has been referenced that has been referenced multiple times, the war on warriors, i spent months talking to active service members, men and women, no ranks, high ranks, and what each and every one of them told me, and what personal instances have told me, in ways direct and indirect, overand have told me, in ways direct and indirect, over and subtle, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, inside infantry training units, rangerschool, infantry ranger school, infantry battalions, to rangerschool, infantry battalions, to make sure that... . , battalions, to make sure that... . . . that... please give me an example- _ that disparages those women. commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry, that does not exist. it does not exist. and your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. they are

not quotas. we want the most lethal force. not quotas. we want the most lethalforce. but i'm not quotas. we want the most lethal force. but i'm telling you, having been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type of operations that were successful in afghanistan, in iraq. women were essential for many those units. when ranger units went in to find where the terrorists were hiding in afghanistan or iraq. if they had a woman in the unit they could go in, talk to the women in a village state where other terrorists hiding? where at the weapons hiding? and get crucial information to make sure that we can win that battle. you cannot denigrate women in general and your statements do that. we do not want women in the military, especially combat. what a terrible statement. so please, do not deny that you have made those statements, you have. we take the responsibility of standards very seriously and we will work with you. i've equally distressed you would not meet with me before this hearing. we could have covered all of this before you came here. so i could get to the 15

other questions that i want to get to. so women you have denigrated, you have also denigrated, you have also denigrated members of the lgbtq community. did you know that when don't ask, don't tell was in place that we lost so many crucial personnel in mission critical areas. we lost 10% of all our foreign critical areas. we lost 10% of all ourforeign language all our foreign language speakers because all ourforeign language speakers because of a political policy. you said in your statement you don't want politics in the dod. everything you have said in this statement is politics. i don't want women, i don't want mys. what's wrong with a mum, by the way? you are basically saying women after they have children can't ever serve in the military in a combat role. it is a silly thing to say, a silly thing to say. beneath the position that you are aspiring to. to denigrate lgbtq service members is a mistake. if you are a sharpshooter, you are as lethal regardless of what your gender identity is, regardless of who you love. so please know this to be a true statement. so you

say it was a political thing. you say it undermined us, social engineering. i don't know why someone having to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. i think having that policy in the first place was highly problematic. and as you say in your statement, do you say in your statement, do you agree, anybody should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards? senator, is the president has stated, i don't disagree with... . . stated, i don't disagree with- - -_ stated, i don't disagree with... , ., , , with... great, because i don't want you _ with... great, because i don't want you thinking _ with... great, because i don't want you thinking can't - with... great, because i don't want you thinking can't serve | want you thinking can't serve if you are a mum, can't serve if you are a mum, can't serve if you are lgbtq. and last, can't serve if you are a leftist. the statements you said about people who have used differently from you that were the enemy. are you saying that 50% of the dod if they hold liberal views or leftist views or art democrats are not welcome in the military? are you saying that?—

you saying that? senator, i volunteered _ you saying that? senator, i volunteered to _ you saying that? senator, i volunteered to deploy - you saying that? senator, i volunteered to deploy to i volunteered to deploy to afghanistan under democratic president barack obama. i was identified as an extremist by my own unit for christian tatty. my own unit for christian ta . . ~' , ., , my own unit for christian ta . ., ~ , ., , . my own unit for christian ta . ., ~' , ., , . ., tatty. thank you very much. you held u- tatty. thank you very much. you held up a _ tatty. thank you very much. you held up a document _ tatty. thank you very much. you held up a document and - tatty. thank you very much. you | held up a document and referred to it during aggression. would you like — to it during aggression. would you like and into the record? without _ you like and into the record? without objection that would be admitted at the point of your question— admitted at the point of your question and i would like to enter— question and i would like to enter into the record at this point — enter into the record at this point a _ enter into the record at this point a letter of support from a retired _ point a letter of support from a retired air force colonel. she — a retired air force colonel. she supports mr hegseth and mentions his combat effectiveness, warrior ethos and maintaining military training standards. so without objection— training standards. so without objection both of those will be admitted. . ~

objection both of those will be admitted. ., ~ , ., ~ admitted. thank you, mr chairman. _ admitted. thank you, mr chairman. i— admitted. thank you, mr chairman. i would - admitted. thank you, mr chairman. i would like i admitted. thank you, mr chairman. i would like to admitted. thank you, mr - chairman. i would like to thank you for your service to our nation in uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans and for your willingness to enter into this maelstrom of public service. i think the presence of so many veterans who have showed up to support you speaks volumes. i also want to recognise your family's service and sacrifice that you know as well as anyone that you know as well as anyone that it that you know as well as anyone thatitis that you know as well as anyone that it is notjust the man enters the arena but it is the entire family who also work their way through this process as well. i appreciated our meeting with you and with your wife, jennifer, this last month. i thought that we had an excellent conversation and i appreciate your statement and your answers to the advance policy questions, especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on war fighting lethality back to the pentagon. i also respect and appreciate my friend and colleague in some of

her questions and i know that she had a number of them in there. you had an opportunity to respond very briefly. were there any other responses that you would like to make a clarification is that you would like to make before i move on to my questions?— like to make before i move on to my questions? senator, thank ou ve to my questions? senator, thank you very much — to my questions? senator, thank you very much for _ to my questions? senator, thank you very much for the _ you very much for the opportunity to me and for the question. i would also like to acknowledge you mention female engagement teams, which have shown a great deal of success on the battlefield. universally acknowledged as such. i have beenin acknowledged as such. i have been in iraqi homes where the language and gender barrier was real and the ability to have someone there to help in that process would be a massive accelerant in mission success. i recognise that reality. also recognise that female engagement teams assigned to a team or a green beret team meet different standards also, which is ok because of the duty positions involved in thatjob. as far as politics, senator, it

has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. when you are in combat or in training there are a lot of conversations that happen and you start to realise that a lot of people you are serving with share your political ideas or they don't. you find out there are republicans, there are democrats, libertarians and everything in between. none of that matters. it never mattered in how i lead men and women how i interacted with them. what missions we undertook. politics has nothing to do with the battlefield, which is why president trump has asked me to say let's make sure all of that comes out. this is about war fighting capability, setting standards high and making sure we give our boys and men and women everything they need to be successful on the battlefield. so politics can play no part in that and i look forward to infusing that, as we always have, inside our units. appreciate you making that very

clear. one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide the equipment and the technical capabilities so that no young man or woman enters into a battle as a fair fight and that they always have the advantage. those of the types of questions that i would like to get into right now. i want to get into right now. i want to stop by talking about something that gets into the weeds but i think it is critical. mr hegseth, from what i've heard from 2a senior dod officials in hearings over the last two years, including the secretary of defence, every service chief and eight competent commanders is the portion of the spectrum, the gigahertz band would have extremely serious consequences and very costly consequences on our war fighting and very costly consequences on our warfighting capabilities. our war fighting capabilities. part of our warfighting capabilities. part of the navy alone is

estimated that relocating their systems to a different part of the spectrum band would cost them $250 billion. that isjust for the destroyers that defend our coast with the radar is that they have in them. if confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the department of defence can maintain its access to end the use and to be able to manoeuvre within the electromagnetic spectrum at home and abroad? and would you be willing to literally go to the mat with the inner agency to protect war fighter requirements to protect warfighter requirements for to protect war fighter requirements for the use of the spectrum? mr; requirements for the use of the spectrum?— spectrum? my “ob in part will be to no spectrum? my “ob in part will be to go to — spectrum? my job in part will be to go to the _ spectrum? my job in part will be to go to the mat - spectrum? my job in part will be to go to the mat when - be to go to the mat when necessary for things i believe are an absolute requirement for the department of defence and the department of defence and the men and women in uniform, there is no doubt about that. in this particular case as far as spectrum, i look forward, as i've said as spectrum, i look