Skip to main content

tv   Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Testifies at Confirmation Hearing  CSPAN  January 15, 2025 2:40am-6:58am EST

2:40 am
[applause]
2:41 am
[crowd chanting "usa"]
2:42 am
2:43 am
chair wicker: good morning. the hearing will come to order. the committee on armed services has convened this hearing to consider the nomination of mr. pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. at this point, in light of the continued suffering and death in and around los angeles, california, i'm going to ask my colleagues and those in the audience to observe a moment of silence. chair wicker: amen. thank you. i want to take this opportunity to thank my good friend ranking member jack reed. this is my first opportunity to
2:44 am
chair this committee in this congress. i want to thank senator reed. he proved time after time he cares deeply about national security and about the united states of america. in particular come the men and women who wear the uniform and stand watch here and around the world to protect the united states. senator reed, thank you for the many courtesies that you have extended to me in the past, and i look forward to working with you again in a bipartisan fashion this congress. it is also appropriate to recognize and welcome three senators attending their very first senate armed service committee hearing as members. senator banks of indiana, senator sheehy of montana, senator slotkin of michigan. we are excited to have u.s.
2:45 am
committee colleagues and look forward to many important contributions from each of you. senator slotkin, as i look at the end of the dais, it seems only a week or two ago i was sitting in that very chair being recognized by the chairman of the committee, the distinguished senator from michigan. time flies. let me say this. we had a very appropriate expression of approval by the members of the audience as our nominee and his family walked in. the distinguished ranking member and i sincerely hope that is the last signal of approval or disapproval in today's hearing.
2:46 am
people of the public are here. they are welcome to observe today's hearing. senator reed and i agree, though, that no disruptions will be allowed. audience members may not verbally or physically distract from the hearing to include shouting, standing, or raising signage or gestures that block the view of the audience. we are very serious about this, aren't we, mr. reed? sen. reed: absolutely. chair wicker: those who do so will be immediately escorted from the room. again, welcome to the witnesses, to his friends, and to interested members of the public. if confirmed mr. pete hegseth
2:47 am
would assume the role in a moment of consequence. the united states faces the most dangerous security environment since world war ii. we are witnessing the explosive growth and reach of china's hard power and observing the emergence of an axis of aggressors. that coalition is characterized by broadening and deepening military cooperation among the dictatorships ruling china, russia, iran, and north korea. terrorism remains a threat as israel wages war against hamas and hezbollah and as the assad regime collapses in syria. america has entered a window of maximum danger, and the department needs energetic focused civilian leadership. those values begin at the top with the secretary of defense. many of my distinguished colleagues have served in a
2:48 am
significant tenure on this committee, and our meetings are very long. we should reflect over previous secretaries of defense and they are hearings and ask a simple question. has the pentagon under the administration of both parties proven up to the challenge? often the answer has been no. the civilian leadership is not built the department of defense to meet the moment. this is our moment to correct that. a few examples illustrate how leaders in the past have fallen short. most of the department's signature programs run years behind schedule and billions of dollars over cost. vital initiatives have suffered, such as the new sentinel icbm and navy shipbuilding program, including the constellation class frigate. the department of defense desperately need civilian leaders who listen to the vice of combatant commanders, many of
2:49 am
whom would benefit from innovative systems. yet, a risk-averse dod culture has kept too many promising technologies on the wrong side of the so-called valley of death. that tenuous period between experimental prototypes and production contracts. defense companies backed by venture capital receive less than 1% of defense contracts. as we know, the pentagon still cannot pass an audit. the department must simplify and streamline its bureaucracies so that it can respond to innovation. staffs have ballooned. organizations are top-heavy. civilian leaders have promised time and again this limb down the bureaucracy, and perhaps genuinely hoped to. every day men and women in uniform make tremendous contributions to u.s. security. they and the american people deserve a pentagon that does the same. today's department of defense is no longer prepared for great
2:50 am
power competition. it is not a national defense institution ready to achieve and sustain technological supremacy across the range of operations. admittedly, this nomination is unconventional. the nominee is unconventional, just like that new york developer who rode down the escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy for president. that may be what makes mr. hegseth an excellent choice to improve this unacceptable status quo that i just described. he is a decorated post-9/11 combat veteran. he will inject a new warrior ethos into the pentagon, a spirit that can cascade from the top down. mr. hegseth will bring energy and fresh ideas to shake up the bureaucracy. he will focus relentlessly on
2:51 am
the war fighter and military's core missions, deterring wars and winning the ones we must fight. he will bring a swift end to corrosive distractions such as dei. today, many acknowledge and live with the systemic problems i have mentioned earlier. an acquisition, accountability, technology transition and organizational civil service reform. mr. hegseth will actually move the fix these issues decisively. in short, i'm confident mr. hegseth, supported by a team of experienced top officials, will get the job done. the secretary of defense is an incredibly important position. the secretary's span of control is limited. the pentagon is vast with a million plus personnel, uniform, civilian, and contract. a successful secretary understands steering the ship means focusing his attention on
2:52 am
strategic level priorities. the secretary must be to -- must be supported by exceptional subordinates who will run the day-to-day affairs of the office of the secretary of defense, military offices, and dod components. i am confident that as an infantry men, mr. hegseth understands the military principle of commanders intent. communicate the clear objective, empower subordinates to use initiative and judgment, and hold everybody accountable. we must not underestimate the importance of having a top shelf communicator and secretary of defense. other than the president, no official plays a larger role telling the men and women in uniform, congress, and the public about the threats we face and a need for peace through strength policy. i've have no doubt mr. hegseth will excel in the skill in which many of his predecessors have fallen short. much have been made a mr.
2:53 am
hegseth's personal life and some of his policy pronouncements. regarding his personal conduct, mr. hegseth has admitted to falling short, as we all do from time to time. it is noteworthy that the vast majority of the accusations leveled mr. hegseth have come from anonymous sources. contract these anonymous accusations with the many public letters of support and commendation. we have seen letters from people who served with mr. hegseth. these individuals have worked with him professionally. they really know him and his character. these patriotic americans have been willing to put their names and reputations on the line to support mr. hegseth. i look forward to sharing these testimonials with the american people. let me mention one now. it comes from david bellavia who earned the medal of honor for heroic actions in combat in fallujah, iraq. david writes the following, pete
2:54 am
is fearless, unflappable, and confronts conflicts head-on. he is a leader to the core. when pete is confirm the next secretary of the department of defense of america, this country will know the privilege of having a true ambassador able to speak on behalf of this generation and its two decade global war on terror. washington doesn't build men like pete. combat builds men like pete. as i said, there are more letters expressing the same endorsement. today, we will hear from the nominee directly. i want to thank mr. hegseth, as well as his loved ones, for being here today. i look forward to discussing his nomination. i look forward to hearing from mr. hegseth about the ways he hopes to rebuild the american strength that secures the peace.i turn to rigging member read for his opening remarks. sen. reed: thank you, mr.
2:55 am
chairman. i would like to congratulate you on your chairmanship and i look forward to continuing the strong tradition of bipartisanship and collaboration. thank you for your thoughtful and conscientious service. i would also like to take a moment to join chairman wicker in welcoming our new members, senators slotkin, senator bank, and senator shaheen. welcome. we look forward to working with you. mr. hegseth, i welcome you and your family to today's hearing and i am glad to recognize my former colleague and congressman mike wells. mr. hegseth, i want to begin saying that i respect and appreciate your military service in the army national guard. i know from experience there is no greater privilege than to lead american soldiers, and i thank you for answering the call. you have been nominated to be the secretary of defense the secretary is responsible for
2:56 am
leading 3.5 million servicemembers and civilians, an annual budget of 900 billion dollars, and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites, and the nuclear arsenal. as we speak, china is seeking to undermine our interests, intimidate our friends, and challenge our standing in the world peered russia's campaign against ukraine threatens not only europe, but the entire global order. ongoing violence in the middle east has teetered on the edge of all-out war. the ideologies and actions of violent extremists endanger our citizens, even on our own soil, as the recent tragedy in new orleans painfully reminds us. these are perilous times. the position of secretary of defense demands a leader of unparalleled experience, wisdom, and above all else, character.
2:57 am
the secretariat is expected to be a fair, nonpartisan, responsible leader, as well as a trustworthy advocate for the men and women he leads. mr. hegseth, i don't believe that you are qualified to meet the overall demands of this job. we must acknowledge the concerning public reports against you. a variety of sources, including your own writings, implicate you with disregarding the laws of war, financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other troubling issues. i removed many of these allegations and find them extremely alarming. the totality of your own writings and alleged conduct would disqualify any service member from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the secretary of
2:58 am
defense. nonetheless, i understand that you reject many of these reports as they involve whistleblowers, nondisclosure agreements, and numerous sources, including those who have faced political intimidation for sharing their experiences. i hope that you will address each of these allegations thoroughly and truthfully during your testimony. just as importantly, i hope that you will pledge to prevent any repercussions for whistleblowers, civilian and military, if confirmed. mr. hegseth, during our meeting last week you said that if confirmed your top priority would be "restoring our warrior culture to the department of defense" because you believe the u.s. military has been weakened by political corruptness. god made your opinion clear about diversity initiatives are used to diversity is not our strength, unity is. in a recent podcast, you said, "i'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles." when i joined the army as a
2:59 am
young officer in the 1970's, the u.s. military was rife with racial tension, women were prohibited from most roles, gay service members were banned, and we relied on the draft to fill our ranks. the soldiers i served with were proud to do so, but it was not the nation's most capable military by any standard. we have made great progress since then. today's department of defense is fully integrated. every race and religion is accepted. women serve in all combat roles and leadership positions. sexual orientation is irrelevant to service and the overall volunteer force visibly reflects the nation it protects. the military is more diverse than it has ever been, and more importantly it is more lethal than it has ever been. this is not a coincidence. mr. hegseth, i hope you will explain why you believe such diversity is making the military weak, and how you plan to undo that without undermining military leadership and harming
3:00 am
readiness, recruitment, and retention. mr. hegseth, another reason i'm deeply concerned about your nomination is your disregard for the law of armed conflicts and support of servicemembers convicted of war crimes. you have champion to the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow soldiers and seals. let me emphasize, they were not discovered by reporters. they were turned in by fellow soldiers and fellow seals. also, the pardoning of military contractors convicted of killing 14 iraqi citizens without cause. you also advocated for the restitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have been defined as torture and belittled the advice and counsel of judge advocates general while under deployment. in your book, the war on warriors, you write, "should we follow the geneva convention? if our warriors are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice more lives so
3:01 am
that international tribunals feel better about themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules?" mr. hegseth, i would ask that you explain how, if confirmed, you would maintain discipline in our armed services and partners by rejecting the international law of war. i'm concerned about your abilities as a compent manager of organizations less complex than the department of defense. you lead veterans for freedom, which had an annual budget of less than $10 million. each year that you are in charge come expenses far exceeded revenues until the organization teetered on bankruptcy and had to go to another group. according to public reporting, an independent forensic accountant review the organization's finances and discovered evidence of gross financial mismanagement. i would note that this report
3:02 am
has not been made available through any government agencies. which, i think, is alarming. a republican advisor to you during your tenure at the organization, who read the report, stated, i quote, "i watched him run an organization very poorly, lose the confidence of donors, the organization folded and was forced to merge with another organization who individuals felt could run and manage funds on behalf of donors more responsibly than he could. i don't know how he will run an organization with an 857 billion dollar budget and 3 million individuals."that is the only access that we've had to the forensic report.is similar thing happened with the concerned veterans for america, a second veterans group you read from 2011 to 2016. during those five years tax
3:03 am
records show that the organization spent more than it raised. just as troubling are reports that a significant amount of debt was incurred from social events and parties filled with excessive drinking and questionable personal behavior. mr. hegseth, i hope you will explain what actions you will take if confirmed to be a better steward of defense department's large budget. while i appreciate our meeting last week, it's unacceptable that you didn't meet with any other democratic members of this committee before this hearing, as has been our bipartisan tradition. i have voted for and worked closely with secretaries of defense appointed by republican presidents. while we may disagree politically, there was always an understanding that rank partisanship should have no place when it comes to providing for the men and women who serve in uniform. mr. hegseth, i'm troubled by the many comments that you've made both as a commentator and in your published writings. in your book american crusade, you wrote, "modern leftists who represent the soul of the modern
3:04 am
democratic party literally hate the foundational ideas of america." you also wrote, "the other side, the left, is not our friend. we are not esteemed colleagues nor mere political opponents. we are foes. either we win or they win. we agree on nothing else. " if confirmed as secretary of defense you would lead an organization that, like the country it represents, is composed of democrats and republicans. yet, your language suggests that you regard many of these men and women as foes. i would ask you to explain why servicemen and civilians who don't share your political opinions can trust they won't be targeted during your tenure? the challenge of the secretary of defense is to remove partisan politics from the military. you propose to inject it. this would be an insult to the men and women who have sworn to uphold their own a political
3:05 am
duty to the constitution. your the ninth nominee for secretary of defense i've had the honor to consider as a member of the senate armed services committee. i voted in favor of all of your predecessors, including those in the first trump administration. unfortunately, you lack the character, composure, and competence to hold the position of secretary of defense. thank you. chair wicker: thank you, senator reed. now, it is my privilege and honor and pleasure to recognize two witnesses who have come forward to introduce our nominee. first, i recognize my former colleague norm coleman of minnesota for the purpose of an introduction. we are glad to see you and glad to have you back. you are recognized. mr. coleman: thank you, mr.
3:06 am
chairman, ranking member reed, my former colleagues. i am introduce a son of minnesota to you, mr. hegseth. as senator from minnesota i spent many hours with this young man as he walked the halls of congress advocating on behalf of america's veterans. he is young in the best sense of the word. he is strong, focused, intelligent, incisive, great listener, and is almost supernaturally energetic, what we need in a secretary of defense in times of massive change.he is the real deal . f scott fitzgerald was a writer in my city of st. paul. he said the problem with america is that there are no second acts. he was wrong. he was a brave soldier, has been an able communicator, and i believes about to begin a great second act as our secretary of defense. he has struggled and overcome great personal challenges. please, don't give into the cynical notion that people can't change. we need the ones who can change
3:07 am
to lead us. to be beacons of hope and to remind us that grace can lead us home. four years ago president biden's nominee lloyd austin, a good and honorable man, received 97 votes on the floor of the senate. we went through the debacle of the afghanistan withdrawal, putin invaded ukraine, the houthi's engaged our shipping lanes, and the united states was more an impediment than help. our recruitment numbers have sunk dramatically and our southern border has suffered a slow, but dangerous invasion. yes, pete hegseth is an out-of-the-box nominee. i say it's high time to get out of the one more thought. the country longs for a government of less division and more respect and dignity. my hope is that this committee hearing provides what they are asking for. disagree, yes. strongly if necessary.
3:08 am
but then come together and support the nominee, this nominee, pete hegseth, of the one president we have at a time, laying aside partisan politics for the central mission of national security upon which everything else the pens. mr. chairman, i yield. chair wicker: thank you. i appreciate that and i appreciate your presence today. i now have the honor and pleasure of introducing congressman walls. i understand that you are still a member of the house for another day or two? i now recognize congressman walls for whatever introduction he might make. >> thank you, chairman wicker. chairman has a nice ring to it. congratulations ranking member reed, members of this committee. it is a privilege to appear before you and urge the members
3:09 am
of this committee to confirm pete hegseth as our next secretary of defense. i'm not here today to advocate on behalf of a future colleague, but to speak on behalf of someone i consider a dear friend for over a decade now. like pete, i served in the u.s. army. like pete, i am a veteran. we deployed to afghanistan and all over the world at the height of the war on terror, which is the war of our generation. like thousands of other war fighters, we witnessed the hardships of war. we experienced the loss of friends in combat. we have endured too much time away from family and friends. no one, i can promise you, hates war more than those who have had to go fight it. no one does. pete's story is not that much
3:10 am
different from the millions of other veterans. they know it. they appreciate him for the experiences that he has gone through. after our country was brutally attacked on 9/11, pete hegseth answered the call of duty like so many others. he put the interests of this country ahead of his own. i can tell you firsthand, as can the heroes in this audience behind me, pete's character of country, his selflessness, his duty, these are the key tenants that have shaped him into the leader he is today. these are the traits that president trump recognized when making the decision to nominate pete for this critical role. he will bring the perspective of being the first secretary of defense to have served as a junior officer, on the front lines, not in the headquarters. on the front lines in the war on terror and recognizes the human cost, the financial cost, and
3:11 am
the policy draft that was discussed often in this very room that led us to decades and decades of war. not only does he understand the threats he faces, but as the chairman mentioned he is brilliant, in my mind, at communicating those to the american people in a way that is often not communicated in washington, d.c. to reach out to the american people so they understand why the military needs to do what it needs to do. look, i have no doubt that he is going to get the pentagon back to its primary mission, lethal readiness. that warrior ethos is what our enemies will respect. that warrior ethos is what our enemies will fear and what will keep the peace. in my humble opinion our
3:12 am
military deserves better than it is getting. men and women are not volunteering to serve at the levels required. our readiness is down. our costs are up. it seems every major weapons system, often discussed in this room, is costing too much, delivering too little, taking too long. the bottom line is, the status quo is unacceptable. it's not working. the members of this committee, you know it. you know it's not working. members of the house armed services know that it's not working. we have hearing after hearing year after year. here we are decades later describing the same problems. the pentagon has continuously failed audits, the businesses that want to do business with the pentagon has to pass an audit that the system itself fails an audit.
3:13 am
meritocracy is less valuable. as a result our adversaries have been emboldened all over the world. ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. it is time for a change. you have seen thousands of veterans as the chairman cited one amazing medal of honor recipient. we have seen thousands of veterans expressing support for pete. this man can reinvigorate the warrior ethos, and this is a man who can lead. i can't imagine having a more capable partner in my position as national security advisor. he has a family, faith, and committed to making our country strong again. most importantly, i know this to my core, he will always have as a first principle the service members that are out there on the front lines for all of us at the heart of every decision he makes.
3:14 am
senators, i urge you to support this confirmation. it is critical that president trump has his national security team in place for the challenges ahead. i thank you. chair wicker: thank you, mike, for your testimony. i'm guessing that each member of this committee will want to have you on speed dial for the next few years. thank you both. our two guests may stay, or i know they have other engagements and responsibilities also. thank you both for your testimony. at this point, mr. hegseth, i am required to ask you as the nominee a series of questions that the committee asks all civilian nominees who appear before it. if you would simply respond in the affirmative or negative to each question. have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations governing
3:15 am
conflicts of interest? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: have you assumed any duties or taken any actions that would appear to presume the outcome of confirmation process? mr. hegseth: no, sir. chair wicker: exercising our legislative and oversight responsibilities makes it important that this committee, its subcommittees, and appropriate committees of congress receive testimony, briefings, reports, records, and information from the executive branch on a timely basis. you agree if confirmed to appear and testify before this committee when requested? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: do you agree to provide records, documents, and electronic communications in a timely manner when requested by this committee, its subcommittees, or other appropriate committees of congress and consult with the requester regarding the basis for any good-faith delay or denial in providing such records? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: will you ensure that your staff complies with
3:16 am
deadlines established by this committee for the production of reports, records, and other information, including timely responding to hearing questions for the record? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: will you cooperate in providing witnesses and refers in response to congressional requests? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: will those witnesses be protected from reprisal for their testimony or briefings? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. chair wicker: so, at this point, mr. hegseth, you are recognized for your opening statement. mr. hegseth: thank you, chairman wicker, ranking member reed, and numbers of this committee for this opportunity today. i'm grateful for and have learned a great deal from this advise and consent process. our founders knew what they were doing. should i be confirmed, i look forward to working with this committee, senators from both
3:17 am
parties, to secure our nation. i want to thank the former senator from minnesota norm coleman for his mentorship and friendship in this process, and the incoming national security advisor, congressman, and importantly for our purposes colnel mike waltz. i'm grateful to them both. thank you to my incredible wife, jennifer. who has changed my life and been with me throughout this entire process. i love you, sweetheart. i thank god for you. as jenny and i pray together every morning, all glory, regardless of the outcome, longs to our lord and savior, jesus christ. his grace and mercy abounds each day. may his will be done. thank you to my father, brian, and mother, penny, and our entire family, including our seven wonderful kids, gunnar,
3:18 am
jackson, peter boone, kensington, luke, rex -- sorry. it's a lot of them. and gwendolyn. their future safety and security is in all of our hands. to all of the troops and veterans watching and here in the room, navy seals, green berets, soldiers, pilots, sailors, marines, gold stars, and more, too many friends to name, officers and enlisted, black and white, young and old, men and women, all americans, all warriors. this hearing is for you. thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. >> you are a misogynist. not only that you are -- [ indiscernible] chair wicker: i want to thank
3:19 am
the authorities for the swift reaction to that outburst and state that similar interruptions will be treated in like manner. mr. hegseth, you may continue. mr. hegseth: as i will say again, thank you for figuratively and literally having my back. i pledge to do the same for all of you. it is an honor to come before this committee today as president donald trump's nominee for the office of secretary of defense. two months ago, 77 million americans gave president trump a powerful mandate for change, to put america first, at home and abroad. i want to thank president trump for his faith in me and his selfless leadership for our republic. the troops have no better commander-in-chief than donald trump. as i've said to many of you in private meetings, when president trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he
3:20 am
gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the department of defense. he, like me, wants a pentagon laser focused on lethality, meritocracy, were fighting, accountability, and readiness. [indiscernible yelling] chair wicker: you may continue, sir. mr. hegseth: turning the pentagon back to were fighting. that's it. that's my job. chair wicker: mr. hegseth, suspend your remarks. let me say this. the capitol police are going to remove, immediately, individuals that are disrupting the hearing. i see a pattern attempting to be
3:21 am
inflicted on the committee. and we are simply not going to tolerate that. you may proceed. mr. hegseth: to bring back were fighting, if confirmed, i'm going to work with president trump, and this committee, to, one, restore the warrior ethos to the pentagon and throughout our fighting force. in doing so, we will reestablish trust in our military, addressing the recruiting crisis, retention crisis, readiness crisis in our ranks. [protester yelling] chair wicker: the security force will remove members -- mr. hegseth, you may, you may. mr. hegseth: the strength of our military is our unity and our
3:22 am
shared purpose, not our differences. number two, we will rebuild our military, always matching threats to capabilities. this includes reviving our defense industrial base, reforming the acquisitions process. as you mentioned, mr. chairman, no more valley of death for new defense companies. modernizing our nuclear triad. entering the pentagon can pass an audit. rapidly fueling modern technologies. number three, we will reestablish deterrence. first and foremost, we will defend our homeland, our borders, and our skies. second, we will work with our partners and allies to deter aggression in the indo pacific from the communist chinese. finally, we will responsibly end wars to ensure that we prioritize our resources to reorient to larger threats. we can no longer count on reputational deterrence. we need real deterrence.
3:23 am
the department of defense under donald trump will achieve peace through strength. in pursuing these america first national security goals will remain patriotically apolitical and stridently constitutional. unlike the current administration, politics should play no part in military matters. we are not republicans, we are not democrats, we are american warriors. our standards will be high and they will be equal, not equitable. that is a very different word. we need to make sure every warrior is fully qualified on their assigned weapons system, every pilot is qualified and current on the aircraft they are flying, and every general or flag officer is selected for leadership or promotion purely based on performance, readiness, and merit.
3:24 am
leaders at all levels will be held accountable, and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only focus. this has been my focus ever since i first put on the uniform as a young army rotc cadet at princeton university in 2001. i joined the military because i love my country and felt an obligation to defend it. i served with incredible americans in guantanamo bay, in iraq, in afghanistan, and on the streets of washington, d.c., many of which are with me here today. this includes enlisted soldiers i helped become american citizens, and muslim allies i helped to emigrate from iraq and afghanistan. when i took off the uniform my mission never stopped. now, it is true and has been acknowledged that i don't have a
3:25 am
similar biography to defend secretaries of the last 30 years, but has president trump also told me, we repeatedly placed people atop the pentagon with supposedly the right credentials. whether they are retired generals, academics, or defense contractor executives, and where has it gotten us? he believes, and i humbly agree, that it is time to give someone with dust on his boots the helm, a change agent. someone with no vested interest in any specific companies, specific or approve narratives. my only interest is the war fighter. deterring wars, and if called upon winning wars, by ensuring that our warriors never enter a fair fight. we let them win and we bring them home. like many of my generation, i have been there. i led troops in combat, i have been on patrol for days, i have pulled the trigger downrange,
3:26 am
heard bullets whizzing by, like scuffed insurgents, led medevac's, dodged iud's, pulled out that bodies, and knelt before a battlefield cross. this is not academic for me. this is my life. i led then and i will leavei len -- i will lead now. ask anyone who has ever worked for me. or with me. i know i am incredibly proud of the work we've done. my success as a leader has always been setting a clear vision, hiring people smarter and more capable land me, empowering them to succeed, holding everyone accountable and driving towards clear metrics. build a plan, work the plan, and then work harder than everyone
3:27 am
else around you. i have sworn an oath to the constitution before, and if confirmed, i will proudly do it again. this time, for the most important deployment of my life. i pledge to be a faithful partner to this committee, taking input and respecting oversight. we share the same goals, a ready , lethal military, the health and well-being of our troops, and a strong and secure america. thank you for the time, and i look forward to your questions. chair wicker: thank you very much, mr. hegseth. before we begin with member questions, i would like to remind my colleagues that, consistent with the bipartisan staff agreement from december and in concert with exactly how this committee dealt with the last secretary of defense nominee, each member will be recognized for one round of seven minutes to question the nominee. out of respect for the time of all members of this committee, time limits will be tightly
3:28 am
enforced. we have now been here for 45 minutes and i think we've done very well with the time. at this point, i will begin my questioning of the nominee. mr. hegseth, you and your family have endured criticism of your nomination since it was announced in november. workplace behavior, alcohol abuse, financial mismanagement during your time as a nonprofit executive. i should note to that that the majority of these have come from anonymous sources in liberal media publications. i wantto give you an opportunity to respond to these allegations, sir. mr. hegseth: mr. chairman, thank you for that opportunity. you are correct.
3:29 am
we undertook this responsibility with the obligation to the troops to do right by them for our war fighters. what became very evident to us from the beginning is there was a coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media against us. that was clear from moment one. but we know is, it wasn't about me. most of it was about president donald trump u.s. had to endure the same thing for much longer amounts of time, and had to do it in incredibly strong ways. we in some ways new it was coming. we didn't understand the depth of the dishonesty that would come with it. from story after story in the left-wing media, we saw anonymous source after anonymous source, based on second or third hand accounts. time and time again stories would come out and people would reach out and say, i've spoken to this reporter about who you really are and is willing to go on the record, but they didn't
3:30 am
print my quote. they didn't print any of my quotes. or, i worked with you for 10 years, or i was your accountant, i was your chief operating officer, i was your board member, i was with you on 100 tour stops for veterans of america, no one called me. no one asked for your conduct on or off the record. instead, a small handful of anonymous sources were allowed to drive a smear campaign and agenda about me because our left-wing media in america today sadly doesn't care about the truth. all they were out to do come mr. chairman, was destroying me. why do they want to destroy me? i am a change agent and threat to them because donald trump was going to choose me to empower me to bring the defense department back to what it should be, which is war fighting. i am willing to endure these attacks, but i will stand up for
3:31 am
the truth and for my reputation. false attacks, anonymous attacks, repeated ad nauseam, printed ad nausea as facts, face have provided to the committee, mr. chairman, and i know you will share, on the record statement after all the record statement by people who have served with me, worked with me at fox news, concerned vets, that's for freedom, you name it, from the top of the chain to the bottom who will say that i treated them with respect, kindness, dignity. that is men, women, black, white, every background. i have prided myself as a leader of respecting people being professional. i am not a perfect person, as has been acknowledged, saved by the grace of god, by jesus and jenny. i am not a perfect person, but redemption is real and god forged me in ways that i know that i'm prepared for.
3:32 am
i am honored by the people standing and sitting behind me, and i look forward to leading this pentagon on behalf of the war fighters. chair wicker: thank you, mr. hegseth. i'm sure millions of americans watching would agree that they have experienced that same sort of redemption. i do appreciate that. i realize it involves a little bearing of the soul, but thank you for that. let's talk about topline defense spending. i have a plan. i think you have read it. i have another plan for freedoms forged which you've had a chance to look at. you noted correctly that the current defense spending falling below 3% of our gdp is a threat to national security. you also said building the strongest, most powerful military of the world must be done responsibly, but it cannot be done on the cheap. you still agree with that? mr. hegseth: yes, sir. i do. chair wicker: tell us what you
3:33 am
think about particularly my plan to make the defense department less bureaucratic, less top-heavy, cut out some of the bureaucracy layers, make it more friendly to startups and new ideas, contained in my 20 or so page paper defending freedoms forged. mr. hegseth: i've had a chance to review that paper. those are precisely the kinds of ideas that need to be pursued. i look forward to working with this committee to ensure we cut red tape, incentivize innovation, cut out the bureaucracy, all of the things preventing platforms and tools from getting our defense companies here and those who want to compete into the hands of war fighters. past is prologue and i would look at what president trump did after the drawdowns under
3:34 am
president obama. president obama. president trump rebuilt our military. he didn't start wars, he ended them and he did not allow wars to start on his watch. we've had the same defense cuts under the biden administration. i would present to the committee the reputation of president donald trump and me coming alongside him to ensure that we have peace through strength by rebuilding our military, investing as necessary. going under 3% is very dangerous. chair wicker: we have 45 seconds. get us started talking about deterring china in the indo pacific. mr. hegseth: it starts with priorities. the 2017 national defense strategy was the first step in reorienting away from simply entanglement in the middle east, which our generation knows a lot about, and reorienting the behemoth which is the pentagon towards new priorities, specifically the indo pacific. that strategy was started and barely follow through on in the
3:35 am
biden administration so we will start by making sure the institution understands, as far as threats abroad, the ccp's front and center. also, defending our homeland as well. chair wicker: senator reed? you are recognized. sen. reed: thank you for the question. i would like to make three requests. many of my members would like a second round. that has been the custom. senator hagel was afforded three rounds. senator ash carter two rounds. that was done by republican chairman with the consent and appropriate guidance of democrats. i must say, my recollection is i never denied anyone the opportunity to ask a second round of questions. i would request a second round. my time has run out. chair wicker: if the timekeeper would pause the time.
3:36 am
i must say, i think we will have adequate time for questioning. i know democrat members have coordinated their questions as much as we have. we are following the same exact precedent on all things that we did with secretary austin. so, i respectfully understand what you are saying, but i think we have an agreement. it has been known for some time. i intend to stick with that agreement which we made last december. what is your second request? sen. reed: second, as been publicly reported you and i have seen the fbi background investigation of mr. hegseth, and i want to say that i believe the investigation was frankly insufficient. there are still fbi obligations to talk to people.
3:37 am
they have not had access to the forensic audit, which i referenced to, and the person who had access was quite critical of mr. hegseth. i think people on both sides have suggested that they get the report. i know your colleagues have asked for. senator thune assured me that he thought it was an appropriate idea. i would ask and i would say as a precedent, one of president's appointees had similar complicated personal issues and the report was made available to all members of the committee. we would be following precedent. i asked that be made available if possible. chair wicker: again, there has been much discussion about this. what i intend to do is follow the exact precedent that we've had for the last two hearings with regard to secretaries of defense.
3:38 am
not only secretary austin but secretary mattis eight years ago. that was for the chair and ranking member to see the report. that is my intention as the chair of this committee. sen. reed: finally, mr. chairman, i have several letters that i would include for the record. one from count every hero, an organization of retired four-star generals and the former secretary of defense critical of the proposed panels. one from an organization for domestic violence. one from a council on american relations. and also, several letters that raise questions. i would ask you be submitted to the record. chair wicker: without objection they will be submitted. mr. reed, your time is now
3:39 am
expired. just kidding. [laughter] you are recognized for seven minutes. sen. reed: thank you. you are an understanding chairman. i like that here mr. hegseth, you have written, fire any general who hasn't carried water for an agenda driven transformation for our military. clean house and start over. it has come to my attention that current serving military personnel have received emails threatening them with being fired for supporting the current dod policies. one email that was sent to a military officer with the subject line, clean house, reminiscent of your comment states, with the incoming administration looking to remove disloyal, corrupt, traitorous, liberal officers, such as yourself, we will certainly be putting your name into the list
3:40 am
of those personnel to be removed. we know you support the woke dei policies and will ensure that you never again influence anyone in the future. you and, redacted spells his name, will be lucky if you are able to collect your military retirement. i want to remind everyone that these policies being referred to date back to decades to the 1940's and 1950's with respect to racial discrimination particularly, and administrations of both parties, including the trump administration in the first party caused those policies to be enforced. mr. hegseth, are you aware of these emails being sent to officers? mr. hegseth: senator, you mention the word accountability, which is something we have not had for the last four years. sen. reed: are you aware of these messages being sent to officers? mr. hegseth: certainly i am not aware of that. it is not one of my efforts are but there has been no
3:41 am
accountability for the disaster of the withdrawal in afghanistan, and that is why we are here today. leadership has been unwilling to take accountability. it is time to restore that to our most senior ranks. mr. hegseth: you have written policy that -- sen. reed: you have written dei has military personnel walking on eggshells. you believe email set like that threatening serving officer and spouse and claiming that they will lose their pension will have a distraction and detract? mr. hegseth: you mentioned the 1940's and you are precisely right. the military was a forerunner in courageous integration. it is incredibly important -- however, the policies of today are not the same as what happened back then. they are dividing troops inside
3:42 am
formations causing commanders to walk on eggshells, not putting meritocracysen. reed: all of yos do not talk about meritocracy. they talk about efforts that are destroying the military that those people are enemies. that is not meritocracy. that is a political view and your goal is to politicize the military in favor of your particular positions which would be the worst blow to the professionalism of the united states military. it would undercut retention. let me change subject for a
3:43 am
moment here. you have been instrumental in securing pardons for convicted war criminals. at least two of these cases the military personnel who served in combat were not supportive of the pardons. they did their duty as soldiers to report crimes. your definition embraces those people who committed war crimes. they personally witness these and courageously reported them to their superiors. mr. hegseth: as someone who has led men in combat directly, i thought deeply about the balance between legality and lethality.
3:44 am
to close the enemy and lawyers aren't the ones getting in the way. i'm not talking about disavowing the laws of the geneva conventions. i'm talking about restrictive rules of engagement that these men and women behind me understand they have lived with on the battlefield making it more difficult to defeat our enemies. there was evidence withheld. there was prosecutorial -- prosecutorial misconduct. they default to the war fighter. not the second guessers in air-conditioned offices in washington, d.c. i was proud to work with president trump to understand those cases and ensure our warriors are looked out for. sen. reed: those cases are adjudicated by who? people in washington or noncommissioned officers who served and believed in the military?
3:45 am
who were the court marshals? mr. hegseth: in multiple cases they were actually acquitted. regardless of where those authorities are. sen. reed: others were convicted. that's the only reason you asked for a pardon, because they were convicted. it was already disparaged in writing, the geneva convention, the rules of law, all of these things. how will you be able to effectively lead a military in which one of the principal elements is respectful lawful authority. would you explain what a jag officer is? mr. hegseth: i don't think i need to. sen. reed: why not? mr. hegseth: the men and women watching understand. sen. reed: perhaps my colleagues don't understand.
3:46 am
mr. hegseth: they would put their own priorities in front of the war fighters. their promotions, metals, in front of those making the calls on the frontline. sen. fischer: thank you and welcome to you and your family. thank you for the meeting that we talked about a number of things. first and foremost was that nuclear weapons are foundational to our national defense and having a safe, effective, credible nuclear deterrent underpins our alliances and deters our adversaries. nuclear deterrence has been and you and i agreed on this, must continue to be unequivocally the highest priority mission of the department of defense. deterrence only works if our adversaries believe our nuclear forces are effective and
3:47 am
credible. all three legs of our triad are undergoing that program. we cannot afford any more delays in those programs. do you believe and agree with president trump's 2018 nuclear posture review that preventing adversary nuclear attacks is the highest priority of the united states? mr. hegseth: yes i do. sen. fischer: do you commit to supporting all three legs of the nuclear triad and using every tool available to deliver these systems on schedule? mr. hegseth: yes i do. ultimately our deterrence, our survival is relied upon the capability, perception, reality of our nuclear triad. we have to invest in this modernization. sen. fischer: former secretaries
3:48 am
of defense have stated nuclear deterrent is the highest priority, we haven't seen that translated into budget requests or using tools like the defense production act. you've spoken about increasingly, getting programs done faster. how would you actually implement a culture change so we could see these delivery schedules move forward, be rewarded? i could tell you almost every briefing we have, the schedules were not too late. mr. hegseth: focus on the things most important. whether it is the be 21 or the middleman to the sentinel. submarines, ballistic metals -- missiles, you mentioned it.
3:49 am
the defense production act. emergency powers. if we are at a place where our capabilities are not perceived to be what they are, that is an emergency. we have an ally who has spoken about these things, understands the power and strength. sen. fischer: it is the existential threat to this nation. how do you change the culture? it is not just the production act that will be able to do it. how will you move forward faster? mr. hegseth: competition is important. leveraging the innovation of silicon valley which for the first time in generations has shown a willingness and desire to bring its best technologies to the pentagon that has become too insular, tries to block new technologies from coming in. there is some great office of strategic capital initiatives
3:50 am
that provide loans to companies to participate. you have to invest in the defense industrial base for the longer-term projects. also to rapidly field emerging technologies that we need on the battlefield right now. those technologies as we look at threats we will face find ways to rapidly field those using off-the-shelf technologies or standard designs, modular designs. another easy one that became evident was digital designs. the pentagon often builds entire systems without using a digital design. you build prototypes and scrapped them and start over again. no private sector business could survive doing business that way. i will hire a lot of smart people to help with that. sen. fischer: in the 2025 mbaa
3:51 am
it was established a new position, the assistant secretary for defense chemical and biological program. that was established so we could cut through a lot of the bureaucratic stovepipes that we see in the office of the secretary of defense. if confirmed, will you direct the department of defense components to expeditiously implement this reform? mr. hegseth: i would want to look directly at what that reform is. i take your word it is great. i look forward to implementing it. sen. fischer: during the first trump administration, the 2018 nuclear posture review concluded the u.s. needed to once again develop and deploy a nuclear launch missile to offset significant russian and chinese advantages in nuclear
3:52 am
capabilities. since then, congress on a strong, bipartisan basis has directed the navy and national nuclear security administration to continue this effort. do you support this program? mr. hegseth: as of right now based on what i know, one of the answers i will have repeatedly throughout this morning is getting an opportunity to look under the hood, classified material, true capabilities vis-a-vis enemy capabilities. what i know on the nuclear side is russia and china are rushing to modernize and build arsenals larger than ours. we need to match threats to capabilities. we will be tied to whether those capabilities are needed. sen. fischer: would you ensure that this program is executed according to law? mr. hegseth: absolutely.
3:53 am
sen. fischer: short here, what is your plan to revitalize the industrial base in this country? >> needs to be real short. mr. hegseth: serious investment, targeted at systems that we truly need by also incentivizing competition and laser focus from the office of secretary defense to all of the strategic initiatives so it's not just one system. >> you may want to expand on that on the record. at this point my colleagues, i would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter organized by a group called flag officers for america which has 120 retired generals and admirals offering their support for his nomination.
3:54 am
without objection it is nominated into the record. sen. shaheen: good morning. i was pleased when i was contacted on your behalf about meeting before this hearing. i have been on this committee since 2011. i voted to confirm six nominees to be secretary of defense. two democratic and one republican. everyone of those nominees met with me and my democratic colleagues on this committee before the hearing. as you could imagine i was disappointed when no one ever followed up when we followed up with your office. do you understand that if you are confirmed to be secretary of defense you will have a responsibility to meet with all members of this committee, not just republicans? mr. hegseth: i very much appreciate and understand the
3:55 am
traditionally bipartisan nature of this committee. national defense is not partisan. i look forward to working together with you and your colleagues on priorities facing this nation. sen. shaheen: one reason i wanted to meet with you was i thought it would be really helpful to better understand your views on women in the military. you made a number of surprising statements about women serving in the military. as recently as november 7, 2024 on the sean ryan show you said "i'm straight up saying that we should not have women in combat roles. it hasn't made us more effective." it went on a little bit longer but that was the gist of it. that was before you were nominated. do you know what percentage of our military is comprised of women? mr. hegseth: i believe it is
3:56 am
18%-20%. sen. shaheen: in fact the 2023 demographic report indicated that there are more women serving now and there are fewer separations. they make up acquittal part -- a critical part of our military. mr. hegseth: i have said publicly they have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield. sen. shaheen: the you also write in your book that not only are women comparatively less effective than men in combat roles, they are more likely to be objectified by the enemy in their own nation. should we take to believe that you believe the two women on this committee who have served honorably and with distinction made our military less effective and capable? mr. hegseth: i am incredibly
3:57 am
grateful for the two women who served our military union of arm including in the central intelligence agency. indispensable contributions. i would like to clarify when i'm talking about that issue it's not about the capabilities of men and women it's about standards. standards that we unfortunately over time have seen eroded in certain duty positions, certain places that affects readiness. sen. shaheen: i appreciate that. however, your statements publicly have not been to that effect. you did state to a group of reporters that you support all women serving in our military today. you do a fantastic job across the globe, including combat. what i'm confused about is which is it? why should women in our military , if you were the secretary of
3:58 am
defense believe that they would have a fair shot and equal opportunity to rise through the ranks? on the one hand you say women are not competent, they make our military less effective. now that i have been nominated to be the secretary of defense i changed my view on women in the military, what do you have to say to the almost 400,000 women serving today about your position on whether they should be capable to rise through the highest ranks of our military? mr. hegseth: i would say i would be honored to have the opportunity to serve alongside of you, shoulder to shoulder. all backgrounds with a shared purpose. our differences are not going to define us. our unity and shared purpose will define us. you will be treated with honor and respect just like the men and women i have worked with in my veterans organizations to include when i was a headquarters company commander
3:59 am
in the minnesota national guard. sen. shaheen: i would like to submit chapter five, the deadly obsession with women warriors for the record. >> without objection it will be submitted. sen. shaheen: are you familiar with the women peace and security agenda? mr. hegseth: yes, i am. sen. shaheen: this is a law that was signed during president-elect trumps first term. it was cosponsored by marco rubio, the nominee to be the secretary of state. it was led in the house of representatives by kristi noem. it mandates that women be included in all aspects of our national security, including conflict resolution and peace negotiations. that the department of defense it has been the law for eight years under the trump and biden
4:00 am
administration. the dod has incorporated women as a result. every single combatant commander across two administrations has told this committee that it's law and implementation at the department of defense provides strategic advantage operationally. it appears that the example that you would like to set not only for women in this country but across the globe, 50% of the worlds population has the perspective nominee to lead most combat credible military in the entire world is that women should not have an equal opportunity in our military. will you commit to preserving the women peace and security law and including in your budget the requisite funding to continue to restore and resource these programs. mr. hegseth: i will commit to
4:01 am
reviewing that program and ensuring it aligns with america first national security priorities and readiness. if it advances american interests it is something we would advance. sen. shaheen: former president trump signed the law, i hope he agrees with it. >> thank. at this point i would ask you unanimous consent to enter into the record, five letters of support from female service members and combat veterans who support mr. hague seth's nominations. a retired colonel with 25 years of service, a warfare commander, a senior air and that support mr. headset -- hegseth. the military training status. without objection it would be entered into the record.
4:02 am
i'm honored to recognize senator cotton. sen. cotton: many members of this committee have served in combat over the last 25 years including women and men. whether they were military police officers or they were pilots, intelligence analysts. you served, i assume you served with women on the front as well. were those women anything other than skilled, brave, honorable? some of the best soldiers i worked with. sen. cotton: women have been working in infantry battalions for a long time as medics, mechanics, what we are talking
4:03 am
about specifically are women in ground combat roles, jobs like infantry, artillery, special forces. until about 10 years ago that wasn't the case. those roles were opened up to women to serve in. has president trump indicated at all that he plans to rescind or alter that guidance? mr. hegseth: you're correct to point out these are the decisions the commander-in-chief will have the prerogative to make. he has not indicated to me that he has plans to change whether or not women would have access to these roles. i would point out, ensuring standards are equal and high is of importance to him and me. in those ground combat roles, what is true is the weight on your back doesn't change. the weight of the bravo machine gun you might have to carry does not change. whether it is a man or woman,
4:04 am
they have to meet the same high standards. in any place where those things have been eroded or course criteria have been changed in order to meet quotas, racial quotas or gender quotas, that is putting a focus on something other than readiness standards, meritocracy, lethality. that is the kind of review i am talking about. mr. hegseth: you expect no change. you point out the specific jobs, they are irreducible physical demands. we expect our intelligence analysts and mechanics be physically fit. it's different when you are in the infantry or all tiller he -- artillery. a shell weighs almost 100 pounds. the m 240 bravo machine gun weighs almost 50 pounds. the average weight of a full kit
4:05 am
, ammo, water, body armor for a soldier is over 100 pounds. nothing you could do could change any of those things. that is physical reality? mr. hegseth: yes. i would say the requirements to handle those things in a ground combat unit could look different as far as a medic or drone pilot. it's not that it has to be the same standard throughout. sen. cotton: let me read a quote from one army officer. it might be difficult for a 120 pound woman to lift or drag, the army cannot officially absolve women of that responsibility on the battlefield. the entire purpose of creating a gender-neutral test was to acknowledge the reality that each job has objective physical standards that all soldiers should be held regardless of gender. intent was not to ensure women
4:06 am
and men would have equal likelihood of meeting those standards. i assume based on your testimony that you agree with that army officer? mr. hegseth: absolutely. the standards need to be the same. they need to be high and set by the people closest to the understanding of what is required by that job. commanding officers who understand the reality of what they face, that is the feedback of what we should get. when i talk about removing politics, ideological or political prerogative should contribute to those determinations. nothing than the execution of the mission. sen. cotton: that officer was the first female infantry officer and one of the first graduates. they need to be objective, gender-neutral, and high because of the demands are very high.
4:07 am
the current physical fitness test has a minimum two mile run of 22 miles. i want the reporters to know that i'm putting rund in air quotes. 22 miles at two miles is not running. let's move on. we have a big 22 minutes. we have a big audience here. many of them seem to be patriotic supporters. i would note it is only the liberal critics that have disrupted this hearing. as was my custom during the biden administration. the first one accused you of being a christian zionist. i'm not sure what that is. zionism is that the jewish people deserve a homeland in the
4:08 am
ancient holy land where they have lived since the dawn of history. mr. hegseth: i robustly support the state of israel and its existential defense and the way america comes alongside of them. another protester, this is a chinese communist front group these days said you support israel's war in gaza. i support israel's existential war in gaza. mr. hegseth: i support israel destroying every single member of hamas. sen. cotton: 20 years of genocide, do you think our troops are committing genocide? mr. hegseth: i do not. our troops did the best they could with what they had.
4:09 am
tragically the outcome we saw in afghanistan put a stain on that. it doesn't put a stain on what those men and women did as you know full well. sen. wicker: thank you senator cotton. at this point i ask unanimous consent to enter to the record a letter submitted by omar abasi, form of former city council president who worked with mr. hegseth in iraq. sen. gillibrand: i do want to thank you for your service. i want to thank you for your willingness to serve in this capacity. i have many concerns about your record, in particular your public statements. they are so hurtful to the men and women who are currently serving in the u.s. military. harmful to morale, to discipline.
4:10 am
if you are saying women shouldn't be serving in the military, the quotes themselves are terrible. you have to change how you see women to do the job well. i want to press on these issues that my colleague brought up. first of all, you answered your question do you believe any american who wants to serve their country in the military and could meet objective standards should be allowed to serve without limitation? you said yes to that question. you have denigrated active duty service members. we have hundreds, hundreds of women who are currently in the infantry. members of our military serving in the infantry. you degrade them saying we need moms but not in the military. specific to senator cotton's question, he was giving you
4:11 am
layouts to differentiate between different types of combat. specifically as secretary, would you take any action to reinstitute the exclusion for female service members knowing you have women doing that job right now. your two mile run is about the army combat fitness test, it is not the requirements to have 11 bravo. these are the requirements today for people serving in industry, men and women. they are very difficult to meet. they have not been reduced in any way. our combat units, our infantry is lethal. please explain specifically, you will be in charge of 3 million personnel. it is a big job. i get you are not secretary of defense then.
4:12 am
you were on tv, you are helping veterans, it was a different job . most recently you said this in november, 2024 knowing you might have been named secretary of defense. please explain these type of statements because they are brutal. mr. hegseth: i appreciate your comments. i would point out i have never disparaged women serving in the military. i respect every single female present. i have seen standards lowered and you mentioned alpha 11 bravo, places in units, the book that has been referenced, i have spent months talking to active
4:13 am
duty service members, men and women, hirings, lower ranks and and what each and every one of them told me is that in ways indirect, direct, standards have been changed inside infantry training units, ranger school, infantry battalions -- >> give me an example. mr. hegseth: that disparages those members -- >> commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the industry. that does not exist. your statements are creating the impression that these exist because they do not. they are not quotas. we want the most lethal force. having been here for 15 years listening to testimony about men and women in combat and the type
4:14 am
of operations that were successful in afghanistan and iraq, women were essential for many of those units. when units went in to find out where the terrorists were hiding, if they had a woman in the unit, they could talk to the woman in the village and say where are the terrorists hiding, where are 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. please do not deny that you have made those statements. you have. we take response ability of standards very seriously. i am equally distressed that you would that meet with me before this hearing. we could have covered this before you came here. so that i can get to the 15 other questions i want to get to. women you have denigrated. you have denigrated members of the lgbtq community.
4:15 am
when don't ask don't tell was in place we lost so many crucial personnel, over 1000 admission-critical areas. we lost 10% of foreign language speakers because of a political policy. you said in your statement you do not want politics in the d. o.d. everything you have said has been politics. you do not want women, you do not want moms. you are basically saying that women after they have children can never serve the military in a combat role. it is a silly thing to say. beneath the position that you are aspiring to. two denigrated lgbtq service members is a mistake. if you are a sharpshooter, you are lethal regardless of your identity and regardless of who you love. please know this to be a true statement. you say it was a political thing. you say it undermined us, social engineering. i don't know why having someone
4:16 am
to publicly say or not publicly say who they love is social engineering. i think having that problem -- policy is highly problematic. as you said in your statement, do you agree that anyone should be able to serve in the military if they meet the standards? mr. hegseth: i do not disagree with the overturn of don't ask don't tell. >> great. i don't want you thinking you cannot serve if you are a mom, you cannot serve if you are lgbtq and last, you cannot serve if you are a leftist. the statements that you have said that we are the enemy, are you saying that 50% of the d.o.d. if they cold leftist ideas that they are not fit to serve in the military? mr. hegseth: i served under democrat president barack obama. i'd volunteered to guard the inauguration of joe biden but
4:17 am
was denied the opportunity to serve because i was identified as an extremist. >> thank you very much. senator gillibrand, you held up a document and referred to it during your questioning. would you like that entered into the record? ? > we will submit a clean copy. >> i would like to enter into the record, a letter of support from retired air force colonel melissa cunningham. without objection. both of those will be admitted. >> good morning. i would like to thank you for your service to our nation in uniform and also your work on behalf of your fellow veterans
4:18 am
and your willingness to enter into this maelstrom of public service. with the presence of so many veterans who have showed up to support you, it speaks volumes. want to recognize your service and sacrifice. you know it is not just the man that enters the arena but the entire family who works their way through this process as well. i appreciated are meeting with you and your wife jennifer this last month. i thought we had an excellent conversation and i appreciate your statement and your answers to the advanced policy questions especially your desire to bring a renewed focus on war fighting lethality back to the pentagon. i appreciate my friend and colleague senator gillibrand and some of her questions. she had a number of them. you had an opportunity to respond briefly. where there any other responses
4:19 am
you would like to make or clarifications you would like to make before i move on to my questions? mr. hegseth: thank you for the opportunity to meet and the question. i would also acknowledge you were mentioning female engagement teams which have shown a great deal of success on the battlefield. they have been universally 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 recognize that female engagement teams assigned to a seal team meet different standards, which is ok because there are positions involved in that job. as far as politics, it has been the joy of my life to lead men and women in military outfits. when you are in combat or training, there are a lot of
4:20 am
conversations that happen. a lot of people you are serving with share your political ideas or they don't. you find out there are republicans, democrats, libertarians, independents, vegetarians, everything in between. none of that matters. it never mattered in how i lead men and women, how i interact with them, but missions we undertook. politics has nothing to do with the battlefield. which is why president trump said let's make sure all of that comes out. this is about war fighting capability, setting high standards and giving our men and women everything they need to be successful on the battlefield. politics can play no part in that. >> i appreciate you making it very clear. one of the areas that we want to do our best is to provide for the equipment and the technical capability so that no young man or woman enters into a battle as
4:21 am
a fair fight and that they always have the advantage. those are the types of questions i would like to get into right now. i want to start by talking about something that sometimes gets into the weeds but i think is critical. from what i have heard from 24 senior d.o.d. officials in hearings over the last two years including the secretary of defense, every service chief will be eight combatant commanders is that chairing the portion of the spectrum, i will ask to get it on the record, 3.1 to 3.5 gigahertz ban would have extremely serious consequences and costly consequences on our war fighting capabilities. the department of the navy has estimated that relocating their systems to a different part of the spectrum ban would cost them $250 billion. that is just for the destroyers
4:22 am
that defend our coast with the radars that they have. if confirmed, what will you do to make sure that the department of defense can maintain its access to use and maneuver within the electromagnetic spectrum at home and abroad and would you be willing to literally go to the mat with the interagency to protect war fire -- war fighter requirements for the use of the spectrum? mr. hegseth: thank you for the question. my job will be to go to the mat when necessary for things that i believe are an absolute requirement for the department of defense and the men and women in uniform. as far as spectrum, i look forward to getting a full classification. this issue has come up a number of times. it is critically important with how war fighters communicate across all services. i will get a classified briefing immediately about how that would impact the spectrum if it were
4:23 am
to allow other companies -- >> rest assured china would love to have our ability to use that part of the spectrum restricted. they would love that. mr. hegseth: absolutely right. i would go in with eyes aimed toward ensuring that you have the capability we need. >> thank you. in your advanced policy questions you recognize a property -- cooperative approach. as you point out, aggression by any one actor would be an opportunity for others to engage the u.s. on multiple fronts along the continuum of the conflict. as we discussed in my office either of us wants to send troops to go fair fight. we want to make sure they have every advantage that the u.s. can give them and that requires resources and reforms. given the growing potential of a multi-theater conflict involving near peer adversaries, what
4:24 am
steps would you take to prepare the department of defense to sustain operations across multiple regions while maintaining readiness and deterrence globally? i have to make note, we have language in this 2025 national defense authorization act calling for a review of the departments operational plans. i want to make sure that you are aware of that. we have chances that are very good that we will have two different battlegrounds at the same time. mr. hegseth: our country is fortunate to have a new commander-in-chief in donald trump who through the strategic approach he has taken with allies and against foes has prevented wars and is determined to do the same. that is our chief job, to deter and prevent wars. my job is to ensure we have the right prioritization of assets and strategy and the tools in
4:25 am
the toolbox necessary, the appointee asked -- the pointiest spear possible for president trump. we will go a long way to making sure our enemies know there is a new sheriff in town. >> thank you very much. senator blumenthal. >> thank you. thank you for having his hearing. thank you for being here, mr. pete heseth. thank you for your services. i hope we can focus on doing better for our veterans and doing better in management of the department of defense. there is always room for improvement. what we need in that position is
4:26 am
not just better but the best in the financial management. those decisions affecting 3.4 million americans who serve our national security and our national defense and put their lives on the line. i want to talk about financial mismanagement at the two organizations that you headed which are the only test of your financial management that we have before this committee. veterans for freedom and concerned veterans for america. you took over the veterans for freedom in 2007. in 2008 you raised $8.7 million but spent more than $9 million, creating a deficit. by january 2009 you told donors that the organization had less than $1000 in the bank and debts
4:27 am
of $434,000. by 2010 revenue at the veterans for freedom had dropped to about $265,000. in the next year it had dropped further. you do not dispute these numbers, do you? mr. hegseth: senator, i am extremely proud of the work me and my vets did at veterans for freedom. a bunch of young vets with no political experience, a small group, working hard every single day. we raised donor funds and we have letters submitted for the record from almost everyone that worked with me every single day including our chief operating officer who will attest that every dollar we raised was used intentionally toward the execution of our mission which is supporting the war fighters, exactly why we are here today,
4:28 am
the war fighters in the iraq surge. there was a campaign in 2008. >> if i can ask you another question. i have tax returns from that organization that i'm going to ask to be entered into the record, mr. chairman. >> without objection. >> these tax returns are yours. they have your signature. i'm going to ask that members of the committee reviewed them because they are the only documents. i have asked for others. i have asked for the fbi report that would presumably document, it should have documented this kind of financial mismanagement. these are the 990's from that organization. by 2011 donors have become so dissatisfied with that mismanagement, they ousted you. they emerged that organization
4:29 am
with military families united. thereafter you joined a second organization as executive director. >> in between, i went to harvard university for two years. >> i want to ask you about concerned veterans for america. the 990's from that organization, i ask that that be made part of the record. >> without objection. both of those are part of the record. >> at the end of 2013, a shortfall of 100 $30,000. at the end of 2014, a shortfall of 128,000 dollars. another deficit of 437 thousand dollars. by the time you left that organization, there were deep debts including credit card transaction debts of about $75,000.
4:30 am
that is not the kind of fiscal management that we want at the department of defense. we cannot tolerate that at the department of defense. that is an organization with a bunch of $850 billion, not 10 million or 15 million which was the case at those two organizations. it has commander responsibility for 3.4 million americans, the highest number that you managed in those two organizations was maybe 50 people. let me ask you, how many men and women now serve in the united states army? mr. hegseth: i would like the opportunity to respond. concerned veterans for america. you are on the v.a. committee and i appreciate your service. the v.a. accountability act and the mission act were brainchild
4:31 am
of concerned veterans for america. we used our donor money very intentionally and focused to create policy that bettered the lives of veterans. >> mr. hegseth i am asking you a very simple question. how many serve in the united states army? >> 450,000 on active duty. >> how many in the navy? >> 425. >> 327 this year. how many in the marine corps? >> 175,000. >> 172,300. those numbers dwarf any experience you have by many multiples. i do not believe that you can tell this committee or the people of america mollified to lead them. i would support you as a spokesperson for the pentagon.
4:32 am
i do not dispute your communication skills. i believe we are entitled to the facts. i have asked for more documents. i assume you would be willing to submit to a background check that interviews your colleagues, accountants, ex-wives, former spouses, sexual assault survivors and others and enable them to come forward. >> i am not in charge of fbi and background checks. >> but you would submit? >> i am not in charge of fbi and background checks. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. i want to submit a letter from the founder of veterans for freedom and the person who hired pete hegseth to run the organization. although the 2008 financial crisis dried up fundraising for
4:33 am
nonprofits, he says, "pete responded with decisive action by reducing staff and renegotiating all debts with creditors until they were fairly resolved, an impressive feat and testament to his character. he departed in 2010 to take on a new role with concerned veterans for america. without objection, this will be added to the record. senator ernst, you are recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter submitted by mr. mark lucas who is a fellow island and iowa army national guard member. mr. lucas and i served together in the national guard. he succeeded pete hegseth as executive director for concerned veterans for america and in his letter mr. lucas says that pete
4:34 am
hegseth laid a strong foundation that postured cva for long-term success and that mr. hegseth continued to be a valuable asset to both me as a leader and the organization. i would ask for unanimous consent to enter this washington times article and the letter from mr. mark lucas into the record. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chair. good morning mr. hegseth. thanks very much. i appreciate your service to our nation. it is something i know you are very proud of. and it is something with that we have in common and that we share. we have had many productive conversations. just for our audience, we have had very frank conversations, is that correct? mr. hegseth: that is a correct characterization. >> you know that i do not keep
4:35 am
anything hidden. i pull no punches. my colleagues know that as well. i do appreciate you sitting down and allowing me the opportunity to question you thoroughly on those issues that are of great importance to me. just to recap those issues, three that are very important, one is the d.o.d. and making sure that we have a clean audit. the second is women in combat and we will talk more about that in a moment. the third was maintaining high standards and making sure that we are combating sexual assault in the military. i'm going to address the issue because this will tie into some of the financial concerns that have been raised here as well. i am trusting my fellow iowan,
4:36 am
and ask for unanimous consent for this to go into the record. like me a lot of iowans are concerned to upset about the wasteful washington spending and the pentagon. it is an issue that i have been combating for years. there is significant room for greater efficiency and cost cutting within the department. the d.o.d. is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. as the senate doge caucus chair and found her, that is unacceptable to me and it should be unacceptable to you as well. i appreciate that you mention that in your opening statement. what are those steps you will take to ensure the pentagon has a clean audit by the year 2028? mr. hegseth: i appreciate your work on this topic which you have been involved in for a long time. you mentioned concerned veterans for america. i just want to clarify, you have
4:37 am
very generous donors who set a very clear budget that we stuck to every single year. the latitude was restricted and we worked very diligently. you who were the leader on the pentagon audit, when we met i said 2014 was the first year. we discovered a 2013 op-ed i wrote about the need for a pentagon audit because an audit is an issue of national security and respect to american taxpayers who give 850 billion dollars to the defense department and expect that we know where that money goes and if that money is going somewhere that does not add to tooth and instead goes to fat or tail or if it is wasted, we need to know that. i think previous secretaries of defense have not emphasized the strategic prerogative of an audit. myself, my deputy and others already know that a pentagon audit will be the comptroller, others, central to ensuring that
4:38 am
we find those dollars that can be used elsewhere legally under the law inside the pentagon. you have my word that it will be a priority. >> thank you. moving on to women in combat. i had the privilege of serving in uniform for over 23 years between our army reserves and are iowa army national guard. i did serve in kuwait and missions in iraq. it is incredibly important that i stress and i hope that, if confirmed, you continue to stress that every man and woman has opportunity to serve their country in uniform and do so on any level as long as they are meeting the standards that are set forward. we talked about that in my office. i do believe in high standards. i was denied the opportunity to serve in any combat role because
4:39 am
i have a lot of gray hair. the policy has changed since then. i have been around for quite a while. for the young women who are out there now and can meet those standards and again i will emphasize they should be very high standards. they must physically be able to achieve those standards so that they can complete their mission. but i want to know, let's make it very clear for everyone here today. as secretary of defense will you support women continuing to have the opportunity to serve in combat roles? mr. hegseth: senator, thank you for your service. as we discussed extensively. >> it is my privilege. mr. hegseth: my answer is yes, exactly the way that you caveated it. women will have access to combat
4:40 am
roles given the standards remain high and will have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases. that will be one of the first things we do at the pentagon is reviewing that in a gender-neutral way the standards, ensuring readiness, a meritocracy front and center. it will be the privilege of a lifetime to be the secretary of defense for all men and women who fight so heroically. they have so many other options. they decide to put their right hand up for our country. it would be an honor to lead them. >> we only have less than a minute left. we have also discussed this in my office. a priority of mine has been combating sexual assault in the military and making sure that all of our service members are treated with dignity and respect. this has been so important.
4:41 am
senator gillibrand and i have worked on this and we were able to get changes made to the uniform code of military justice to make sure that we have improvements on how we address the tragic will be life altering -- tragic and life altering issues from sexual assault. it will demand a time and attention from the pentagon under your watch if confirmed. as secretary of defense, will you appoint a senior level official dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response? mr. hegseth: as we have discussed, yes i will. >> my time is expired. thank you for your answers. >> senator hirono. >> thank you. mr. hegseth, welcome. i am focused on your character, temperament and qualifications to do the job. i do appreciate the comments of
4:42 am
ranking member reid and his concerns regarding your nomination. i share those concerns. as part of my responsibility as a member of this committee to ensure the fitness of all nominees who come before any of the committees on which i said, i asked the following initial questions first. since you became an adult have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature? mr. hegseth: no, senator. >> have you ever faced discipline or entered a settlement relating to this kind of conduct? mr. hegseth: senator, i was falsely accused in october of 2017. it was fully investigated and i was completely cleared. >> i do not think completely cleared is accurate. the fact is that your own lawyer said that you entered into an
4:43 am
nda and paid a person who accused you of raping her some money to make sure she did not file a complaint. moving on. as secretary you will be in charge of maintaining good order and discipline by enforcing the uniform code of military justice. in addition to the sexual assault allegations and by the way, the answer to my second question should have been yes. i have read multiple reports of you regularly being drunk at work including by people who worked with you at fox news. do you know that being drunk at work is prohibited for service members under the ucmj? yes or no. mr. hegseth: those are multiple falls anonymous reports peddled by nbc news in direct contradiction to the people on the fox news channel who i worked with on the record and said i never did that. >> do you commit to holding leaders accountable at all
4:44 am
levels, that includes you? frankly as secretary you will be on the job 24/7. you recently promised some of my republican colleagues that you stopped drinking, will not drink if confirmed, correct? mr. hegseth: absolutely. >> will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job, which is a 24/7 decision? mr. hegseth: i have made this commitment? >> will you resign as secretary of defense if you drink on the job? >> it is the most important deployment -- >> i am not hearing an answer to my question. i will move on. you will not commit to resigning if you drink on the job. as secretary of defense you will swear an oath to the constitution and not an oath to any man, woman or president, correct? mr. hegseth: on multiple occasions i have sworn an oath
4:45 am
to the constitution and i'm proud to do so. >> in june of 2020 then president trump directed then secretary of defense mark esper tissue protesters in the legs in downtown washington, d.c., an order secretary esper refused to comply with. would you carry out such an order from president trump? mr. hegseth: i was in the washington, d.c. national guard unit in lafayette square. >> would you obey an order to shoot protesters in the legs as directed to secretary of state? >> -- set a church on fire and destroyed -- >> that sounds to me like you will comply with such an order. you will shoot protesters in the leg. in recent weeks, refusing to rule out using military force to take over greenland and the panama canal and threatening to take and make cans of the 51st
4:46 am
state. would you carry out an order from president trump to seize greenland, a territory of our native ally denmark, by force or would you comply with an order to take over the panama canal? mr. hegseth: i will emphasize that president trump received 77 million votes. >> we are not talking about the election. my question is would you use our military to take over greenland or an ally of denmark? mr. hegseth: one of the things president trump is good at is never strategically tipping his hand so i would never in this public forum give one way or another -- >> that sounds to me that you would contemplate carrying out such in order to invade greenland and take over the panama canal. current d.o.d. policy allows service members and eligible
4:47 am
dependents to be reimbursed for travel associated with noncovered reproductive health care including abortions. will you maintain this commonsense policy? mr. hegseth: senator, i have always been personally pro-life and president trump is as well and we will review all policies. our standard is whatever the president wants on this particular issue. >> if the president tells you that this policy will not be maintained, you will not enable our service members to seek reproductive care. that's what it sounds like to me. i am not hearing answers to my questions, mr. chairman. i just want to know that another area of serious concern to me is president trump saying he wants to use the military to help with mass deportations which would cost millions of dollars and what that will do to readiness is very concerning. mr. hegseth, i have noticed a
4:48 am
disturbing pattern. you previously have made a series of inflammatory statements about women in combat , lgbtq service members, muslim americans and democrats. since your nomination however you have walked those back on tv and interviews and most recently in your opening statements. you are no longer on fox and friends. if confirmed, your words, actions and decisions will have real impact on national security and our service members lives. there are close to 3 million personnel in the department of defense. $900 billion budget. i hardly think you are prepared to do the job. thank you, mr. chairman. >> that was not a question mr. hegseth. thank you senator hirono. senator sullivan. >> mr. hegseth congratulations
4:49 am
on your nomination and thank you for your service and sacrifice. now for the most important question you will receive all day. in 1935 before the congress the father of the united states air force general billy mitchell was testifying about a certain place in the world. he said, "i believe that in the future whoever holds this place will control the world. this location is the most strategic place in the world." what place was billy mitchell talking about and let me give you a hint, it was not greenland. mr. hegseth: i believe he was talking about alaska. >> great answer. if confirmed, will you commit to come with me to the great state of alaska and meet our warriors on the front lines every day? mr. hegseth: senator, i have and as i mentioned in the past i did a brief training exercise at fort rain white -- fort
4:50 am
wainwright and i look forward to returning. we are on the front lines with this new era of authoritarian integration -- aggression. in the last two years we have had chinese and russian naval task forces, joint strategic bomber taskforces. after his election president trump put out an extensive statement on alaska which included the following, "we will ensure alaska gets even more defensive vestments as we fully rebuild our military, especially as russia and china are making menacing moves in the. pacific." will you work on continuing to build up our military assets in alaska to reestablish deterrence in the arctic and the indo pacific? mr. hegseth: if confirmed, it would be a pleasure to work
4:51 am
alongside you and this committee to recognize the very real threat in the end of pacific. the very real ways even these past couple of weeks that russia has attempted to push around election and the real strategic significance of shipping lanes through the arctic. there are many ways in which alaska is strategically significant and with a necessary shift toward endo paycom, alaska will play an important role in that. >> i appreciate your focus on lethality and war fighting. we desperately need it. i want to provide a few example of the biden woke military which is not focused on readiness or lethality and i want your comments. nobody wants an extremist or racist in our military but one of the most stressful things i have seen over the past four years as a senator on this committee is a marine corps reserve officer on day one of
4:52 am
the biden administration playing up a false and insulting narrative that our military was full of racist and violent extremists. this reached a pinnacle in this committee when biden's policy called a number three guy at the pentagon testified that one of his top goals would be ending violent extremism and systemic racism within the ranks of the military. he had no data on this. the media loved it. fan the flames. wrote baloney stories. disappointingly some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle here reinforced this ridiculous narrative. one even suggested 10% of our uniformed military was extremist. 300,000 members. ridiculous. right away from this committee on this other side of the aisle.
4:53 am
mr. hegseth you have a lot of experience with our military. do you believe that the military is a systemically racist organization and if confirmed, will you commit to defend not denigrate our troops? mr. hegseth: senator, i was also offended by those comments. anyone who has been on active duty in the national guard understand it is fundamentally false. >> there are three studies. secretary austin put out one of them that said exactly what you just said. fundamentally false. mr. hegseth: senator, they knew it. anyone in the unit knew it. one could argue that if not the least, one of the least racist institutions in our country is the u.s. military. being a racist in our military has not been tolerated. >> would you agree the u.s. military is one of the most forward leaning, probably one of
4:54 am
the greatest civil rights organizations in american history? mr. hegseth: no doubt. >> let me turn to another one. last year in a hearing before this committee i called on the secretary of the navy to resign because he is failing in his ability to build ships. we are being completely out built in terms of ships by the chinese. yet this secretary of the navy has focus on climate change, not building ships and lethality. mr. hegseth if your secretary of the navy ends up focusing on climate change, will you commit to me to fire him? mr. hegseth: my secretary of the navy will not be focused on climate change in the navy. just like the secretary of the air force will not be focused on lg powered fire jets -- fighter jets or the secretary will not be focused on electric powered
4:55 am
tanks. >> i appreciate data. the other thing president biden did, his first executive order as president was to focus on transgender surgeries for active-duty troops. i am describing the woke military under biden under the last four years. if confirmed, will you issue an order saying that we will rip the biden yoke off the neck of our military and focus on lethality, how do you think the troops will react? mr. hegseth: i know the troops will rejoice. they will love it. we have already seen it in recruiting numbers. there has been a surge since president trump won the election. >> our military will follow that order? mr. hegseth: our military will follow that order gladly because they want to focus on lethality and war fighting and get all of the woke political, political
4:56 am
stuff out of the military. >> thank you senator sullivan. senator kaine. >> thank you mr. hegseth. looking forward to this opportunity. i want to return to the issue you referenced that occurred in california in 2017. at that time you were still married to your second wife, correct? mr. hegseth: i believe so. >> you had just fathered a child by a woman who would later become your third wife, correct? mr. hegseth: i was falsely charged, fully investigated and completely cleared. >> so you think you were cleared because you committed no crime? that is your definition of cleared? you had just fathered a child two months before by a woman who was not your wife. i am shocked you would say you are completely cleared. can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child who had been born two months before and tell us you are completely cleared?
4:57 am
how is that a complete clear? mr. hegseth: her child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth and she is a child of god. >> and you cheated on the mother of that child less than two months after she was born, didn't you? mr. hegseth: those are false charges. >> you have admitted that you had sex at that hotel in october 20 17. you said it was consensual, is that correct? you have admitted that it was consensual and you were still married oh you just had a child by another woman. mr. hegseth: false charges against me, fully invested and completely cleared. >> you admitted that you had sex after you were married to wife to after you fathered a child to wife three. . that would be disqualifying as secretary of defense, wouldn't it? mr. hegseth: that is a false
4:58 am
claim then and a false claim now. >> if it had been sexual assault, that would been disqualifying as secretary of defense, wasn't it? mr. hegseth: that is a. >> false>> claim you cannot tell me whether someone who has committed sexual assault is disqualified from being secretary of defense? mr. hegseth: i know in my instance and my instance only, it was a false claim. >> but you acknowledge that you cheated on your wife and you cheated on the woman by whom you had just fathered a child? you admitted that? mr. hegseth: i will allow your words to speak for themselves. >> you are not retracting. that is good i assume you have taken an oath to your wife . you have taken an oath, is that correct?
4:59 am
>> i have failed in things in my life and thankfully i am redeemed by my lord and savior. >> where their nondisclosure agreements in connection with those divorces? mr. hegseth: not that i'm aware of. >> would you agree to release those wives from confidentiality agreements? mr. hegseth: that is not something i'm aware of. >> but if you were, you would agree to release them from confidentiality? did you engage in any acts of violence against your wives? mr. hegseth: absolutely not. >> but if someone had committed physical violence against a spouse, that would be disqualifying to serve as secretary of defense, correct? mr. hegseth: absolutely not have i ever done that. >> you would be that -- you agree that would be a disqualifying offense? mr. hegseth: you are talking about a hypothetical. >> i don't think it is a hypothetical. violence against spouses occurs every day and if you as a leader are not capable of saying that
5:00 am
physical violence against a spouse should be a disqualifying fact for being secretary of the most powerful nation in the world, you are demonstrating an astonishing lack of judgment. the incident in monterey led to a criminal investigation, a charge, a private settlement and cash payment to the woman who filed a complaint and there was also a nondisclosure agreement, correct? mr. hegseth: it was a confidential settlement agreement off of a nuisance lawsuit. >> during an interview you claimed that you settled the matter because you were worried that if it became public it might hurt your career. you maintain you are blackmailed? mr. hegseth: i maintained that false claims were made against me. >> your attorney used the phrase -- mr. hegseth: i had the opportunity to attest my innocence in those false claims. >> you did not reveal any of this to the president trump as they were considering you. you did not reveal the action,
5:01 am
the criminal complaint, the criminal investigation. you did not reveal the settlement. you did not reveal the cash payment. why didn't you inform the commander-in-chief and the transition team of this very relevant event? mr. hegseth: i have appreciated every part of the process with the transition team. they have been open and honest with me. we have had great conversations between the two of us. i appreciate the opportunity that the president-elect -- >> but you chose not to reveal this because you knew it would hurt your chances so you chose not to reveal this important thing to the commander-in-chief will be the transition team because you were worried about your chances rather than trying to be candid with the future president of the united states. are there any other important facts that you chose not to reveal to the president-elect and his team as they were considering you to be secretary of defense? mr. hegseth: i sit here before you an open book as everyone who has watched this process. >> with multiple nondisclosure
5:02 am
and confidentiality agreements. much has been made of your workplace behavior as a leader of nonprofit veterans organizations and a fox news contributor. were you fired from either of the leadership positions from the nonprofits? mr. hegseth: i was the leader of veterans for america. i was never fired -- >> do you have nondisclosure agreements with either of those organizations? mr. hegseth: not that i am aware of. >> many of your colleagues say that you show up to work under the influence of alcohol. i know you deny that but you would agree that if that were the case, that would be disqualifying for someone trying to be secretary of defense. mr. hegseth: those are anonymous false claims. >> they are not anonymous. they are not anonymous. we have seen more records with names attached to them. one of your colleagues said that
5:03 am
you got drunk at an event at a bar and chanted "kill all muslims." another colleague said that you took coworkers to a strip club. you were drunk and tried to dance with strippers. you had to be held off the stage and one of your employees in that event filed a sexual harassment charge as a result of it. i know you denied these things but isn't that the kind of behavior that if true would be disqualifying for someone to be secretary of defense? mr. hegseth: anonymous false charges. >> they are not anonymous. i will conclude and say this to the chairman. you claimed this was all anonymous. we have seen records with names attached to all of these included the name of your own mother. not make this into some anonymous press thing. we have seen multiple names of colleagues consistently throughout your career that have talked about your abusive actions. >> he is way over time. >> i now yield.
5:04 am
>> thank you very much. i ask unanimous to enter into the record a family court order concerning the appointment of parenting time between mr. hegseth and ms. samantha heg seth. it states that there were no claims of domestic abuse or probable abuse in the relationship. this will be added to the record. we now move to senator cramer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you mr. hegseth for your service and willingness to endure this. i am sorry for what has been happening to you. particularly the idea that you should have to sit there and answer hypothetical, somebody's imagination crimes that may take place at some point and wouldn't
5:05 am
that disqualify you if you were a murderer or if you were a rapist. unfair. i'm embarrassed for this behavior. first i want to say thank you for your strong proclamation, unapologetic proclamation of faith in jesus christ. i listened to your opening statement and thought, wow. this is a guy who is willing to stand up in today's culture and say the first thing is first, faith in jesus christ. i was reminded of what christ said in matthew, seek ye first the kingdom of god and his righteousness and these things shall be added unto you. you will have a great future as our secretary and i look forward to that day happening. you mentioned and it got rather dismissed, pivoted as a lot of things to do. you mentioned you were not able
5:06 am
to serve with your national guard unit in protection of the inauguration of joe biden because of a christian tattoo. can you elaborate on what is this very offensive extremist, racist tattoo that you have? mr. hegseth: it is a tattoo that i have right here called the jerusalem cross. it is a historic christian symbol. interestingly, recently i attended briefly the memorial ceremony of former president jimmy carter on the floor of our natural -- national cathedral. on the front page of his program was the very same jerusalem cross. it is a christian religious symbol. when events happened preceding the biden inauguration, i was part of the mobilization to defend that inauguration as someone who had been a proud supporter of donald trump but also a member of the military. i had orders to come to washington, d.c. to guard the
5:07 am
inauguration and at the last minute those orders were revoked. i have never had orders revoked before. i have had orders to do a lot of dangerous things. they were revoked and i was not told why. later when i wrote my book i was able to get information and it was because i had been identified. someone who had served in iraq and afghanistan and guantanamo bay holding a riot shield outside of the white house, i had been identified as an extremist, someone unworthy of guarding the inauguration of an incoming american president. if that is happening to me, senator, how many other men and women, how many other patriots, how many other people of conscious? we have not even talked about covid. tens of thousands of service members who were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine. in president trump's defense department, they will be apologized too, reinstituted with pay and rank.
5:08 am
things like focusing on extremism, senator, have created a climate inside of our ranks that feel political when it has not ever been political. those are the types of things that will change and senator sullivan, you mentioned that study. after a study was held, extremism working group study, 100 extremists were identified in the ranks of 3 million. most of those were gang related. it was a made up boogie man to begin with. >> you are not the extremist. the people who would deny you your expression of faith are the extremists. they are the racists. they are the biggest. -- they are the bigots. i want to go to your opening statement. you said, "leaders at all levels will be held accountable and war fighting and lethality and the readiness of the troops and their families will be our only
5:09 am
focus." at that moment in my minds eye i heard soldiers, airmen, marines, sailors, guardians from the pentagon to the pacific and everywhere in between applaud. they are thinking, it is about time. i can get on board with that idea. quite honestly, it is so important. i don't know, just about everyone. i'm trying to think of an exception to this. that has ever come before this committee, that i have been on tours with, that wear the uniform whether it is with four stars or no stars, agrees with that statement. i want to caution you and i would be interested in your feedback on this. there has been a lot of talk about firing generals, creating the purge group and all the things we have talked about. i would say give those men and
5:10 am
women a chance under new leadership who i favor painting in the rotunda -- my favorite painting in the rotunda is george washington and his commission. a man who could have been keying chose to be a civilian leader of this country. i encourage you to trust them first and look forward to them saluting the civilian leadership of this country. just maybe if you could spend a minute elaborating a little bit about the wokeness, where it comes from and who will be held accountable. mr. hegseth: the wokeness comes from the political class. on january 20 when president trump is sworn in he will issue a new set of lawful orders and the leadership will have the opportunity to follow those orders or not. those orders will not be based on politics. they will be based on readiness,
5:11 am
accountability and lethality. that is the process by which leaders will be judged. accountability is coming because everybody in this room knows if you are a rifle man and you lose your rifle, they are throwing the book at you. but if you are a general who loses a war, you get a promotion. that is not going to happen in donald trump's pentagon. there will be real standards for success. everyone from the top from most senior general to the most lowly private will ensure that they are treated fairly in that system. >> i want to commend you for your answers to senator fischer's questions about nuclear deterrence. i also appreciate the fact that you emphasize reputational deterrence because deterrence is not a weapon system. it is an attitude and you project an attitude of deterrence. thank you. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator king. >> thank you. mr. hegseth, welcome to the committee.
5:12 am
you have made several references to your religion today. i share that devotion to christianity. i must say i have been reminded somewhat of saul on his way to damascus. you seem to have been converted in the last several weeks and months. you wrote in your book just last evident if we are going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. later on our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men. which is it? is it only boys can fight? you testified here today that you believe in women in combat, but you didn't just last year. how do you explain your conversion? chairman wicker: my testimony is clear. writing a book is different than being secretary of defense and i look forward to leaving the men and women of our military and my comment there, senator, was
5:13 am
about the burdensome rules of engagement, the members of our generation, men and women have seen on the battlefield. and one thing president trump changed in meaningful ways that lead to meaningful development on the battlefield, when president trump took control in the first term, isis was raging across iraq and as someone who spent a lot of time there, with other men and women who invested in that mission, it was a very difficult moment to see the black flag of isis flight. >> i appreciate your position -- mr. hegseth: he changed the rules of engagement, untied the hands of war fighters and allowed them to complete their mission and crush isis. not just tactical implications, operational and strategic implications. how you allow war fighters to go about winning and fighting wars. president trump understands that and within the uniform code of military justice we are going to unleash war fighters to win wars so that wars don't drag on forever as our generation has seen.
5:14 am
>> sore you rejecting title 18 and title 42, i think, also has provisions that incorporate the geneva convention and the laws of armed combat, are you saying that those laws should be repealed? that is the law of the land right now. mr. hegseth: senator, we have laws on the books of the geneva convention into the uniform code of military justice and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagement are put into place. we fight enemies also. as our generation understands, that play by no rules. they use civilians as human shields. they target women and children. we don't do that. we follow rules, we follow rules, but we don't need burdensome rules of engagement that make it impossible for us to win these wars. >> you're saying we follow rules but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases, is that correct? mr. hegseth: senator, i've
5:15 am
making an important, tactical station at war fighters will understand, that there are the rules we swear the o to defend which are incredibly important and help set them, and then there are those echelons above reality from poor to division to brigade to battalion and by the time it trickles down to a company or a squad level you have rules of engagement that nobody recognizes. and then it makes it incredibly difficult to actually do your job on the battlefield. that is the kind of assessment and look that an army major will give to this process if i was confirmed. >> your quote is in 2024, our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men in mahogany rooms 80 years ago, that would be the geneva convention. america should bite by its own rules and we should fight to win or not going at all. are you saying the geneva convention provisions which clearly outlawed torture of prisoners should not apply in
5:16 am
the future? mr. hegseth: how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners, the applications of the geneva convention are incredibly important. but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back with the geneva convention's were written are a lot different than the asymmetrical, nonconventional environment of counterinsurgency that i confronted in iraq and afghanistan. i with the senior counterinsurgency instructor afghanistan. my job is to understand how it taliban and al qaeda operated so that units coming into be informed of what was happening. they knew our rules of engagement and when they were more restrictive it took it vantage of them ended put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. for future wars we fight, we need to have someone atop the pentagon who understands how those ripple effects -- >> your position is torture is ok, is that correct? waterboarding, torture is no longer prohibited, given the circumstances and whatever war we are in, is that correct? mr. hegseth: that is not what
5:17 am
i've said, i've never been party to torture. we are a country that fights by the rule of law and our men and women always do and yet we have too many people here in air-conditioned offices that like to point fingers at the guys in a dark and dangerous places, in helicopters in enemy territory or doing things that people in washington, d.c. would never dare to do. or in many cases -- >> in one of your interviews you said you were talking about donald trump and senator cruz, they are willing to do something like waterboarding if it is safe. are you ok with waterboarding? mr. hegseth: a lot of the land is that waterboarding is not legal. >> so the statement that you made, you never can't, is that correct? that your billing to do something like waterboarding if it is going to keep us safe. you expressed that with approval. mr. hegseth: senator, i'm very familiar with that as a concept. i spent a year guarding 700 of those that attacked us on 9/11. >> i just want to be clear, are
5:18 am
we going to abide by the geneva convention and the prohibitions on torture, or are we not? mr. hegseth: as i stated multiple times, the geneva convention are what we base, what the america first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies to make decisions without our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. america first understands if we send americans for a clear mission in a clear objective, we equip them properly for that objective. we given everything we need and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively which is why we say -- >> i just have a few seconds left. i was very disturbed in your opening statement where you talked about the priorities that you have. we will work with partners and allies to deter aggression in the indo pacific from the communist chinese. there's not a single mention in this statement about ukraine or
5:19 am
russia. is this code for we are going to abandon ukraine? mr. hegseth: that is a presidential level policy decision, he's made it very clear that he would like to see ending to that conflict. we know the aggressor is, we know who the good guy is, we like to see it as advantageous for the ukrainians as possible. >> you talk a lot about terms of china. i would submit that xi jinping is watching what we do very carefully. if we abandon ukraine it would be the strongest signal possible that he could take taiwan without significant resistance from this country. >> the senator from florida. >> i'd like to enter two record which testified to mr. hegseth leadership record at veterans for america. the first letter submitted by a senior advisor stating that there's been no better leader, policy champion or fighter for the military. he was instrumental in 2014, 2017 ensuring that veterans at health care choice.
5:20 am
the second letter submitted by the digital media director from 2015 to 2017 stated he brought incredible energy, focus and a clear vision to the organization and showed everything the team accomplished. >> and i similarly asked to submit to the record a letter from paul j roberts, retired colonel u.s. army special forces speaking to the unwavering integrity of mr. hegseth. is there objection. without objection, those three will be admitted. >> first, congratulations on your nomination. thank you for being willing to serve our nation. i served in the navy, i'm really proud of my dad. he was crazy, he did awful combat jumps. after he survived all that he fought in the battle of the
5:21 am
bulge and what they went through was hell. so i have a lot of respect for him and for everybody puts on the uniform and served in battle and has to lead people in battle because that didn't happen to me, but i have a lot of friends that happened to including my dad. i served on this committee for six years, two under president trump in the past 400 president biden. i've seen how the biden harris administration pushed to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world. if our readiness, national security and ability to recruit people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. can you talk about some of changes we could make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world? mr. hegseth: first of all senator, thank you for the question and thank you for your time. i think the first and most important thing we could have done is elect donald trump as the new commander-in-chief, because past is prologue. our war fighters understand what
5:22 am
kind of commander-in-chief they are going to get in president donald trump. someone who stand behind them, some of you give them clear missions. someone who ends worth decisively in the issue of ukraine was mentioned, and ensures new wars are not started. there was a minor incursion under barack obama in crimea followed by nothing under president trump followed by an all-out assault by vladimir putin into ukraine under the biden administration. that did not happen under donald trump. donald trump managed the taliban. under the biden administration, afghanistan collapsed tragically, ending the lives of 13 we remember every single day and no one was held accountable for that. chinese spy balloon flying over the country. none of that happened under donald trump, and our war fighters understand that. so there is no better recruiter in my mind for our military in president donald trump. my job is to come alongside him, should i be confirmed, and continue to emphasize his
5:23 am
emphasis on war fighting. on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside the pentagon. what gender you are, what race you are, your views on climate change or whether you are a person of conscience should have no bearing on whether you get promoted or whether you are selected to go to west point or whether you graduate from ranger school. the only thing that should matter is how capable are you at your job, how excellent are you at your job? i served in multiethnic units every place that i worked, none of that mattered. but suddenly we reinject dei and critical race theory, dividing troops into different categories, oppressor and oppressed in ways that they otherwise just want to work together. that's why i've pointed out before and i will say again, i'm sure it will be quoted to me at some point, the dumbest phrase in military history is our unity
5:24 am
is our strength. no, our shared purpose is our strength. our shared mission is our strength. we are one dod community of all, committed to the same mission. has nothing to do with background. it has to do with what your commitment is to the country. and that is my solemn pledge to every single person who would put the uniform on and reflect president trump's priorities as well. >> thank you. we talked a little bit about the fact the pentagon can't do an audit. to me, i've run businesses, is all about accountability. if you want to get an audit done, you could get an audit done. it all goes to accountability and we haven't had it. could you talk about how you bring accountability to the table, and what you were going to do with regard to bring accountability to the pentagon? mr. hegseth: i meant it when i said it in the opening
5:25 am
statement, i know what i don't know. i've never run an organization of 3 million people with a budget of $850 billion. but what i do know is that i've led men and women. i lead people. it is leadership of people and a clear vision of people where you build a team pass that vision, empower people properly. i want smarter and more capable people around me than me, and you will get that at the department. i cast a clear vision, build a plan, work it. reset the metrics and everyone is held accountable. i know our incoming businessman president believes in holding people accountable. that will happen at the pentagon. this has been a problem for a long time. secretary rumsfeld gave a speech on september 10, 2001 that is mostly forgotten but it was about the need for acquisition reform, cutting tailed to give to teeth. and then 9/11 happened. these are problems that have been persistent for a long time
5:26 am
but now we have new threats and we need the urgency of this moment. as you said, the most dangerous moment since the end of the cold war and possibly since world war ii. urgency to do every thing possible to get the capabilities into the hands of war fighters. emergency powers, defense production act, whatever it takes. >> why do you want to do this job? what drives you? >> you have 30 seconds. [laughter] mr. hegseth: because i love my country, senator, and i've dedicated my life to the war fighters. people see me as someone who hosted a morning show on television. but people that really know me know where my heart is at. it is with the guys in this audience who have had my back, and i've had theirs. who have been in some of the darkest and most difficult places you can ever be in. you come back a different person. and only by the grace of god,
5:27 am
here before you today. i'm doing this job for them. for all of them. >> senator warren. >> thank you mr. chairman. mr. hegseth, thank you for your service. so if you are confirmed you will oversee our military including about a quarter of a million women who currently serve on active duty in the army, navy, air force, the space force, and the marines. and i have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. -trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this, you haven't wanted to meet or to answer any of my questions. so we will just have to do it here and dive in. i want to pick up on some of the questions asked by senator shaheen and gillibrand, they want to make sure we have a list of some of the facts that i think are undisputed. i'm not going to talk about anonymous sources, i'm just going to quote you directly.
5:28 am
we've got the video, we've got it in print. so going back to january 2013 you told a fox news interview are that women in the military simply couldn't measure up to men in the military, saying that allowing women to serve in combat roles would force the military to lower the bar. you picked up on that same theme in 2015 making remarks on fox news, referring to women in combat as "it would erode standards." june 2024 you said on ben schapiro's podcast "women shouldn't be in combat at all." and then of course we talked about it in 2024, he published a book, and you say on page 26 of your book we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat units. page 48 of your book you claim that women should not be in combat roles because men are distracted by women, and then 10
5:29 am
weeks ago you appeared on the sean o'brien show and said i'm a straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles. i presume you recall making all the statements? mr. hegseth: i'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to it 2013 13 but it underscores my argument because i was talking about standards. standards are what it has always -- >> let's not have this same fight again. i've quoted you directly, we've got the video, we are happy to show it. for 12 years you were quite open about your views and your views were consistently the same. women are inferior soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and guardians, and in case anyone missed the point, and these are your words from 10 weeks ago, women absolutely straight up should not be permitted to serve in combat. and i notice on each of these
5:30 am
quotes, those are set without qualification. it's not by how much you can lift or by how fast you can run, they don't belong in combat, period. those were your words, straight up. and then on november 9, 2024, just 32 days after your last public comments saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that " some of our greatest warriors are women." can you support having them served in combat. now that is a very, very big about-face in a very, very short period of time, so help me understand, mr. hegseth. what extraordinary event happened in that 30 today period that made you change the core values you had expressed
5:31 am
for the preceding 12 years? mr. hegseth: again, i very much appreciate you bringing up my comments from 2013 because for me, this issue has always been about standards. and unfortunately because of some of the people -- >> let's just stop, let's just stop right there. mr. hegseth, i'm quoting you from the podcast. women shouldn't be in combat at all. where is your reference to standards, that they should be there if they can carry, if they can run? i don't see that at all, mr. hegseth. what i see is that there is a 30 today period in which you suddenly have another description about your views of women in the military and i just want to know what changed in the 32 days that the song you sang is not the song you come in here
5:32 am
today to sing. mr. hegseth: the concerns i have and the concerns that many have had especially in ground combat units is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed, and that makes combat more difficult. >> me ask you about what happened in that 32 days. you got a nomination from president trump. i've heard of deathbed conversions, but this is the first time i've heard of a nomination conversion. and i hope you understand that many women serving in the military right now might think that if you can convert so rapidly your long-held and aggressively pursued views in just 32 days, that 32 days after you get confirmed, maybe we'll just reverse those views and go back to the old guy who said straight up, women do not belong in combat. now mr. hegseth, you've written that after they retire, generals
5:33 am
should be banned from working for the defense industry for 10 years. you and i agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors. it is something i would have liked to talk to you about if you had been willing to visit with me. but the question i have for you on this is will you put your money where your mouth is and agree that when you leave this job you will not work for the defense industry for 10 years? mr. hegseth: senator, it's not even a question i've thought about. >> think about it right now. my motivation for this job -- >> i'm just seeking a yes or no here, time is short. mr. hegseth: i would consult with the president about the policy. >> in other words, you are quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for 10 years but you're not willing to make that same pledge? mr. hegseth: i'm not a general, senator.
5:34 am
[laughter] >> let us just be clear, you will be the one in charge of the generals, so you are saying sauce for the goose but certainly not sauce for the gander. mr. hegseth: i would want to see with the policy look like. >> i bet you would. >> taking mr. chairman and thanks for your hard work and your committee's hard work, mr. chairman. this has gone well. i'd like to submit this letter, topic conduct at that for freedom for hegseth, i'd like to submit that for the record please. general hegseth, i mean mr. hegseth -- [laughter] thanks for being here today and with your family. i know this is tough, that is what this is all about, though. you are a tough guy. for here for a while, never seen this many people here in support of a nominee. that is impressive. i met with a modern yesterday
5:35 am
and they are very passionate. so thank you for willing to take the salt and congratulations on your nomination. i'm worried about recruiting. i mean, we can look at everything out there and talk about all these things, these narratives, but at the end of the day, i came from a team sport. where the people of the players actually won the games and that is what is going to happen here. you are not going to win the game, you are going to set the precedent and get the blame or the credit but there's people under you who are going to set the precedent for the future of our country. the wargames that replay on our computers with our adversaries right now, for us, it don't look good. because our military, we are in trouble. our whole country is in trouble. thank god president trump got elected november 5. we couldn't have kept down this same path, that could not happen.
5:36 am
i met with a couple of generals the summer. coach, we're spending more money on transgender restrooms then we are covering for $100 million airplanes. that is not acceptable. we can't do that. that's not what this is about. i met with a couple of navy seals not too long ago, they just got back from crawling around in the mud and the mark overseas, unknown places. couldn't tell you where they've been, obviously protecting us and our allies, and the first week they are back what they do, they had to go through a week of di training. both are now out. they give it up. it was embarrassing what they had to do. we've lost all sight of what we are doing in their military. it starts with leadership and it starts with recruiting. why would a young man, when i was growing up, if you couldn't afford to go to college, you had the opportunity to go to the military when you can learn a trade. you can learn, you could make a living for your family and
5:37 am
eventually possibly get an education. that was a good alternative. we've forgotten that. we can't give up on our young people. young people are our number one commodity in this country and they are the ones who are going to live in my for the future of this country and for the future. face for taking this on. recruiting. our service academies are meant to serve as our primary commissioning source of officers. it now appears that they are a breeding ground for leftist activists and champions of di and critical theory. not all, but some. and some is way too much. how are we going to eliminate this? how are we going to get us back on track to where we grow our leaders? i had a young man who forever wanted to go to west point. i got him a nomination, i got accepted he turned it down. he says coach, i'm not getting involved in that mess. however going to overcome this? mr. hegseth: i think it comes
5:38 am
down to leadership, clear leadership from president trump through me, should i be nominated. and that is what soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians c. clear leadership. that says this is what we believe, this is the mission we are going to give you, here is the equipment we are going to give you and here is how we are going to support you. because the military at a lot of levels has been for generations a family business. my grandfather served, my father serve, i serve, my daughter serve. that chain has started to break. with generations of people my age and older talking to the kids and grandkids wondering, pondering do i want them to serve? will my country use them responsibly? when that kind of doubt is cast, get serious recording problems like we have right now. get questions about whether i want my son and daughter to follow my path in west point, which effort multiple times.
5:39 am
and so you have to rip it and branched the politics and divisive policies out of these institutions, and then focus them on creating and preparing actual future military leadership. west point traditionally is focused on engineering and rightfully so. because in our fighting forces, we need the best and brightest minds in engineering in addition to military studies. that's what i did at rotc at princeton, military science. that, and we need more uniformed members going back into west point, the air force academy, the naval academy to teach with their wisdom of what they learned in uniform instead of just more civilian professors that came from the same left-wing woke universities that they left and then tried to push that into service academies. when that changes, i truly believe other donald trump we will have a recruiting renaissance that sends signals to the world, to our enemies and allies alike that america's back and thankfully we have the men and women of our country believed want to serve. >> i love your attitude.
5:40 am
you've got to be motivated, you got to understand that people, they will hook up with you, they will understand and learn under their leaders. why would he fight for a country that you don't love? that's what i keep hearing from a lot of our college kids that they are getting from the woke universities that they go to. and i work at a lot of them. that is one of the excuses i get from our kids. we've got to break that. according to the pentagon between 2001 in 2024 the number of civilians in the office of secretary of defense has nearly doubled from 1500 to 3000. civilians on joint chiefs has increased from 191, most 1000. our military strength goes down, our staff numbers are exploding. what are you going to do about that? mr. hegseth: clear going to address that. we won world war ii with 74-star
5:41 am
generals. today we have 40 44-star generals. there is an inverse relationship between the size of staff and victory on the battlefield. we don't need more bureaucracy at the top. we need more war fighters in power at the bottom. so it's going to be my job working with those that we hire and those inside the administration to identify the basis for the fact can be cut so we can go toward the family. >> welcome to this committee. we have far too much partisanship in our country right now. i think it is eating away at the fabric of what has always made this country great, about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences, and we know that our motto, together as one we are strong.
5:42 am
we in this committee and certainly i speak for myself but also i speak for many of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. i'm not naive, it is out there, i get it, but we've got to try to take that out. and i want you to know that as a member of this committee, i have voted in a bipartisan way for secretaries of defense. i voted for two secretaries of defense when donald trump was previously president, and we had those too. i think we had five total secretaries of defense during those four years. so you want to keep that in mind as to what we might see in this coming administration. but i voted, and we voted by a big margin for those folks as well. the part of that with the process and having an opportunity to get to know the person and to understand their qualifications and understand the standards. i made repeated requests to meet with you prior to this meeting, i know many of my other colleagues also wanted to meet with you.
5:43 am
i did that with the other nominees that i was happy to vote for, i thought they were highly qualified individuals and true professionals. and yet i could never get a meeting with you. was there a reason you were afraid to have one-on-one meetings with some of my colleagues before the hearing? mr. hegseth: senator, another was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices. schedules get full with a lot going on. i am ray to sit down with you. >> it would have been so much better to have that opportunity to talk beforehand. i think that is a big mistake and it doesn't set us on a good course when you refuse to meet with people and have a professional conversation about the huge challenges that we face at the department of defense. my colleagues, the folks who introduced you and others, the chairman has mentioned about the management of the dod as a concern, cost overruns, delays on weapons systems. we need strong management at the department of defense first and foremost.
5:44 am
we've got to have someone who's going to grab the reins and give attack -- taxpayers value for having the most legal fighting force in the world, but we got to do it efficiently. effort about the jobs you've had in the past. this talk about qualifications. i know you had two previous positions. how many people reported to you in those positions? mr. hegseth: at veterans for freedom we were a small upstart. our focus is working on capitol hill going back to the -- >> just the number please. mr. hegseth: we probably had 8-10 full-time staff and lots of volunteers. >> so you had eight. we've heard about the two and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement, etc. i'm just curious, so you had eight there. what is the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an organization in your career? mr. hegseth: not 3 million. >> i don't expect that, very few people have ever had the experience, but how many? mr. hegseth: i think we had over
5:45 am
100 full-time staff at concerned vets for america roughly with thousands of volunteers. i was also a head company commander. >> that's fine. mr. hegseth: nothing remotely near the size of the defense department, i would knowledge that. >> not remotely near even a medium-sized company in america let alone a big company in america, especially a major corporation. and we are hiring you to be the ceo of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world with directors here. i don't know of any corporate board of directors that would hire a ceo for a major company if they came and said you know, i supervised 100 people before. they would ask you what kind of experiences you had. we need innovation, came give me an experience or your actual experience of driving innovation in an organization?\ give mean example mr. hegseth: i concern veterans of america, we started the fixing concern veterans task or
5:46 am
that had never been done before to drive policy change on capitol hill and organization thought ferociously against. we had the va a cabability act and the commission act passed in a way >> i have limited time, thank you for that. give me an example of where you have driven down cost. i've heard examples senator blumenthal gay. the cost was a real problem for you your 50 person organization which actually raised a lot less than what you spent. did you drive costs down? let me tell you, we got to drive costs down dramatically in an organization of 3 million people and hundreds of billions of dollars. you don't have that experience that you can talk it out. to me, this is acquisition reform. have you had experience in acquisition reform? >> i've written about and
5:47 am
studied acquisition reform. >> have you actually done it? mr. hegseth: what we need is change because we are not doing it well right now. >> and we need people who have it. actually doing that. talk about standards. i want to go back to the ceo of the most complex organization in the world. i don't think there is a board of directors in america that would hire you as a.c.l. with a kind of experience you have on your resume. you talk about standards, about how we have a problem with standards in the dod and we have to raise standards for the men and women who serve. do you think that the way to raise the minimum standards of the people who serve us is to lower the standards for the secretary of defense that we have someone who has never managed an organization more than 100 people is going to come in and manage this incredibly important organization and do it with the professionalism and has no experience that they can tell us that they have actually done that?
5:48 am
i have real problems with that. this is not about other issues that were brought up that are all very important, i'm just about trying to get things done, managing efficiently and having the best people who have demonstrated that in a large organization, and i'm sorry, but i don't see that in your background. there are a lot of other things you can do very well, you are a capable person. but you have not convinced me that you would be able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and have little or no significant management experience. mr. hegseth: i'm grateful to be hired by one of them at successful ceos in american history should be confirmed. >> mr. hegseth, it seems to me that you supervised far more people than the average united states senator supervises today. [applause] >> except for former governors,
5:49 am
mr. chairman. >> senator mullin, i understand you are yielding back your time and do not wish to ask questions. i was misinformed. senator mullin, you may speak. >> caught me totally off guard there. i'd like to submit for the record signatures by 32 members of the house of representatives who are veterans. the signatures call on the senator under the constitutional duty of them buys and consent by conducting a fair, thorough confirmation process that evaluates his nomination solely on substance and merits. his distinguished military service, academic credentials and a bold vision for revitalizing national defense has unanimous consent to be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> this a lot of talk talking about qualifications, and then about's hiring him if we are the board, but there's a lot of senators here i wouldn't have on my board because there is no qualification except your age,
5:50 am
and you've got to be living in the state and you are a citizen of the united states to be a senator. other than the fact we got to convince a lot of people to vote for us. and then when we start talking about qualifications, if you are qualified, the chairman kelly with the qualifications are for the secretary of defense? mr. chairman? you tell me what the qualifications are for the secretary of defense? >> i'd be happy. >> i will read it. the reason is for you. i was getting some advice from my second command. >> i'm just making a point because there's a lot about qualifications and i think it is so hypocritical of senators especially on the other set of the aisle to be talking about his qualifications, not going to be the secretary of defense, and yet your qualifications aren't any better. you guys aren't anymore qualified to be a senator than i am, except we are lucky enough to be here. let me read with the secretary of defense is, because i googled
5:51 am
it. really it is hard to see but in general the u.s. secretary of defense position is filled by a civilian. that's it. if you have served in the u.s. army forces and have been in the service, you have to be retired for at least seven years and congress can way that. and then there's questions that the senator from massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry, and get your own secretary who you all voted for, secretary ross and, we had to put on a waiver because he staffed off the board of raytheon. but i guess that is ok because that is a democrat secretary of defense. but we so quickly forget about that. can senator kaine, but i guess i better use the senator from virginia starts brain out the fact that what if he showed up drunk to your job?
5:52 am
how many senators have shown up drunk to vote at night? [applause] have any of you guys ask them to step down or resign from their job? and don't tell me you haven't seen it because i know you have. and how many senators do you know who have got a divorce for cheating on their wives, could you ask them to step down? no? it is for show. make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because a man has made a mistake. and you want to sit there and say that he is not qualified? give me a joke. it is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself to this higher standard and you forget you've got a big plank in your eyes. we've all made mistakes. i made mistakes and jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake. because the only reason i'm here and not imprisoned is because my wife love me, too. i have changed, but i'm not
5:53 am
perfect. but i found somebody that thought i was perfect, and for whatever reason, love peach, and i don't know why. but just like our lord and savior forgave me, my wife decided to forgive me more than once and i'm sure you've had to forgive him, too. queso thank you. so before i go down this rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love. mr. hegseth: she's the smartest, most capable loving, humble person i've ever met. in addition to being incredibly beautiful. >> don't forget mr. hegseth: about your kids. i'm supposed to talk about my kids? >> she's also the mother. mr. hegseth: and amazing mother of our blended family. >> i'm trying to help you here. you know, do you believe that
5:54 am
you are going to be running the department of defense by yourself? mr. hegseth: senator, absolutely not. just as president trump is assembling his cabinet, i look forward and already and in the process of building one of the best possible teams you can imagine, with decades and decades of experience outside the pentagon, driving innovation, and also inside the building knowing how to make it happen. >> in your organizations that you did have the privilege of running, did you have the board? mr. hegseth: in both organizations we had a board, yes. >> and what kind of decisions that you make? mr. hegseth: those boards provided oversight and insight into decision-making. >> they all had special unique sets that may be filled naps that you do not have expertise in? mr. hegseth: yes sir. >> do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals that you're going to be able to run those
5:55 am
same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped in areas that you don't necessarily carry that expertise with? >> the only reason i've had success in life through my wonderful wife is because a more capable people around me and having the self-confidence to empower them and say run with the ball, one with the football, take it down the field, we would do this together. i don't care who gets the credit. in this case that is how the pentagon will be run. >> let's end with this about the qualifications. you've got a man who has literally put his butt on the line, who served 20 years in the service, multiple deployments. has heard the bullets crack over the top of his head. has been willing to go into combat, been willing to see friends die for this country, and he's willing to still put
5:56 am
himself through this, his wife is willing to still stand beside him know he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up. he is still willing to serve the country. what other qualifications that you need? i yelled back. -- ideal back. >> again, we really are going to strictly enforce about no demonstrations or noise. the -- distinguished ranking member. >> just to make a correction, the reason that general austin required a waiver was not because of his precipitation, it was because he did not have seven years of interruption between his service and his appointment. the second point is that if any of us were appointed as secretary of defense we would be subject to the same types of
5:57 am
questions in the case in point is sender john tower was nominated asteria defense. it was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior is not commensurate with the responsibilities despite his service, and he was voted down. thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman. >> senator duckworth, you are recognized. >> also secretary mattis had to have this waiver as well. mr. hegseth, this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be secular of defense in one of the qualifications to enter mike rawlings question is to actually win the votes of every member of this committee and to be confirmed by the united states senate. and you need to convince us that you are worthy of that vote because the people of the state of illinois voted for me to be there senator so that i could cast that vote when it comes to picking who is going to be the next secretary of defense. this hearing now seems to be hearing about whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat and not about whether or not you are qualified to be secretary of defense.
5:58 am
let me just say the american people need a secretary of defense was ready to lead on day one. you're not that person. our adversaries watch closely during times of transition and any sense of the department of defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who is holding -- wholly unprepared for the job put america at risk and i am not willing to do that. that in mind, i want you to try to explain to the american people, this committee who have to vote for you and to our troops were deployed around the world why you are qualified to lead the department of defense. we already know that you led a 200 person organization, we already know that you so badly mangled a budget that after you left they had to bring in a forensic accountant to figure out what went wrong. and that the largest budget you've ever managed was about $18 billion. that is about 51,560 times lower than the department of defense budget of $825 billion.
5:59 am
$60 billion is 51,000 568 times smaller than the defense budget. please describe to me, he talked about dod passing an audit. please describe to me a time or an organization that you lead underwent an audit because you say you are going to hire smarter people than you to run this audit. i'm not asking you to be an accountant. i want you to be able to tell me what kind of guidance would be given to those employees, whether or not you pass that on it. have you lead an audit of any organization, yes or no? i don't want a long answer. have you lead an audit of any organization? mr. hegseth: in both of the organizations iran, we were always completely fiscally responsible. >> yes or no, did you need an audit? mr. hegseth: the way you stated this -- >> what are you afraid of, you can't answer these questions? do you not know this answer? yes or no? yes or no?
6:00 am
yes or no. i will take that as a no. there were no findings, you've never led an audit. what guidance did you give the auditors. none, because you've never led an audit. nobody expects you to be an accountant. we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this pentagon budget that is absolutely necessary to our war fighters. look, the secretary of defense's requirement is to make decisions every single day with high-level missions being provided for them. a secretary of defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge. right now i'm concerned that you have neither. what is the highest level of international negotiation that you have engaged in that you have land, because the secretary of defense does need national security negotiations. there are three main ones that that the secretary of defense signs, can you name at least one of them? mr. hegseth: could you repeat the question? >> what is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led, and can you
6:01 am
name some that the secretary of defense would lead? there's three main ones. mr. hegseth: i've not been involved in international security arrangements because i've not been in government other than serving in the military, so my job has been -- >> ku name one of the mr. hegseth: three main ones? mr. hegseth:nato might be one that you're are referring to. >> saves mr. hegseth: and forces agreement. mr. hegseth:i've been a part of teaching about status and forces agreement. >> but you don't remember to mention it? you are not qualified, mr. hegseth. you talk about repairing our defense industrial complex. were not qualified to do that. you could do that position across agreement. you can even mention that. you talked about the indo pacific and little bit and i'm glad that you mention it. can you name the importance of at least one of the nations and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations? how many nations are in ossian, by the way?
6:02 am
mr. hegseth: i can tell you. >> couldn't. mr. hegseth: i know south korea and japan and australia, trying to work on submarines with them. >> none of those countries are in. 10 of the three countries are in. i suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations. listen, mr. hegseth, we ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time. we ask them to go into harm's way, and this behind me is a copy of the soldiers creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk here in the senate. it is the same copy that hung over my desk at walter reed every single day that i woke up and fought my way back because i wanted to go back and serve next to my buddies who saved my life. the same copy, these words i repeat over and over again. let me read out two things to you, to sentences.
6:03 am
i will always place the mission first and i am disciplined, sickly and mentally tough, trained and proficient at my warrior task. mr. hegseth, our troops follow these words every single day and they man up and they packed the rucksacks and they go to war and they deserve a leader who can lead them, not a leader who wants to lower the standards for himself or raise the standards for other people. and by the way, our troops already meet these standards. ask troops demand that ship, fly that helicopter into the very last breath, and they do that every single day. they cannot be led by someone who is not competent to the job. how can you ask these warriors to train and perform at the absolute highest standards when you are asking us to lower the standards to make you the secretary of defense, simply because you are buddies with our president elect? and by the way, he has filed for bankruptcy six times. i'm not quite sure he's the kind of ceo you want to refer to as a successful businessman. let me make it clear.
6:04 am
you can't seem to grasp that there is no u.s. military as we know it without the incredible women that we serve. women who earned their place in units. you have not earned your place a secretary of defense. you say you care about keeping armed forces strong and that you like that our office is a meritocracy, then let's not lower the standards for you. you are a no go at the station. >> thank you, senator duckworth. i would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. brian that says anyone who would claim that pete mismanaged funds is ignorant of the facts. without objection it will be admitted to the record. senator budd. >> thank you, chairman wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of this committee and thank you for your leadership and your handling of this. you are doing a great job. so i wanted to also submit for the record a letter submitted by
6:05 am
mr. daniel catlin, a former operations manager of vets for freedom. his letter states that mr. hegseth and mr. catlin conducted weekly meetings to meticulously review every dollar that the organization spent. pete's hands on approach and dedication to financial responsibility ensured that vets for freedom operated within its budget. his letters also state that pete treated his staff with the utmost respect regardless of race or gender. i ask unanimous consent for this into the record. congratulations on your nomination, thanks for appearing before the committee today. i enjoyed meeting you in my office before christmas and i've enjoyed our friendship before that. you stated in your advanced policy questions that the american people need to be informed, engaged and inspired to join our military. i wholeheartedly agree with that. but we also have a problem with
6:06 am
obesity and falling academic standards. it's very concerning. if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number of americans eligible to serve in the military without lowering standards? mr. hegseth: i think there are already, to the credit of the army and other services that have now caught up to that, which have piloted programs and have had some success that have allowed young americans who want to serve in the military but can't necessarily pass to get into basic training the opportunity to get caught up. unfortunately yes, we do have a problem in obesity in our country, not necessarily something that, if i'm confirmed, the secretary of defense is able to address. but i do think leading from the front matters. having a secretary of defense that will go out and do pt with the troops matters, that has been out there and done that
6:07 am
before. hopefully that is a motivating factor for young people, but the reality of obesity and criminal backgrounds and medical problems have long been an issue of recruitment in america, unfortunately. what changed is the perception of military service because of the condition of the services and frankly because of, in some ways, the way our schools don't teach young people to love the country anymore and if you don't love the country, why do you want to serve the country?but all of those things need to be addressed, including obesity certainly part of it. >> i've had multiple conversations with young folks back in north carolina, young men and women. we get to meet a lot of them. i hear from some of these folks who are encouraged to join the military. they say that they are concerned that it has become politicized and if confirmed, would you commit to working with my office to address the military recruiting crisis and ensuring the military is focused on or fighting?
6:08 am
mr. hegseth: senator, absolutely. a number one from day one with a mandate from the commander-in-chief, who received that mandate when americans spoke out loudly and said we want peace through strength, we want america first foreign policy, and we don't want political ideology driving decisions inside our defense department. that was clear. it is an infection that the american people are acutely aware of, which the men and women in this room have lived firsthand, i've lived it firsthand, and that is what it will be a priority. and i truly believe, and i am humbled by this, the response we've already seen from young men and women who have decided to join the military. when they had said i wasn't going to, seeing a commander-in-chief donald trump, we assure them seeing the possibility if confirmed of a secretary of defense that would have their back reassured them. in the first couple months after president trump's election, the
6:09 am
numbers are there, a recruiting surge in all the services that i would welcome the opportunity to continue. and it is humbling to think the families across this country would have confidence in us to deliver for their young men and women. there is no more important task. >> shifting gears a bit, i want to hear some of your thoughts on the growing fighter aircraft capacity gap with china and what this means for a potential fight in the indo pacific. if confirmed, what policy recommendations will you make to the president on procurement and maintenance of fourth and fifth generation fighters while we continue to research and develop six generation in collaboration with combat aircraft? mr. hegseth: that's a very important conversation, one that i've been looking at a great deal. a law that, just to be clear, involves classifications and understanding precisely the cost and capabilities, including capabilities of enemy systems.
6:10 am
not just ford and fifth, but potential sixth generation which we've already seen a prototype released from the chinese. that is a dangerous development considering at least the publicly understood condition of endgap which i look forward to the opportunity of looking underneath the hood on that. but ensuring fourth and fifth are capable and upgraded as necessary, will be a part of our contingency. but when you look at the indo pacific, say, operability, range is going to matter because it is such a large battle space. that would all factor in decisions that are made and that is where i feel, friendly, a little bit liberated that i didn't work at lockheed or any number of -- pick a defense contractor, i didn't mean to .1 out specific. i don't have a special interest in any system or company or narrative. i want to know what works, i want to know what defeat our enemies, what keeps us safe, what deters them, what keeps our
6:11 am
enemies up at night. whatever that is, i want more of it and they want to invest in it. and i know that is the view president trump has as well. >> some have commented recently about the need to eliminate a man aircraft. i would say maybe one day but that day is not now and certainly not before 2027 especially in the indo pacific. if confirmed would you commit to work with my office and this committee to ensure the proper mix of fighteres, manned and unmanned. >> unmanned will be a very important part of the way future wars are fought. just the idea of survivability for a human being drives cost and time in ways that man systems do not, but i look forward to the conversation. >> chair wicker: thank you, senator budd. i recognizes senator reed for unanimous consent. sen. reed: i ask two letters be cemented for the record, one
6:12 am
from the government accountability office, the other for the truman national secure project. chair wicker: without objection, so ordered. senator kelly, senator rosen got here after the gavel went down. do you really want to go ahead? sen. kelly: i'm going to defer to mike good friend and colleague senator rosen. chair wicker: that is really good decision. senator rosen, you are recognized. sen. rosen: thank, senator kelly, iou one thank you, chairman wicker, ranking member reed. mr. hegseth, i appreciate your willingness to serve again. however, i'm deeply disappointed you would not agree to me as with other members of the committee prior to the hearing as is the precedent for this committee and others. let me tell you about what i would've talked about how you make yourself available prior to the hearing. nevada is home to the premier
6:13 am
aviation training ranges for both of air force and the navy, the largest ammunition depot in the world, and the only place in the country where we are able to verify the reliability of our nuclear stockpile without the need for explosive testing. the nevada national guard is one of the few units across the country with the mission of fighting wildfires -- that's for another hearing -- and currently person reserves in the military -- everything a person reserves in the military -- we have talked about recruitment and retention. one day they will become a veteran. my veterans and the folks serving active-duty now are concerned about what you think.
6:14 am
dod does not have jurisdiction over nevada's 200,000 plus veterans, but i am interested in your views about the service members once they have transitioned out of the military, given the influence he would have while they are in service if confirmed. in 2019 on a segment of " fox & friends" you say the service organizations encourage every veteran to apply for every government they can get after service, you say they do not want them dependent based on injuries that might have arisen from your military service. i will ask of you yes or no questions but veterans, understanding you don't have jurisdiction. it is important to morale, it is important to recruitment, it is important to retention, it is important to how we respect others in this country. yes or no, do you believe that vso's are on to support veterans in obtaining the benefits they have rightfully earned and deserved when they signed that line like you did for your service?
6:15 am
yes or no, please mr. hegseth: veterans deserve the benefits they have earned. sen. rosen: so you would agree -- mr. hegseth: differences of opinion of how to deliver those services -- sen. rosen: do you believe vso's are wrong? mr. hegseth: vso's is a very broad term, we are a vso also -- sen. rosen: --obtain the benefits they have earned, yes or no? mr. hegseth: every veteran should have rapid access to all benefits -- sen. rosen: do you think they should be ashamed for obtaining the benefits they have earned? you think they should be ashamed -- mr. hegseth: i think we should be ashamed as a nation of the number of veterans who commit suicide -- sen. rosen: that is not the question. i'm going to take that as a yes. how about veterans who suffer lasting injuries due to their military service? do you think they deserve our support and assistance? your answers to these are too
6:16 am
broad. people want to know, are you willing to support our veterans organizations that will help our veterans get every damn thing that they deserve because they signed on the dot keep us safe, just like you did? i respect that. will you? mr. hegseth: senator, with all due humility, i don't know if there's anyone in this room the last 20 years that is work harder to ensure that our veterans are taken care of. it is the passion of my lifelong with so many on this dais -- and it is a recruiting crisis. sen. rosen: you say that veterans are dependent on the government. do you believe that veterans getting these benefits are dependent on the government, or do you believe it is a benefit they have earned and deserve through their service? mr. hegseth: it is a benefit they friend and a hand -- sen. rosen: you have changed your position. you leave the veterans are dependent, now you believe they have earned and deserved it. i think it is disrespectful to
6:17 am
change that position. these are benefits they may need throughout the life and may not know when they need them, or how they are going to need them. and they need to be there when they do. thank you, i will move on to my next question. america's role in the world. our alliances, the threats america is facing, they are serious, wide-ranging, from russia to china to iranian-backed terrorism. do you agree with the national defense strategy that the u.s. cannot compete with china, russia, and their partners alone, and certainly cannot win a war that way? this is a quote from the national defense strategy. is your interpretation that america first foreign policy is america alone? does that include abandoning allies such as nato, taiwan, israel, and others? if we can't win alone and we don't strengthen our strategic partnerships, i would say your position places us on a
6:18 am
strategic path to lose to our adversaries. maybe you are ok with choosing a path for america. i want to know how you square that position with the visions you articulated in your book where you wrote that nato is a relic, at best a distraction, it should be scrapped and remade. are you ok with sending us down a path where we can't win? mr. hegseth: senator, the world has just our friends in the world have had no better ally, no better friend than president donald trump -- sen. rosen: i'm not talking about president donald trump. mr. hegseth: in every way in ways this administration has not. yes ensure that the nato alliance has become far more robust -- he has ensured that the nato alliance has become far more robust -- sen. rosen: is donald trump going to stand behind ukraine? are you going to stand behind ukraine? president-elect trump says he will end the war in ukraine before he takes office. less than a week before he's inaugurated, to the best of your
6:19 am
knowledge, do you have a knowledge of a plan he is when to use to rapidly end the war in ukraine, to believe it is feasible that does not make unacceptable concessions to vladimir putin, who was a brutal dictator-- is a brutal dictator? are you going to give president-elect trump military device you have given others to achieve the objective of us winning the war in ukraine? how do you think a rapid end to the what that vladimir putin started will affect the united states' standing across the world? mr. hegseth: i will always give my clear guidance, best guidance to the president of the united states on matters like that. sen. rosen: do you think if we conceded to vladimir putin, that will hurt our credit ability with our allies and partners? do not believe our adversaries -- chair wicker: you can take that for the record, mr. hegseth. senator schmitt. sen. schmitt: i would like to submit for the record a letter by the former director of operations for vets for freedom. his letter states that the
6:20 am
suggestion -- "the suggestion that funds were misused for personal gain or other purposes is categorically false. throughout my time working with pete hegseth, he consistently demonstrated exceptional integrity in leadership." i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record. chair wicker: without objection, so ordered. sen. schmitt: mr. hegseth, good to see you today. thank you for your service and willingness to serve. i want to thank you for your clarity in articulating the vision you have for the department of defense and restoring and eat those -- a warrior ethos. which is in stark contrast to the ethos we have seen the last four years, weakness and wokeness. i want to drill down on a few things specifically and exactly how we have gotten to where we have gotten with recruiting and morale. dei. there has been a little bit of discussion about this, but for those watching at home, dei is
6:21 am
not about giving everybody opportunity. it is rooted in cultural marxism, the idea that you pit the room, any room, with oppressor vs. oppressed. it is race essentialism, and it is poison. he has no business whatsoever in our military. i think the american people have spoken loudly and clearly about this. they are tired of this. they are tired of woke ideology. to my democrat colleagues on the other side, if you haven't picked up on that, you lost the plot, because that is what november 5 partially was about. let's talk about some of these dei programs that have been funded. in our academy, specifically the air force academy, it was advised as disfavored language to refer to your mom and dad as mom and dad. ok? "dear mom and dad" -- don't say that. that's insane. we are all just people -- you
6:22 am
can't say that either. in an effort to police this, in a "1984" orwellian novel, there was an icing years program to read on your fellow students who might say mom and dad, or might say in a tough situation "we are all just people." can't say that. this was limited, by the way -- this wasn't limited, by the way, to our academies. the secretary of the air force, our current secretary of the air force, in a memo from august of 2022, thought we had too many white officers. advocated for quotas. if you crunch the numbers that meant that, 5800 white officers who have worked really hard should be fired. in the united states of america. i don't know how we got here, and by the way, the air force isn't alone. the navy touted a drag queen
6:23 am
influencer. this stuff is insane. people wonder why recruiting has dropped off. let me go through a few numbers and then i want to hear your comments on how we fix this, because he does come completely off the rails. in 2022 the army mr. their recruiting goal of 50,000 soldiers by over 15,000. in 2023 the navy missed their recruiting goals by over. 7000 in 2022 the air force couldn't meet their standards, their numbers, even though they lower their standards. they've lowered their standards to meet numbers they still can't get to. mr. hegseth, we got to fix this. i think what you have demonstrated today is that you have the talent and the ability and the desire to fix it. how are you going to fix it? mr. hegseth: senator, thank you for the question. first and foremost, a we have to tear out dei and crt initiatives
6:24 am
root and branch out of institutions. sen. schmitt: 100%. mr. hegseth then: you have to put in army, navy, air force secretaries and others, civilian positions at the helm who are committed to the same priorities the president is, sent a clear message that this is not a time for equity. equity is a very different word than equality. equality is the bedrock of our military. me and womenn, duty positions in uniform, black, white, doesn't matter, we treat you equally based on who you are in the image of god. we all get the same bad haircuts. you are not an individual, you're part of a group. equity prescribes some sort of an outcome based on differing attributes that we have that divide us, what skin color are you, what gender are you. it infuses that instant institutions which manifest and things like quotas, formal or informal, which does what you
6:25 am
morale? since it in the tubes, and makes people feel like something other than how good they are at their job, which is poisonous inside institutions for some sen. schmitt: on top of this recording crisis, that wasn't enough for this administration. during the covid hysteria, in their attempt to fire 100,000 people who work for bigger companies because they didn't get the covid shot or to mask five-year-olds, they decided to make this a central plank of the policy at the pentagon. 8000 -- we got a recruiting crisis -- 8000 well-trained men and women were fired, were fired. will you commit today, mr. hegseth, to recruit these folks back, to give them back they, and give them an apology-- back pay, and give them an apology from the knights its government for how they were disrespected? mr. hegseth: senator, i will commit to this because the commander in chief has committed
6:26 am
to this, then not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay, and rank that they lost because they were aforesaid due to an experiment vaccine. sen. schmitt: i have them at a time. for all the talk of experience and not coming from the same cocktail parties, the permanent washington is used to, you are a breath of fresh air. again, if you weren't paying attention to what this election was all about, it was about the disruptors vs. the establishment. and the american people have had enough of business as usual for the same people that we lineup for the same jobs who give us the same result. we need somebody who is going to go in and fight for innovation, fight for change. i think you are that person, and i appreciate your willingness to sit here and listen to some of these undignified attacks. it's ridiculous. chair wicker: captain mark kelly, you are recognized. sen. kelly: thank you, mr.
6:27 am
chairman. congratulations on your chairmanship i want to make a request to the committee that we have a second round of questions. chair wicker: pursuant to the bipartisan staff agreement that we reached late last year, this will be one round of the seven-minute questions. sen. kelly: thank you, mr. chairman -- chair wicker: i would be happy to recognize my colleague mr. reed. sen. reed: i think it is important to note for the record that when secretary hagel was here we had three rounds of questioning. when sec. carter was here we had two rounds of questioning. i cannot recall any time where i have denied as a chairman a member to ask for a second round and receive the second round. we are i think violating the suppose of the committee -- principles of the committee. chair wicker: and your comment is noted. sen. reed: thank you. sen. kelly: mr. hegseth, thank
6:28 am
you for being here today, thank you for your service to this country. mr. hegseth: thank you, senator. sen. kelly: few nominees come into this room with all the necessary experience to be secretary of defense, we got that. it is a reflection on just how big of a job this is. what i want to understand is whether or not you bring any of the necessary experience that this job requires. an here is where i am concerned. senator coleman in introducing you, this is a quote, said "he has struggled and overcome great personal challenges." you walk in here saying you have had personal and character issues in your past, including heavy drinking, which you wrote about. and you said, this is a quote from you, that "i said before you as an open book." you haven't actually said what personal challenges it is that you have overcome when you have
6:29 am
been asked about them. so i'm going to give you an opportunity to be as forthright as you say you want to be. so while leading concerned veterans of america, there were very specific cases cited by individuals about your conduct. i'm going to go through a few of them and i want you to tell me if these are true or false. very simple. o memorial dayn 2014 at a cfa event in virginia you need to do be carried out of the vent for being intoxicated. mr. hegseth: senator, anonymous smears. sen. kelly: true or false? summer 2014 in cleveland, drunk in public. mr. hegseth: anonymous smears. sen. kelly: i'm asking for true or false answers. an event in north carolina, drunk in front of three young female staff members after you instituted a no-alcohol policy and then reversed it, true or
6:30 am
false? mr. hegseth: anonymous smears could sen. kelly: december 2014 at the christmas party at the grand hyatt in washington, d.c., you were noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to your room. is that true or false? mr. hegseth anonymous: smears. sen. kelly: another time a staffer said he passed out in the back of a party bus. mr. hegseth: anonymous smears. sen. kelly: in 2014 while in louisiana on official business for cva, you take your staff, including young female staff members, to a strip club? mr. hegseth: absolute not. anonymous smears. sen. kelly: so is it accurate that the organization reached a financial settlement with a female staffer who claimed to be at a strip club with you and there was a colleague who
6:31 am
attempted to sexually assault her? was there a financial settlement? mr. hegseth: senator, i was not involved in that. i don't know the nature of how that played out. sen. kelly: but you understand there was a financial settlement for a young female staffer who accused another member of the organization, not you, of sexual assault in a strip club? mr. hegseth: we have multiple statement on the record referring to that. sen. kelly: but you claim you were not there when that occurred. mr. hegseth: absolutely not. sen. kelly: now, the behavior i cited, if true, do you think that this behavior of intoxication going into these type of establishments, women on your staff being so uncomfortable that they had to file these harassment claims, do you think this is appropriate behavior for a leader? mr. hegseth: senator, the
6:32 am
overwhelming majority of anyone was work for me including the on-the-record statements, with their name on it on the record, men and women who work with me every day, are the overwhelming preponderance of evidence that testify to my leadership and professionalism in leading vets for freedom and concerned veterans for america. my leadership has been completely impugned on these veterans organizations that did fantastic work -- sen. kelly: mr. hegseth, i'm not even going to go into the accusations -- mr. hegseth: integrity across the board -- everybody wants a campaign -- sen. kelly: i have limited time, i'm not going to get into the accusations that come from fox news. some of your fox news colleagues, multiple instances of accusations against you, about drinking on the job -- mr. hegseth: all anonymous, all false, all refuted by my calling to i worked with for 10 years from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. -- sen. kelly: the challenge for
6:33 am
meat, mr. hegseth, -- me, mr. hegseth, is when there is discussion about personal challenges and you admittedly had issues with heavy drinking. it's hard to square this, to square the circle here. it is kind of a difficult thing to do. let me ask you -- i have about 90 seconds left here. if you had to answer these questions about sexual assault against you and your drinking and your personal conduct, would it have been different if you were under oath? mr. hegseth: senator, all i am pointing out is the false claims against me. sen. kelly: i take it you do not want to answer that question. i walked into this hearing this morning concerned that you haven't demonstrated adequate leadership in your civilian roles. and this is a dangerous world we're living in here. america cannot afford a secretary of defense who was unprepared for that mission. i'm going to leave with concerns about your transparency.
6:34 am
you say you have had personal issues in your past, yet when asked about those very issues you blame an anonymous smear campaign, even when many of these claims are not anonymous. which is it, have you overcome personal issues, or are you the target of a smear campaign? it can't be both. it's clear to me that you are not being honest with us or the american people, because you know the truth would this qualify you from getting the job. and just as concerning as each of these specific disqualifying accusations are, what concerns me just as much is the idea of having a secretary of defense who is not transparent. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my two seconds. chair wicker: thank you, senator kelly. i would ask unanimous consent to introduce into the record letters by tina kingston,
6:35 am
louisiana state director of concerned veterans for america, and the louisiana local director of concerned veterans for america, attesting to the appropriateness of mr. hegseth's conduct with regard to female staffers. without objection, that is added to the record. senator banks, you are now recognize. sen. banks: welcome, mr. hegseth . you have conducted yourself very well today. in fact, so well that i believe it is incumbent upon this committee to confirm you asap to get you on the job to clean up the mess that we have at the pentagon ongoing at this moment because of the leadership over the last four years has failed us. in president biden's first year in office, the department of defense spent over 5 million man-hours on "counter extremism"
6:36 am
and diversity training, what you and i might call woke training, or dei. the administration has refused to provide us any more recent data than the first year, but we know it is exponentially more man-hours wasted on dei over the last four years. i wonder, what do you make of that? what do 5 million man-hours in that first hour of secretary austen and president biden' administrations, what could those 5 million man-hours have been used for? mr. hegseth: senator, that is a lot of service members sitting in a lot of briefs, hearing about a lot of threats, or political perspective that might be dangerous that do not comport to threats that actually exist inside the force or ideas that introduce critical race theory or dei or climate change initiatives that they and their commands have to conform to. every time one of those happens ,it gets pushed down the chain
6:37 am
of command. that includes new layers of leadership that have been created under this administration committed to enforcing those types of dei and crt initiatives. we hear 5 million man-hours, and it sounds like a lot. the more troubling aspect is how many training hours that takes away from a company commander or battalion commander or wing commander out there trying to maintain the force, which is already constrained because of what the biden administration is under the defense budget and defense capabilities. they're having to choose between the political prerogatives of this billions demanding more dei and crt and gender quotas and the readiness of their forces,. i believe this pentagon is prepared because of our commander-in-chief for a secretary of defense, should i be confirmed, that laser focus is on these issues, and they are ready to respond. they want to pack their rucksacks and go train because they understand we are in a dangerous world. sen. banks: i think that is a key point, because month later,
6:38 am
while the priority of the biden-austin-led pentagon was on dei and woke training, one of the biggest investments in american history happen when we lost 13 of our heroes and debauched withdrawal from afghanistan. secretary austin testified before the house armed services committee or couple years ago and responding to a question for me said he had "no regrets" about what happened in afghanistan. what do you make of that? mr. hegseth: senator, it's shameful. they still tout it as the most successful airlift in american history, when the rest of us saw what was laid before our eyes, utter failure, a destruction of military legacy there, abandonment of allies, death of american troops, detriment to our reputation, and then no answers and no accountability on the other side. and what was on this because of
6:39 am
what happened in afghanistan? the october 7 attacks, an invasion into ukraine. the world recognized weakness for what it was. who bore the brunt for it? the troops doing an important job whose external security was the taliban because there was no actual plan under the biden administration? and yet the only prison held accountable in those moments was a marine corps lieutenant colonel whether courage to stand up and say someone should be held accountable for that. no one else involved has ever taken accountability for. when that microcosm becomes the reality of the perception of the american military, or america's commitment to victory and success and positive outcomes, the world response to that. president trump is going to restore real deterrence by bringing a real warrior culture back, rebuilding our military, and ending wars properly. if we have to fight them, winning decisively.
6:40 am
sen. banks: i served in afghanistan, you served in afghanistan. 75% of our nation's veterans disagree with how the withdrawal from afghanistan was handled, the embarrassment of it. with that done, i believe -- what that's done, i believe, has impacted the historic recruitment crisis in this country, without a doubt. you have already talked about that. how do we fix it? how do we bring pride back to wearing the uniform for the next generation and inspiring them to do what you and i did, take that oath for our country? mr. hegseth: it comes down to strong, clear leadership, patriotic, pro-american leadership that says we are not going to focus on all the other political progress. we all have political perspectives. i said this before and i will say again, in uniform none of that matters. green, blue, you bleed red.
6:41 am
who you vote for doesn't matter. when the perception changes, you don't want people deciding to serve based on -- that is a dangerous thing for continuity inside military. it is fragile right now. president trump, and if i'm confirmed, with my leadership, we will restore the continuity of an apolitical meritorious that acts decisively. sen. banks: you and i agree that wokeness is weakness. do you support racial quotas in recruitment or promotions in the united states military? mr. hegseth: i do not support any form of racial q uota. sen. banks: do you support affirmative action in the nation's military enemies? mr --military academies? mr. hegseth: i support the best and the brightest whatever their back on his full sen. banks: secretary lloyd austin disappeared for days and did not even inform the president's chief of staff that he was going to the hospital.
6:42 am
with that on your watch --would that occur on your watch? mr. hegseth: no, senator, in any one of my jobs if i decided to go awol for a day or two in uniform, that would be a concern. sen. banks: i believe accountability minutes no one to this day has been held accountable for what happened in afghanistan. it is embarrassing for this country, it has impacted this country greatly, and i applaud you and president trump for bringing accountability back to the panic on. --the pentagon. chair wicker: the chair recognizes the dissing wished ranking member for unanimous consent request. sen. reed: i would like to submit an article discussing some of the issues of readiness -- there is been a comment that 5.9 million man-hours have been used for dei. the general clarified that that is an estimate out of more than 2 million man-hours that the
6:43 am
department of defense invested during -- chair wicker: where is this published, sir? sen. reed: published by megan myers -- chair wicker: ok. sen. reed: military.com. chair wicker: without objection, it would be admitted to the record. senator slotkin. fulcrum to the committee. s--welcome to the committee commmittee. sen. slotkin: thank you for referencing the great carl levin. i was a cia officer and add three tours inside iraq and have worked for four different secretaries of defense, democrat and republican, proudly come and watch them make decisions that literally determined the life-and-death of americans in the dark of night. i'm also a democrat representing a state that trump won.
6:44 am
we won on the same valid. so i understand the president trump has the right to nominate his people. we are going to have policies we disagree with. all of that comes very standard. what i think i'm most concerned with is that no president has the right to use the uniformed military in a way that violates the u.s. constitution and further taints the military as that apolitical institution we all want. our founders designed a system so that we weren't going to use active duty military inside the united states and make american citizens potentially scared of their own military. we went through our own experience with that with the british. as the secretary of defense, you will be the one man standing in the breach should president trump give an illegal order. not saying he will, but if he does, you are going to be the guy that he calls to implement this order. do you agree that there are some
6:45 am
orders that can be given by the commander in chief that would violate the u.s. constitution? mr. hegseth: senator, thank you for your service. but i reject the premise that president trump is going to be giving illegal orders -- sen. slotkin: i'm not saying he will, but do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that joe biden or any other president, donald trump could give, is there anything a commander in chief could ask you to do with uniformed military that would be in violation of the constitution? mr. hegseth: anybody of any party could give an order that is against the constitution or against the law. sen. slotkin: ok, and are you saying you would stand in the breach and push back if you were given an illegal order? mr. hegseth: i-5 i think that i reject the premise -- sen. slotkin: i understand, you have done your genuflecting to him. this isn't a hypothetical. your predecessor in a trump administration, secretary esper, was asked and did use uniformed military to clear unarmed
6:46 am
protesters, given the order to potentially shoot at them. he later apologized publicly for those actions. was he right or wrong to apologize? mr. hegseth: senator, i was there on the ground -- sen. slotkin: i understand, i respect that, but you are about to be the secretary of defense -- was he right -- mr. hegseth: the constitution -- sen. slotkin: was he right or wrong to apologize? mr. hegseth: i'm not going to put words in the month of secretary esper. sen. slotkin: you don't have to. what are you scared of? did he do the right thing by apologizing? mr. hegseth: i'm not scared of anything, senator. sen. slotkin: then say yes or no. donald trump asked for the active duty second airborne to be deployed during that same time. secretary esper has written that he convinced him against that decision. if donald trump asked you to use the 82nd airborne in law enforcement roles in washington,
6:47 am
d.c., would you also convince him otherwise? mr. hegseth: i'm not going to get ahead of conversations i would have with the president. however, there are laws and processes inside our constitution that would be followed. sen. slotkin: president trump said in november he is willing to consider using the active-duty military against "the enemy within." have you been personally involved in discussions of using the u.s. military, active-duty, inside the united states? mr. hegseth: senator, i'm glad we finally got to the topic of border security equaling national security, because it has been abdicated and ignored for the last -- sen. slotkin: that was not my question. have you been involved -- you are about to be the secretary of defense potentially. have you been involved in discussions about using the active-duty military inside the united states? mr. hegseth: senator, i am not yet the secretary of defense. if confirmed, i would be party -- sen. slotkin: but you have not been in any of these conversations? mr. hegseth: would not reveal what i discussed -- sen. slotkin: no, have you been
6:48 am
in conversations? you will be in charge of 3 million people. the active-duty that i believe you care about. have you been in conversations about using the active-duty in any way, whether it is setting up detention camps, policing dangerous cities? have you been involved in any of those conversations? mr. hegseth: certainly i've been involved in conversations relating to doing things this administration has not, which is secure the southern border and not allow floods of illegal -- sen. slotkin: ok -- mr. hegseth: through an invasion that threatens the american people -- sen. slotkin: ok, i got it -- do you believe -- mr. hegseth : at the border right now -- sen. slotkin: what you ask the president -- our u.s. military is not trained in law enforcement roles, i think you know that. we've seen how that mission is difficult for them in places like iraq and afghanistan because that is not the training uniformed military comes with it. do you support these of
6:49 am
active-duty military and supporting detention camps? mr. hegseth: senator, everything we would do would be lawful and under the constitution -- i reckon night this administration has abdicated its responsibility -- sen. slotkin: in the spirit of preserving the institution -- sir, you are filibustering, i get it. in the spirit of preserving the institution that we both care about legitimately, the uniform code of military justice, i have heard a couple of different things. one, you said you will not change the uniform code of military justice, which is what governs justice system in the military. yes or no? mr. hegseth: those are laws, senator, set by congress. sen. slotkin: so you will not attempt to change it. you also said that jag officers are potentially people who put their own interests in their own medals and promotions ahead of the troops. lindsey graham was a jag officer for most of his life. is that what you believe about those who implement our justice system in the military?
6:50 am
mr. hegseth: i was begin particular j--speaking of particular jag officers i've dealt with -- sen. slotkin: is the secretary of defense going to get involved in the code of justice? mr. hegseth: there will be a big part of my job to evaluate decisions -- sen. slotkin: i will take that as a yes. is cq brown on your list on the whereabouts to be removed from his position? mr. hegseth: every single officer will be reviewed based on meritocracy, standards, lethality, and commitment to lawful orders they will be given. chair wicker: thank you, senator slotkin. i recognize senator shaheen for unanimous consent request. sen. shaheen: i have a request from a former general who served 35 years who most recently was a commander of the 94th regional readiness command who was asked that his letter opposing mr.
6:51 am
hegseth's nomination be entered into the record. chair wicker: is there objection? without objection, it will be entered. also i present a host of letters and op-eds from former coworkers at vets for freedom and concern vets for america as well as fox news channel, letters and op-eds from many veterans and iraqis and afghanis who were helped by mr. hegseth. i asked unanimous consent to introduce these letters and op-eds. without objection, is so ordered. senator sheehy, you have been very patient. sen. sheehy: entering the support letter in for mr. hegseth.
6:52 am
i would like a statement from 86 of them who support his nomination although they come from different units and ranks, commending mr. hegseth for his selfless leadership, love of soldiers. chair wicker: two items? sen. sheehy: when item. chair wicker: who without objection it will be entered. sen. sheehy: pete, i'm going to ask you buttons because i want to hear your answer. how many genders are there? mr. hegseth senator, there are two genders. sen. sheehy: i'm sheehy, so i'm on board. [laughter] how many push-ups can you do? mr. hegseth: i did five sits at 47 this morning. sen. sheehy: what do you think are most important strategic bases in the pacific? mr. hegseth: guam is
6:53 am
strategically significant. sen. sheehy: how many rounds of 556 can you fit in an m4 rifle? mr. hegseth: standard is 30. sen. sheehy: what kind of batteries do you put in your night vision goggle? mr. hegseth: duracell? [laughter] sen. sheehy: right there you are represent qualifications that show you understand what the war fighter deals with everything a day on the battlefield. -- every single day on the battlefield. what happens unfortunately in this country is decisions made in rooms like this, bad decisions, end up in dead 17-, 18-, 19-year-old americans, and they really come from families that sit in rooms like this. they come from low- and middle
6:54 am
income families and they join because they want to go to college, maybe they love this country. for whatever reason they join and sign on the dotted line, when people like us screw up, they don't come home. that is the one thing i care about. you shut the door when you commit your entourage -- senator coleman, was known for a long time -- ask you one question. mr. hegseth: are you going to have the backs of the war fighters? sen. sheehy: what is your number one priority? i don't care what all these letters and articles say. i've been part of a smear campaign, too, i get it. you will have one thing in mind when you sit in that chair, and you told me what that was. with that you have my support. i'm sorry you have to go through a process like this, but it is one of the most important jobs in the world. we got to sure you're ready for it. i thank you for your answers. i got one final question that is very important to me, and this is more of a technical question, but i think it -- to fix the
6:55 am
army in this country is a one- or two-your problem. to fix the air force is a five-your problem. -- five-year problem. to fix the navy is a decades-long pursued. you don't have all the power, you are not china, you cannot snap your fingers how will you reinvigorate the shipbuilding industry so we can compete with china, because freedom of navigation is critical to the global economy and important task? mr. hegseth: it's a critical question, senator, and that is why i'm grateful that president trump is a definitively to me and publicly that shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities of this administration. a lot of it does go into pulling things up into the osd's office, secretary of defense office, to shine a spotlight on it to make sure that the bureaucracy doesn't strangle important initiatives that need to happen. we need to reinvigorate our defense industrial base in this country to include our to
6:56 am
building capacity. some of it is on the east, some of it on the west, some of it on the great lakes. the workforce problems that our shipyards are facing our significant, and there has been a big investment from this committee. i know a lot of those places because of the shortfalls. the manpower issues, everything else. we also see adversaries that have been able to innovate themselves in ways that the ship building capacity -- i won't reveal it at this hearing -- multitudes and multitudes beyond our capabilities. rapid investment, rapid fielding, and then we need to incentivize outside entities ot fil-- to fill the gap. we talk about uav's. uav's are important, but there are also uuv's that will be part of apple find the impact of our navy. this administration has allowed our number of ships to drop below 300. it sets a projection of 340 or 350, but doesn't create the capacity to address it.
6:57 am
if we are going to defend our interests, our allies, and put america first, we have to be able to project power. that means shipbuilding, and means historic investments in our defense industrial base there, and driving innovation and cost savings in ways that only business leaders inside the pentagon can do. sen. sheehy: what i would add, i don't think any board in the world would've hired steve jobs or elon musk or mark zuckerberg when they thought of their companies. this country was founded by young people who had a great vision. thank you for being willing to serve your country again. thanks for coming here today. chair wicker: thank you, senator sheehy. yield back the balance of your time. mr. ranking member, can we agree that you and i will notify members of a specific time until which the record will remain open for submission of questions
6:58 am
for the record? sen. reed: sen. sheehy -- sen. reed: yes, mr. chairman. chair wicker: this concludes today's hearing. i want to thank the witnesses and their families, and this hearing is adjourned.

0 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on