project an attitude of deterrence. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator cramer. senator king. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hegseth, welcome to the committee. >> thank you, senator. >> you made several references to your religion today. i share that devotion to christianity. but i just say i'm reminded of saul on the way to damascus, and you seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months. you wrote in your book just last year -- this is the book "war on warriors," but if we're going to send our boys to fight, and it should be boys, we need to unleash them to win. they are on our -- boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men. which is is it? is it only boys can fight? you've testified here today that you believe women in combat, but

you didn't just last year. how do you explain your conversion? >> senator, my testimony is clear. writing a book is different than being secretary of defense. and i look forward to leading the men and women of our military and my comment there, senator, but about the burden some rules of engagement that members of our generation -- men and women -- have seen on the battlefield and one thing president trump changed in meaningful ways that led to meaningful developments 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 with men and women invested in that position. and it was a moment to see the black flag of isis fly. and he changed the rules of engagement, and untied the hands of war fighters and allowed them to complete their mission and crush isis. not just tactical, operational and ex strategical implications,

and allowing fighters to fight their wars, and president trump understand that, and the laws of war and the uniform military justice, we unleash fighters to win wars so wars don't drag on forever as our generation has seen. >> so are you rejecting title 18 and title 42, i think, also has provisions that incorporates the geneva convention and the laws of armed combat, are you saying that those laws should be repealed?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. >> senator, we have laws on the books from the geneva conventions into the uniform code of military justice and then underneath that you have layers in which standard or temporary rules of engagements are put into place. we fight enemies, also, senato, as our generation understands that play by no rules. they use civilians as human shields. they target the women and children. we don't do that. >> are you saying the geneva

conventions shouldn't be followed. >> we shouldn't follow rules for rules of engagement that make it impossible to win. >> you are saying both things, and we don't need to follow the rules, but rules need to be in effect. >> and there are rules we swear an oath to defend and incredible important that this committee understands and helps set them, and then there are echelons above reality from corps to division to brigade and at that battalion, and why the time it trickles down, you have rules of engagement that nobody recognizes and makes it incredibly difficult to do your job on the battlefield. that's the kind of assessment and look that an army major will give to this process if i was confirmed to be the secretary of defense. >> your quote is -- >> a true understanding of that. >> the quote in 2024, our boys should not fight by rules made by men written in mahogany

rooms, that would be the geneva convention, and our boys should fight by our own rules or not go in at all. are you saying the geneva provisions which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners should not apply in the future? >> senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners, the applications of the geneva conventions are incredibly important. but we all have to acknowledge the way we fought our wars back when the geneva conventions were written are a lot different than the as asymmetric nonconventionl violence i encountered in iraq and afghanistan, i was the senior encounter administrator in afghanistan and i had to understand how al-qaeda operated to nato knew what was happening. they knew the rules of engagement, when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them and put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. for future wars of fight, we need someone on top of the

pentagon understands the ripple effects. >> i want to understand your position. torture is okay, is that correct? water and boarding torture is no longer prohibited given the circumstances of whatever war we're in. is that correct? >> senator, that is not what i 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 dark and dangerous places. the gals in helicopters in enemy territory who are doing things that people in washington, d.c., would never dare to do. and in many cases. >> they're willing to do this and you're talking about donald trump and senator cruz, you say they're willing to do something like water border if it keeps us safe. are you okay with water boarding? >> senator, the law of the land is that water boarding is not legal. >> the statement you made you now recant, is that correct?

they're willing to do something like water boarding if it keeps us safe. you express that with approval. >> senator, i'm very familiar with that as a concept, having spent a year at guantanamo bay, cuba, guarding those that attacked on 9/11. >> i want to be clear. are we abiding by the general ga conventions or are we not? >> as i stated multiple times, it's what we base -- what an american-first national policy is not going to do is hand over our decisions over to international bodiess about how men and women made decisions on the battlefield. america first understands we send americans for a clear mission and clear objective, and equip them for the proper objective. and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively. >> i understand that. >> which is -- >> i only have a few seconds left, mr. hegseth.

i was very disturbed in your opening statement where you talked about the priorities that you have. we will work with our 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 russia. is this code for we're going to abandon ukraine? >> senator, the president -- this is -- that's a presidential level policy decision. he's made it very clear that he would like to see an end to that conflict. we know who the aggressor is, we know who the good guy isment we want to see it as advantageous for ukranians as possible. >> you talk about deterrence and i suggest xi jinping is watching what we do very carefully. if we aband i don ukraine, thats the strongest message possible to xi jinping that he can take taiwan without anything from this country. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to introduce two records that testify to mr. hegseth's record americans

concerned for america. and the senior advisor stated there's been no better leader, championing our fighter and military and veterans mp. he was instrumental in 2014 and 2017 in ensuring that veterans had health care choice. the second letter submitted by mr. kasen sparrow digital media director stated pete brought incredible energy, focus, and a clear vision to the organization and showed in everything that the team accomplished together. >> 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. senator scott. >> all right. first, congratulations on your

nomination. >> thank you, senator. >> 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 all four combat jumps with the 82nd airborne, and he survived all of that and fought in the battle of the bulge, and what they went through was hell. so i have a lot of respect for him and for everybody that puts on the uniform and serves in battle and has to lead people in battle because it -- been on a ship that didn't happen to me, but had a lot of friends it happened to, and clearly happened to my dad. i've served on this committee for six years. two years under president trump and the past four under u.s. president joe biden. i've seen how the biden harris administration pushed the dod to priorize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world. it's our ability to recruit people willing to put their lives on the line for our country. can you talk about the changes to improve recruitment and build our military into the most

lethal force in the world. >> senator, first of all, thank you for the question. thank you your 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 prolog. our fighters know what kind of kcommander-in-chief they get in donald trump, and someone who stands behind them, and gives them clear missions, and someone who ends war decisively, and the misissue of ukraine was mention. and there was a minor incursion under barack obama, and nothing under trump, and followed by all-out assault under the biden administration. that didn't happen under president trump. president trump managed the taliban. under president biden, it collapsed, and losing the lives of 13. and no one was held responsible for that. and chinese fly balloons flown

over the country. none of that happened under donald trump, and our war fighters understand that. there's no better recruiter in my mind for our military than prespresident trump. my job is to come alongside him should i be confirmed and emphasize his emphasis on war fighting. on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made in the pentagon, what gender you are, what views on climate change, whether you're a person of conscience and your faith should no bearing on whether you get promoted or whether you're selected to go to west point or whether you graduate from ranger school. the only thing should matter is how capable are you at your job, how excellent are you at your job. i served in multiethnic units in every place that i served. none of that mattered. but suddenly we reinject dei and critical race theory, dividing troops into different categories, oppresser and

oppressed, in ways that they otherwise just want to work together. that's why i've pointed out before, and i'll say it again, because i'm sure it will be quoted to me at some point, the dumbest phrase in military history is "our unity 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 your background. has to do with what your commitment is to the country. and that is my solemn pledge to every single person that would put the uniform on. and reflects president trump's priorities, as well. senator. >> thank you. you know, we talked a bit about the fact the pentagon can't do an audit. all right. can you talk -- and to me that -- i have run big businesses. it's all about accountability. if you want an audit done, you can get it done. you might get a letter saying things you need to fix and it

all goes to accountability. and we haven't had it. can you talk about what -- how you bring accountability to the table. what you have done in the past and what you're going to do with regard to bringing accountability to the pentagon. >> i meant it when i said it in the opening statement, senator. i know what i don't know. i 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've led people. and it's leadership of people and motivation of people and a clear vision of people where you build a team. cast 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 the clear vision: build the plan, work it. we set the metrics, and everyone is held accountable. i know our incoming businessman president believes in accountability and holding people accountable. that will happen at the pentagon. i mean, this has been a problem for a long time. secretary rumsfeld gave a speech

on september 10th, 2001, that is mostly forgotten. but it was about the need for acquisition reform, cutting tail to give to teeth. to war fighters, and 9/11 happened. and these are problems that have been persistent for a long time. but now we have new threats. and we need the urgency of this moment. as you said, mr. chairman, the most dangerous moment since the end of the cold war and possibly world war ii. and emergency powers, defense production act, whatever it takes, and an audit is certainly part of it. >> why do you want to do this? why do you want to do this job? what drives you? >> you have 30 seconds. >> because i love my country. senator, i have dedicated my life to the war fighters. people see me as someone who hosts a morning show on television. but people that really know me know where my heart's at.

it's with the guys in this audience who have had my back and i've had theirs. we've 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 am i here before you today. i'm doing this job for them. all of them. >> thank you, mr. hegseth. senator warren. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hegseth, thank you, thank you for your service. so if you're confirmed as secretary of defense, you will oversee our military including about a quarter of a million women who currently serve on active duty in the army, the navy, the air force, the space forces and the marines, and i have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. now i have been trying to get answers from you for quite some time on this. you haven't wanted to meet or answer any of my questions. so we'll just have to do it here and dive in. i want to pick up on some of the

questions asked by senator that mean and g gillibrand and horon, and i want to ensure we have some of the facts undisputed. i'm not talking about anonymous sources. i'm going to quote you directly. we have the video. we've got it in print. going back to january 2013, you told a fox news interviewer 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, quote, a road -- it would erode standards. june 2024, you said on ben shapiro's podcast, quote, women shouldn't be in combat at all. and then, of course, we've talked about it in 2024. you 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 weeks ago, you appeared on the sean ryan said and saying i'm straight up saying we should not have women in combat roles. now i presume you recall making all these statements. >> senator, i'm not familiar with the article you're pointing to in 2013, but it underscores my -- >> i have the video. >> in that 2013 ai 2 2013 argums talking about standards. >> please, let's not have this same fight again. i quoted you directly. we have the video. we're happy to show it. i want to be clear here, for 12 years, you were quite open about your views, and your views were consistently the same. women are inferior soldiers,

sailors, marines, guardians, and in case anyone missed the point and these are your words from ten weeks ago, women absolutely straight up should not be permitted to serve in combat. and i notice on each of these quotes, those are said without qualification. it's not by how much you can lift or how fast you can run. they don't belong in combat, period. or your words straight up. and then on november 9th, 2024, just 32 days after your last public comments saying that women absolutely should not be in combat, you declared that, quote, some of our greatest warriors are women. and you support having them serve in combat. now that is a very, very big aboutface in a very, very short period of time. so help me understand,

mr. hegseth, what extraordinary event happened in that 32-day period that made you change the core values you had expressed for the preceding 12 years. >> senator, 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 that have been -- >> excuse me, mr. hegseth, let's just stop, let's just stop right there. mr. hegseth, i am quoting you from the bad cast. women shouldn't be in combat at all. where in reference to standards, they could be there if they can carry, if they can run.

i see in a 32-day period where you suddenly have another description of 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 today to sing. >> senator, the concerns i have and the concerns many have had, especially in ground combat units is that in pursuit of certain percentages or quotas, standards have been changed. and that makes the combat more difficult -- >> let me make a suggestion 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 the 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 you'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 have written that after they retire, generals should be banned from working for the defense industry for ten years. you and i agree on the corrosive effects of the revolving door between the pentagon and defense contractors. it's something i would have liked to have talk with you about if you had come and 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 ten years? >> senator, it's not even a question i've thought about. >> you can think about it right now. >> it's not one -- my motivation has never been -- >> i understand a yes or no. time is short. >> i would consult with the

president about what the policy should be at the defense department -- >> in other words, you're quite sure that every general who serves should not go directly into the defense industry for ten years. you're not willing to make that same pledge? >> i'm not a general, senator. >> let us just be clear in charge of the generals. so you're saying sauce for the goose but certainly not sauce for the gander? >> i would want to see what the policy of the president -- >> i bet you would. >> thank you, senator warren. senator. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you 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 vets for freedom for hegseth. i'd like to submit that for the record, please. >> without objection. >> general hegseth -- i mean, mr. hegseth. [laughter] thanks for being here today and with your family.

i know this is tough. that's what it's all about, though. you're a tough guy. been here for a while. never seen this many people that are here for a support of a nominee. that's impressive. i met with a lot of them yesterday. and they are very passionate. so thank you for willing to take this on. 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, the players actually won the games, and that's what is going to happen here. you're not going to win the game. you're going to set the precedent, and you're going to get the blame or the credit. but there's going to be people that will be under you that will set the precedent for the future of our country. now the war games that we play on our computers with our adversaries right now, for us,

it don't look good. because our military -- we're in trouble. our whole country is in trouble. thank god president trump got elected november the 5th. we couldn't have kept down the same path. that could not happen. i met with a general -- a couple of generals this summer, coach, we're spending more money on transgender rest rooms than coverages for 100 million-dollar airplanes. that's not acceptable. we want do that. that's not what this is about. met with a couple of navy seals not too long ago, and they just got back from crawling around in the mud and the muck, overseas, unknown places. couldn't tell you where they'd been. carrying a weapon. obviously protecting us and our allies. and the first week they're back, what they do? they had to go through a week of dei training. both are now out. they give it up. it was embarrassing to them of what they had to do. we've lost all sight of what we're doing in our military. lost all sight. it starts with leadership.

and it starts with recruiting. why would a young man -- used when i was growing up, if you couldn't afford to go to college, you had the opportunity to go to the military where you could learn a trade. you could learn. you could make a living for your family and eventually possibly get an education. that was a good alternative. we have forgotten that. we can't give up on our young people. young people are our number 1 commodity in this country, and they are the ones that will live and die for the freedom in this country and the future. and thank you for taking this on. recruiting. our service academys 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 dei and critical theory. not all. but some. and some is way too much. how are we going to eliminate this, mr. hegseth? how are we going to get this 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 him accepted. and he turned it down. he says, coach, i'm not getting involved with that mess. how are we going to overcome this? >> senator, thank you for the question. i think it comes down to leadership. clear leadership from president trump through me should i be nominated, and that's what soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and guardians see is clear leadership. says this is what we believe. this is the mission we're going to give you. here's the equipment we're going to give you and here's how we'll support you. the military on a lot of levels, senator, has been for generations a family business. >> and my father served, and i served, and that chain has started to break. with generations of people my age and older talking to their kids and grandkids, wondering, pondering, do i want them to

serve? will my country use them responsibly? when that kind of doubt is cast, you get serious recruiting problems like we do right now and i get questions about whether my son or daughter follow my path in west point. you have to rip root and branch the divisive policies out of the institutions and then focus them on creating, and preparing actual future military leadership. west point traditionally focused on engineering, and rightfully so, and the fighting forces across all services, we need the best and brightest minds in engineering and that is the study at rotc at princeton, military science, and we need more uniformed members going back to west point, the naval academy as a tour to teach with their wisdom on what they learned in uniform, instead of more civilians professionals that came from the same left wing woke universities they left and try to push that into service academys.

when that changes, senator, i truly believe under donald trump we'll have a recruiting renaissance. that sends message to the world, enemies and allies alike, and america is back and the men and women willing to serve our country. >> it's about attitude. i love your attitude. you have to be motivated. you have to understand the people, they will hook up with you. they will understand and learn under their leaders. why would you 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 these woke universities that they go to. and i worked at a lot of them. that is one of the excuses i get from our kids, we've got to break that. another one, according to the pentagon between 2001 and 2024, the number of civilian employees in the office of the secretary of defense has nearly doubled from 1500 to 3,000. civilians on joint chiefs has increased from 191 to almost a

thousand. our military strength goes down, and our staff numbers are exploding. what are you going to do about that? >> senator, we're going to address that. we won world war ii with 7 4-star generals, and today we have 44 4-star generals. there's an inverse relationship between the size of staffs and victory on the battlefield. we don't need more bureaucracy at the top. we need more war fighters empowered at the bottom. it's going to be my job working with those that we hire and those inside the administration to identify those places where fat can be cut so it can go toward lethality. >> thank you, senator tuberville. senator peters. >> thank you, senator, mr. hegseth welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> we have far too much partisanship in our country right now. it's eating away at the fabric

of what always made this country great. about bringing people together from all sorts of backgrounds, all sorts of experiences and we know that in our motto together as one we are strong. and so we and this committee and certainly i speak for myself, but i think i speak for some of my colleagues, want to take partisanship out of the proceeding as much as we can. i'm not naive. it's out there. i get it. we have to try to take it out. i want you to know 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. we had those two. i think we had five total secretariess of defense during that 4-year period. we want to keep that in mind as to what we might see in this incoming administration. but i voted. and we voted by a big margin for those folks, as well.

but part of that was 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. 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? >> senator, i know there was a great deal of outreach to multiple offices. schedules get full. there's a lot going on. i welcome the opportunity to have an opportunity to sit down. >> i was ready. it would have been so much better to have that opportunity to talk beforehand. i think that's 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 defence. 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 weapon systems. we need strong management at the department of defense first and foremost. we've got to have someone who is going to grab the reins and give the taxpayers value for having the most lethal fighting force in the world that defends freedoms, but we have to do it in an efficient way. i heard of the jobs you've had the past, and talk about qualifications, and i know you had two previous positions. how many people reported to you in those positions? >> senator, at vets for freedom, we were a small upstart. our focus was -- >> just the number, please. >> working on capitol hill. >> just the number, please. >> we probably had 8 to 10 full-time staff and lots of volunteers. >> so you had 8. has there been any -- we heard of the two, and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement, et cetera, et cetera. i'm curious, and won't go into that. just curious. you had 8 there.

what's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an organization in your career. >> not 3 million. >> no, i don't expect that -- very few people have ever had that experience. how many? straight up question. >> i think we had over 100 full-time staff at concerned vets for america. roughly. with thousands of volunteers. >> so 100 people. >> i was headquarters company commander. >> that's fine. >> a couple hundred. nothing remotely the size of the defense department. >> not remotely even a medium sized company in america, let alone a big company in america. specialespecially a major corpo, and we're hiring you to be the ceo of one of the most complex, largest organizations in the world. we're the board of 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'd ask you what kind of experience you have, we need innovation. can you give me an experience or

your actual experience of driving innovation in an organization? give me an example of where you have done that. >> my goodness, senator, absolute live. at concerned veterans for america, and the bipartisan task force fixing health care task force, and drive policy change on capitol hill that organizations fought ferociously against, and we got the va accountability mission act passed and a way that a nonprofit, our size has never done, and testified in all of the letters we put forward to the committee. >> i have limited time. give me an example where you have driven down costs. i have heard examples that senator blumenthal gave, and cost was a real problem in the 50 person organization that raised a lot less than you spent. did you drive costs down in a 50-person organization? we have 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 about. to me, this is -- or acquisition reform. acquisition reform, you bring that up. have you had experience on acquisition reform. >> i've written and studied -- >> have you done it. >> we need change in the hands of our warfare. >> we need people experienced doing that. you talk about standards, and again, i'm going back to the ceo of the most complex organization in the world. i don't think there's a board of directors in america that would hire you as a ceo with the kind of experience you have on your resume. you talk about standards. you talk about raising or lowering -- we have a problem of 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? i have real problems with that. this is not about other issues that are brought up. they're 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're a capable person. but i'm not -- i do not -- you have not convinced me that you're able to take on this tremendous responsibility with a complex organization and having little or no significant management experience. >> senator, i'm grateful to be hired by one of the most successful ceos in american history. should i be confirmed. >> mr. hegseth, it seems to me that you've supervised far more

people than the average united states senators supervises. [ applause ] >> and -- >> except for former governors, mr. chairman. >> senator, i understand you're yielding back your time and do not wish to ask questions. i was misinformed. senator mullen. >> 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 senate to honor the constitutional duty of advise and consent by conducting a fair, thorough, and confirmation process that evaluates the nomination solely on the substance and merits. his distinguished military service, academic credentials, and bold vision for revitalize, and i ask unanimous consent to enter in the record.

>> without objection. >> you know, there's a lot of talk going -- talking about qualifications and then about us hiring him, if we are the board. there are a lot of senators here i wouldn't have on my board because there is no qualifications except your age and you got to be living in the state, and you're a citizen of the united states to be a senator. other than the fact we have to convince a lot of people to vote for us. when we start talking about qualifications, for if you're qualified for it, could the chairman tell me what the qualifications are for the secretary of defense. mr. chairman, could you tell me what the qualifications are for the secretary of defense. >> i would be happy for -- >> i'll read it. >> for you to do that. >> let me read it for you. >> i was getting some advice from my second in command. >> i'm just making the point because there's a lot about qualifications and i think it's hypocritical of senators on the other side of the aisle talking about his qualifications, not -- to be the secretary of defense

and yet your qualifications aren't any better. you guys aren't any more qualified to be the senator than i am the qualified to be the senator except we're lucky enough to be here. let me read the you quafltions of the secretary of defense and googleed it and went through a different sites, and it's hard to see. 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 for -- you have to be retired at least 7 years and congress can waive that. and there are questions that the senator from massachusetts brought up about serving on a board inside the military industry. and yet your own secretary that you all voted for, secretary austin, we had to vote on a waiver because he stepped off the board of raytheon, and i

guess that's okay because it's a democrat secretary of defense. but you so quickly forget about that. senator -- i better use the senator from virginia, asked whether you showed up drunk to your job. how many senators showed up drunk to vote at night? have any of you guys asked them to step down and resign from their job? and don't tell me you haven't seen it because i know you have. and then how many senators do you know have gotten a divorce for cheating on their wives? did you ask them to step down? no. but it's for show. you guys make sure you make a big show and point out the hypocrisy because a man's made a mistake. and you want to sit there and say he's not qualified. give me a joke. it is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself to the higher standard and you forget you got a big plank in your eye. we've all mid-mistakes, and i've

made mistakes, and jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake. the only reason i'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me, too. i have changed. but i'm not perfect. but i found somebody that thought i was perfect. and for whatever reason you love pete, and i don't know why. but just like our lord and savior forgave kn me, and my wie had to forgive me more than once and you had to forgive him, and thank you. before i go down the rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love. >> she's the smartest most capable loving humble honest person i have ever met. in addition to being incredibly beautiful.

>> [whispering] don't forget about your kids. >> i'm supposed to talk about my kids? >> the mother of your kids. brother, i'm pulling you along and trying to help up. >> she is the amazing mother of 7 blended kids. >> do you believe you you're gog to be running the department of defense by yourself. >> senator, absolutely not. just as president trump is assembling his cabinet, i look forward and already many in the process of building one of the best possible teams you can imagine with decades and decades of experience outside of the pentagon, driving innovation. and excellence. and also inside the building knowing how to make it happen. yes, sir. >> so in your organizations that you did have the privilege of running, did you have a board that you -- >> in both organizations, we had a board, yes. >> what did you do with that board? what kind of decisions did you make with them? >> the boards provided oversight

and insight into decision making. >>making. >> they all have special unique sets that filled the gaps you are not an expert in. >> yes, sir. >> do you feel you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals that you can run the same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped in maybe areas you don't necessarily carry the expertise with. >> senator, the only reason i have had success in life to include my wonderful wife is because of people more capable around me and having the self-confidence to empower them and say, hey, run with the ball. run with the football. take it down the field. we'll do this together. i don't care who gets the credit. and in this case, that's how the pentagon will be run. >> i think -- let's end with this, mr. chairman, about the qualifications. you got a man who has literally put his butt on the line. he served twenty 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 sti put to f through this, his wife is willing to stand beside him, knowing he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up, and he's still willing to serve the country. what other qualifications does he need? i yield back. >> thank you, senator mullin, and senator duckworth. we really are going to strictly enforce the rule about no demonstrations or noise. extingdistinguishs ranking memb. >> just a correction. the reason general austin required a waiver not because of the participation in the corporate enterprise it was bus

he did not have 7 years of interruption between his service and his appointment. second point is that if any of us were appointed as secretary of defense, we would be subject to the same types of questions. case in point, senator john toa was nominated for secretary of defense. it was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior was not commensurate about the responsibilities despite his service, and he was voted down. thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator duckworth, you are recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and secretary mattis had to have the waiver, as well. mr. hegseth, this is a hearing whether you are qualified to be secretary of defense, and one of the qualifications to answer my colleague's question is to 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 because the voted me to betherapy senator.

and this hearing seems to be a hearing whether or not women are qualified to serve in combat and not about whether or not you are qualified to be secretary of defense, and let me say that the american people need a sec def who is ready to lead on day one. you are not that person. ourour adversaries watch at tims of transition, and any sense that the person is put in the job not ready for the job, that puts us at risk, and i want you to explain to the american people, the committee who have to vote for you, and the troops deployed around the world why you are qualified to lead the department of defense. we know you have led the largest of 200-person organization. we already know that you 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

ever managed was about $18 billion. you know, that is about 51,560 times fewer, lower than the department of defense budget of $825 billion. $16 million is 51,568 times smaller than the defense budget. please describe to me, mr. hegseth, you talk about dod passing an audit. please describe to me a time or an organization when you -- that you led underwent an audit. you say you're going to hire smarter people than you to run the audit. i'm not asking you to be an accountants. i want you to be able to tell me what guidance will be given to the employees, what will happen whether or not you pass that audit, have you led an audit of any organization, yes or no? i don't want a long answer. yes or no, have you led an audit of any organization of which you are in charge. >> senator, in both of the organizations i ran, we were always completely fiscally

responsible -- >> yes or no did you lead an awed yit? audit? what are you afraid of? you can't answer this question? yes or no did you lead an audit? don't you know? yes or no, did you lead an audit. i will take it as a no. what were the findings? no findings because you never led an audit. what guidance did you give? none. because you never led an audit. nobody expects you to be an accountant. we expect you to understand the process that will lead you to outfit the fighters. the secretary of defense has to make quick decisions every single day with the high level information pride to them. a secretary of defense has to have bre breadth and depth of knowledge the right now i am concerned that you have neither. what is the highest level of negotiations you have engaged and lead in. the secretary of defense leads international security

negotiations? there are three main ones that the secretary of defense leads and signs. can you name at least one of them. >> could you repeat the question. >> sure. what is the highest level of international security agreement that you have led and can you name some that the secretary of defense would lead. there are three main ones. do you know? >> i have not been involved in international security arrangements because i have not been in government other than serving in the military. so my job has been -- >> so no. answer the main -- >> defense arrangements. nato might be one that you're referring to. >> status of forces agreement would be one of them. >> status of forces agreement. i've been a part of teaching about status of forces agreement. >> but you don't remember to mention it? you're not qualified, mr. hegseth. you're not qualified. you talk about repairing our defense industrial complex. you're not qualified to do that. you could do the acquisition and cross servicing agreements which are security agreements. you can't mention that. you've done none of those. you talked about the indo-pacific a bit, and i'm glad

that you mentioned it. can you name the importance of at least one of the nations in nations in asean and what type of agreement we have with the nations and how many nations are in asean. >> i can't tell you -- >> no, you don't. >> we have allies in south korea and in japan and aukus with australia trying to work on submarines with them. >> mr. hegseth, none of those countries are in asean. >> none of the countries are in asean and i suggest you do homework before you try for these negotiations. mr. hegseth, this is -- we ask our troops to go into harm's way all the time. we ask them to go in harm's way. and this -- behind me is a copy of the soldier's creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk in the senate, and you should be familiar. it's the same copy that hung over walter reed every single

day i woke up and fought my way back and i wanted to go back and serve next to my buddies who saved my life, and the words are repeated over and over and over and over again. i read out two things to you. two sentences. i will always place the mission first. and i am disciplined physically and mentally tough, trained and proficient in my warrior task. mr. hegseth, our troops follow these words every day, and they man up and pack their 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 while raising the standards for other people. by the way, our troops meet the standards. we ask troops who man the ship, fight the fire, fly the helicopter until their very last breath and they do that every single day. they cannot be led by someone who is not competent to do the job. how can we ask these warriors to train and perform 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, 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 have earned their place in their units. you have not earned your place as secretary of defense. you say you care about keeping our armed forces strong and you like that our armed forces are a meritocracy, let's not lower the standards for you. you, sir, are a no-go at this station. >> thank you, senator duckworth. i would like to submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. brian marriott that says anyone who claim that pete mismanaged funds at vets of freedom is ignorant of the facts. without objection it will be admitted to the record. senator.

>> thank you, chairman wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of the committee, and thank you for your leadership and your haning of hg of this, and you're doing a great job. i wanted to submit a letter by mr. daniel catalan, the former operations manager at vets for freedom. the letter states that mr. hegseth and mr. catalan 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. mr. catalan's letter also states that pete treated his staff with the utmost respect regardless of race or gender. i ask unanimous consent to enter it in the record. mr. chairman. >> without objection so ordered. >> mr. hegseth, congratulations on your nomination. thanks for appearing before the committee today. i enjoyed meeting in my office before christmas, and i enjoyed

our friendship before that. you know, 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. we also have a problem, though, with the obesity and falling academic standa standards. it's very concerning. we talked about that before. if confirmed, how would you approach the increasing number of americans eligible to serve in the military without lowering the standards? >> senator, i think there are already, to the credit of i believe the army and other services have now caught up to that which have piloted programs that have had some success that have allowed young americans who want to serve in the military but can't necessarily pass the standards to get into basic training an opportunity to get up, a preparatory class. unfortunately, we have a problem with obesity in our country. not necessarily something that the -- if i'm confirmed

secretary of defense is able to address. but i do think leading from the front matters. i do think having a secretary of defense that will go out and do p.t. with the perhaps matters. that has been out there and done that before, and hopefully that's 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 in some ways the way our schools don't teach young people to love the country, and if you don't love the country, why do you want to serve the country, that's a deeper problem. all of those problems need to be addressed for recruiting, and obesity is a part of that. >> thank you for that. i have had multiple conversations young folks in north carolina, young men and young women, and we get to meet a lot of them.

i hear from some of the folks who i encourage to join the military. they say they are concerned it's 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 war fighting. >> senator, absolutely. a-number-1, from day 1, 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's an infection that the american people are acutely aware which the men and women in this room have lived firsthand. i've lived it firsthand. and that's why it will be a priority. and i truly believe -- and i'm 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.

but seeing a commander-in-chief donald trump reassured them, seeing the possibility if confirmed of a secretary of defense that would have their back reassured them. and so in the first couple of months after president trump's election, we have already seen the numbers are there. a recruiting surge in all of the services. that i would welcome the opportunity to continue. and it is humbling to think that families across this country would have confidence in us to deliver for their young men and women. there's no more important task. >> thank you for that. so shifting gears a bit. i want to hear some of your thoughts on the growing fighter aircraft capacity gap with china and what it 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 sixth generation in collaborative combat aircraft. >> senator, that's a very important conversation. one that i've been looking at a

great deal. a lot of it -- just to be clear involves classifications and understanding precisely cost and capabilities including capabilities of enemy systems. both not just 4th and 5th, but 6th generation which you have seen a prototype released from the chinese. that's a dangerous development considering at publicly understood condition, and i look forward to looking underneath the hood on that and ensuring that 4th and 5th are capable and upgraded as necessary will be part of our contingency. but when you look at what is happening in the indo-pacific, say, operablety will matter because it's a large battle space, and that will factor in the decisions that are made and that's where i feel, frankly, a little bit liberated is that i didn't work at lockheed or any number of -- pick a defense contractor. i didn't mean to p point one out

in particular. pick any. i don't have an interest in any company, system, or narrative. and i want to know what works, and what keeps us safe, what deters that. what keeps our enemies up at night, and i want more of it, and i want to invest in that. and i know president trump, as well. >> and many talked about eliminating manned aircraft, and i would say one day. that day is not now and certainly not before 2027. especially in the indo-pacific. so if confirmed, will you commit to working with my office and this committee to ensure the proper mix of fighters manned and unmanned. >> i look forward to working with you on that senator, because unmanned will be a very important part of the way future warfare is fought. just the idea of survivability for a human beings drives cost and time in ways that unmanned systems do not. i look forward to that

conversation, senator. >> thank you. senator, budd. >> and i recognize senator reed for unanimous consent. >> i submit that one is submitted. one from the accountability project and the other signed by several organizations including the truman national security project. >> without objection, so ordered. >> now, senator, kelly, senator rosen got hereafter the gavel went down. do you really want to go ahead of her? >> i'm going to defer to my good friend and colleague senator rosen. >> that is a really -- >> the great state of nevada. >> that is a good decision. >> senator rosen, you are recognized. >> thank you, senator kelly, and i owe you. thank you for thank you for holding this hearing, and mr. hegseth, i appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again. however, i am deeply