>> thank you, senator cramer. >> senator king thank you, mr. chairman. mr. hess, welcome. welcome to the committee. >> thank you. >> senator, you've made several references to your religion. today. i share that devotion to christianity. but i must say, i've been reminded somewhat of saul on his way to damascus. you seem to have been converted over the last several weeks and several months. you wrote in your book just last year that. but if we're going to, 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 later on. our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men. which is it? is it? is it? only boys can fight. i mean, you've you've testified here today that you believe in 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, was about the burdensome rules of engagement that members of our 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 there with, with, with other men and women who invested in that mission, it was a very difficult moment to see the black flag of isis fly. and what president trump did, i appreciate untie the hands of war fighters today. he changed the rules of engagement, untied the hands of war fighters and allowed them to complete their mission and crush isis. it has not just tactical implications, operational and strategic implications, how you allow war fighters to go about winning and fighting their wars. president trump understands that. and

within the laws of war and 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. >> so are 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 are you saying that those laws should be repealed?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, 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 engagement are put into place. we fight enemies also, senator, as as our generation understands that play by no rules. they use civilians as human shields. >> so are you saying they target women and children? the geneva 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 two things. >> you're saying we follow rules, but we don't have to follow the rules in all cases. is that correct, senator? >> i'm making some rules, senator. i'm making an important tactical distinction that warfighters will understand that there are the rules we swear an oath to defend, which are incredibly important. and this committee understands and helps set them. and then there are those echelons above reality from, you know, corps to division to brigade to battalion. and by the time it trickles down to a company or a platoon or a squad level, you have a rules of engagement that nobody recognizes. and then it makes you incredibly difficult to actually 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 true understanding of that quote 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 fight by its own rules, and we should fight to win or not go in at

all. are you saying that the geneva convention provisions which which clearly outlaw torture of prisoners, do not, should not apply in the future? >> senator, how we treat our wounded, how we treat our prisoners? the applications of the conventions are incredibly important, but we would all have to acknowledge that the way we fought our wars back when the geneva conventions were written are a lot different than the asymmetric, non-conventional environment of counterinsurgency that i confronted in iraq and afghanistan. i was the senior counterinsurgency instructor in afghanistan. my job was to understand how the taliban and al qaeda operated, so that nato units coming in could be informed of what was happening. they knew our rules of engagement, and when they were more restrictive, they took advantage of them. and it put our men and women in a more dangerous and difficult place. and you believe future wars we fight. we need to have someone atop the pentagon, sir, who understands how those ripple effects. well, i just want to i just want to understand your position. >> your position is torture is

okay. is that correct? waterboarding. 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, 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, dc would never dare to do, or in many cases. >> in one of your interviews, you said they're willing to do this. you're talking about donald trump and trump and senator cruz. they're willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. are you okay with waterboarding, senator? >> the law of the land is that waterboarding is not legal. >> so the statement that you made you now recant, is that correct? they are willing to do something like waterboarding if it's going to keep us safe. you you express that with approval.

>> senator, i'm very familiar with that as a concept. having spent a year at guantanamo bay, cuba, guarding 700 of those that attacked us on 9/11, i just want to be clear. >> are we are we going to abide by the by the geneva convention and the prohibitions on torture, or are we not? is it going to, as i've circumstances as i've stated multiple times, the geneva conventions are what we base our. >> but what an american first national security policy is not going to do is hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield. america first understands. we send americans for a clear mission and a clear objective. we equip them properly for that objective. we give them everything they need, and then we stand behind them with the rules of engagement that allow them to fight decisively to defeat america's enemies. >> which is why we say, i just have a few seconds left, mr. complex, if you could. i was very disturbed in your opening statement where you 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. >> and he's made it very clear that he would like to see a end to that conflict. we know who the aggressor is. we know who the good guy is. we'd like to see it as advantageous for the ukrainians as possible, but that war needs to come. >> you talk a lot about deterrence of china. i would submit that xi jinping is watching what we do very carefully. if we abandon ukraine, that would be the strongest signal possible to xi jinping that he can take taiwan without significant resistance from this country. >> thank you, senator king. senator scott of florida. >> mr. chairman, i'd like to enter into the record two letters which testify to mr. hedgepeth's leadership record at concerned veterans for america. >> the first letter submitted by mr. darren zelnick, a senior advisor at cfr, stated that

there's been no better leader, policy champion or fighter for the military and veterans and that he was instrumental in 2014 and 2017, in ensuring that veterans had health care choice. >> the second letter, submitted by mr. carson spero, digital media director of cva from 2015 to 2017, stated pete brought incredible energy, focus and a clear vision to the organization and showed 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 is there objection? without objection, those three will be admitted. senator scott. all right. >> first, congratulations on your nomination. thank you, senator, and 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. he after that, survived all that and fought in the battle of the bulge. and what they went through, it 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 being on a ship, that didn't happen to me, but i had a lot of friends that happened to in my it happened to my dad. i've served on this committee for six years, two years under president trump and the past four under president joe biden. i've seen how the biden-harris administration pushed the dod to prioritize wokeness over being the most lethal military force in the world. it's our readiness, our national security, and our ability to recruit people who are willing to put their lives on the line for our country. can you talk about some of the changes we can make to improve recruitment and rebuild our military into the most lethal force in the world? >> first of all, senator, thank you for the question. 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 prolog. our warfighters understand what kind of commander in chief they're going to get in president donald trump, someone who stands behind them, someone who gives them clear missions, someone who ends wars decisively. and the issue of ukraine was mentioned and ensures new wars are not started. there was a minor incursion under barack obama into 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 at abbey gate, who we remember every single day. and no one was held accountable for that. chinese spy balloons were flying over the country. none of that happened under donald trump. and our warfighters understand that. so there's no better recruiter in

my mind for our military than president donald trump. my job is to come alongside him. should i be confirmed and continue to emphasize his emphasis on war fighting, on getting anything that doesn't contribute to meritocracy out of how decisions are made inside e pentagon, what gender you are, what race you are, your views on climate change, or whether you are a person of conscience and your faith should have 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 that should matter is how capable are you at your job? how excellent are you at your job? i served in multi-ethnic units in every place that i work, every place that i served, none of that mattered. but suddenly we re-inject 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'll say it again, and 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 you 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 little bit about this. the fact the pentagon can't can't do an audit, right. can you talk about i mean, to me, that's i've run big businesses. it's all about accountability. if you want to get an audit done, you can get an audit done. you might get a letter saying there's things you have to fix, but it all goes to accountability and we haven't had it. so can you talk about

what how what you bring how what you how you bring accountability to the table, what you've 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 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 business 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's

mostly forgotten, but it was about the need for acquisition reform, cutting, cutting tail to give to teeth to warfighters. and then nine over 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 we've been since the end of the cold war and possibly since world war two, the urgency to do everything possible to get the capabilities into the hands of warfighters, 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's your what drives you? >> you have 30s. >> because i love my country, senator. and i've dedicated my life to the warfighters. 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've

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. >> and 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 force and the marines. and i have serious concerns that your behavior toward women disqualifies you from serving in this role. now, i've been 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'll 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 and

hirono. and i just 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. we've got the video, we've got it in print. so 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, erode. 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 meant because men are distracted by women. and then ten weeks ago, you appeared on the sean ryan show and said, i'm straight up just 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 argument completely, because in that 2013 argument, i was talking about standards. >> standards are what it's always been about. >> have the same fight, always been about quoted you directly. we've got the video. we're happy to show it. but 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, airmen and 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 comment 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 about face 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 in political power for the last four years, top priorities other than standards, lethality and meritocracy have driven the you. >> i'm quoting you from the podcast. women shouldn't be in combat at all. where is the 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's a 32 day 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 today to sing, senator, the concerns i have and the concerns of 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 for everybody about what happened in that 32 days. you got a nomination from president trump. now, 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 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, general 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 talk to you about if you'd 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, because it's not about right now. it's not one my motivation for this job. >> i understand that i just need a yes or no. come next time is short. i just need a yes or no. >> i would consult with the president about what the policy. >> in other words, you're quite sure that every general who

serves should not go directly into the defense industry for ten years, but you're not willing to make that same pledge. >> i'm not a general, senator. >> you'll be the one. 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. oh, i'll bet you would. >> thank you, senator warren. >> senator tuberville, thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for your hard work and your committee's hard work. mr. chairman, this is a this is going 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. >> thank 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 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 you were the people, the players actually won the games. and that's what's going to happen here. you're not going to win the game now. you're going to set the precedent. you're going to get the blame or the or the credit, but there's going to be people that's going to be under you, that's going to 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 keep down this same path. we could not. that could not happen. i met with the general a couple of generals this summer. coats were spending more money on transgender restrooms than we are coverings for $100 million airplanes. that's not acceptable. we can't do that. that's not what this is about. met with a couple of navy seals not too long ago. they just got back from crawling around in the mud and the muck overseas unknown places. couldn't tell you where they've 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 to 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've forgotten that. we've forgotten it. we can't give up on our young people. young people are our number one commodity in this country, and they're the ones that's going to live and die for the freedom of this country in the future. so again, thank you 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 dei and critical theory. now, not all, but some and some is way too much. how are we going to eliminate this? mr. excellent. how are we going to get this back on track to where we grow our leaders? i had a young man that forever he 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. and i think it comes down to leadership, clear leadership from president trump through me. should i be not should i be nominated? and that's what soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and guardians see is clear leadership. it 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're going to support you. because the military, at a lot of levels, senator, has been for generations a family business. you know, my grandfather served, i my father served i served my daughter served. the chain is 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. you get questions about whether i want my son or daughter to follow my path in west point, which i've heard multiple times, would i want my. and so you have to rip root and branch 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 across all services, 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, as a tour to teach with their wisdom of what they've learned in uniform instead of just more civilian professors that came from the same left wing, woke universities that they left, and then try to push that into service academies when that changes. senator, i truly believe under donald trump, we will have a recruiting

renaissance that sends signals to the world, to our enemies and our allies alike that america is back. and thankfully, then we have the men and women of our country willing to want to serve. >> thank you. and it's about attitude, too. and i love your attitude. you've got to be motivated. you've got to understand that people, they will 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 getting from. they're getting from these woke universities that they go to now. 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 3000 civilians on joint chiefs has increased from 191 to almost 1000. our military in

strength goes down. our staff numbers are exploding. what are you going to do about that, senator? >> we're going to address that. we won world war two with seven four star generals. today we have 44 four 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 warfighters empowered at the bottom. so 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, mr. chairman. welcome to this committee. thank you. you know, we have far too much partizanship in our country right now. i think it's 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 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 many of my colleagues, want to take partizanship out of this proceeding as much as we can. i'm not naive. it's 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. we had those two. we had, i think, five total secretaries of defense during that four year period. so we 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. but part of that was the process and having an opportunity to get to know

the person and to understand their qualifications and to understand the standards. you know, 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 was ready and i welcome the opportunity. i was running my schedule 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 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, we've got to have someone who's 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 got to do it in an efficient way. i've heard about the jobs you've had in the past. let's just talk about qualifications. 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 just the numbers working on capitol hill, going back to the battlefield. just the number warfighters. >> just the number, please. >> we probably had 8 to 10 full time staff and lots of volunteers. >> so you had eight. so has there been any other we've heard about the two. and certainly there's been a lot of talk about the mismanagement. et cetera. et cetera. i'm just i'm just curious. i won't go into that. just curious. so you had eight there, have you? what's the largest number of people you've ever supervised or had in an

organization in your career? >> not 3 million. >> so i don't expect that no on, very few people have ever had that experience. but how many? it's a straight up question. >> i think we had over 100 full time staff at concerned veterans vets for america, roughly with thousands of volunteers. so 100 was also a headquarters company commander, which would have been okay, that's fine. couple of hundred, couple nothing. nothing remotely near the size of the defense department. >> i would acknowledge that actually not remotely near even a medium sized company in america, let alone a big company in america, especially a major corporation. and you're basically 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, well, what kind of experiences you had? 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. >> oh my goodness senator. absolutely a concern. veterans for america. we created the fixing health care veterans health care task force, a bipartisan task force that never been done before to create policy to drive policy change on capitol hill, that organizations fought ferociously against. we got the va accountability act passed and the mission act passed in a way that a nonprofit of our size veterans organization has never done. and that's testified in all the letters that we put forward to the committee, which are on the record. >> i have limited time. thank you for that. give me an example of where you've driven down costs. i've heard the examples that senator blumenthal gave. the cost was a real problem for you in your 50 person organization, that you actually raised a lot less than what you actually spent. did you drive costs down if in a 50 person organization, let me tell you, we've got to drive cost down dramatically in a organization of 3 million people and hundreds of billions of dollars, you don't have that experience that that you can talk about. to me,

this is our acquisition reform, acquisition reform. you bring that up. have you had experience in acquisition reform? >> i've written about and studied on acquisition reform. >> have you actually done it? >> because what we need in the hands of our warfighters better change because we're not doing it well right now. >> better. and we need people that have experience actually doing that. you know, you talk about standards. again, i'm going to go back to 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 that 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 a 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 it it seems to me that you've supervised far more people than the average united states senator supervises

tiktok. >> and except for except for former governors. >> mr. chairman, senator mullen, i understand you are yielding back your time and do not wish to ask questions. i was i was misinformed by senator mullen. you're right. >> 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 confirmation process that evaluates his nomination solely on the substance and merits his distinguished military service, academic credentials, and a bold vision for revitalizing the national defense. i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record without objection. you know, there's a lot of talk going about talking about

qualifications and then about us 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 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 got to convince a lot of people to vote for us, and then 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'd be happy for. >> i'll read it for you to do that. let me let me read it for you because i, i was getting some advice from i am second in command, but i'm just i'm just making a point because there's a lot about qualifications. and i think it's so hypocritical of senators, especially on the other side of the aisle, to be talking about his qualifications, not about to lead the secretary or 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'm qualified to be the senator, except we're lucky enough to be here. but let me read you what the qualifications of the secretary of defense is, because i googled it and i googled it and went through a lot of different sites. and really, it's hard to see. but in general, the us secretary of defense position is filled by a civilian. that's it. if you have served in the us army forces and have been in the service for, you have to be retired for at least seven years and congress can can weigh that. and then there's questions that my that the that the senator from, from massachusetts brought up about serving on a 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. but i guess that's okay, because that's a democrat, secretary of defense. but we so

quickly forget about that. and then senator kaine, or i guess i better use the senator from virginia, starts bringing up the fact that what if you showed up drunk to your job? how many senators have 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 before 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 the man's made a mistake, and you want to sit there and say that he's not qualified. give me a joke. it is so ridiculous that you guys hold yourself as this higher standard, and you forget you got a big plank in your eye. we've all made mistakes. i've made mistakes. and jennifer, thank you for loving him through that mistake. because the only reason

why i'm here and not in prison is because my wife loved me to. 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 me, my wife had to forgive me more than once, too. and i'm sure you've had to forgive him, too. and so thank you. so before i go down this rabbit hole again, tell me something about your wife that you love. >> she's the smartest, most capable, loving, humble, honest person i've ever met. and in addition to being incredibly beautiful. >> and don't forget about your kids. >> i'm supposed to talk about my kids. no, no. >> well, she's also the mother.

oh, an amazing mother. >> yes, of our blended family of seven kids. >> i'm pulling you along. i'm trying to help you here. you know. do you believe that you're going to be running the secretary or the department of defense by yourself, senator? >> absolutely not. just as president trump is assembling his cabinet. i look forward and already am, 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. okay. and what what did you do with that board? what kind of decisions did you make with them? >> those boards provided oversight and insight into decision making. >> they all have special, unique sets that maybe filled gaps that

you're not the expertise in. yes, sir. so do you believe you're capable of surrounding yourself with capable individuals, that you're going to be able to run those same ideas by and surround yourself with people that are smarter and better equipped, and maybe areas that you don't you don't necessarily carry those expertise with. >> senator, the only reason i've 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. >> let me 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 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 seen friends die for this country. and he's willing to still put himself through this. his wife is willing to still stand beside him, knowing he wasn't perfect, knowing that all this was going to be brought up and he still willing to serve the country. what other qualifications does he need that i yield back? >> thank you, senator mullen. senator duckworth, and again, we really are going to strictly enforce the rule about no no demonstrations or noise. the distinguished ranking member, just a point of personal privilege to make a correction. >> the reason that general austin required a waiver was not because of his participation in a corporate enterprise. it was because he did not have seven 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. and the case in point is, senator john tower was nominated for secretary of defense. it was discovered by his colleagues that his behavior was not commensurate with 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 also, secretary mattis had to have this waiver as well. this hearing is about whether you are qualified to be secretary of defense. >> and one of the qualifications to answer my colleague's 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're worthy of that vote, because the people of the state of illinois voted for me to be their 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 a 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. and let me just say that the american people need a secdef who is ready to lead on day one. you are not that person. our adversaries watch closely during times of transition, and any sense that the department of defense that keeps us safe is being steered by someone who is wholly unprepared for the job, puts america at risk. and i am not willing to do that. with that in mind, mr. hegseth, i want you to try to explain to the american people this committee who have to vote for you and to our troops are deployed around the world. why you are qualified to lead the department of defense. we already know that you've only led the largest of 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 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 because you said you're 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 will be given to those employees, what will happen if 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 were in charge? >> senator? in both of the organizations i ran, we were always completely fiscally responsible. >> yes or no? did you lead an audit and the way yes or no? did

you lead an audit? yes or no? completely mischaracterized. you can't answer this question. yes or no? did you lead an audit? do you not know this answer, senator? >> yes or no? of my leadership? yes or no? yes or no? >> misrepresented. i will take that as a no. what were the findings, though? there were no findings because 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. mr. hegseth, what we expect is for you to understand the complexity of this pentagon budget process that is absolutely necessary to outfit our war fighters. look, the secretary of defense is required to make quick decisions every single day that will with high level information that's being provided for them as secretary of defense has to have breadth and depth of knowledge. right now, i am concerned that you have neither. mr. hegseth, what is the highest level of international negotiations that you have engaged in, that you have led in? because the secretary of defense does lead 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, senator? >> 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. >> 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 to. so no, the answer is no. >> can you name one of the three main ones that the secretary of defense arrangements? >> i mean, nato might be one of them, one that you're referring to, status of forces agreement would be one of them, that of force 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 that. you could do acquisition and cross-servicing agreements, which essentially are security agreements. you can't even mention that you've done none of those. you talked about the indo-pacific a little bit, and i'm glad that you mention it or mention it. can you name the

importance of at least one of the nations in the asean, in asean, and what type of agreement we have with at least one of those nations, and how many nations are in asean? by the way? >> i couldn't tell you the exact amount of nations, but i know we have allies in south korea and japan and in aukus with australia trying to work on submarines with them. >> mr. none of those countries are in asean. none of those three countries that you mentioned are in asean. i suggest you do a little homework before you prepare for these types of negotiations. listen. mr. hegseth, this is he 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 soldier's creed, a copy that usually hangs over my desk here in the senate. and you should be familiar with it. it's 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. these same, this same copy. these words are repeated over and over and over again. and let me 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 single day, and they man up and they 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. and by the way, our troops already meet the standards. we asked troops who manned that ship, fight that fire, fly that helicopter until their very last breath. and they do that every single day. they cannot be led by someone who's 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 us military as we know it without the incredible women that we serve, women who've 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 that you like that our armed forces meritocracy. then 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 would claim that pete mismanaged funds at vets for freedom is ignorant of the facts. without objection, it will be admitted to the record, senator bud. >> thank you, chairman wicker, and congrats on your chairmanship of this committee.

>> i want to thank you for your leadership and your handling of this today. >> i think doing a great job. >> so i want to also submit for the record a letter submitted by mr. daniel catlin, the former operations manager at vets for freedom. >> mr. catlin's 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. mr. catlin's letters also states that pete treated his staff with the utmost respect, regardless of race or gender, so i ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, mr. chairman. without objection. so ordered. thank you, mr. hegseth. >> congratulations on your nomination. >> thanks for appearing before the committee today. >> i enjoy meeting you in my office before christmas, and i've 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 obesity and falling academic standards. it's very concerning. >> we've talked about that before, so if confirmed, how would you approach increasing the number of americans eligible to serve in the military, but without lowering standards? >> well, 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 asvab or pass the apft to get into basic training and opportunity to get caught up or preparatory class. unfortunately, yes, we do have a problem of 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 pt with the troops matters that has been out there and done that before, and hopefully that's a motivating factor for young people. but it 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 that country? that's a deeper problem. but all of those things need to be addressed to revive recruiting and obesity. certainly a part of it. >> thank you for that. >> so i've had multiple conversations with young folks back in north carolina, young men, young women. >> and we get to meet a lot of them. >> but, you know, i hear from some of these folks who i encourage to join the military, they say that they're concerned

that 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 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's an it's 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'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 under, after president trump's election, we have already seen the numbers. are there a recruiting surge in all the services that i would welcome the opportunity to continue? and it's 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 this means for a potential fight in the indo-pacific. so 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 and 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 fourth and fifth, but potential sixth generation, which we've already seen a prototype released from the chinese. that's a dangerous development, considering at least the publicly understood condition of ngad, which i look forward to the opportunity to 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 what's happening in the indo-pacific, say operability range is going to matter because it's such a large battle space, that would all, will all factor in 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 point one out in particular. pick any, i haven't i don't have a special interest in any

particular system or any particular company or any particular narrative. i want to know what works. i want to know what defeats our enemies, what keeps us safe, what deters them, what keeps our enemies up at night, whatever that is. i want more of it, and i want to invest in it. and i know that's the view that president trump has as well. thank you. >> some have commented recently about the need to eliminate immediately a manned manned aircraft. so i'd say maybe one day. but that day is not now and certainly not before 2027, especially in the indo-pacific. so if confirmed, will you commit to work with my office in 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 wars are fought. just just the idea of survivability for a human being drives cost and time in ways that unmanned systems do not. but i look forward to that conversation. thank you. >> thank you, senator bud. i now recognize senator reed for a

unanimous consent request. >> mr. chairman, i would ask unanimous consent that two letters be submitted for the record, one letter signed by numerous organizations, including the government accountability project. the other signed by several organizations, including the truman national security project. >> without objection, so ordered. now, senator kelly. senator rosen got here after the gavel went down. do you really want to go ahead of her? >> i am going to defer to my good friend and colleague, senator rosen. >> that is a really great state of nevada. really good decision. senator rosen, you are recognized. >> and thank you, senator kelly. i owe you one. >> thank you. chairman wicker, ranking member reid, for holding this hearing. and, mr. hegseth, i appreciate your service and your willingness to serve again. however, i am deeply disappointed that you would not agree to meet with me. as other members have said on this committee prior to this hearing,