger. And you oversaw one of our military’s largest and most complex logistics operations in Iraq. So you understand better than most. Almost anyone else going forward. We can’t rely on the same logistics system and practices that we use in Iraq. Afghanistan. As we look to future potential areas of conflict, great power competition demands that we innovate our approach to logistics. And so it is critical that we invest in Transcom and ensure that logistics related planning factors are central to our opera plans and our major exercises. If confirmed, what initiatives will you prioritize to ensure that transportation command and the rest of the D. O. D s logistics enterprises modernized and resource to support global operations and to withstand threats from pure competitors, especially when we’re talking about in contestant environments? Well, I I think, Senator, you’re absolutely correct. You know, our logistics capabilities really enable us to do the great work that we’ve done around the globe. Um, I think we have to continue to invest in the right things. I look forward to having a conversation with with our senior logistics leaders in in all of the branches and in the and also in the department as well. Uh, and I want to invest in those types of things that, uh that then that can provide us innovative approaches, Thio delivering the types of logistics that will need to sustain ourselves. I agree with you that we won’t be able to do business as we’ve always done it going forward as we’re looking to compete with a near peer competitors. Thank you. The D. O. D. Is also well positioned to lead the way on developing the kind of clean energy technology that can accelerate our fight against climate change one of the biggest national security threats of our time, and reduce the military’s reliance on fossil fuel, which would shorten that logistics tail. If confirmed, How would you leave the OD to reduce its emissions and developed a sort of breakthrough energy technology that could make forward deployed troops less reliant on few delivery and other energy related sustainment? Well, I think while we’re you know, we’re no doubt doing some things on all of our installations now, Thio to reduce our energy consumption and reduce our carbon footprint, I think there’s more that we can do way. We consume a lot of energy. And so I think that, you know, we can have a substantial impact if we’re focused on the right things. Um, you know that this affects us in a lot of ways. Uh, I think that, you know, if we look at no utilization of, you know on installations in other capacity utilization of, uh, electrical vehicles and you know, reducing the amount of energy that we’re consuming on, just a number of other things. You know, we could be improve our performance thus far. I’ll appoint a, uh, a specific person on my staff. Uh, toe, help me focus on this issue and to coordinate, uh, issues, uh, within the department and within the services as well. Thank you very much. I’m over time, Mr Chairman. Okay. Do we have any more? All right. I’ve been told that this completes our members that were were wanting to participate. And we wanna thank you very much, General Austin, for the time you’ve given us. And we look forward to working with you, Senator, Uh, read. Did you wanna make any further comments? Uh, Mr Chairman. Now, I just want to thank you for conducting this hearing and thank General Lawson for participating. And good luck, sir. Yeah. Thank you, Senator Reid, when we meet again two days from now, I think you will be the chairman. I’ll be the ranking member. That transition will take place very peaceably. And I’ll tell you how we have enjoyed working together for a number of years and will continue. Ugo. Mr. Chairman It’s been an honor and a great pleasure working with you. And I think with your leadership, we’ve accomplished a great deal. And I thank you. Thank you very much. Well, General Austin, did you have any other? Any questions? Were not asked that you’d like to volunteer answers to now. E think the answer is no, That’s correct, Mr Chairman. I just want to thank you and the committee members for allowing me the time this afternoon Thio to engage with you. And I want to thank you all also for the tremendous support that you’ve given to our our military over the years. And if confirmed, I look forward to working with you on, uh uh, and doing the same kinds of things that you’ve done in the past again. Thanks. That’s good. Thank you very much. And we are adjourned.