they face down continued threats in unjustified aggression by -- from azerbaijan. thank you. i yield. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a, rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

but war with russia or china is neither inevitable nor imminent.

great war has not happened in the last 80 years in large part because of the rules put in place at the end of world war ii and the capabilities of the united states military along with our allies and partners. the united states military was able to do that because we were and still are the most powerful military in the world and we must remain so if great power war is to continue to great power peace as to continue the whole. it deterse whole. this budget maintains our capabilities. it maintains our strength and high levels of readiness now and prepares us for the future. the people's republic of china remains our number one long-term strategic security challenge, so-called pacing threat in our strategy. the p.r.c. intends to be the regional hedge monday in the western pacific and asia within the next 10 years and exceed the united states' overall military capability by 2049, according to their open source speeches.

the people's republic of china's actions of moving it down the path towards confrontation and potential conflict with its neighbors and possibly the united states but, again, i say, china -- war with china is neither inevitable nor imminent. additionally, russia is an acute threat and remains very dangerous. over one year ago, russia undertook an illegal and unprovoked war against ukraine threatening peace on the continent. we are supporting ukraine and its fight to protect its sovereignty and supporting our nato allies with the united states support presence in every single nation on nato's eastern flank. this is not in ukraine's interest, it is in the u.s. interest to protect the system that's prevent great power war for decades. additionally, iran threatens to push the middle east into instability by continuing its proxy forces. also, iran is taking actions to approve its capabilities to produce a nuclear weapon.

make the decision to do so while continuing to build its missile forces. since the time of the iranian decision, as in previous testimony by members of o.i.d., they could have fissile production in less than two weeks and several months to produce an actual weapon. but the united states remains committed that iran will not have a fielded nuclear weapon and we, the united states military, have developed multiple options for the national leadership to consider if or when iran ever decides to develop an actual nuclear weapon. north korea's continued ballistic missile testing continues to threaten the indo-pacific and the united states. this budget supports both our prevention of war on the korean peninsula and our continued worldwide counterterrorism efforts. in concert with our elements of national power, the united

states military stands ready to protect our nation's interest and the american people. and right now, today, as we sit here, we're currently standing watch on freedom's frontier with nearly a quarter of a million troops, 250,000 troops in europe, asia, africa, the middle east, and south america. the united states never fights alone. a key source of our strength to keep the peace and prevail in war is our large global network of alliances and partnerships. for example, just this month, we conducted 63 operations in joint and combined exercises globally with our allies and partners. in addition to that, we are currently training over 5,000 ukrainian soldiers in neighboring countries. on a weekly basis, our transportation command is moving a small city's worth of logistics to enable our continued global operations. one third of our navy are having maritime navigation and our air force secures our skies. and lastly, our operational

readiness rates are higher now than they have been in many, many years. our minimum standard is about a third of the force. there are 10,330 units in the united states military. 4,680 of them are active duty. 60% of our active duty force is of the highest states of readiness right now and could deploy to combat in less than 30 days. 10% could deploy to conflict in less than 96 hours. this military is ready. we're prepared to fight now and we will at the continue to be prepared to fight in the future. and this budget supports the programs and exercises at the service, joint, combined levels to keep our military ready to defend the nation. furthermore, the joint forces is at an important inflection point. we must not allow ourselves to create the false trap that we can either modernize or focus only on today. we must do both. we must fully integrate developing technologies

including precision long range fire, quantum computing, artificial intelligence, robotics and sensors. the time is now. we have very little margin to wait. and the common thread critical to accomplish all of this is our people. we must continue investing in training, education, talent management in order to be prepared for a future environment. additionally, we must ensure we are taking care of our troops and their family's quality of life. i ask this congress to support significant pay raises, health care, housing and childcare initiatives. this budget's sustains our current readiness and adapts the future war fighting requirements. this is a matter of signal security importance. we must act with clear-eyed urgency. by doing so, no adversary should ever underestimate the resolve of our nation and the strength of our military. preparation for war and deterring war is extraordinarily expensive but it's not as expensive as fighting a war and this budget prevents war and

prepares us to fight it, if necessary. thank you for your support and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you for your comments. secretary austin, china's building 20 ships a year and has a fleet of now over 400 vessels and as i understand capable vessels. meanwhile, the budget request is to decommission 11 ships this year while procuring nine. it will strengthen the native's fleet to 291 ships by fiscal year 2028. despite having a goal of 373 ships. chair calvert: mr. secretary, how does it deter chinese aggression in the indo-pacific? general austin: thanks, chairman. let me begin by saying we -- we have the most powerful and dominant navy in the world.

secretary austin: and we will continue to make sure that it remains that way. as we look to invest in capabilities, we're looking for the right mix of capabilities that can support our war-fighting concepts and we'll continue to remain focused on that. as you know, mr. chairman, this budget, we're asking for $48 billion to invest in effective naval forces. so from our perspective, it's about making sure we have the right capabilities to support our war-fighting concepts, and i'm comfortable that we are moving in the right direction. chair calvert: i understand the need for increased capability. i -- the old saying, you can't -- you can't catch a ball in left field if you only have a guy in right field. so numbers do matter. and your budget proposes to decommission eight ships before the end of their service life

and ship count matters, as i said earlier. when are we going to see the department's 30-year shipbuilding plan? secretary austin: well, the navy continues to work on that plan and it will -- as soon as they are complete, certainly, we'll bring it forward to congress. chair calvert: we look forward to seeing that. last week i led a congressional delegation of members to asia. in taiwan, nearly every single leader we met with remarked at the extremely slow pace of u.s. defense articles. fortunately, this is not a familiar theme which was highlighted last month in our ukraine hearing. secretary austin, what are ukraine and taiwan's most critical defense needs? and what steps are you taking to expedite and prioritize the delivery of these items? secretary austin: two things.

in terms of f.m.s., we all recognize we faced some headwinds as a result of two years of covid and pressure on supply chains and the inability of industry to really move at the pace that they wanted to move at. and i think industry will catch up in terms of that backlog. but i put together a tiger team months ago to really dig down into the f.m.s. issues and identify logjams and worked through those logjams to expedite -- do everything we can to help expedite the delivery of key platforms. and i've also put together a group of senior leaders in the department to focus on this -- on a weekly, monthly basis to make sure that we are providing the right kinds of capability that taiwan needs. so this is -- this remains an area of focus for the

department. chair calvert: thank you. ms. mccollum. ms. mccollum: thank you, mr. chair. i think that the discussion about the number of ships is interesting. general milley said we don't go to war alone. if we include australia, canada, nato, you know, all the great powers that we work with, we would have a multiplying effect that neither china or russia has, would that be a fair statement, secretary austin or general milley? secretary austin: that is in fact correct. ranking member mccollum. we will always fight with our allies, partners, and again, their capability they bring to

the table magnifies our overall capability. you can expect in any instance we would be able to draw upon some of their capability as well. so we work on a routine basis to make sure we're interoperable and make sure that we -- ms. mccollum: thank you. i'd like you to go into more importance on the recent -- on february second, the agreement that you signed with the philippines whichever one of you gentlemen want to answer that. president marcos seemed to make some deliberate decisions to align more closely with the united states and away from china. can you tell the committee more about this agreement with the philippines and how you see it enhancing our efforts in the region? because this goes back to the whole question of the multiplying effect of having resources that china and russia

do not have and if there's any other nations in indo-pac that you see wanting to align more closely with the united states with china as these new relations you have been working so hard, along with state, to foster? secretary austin: i was out in the philippines and engaged the president on this particular issue and i was really pleased that the president made the decision to move forward and increase the number of sites where we could work along -- along with the philippine forces to increase interoperability and develop their skills as well. it's actually a benefit to them as you know. so this -- this really is a

significant movement -- significant movement forward. i think we'll continue to build upon this as our airmen and soldiers and sailors rotate in and out. and work with the philippine military. so if you take a look around a region -- i mentioned aucus earlier. this is a generational capability. as we develop a armed nuclear powered submarine capability for australia, it will help us make sure that we can do the right thing to continue to deter any adversary that would want to threaten or challenge the free and open indo-pacific. so if you look at japan, as i mentioned earlier, japan has doubled its defense spending. it's allowed us to position a

new element in japan, in okinawa. if you look at, you know, a number of the countries that we have partners, alliances with, we continue to work to build and strengthen those alliances and partnerships and so we moved the ball in a significant distance down the field here in the last couple of years. and i really feel good about what we're doing to increase access and to strengthen partnerships. ms. mccollum: thank you, gentlemen. >> if i could make a quick comment if that's allowed. ms. mccollum: mr. chair. gen. milley: two european countries. we've done exercises with the brits and the french. also in the asia-pacific region. they are force multipliers. our subforce which is rarely talked about.

i won't talk about in detail right now. our submarine force is incredibly capable and very deadly and extremely lethal. those two pieces i think would make a huge difference and help deter any kind of aggression by china. last thing is the philippines. the philippines and other countries in that region set aside the key line of communication that china relies on for their international access for the middle east, etc., etc. those allies and partners of ours are fundamental and us being able to conduct military operations or having access to those countries in time of conflict or crisis would be fundamental and would give us a decisive advantage. ms. mccollum: mr. chair. chair calvert: hopefully we can speed up the acquisition of those virginia-class submarines. ms. granger. ms. granger: our enemies are developing stronger ties throughout south america. while we need to focus on the growing threats on europe and the pacific, we can't ignore the threats to the south of us.

what particular things are in your -- what you're presenting and what is our support for our partners in south comm? secretary austin: strengthening relationships and maintaining access in the southcomm is good. commander richardson is focused on this. she's increasing the number of engagements where possible. exercising with partners and so i see this moving in a positive direction. we have elements that are working with various countries to strengthen their indigenous capability to be able to protect their sovereign territory. so this is -- this is something

that we remain focused on and i applaud what general richardson is doing in terms of continuing to develop additional access and to strengthen the relationships that are already -- that already exists. ms. granger: thank you. chair calvert: thank you, chairwoman. ms. delauro. ms. delauro: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and i welcome our guests this morning and i thank you, mr. secretary, mr. undersecretary, and mr. mccord, thank you very much for being here this morning. i apologize for being late. but there are six hearings i am going to get between now and the end of the day. so let me just -- there has been the discussion of the budget by some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that what we ought to do with regard to the 2024 budget is to apply

the 2022 numbers. and within that there are a number of folks who believe that may be true for nondefense efforts, but that -- and that we should hold, if you will, defense harmless. in that effort. and i want to just briefly quote undersecretary mccord in the letter that you sent to the appropriations committee this week. you stated, as some have suggested the defense department be exempt from such reductions and the entire burden fall on nondefense discretionary agencies, the cuts would be just as harmful even if distributed differently. our whole of government response to russian aggression against ukraine clearly demonstrates the value of integrating security

assistance, sanctions and export control. no one agency could achieve the effects we are producing as a team and deep cuts to any one of the agencies would undermined the efforts as a whole. for any one of the witnesses, can you outline how the nondefense funding effects the department of defense and her national security? for any of the witnesses. mr. mccord. since i quoted you. undersecretary mccord: yes. ukraine's probably the most big example as i said in the letter of teamwork, sanctions, every kind of tool, and this goes across, right? we need an educated -- we need an educated workforce which starts, you know, with the school system. so we have all kinds of needs. every time that the department of homeland security fails to get a place they need to be, we get called on to help.

so there are so many connections of what we need to do. and as i think you are aware, if -- i'm certainly aware chair granger and chairman calvert are not advocating deep cuts. but then there is the math problem. there's the math problem that we all understand. if you have half a discretionary budget that's exempt and that's what we're trying to recognize in our response. ms. delauro: thank you. i'm going to look forward to your help. yes, general. gen. milley: as mike indicated, it's always a whole of government effort with these complex problems. that's what we're dealing with. and the old saying that if you cut state department's budget too much, then you need to buy more bullets. ms. delauro: more ammunition. gen. milley: what we want to do, we want to drive things greater stability and security around the globe and, of course, you know, the solution to every problem is not necessarily a

military solution but we need to work together. secretary austin: to provide access to other agencies so they can reach the places they need to reach and do the things they need to do but it is a whole -- typically a whole of government effort and i think we just need to remain mindful of that. thank you. ms. delauro: thank you. if i might, i have -- if you will, to questions. i thank you for crafting the budget for 2024. and as i sid, two -- said, two parochial questions. as we develop the future, long-range assaults, aircraft, the reconnaissance aircraft. just be very, very brief. the question is related to the blackhawk. even the eventually fielding of a new rotary aircraft. i'm told the army will be flying hundreds of uam-60 blackhawks

for the next 60 years. many are flying now. what is the d.o.d. doing to help support the industrial workforce? and i'll just add very, very quickly, this has to do with the f-35. i'd like to give you an opportunity, mr. secretary, that there have been really conflicting statements regarding the secretary's support for the upgrade. if you can just tell us what is the department of defense's position on whether to upgrade the existing f-135 or develop a new engine for the f-35. secretary austin: thanks. i'd like to take that question for the record because as you know, i used to -- >> microphone. secretary austin: i was on the board with a -- ms. delauro: ok. got you.

secretary austin: i'd like to take that to the -- chair calvert: turn your mic, on, too. ms. delauro: with regard to the blackhawk. secretary austin: it provides our whole of defense effort. you mentioned the long-range aviation piece. as you know, that's still a work in progress. that's in dispute. because it's at that stage, i'm not able to make any comments. but again, i think that will resolve itself going forward. and when it does, we'll make sure and come and brief you and the delegation. ms. delauro: i understand that there is a dispute and there will be a resolve of that, but there's also the issue of the continued use of blackhawk

helicopters. and will you continue to be using the blackhawks since it is many are flying right now and what will be, you know, the future? secretary austin: it's a workhorse, as you know. it will be around for some time to come and in the meantime, the army and the other services continue to look for greater capability in the future or additional capability in the future. and that work, in terms of modernization, will continue. but the blackhawk has served us well. i personally benefited from that tremendous aircraft. i have every expectation that it will continue doing so going forward. ms. delauro: thank you. thank you for your courtesy, mr. chair. chair calvert: thank you. mr. cole. mr. cole: thank you very much, mr. chairman. let me join many others in thanking all three of you for your service and your professionalism. i had the opportunity to interact with you probably in ways you don't even remember in some cases a lot in the course

of your career. just have always been impressed about the professionalism. so it's much appreciated. we wish you well and general milley in whatever your next endeavor is. you rend exceptional service to our country. thank you for that. i want to thank one other entity while i'm chatting here and that's the united states congress, because general milley went through the higher state of operational readiness we have and some of the things accomplished, it struck me, congress has actually given the department of defense -- and there are some differences even on this panel about that -- more money than president trump asked for and more money than president biden has asked for. congress is in a sense responsible for those higher rates because we used our judgment to say whatever the president's asked for, it may all be good, we think we need a little bit more.

i think that comes out of some of the things with the sequester and the budget control act during president obama's era. but anyway, those things have led us to a better position. and my hope is we'll do that again, quite frankly. i think the budget, there's a lot of good things in here. needs to be more. 3.2% in an era of 6% inflation is a cut. inflation is just a dollar. two areas i want to ask you about and flag for you that -- for the committee that i'll be working on. it's somewhat parochial but i think it's in the national interest. the first is -- disappointed to see, given the importance of artillery, as we've seen in the situation in ukraine, the army has cut the integrated management program. we're still furnishing that

assistance to the national guard and sending lots to our allies and to the ukrainians as well. i would just say there's not enough in the army's budget to maintain the production lines that exist there. so i would ask you to -- why the cut? and the answer may be, you just have too many other things to do. i get it. your business is tough choices. i would argue that's a bad choice right now, particularly given the situation in ukraine. the second is one, something we all want to accomplish together. i just worry about the rate of it. and that's the transition from the e-3 to e-7 command and control platform. i have tinker air force base in my district. and an army post in my district. and i'm all for transitioning from the e-3 to the e-7. it's a good decision. it should have been done a long time ago. the rate of retirement for those e-3's is well ahead of the rate

of acquisition and that's partly just a production problem. it takes a while to get a new aircraft up and running. and i worry about that interim time because i think we are in a very dangerous world here where you're going to lose capacity. i'm not for keeping the e-3's. i want to bring on the e-7's as we retire the e-3's so we never put you in a position that you deny a combatant commander such capability that he or she thinks they need. i would flag that for you. and ask for a response about either of those items i mentioned. secretary austin: first of all, let me thank you and the entire congress for, you know, your incredible support over the years. and i absolutely agree with you that we could not be who we are and do what we do without the tremendous support, congressional support that we

are provided routinely. so thanks so much for that. on the palatine, i -- we continue to see the importance of artillery in the -- in war fighting and, of course, you've seen us really hustle that ukrainians not only have the weapon systems but the munitions they need to remain effective in this fight. the army feels that the rate that they're being produced right now, it meets their needs. and it also allows them to invest in future capabilities as well. and so as the needs change, then the army, of course, will -- mr. cole: just to make the point, mr. secretary. not to interrupt you. it meets the needs because congress put more and we're reverting back to the same number. i suggest, you have a lot of

stuff across a lot of areas to deal with. i understand that. you have to make really hard decisions. this one i think you run the risk of shutting down the line to some degree. so we intervened last two times and got it and, again, you got what you need. maybe we can do that again. but i don't think they're being produced at the rate they need in your budget. they are being produced at the rate we need right now. so i interrupted you and i apologize. i went over time. i yield back. chair calvert: thank the gentleman. mr. ruppersberger, excuse me. long time to get it right. mr. ruppersberger: you did it well. first, i want to acknowledge the leadership of both of you. throughout my years i worked with you in iraq, afghanistan and you are some of the better leaders i worked with. you're doing a great job and i want to acknowledge that. let me ask two questions. one of each.

first thing. i'm deeply concerned about -- and this is to general milley -- i'm deeply concerned about efforts to reduce our defense top line to previous year's level, especially as china increases its own military spending each year. if we don't prioritize and invest in our national security today -- and i fear we risk a much costlier fight with china down the road, whenever that may be, whether it's 2025, 10 years, 20 years, 30 years. general milley, can you please describe the strategic advantages we would be handing over to the chinese communist party if the 2024 defense budget top line were to return to what it was in fiscal year 2022? or if we were to pass the budget a year late? general milley: in both cases we would have to cut a significant

amount of programs. congressman cole mentioned artillery. we know it inflicts 70% of all casualties in warfare. we know other -- shipbuilding, all these programs will -- would have to get cut back. that's unfortunate. the other thing that would be cut, we know if budgets around passed on time you can't do multi-year contracts. you can't lock in for industry, amount of ammunition, etc. for training and readiness, we have gun through this drill several times. we have all kinds of analysis that shows that our training would be reduced significantly. our exercises last year, for example, we did 63 just last month, 63 exercises around the world. we did 23c.t.c.'s. guys going through all kinds of aviation training. we are dropping bombs. our pilots are flying a lot of hours. all those things would come down. all the readiness levels. everything that's been achieved

over the last three, four, five, six, seven years all that would go in the opposite direction. with continuing resolutions or went back to previous budgets. i have think it would be very significant and the risk would increase with china. the wrong signal to send. mr. ruppersberger: i think there are a lot of people agree with you. there are others that don't. it's important that we get the facts out. as i said before, you two have a tremendous, a lot of experience in this role. we are going to have to rely on you a lot. secretary austin, building off what i just talked to the general about, my second question for you is about the impact of potentially reducing department civilian work force to offset topline cuts. as you know the department faces a lot of challenges hiring and retaining a civilian in cybersecurity work force due to attrition and loss of talent to the private sector.

and i do represent n.s.a. i have for 20 years. how will cuts to the department's civilian cybersecurity work force further exacerbate this problem and make us more vulnerable to cyber attacks by foreign actors? secretary austin: i think it will be -- it will have a significant impact. as you know cyber threats in this day and age are enormous. they come from every corner of the globe. so the force that we developed, i think we have done a really good job of putting together a significant capability. allows us to protect our interests and support our overall national defense strategy. we need the right people. we need the talented people, to your point, sir, to be able to continue to do the work that we are doing. we have really pressed hard to make sure that we are going

after the right people. providing initiatives. we are mindful of the fact that this is a very, very competitive field. and so we have to do what we need to do to make sure we get the right people. we can retain the right people. to your point, if we cut those kinds of people, i think it will have a significant impact on our war fighting capability. mr. ruppersberger: thank you for your testimony. i yield back. chair calvert: thank you, mr. ruppersberger. mr. womack. mr. womack: thank you, mr. chairman. secretary austin, secretary millie, great to have you here. i echo the comments of my colleagues. general milley, personally to you, thank you for all you have done to this country. i'll miss working with you though i'm sure you are not going to miss sitting in these hearings in front of these panels when you leave your position. secretary austin, this is a question pretty much for you.

i'm a big believer as my colleagues know in the state partnership program. i think they have add add lot of value around the globe where we have those. no matter example than what the californians did with ukrainians. over time. i just believe it brings a lot of value to not only the partner nations, but for our own forces. for the national guard troops to get an opportunity to do some training with these partners. this is related to taiwan. as chairman calvert said, delegation of us recently visited there. i wonder the best we can help our taiwanese friends prepare for contingencies. is a state partnership or modified program like the state partnership program for taiwan is it advisable, practical, possible? what would be your comments? why or why not?

secretary austin: i think it is. since you were just there you know we have a number of national guard elements that have been working with our -- with our partners in taiwan. and increasing their proficiency in a number of areas. to your point, this program adds value wherever we are, wherever we are partnered with around the globe. and i think the point that -- the example you use is a great one. ukrainians been fitted greatly from -- benefited greatly from all the work the tkpwartsmen -- guardsmen did over the years. i believe our continued work with the guardsmen in taiwan i think will be very, very valuable. we'll continue to work to structure this so that we optimize the effort of the guard. and it compliments all the other

things we are doing with the taiwans. mr. womack: the compacts of free association with the marshall islands and micronesia are up for renewal in the coming months, with palau's expiring next year. i understand the defense provisions of the existing compacts remain valid regardless of renewal. that being said, the incentives of the freely associated states expires with the economic assistance. because their strategic location to our military assets present in the countries, these partner states seem to provide key terrain that can help advance our strategic goals as we concentrate on the indo-pacific indo-pacificregion while at thee helping us directly combat chinese influence. can you r*r particular late the -- can you articulate the importance of these contacts to the department. secretary austin: extremely important. i agree with the points that you have made.

they do provide -- they magnify our efforts in terms of access presence and i -- so i think we will continue to do everything we can to make sure that we are strengthening our relationships. and that we are -- whatever additional access we can gain, we are going to continue to do that. mr. womack: the department's budget this year includes requested multiyear procurement authorities. we have already talked in your opening statement about that. this is a question basically for mr. mccord. these multi-year procurement authorities are not typical for munitions but have been used when procuring large systems such as aircraft and ships. mr. mccord, can you expound on why the d.o.d. went this route with munitions and how you selected the munitions that i should have mentioned in my -- beginning of the question, the

s.m.-6, m ram, this sort of thing. can you expand on that. mr. mccord: thank you, mr. womack. yes. the thought had been for many years the missiles missiles in enough quantities that a multiyear wasn't necessary. but what we found, clearly with ukraine, was that the industrial base there were more ground focus was not agile enough due to a number of factors the secretary mentioned. supply chain issues, common components. work force issues in the covid era that have decreased that agility. the effort that we undertook, the department, under secretary hicks' leadership, was to do the thinking about where would we like to be in a few years for the larger-scale pacific contingencies and start taking those steps now. things that ideally, if you had known four years ago where you could be in ukraine you could have done some of those on the ground side. that's what led to what we are

doing here. expand for the first time into the munitions world. and also to -- we have a concept we have been working on, my team, having multiyears that overlapped and re-enforced because some of these missiles are produced with one or two companies. we brought that concept in as well. we do believe that this is going to, as the secretary said, provide more of a stability signal that companies rely on because this is a space in the budget where there has been more fluctuation than something like submarines where we have multiyears. we are trying to bringing stability. as one of the tools we needed. it's not the only thing that needs to happen in terms of the health of the industrial base, we think it will be a big thing we can could do to position ourselves better. mr. womack: i yield back. chair calvert: thank you. mr. cuellar. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank all of you for your service.

general milley, glad you still have your texas license. i want to thank all of you. mr. secretary, i want to ask you one question, let me just lay out the facts. do you believe that great power competition in the western hemisphere is a defense issue? we know the importance of the state department, usaid, and department of commerce and everybody else. i understand that. it's a comprehensive approach. i listened to the answer that you gave ms. granger, you talked about what socom is doing. but i noticed you left norcome which has mexico. right now you have socom covers everything south of mexico. and if you look at what china is doing, 36% of their total food

imports comes from latin america and the caribbean. when you look at the lithium reserves and all that, in that area of responsibility, you look at infrastructure projects, i don't want to go through all of them, infrastructure projects, 5-g development, safe city projects, space infrastructure which is very important what they are doing down there. so on, and so on. that's china and russia. but then if you look at mexico, which is right direction door, i'm concerned that norcom is not paying that much attention to them. i'm sure they disagree with me. but we did ask follow-up information. i think we are still waiting for that information after we had the norcom commander. we just got back from a bipartisan meeting in mexico.

fentanyl, you know the problem, how many people it kills in the united states, that fentanyl precursors will go into months and then about 70% of all the fentanyl and fake pills move through the tijuana, san diego area. if you look at the geography itself. when you look at the critical locations of the p.r.c. investments, a lot of them are close to our northern border. lithium and other areas. when you look at the investments done others, you look at the new ismus corridor mexico is doing which is the new panama canal on land, who is doing the investment in those two areas into the gulf of mexico and the pacific? a lot of it is the chinese. and there's some other space infrastructure, things i cannot talk here at this location, but

it's very concerning what we are seeing. my question is, is there a way -- i think we did ask for you to study whether mexico should be part of socom, i understand mexico, canada, part of nocom, i understand that. either that or we get them to work closer together? i don't see an alignment that we do all this great work, that we need more resources in socom. but we are leaving out mexico. i live in laredo. i live just a few miles away from the border. literally a few miles. i'm concerned about that. my question after i laid all that, do you think that great power competition is an important part of the defense. secretary austin: i certainly do. i would also say that all of our combatant commanders feel the same way. i'm sure that if general hurt

was sitting here today he would say this is an area important to him. i would also say that our the combatant commanders routinely coordinate with each other, pass information, and work with each other to ensure that there are no significant gaps and seams between the combatant commanders areas of responsibility. i do know that general van hurk continues to engage the leadership in mexico. that's routinely. i would say that this is important. we can never do enough. i'll make sure that you get the answers to your questions. this is something that we need to continue to focus on. you mentioned the fentanyl problem. it's ply marely -- primarily a law enforcement issue, but d.o.d. does -- will continue to do what it can to support the overall whole of government effort in this regard. mr. cuellar: we'll work with you

in any way that we -- my time is up. there was another young hispanic soldier died in fort hood. i know there is an investigation. i'm talking to the secretary of the army tomorrow. just want to bring that up to you also. secretary austin: not lost on us, sir. very -- my heart goes out to her family. and to her teammates. again, this will remain an area of focus for us. mr. cuellar: thank you, mr. secretary. chair calvert: thank you. judge carter. mr. carter: thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to all of you. been great working with you. general milley, you are welcomed in texas when you get ready to retire. if that be your choice. i just finished travel into paycom where there was the importance of fire protection from the region which seems to

be very, very important. modernize weapons systems, and we need a place to forward operate from. what are we doing get more infrastructure for power projection into paycom, are we doing enough? secretary austin: thank you, sir. the answer to the second question first. i'll probably never say we have done enough. we will continue to work at this. i think you may have heard me say earlier that we are investing $9.1 billion in this -- this year in the pacific deterrence initiative. that allows us to invest in infrastructure that gives us greater access and also improves some of the defensive -- our defensive postures in places like guam and do things to protect hawaii as well. we have done a lot of work to

engage our partners -- our allies in the philippines. we are working with australia to increase our access there. we have developed a great partnership. our rotational units are going in and out of australia at a greater frequency. we continue to work this. to answer your question, we are doing a lot. it will probably never be enough. mr. carter: will we continue to see increased budget for infrastructure and acquisition and development in that area. in your opinion? as we go down the road. because i just came from -- yes, we are building barracks, but they have the buildings there that need work. secretary austin: you will continue to see significant investment in those types of things going forward. i think it's important that we

have the ability to be able to forge -- forward position our troops so they can be relevant in any kind of upcoming contest. mr. carter: thank you. chair calvert: thank you, mr. carter. mr. case. mr. case: thank you, mr. chair. mr. secretary, i have to ask you about red hill. in my district in honolulu. i want to commend the job that vice admiral wade and the pearl harbor joint task force are doing to address this crisis in a transparent and deliberate manner. they are doing a good job, but they need help. obviously, from back in the pentagon. i would commend that to you. i have to ask you just for clarification, confirmation i hope. does the department of defense remain fully committed to the expeditious and safe defueling and closure of the red hill

facility? secretary austin: the department of defense remains fully committed. and i personally remain fully committed. i just met with the people out in hawaii on this very topic here. we routinely get updates. i would agree with you that the admiral's doing a tremendous job. most important he's doing a lot of good things to keep the community informed and the delegation informed of what we are doing and what its needs are, what the requirements are. mr. case: thank you for that. are you aware of any budgetary limitations on the defense department achieving the safe and expeditious defueling and closure of red hill? i looked high and low for it. i don't believe so. i believe that you have the adequate funding to achieve that goal. but i don't want this subject to go past us if there are any

limitations whatsoever in that mission as well as the broader mission, which is remediation, some health risks as well. secretary austin: again, thanks for your continued support in this area as well. i am currently not aware of any obstacles that would prevent us from achieving our objectives. this is -- this is going to take time. and things can change. if they do change and we do have requirements, i'll come back and ask for more help, sir. mr. case: thank you so much. let me shift gears because i was also on the congressional delegation that the chair led to the indo-pacific. we were not only in taiwan but in japan, okinawa, and the republic of korea. first of all it was amazing to spend time with our service members there. top to bottom, high quality, committed to the job. wanted to pass that to you. one of my huge take aways was

along the lines of mr. womack's questions which has to do with the sufficiency of our munitions and other armiaments provided to our friends and allies around the world. it strikes me with the burn rate in ukraine, which is not going to go away any time soon, and the needs of our friends and allies relying on us to provide them, because they don't have that capability for the most part themselves, and with our own intentions to, as part of our indo-pacific strategy, to preposition equipment and other facilities, including munitions out in the indo-pacific, that our defense industrial base just really needs to be ramped up. i don't think this is a matter only of multifiscal year programming and procurement. it's a matter of the basic funding to do that. you can set it up for multiyear procurement, if the money is not there to start with or the defense industrial base is not capable of that production, then we have a problem. you referenced in your opening

remarks, $10 billion invested in our industrial base. what i'd like to explore with you is how do we not get ourselves behind the eight ball in terms of the basic needs that we have in both ukraine and the indo-pacific and conflicts that we may not know about today? secretary austin: thanks. we are doing a lot. let me say up front that our industrial base is really a core element that enable our strategic advantage. we will continue to work with industry to make sure that we are doing everything possible to signal to them the right things in terms of our requirements. and to help wherever possible to expand capacity and capability. we have $170 billion request for procurement. we asked you for multiyear

contracting authority. i think those send powerful signals. not only are we buying the numbers of munitions that industry can produce, we are also helping -- investing in additional capacity so that -- so they can begin to expand and rapidly get us up to where we need to be. and help us replenish the stocks of some of our allies and partners who have donated to the ukraine effort. we have asked for additional authority in terms of the defense production act. and the president has supported us on that. and so my team is working day and night, working with industry to make sure that we are getting as much productivity out of the key places in industry as possible. i have engaged c.e.o.'s.

my deputies have. to your point we need to do more. we are doing more. we will do more in the future. chair calvert: mr. garcia. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony and service. mr. secretary, i want to thank you for mentioning the spouse working conditions improving. very proud my spouse licensing relief act was signed into law by the president in january under the v.a. bill. as i visited multiple demands down to platoon commander i'm not sure the troops yet fully understand that this spouse licensing reciprocity is available to them and it is the current law of the land. recommend we get a d.o.d.-wide way to message that spouses can cross deck their professional licenses, doctors, lawyers, real estate agents across statelines when they are active duty and on

orders. i don't think it's being fully absorbed and utilized yet. on the pay raise, i personally do not believe the 5.2 prerz pay raise is enough especially for our junior enlisted troops to put things in context, the average e-1, e-2 are making roughly $22,000 a year. it's not until you are an e-4, over five years, that you are making the equivalent of what would be a $15 per hour, if it was normalized for a 40-hour workweek. which means effectively the bottom third of our ranks are making less than fast food workers in many of our states. some of our states are very high cost of living. given the recruitment and retention challenges we have, i think we have a collective action here between this committee, armed services committee, as well as in the senate and d.o.d., to look at how we can maybe not take a one-size-fits-all pay adjustment of 5.2% and get our junior

enlisted specifically above that $32,000 a year number, which is the ekwreufl equivalent of $15 an hour. i think there is a way to do that without affecting the top line budgets. whether it's harvesting flag officers. so i look forward to those conversations. that's a critical element to the quality of life, especially from a recruitment perspective. the gap between d.o.d. and civilian counterparts is at an historic high when it comes to salaries. especially for the junior enlisted. mr. secretary, are you aware of the strike fighter shortfall we have, d.o.d. wide but specifically within the navy, the challenges we have stpr a number of aircraft per air wing and aircraft carrier? secretary austin: what i do know is that c.n.o. and the chief of the air force continue to invest

in fighter capability. again it will take a couple of -- several years before we get up to what they believe is -- meets their full capacity. mr. garcia: there are some projections where we are literally two air wing short relative to the number of aircraft carriers on the navy side. this committee as well as our counterparts in the senate in fy-22 added 12 super hornets to the budget. then fy-23 added eight super hornets to the budget. wasn't sure you were aware. those jets have yet to be actually awarded to the prime contractor. they are actively shutting down not just their production line but their entire supply chain. i'm a big proponent of the f-35. a large portion of that aircraft is made in my district. i believe we need capacity as well as the capability. i think right now we are losing as a nation one of the critical tools to closing that strike fighter gap in the former of the

super hornet production line. the lawyers are battling it out right now. this is one of those things that watching it from my perspective i'm calling balls and strikes. i think the government is overreaching they are asking for intellectual property from the contractor that is different from tech data packages designed for basic sustainment and repair. i think we are overreaching. this is one of the things that i think is going to impact the customer. the customer being the war fighter and taxpayer in the form of -- i would encourage you to look into that. the navy is actively working this with the prime contractor right now. i think we need some super vision here and get the lawyers in the room to put a kibosh on this. get a negotiated settlement and figure out other means to get that intellectual property. i'll end with the question, general milley, you worked in both administrations. you are very familiar with the conditional withdrawal elements of the afghanistan situation

under both administrations. do you agree with the assertion that was made earlier in this room that the debacle, the state department-led debacle out of afghanistan and the straf steu of abbygate, the loss of 13 personnel was the fault of the previous administration? general milley: i'm not going to characterize fault or point fingers. i think as we all know the end state was a strategic withdrawal. when the enemy occupies the capital of a nation you supported, it's a strategic failure. there are lessons to be learned. all of us are learning those lessons, both secretary austin and i have served being years in afghanistan. i'm deeply personally invested in it. psych locally invested in t can i think of no greater tragedy than what happened at abbygate. i have yet to fully reconcile

myself to that entire affair. i don't want to point fingers or anything. what happened in afghanistan did not happen in the last 19 days or even the last 19 months. that was a 20-year war. there were decisions made along the way which culminated in what the outcome was. there are many, many lessons to be learned. i think we are at the beginning of that lesson process. mr. garcia: thank you. general milley: i would like to thank you personally on behalf of my wife. she pushed that license sure amendment significantly for years. she and many others. and you and the president and members of congress brought that home. thank you very much. chair calvert: thank you. mr. kilmer. mr. kilmer: thank you, chairman. thank you both for being with us today. i'm hoping to get it two topics. first, as you both know changes to the military health system have resulted in downsizing several military treatment

facilities, including naval hospital in my neck of the woods which closed its emergency and labor and delivery departments. prior to that downsizing, our area already had challenges accessing care. it had been identified by the department of health and human services as a high risk area and health shortage area. we raised concerns about this prior to the downsizing because of that. unfortunately the closures have had a real impact on our region and service members. i really think the network analysis that was done was really off. the hiring goals were really off. and this isn't sort of a theoretical conversation. we did a round table with submariners in our area who have been unable to receive routine screenings or medical care that impacts readiness. i met with a pregnant sailor who due to downsizing at the naval

hospital was forced to go to a local hospital. waited eight hours in the emergency room -- sorry in the waiting room. and ultimately miscarried in their waiting room. these aren't isolated incidents. i bring this to your attention because after several letters and questioning and hearings and meetings with the head of d.h.a. where we have emphasized the inability of the network to handle the burdens of the closures at the naval hospital, the concerns in my community aren't being heard. i want to raise this again and ask you if d.o.d. can direct d.h.a. to review some of that downsizing in underserved areas. i want to ask you what tools are in place to reassign military and civilian providers to areas where there has been a significant degradation in care that is impacting folks in uniform. i want to know if there is any plan to reassign providers to areas like kipsak county where we have seen a deline in health care kpwault for service members.

secretary austin: thank you, sir. just like to start by saying health and welfare of the force is extremely important to me. i really appreciate all your support and the support of congress over the years. we continue to follow congressional intent to, as you know, we are mandated to consolidate military health care under d.h.a. of course there are decision that is have to be made there. since that decision was made, we faced a global pandemic that put pressure on the work force across america. the medical work force across america. and so it made it a bit more difficult to do some things. we are facing some of the same challenges that the medical community across the country are facing. but what we are doing about it is we are trying to utilize a variety of tools, including

direct hiring authorities, we are exploring bonuses and incentives to hire -- get the right talent in to fill the vacancies that you mentioned. i will ask our new d.h.a. leader to come in and sit down with you and brief you specifically on bremerton. what our challenges are and what we are doing about it. general milley: if i could make a quick comment. in my travels around the military, the number one topic i get in terms health care, our chief of staff of the army, 3 1/2 years ago. in my first year this was an issue. we were asked as chiefs at that time to right an assessment of what we thought of the congressionally mandated consolidation of the d.h.a. every one of the chiefs at that time, we wrote this is going to result in significant risk.

what we are seeing today seven years later, eight years later is the fraying, not broken, but the fraying of the defense health care system. which is one of the biggest health care systems in america. that's really cause for concern. it's the number one issue that's on a lot of soldiers' minds. mr. kilmer: we are seeing that. we are seeing that in our area. and i just -- i plea with you to take a look at what's happening in our region, to look at the impact on readiness. on sailors and their families. sitting across from a sailor who miscarried after waiting for eight hours to get care, this is not acceptable. we have to do better for these folks stepping up for our country. thank you, chairman, i yield back. chair calvert: i agree with the gentleman. we need to do a deep dive on that. what we can do to improve this immediately. next, mr. diaz-balart. mr. diaz-balart: thank you very much, mr. chairman.

before my question, mr. secretary, you mentioned socom a little while ago. one of the things that is crucial to them is the security cooperation agreement. something i have been very supportive of. there is $200 million there. and i just want to make sure that it's on your radar. it's $200 million for socom and afracom. in a region that's -- not many good things are happening in this region right now, this hemisphere. that socom has the resources it needs. as you well know socom not only does the regular mission, they also literally are saving american lives through their interdiction programs. i just want to flag that for you. if you could take a look at it to make sure it doesn't fall through the cracks and they are not ignored. i appreciate that. chairman millie, there's -- chairman milley, there's opinion legislation to auction off the lower three gigahertz spectrum

brand which the d.o.d. uses for important missions. secretary austin, the commerce secretary sent a letter endorsing this agreement while the director of joint staffs signed a formal nonconcurrent memo. mr. chairman, what in your view, what is your view about potentially vacating the spectrum? what risks could it pose to national security, if any? secretary austin: i just want to make sure that where we are with this is understood. i convey where we are in terms of what we have done. first of all, i support sharing the spectrum. pieces, where appropriate. i do not support, i do not support putting our national

security at risk. to your point, there are platforms and capabilities that we use and we need that employ pieces of that spectrum. so what we are doing now is we are conducting a study to make sure that we account for everything. once that study's done, we'll make a recommendation to the president. just to be clear, i have not agreed to auction off that piece of the spectrum that we need to be -- to effectively protect the homeland, or conduct our operations all together. mr. diaz-balart: mr. chairman, you want to -- the potential risk, if any. general milley: there is risk. first of all i'm writing one of the memorandums you mention, i concur that we need to wait until there is a study complete, due in in september. therefore you make a fully informed decision.

making a decision right this second is not a good idea. i concur it needs to be shared, sure. no problem. the issue is how to do that. we need to do that in a way that doesn't jeopardize national security. what we can't do is vacate the spectrum. sharing it, fair enough. if we can figure out a way to do that without placing national security at risk. if we were to give up that piece of the spectrum, it would have a significant, huge impact on our ability to protect north america, our ability to protect the pacific, europe, or anywhere else. that is the -- part of the spectrum. we use radars, communications, ships, navigation. it wouldn't be good if we didn't have access to that part of the spectrum. there is a study ongoing, due in september. i would caution everybody to wait until it is done and move out. second point is, when that study's complete, i or whomever

is the chairman at the time, are required to render our recommendation was to the secretary, he agrees with it, is that the secretary and i make an independent recommendation in write together president so he can make an informed decision. i think that's the proper way to hit. mr. diaz-balart: i appreciate that. don't have a lot of time. obviously i think it's important to defeat putin in the ukraine. but as the chairman said, the days of blank checks are over. i think one of the things that would be helpful is if we knew what the strategic end state is in ukraine? not a lot of time. it would be helpful. general milley: the president was very clear. with the strategic end state at the beginning of this thing. he said it to myself and secretary austin and many others. he said it many, many times in public forums and his speeches. it's very clear. the strategic end state is the global rules-based international order put in place in 1945 was

upheld. how do you know that? how do you achieve that? you achieve it when ukraine remains a free, sovereign, interpend country with the territory intact. then you know the rules base was upheld. if that rules-based order in the 80th year, if that goes out the window, be very careful we'll be doubling our defense budgets at that point because that will introduce not an era of great power of competition. it will begin an era of conflict. that will be extraordinarily dangerous to the whole world. ukraine is a fight ukraine. but for the he of us it's a bigger and important national interest that's fundamental to the united states, to europe, and global security. mr. diaz-balart: yield back. chair calvert: mr. joyce. mr. joyce: thank you. mr. chairman, appreciate t gentlemen, thank you for your service to our country and for being here today.

the united states has invested national security interests in taking decisive action to reduce our dependentsens upon china, particularly as ass it relates to military readiness. i'm concerned that our military dangerously relies upon china when it comes to procuring raw materials like plastic and rubber that our defense trillion base needs to proud defense articles. we must have a government strategy in place from relying on goods from coming from china. i worked to include language directing the department of defense to issue a report outlining the department's increase, domestic sourcing of plastic and plastic alternatives. secretary austin, do you have an update on the status of this report, expectation when this report will be made available to congress? secretary austin: i'm sorry. mr. joyce: an increase in the production of plastic, tkphes i can sourcing of plastic or

plastic alternatives for the defense industry. secretary austin: i'll take that question for the record and get back to you. i would like to tell you some of the things we are doing along the lines of strengthening our supply chains and making sure that we on-shore capability. i agree with you. this needs to be a whole of government effort. i want to thank you and the rest of congress for what you have done for the chips, in support of the chips act. i think that will make a really big difference. in this budget we are asking you for $2.6 billion to invest in microelectronics. we are investing $125 million in batteries and electronics. we are going after critical minerals. and i have asked for $2353 million to be focused on that -- $253 million to be focused on that as well. things like casting and forging $177 million for that. i agree with you that we have to do a lot to make sure that we

can -- we have independence. we can trust our supply chains. and so we are going to continue to work with industry to do that. o mr. joyce: thank you very much. the biden administration is working to expedite the delivery of 31 abram tanks to our allies in ukraine. rival will provide the ukrainians with the advantage over the russian counterparts. i was disappointed to find the president's budget including funding for 34 abraham tanks. three more than we are sending to the ukrainians. this reduction in funding is concerning departure from previous years in which congress has indicated continued support funding for a full battalion of tanks. for either of you gentlemen, considering commitment we have made to ukraine in regards to transfer the abrams tanks, can you offer insight to explain the justification behind this reduction in funding? secretary austin: we are funding a ukrainian battalion of tanks,

which is why -- which reflects the number that you have seen, sir. mr. joyce: we heard at length about the need to bolster the military industrial supply base. could reduction in funding for the tanks program not make it more difficult to make sure we have the supply base to scale up production for this and future needs? secretary austin: what we'll do for these tanks that we are providing to ukraine if that's a question is we are taking tanks out of our stock and rebuilding those tanks so that they are exportable. that actually will come -- versus new purchase. mr. joyce: are we not securing new tanks in the process? from the supply chain here in america? there was a reduction from the amount authorized. secretary austin: there are. not -- general milley: i have to check with general mcconnell and the army staff.

the tank plan in lima, ohio, is continuing its operations. it's not being shut down. if you have information it's being shut down, that would be new news to me. the tank production line will be kept opened. it's necessary to keep it opened. it's unique. it's not tanks aren't produced in the commercial world. we have to keep that line opened because tanks, although there is going future operating environment, you have introduction of robotics, other things in the future with artificial intelligence and so on, but tanks have value and value today. you are seeing it play out in ukraine. and they'll have value for many years to come. i don't know of any intent to shut down that lima, ohio tank production line. mr. joyce: i didn't bean mean to bring it up. it's a buckeye thing. the fact we are slowing it down. the problem with that you have the pieces and parts. the mom and pop who produce that supply line. if they are slowing down or being shut down because we are not doing that, that slows down our ability to ramp up, god

forbid. thank you for your answers. i look forward to getting a copy of that report soon, secretary. i yield back. chair calvert: mr. aguilar. mr. aguilar: thank you , mr. chairman. general milley i wanted to start where some of my colleagues have in thanking you for your service, but specifically for your testimony and honesty when you sat with january 6 compete. your commitment to the truth, your honesty, and availability is only matched by your commitment to protecting our democracy and protecting this country. i just wanted to thank you for that. i wanted to also echo the concerns ranking minority member delauro and representative ruppersberger said about some of the cuts and defense spending and how they would negatively impact our national security. general, how could a reduction in military funding impact the

joint force and our ability to provide credible deterrence, specifically to p.r.c. activities in the indo-pacific? general milley: it would impact several ways. think of the domains of space, cyber, land, sea, air, under sea, right now we have roughly speaking about 120,000 troops west of the national dateline of all branches of service. and we have at sea any moment in time 20 or 30 surface combatant ships. we have submarines as well. marines conducting exercises in okinawa. army forces with the long range task force. all that training is conducted. there was 24,000 live fires conducted last year by just the army and marine corps. not just the pacific but worldwide. that level of training would be reduced. that level of operational tempo would be reduced. that level of what secretary austin has on the national defense strategy, which act as a

great deter rent. if you reduce that you're going to force to us reduce our up tempo. force to us do less. less freedom of navigation of the less patrolling of the air. less i.s.r. everything will be less which will increase risk, increase danger, and send the wrong message. the probable result will be an acceleration of what could be some sort of aggressive moves in the future by china or other countries. mr. aguilar: secretary austin, i wanted to thank both you and the general for addressing a addressive violent extremism in the department. in december, 2022 the inspector general release add report among other things talked about the effectiveness of policy and programs to prevent and respond to supremacist and extremist activity in the military. the report found 200 allegations of prohibited activity, including 146 allegations of supremacists and extremist

activities. on its face this is a concerning number, but the i.g. report also stated that the department had decentralized and nonstandardized systems to collect and track thiscies data. one of the quotes in the report was that the army's total allegation data does not reflect its total number of allegations. just the total number of allegations with the fall on status. what steps is the department taking, mr. secretary, to standardize the collection of allegations of extremism by service members since the release of that report? secretary austin: we continue to make sure that our leadership is doing the right thing to, first of all, our troops understand, recognize certain types of behavior. what's acceptable. what's not acceptable. what the military won't tolerate. and i think that's a first step

in making sure that we are doing the right things. we are emphasizing we do have the right means in place, the right methods in place to accurately reflect or collect reports that are being rendered. i would also say that -- you have heard me say this before, 99.9% of our troops are doing the right thing each and every day. they are focused on accomplishing their mission. our leaders are focused on their task at hand. their missions. and you don't get to be a ready force, a ready force that we are, that the chairman described, unless your leaders are focused on the right things. while -- making sure we don't have extremist behavior in our ranks is important. it hasn't consumed the force. a focus on this. it just enables us to do the things that we are supposed to

do. it makes us better. mr. aguilar: it allows us to look at tools to make the force better. secretary austin: right. mr. aguilar: general, any thoughts? phaoeup pho*eup 183 -- general milley: 183. we have means and mechanisms that can discipline the force. not necessarily available in civil society. very disciplined force we don't talk of extremism of any kind. no extremist in the ranks, period. we are not a political military. we are an aphrol military -- apolitical military. there no extremism tolerated. when we find it, retake appropriate disciplinary action. as the secretary said, out of that 2.1 million, 9999 are in there every day trying to do the right thing for the right reasons. they wake up every morning to better themselves, their unit, and country. mr. aguilar: i agree. but the report mentioned 183 which is the accurate number.

but there might be more that did not have the follow on status. general milley: there may be. i would say it's small numbers. i have been doing this for a long time. when i was a lieutenant and captain we had extremists too. secretary austin when he was a young officer, he had experiences at fort bragg with extremists. this isn't something new. we displane the force. we don't tolerate it. when we find it we punish it. that shouldn't smear the entire force. this force is a patriotic force that loves america and will fight and die for it. mr. aguilar: thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations on your accession to your position. ms. kaptur: welcome to our subcommittee. secretary austin and general milley. general milley, thank you for your service to our country, both of you. you have tweurbd yourselves in your service. i'm very proud of both of you and my constituents are, too. i wanted to say my top priority

is ukraine right now. and, mr. chairman, i'll sure you'll have a closed door session on that before we move into markup. i just wanted to request that if possible. general milley, as a follow-up to the liberty road initiative, i would appreciate an individual we could work with on your staff, somewhere rather large staffing at the department of defense. we have been unable to do that effectively. then i wanted to follow up on something congressman cuellar talked about, the severe illicit narcotics activity that is destabilizing his region and having impact across our country. i want to put on the record for those listening, there is a great book called "dreamland" who tracks the economics of what's going on following the passage of nafta in 1993. and the wipeout of the mexican white corn market and the springing up in all those places

of the planting of heroin and moving into other drugs. it's quite sobering to read. i just place that on the record for those who care about this. until we solve that, the abject poverty that result interested that, we are not going to solve the problem. i don't know if the government of mexico is capable of solving it. secretary austin, i want to ask if you might help us set up a meeting with the folks who are handling the ramp up additional work defense industrial base activities in your department. i come from manufacturing america. we helped save the m-1 abram tank plan. we were told we won't have another land war. we had to save the tank capability. we had to save the petroleum of this country because -- petroleum reserve of this country. those of us who come from manufacturing america understand what it takes. i would be grateful if we could learn more about the funding the staffing, and the current authority they need to be expanded. thank you for listening to that. finally, for either gentlemen

today, in terms of hybrid warfare, i'm interested in more detail on the impact of the internet on communications and how u.s. forces are working to overcome communication problems with host nations and the impact the internet is having on creating disruptive activities, false information, and so forth that would like to know more detail about that as we move forward in terms of meeting threats to our security globally. secretary austin: thank you. thanks for all your support. certainly we'll make-tkeurbl' make sure my staff reaches out to yours and we give -- provide you access to the people who are working on these issues with the industrial base for us. ms. kaptur: we have a manufacturing task force here on the house side. we are very interested. secretary austin: sure. with respect to the internet and information, how information

impacts operations, we have seen over the years that in terms of transnational terrorist activity, people have been recruited and actually encouraged to take action over the internet and radicalized over the internet. that kind of thing continues to -- we continue to see that. even in a conventional fight, there are still -- there is still a lot of activity that adversary also put on the internet to create a number of different types of effects. we see this, as you know, with the ukraine, russia conflict. we have to be -- we have to be active in that space. we also have to enable our partners to be active in that

space. it's really important to us. it will continue to evolve. so there's significant, significant activity in those spaces. they do directly affect the fight. let me see if mark wants to add anything. mr. mccord: congresswoman, on the liberty, i'll circle back with you make sure we are closing loops on that whole project. i was very proud to be there with you. on the communications piece, communication is fundamental. obviously to the conduct of military operations. one of the key pieces of our joint war fighting concept. our community from a defensive standpoint, our communication systems has to become more resilient. general milley: and less susceptible to eitherring spoofing or intercepting and collecting off of our signal systems. i think we are pretty good, but we need to getet